Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40

Slow moving editwar
I've done a protection of this page for 1 day, after it expires any continued reverts, either way will result in a block for editwarring and disruption.

Please discuss the matter here on the talk page, and do not make a change either way until you guys can reach a consensus on the matter. ——  nix eagle  17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is a consensus on this at this time, if there were we would not have this continued editwar. My suggestion to you guys is to seek outside input outside of this talk page, however right now to me it looks like there is no consensus for either side, just long and hard to read arguments. ——  nix eagle  17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note – "this page" means Non-free content criteria not Non-free content&mdash; they share this talk page. -- slakr \ talk / 17:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense to flag criteria #8 as disputed somehow, if it doesn't have consensus? (Or perhaps just put the disputed clause in italics, with a reference to this talk page.) — PyTom (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is up to you guys... Those that cared enough about this issue to revert war over... To figure out. I what I said above only applies to my first glance look at the situation, and should not be seen as a "fact" refuting any prior consensus. That is not my job as the intervening admin to do. What I do see is an editwar going on for days without much real discussion.


 * There is a warning on the page when you go to edit it that future changes to that critiria number without clear consensus may result in blocks. Editors, including you with your proposal would do well to follow that and attempt to come to a consensus. My suggestion to you guys is to seek consensus on that criteria number outside of this talk page. By the looks of it you guys need some outside input. ——  nix eagle  00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've chosen to protect the policy page for one day, long enough for a bit of a cooldown. However I want all participants in this to consider criteria number 8 as offlimits without a clear consensus. When you go to edit the policy page, you will be reminded of this by a notice at the top of the page. I'm asking participants to exersize restraint, you all should know better. ——  nix eagle  00:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your action just allows the minority, whose view was not supported, and hasn't gained any extra support, to prevail, particularly because you protected the page on the "wrong version". Please at least set it to the longstanding version, rather than the innovation. I'll come back in two or three days, and if you haven't, you're going to have to block me, because I will. It's intolerable for an admin to take sides in an editwar by using his powers, and not to support the consensus version that has stood for some time now. Grace Note (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wrong Version. Rettetast (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Grace Note, threatening to edit war and following through with it is guaranteed to get you blocked. Also, the long standing version you claim, isn't the long standing version. The omission being a detriment was added in July of 2007, and stood until April of 2008. Since the attempted removal in April, it has been contested. It generated an edit war back then for which it was protected. Following the edit war, the prior version including the omission being a detriment language was retained. So, the new language lasted all of 9 days. The prior language stayed until User:DCGeist removed it on 7 June 2008. User:Betacommand restored it on 20 July 2008. In August, User:Kaldari removed it again. In October, User:Howcheng restored it. Then User:Dockino removed it again. And on and on and on to the current edit war. In short, every time there's an attempt to remove this language, it gets restored. It is hotly debated. Further, the consensus you claim isn't consensus, at least not one sufficient to change a fundamental policy. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. If you want to remove the language, then you can do so by starting an RfC and advertising the RfC in appropriate places. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery at Burger King products
There is a huge gallery of 30 non-free images at Burger King products, and I'm running into some WP:OWN issues trying to clean it up. Would someone else mind taking a look at the gallery? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only fails NFC, I would also say it fails WP:NOT - what symbols BK uses to identify products on wrappers seems very much unneeded. --M ASEM 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the corporate logo gallery at Burger King franchises? I've removed two that didn't have FUR. I figure either remove them all, or add FURs for the ones I removed. I believe, like above, these images are just used for decoration and should be removed, but what do others think?-Andrew c [talk] 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say their use is analogous to historical logos of TV stations; we can use them when we have an article on the subsidiary, but not in a gallery on a parent page. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So is this legit? -Andrew c [talk] 03:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because Burger King and Burger King franchises are not about Carrols. Cmadler (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the icons and the logos and watchlisted the pages. While we're on the subject, I'm also a little concerned about the use of the Burger King logo on so many pages- it seems that the Burger King infobox has simply been copied into a number of related pages. The rationale has also been copy-pasted. I can understand the need for the logo for identification purposes on the main article, but is it really needed on all the others, when it is not part of the actual subject of the article (merely related to it) and is not discussed in the article? J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the kid's club logos at Burger King advertising. I know we don't even mention Spain... Not clear why we need a gallery of 4 logos that gets little attention in the article text (there is a section that describes a logo that isn't even pictured..)-Andrew c [talk] 14:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, removed - there are already four more images there (some of which probably aren't required anyway), let alone a gratuitous further four. Black Kite 14:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This made me curious about other fast food restaurant logo use. Seems like most of the smaller fast food restaurants are limited to one use on the main article, but then I came to File:McDonald's Corporate Logo.svg, which has 7 articles. I can understand being on the main page and the trademark page for sure, but the legal page? How does my viewing the McDonald's logo help me better understand the court cases. Maybe if it was a copyright infringement case, but the logo is simply being used as decoration at the top of the article.-Andrew c [talk] 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is another example of the application of using logos wherever X thing is mentioned. There are those that feel if a logo is already on Wikipedia, then we can use it anywhere and everywhere X thing happens. There are those that feel this violates minimal usage. See the recent (and ongoing) heavy dispute over the use of college sport team logos (you know, we really must, must have a sport team's logo on every single season they ever played). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, what about File:Old kids logo.jpg, being claimed PD based on an unsourced trademark office search? Copyright and trademark are two different things. I boldly reverted it, so check the history.-Andrew c [talk] 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the main McDonald's corporate article, split off per the standards summary style. The McDonald's corporate logo appears as part of the corporate info box on all articles that deal with corporate operations of the company. This is done per the standards as defined in the Manual of Style (infoboxes): ''Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format. However, the template technique allows updates of style and of common text from a central place, the template page.'' Since the articles are all parts of the main McDonald's article, basically covering different parts of the operations and history of McDonald's, the usage of the logo in the infobox is appropriate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it is a supporting article spun out from a larger topic doesn't make an image use on its page valid or not, particularly logos. A well-written lede will easily provide the user a link to the main corporation page which they can then see the logo. --M ASEM  20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Postage stamps
While postage stamps are listed under the acceptable use (in stamp articles and not for their subject) there is no mention in the unacceptable listing of stamps. I think this should be amended. The reasoning stems from my review, as a member of the Philately WikiProject, of the fair use stamp category, and subcategories, most of which are being used in articles about the subject and are not stamp articles. The total number of images in question comes in around 300.

I considered that it would be appropriate to create a notifying template that could be placed on the article talk page upon deleting the image from the article and also notifying the uploading editor that their image was being used improperly. The template would indicate the improper use being made of it, say why the use is improper and give a link to a Philately WikiProject example page showing proper fair use in a stamp subject article page; a scenario that can exist if there is substantial critical discussion about the stamp itself within the article. An initial test template is on one of my userpages here. Any thoughts folks? ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, much in line with our practice with magazine covers. If it would be helpful to have that explicitly stated in the policy, I think that would be a good call. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there are like 12 examples of unacceptable use already, I think we should maybe try to group simmilar things togeter, for example mention stamps in the baseball card example since it's more or less the same logic. I'm just worried that if the list get too long the impression that anyting not listed is ok could easily spread (especialy if people link direction to that section instead of the top section where it says it's not an exshaustive list). --Sherool (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Only 12! Based on a complete review I estimate there are 180-185 unacceptable stamp uses per the review list I made. I have only listed the proper and possible proper uses in the list, so everything else is an unacceptable use. A small number of images are marginal and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some stamps are properly being used in a stamp article and also improperly; these are noted in the list. Review it and make any changes you think necessary. There is consideration that within the Philately WikiProject we would like to start a page that gives examples of proper use of stamp images in non-stamp articles. I have seen stamps used in biography, architectural, geographical and Olympic articles as well as in biographies of (stamp) designers which might be regarded as an acceptable use. ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Billy Ripken example is what I would term as a substantial critical discussion that justifies the baseball card use in that case, just as a similar use of a stamp could be, but just stating which postal authority issued the stamp, where it was issued, and what is shown on it, even in great detail, cannot be considered a substantial critical discussion. I would consider this and this a fair use in a non-stamp article. ww2censor (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @ww2censor I was referring to the 12 items in the ordered list of examples of unacceptable use of images on this page. Not the number of stamps used in an unacceptable way. --Sherool (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops!! :)> ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With all the changing concensus...
Its time for "NFCC 8 Rewrite Proposal 2548295", let's try this:

"Significance. Non-free content is only used where its presence significantly increases the reader's understanding of the article, where its omission would be detrimental to this understanding. If the non-free content is a graphical work specifically made to identify the subject (such as a logo, album cover, etc), and it is used in the article that it represents, it is considered to comply with this criteria. Any additional usage beyond this must be justified appropriately."

Notice the new Carte Blanche I added here. Basically, you can use a logo, album cover, etc, on the article of its subject - but any use outside the main article on its subject must be justified and increase the reader's understanding. ViperSnake151 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! But I do like that added wording...a lot. But I have a simple (?) secondary question. What happens when the work/image that is "specifically made to identify the subject (such as a logo, album cover, etc)" is also self-published/user created? In other words an artists self makes their own album cover and uploads it here via a CCL for use "in the article that it represents." In my eyes that makes it "free" but others may feel, because it is an album cover, it would fall under fair-use. In these cases would one still have to make sure that "Any additional usage beyond this must be justified appropriately"? (You could look at File:Albert-hall-cd-cover.jpg as an example or File:Rumors - CD Cover.jpg as a currently unused example.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhh, that's why it says "if the non-free content is a graphical work specifically made to identify the subject". Couldn't make it any more clear. ViperSnake151 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * uh..yeah and that is why I asked because in "other" areas I have been told any such image (such as a logo, album cover, etc), even if it is user created and licensed under a "free" license still falls under non-free content. I just wanted to make sure that this also applied to that is all. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to specifically exclude photographs of living people when used to illustrate the person, as they are generally not allowed as fair-use, a very specific fair-use claim must be made, a claim that is generally impossible if the person is still available for photography. The term "graphic works" is ambiguous and some editors interpret that to include photographs, others do not. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Recommend changing "considered to comply with this criteria" to "presumed to comply with this criteria unless there is evidence or discussion to the contrary." There are clearly cases when it does not. For example, if there is already another picture that provides the same general understanding of the photo, a 2nd one is not needed.  The editors of the article should be able to debate whether or not a given picture does or does not in fact increase the understanding of the article.  Examples where it might not: Two very similar album covers, any image where a substantially similar free image is actually available on the commons or Wikipedia, 2 substantially similar photos of the same logo or branding, etc. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The living person element is already included in criteria 1 and, as it would related to an album cover or book, "Unacceptable uses", Images - number 8, says "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." For other uses number 12 says "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. This includes non-free promotional images.". I don't see why that would need to be explicit in regards to people in the actual criteria, number 8. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal is presumably to address the over usage of logos across articles related to the main article of a subject. For example, company logos on all of its notable product pages, network logos on every subsidiary station page, and team logos on every season page. Am I correct? If that is the case, this proposed wording doesn't solve that problem. In fact, it makes it worse. To comply with #8 now, all a person has to do is say "Well, the logo identifies the (company/network/team) and therefore it's justified; we have a reason to use it". I don't like this. I'd rather see wording that specifically addressed the problem. If the intent is opposite; to make it so that logos can be used liberally, then just remove the #8 restriction entirely and indicate somewhere in the policy that logos can be used purely for identification purposes whenever and wherever in mainspace, so long as there's an identifying intent. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Significance. Non-free content must either
 * Hmm, let me try this:
 * 1) Significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, with its omission being detrimental to this understanding.
 * 2) Be a single graphical work that is used to identify a subject or entity (such as a logo, cover art, etc), as the use of these works for identification is presumed to comply with this criteria unless there is evidence or discussion to the contrary. This exception is only valid when the content is used on the article of its representing subject. Usage on other articles requires justification. In all cases, usage must also comply with the rest of the non-free content criteria"

By splitting up the scenarios into a either/or system, its a bit easier to understand this situation. But, this is a very hard thing to word. ViperSnake151 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still problematic. A person can use "identification" as justification under this rewording, and it would have to be considered valid. If that's your intent, then just gain consensus to remove the #8 criterion completely. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid perpetual harrangues over this, it needs to be objective as possible. It is not for one editor to judge what increases or is detrimental to the the understanding of the reader - everyone's needs are different and the rule as it is framed is too subjective. Taking that approach will just lead to on-going circular argugments. NFCC#8 in and of itself should not be sufficient to delete an image. If the language is going to be based on understanding, you're necessarily heading towards a consensual approach the weighs the validity of an image in the context it is being used. We are visually oriented beings - its a big part of how we function, learn, and understand. This type of subjective rule will be a forever problem in large part because of the way it has been abused in its application. Wiggy! (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent (which is to limit logo use in a more restrictive manner as per the several recent threads), but altering #8 to make it work is not the right way. It would be better to place these as both acceptable and unacceptable uses, with the understanding that this is what is meant as meeting NFC#8. --M ASEM 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arb break - Logo use as acceptable/unacceptable examples
I think the best way to define how logos can and cannot be used is to add additional examples of acceptable and unacceptable use to this, as opposed to altering NFCC directly. This, and/or adding language to WP:LOGO should help.

Clearly, there are two acceptable uses:
 * The current logo of a corporation, organization, product, or event can be used on the specific page that describes that entity as a means of identification. (Within certain exceptions, as for musical groups where a free image of the band is preferred).
 * A logo can be used in an article that is specifically about that logo (Golden Arches), or provides criticism and commentary about the logo image itself, but not simply for identification without such.

The unacceptable uses that are clear is:
 * The logo of a corporation, organization, product, or event on a page that is directly related to that entity but is not the main page about that entity, without the presence of criticism and commentary about the logo in the article. This includes (but not limited to): a company logo on a product page, a parent company's logo on its affliates' pages, a sports team logo on a team's season page, or a corporate logo on pages regarding the history or legal matters of a business.  Cases where the aforementioned logo is an integral part of the logo or image of the entity, such as a company label on a product (Canon XL H1), or a sponsor's logo on a sports game's logo (Sugar Bowl) are not considered unacceptable for this propose.
 * Historical logos of an entity without the presence of criticism and commentary about each of the provided logos.

This is not meant to exhaust all possible logo uses or disallowances, but does clear up the lines where the most recent discussions seem to have settled on in regards to logo use. Obviously, I'm wordy, so there's some tightening up that can be done. --M ASEM 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, with the single exception of "a sports team logo on a team's season page," per the discussion of that item. I won't go into that argument here, because we've had a lot of discussion about that elsewhere, and I know that there is substantial disagreement on that point. Cmadler (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that also, but with the same exception as Cmadler. I think it's quite apparent that consensus doesn't point towards removing these items from the season pages.  Mastrchf (t/c) 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, would it be allowable to put a new logo in a season page noting that a team changed their logo during this season? ViperSnake151 19:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an equivalent situation to the TV station case; historical logos for teams should like be on the page that describes the team and only if there's criticism and commentary about that logo (why it was changes, why it was designed as such, etc.). --M ASEM 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The language on historical logos is stronger than anything that came out of the discussion on old tv station logos; and doesn't reflect the tv station logos that were kept. Previous branding can be a significant part of the knowledge about an entity in the public view that an article should try to convey.  This bullet should be reconsidered.  Jheald (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (For reference for those new to it here's the original discussion).
 * I don't see a fair conclusion out of that discussion, though the clearly appropriate aspect was that if historical logos has criticism and commentary about them, and typically not presented as a gallery but inline as part of the station's history, they were ok; my suggested writing includes this allowance. But clearly the use of historical logos just to show them without additional comment, only to show the evolution of the logo, is not appropriate.  If the historical logos are "clearly a significant part of the knowledge about an entity in the public view", then there's bound to be sources that state why this is the case (even if from the entity itself).  That's the balance that I believe the conversation stated. --M ASEM  20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the logo would "significantly improve understanding of the subject". That's a question of editorial judgment, not sourcing.  As a hypothetical: if a company has used the same logo from 1923 to 2006, and the company was well known, then I submit that that logo should be in the article, and a caption "logo of the company from 1923 to 2006" would be sufficient explanation.  Jheald (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assert that if a company changed its logo it had been using for 80-odd years to a new one, there's bound to be some mention of the change and reasoning for that somewhere. Companies don't just change logos for no good reason.  That's why for historical logos, I'm pretty sure that it may take footwork to find the sources but most of these can ultimately be supported with at least a basic statement of the reason for the change to a new logo. --M ASEM  21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Masem entirely, apart from the season page point. I personally agree with removing logos from a season page (obviously, barring any discussion of the logo itself) but I think at this time there is significant support for inclusion there (including an argument that, for college teams, each season is effectively about a different team anyway). J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No on the exclusion of historical logos. They can easily and simply reflect the changing personality of a team/organization and quite often it origins, which might otherwise be mislaid or misunderstood. For example, the stripping of historical logos from the Chelsea FC article diminished the opportunity for someone unfamiliar with the club to get a qucik and interesting insight in that clubs history. As a matter of fact all the logos there were removed despite the presence of commentary - which is a quite cynical outcome when viewed in the context of this discussion. The intent to strip away all non-content regardless of its value or provision for its inclusion shines through a little too clearly. This whole thing is unnecessary rule creep. Show some understanding and good faith and back off of this. Wiggy! (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could provide a diff to the article before the logos were stripped as to judge what sounds like is an acceptable case. I do believe that the historical logo problem may be overblown, as for most entities and organizations, when a new logo is introduced, they usually explain why that is the case in a press release, newsletter, or a simple web page posting, so even if we're quoting from the primary source to say "This logo was created in 19xx to reflect the new direction of the company", that's sufficient to justify (for myself) NFCC#8; it is just a matter of finding those sources.  --M ASEM  20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Around late September of this year . The most radically different of these logos (depicting a pensioner, not any form of lion) has apparently already been lost despite its information value simply in the name of scrubbing the page clean of non-free content. And ironically enough NFCC#8 was one of the clubs used to beat this use down. This was largely driven by a POV editor who also figured using national flags or two letter country codes was a good substitute for the use of a national team logo. That whole thing is unacceptably extreme and an example of the unreliability of some of these rules in the hands of some editors. Thanks BTW for the reasoned reply. Wiggy! (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a prime example of what I think I'd be looking for to justify the historical logos, and what I think most uses of historical logos can easily met save for the footwork of finding sources. I'm not thrilled about them being in a gallery, but it's reasonably justified that given the layout of the article, sprinkling the logos among the rest of the body would be too difficult.  --M ASEM  21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Examples of historical logos that should clearly be removed are this and this (found with a quick search through my recent contributions). The problem with vague assertions that historical logos tell us something about companies when they are not even worth discussing in the prose throws open the doors to that kind of use. If images were removed when they were discussed, then there is a potential issue there- perhaps the remover was out of line, perhaps they were unclear in their reasoning, perhaps the rationales were lacking, perhaps they believed the discussion wasn't enough to warrant the images' use. However, the fact that someone removed images when they may have been needed does not mean that we should stop removing them when they clearly are not. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But there's a problem if the removal was simply based in NFCC#8. It is not for any single editor with a non-free content agenda to judge the understanding of other editors. Recognizing an old logo can instantly provide context and understanding for someone familiar with it but not aware of recent changes an organization may have undergone. It can speak quite simply and eloquently to the evolution of an institution. Wiggy! (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if it does, then a decent article will contain discussion of it in the text, meaning that its inclusion would be justified in the eyes of everyone. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very hesitant of the rationale that providing an image to allow the reader to decide or interpret for themselves its meaning, as this doesn't provide the "significance" factor that NFCC#8 requires. If it is significant that we have to show it to the reader, then there should be some statement in the text why the reader needs to be aware of this image, hence the commentary or criticism.  --M ASEM  22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The image itself may very well provide the "significance" that NFCC#8 requires, without any further commentary.  We already recognise that to be the case for album covers and most logos.
 * Whether there is significance or not is an editorial call to be made on the talk page, not a statement that has to be made on the article page. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we often use a single album cover or the current logo for identification purposes- you'll note that is included in Masem's proposal above. This does not extend to historical logos. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't take away from my point, that an image itself may very well provide the "significance" that NFCC#8 requires - album covers are just an example of this; and that whether it does or not is a question for the talk page. Jheald (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That applies only when the image is being used as a primary means of identification- a logo, a cover of some sort, a portrait of a dead person. It is clearly not the same issue with historical logos. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree. I submit there may be many other cases where the image by itself can provide the significance required for NFCC#8.  It is a question of judgment.  That is clearly how policy frames it, as a question of judgment. Jheald (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name an example? J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are examples all over the project. The front cover of a newspaper, in the main article about the paper.  A single best known or characteristic work in an article on a famous artist or illustrator.  And, I would submit, a longstanding familiar logo in an article about a company or public entity.  Many other examples could be found.  The fundamental point is that requirement on the policy page is not for a statement that has to be made on the article page.  Rather, the requirement is for a judgment that the image significantly improves understanding.  Questions of judgment are issues for talk pages, or policy pages, or IfD discussions.  They are not, per policy, article text issues.  Jheald (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your examples are poor (one is a cover, one you are implying is being used in place of the current logo and one would have commentary in the text if it truly was significant anyway) and still disagree with you. Images are either used for identification of the article topic, or illustrate a specific point in the text. Images (other than identifying ones) cannot reasonably be used to illustrate the whole article. I'm open to counter arguments or examples, but until I see a convincing one, I am going to strongly disagree with your conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm merely telling you what policy says. Policy says images to be usable must significantly improve understanding.  It does not, to my knowledge, say that images must identify the article topic or illustrate a specific point in the text.  I am interested to know what written policy or well-formed consensus discussion exists that you can point to that you believe mandates your position. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm basing this off what I see to be current practice. I cannot see a case where the image would not be discussed and not be identifying whereby it would be required, and that is not because of my "identify or discuss" rule of thumb- the rule of thumb came because of the observations. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that practice is not following policy. Jheald (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SVG logos, again
This recent encounter bothered me. There is a systematic effort to create infinitely scalable images of non-free content, despite our minimal use/size requirements. It appears this topic came up most recently back in December 2007. Now, I won't go so far to say that logo's shouldn't be scalable, but I don't think we should be encouraging editors to create their own versions of vectorized corporate logos. First of all, these are just copies, not the actual logos, and I have run across some vectorized logos that did NOT accurately recreate the corporate logo in question (see the deleted SVGs of User:CoolKid1993 if interested). I'd argue that it is technically impossible for someone to take a raster image of a corporate logo and 100% reproduce it in vector format. While some copies may be better than others, they are all, in the end, redrawn reproductions, not originals. My next concern would be the whole idea of it. Why would anyone want to turn a perfectly good raster image of a corporate logo into an SVG image if not to get a better quality/higher resolution version? The FUC says ''An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).'' If we are worried about an originally sized image being used for deliberate copyright infringement, isn't creating a scalable version even worse? I say, if a company has a vector version of their logo available in a press kit, or in a PDF, or somehow available to the public, then I wouldn't oppose using something that came straight from the company, but I really think we need to put an end to wikipedians making their own scalable versions of corporate logos. It is unprofessional, hackish work (in my mind) and seems to fly in the face of FUC. Is anyone with me? Andrew c talk 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well to start with, your objection is couched in fairly personal (i.e. subjective) language. I'm not sure you'll impress that group of editors by characterizing their work as unprofessional and hackish. I'm fairly sure your good intentions will escape them. So instead of starting another riot, why don't why don't you guys wade in there and initiate a discussion that heads to some sort of standards-based resolution. For what its worth, I don't think the svg's are necessary either. But they are not explictly forbidden under the logo guideline and in fact were at one point encouraged there. At the other end of the spectrum it would be inappropriate to do the type of mass edits that OsamaK's bot made when it wanted to nuke everything at 300px and over - without any kind of prior discussion. So how about getting that group to buy into your objective instead of beating on them? Wiggy! (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This was discussed a few months ago but I forget where - try the archives here or another copyright-related Wikipedia: discussion pages. I'm not sure if the conclusion reached consensus but a majority were okay with a "sufficient detail" standard.  Non-free vector images should have "sufficient detail" for reproduction at the size needed in the article, and no more.  This means that relatively simple designs will be able to be blown up to any size with little or no loss of detail, but complex designs, like coats of arms, will not be.  If I recall, there were some mentions about this possibly being a technical violation of copyright law, but those arguments weren't persuasive.  I think that if WP:OFFICE chimed in and said "no, sorry, it's a violation" that would settle the matter but until then, I think you'll get some push-back if you try to tell people they can't use vector images for logos, particularly if they only contain "sufficient detail" for their fair use.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't have an opinion about the scalability issue, in my own work I try to get logos from official sources as much as possible; some companies provide EPS versions of their logos on their press websites, while in other cases the logo may be harvested from official letterhead in a press release or from an annual report. While I don't like the idea of drawing my own logos, I have done it once, and I do use brandsoftheworld quite a bit as well. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting logos from official sources seems to be quite a good idea, thanks for your comment.-Andrew c [talk] 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is posible to have SVG logos that fall under fair use it is tricky to do and generaly not worth the effort.Geni 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another character article
List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the last of an unfeasibly large number of similar GTA articles to retain its non-free images. A previous attempt to remove them led to here and the images were eventually all restored. I've just tagged it with the Non-free image overuse tag again, and commented on the talk page, only to be immediately reverted by the same editor as previously. I have no great wish to re-hash that entire conversation again (read it to understand why), so could an uninvolved editor or two (regardless of viewpoint) pitch in on the current discussion on the talkpage? Thanks, Black Kite 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm "the same editor as previously." The fact that, for whatever reason, someone removed images from other articles doesn't somehow "prove" anything; it's a "what about X" argument.  It could very well be that the other articles are better with the images, and that they should go back in.  The previous discussions of this matter, as Black Kite says, all resulted in the images remaining in the article.  The article is in compliance with this guideline.  If we want to talk about changing the guideline (again), then by all means let's have the same conversation one more time.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A similar discussion is currently going on regarding List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV, if anyone wants to pitch in there. I will look into the San Andreas situation now. J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Same for both articles I believe. None of the images pass all the criteria of WP:NFCC, and until it is explained exactly how they pass, especially, WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC.  The fact that some editors just "want them in there" is irrelevant. Black Kite 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no free equivalent because images from the games are copyrighted, so no such image can be constructed to substitute. Prose is insufficient to fully explain a character's appearance.  It's minimal use because it's restricted to major characters, per this guideline.  It's significant because a reader can't fully understand the topic of characters in fiction without knowing what at least some of them look like.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A reader couldn't fully understand the significance of a character without playing the entire game- doesn't mean we host a disk image ripped from the game. Images of the character need only be included in an article like these if the appearance itself of the character is in some way significant. J Milburn (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And to say that a reader can't understand a character without knowing what they look like is ludicrous. On that basis we'd never understand a character that we were reading about in a book. And what is this "guideline" about major characters that keeps being quoted? Black Kite 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Books are not visual media. Video games are.  "This guideline" is THIS GUIDELINE.  The one that's connected to this talk page.  "Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus."  Croctotheface (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, consider it. That note is merely pointing out that, for minor characters, the appearance is rarely going to be significant. For major characters, it may be, it may not be, that is up to those who wish to include the image to demonstrate. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And if the characters were that major, they'd merit their own article (i.e. Carl "CJ" Johnson). Black Kite 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(removing indents--please note that my comment here was posted after Jay's below, and he is not responding to me) It sounds like you're just saying that we should unnecessarily spin off the articles into separate ones. I think we might actually be better off Merging the "CJ" article back into the main article because it's a more logical presentation. The bottom line here is that we've had this discussion two other times, and both times the consensus opinion was that "those editors who wish to include the image" DID demonstrate, well enough to convince a consensus of other editors, that the articles were better off with a small number of images of major characters. The fact that you don't agree with that consensus is not somehow free reign to delete the images or to declare that they are "against policy" as if there were some new criterion 11 that says "no images at all in the GTA characters articles." The bottom line here is that, per this guideline, editors acting in good faith pared the images down to a small handful for major characters and agreed that the article was better for having them. You two disagree, and that's fine, but the guideline says that it's OK to have images of "major characters...as agreed to by editor consensus." Well, the editor consensus at these pages is to have the images. You are free to express that disagreement in an attempt to sway the consensus, but you haven't really done that; you've just removed the images and edit warred with anyone who undid your removal. Croctotheface (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm annoyed that I didn't just say this the first time...Black KIte, you seem to be saying that if the "Officer Tenpenny" section were an article unto itself, it would be good and fine to have a fair use image for it? Well, as I argued the other two times this came up, this "characters" article is not a "list" the way List of Dog Breeds is a list. It's more akin to a collection of articles about characters in the series. The entries for the major characters have enough prose content to stand on their own as articles; there is no meaningful basis, in policy or in logic, to distinguish solely based on whether something is an article unto itself or it's not. Croctotheface (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * General consensus appears to be that if a fictional character is independently notable enough to support its own article, then a single non-free image may be reasonable to illustrate that article. Of course, the opposite applies; if the characters are more minor, then under the concept of "minimal use" we don't need a non-free image (but see my comment under NFCC#8 below for exceptions).  This is why nearly all "List of characters in..." articles on Wikipedia don't have images.  Incidentally, the prose content of the article doesn't mean such a character could support their own article; the individual articles must still satisfy WP:N, WP:V etc. Black Kite 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does this subject always appear every few months? This discussion has taken place many times beforehand and the result has always been the same. The images are needed to increase the readers understanding of each character. They are suitable for inclusion in the article, as mentioned several times before. As far as I'm concerned, the images should be kept and they don't fail WP:NFC. JayJ47 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation as to how the images pass the criteria
WP:NFCC#1: No free equivalent is available, and the chances of getting permission to use the images under a free license (which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose) is highly unlikely.

WP:NFCC#3a: Several images in this article were deleted a long time ago in a previous discussion. There was concencus to keep the images which represented the major characters of the game. Regardless of the fact that many of these users were people who were part of the GTA Task force, this clearly showed that there was still strong concencus to keep the images.

WP:NFCC#8: The images are significant, they do increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and they are detrimental to that understanding. They give an illustration of a character, which significantly increases the reader's understanding of the character.

Also, where does it specifically say that images should not be included in "list of" articles?


 * WP:NFCC; also means the images are not replaceable by text. None of these images appear so unusual that this is not an option.
 * WP:NFCC; if there is such "strong consensus" to keep images in character list articles (not that it matters anyway if they violate policy), why do so few such list articles retain their images?
 * WP:NFCC Just saying something is significant doesn't make it so. How do they increase the reader's understanding? If one of the characters was of such unusual appearance (and that appearance was important to understanding the character) that it couldn't be described in text, then a claim could be made.  But these are all unremarkable looking people. Black Kite 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The key point is point eight. I've already asked it numerous times here and on the article talk pages, but your constant refusal to actually answer the question is probably the reason this keeps getting brought up. Why are those images significant? J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually now i'm wondering. Why is it that dicussions like this only occur when GTA pages are concerned? I see several other list of articles (game-related) with fair use images and there hasn't been a problem. Most of these discussions have only taken place when users like you have brought it up. Furthermore, I clicked on one of those fair use images, and the rationale seems very similar to that of the fair use rationales used for the images in GTA related articles. Also, as we have said before in previous dicussions, you cannot adequately illustrate and/or explain a character's significance/importance without an image. This cannot simply be replaced by text. JayJ47 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the images present in GTA related articles have usually been involved in these lengthy discussions. I'm beginning to wonder why only these images have been (in a way) targeted. As I said beforehand, there are plenty of other list of (game related) articles with fair use images. Also, why hasn't anyone paid much attention to other images e.g. CD'S. Whose to say that they don't fail the policy (not to say they do). JayJ47 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, that assertion is not only completely irrelevant, but also false. I was one of the admins who originally removed the album covers from discographies in the wake of the episode screenshot discussion, and I am constantly removing examples of non-free images that are not necessary. However, I will remove only what I come across. For an example from the last few minutes, I point you to this. Back to the point at hand, saying that "you cannot adequately illustrate and/or explain a character's significance/importance without an image" does not make it correct. Why is that correct? If a character's appearance is central to their significance, how come it is not discussed in the prose? I am not saying that the image could be replaced with prose (no one is, I don't know why you keep bringing that up) I am just saying that images should illustrate points made in the prose. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, sometimes #1 (text replacement) does occur - for instance if the image is merely showing that a character is, say, a middle aged woman with red hair, then that is replaceable by text. However I'd agree that the important part is #8 here. Black Kite</b> 12:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you the innumerable times I've seen debates about per character images in articles. It's endless. The debates never, ever end. The arguments are always the same. The points raised always the same. The defenses of the images always the same. Not surprisingly, the outcome is always the same; the images are wholly removed or significantly reduced. I removed the fair use images from this article over a year ago. A year later, and the fighting it STILL going on. Pathetic. It's a wonder any work gets done around here at all when it takes at least a year to accomplish a single task. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe is does pass criteria #8 because: the images are being used to supplement an article summarizing the influences of established characters on the storyline of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as identification of a major character of the game. It is also needed to adequately illustrate certain characters of the game. JayJ47 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no critical commentary of these characters. (Much less the fact that the list article fails many tenets of WP:WAF but that's a different issue).  The average WP reader - which is one who has not and will likely not play the game - need not know who these characters are to appreciate their necessity to the plot.  --M ASEM  22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is "critical commentary"? I honestly do not believe that anyone here either knows what it is or agrees on a definition.  To your other point, the question should not be "need a reader know what a character looks like to understand its role in the plot?"  (I assume that you mean "what these characters look like" rather than "who these chracters are.")  The questions should be, "Does a reader get significantly better information about the the characters in the game by seeing what the major ones look like?"  The answer to that is certainly yes, as appearance conveys information about the characters' traits and personalities, as well as a general feel of the artistic approach to character design.  Put another way: if the game's publisher released images of these characters into the public domain tomorrow, would we include them in the article?  Again, the answer is clearly yes, and the fact that we would include such images (and I suspect we'd include them without any serious objection), tells us that the article is clearly more useful and more informative with the images than without them.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument is frankly ridiculous. The understanding of the characters would also be improved if said screesnhots were hyper-high resolution, and if we had a screenshot of the character at various points throughout the game (first introduction, point of betrayal, death), but we're not going to include them. Your next point is basically saying "we would include them if they were free, so we should also include them if they are non-free". That's madness. We would also include an image of the game's cover at the top of the article if it happened to be free, doesn't mean it is justified when it isn't. We would include an image of the game's logo on the navbox if it happened to be free. How we would treat images if they were free has no bearing on how we should treat them if they are non-free. We can easily improve a reader's understanding of a character by including screenshots of their weapon of choice, as this would reveal a lot about their style etc, but we do not as this is, for most characters, a reasonably trvial aspect. Why is the appearance of their face any less trivial? I can't see why, and no one has yet explained why, only asserted that is. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any of those statements are logical extensions of my argument. I would be very reluctant to include images of minor details, even if they were free.  I do not see the value of including "favorite" weapon" images; I don't think that would help readers at all.  My point here is that it makes little sense to argue that readers are not better informed by images if we would plainly use them if they were free.  The use of a small handful of images is a concession to the need to keep non-free use minimal.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can accept the argument that one non-free image to show the style of the characters is acceptable, but that only clears one image, not two or more. This is why that particularly on these types of articles that a montage image should be used - it serves several purposes, identification of the art style and identification of multiple characters.  However, save in very few cases, once you've shown one image of a character, it is reasonable to expect that any other character can be appropriately envisioned by extrapolation along with free text.  Implying traits and personalities from a single still image is a joke - the only traits and personalities that should be explicitly stated are those that are either obvious from the primary source or stated by secondary sources.  --M ASEM  11:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe multiple images were used due to the unavailability of a montage image. It would have to be created, thus failing the criteria. -- .: Alex  :.  12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of in-game cutscenes where multiple characters are present. This can be used as a replacement montage instead of individual pictures. --M ASEM  12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem's suggestion of finding a scene involving several characters is good, and "A montage is preferred if one is available, but one may not be created" does not, and this is important, not equate to "Multiple images are acceptable if said montage is not available." We can probably justify one character image to show the general style of characters, either in the list article or the main game article (not both, one may link to the other!). This has been pretty clear&mdash;no largescale number of character images, especially if a significant amount of the sourced material isn't discussing what the character looks like. Most characters' significance is in action, not appearance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly fine with using images that include more than one character. It's probably both better practice and more informative. My personality traits argument gets at the impossibility of "replacing" a character image (from a visual medium like a video game) with text or just removing it outright.  In visual media, especially one where designers have total control over character appearance, it's possible to use appearance to communicate a lot about a character.  There is plainly no substitute for actually seeing how the character looks.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced of the argument that a still image is needed to show personality-traits. At least, unless it has some secondary source that says this (eg. "The numerous scars on character X's face and his permanent scowl shows a history of being put through the grinder but has managed to survive" from another source would be fine for me to justify the inclusion of an image of that character specifically), an assumption that character traits can be perceived from a single visual frame sounds like original research.  --M ASEM  19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually just the opposite of OR: presenting the character's appearance and allowing each reader to form their own impression, just the way the game designer intended. Croctotheface (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say there's two possible pictures of a character. One where he obviously not doing anything but otherwise sitting and looking cold and calculating.  And another where the same character seems to be in the middle of an action pose, about to break the neck of a foe with a malicious grin on his face.  Without any other source or input, which picture I use will depend on my personal bias for the game but can give the wrong impression to the end reader.  Say if I use the "cold and calculating" picture because I think that's the more important side of the character, but 90% of the time this character really is fighting others in the game, I've just misled the reader.  We should not be trying to establish personalities of characters from single images without assistance from secondary sources. --M ASEM  20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Selecting images that give a certain impression in pursuit of "trying to establish personalities" would certainly be original research. However, that is never what I suggested we do.  If we select images that serve to represent the character and his general appearance (and selecting a good representation is certainly editorial judgment, not any kind of research), then we serve the reader well by allowing him to form (or not form) his own impression of the character based on appearance.  The alternative would be to either describe the character's appearance in a meaningless way so as to avoid anything that resembles opinion (he's male, brown eyes, black hair and skin) or to load up the prose with clearly opinionated statements (his mouth is always turned up in a mocking smile).  By far the best, most neutral way to present information about what visual cues are communicating is by letting the reader see them and decide for himself.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I got your point. In my example, if I were to use the cold and calculating picture as the single portrayal of the mostly action character, I've established the wrong personality by that picture.  In some cases, this can be corrected through consensus but particularly for many console games, only a limited number of released images are available to select from, and thus while one may be able to get an image of a character it may not be the one that best represents the character's personality.  If there is an important part of the character's personality that needs to be stated, this should be done either through quoting the primary source or from secondary sources, not relying on a picture which can give a false impression. --M ASEM  21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The solution to having a misleading photo is obviously to choose another one that is not misleading, and that's an editorial judgment matter to be decided by discussion and consensus. Clearly, we should not ignore or deemphasize writing sourced text, but we should also recognize that in visual media, authors/designers use visual cues to communicate with the audience.  Including images allows our audience to get that information.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is a perfectly valid argument to allow per character images for every character of every series. Start your uploading engines now... --Hammersoft (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you acknowledge the validity of my argument. Keeping in mind our principle of minimal use, it would only make sense to add images for characters if knowing about them significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the topic.  Minor characters by definition are not important enough to do that, so they should not get images.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot attempt to second guess what the authors or designers imply about visual clues included in character drawings to justify their use to try to show these; only a secondary source will help identify these. --M ASEM 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How is "second guessing what the authors or designers imply about visual clues included in character drawings" involved here? We don't need to make ANY "guess," and that's been my whole point all along.  Show the character's appearance, let readers form their own impression.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that you are arbitrarily judging which image to use, and which characters to bother illustrating. This is the problem with using images to illustrate vague principles. The image should illustrate a particular point in a particular way- Masem gave a good example before of a third party source discussing the scars etc of a character- an image of their face, showing said scars etc, may then be valid. Otherwise, we end up with this slightly odd situation of illustrating major characters, no matter how much an image of them is necessary, and not illustrating secondary characters, no matter how important their appearance is. A much more objective way to deal with this is to add an illustration when a point raised in the text calls for one. For instance, I could easily read through the description of Niko and at no point glance to the right to view the image, as no point raised actually makes me wonder what he looks like. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how there is a "vague principle" at work here; I think I've been pretty clear about how a reader's experience is enhanced by seeing an image. For any "characters" article they enhance the reader's experience in a very specific, non-vague way, though the impressions created by the character's appearance may vary from reader to reader.  I am not at all opposed to images that connect specifically to the text, even if they are not of a major character.  My position is that depicting major characters (and using one or two images with multiple characters in them is certainly a good way to do this) enhances the reader's experience significantly enough that it's worth doing.  Beyond that, is there some kind of unwritten rule that a fair use image should depict something more specific than the subject of an article or section?  If anything, I'd think that a description of scars would be just the kind of "replaceable by text" use that would fail criterion 1.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) When images are not illustrating a specific point in the text, what stops them from being decorative? You are quite insistent that the images are illustrating the section, but it's an entirely arbitrary judgement that such sections need to be illustrated in such a way. The point I'm trying to make is that we should include images only if they are illustrating a specific point, otherwise whether to include an image is entirely down to a completely subjective, vague assertion that the character is "major", and so, for some reason, needs to be illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The subjectivity involved doesn't seem like a good reason to prefer one side or the other -- one could just as easily argue that if the significance of an image is ambiguous, there's no clear NFCC violation and so the image should be retained. — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's backwards. We don't work from a default case of including fair use images. The reality is if there's no clear way the images pass NFCC, the images must be removed. Such is the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, this result pretty much equates to a "no consensus". The validity of the images is ambiguous both ways, and last time it was determined was that they are acceptable. Nothing has been determined here. Therefore they remain; for the time being (as no doubt there'll be yet another attempt next week). -- .: Alex  :.  17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This growing trend of "It's there, you have to prove it's wrong before you can remove it" simply isn't supported in policy. If it were, we'd be overrun with fair use images. The reality is that most people on this project would prefer that fair use images be allowed anywhere and everywhere imaginable. Just because most people want it doesn't mean it's acceptable. We're descending into tribalism here, with the community taking over the project despite its mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that your apparent distaste for "the community taking over the project" is a little strange, since this is by all accounts a community project in the first place. That said, I think that your "tribalism" point is valid, but it strikes me as a bit odd considering that you advocate so stridently for your "side."  I don't see that as a good way to bridge the divide.  The issue here, as it often seems to be, is that your interpretation of "the mission" is not the only one.  It is not the case that the mission prohibits fair use entirely (though it would make matters infinitely easier if it did), so we have to balance the goal free content with the notion (which the project's mission recognizes) that the encyclopedia is often better off when it has some non-free content, too.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots are evil...
Okay, bots are not necessarily evil... but someone has put together a bot that is peeling through articles without the fair use rational and putting notices on the page. Can't we just have a bot that puts the fair use rationale on the pages?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bots cannot determine why an image is being used on the page, this has to be done by a human. --M ASEM  16:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot is doing a good job. The very fact that you believe a bot could put a fair use rationale on a page is proof that you are not using fair use rationales correctly- a copy paste saying "image is irreplaceable, image is low resolution, image increases readers' understanding of the subject" is not a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale needs to explain why that specific use of that specific image is required, what in the article it is illustrating, and why that could not possibly be illustrated by free content material. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless... of course... a cut-n-paste fair use rationale, with changing the article, actually WOULD cover it. Which in many, many cases... it does! "Proof you are not using fair use rationales correctly"  okay, so fix it yourself--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * easily solved, delete the image. Canis Lupus 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actualy it probably doesn't but it shifts the risk over to the uploader rather than any bot writer.Geni 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationales should be like snowflakes - excluding changes to article names, no two should ever be the same. --M ASEM 14:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're saying with "excluding changes to article names", but there are lots of perfectly fine fair use rationales that are nearly identical. For example, basically every album cover used to illustrate an album article can be covered by the same rationale, except for the name of the article. This could easily be done by a bot that checks to make sure the image is sufficiently low-resolution and then writes the appropriate rationale. rspεεr (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you program a bot to identify whether an image is an album cover, and if it is the album in question? Say someone placed File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg in the A Little More Personal (Raw) article. How can a bot tell that the image doesn't belong? Alternatively, how would a bot know File:Insearchof.jpg is an album cover? What is relatively easy for a human to do would be nearly impossible to program a bot to do, unless you have an idea how to do this.-Andrew c [talk] 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A bot could reasonably tell you that File:Lindsay Lohan - Vanity Fair.jpg isn't an album cover -- it isn't even remotely close to square. On the other hand, it couldn't say that File:Insearchof.jpg is an album cover, because there are plenty of square non-album images out there.  It's a good example of why a bot can be used for checking rationales but not for writing them: it's easy to say something is certainly incorrect, but much harder to say that it is certainly correct. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are non-square album covers out there. A bot could never, ever, ever be programmed to write rationales. A further counter example would be when people use album covers in the infobox about the artist, something I see a lot. Then, the bot would happily write a rationale for the album cover illustrating an article about the album, when in fact it is being used to illustrate the artist. In response to Paul, yes, album covers being used in exactly the same way often share rationales. I am not sure I am comfortable with that, I have certainly seen it abused. And no, I am not going to follow you around fixing your sloppy edits- if I had to do that, why not just block you and save myself the trouble? Make decent edits, or make no edits. If you continue to make poor edits, then you should be aided in making no edits. It works for new users who don't get the point, so why not you? J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC re-opened
A user who was unhappy with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos‎ has attempted to re-open the discussion to another !vote regarding whether and how to enforce this policy. I notice that the bot has already archived the original link to the discussion, so here it is again, yet another non-free content conversation which will never ever end... (ESkog)(Talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop distorting my actions everywhere you go. There was no consensus and this !vote proves that (that doesn't mean there is a consensus though). — BQZip01 —  talk 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I just re-read your comments and I'm even more incensed now. How dare you assume my motivations for why I did anything! You don't even know me and you are completely mischaracterizing my actions. I request a retraction. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't re-open it, but it didn't really look like "consensus" to me, either. Thanks for the notification!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus--see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos--was that the use of the logos was permissible under WP:NFCC #3 and #8.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A small majority of people did express the opinion that they want us to keep using the logos that way. However that does not equal a consensus that it is actualy permissable to do so under the policy. A great many of the "supporters" offered reasons entierly unrelated to the policy for retaining logos on all those pages randing from "it's not illegal" to "other sport sites do it", wich are hardly a compelling arguments for how the use complies with our policy. --Sherool (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And other users offered their own opinions on policy as if they were codified edicts. Both sides can dismiss other's arguments, but there wasn't a consensus. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon characters?
Is there a mention in any guidelines about showing images of cartoon characters to illustrate them in articles? Some articles have them and some don't, and I'm not sure what applies. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A single, low resolution image in an article specifically about the character in the infobox is probably acceptable. Any other use will have to illustrate a specific point in the text and meet the general requirements; there's no reason to treat them any differently from other non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with J Milburn. There's nothing different about a cartoon character vs. a tv character vs a movie character, etc. The usage J Milburn describes is appropriate and within guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, everyone!
Indeed, I have stopped disliking Wikipedia's policies on fair use and have come to see that they are absolutely necessary in order for Wikipedia to succeed in its goals. After all, we all know that the most important thing about any article is that no element of it might possibly be copyrighted. Having a possibly copyrighted image of, say, a deceased former British prime minister that is already all over the internet would be a disastrous blow to Wikipedia's credibility and to its wonderful mission of creating a free content encyclopedia. It is much better to not have any picture at all for several months, until somebody finds and uploads a not very good image from the US government which we will then be forced to use for all eternity - assuming there are any. If not, the best possible solution is clearly not to have an image in that article. I'm glad we sorted this out! john k (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree more. If someone is deceased, then a free image cannot be obtained now. If no known free image exists, then we are up a creek and can only use a non-free, fair use image. Should a free image turn up later, we should remove and delete the non-free image post haste. A free encyclopedia is not the only goal of Wikipedia; quality is also a goal and they must balance out. Please realize the government doesn't have pictures of everybody...or do they...? — BQZip01 —  talk 05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BQZip - I see my sarcasm was too subtle. I fully agree with you - I've just gotten frustrated about this and let out some of my irritation in the form of a sarcastic post.  I think deleting the image of Douglas-Home was stupid, and would like to upload a new one, but I can't find any guidelines for how to get such an image included within the current guidelines. john k (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's no free image available for a passed-away person, a non-free is allowable (on the reasoning that it is impossible to create a new free image of a dead person). But if there is a free image, it aught to be used instead.  --M ASEM  06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove, a priori that there are no free images of Douglas-Home.  Can we use a free image until a non-free image is found?  john k (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it was deleted was because no source was given. Canis Lupus 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But sarcasm is still very helpful to discussion, really it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the nature of the "source" requirement? Can I find a picture on a website and just say "taken from http://picturesofbritishprimeministers.com/douglashome," as long as I provide a real fair use rationale?  Or do I have to know who the copyright holder is?  Because the latter is just a totally onerous and unnecessary requirement - a fair amount of the time, nobody even knows who the copyright holder of a particular work is. john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just incidentally, it also had one of those nonsensical, blatantly wrong boilerplate pseudo-rationales ("... photo and its historical significance are the subject of the article..."). Why do people insist on making a mockery of the system by filling rationales with utter crap? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be in response to people who insist on pushing nonsensical interpretations of policy that are utter crap? Wiggy! (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty lame rationale, admittedly, but the fair use rationale is obvious - a picture of Douglas-Home has basically no commercial value, we have not yet discovered a free equivalent, and it substantially improves our article about the man. A bad rationale when a good one can be devised is a pretty weak reason to delete. john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No commercial value? Sounds like we're just dying for one to illustrate our encyclopedia here because, as you say, it would substantially improve our article about the man. How's that no commercial value? Haukur (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * British prime minister so will likely have met the president of the united states (so PD pics likely exist from that) and was a fairly seniour politician more than 50 years ago (crown copyright expired). I'd say there is a reasonable chance of a free pic existing.Geni 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable chance, certainly. If such a picture is not already on the internet, is it really our policy to require that there be no image until somebody finds, scans, and uploads such a picture? john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a reasonable conclusion. Our policies are intended to encourage the discovery of free images. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can make a free drawing. Just make sure you don't base it on any one particular photograph. Works for Edmond Jouhaud. Haukur (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Errrr, that's very potentially bad for two reasons. First, more importantly, if you are using non-free works to create the drawing, it can be considered a derivative work, and thus would still be non-free, even if you based it on multiple sources. That doesn't improve the non-free issue in the first place.  Secondly, it looks bad - not in terms of your art skills - but its not a fair representation of the person.  If the person is still alive, a photograph is likely possible; if dead, then a non-free image can be used, but having to resort to hand-drawn images is just a poor solution, and also smacks a tad of "original research" (just a tad, that's not the significant problem here).  --M ASEM  15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Drawing a person based on multiple independent sources on how they looked is not a copyright problem. Copyright doesn't give anyone a monopoly on information, just on a tangible fixation of a work. 2) It can look okay, a decent drawing is better than a bad photograph. Mostly, it takes more skill and time to make a good representational drawing than to make a good representational photograph. 3) Free images are better than unfree images. The law says nothing about photographs of dead people being in any way exempt from copyright - it's just one of the Wikipedia-specific criteria for when we may be willing to consider unfree images. Haukur (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for Alec Douglas-Home a free image could be created. There's a statue of him in Coldstream and a photo of it would not be licensed to the sculptor but rather the photographer under UK FOP law. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that a picture of a statue of Douglas-Home is not an adequate replacement for a photograph of him? Also, nobody has yet taken a free picture of that statue or drawn a picture of him and released it without copyright to wikipedia.  These kind of substitutes are just a joke.  And, yeah, images drawn by users are original research.  Why on earth should we trust that User:Rama has made an accurate depiction of General Jouhaud?  Looking at what pictures I can find of the man online, I'm not convinced that it is a particularly good likeness.  john k (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You kind of answered your own question there - you can check the accuracy of Rama's drawing by looking for pictures or video of the general. I don't see a problem there. Haukur (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a problem with drawn images, with only a very few exceptions. This is one of them- not a single image exists of this military figure, and so we have an award winning historian draw one, basing the likeness off a descendent, and basing the uniform off the notes in a contemporary source. If we have a reasonable belief that no free images exist of a subject and there is no chance that one could be created, then using a non-free image is the best option. A publicity/first party photo, or a photo used around the web (preferably with copyright holder known, and preferably without any ties to a specific publication) would be the best option on that front. I think the question of a statue is interesting- it is clearly acceptable to use a painted portrait, and statues are used for a lot of articles (Boudicca springs to mind...) but could an image of a statue be considered acceptable when photos exist? J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For people with no surviving representations, an artist's impression is of course fine. And if the artist wants to base his impression on a great-great-great-grandson that's fine by me. But I don't think this sketch is in any way superior to the General Jouhaud sketch by Rama. If no free images of a person are available, then sketches or artworks are appropriate. In an unusual case, we have free paintings of Halldór Laxness and Steinn Steinarr by a fairly well-known living artist. Those are good likenesses. Haukur (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Portraits from life by professional painters are one thing. Portraits derived from photographs created by wikipedia users are quite different.  At any rate, there has as yet been no guidance as to what to do about Douglas-Home.  Given that we do not know if any free images exist, can we use a probably-not-free photograph of him?  Beyond the question of what we can do about Douglas-Home under current policy, I'd like to reiterate how stupid our policies are.  There are various images of Douglas-Home all over the internet.  These are probably technically copyrighted, but it is quite clear that whoever the copyright holder is, they are not making any effort to enforce their copyright.  And this is true of a vast amount of photographic material.  We're not even allowed to use copyrighted promotional pictures which are basically released in order to be used in the way wikipedia would use them.  I understand the desire for Wikipedia to contain as little non-free content is possible, but there's a large amount of technically copyrighted content which is effectively free, in that nobody is ever going to make any attempt to enforce copyright on it.  And even if they did, we could plausibly make fair use claims for a large percentage of it.  The current policy is basically cutting off our noses to spite our faces - Wikipedia has, on its own initiative, decided to drastically reduce the number of images available for use, and it really serves no conceivable purposes beyond a fetishistic attachment to "free content."  The current process results in completely absurd things like our article on Dean Stockwell being illustrated by a picture of him from 60 years ago, when he was 13.  Or that ridiculous line drawing of Jouhaud.  Or the fact that an article about a British prime minister doesn't have a photograph attached to it, and people are seriously proposing that we put a photograph of a statue in place instead of a photograph.  The current rules are an embarrassing failure.  They make wikipedia looks absurd and amateurish (well, more absurd and amateurish than it looks anyway).  The whole thing is a farce. john k (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If people would spend less time bitching about policy and more time looking for photos, we would make a lot of progress. Flickr has two free images of Dean Stockwell that have been available since 2007. How come no one has ever looked there? (By the way, I'm adding one to the article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's excellent. I'm glad my whining has prompted some useful result. john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're intentionally denying ourselves lots of content we could get away with using. Encouraging the creation, discovery and awareness of free content is ultimately more important. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this seems to be the attitude that Wikipedia has taken. It's worth noting that this is a matter of opinion, and that I am not obliged to agree with it. john k (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't categorically exclude a non-free image here, but without a proper source it won't work anyway. The original deletion that sparked this was undoubtedly correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here:
 * Legal: contrary to what many people think (apparently including the initiator of this discussion), Fair Use is not a blank check to snatch anything you like. Fair Use is similar to the right of citation: using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima as a fair use image is OK because it is the precise image that is being discussed, and no other image can replace it for critical discussion. This is very different from some random photograph of a figure, where portraits are interchangeable.
 * Practical: there are instances in which not having a portrait for a figure incited relatives to contribute theirs. Presenting fair use images is not only of very dubious legal validity, but also hides the fact that we still need Free images. That a figure is dead does not excludes that photographs are left lying in a drawer somewhere; of course they might be less good than professional ones, and finding them requires some work, but our encyclopedia articles also go through stages where they are drafts, and they also require work to write. Rama (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no fact that "we still need free images" except insofar as Wikipedia policy demands such. Beyond that, while fair use certainly isn't a blank check, your description of how it works is, so far as I understand it, completely wrong.  There is absolutely no requirement in fair use law having anything to do with whether a copyrighted image is replaceable.  Beyond that, again, worrying about whether this stuff is fair use is beside the point.  There's a huge quantity of stuff where the copyright holder doesn't care about enforcing their copyright.  Stuff like the deleted picture of Douglas-Home, already found all over the internet, is almost certainly among that.  It seems to me that it would be a perfectly justifiable policy to claim fair use as broadly as possible, and then remove material if the copyright holder complains.  In the vast majority of cases, we're never going to receive any complaints from the copyright holder. This is obviously not what the policy is, but I'm not sure what good results arise out of the current situation. john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On an somewhat tangential note, there's a public domain video that includes footage of Douglas-Home in the National Archives. http://research.archives.gov/description/28498 Someone just needs to go in person and get a screenshot. This is what frustrates me about these discussions. People assume that there's nothing out there, but it just takes some effort to find it. Often the problem isn't really policy, it's people's laziness. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And also http://research.archives.gov/description/95230, http://research.archives.gov/description/95209, http://research.archives.gov/description/95257, and probably more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, those few aren't public domain. But in any event there's about 90 more records I have yet to go through that came up in my search, so there's probably more than one PD video with Douglas-Home in it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tanks for the Effort, Calliopejen. That being said, it seems like you're doing a whole lot of work for nothing.  There are plenty of images of Douglas-Home all over the internet, and nobody is ever going to enforce copyright on any of them.  It is ridiculous to force people to jump through hundreds of hoops in order to find a "free" image which is much worse than the widely available images that we're never going to get into any trouble for using.  You said above that you wish people would spend as much time looking for images rather than bitching about policy.  But the bitching about policy is in service of the goal of changing policy so that nobody has to spend so much time looking for images.  john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except we're wikipedia the FREE encyclopedia. It's not jumping through hoops. Why not just cut and paste paragraphs from books and collect them here? Probably a lot of authors would never notice. But we don't do that because the goal of this project is to build a FREE encyclopedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you cannot see the difference between using photographs to illustrate an article and actually plagiarizing text from copyrighted work, I don't see that there's any room for discussion. john k (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no difference. Both are copyrighted works belonging to somebody; it we wish to use either under United States fair-use precedents and our own specifically focused non-free criteria, we need to explicitly justify it clearly and rationally. We don't use either (copyrighted images or paragraphs) willy-nilly, because they are functionally identical with regards to intellectual ownership and work.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * pd_THOR is correct, there is no difference. Whether it's text or an image, either case is theft of intellectual property. The argument that because "no one is ever going to enforce copyright on any of them" they are fair game is just plain wrong. It's wrong from a legal perspective, wrong from an ethical perspective, wrong from a business perspective. Cmadler (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean no malice, but I want to clarify: are you saying that because we can use others' copyrighted works w/o need or permission and get away with it, we should? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: excellent work Calliopejen1! Good find.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already arrived at the “wonderful mission” part before detecting the sarcasm myself. The problem may be that I’ve read too many statements of that kind on these pages that happened to actually be meant seriously. I’ve been pretty much inactive for more than 9 months now, but looking at this page I don’t seem to have missed any major developments. Or I may have, at least back then nobody seriously proposed I draw pictures of deceased persons or substitute their photo with a picture of their dove-shitted stone likeness. One could get the impression that all of this section is meant to be satirical with some people playing the straight man.Malc82 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate non-free images
File:Metallica - Load.jpg and File:Load Metallicaalbum.jpg are the same album cover, but the size and color are a little different. Obviously, we only need one. For whatever reason, my brain isn't exactly working and I can't remember if there is a procedure to dealing with this. I was going to just delete the larger of the two, copy it's FUR and description over to the other image, but I wasn't sure if I needed to instead tag it with something and wait a a specified time period, or if this was just a G6 speedy deletion or what. For the future, is there a specific protocol for such images, or can I just delete one of them and make sure the text is copied to the other (are there GFDL requirements for the authors of the rational which would require a history merger or anything more complex like that??) To other admins, what would you do with these duplicate (but not pixel identical) images?-Andrew c [talk] 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would normally just orphan one of them, then tag it as such, let it go after a week or whatever it is. I know some other admins will delete files as duplicates even if they are not pixel-identical, but that's not something I'm happy doing in case other people believe I chose the "wrong" image to delete. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus To Keep Images In Character Article
The reason given for removal of the fair use images in this article was because there is no consensus to keep the non-free content. However I believe that there is consensus based on past discussions about the topic. More than one discussion has taken place about this subject and the result has always been the same, the images are kept. JayJ47 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus above showed that a single montage shot of at least two characters in the game (which is possible, it's on the PC and I know what the cut scenes are like) is an appropriate replacement for one of each major character. --M ASEM  06:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically people use "consensus to remove" or "consensus to keep" a bit too informally which can sometime confuse the issue. There are (roughly) three possible positions:
 * Consensus to include/retain the image
 * No consensus to include or to remove the image
 * Consensus to remove/not include the image
 * If Number 2 or 3 are the case then the image is not used. (Arguing "there was no consensus to remove that image" is always fallacious.) If Number 1 is the case then the image may be used but with the caveat that the global consensus represented by WP:NFC policy overrides any local consensus at the article talk page.
 * In the case of List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, situation number 2 applied - as you yourself pointed out: . Therefore the images should not be used. CIreland (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's disputed. (As discussed at length in the recent college football logo discussions). Unless you can point to a well-formed consensus which has come to this resolution, the claims you are making are merely your personal opinion.  Jheald (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly it is disputed, but it is written into this very policy all the same; policy represents consensus. Of course, in the exceptional case of WP:NFCC consensus would not override policy anyway, disputed or otherwise. CIreland (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it isn't what's written into this policy, is it?
 * And what is being discussed here is not whether or not to override WP:NFCC, it is the balance of opinion as to whether or not an image satisfies it. Jheald (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Quote: it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof. CIreland (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That says that those seeking to remove or delete an image don't have to show a-priori that no rationale can be created. Which is reasonable, because proving a blanket negative is a hard thing. However, once a specific rationale has been proposed, policy does not require us to presume it is false. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but if there is no consensus that it is correct, then it is assumed to be false - with all that implies for retaining an image use. CIreland (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)But if the opinions on wether or not an image use is within policy is so split down the middle that we can't come to a consensus either way how can the image be said to comply with policy? The fact that any non-free images are allowed at all is by it's very nature an exception to the norm. This is not just a personal extremist opinion, the Foundation explicitly refeer to this as an "Exception Doctrine Policy" and makes it clear that no non-free content is allowed by default. It might not be explicitly written in so many words, but if there is no consensus either way for allowing an exception it makes no sense to claim that the default action is to allow it. Those wanting an exception from the norm always have the burden of creating a consensus in it's favour. For example deleting articles that does not qualify for speedy deletion is an exception from the norm and so a "no consensus" defaults to keeping the article. Creating a new policy is an exception from the norm so the default action is to not implement a proposed policy unless there is a consensus in it's favour. Giving someone administrative rights is an exception so a "no consensus" does not default to granding said rights. Simmilarly in the case of non-free media it is including the image that is the exception to the norm and so if there is no consensus to include a non-free image the default action is to not include it. --Sherool (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's an exemption doctrine policy, not exception doctrine.
 * And the policy is a balance. It is also an important part of the balance not to remove content that is legal, both for us and our commercial redistributors, and helps Wikipedia towards its vision by adding significantly to the information the article conveys. Jheald (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok yeah you are right, but same difference. The policy grants an exemption from the normal state of afairs provided some strict conditiosn are met. I don't see how the wording or spirit of the policy can lead you to conclude that in the absense of an agreement on wether or not something does in fact meet those conditions the default asumption is that it does. --Sherool (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What if one single image was used which included all the major characters in it? I am able to create one but am unsure if it would be accepted, and kept in the article? JayJ47 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be fine as long as you are talking about a single image taken as a screenshot from the game (this would include machina-posing of the characters for a single shot), but would not be acceptable if you took the individual images and made your own composite or montage of the character images. --M ASEM 13:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This will be possible then. Last time when someone suggested it, we were told that this would not be acceptable, so it's a bit frustrating with all the different opinions on this. -- .: Alex  :.  16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there weren't different opinions, would we really need talk pages? I'm a little concerned still about a single image (an image is required or it is not) but if you can demonstrate that a single image is required, it can be included. You can't just include one on the grounds that "it's better to have a single image than have all of them". Of course, the image will have to be a low resolution, so it's difficult to see what it may add to the article, but if you want to add one and you think you have a decent rationale, go for it. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By different opinions over that one point, I meant flip-flopping. That is my one main criticism with many aspects of NFCC. It's frustrating to have one group say "a-okay" to things and another group say "that's not acceptable" about the very same thing, that's all. -- .: Alex  :.  18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the distinction really rest on whether the image is a screenshot created via tools within the game engine or created another way? This strikes me as truly bizarre: two identical images, one composed by posing the characters and taking a single screenshot, and the other created by putting multiple screenshots together, and the first is fine while the second is verboten?  I understand the technical distinction, but considering that the mashup approach is no more or less legal (it would still be a fair use), I don't understand why it's necessary.  Is this guideline really so concerned with technicalities and legalisms?  Croctotheface (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added three group images as several editors above have said that this is appropiate for inclusion. JayJ47 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to Veganism parable
Hi. My link to Veganism parable was removed with the reason, that links should reflect only official policies. I disagree, as "See also" links should provide additional information on the topic (as long as it is relevant), and that also includes discussions and essays. While I agree that the "See also" section is not a link container, I think the most important controversies on this matter should be linked. There are 13 pages linked – most of them do not directly concern the policy "at it is", but more general topics (such as Copyrights and Copyright problems). As most of those links are either neutral or in favor of Non-free content (as they describe it as official policy without mentioning that fair use images might be problematic in certain ways, that are described in the page I'd like to link), I think it is fair to include the most important essays (both pro and contra) as well. The aim should not be to convince the user that fair use is good or bad, but to inform him, that there arguments for and against it, and that it is a controversial subject. --Church of emacs (Talk) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that all of the other links are either to policy pages or other pages that have consensus support. This link was to a personal essay by, largely, one author. While many would agree that Angr's take on the problems with fair-use are correct it's not really an appropriate link from a policy page - Peripitus (Talk) 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate covers for albums/singles
Of late there's been an upswing in the use of alternate album/single covers on articles about those releases. Examples can be seen on the right hand side at '03 Bonnie & Clyde, (It's Not Me) Talking and (You Drive Me) Crazy. As a result, there's been an increasing number of IfDs for these alternate album covers (, for the examples). Other examples abound;. Most of these IfDs result in delete, though some not (see last example).

There's been some prior discussion: But, there's nothing conclusive.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38
 * Talk:Walk_Among_Us
 * Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_37

There's been enough of these IfD nominations that this problem probably needs to be addressed more formally. See Files for deletion/2009 January 10, where there's about two dozen nominations for these alternate album covers.

Should we...

(A) Allow the use of any album/single covers the album/single was released under on its respective article

- or -

(B) Allow the use of only the first or primary release of the album/single

..for identification purposes only.

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a discussion about this here, in response to a batch of IfD noms by Peripitus. Your thoughts may be of interest to WikiProject members there- I'm sure we'll be able to work out something to add as a WikiProject guideline. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the other discussion until now. That said, I have always been and will always remain opposed to hosting such a discussion on the specific project's page. It is not a purview of a project to interpret/write policy or guideline. That's for a place such as this to decide. This is precisely why I was against raising the whole sport logo fiasco at Wikiproject College Football. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's for everybody to decide. The operative question here is: when is an alternate cover significant enough that it significantly adds to the understanding conveyed by an article. WP:ALBUMS is actually quite a good place to ask a question like that, because it tends to attract people who actually know about albums and so have the knowledge and insights to usefully discuss that kind of value judgment.  Jheald (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Projects are a rotten place to seek consensus on a fair use issue. It would be same as insisting that any AfD having to do with Project Albums be listed only at that project. We don't handle such debates there. Instead, they are handled at WP:AFD. By pushing such discussions into projects, it inherently biases the discussion. I will not be at all surprised if the discussion ensuing on this subject on the project page will result in the images being retained. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense Hammersoft, but I have had enough experience to know that you will do whatever it takes to remove as many non-free images as possible. Bringing the discussion here only gets people who like to limit non-free image use involved, not the wiki community as a whole as it should be. You guys are here on NFC because you like to limit the content, not because you want to break down the guidelines and allow more use. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm out of time right now, but someone should make the appropriate changes to make this section, rather than that section into an RfC and centralize discussion here, with announcement of the RfC in appropriate forums. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need for a RfC at the moment- I'm fairly sure once policy and precedent is explained, the WikiProject (of which I am a member) will be happy to codify the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn here, an RfC is not required. We have a strong reaction from a disputed deletion -> DrV -> lots more attention given...then a lot of heat with hopefully some light. The discussion within the project is ongoing though I have noted it on the page as a policy issue that should be discussed here. I've looked through about 75 of the 5000 uses of alternate album covers and found that the vast majority NFC and the resulting NFCC rules are not intuitive and clearly from this are not understood widely enough. Far more than an RfC is some way to educate more widely about the policy and its implications. Perhaps a few useful examples, drawn from IfDs that the consensus here says were closed correctly, would help ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Use just boilerplate fair-use rationales that often are not relevant to the particular image.
 * Have zero mention of the image within the article.
 * By the standards that other non-free images are measured are not suitable for hosting here.
 * I'd like to point out that we need to make a specific section about album covers. Referring people to images in general is not a good idea because face it, album covers are a different case, there are no free images to stand in their place and they are the only thing that can accurately represent the album and its other releases. I also think it needs to be made clear that if the page is about the album, then that is the critical commentary. When we include an image of a celebrity, maybe because of what she wore that caused an outrage for example, the critical commentary is not about the photographer and the image's artistic aspects, it's about what it depicts, which, in the case of the alternate albums covers, is the alternate release which as I said, the article undoubtedly describes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help here, to keep the discussion in one place as it's rather spread across the site, if you explained how albums are different from movies and books in this regard and so why you see they need to be treated differently ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather how are they not? Albums aren't released dozens of times so there is an association with each cover, not felt with books and movies. It was described better on WP:Albums, so let's keep that together over there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an age old argument in fair use disputes. "This is different and deserves special dispensation because...." In reality, this isn't any different. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, its all up to everyone's interpretation of the criteria and guidelines set for by wikimedia and as of now there is no consensus to either remove or keep the images. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here I was thinking this was about Virgin Killer --NE2 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to treat album covers differently from other non-free images. Per the non-free content criteria, none of them will be replaceable. In response to Grk1011, just because the alternative release is discussed, does notmean that an image of its cover is required. If the cover is discussed, then we can include the image. Yourmaking the false assumption that discussion of something means that an image is required- in fact, discussion about it's appearance may imply that an image is required, discussion about it does not. Furthermore, if there is no consensus to keep the images, they should be removed- the guidelines and policies are quite clear that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to keep the images. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out seemingly endlessly, WP:NFC says nothing about discussion; what is required is "significantly improved understanding" of the topic of the article. And it is long established that showing the identifying images for a record is considered part of the "significant understanding" an article should convey about it -- which is why WP:NFC specifically okays this use.  This discussion about discussion is entirely off the point.  Jheald (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant discussion about an image leaves it pretty unambiguous that the use of that image does increase the readers' understanding of the text. However, if it is not even worthy of discussion, it is pretty difficult to argue that it increases the readers' understanding of the text, and even harder to argue that it is significant. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to increase reader understanding of the text. It has to increase reader understanding of the topic.  Read the friendly policy.  Jheald (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's very easy to argue that showing the identifying images can significantly increase reader understanding of the topic, even without discussion -- because WP:NFC directly says so. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that they can, and that's why I support the images of primary album covers or first edition book covers, even in articles where they are not directly discussed. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, we are back to the discussion of the cover itself. That would be a good reason for inclusion in say the biography, but it is unnecessary for the album's page since its purpose is portray the alternate version, which is discussed since half the page is probably about it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a big assumption. A lot of rereleases are barely worth a mention, or, at least, are barely mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about "oh they released it again quietly" we're talking about big re-releases with bonus songs, material etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that wasn't exactly clear. This issue is made more problematic by the fact that, regardless of how significant the rerelease was, a lot of these album articles are only a couple of lines long. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it may not be as relevant on the shorter pages, but what we are deciding affects all situations. Obviously I'm going to argue for the inclusion of the cover on the longer articles even if it means the shorter ones may get alternate covers through a loophole because its better than no alternate covers at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're basically saying that it's better to have too much non-free content than to have too little? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Giggity.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a helpful addition to the discussion. There is no interpretation, that will gain consensus, of the non-free-criteria that gives a class of articles carte blanche to have any and all the images editors decide. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of book covers in intelligent design
Could I please have some input on the discussion here regarding the use of images of book covers in intelligent design? J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the covers being discussed can be seen in this diff. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another case of majority rule ILIKEIT. We don't use album covers in that manner, and it's clear the appearance of the book is not related to the topic or context of the articles (the content of the books, sure, but not the cover artwork). We need to start adding asterisks for all the exceptions to these guidelines (No sports team logos on subpages, except for colleges, no individual character images on non-character pages, except for video games, no book or album covers used for decoration, except for intelligent design...)-Andrew c [talk] 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems fairly clear to me too. If you could weigh in at the "discussion" there, and perhaps remove the images, it would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of related and sort of off topic, there are 3 non-free images used at Jenna Jameson. One is a book cover, one is a DVD cover, and one a screenshot. Seems like the cover art are being used for decoration, just like in the ID article. Wondering what others thought here, if they should be removed, of the ID folk think they should stay, etc. -Andrew c [talk] 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

1?
For the purposes of illustrating Lex Luthor (Smallville), would not the libre-licensed File:Michael Rosenbaum at the BE Blow Out.jpg suffice in lieu of the non-free File:SmallvilleLex.jpg? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would consider it a fair replacement, though placing it in the infobox would be inappropriate (since it's a picture of the actor, not the character). Obviously the person's picture and the character are close that the free replacement is called for, but best not to make think Lex goes around dressed like that... --M ASEM  00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think that's going a little bit too far in most cases. Yeah it's the same person obviously, and he doesn't wear a lot of makeup or proestectics and such, but the clothing, lighting and location are all completely different. The purpose of using a non-free image to illustrate a character is just that, illustrate their "look and feel" in the show, personaly I think it's quite rare that a random photo if the actor can do the same job. Where to draw the line I can't honestrly say, maybe it would be enough to show the actor and then explain how the character dresses and carries himself on the show or whatever, but personaly I think going down that path will create a lot of heat and very little light, and there are plenty of more obviusly inapropriate uses of non-free images we could be spending that energy on first. --Sherool (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the character portrait would be necessary in this article. A free image of the actor would be useful, but a free image of the actor (unless they happened to be in character) could never be a replacement for an image of the character. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is an area where we've given up holding the line against overuse of fair use. There are many cases where the actor's appearance is not significantly different whether they are being filmed or at an awards ceremony or other non-acting public appearance. Michael Rosenbaum vs. Lex Luthor (Smallville) is just such a case. Another is Patrick Stewart vs. Jean-Luc Picard. An obvious case where the in-character appearance is dramatically different is Michael Dorn vs. Worf. Another is Zao vs. Rick Yune. The primary purpose of having an image of a character in that character's article is for identification purposes. In cases where the character's appearance is essentially identical to the actor's appearance, there's no need for a non-free image for identification purposes. Anybody can readily identify Lex Luthor from Smallville by looking at the free image. The non-free image brings essentially nothing to the table. But, we've given up on defending this line. List of Stargate SG-1 characters used to have free license images of a number of characters . But, those were removed. It's almost like there's a bias against free license imagery on any article having to do with a copyrighted work. Depressing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the SG-1 character images were moved from the main character list to List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 and List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1 for article size reasons. – sgeureka t•c 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Free or not free?
Here is an interesting situation. Grey Group Asia Pacific is an article about an advertising agency that is useing File:Grey Group Organization Logo.jpg, File:Grey Organization Logo.jpg, File:Eye On Asia Logo.jpg and File:G2 logo.jpg. These are all logos, tagged a Fair use. Now this article also contains a gallery of ads. They are all upoaded as "self" via the GFDL. Some are sourced to http://www.greyeyeon.asia and some are not. So the questions are: is a gallery of Ads that are not discussed in the article allowable if the article is about an advertising agency or is it borderline "Blatant Advertising"? Should these images be all tagged fair use it would answer that question as the article does not address each one of these 12 images directly. But if we assume good faith that the uploader is the creator do we simply ask for an OTRS? Secondary is the use of 4 logos in the article - I know logos have been discussed to death overall. I came across File:HKTAXI.jpg first and was going to tag it for no information via the information and add di-no source and possible wrong license. But when I looked into it and saw the users other uploads it lead me to ask the questions above. Soundvisions1 (talk)


 * Hmm, as an aside most of those logos would probably qualify as PD-textlogo (except the eye one). As for the rest of the images yeah ask for a confirmation to be forwarded to OTRS. WP:AGF doesn't enter into it, there are probably hundreds of images uploaded with blatantly falce or insufficient copyright information every day, that doesn't mean those uploaders are deliberately trying to hurt the project, they are acting in good faith, but getting in wrong due to ignorance of copyright matters or inexperience with the upload process (a lot of people are under the impression that they "own" any image they download and so naturaly choose to upload with a "I release this" type of tag, happens all the time). It's perfectly legitimate to question "unusual" license tagging without assuming any bad faith on the part of the uploader. Sending an e-mial to the OTRS que to verify the release should not be a huge inconvenience if it's legit. --Sherool (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats what I thought but figured, due to the nature of the article, i should ask. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tag all the images as db-i9. These are blatant rips of . Without confirmation of release being sent to OTRS, they are all copyright violations and need to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, all tagged. I've also re-labeled the pure text logos as Sherool suggested above. Lastly, I notified the uploader of the status of the copyright violation images. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

These two images...
These two images do not meet their fair-use criteria;
 * File:Gif.gif
 * File:Oberth class starship.jpg on the Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek article

Can someone delete/remove them please. <font color="Black">Ryan <font color="CornflowerBlue">4314   (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Use in lists
After reading the project page I would like to bring up an example of possible overuse of NFC see here. Should the images be removed? --DFS454 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite yes. Way too much overuse, particularly given they are all (or most, I assume) living persons. --M ASEM  21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The images are being used as fictional characters, not the actors, but it's still massive overuse and I've removed the cast pictures. There's still probably overuse, so I've tagged it and will go back and look at it soon. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated another of the images in the article for deletion, but more removal is needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mis-tagged or really FU?
This somewhat stems from File:IMG 1961.JPG which is an image of what seems to be a magazine cover (Described as "People's Mother at 90 - Ludu Daw Amar's 90th. birthday book of tributes" in the article is it used in). I had re-tagged it with Non-free magazine cover (perhaps Di-dw no source might have been better?) in December and it was reverted to GFDL-self by the uploader in January. Part of the larger issue are like images found in the Ludu Daw Amar article, in particular under the "Publications" section. The idea of simply taking a photograph of a magazine or book cover and claiming it is "self" authored is not fully correct, and perhaps my retag as a non-free cover was not fully correct either. What is the correct license tag for these? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-free magazine cover seems appropriate &mdash; a photograph depicting substantial non-free content is non-free, just as a collage of non-free images is non-free. — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 06:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your tag was absolutely correct, unless the uploader is the owner of the magazine (in which case he/she can e-mail OTRS). I've reverted. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged three other images on the article as non-free as well. I've informed the uploader that photographing copyrighted works does not transfer rights to him. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stamps
As with other fair use images a critical commentary should be permissable in a article on a stamp subject. One of the themes which could be discussed is the cultural value which the stamp assigns to the subject. Inwind (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you are asking this because a stamp image you uploaded was nominated for deletion earlier this month and deleted because its use was in showing the subject of the stamp in a no-stamp article. Indeed if there is substantial critical commentary about the stamp it may be used in a non-stamp article under the fair-use criteria, but just discussing the subject of the stamp, who designed it and why it was issued is not sufficient. A true critical commentary is necessary and will no doubt be assessed on an individual basis. There are several stamp images that are currently being used improperly that fail the fair-use criteria for stamps and they will be put up for deletion soon, or removed from those articles where they do not comply with the criteria. A good illustration of critical commentary, though not of a stamp but a baseball card, is Billy Ripken. ww2censor (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ViperSnake151 has just modified the stamps and currency non-free content criteria adding that: "Critical commentary can however be made on its presence in a article on its subject, such as the work being an example of how well-known or famous a subject is for example." This change goes way beyond what has been the previously limited criteria and in that case would ALLOW VIRTUALLY ALL stamps to be used under the fair-use criteria because few postal authorities issue stamps for non-famous people. This should be discussed thoroughly first before such a major change in criteria is made. ww2censor (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've just reverted back - This is a long-standing section that requires strong evidence of consensus to change - Peripitus (Talk) 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems Inwind is rather unhappy with the non-free criteria for postage stamps and has left me a message on my talk page trying to justify the use of stamps in non-stamp articles but now he has started another discussion of the same topic at the Editor assistance page. The place to discuss non-free content is right here, but I doubt the community will change a well established criteria even though there are several stamp images that contravene the criteria. To that end, I have recently reviewed all the non-free stamps and intend to start nominating them either for deletion and removing them from biographic articles where they contravene the non-free criteria for stamps. ww2censor (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see an RFC on this. It seems to me that even though we don't use a stamp as a primary indentifying image of a subject (presumably, because there might conflict with finding a free image), nevertheless if someone has been given the honour of being depicted on a national stamp or national currency, that is a rare and notable honour, and it is of legitimate interest to show how they were depicted.  Jheald (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which can be done by stating and linking to the currency page. Yes, it is very much a high honor to be recognized in this manner (less so for stamps than coins), but the presence of the image depicting this is of little value.  Only if that stamp/coin image significantly changes that person's image (better or worse) to a point that it is documented that way should it be included; since most stamps/coins only use images of deceased people, this rarely happens.  The only case that I can think of that comes to mind is the "Old Elvis" stamp, and even that's a very very weak case.  --M ASEM  14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Consider Isaac Newton for example. The bio article for him discusses that his image appeared on the final series of £1 banknotes, issued from 1978 to 1988 by the Bank of England. IMO, it would be a valuable and entirely appropriate addition to the article to show how he was portrayed on that banknote, and what other Newton-related iconography was shown with him.
 * Also, for the record, note that the image does not currently appear on the Banknotes of the pound sterling page; and no doubt if it did, some would start complaining, "do we really need to show every banknote of the UK ever?" (Though IMO that would indeed be an entirely appropriate and encyclopedic thing to survey). Jheald (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the banknote page does not show all past notes (which I did find surprising), I can see including it here, but it would be nice if there was more text to justify it, such as a quote from the artist that designed the note as to what parts of Newton he was trying to capture. I'd be hesitant about an all-out rule (if you let coinage go, then stamps will be next, followed by magazine covers, and...). --M ASEM  23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jheald. Having one's image on a stamp and/or currency is a notable event that should be discussed in that person's article and the image should be permitted to be included.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Providing the inclusion is actually discussed in detail (a few lines discussing the actual appearance, or a paragraph/section discussing the inclusion on the currency) I think the inclusion of an image of said currency would be appropriate. It is, after all, the likeness that is being discussed- this is not the same thing as, say, a book cover being included because a book has been discussed. It's more like quoting from a poem that is discussed. The appearance of the currency itself is the concern of the article, and so, if the inclusion is notable and worthy of mention in the article (as I would think it usually would be) then an image is warranted. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's no longer so often the case that appearing on a stamp is a rare honor - many countries now put out masses of stamps depicting celebrities with the goal of appealing to collectors. Even in countries with more restrained policies, the stamp appearance is worth a textual note, but the stamp itself is unremarkable in appearance, there's little to say about the image. An article using a non-free stamp image should have *something* to say about the design or appearance of the stamp, otherwise what's the point of including the image? I think the bar can be low - "the stamp is orange and green because that was the honoree's favorite colors" or "the cigarette in the original photo was airbrushed out" (a real example btw) is sufficient. It's revealing that most stamp image inclusions don't clear even that bar, a sign that they really are being snuck in as decoration. Stan (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that being depicted on a stamp is sufficient to warrant some notability of a subject then we need to decide if that is enough for Wikipedia to allow use of that stamp in an article about the subject of the stamp. If this were to become the accepted criteria, virtually all stamps illustrating subjects that have a wiki article could be uploaded. To me that seems like too wide a net to cast for allowable non-free content. With about 10,000+ stamps being issued each year worldwide I believe there are actually few stamps that really warrant inclusion in non-stamp article as a right because little can be written about them other than what and why the subject is shown and the wider production details. Most uses do not even rise to that level. My understanding is that images should provide readers with a greater understanding of the subject through the inclusion of the stamp image but mostly they don't do that at all. Many people and subjects are really not notable enough for the stamp to provide that greater understanding of the subject unless there is some "substantial critical discussion" about the stamp itself. That has been and should remain the criteria.


 * I can't agree with Jheald or 2008Olympian that being depicted on a stamp is sufficient notability and as WikiProject Philately members and active philatelists, Stan and I may have a somewhat better understanding of the notability of the subjects illustrated on stamps than other editors, though I don't set the bar as low as Stan does in this regard. The idea that the inclusion of a stamp will add greater understanding is of course valid but without the substantial critical discussion they should not be allowed. To this end, as I mentioned previously, I recently reviewed all the non-free stamps with a view to nominating for deletion all stamps that fail the criteria. Of the 350+ non-free stamps I listed all the stamps that are used properly or where the fair use is marginal; the remaining circa 165 are mainly biographic uses that should be deleted, or removed if used properly in another article. ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed Ww2Censor. I do note that editors need to be aware: if reliable third parties have not written about the stamp in relation to the article it's used in then we are straying into original research by asserting it is important. If noone (reliable) in the wider world cares that is on a stamp then (enough to write about it), for wikipedia it is not important. This is not unique for stamps but covers all facts. What I see going on is editor's inserting their own importance criteria, independent of what reliable sources say. If sources say that the stamp is significant for then it is important and we can justify inclusion. If the sources don't even mention it then it isn't important and we should not include it. - Peripitus (Talk)
 * Multiple stamp catalogs mention honorees and their stamp appearances, not to mention philatelic newspapers and journals, and they can be pretty flowery in their assertions of significance. So for quite a few stamps you're going to find assertions of significance in reliable sources, and aside from the money-grubbing renditions of Marilyn Monroe on a stamp of Guyana and the like, I think it nearly always makes sense to mention someone's appearance on a stamp --- in the text. The justification for the non-free image must somehow derive from something notable about the visual appearance of the stamp. Also, since stamp images of people are almost always based on some other original image, we can't justify on the basis of "only image available". Stan (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think several concepts are being confused here. First, "notability" is not relevant here.  An article needs to be notable; not every fact in an article does.  Thus it is not relevant whether it is common or rare ("notable") to appear on a stamp.  And, the fact that it might be "notable" that X appears on a stamp does not itself justify the use of a non-free image of the stamp.  Second, there is no issue of "original research"; the fact that X appears on a stamp is established by a stamp catalog (or by the stamp itself, which after all, has been "published" and is verifiable).


 * The real issue here is copyright and the proper question, I think, is "significance", about which the guidelines state:
 * "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."


 * If the article simply states that "X appeared on a stamp of Bolivia", then I don't think an image of the stamp would "significantly increase readers' understanding..." beyond the fact itself. However, depending on the facts and circumstances, it might. For example, if an article on Mao states that "An image of Mao routinely appeared on all stamps of China during the years 1949-1959" (I just made that up), then an example of a representative stamp might fit the criterion, because the appearance of the image itself (iconic image of Mao) could enhance readers' understanding.  Ecphora (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying #3a as applying to both per article and throughout WP
Two recent issues with NFCC (the sports logo, and now the use of book covers on the Intelligent Design page) point to a potential difference of opinion when it comes to #3a, minimal use. It does not specify at what level that should be applied. Myself, a strong supporter of this policy, would put the free content mission and this together to imply that it is a minimal use throughout WP - meaning that not only on articles do we use only what is needed, but also consider the number of reuses of an image and try to keep that down as much as possible. Those that are less inclined with this policy tend to read it as only applying to the number of images to articles.

Now, we are still undergoing discussions at both these areas, but I think we need to add explicit language to #3a to reflect if it is simply minimal use across an article, or minimal use across all of WP. This will help to prevent a number of significant disputes in the future. --M ASEM 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I to think it's obviously intended to imply that the use of non-free content should be minimal across the board. If you dig back though the page history it actualy did specify that minumal use applied both to individual articles and Wikipedia as a whole at some point, my understanding is that at some point though various iterations trying to craft a more "to the point" wording the "Wikipedia as a whole" bit got cut because it was seen as redundant (not disputed). I scertainly can't find any previous debates that explicitly say that the wording should be revised to suggest that minimal use only apply internaly on each article. --Sherool (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but a major issue in the issue of sports logos is that those looking to keep, among other things, is their claim that #3a only applies to the article level. I think this needs to be explicit if it is intended (as I believe) to be across the board. --M ASEM  16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I managed to track down the relevant discussion I mentioned: NFCC_Criterion 8 debate and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive 35. The "old" wording was : 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.
 * The argument that introduced the re-wording was aparently: Upon consideration, the clause concerning Wikipedia as a whole does not belong in the criterion. It 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.—DCGeist (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much an argument that the overall use of non-free content was irrelevant, but that spelling it out was redundant (that's my reading of it anyway), the issue of the same image appearing once in multiple articles was raised briefly but never rely adressed as most of the debate focused on other aspects of the wording. I would propose we simply re-introduce the "Wikipedia as a whole" bit since there was never an obvious consensus to remove it, people just sort of agreed on a wording that didn't include it at the time since most of the focus was on ammending the second part that implied that one use was always considered minimum, the changed version made it clear that minumal use could very well mean no use at all. --Sherool (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this needs some consideration, before we rush headlong to make changes.
 * My understanding of "minimal use" is that it is intended to reflect the legal position, i.e that minimal means "no more than needed to achieve the particular identified purpose".
 * So in thinking about whether a use is "minimal", we need to look at that in conjunction with what purpose the image is claimed to be serving.
 * We also need to consider that the purposes that are considered acceptable in policy (as making a "significant" contribution) vary for different classes of image, depending on the amount of their copyright taking. So, for example, we are most careful about agency photos potentially being used to illustrate what the agency is selling them to illustrate.  On the other hand we are comparatively relaxed about, say, logos and cover images, which have been created for the deliberate purpose of making something more identifiable, being used for the purposes of identifying such things.
 * We should recognise that there is value in an article being substantially complete in itself, and printable as a stand-alone item, without the reader having to cross-reference to a myriad of other articles.
 * I don't think there is much of a problem, either in copyright law or in policy, with using images that we accept for identification wherever we consider they may be appropriate and helpful.
 * On the other hand, other images I do think we may need to be more careful about. (I believe an early test-case that used to be on this policy page was Picasso's Guernica, which the Picasso estate is somewhat touchy about unauthorised reproductions of).
 * For these more tricky images, I think a reasonable thought-test to ask ourselves how likely it is a reader would look up, check, and if appropriate print the detail page anyway, even if the image were included in the more general survey page. (Or vice-versa, would they look up the general page anyway, even if what they'd actually looked up on WP was the detail page).
 * If the answer is they probably would look at both pages, then I think there is a fair case that we don't need the image twice. On the other hand if naturally they probably wouldn't look up a second page, then I think there may be a fair case that the image may be adding significantly to the first page.
 * This is the kind of balance I think we should be understanding in this directive for "no more use than needed to achieve the particular purpose". What I think isn't appropriate is any kind of crude automatic blanket ban on second copies or even further uses.  Jheald (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "standalone page" argument is an interesting one. One argument I've heard on the topic of logos is "it's only one click away, if users want to see the logo they can click that link".  That's never an argument I've found to be persuasive because: a) users won't know there's a logo there, b) it defeats the purpose of easy identification (which is why logos exist), and c) it's not clear to me why Wikipedia's interests as a free encyclopedia are more served by having a non-free logo on one page rather than two.  That pages need to be split is a style concern.  If a user over the course of reading about a topic will encounter a non-free image, I'm not sure why people get so riled up about which page that image appears on.  It still made that user's encyclopedic experience equally non-free. Oren0 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because people's opinions conflict, and because the policy is open ended and flexible and subjective and what have you, it leads to conflicts (and lots of them). Not everyone can agree. It seems like it would be easier in the long run if we DID have a specific limit on non-free content, for example saying a non-free image can be used once and only once (or like our German cousins, allow zero). There are these persistent disputes because our rules are not clear (but then again, perhaps our rules are not clear because we had to leave them open ended because we couldn't agree on anything in the first place). Perhaps we will always have silly non-free image disputes, but I can't help thinking if we at least made the rules less open ended, we wouldn't have many more of these disputed.-Andrew c [talk] 19:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps if we made the rules more specific we'd get into endless wikilawyering arguments about whether the precise wording applied to an equally precise situation. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles with possible non-free overuse issues
I spent some time a while back working my way through the old list of articles with 10 or more non-free images in them. The current version is at User:Black Kite/NFList. (Shortcut - WP:NFIO). Note that a lot of these articles have been fixed since the list was created, but if anyone is bored it might be worth having a look at some of those marked as "Not Done" or "Not Checked". Enjoy. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a current listing of overused images being built up at User talk:FairuseBot/log. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

NFC image gallery, or not?
Has anyone else found Category:Images of musical groups? These are gallery's, mostly of non-free images. They are not directly tied to any one article and they aren't really "mainspace" gallery's (articles) but it seems it may be a cheeky way to circumvent the various image guidelines and policy we have concerning gallery's. I am also posting this on the Image use policy talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a __NOGALLERY__ magic word on categories that contain non-free images. I'll add some. Kusma (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually most of the categories only contain album covers, and might be worth renaming. Kusma (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of the subcats already have them. This has already been discussed a long time ago. Hence the __NOGALLERY__ . Garion96 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Maybe I should have also asked - is this even needed? Considering the amount of music related articles and images we have it seems odd we have one category, only for images of musical groups, that only contain 10 "subcategories" (groups) and one image not under any sub-category. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorizing non-free images is perfectly fine (as long as we aren't displaying them). For example Category:Video game covers.  --M ASEM  15:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that we only have 15 categories for album cover art by band (and over half of those seem poorly named). I've asked on the categorization page why this is so? Seems like we have 15 too many categories, or tens of thousand too few.-Andrew c [talk] 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How does this image rate?
I am wondering if I could get some eyes on image, currently being used in the developing article, Harlington Wood, Jr. I received a message that it needed a rationale, which I then updated. I would like to get some assistance from more experienced hands as to how to tighten up the rationale a bit better. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Computer screenshots
A suggestion: computer and video game screenshots should always be kept at the original resolution. Resizing too often makes the shots blurry and ugly, any text in them becomes nearly unreadable, and thus the image does not depict the original content fairly. -- Stormwatch (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The original resolution could be enormous. There is a clear consensus that the use of non-free content should be minimalised, and this includes lowering image resolution. There's no reason to treat screenshots as different to all other non-free media, which is also reduced in quality by size reduction (which is the point). J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the sense of this? Screenshots have no commercial value per se, and making them low-quality makes Wikipedia less informative. Say, you try to get a glimpse of what the new Operating System XYZ looks like, and you have to check elsewhere, because the image here looks like crap. I thought information was Wikipedia's whole raison d'être, or am I mistaken? -- Stormwatch (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Minimal, per the law, means "no more than needed to achieve the purpose". If a smaller image would achieve the purpose, then the larger image is not minimal.  On the other hand, if the smaller image would not achieve the purpose, because it would not convey the desired information, or would misrepresent in some important way the image being conveyed, then the larger image might be minimal.


 * If resized shots are blurry and ugly, and would misrepresent what the image is being used to convey; or if significant text is made unreadable, those could indeed be arguments for a larger image.


 * The important thing, if a larger image has been selected, is to state in the image use rationale why in that particular case the larger image is needed. No blank cheques.  But no blanket prohibitions either.  Jheald (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jheald. If a larger image is genuinely required, so be it. Otherwise, keep them small- there's no reason for them all to be "actual size". J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also no reason for screenshots to be not the actual size when presenting them for the purpose of critical commentary and analysis. Please, read the ENTIRETY of NFCC#2, and understand the key goal: the reason we use a smaller size of image is in the event of a full-size image that could replace the original market role of the copyrighted media.  A screenshot of software is inherently incapable of doing this, as it is the software itself that is copyrighted, not a picture of it.  You simply cannot take a screenshot of copyrighted software and use it to deprive the copyright-holder of income of their software. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 18:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is every reason- storing more non-free content than we need to is obviously contrary to our goal of minimal use of non-free content. In practice, no, screenshots are not much good on their own, but the screenshot itself is still copyrighted, and so must be treated as such. For instance, a screenshot could make a great advert, poster, desktop background or something similar. We can't second-guess whether content will be used for any profit-making reason; we have to treat all non-free content as equally non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue raised at WP:DRV as Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_11. Jheald (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RBD
Since I have received some resistance, I invite comments on this edit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed again and two tagged as no rationale (one also missing a licence) - will keep a watch on this - Peripitus (Talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A different IP re-instated the images again. I removed again. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-prot for a week now - Hopefully this will encourage them to login so at least we can have a conversation - Peripitus (Talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free reduce bot proposal
A bot has been proposed to deal with the non-free reduce backlog. The discussion is at Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2, and everyone is encouraged to participate and assist in establishing consensus. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

NFC?
I'm not sure if there's somewhere more appropriate to ask this or not, but this is a good start. Based on the many precedents (such as the many, many images in categories such as these), does File:Arrested Development logo.png meet the threshold of originality for copyrights? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

History of graphic design
Would someone kindly look, boggle and help educate the uploader. I've dropped him a note but I would appreciate some assistance....obviously a good editor but I think NFCC#3a just went out for coffee - Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My brain just derailed. Obviously this can't stand. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at least that article does contain what we are always asking for: analytical commentary. I'd rather have one article with a million images like this, than a million articles with one image each where it's only used in our "normal" way as a dumb, mechanical inserted infobox (for "identification") NFCC#3a "minimality" is always relative to the task at hand. If the topic of your article is such that you have a lot of analytical commentary to make, you may need a lot of images. I'd just ask him to check for OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it that way - you have a good point. Certainly better than List of The Future Is Wild species which I don't have time to deal with tonight - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you're just envious because it doesn't feature intelligent mega-onychophora. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed that one. There might be a case for a headline image, but that's just ridiculous. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 13:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited
Appears to be an extensive gallery of non-free images at List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited. Thoughts? (see Category:Mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited and it's talk page- as well) Hmm... one is up for deletion.-Andrew c [talk] 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's massive overuse. The use needs to be deprecated. Also see at List of mills in Shaw and Crompton. Contrast List of mills in Longdendale and Glossopdale. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that most of the images in the Shaw and Crompton list are in fact free, taken by their various uploaders.
 * This is actually a fabulous resource - these are major local landmarks, and important industrial history. Of course it's harder to get images of mills that are no longer there.  What Clem has found is potentially a wonderful resource, if we could get copyright clearance to freely redistribute scans of a particular resolution.  The problem is that it's damn close to being an orphan work.  There's a reason those mills aren't there any more.  The company that produced the booklet is now defunct, as is the company that took over what was left of it, as is the company that was formed from what was left of that.  But who knows: if we could find somebody to own these photos, and waive their rights to a set of low-resolution scans, that would be a great result.  Jheald (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed some, more need to go. I've also notified the uploader about the issue. Jheald; yes it would be wonderful if we can get clearance. Great images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, first may I assure you that I fully intend this to be a cool dispassionate debate. There are five issues at stake
 * Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
 * The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
 * The guidelines and the way they are laid out
 * how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
 * How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

Since uploading these images, I have amassed a lot of insight into the end user experience, and have started giving advice on commons to the effect of 'Fair-use--don't bother'.

A little history: I have had the said promotional book on my shelves for forty years, my mother was presented with a copy when she left LCC in 1950. I haven't seen another copy anywhere. The company which in 1950 was a quasi- governmental organisation was privatised and merged out of existence. For about two years, I had considered whether the images were important enough to upload, which they are and whether they were deemed fair use. I have continued to look at the description of fair use and concluded that a strong case can be made. So I uploaded. Firstly, without the fair use statement. I then added the 10 part fair use statement. Each was catted into Category:Mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited and built into the list- List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited. The mills page contained a statement of usage, and its talk page a model fait use template. With the illustrations, it was possible to locate and geotag each mill- often this had to be done by using old maps and deducing the foot print of the mill from the photo, and finding a black splodge on the map- that was just labelled 'mill'. More detail was then Googled, to try and give a complete description of a building that was pivotal in the developement of a community but now is lost. Often the architect could only be deduced by looking for known detailing in the photo. Still a work in progress. In some cases the detail gleaned is approaching the level where it could be a stub article in its own right- but I have yet to establish whether they satisfy, Notability. There is a talk page on the category, and there is a talk page on each image, and there is a talk page for this page.

Firstly, the page is advisory but contains a statement of policy. Each image satisfies each of the 10 conditions of the policy (though fails 7 if the image is removed from this list page).
 * Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
 * Looking at the lead. There is a nutshell guide- which page and images satisfy.
 * Looking at the lead.It states- "However, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects to adopt an exemption doctrine policy, allowing the use of non-free content within narrowly defined limits." Which says to me, that there must be a flexibility of interpretation- and that limitations are restricted to the published policy.

Looking at section ==Non-free image use in list articles==.
 * In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.

i.e. They should be used prudently- which they do. It is even advocating their use.

Even if you look at ==Non-free image use in galleries== you will see from the wording that
 * The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.

which would justify these images- because of their unique nature.


 * Andrew c refers to these as a extensive gallery. I considered this- but could find no policy reference to this term. It is interesting that he refers to this as a gallery.


 * Hammersoft refers to this as a 'massive overuse' but I cant find a policy reference to this either. I can understand and respect the fact they are are trying to police an important policy- but all I find is an advisory statement, which says they should be considered on a case-by-case basis and in the light of exceptions should be very well-justified.

Please could you detail what is wrong with my interpretation.

Ideally, this gallery/list should be marked that it has been considered by the fair use team and stands as Exception, that due to x, y, z falls within the guidelines. The tag could then be used by bots members of the team to award a semiprotected status to the page. Hammersoft good faith intervention last night but 15 items on my watchlist - that and the time that is needed to respond each time a challenge is made is keeping me away from image creation and editing.
 * The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.

There needs to be a process where images can be uploaded and quarentined while they are discussed by experienced editors- sometimes the result will be no, sometimes another expert will obtain copyright clearance see Jhealds comment, sometimes the project or the uploader will be provide a justification that will satisfy the fair use team. A quarentine system would save a massive amount of keyboard time.

That was a proposal for consideration.

Perhaps it is personal, but I do believe that talk pages should be used, and this is the correct way to address contentious issues with fellow experienced editors. I was watching this talk page, because I had run a contribution check on Andrew c, so was aware of his post. I stayed quiet, waiting to see where it led. If I hadn't, I would have been rather surprised this morning to discover Hammersofts deletions- and his PM to me. Sure, I zap contributions by 'fools and bairns' like the best of them, but before I change the work of an experienced editor I do a contributions check, and discuss with him the problem on his talk page. In this case, if I hadn't responded within a few days, I would have contacted WP:Greater Manchester to ask for their assistance.
 * How warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected

Thanks to Hammersofts for the PM- but a RFC would have been more appropriate. As this article had other contributors, it would be correct to discuss the problem on any of the 55 related talk pages. While the matter may have be fully aired here by the Fair Use team, unless the information is disseminated on the pages that a user watches- then it is pointless, and consensus can never be claimed.

That was a proposal for consideration.

It is my opiniion that the ==Non-free image use in list articles== is confusing and needs references. What do I mean. The first sentence means. Images should be used prudently in lists. Instead it says:
 * The guidelines and the way they are laid out
 * In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.
 * confusion between judiciously/injudiciously, judicially/injudicially -see dictionary.
 * sentences should be grammatically simple: Here we start the sentence with a subordinate clause of place modified by conjunction with prepositonal phrase of possession modified by ... the subject is 40 words into this gobbledegook.

Next, the rest of the advice note discusses television and media, and is totally unhelpful for lists of concrete (excuse the pun) objects. This is the advice that the fair use team is trying to follow and the end user with a list of mills is trying to comply with. It needs to be:
 * researched
 * referenced to policy
 * rewritten with a footnote to examples from media.

It seems to me that the guidelines were specifically put together to protect WP from the copyright lawyers at Disney, and are useless outside the world of media.

I am proposing the advice note to be rewitten.

Accepting that uploading 53 "Great images"(cite Hammersoft, 12.2.2009) has used an unexpected and inordinate amount of time, how does the Fair use team propose that it should have been done? What processes did I do wrong? Was there a quicker way? Should there be guidelines written to explain how one shares a resource of 53 images from 1950 with the community? Who has the expertise to apply to a defunct company for a copyright waver? How is it done?
 * How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

I am proposing an advice note to be written and widely publicised.

Postscript: I have reinstated the page while these discussions continue- I do hope that my actions are sanctioned, and the whole experience leads to a better set of guidelines and procedures so we can take a robust line with genuine abusers. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about the fair use of these images - that part is assumed. We are talking about non-free content that hurts WP's mission of free content.  That's what the NFC policy sets out to do.  In this article, the use of numerous images from the book violate two parts of NFC:
 * 3a - minimal use - We strive to use as little non-free content as possible. A picture representation of every element in a related list, without any additional qualifications of why that picture is relevant beyond showing what the buildings look like, is not minimal use.  Furthermore, to me, a layperson in mills, the various differences in the buildings means zilch to me, they all look like warehouse-like buildings.  That is, once you've shown me one, the others I can envision.  Thus, that's another problem with minimal use.
 * 8 - significance - Non-free content must help with the comprehension of the written text. A simple picture of a building stating "this is it" is not sufficient reason to have that picture. Was there something unique about the design?  Did the building's look impact the surroundings any way?  We need more than that to justify it.  Barring the free images, one image to show what a mill building looks like as part of the lede is reasonable in order to put the list in context.
 * There's also some violation of 1 - no free replacement, as at least one element of that list has both a modern free image and a non-free, and that immeditaely means the non-free image has to go. For what it's worth, this list clearly falls into the list advice #3: using one example image instead of several.  --M ASEM  14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not exactly like a cast of actors - you can't gather them together for a group shot. :-)
 * More to the point, the reason WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC exist in the form they do, and with the guidelines we have, is to make sure that our criteria are basically aligned with the criteria a U.S. court would apply to a U.S. commercial republisher of our content.
 * I do think certainly the best way forward would be to try to find a copyright owner, and try to get them to waive their rights to a set of low-resolution scans.
 * But I also think we need to ask, for images like these in view of their low resolution and negligible commercial value, if there is no prospect that a court would find against any republisher of our content, then is there a single identifiable soul on the entire planet that our removing them actually helps? Jheald (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent, yes, NFC aligns with fair use doctrine as to protect WP. And FWIW Mike Godwin in the last 6 months noted that a gallery of non-free images used via fair use is likely not going to get WP sued.  That still leaves us the disconnect with the free content mission on WP.  While still a technical issue with copyrights, it it done for a very different purpose - making sure WP can redistribute its content - than what fair use compliance is meant to do. --M ASEM  15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is just my point: if there is no prospect that a court would find against any republisher of our content (even a commercial one), then a page containing these images can be redistributed. This is the line we try to protect. Jheald (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't apply our fair use policies based on a presumption that the copyright holder won't sue. That's an invalid argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we apply our fair use policies to test that if a copyright holder did sue, we (and importantly any verbatim reuser, even a commercial one) would win. And in this case, that seems a fair assessment. Jheald (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the material copyrighted? Yes. Therefore, there's only _one_ way it can exist on Wikipedia. That's under terms of fair use. WP:NFCC is the guiding policy, and 50+ fair use images could never be construed as minimal use no matter how you shake it, no matter how little legal exposure one pre-supposes there is. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Free content, as outlined by the GFDL, is not meant to be about legal issues. It is a philosophy about sharing knowledge unburdened by intellectual property law (but unfortunately, due to IP law, has to be written in terms of it).  We want to minimize the use of anything that burdens that goal, and that's why there's the NFC policy (which also helps to protect WP for legal and fair use issues).  --M ASEM  16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And what we can share freely, we do. But WP:NFC is about non-free content, which we recognise is also valuable to the world, and which we accept so long as it is not edging out alternative free files, and provided it meets criteria designed to make sure it meets the legal requirements for fair use, not just by us but also by any commercial redistributors. Jheald (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to imply how important the free content mission and the impact of non-free content is without separating copyright issues from it, but at the end of the day, it is about who "owns" the material here. Free content says no one does, as everything we right falls into the public domain to be reused without any barriers.  A non-free image, while it can likely be legally distributed and all that without any problems, has immediate restrictions for reuse because of that ownership which may not affect all end users but will affect some.  That's why we want to minimize the extent of non-free content - we want to minimize the size of the group of those that cannot repurpose the content due to IP restrictions.  That's not to say we can't use any as we've recognized that non-free content is sometimes necessary to explain an aspect of a topic, but we still need to strive to reduce when and how much is used on WP as a whole.  That's part of why we have NFC guidelines.
 * (As a side note, I will state that I think there is a fair use problem here, because if, based on the images' description, they are basically all the images of the mills from that company from its promotional book (in other words, a significant fraction of what that book had), that's severe overuse that could land WP in hot water. That's not my place to judge, and consider that entirely separate from the issue of the free content mission.) --M ASEM  16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at any of the key writers on free content, the bottom line that they return to again and again are the freedoms of people, rather than the freedoms of content. And that is why I think my take is different.
 * If you ask what maximises the freedom of people, that's what seems to me drives WP. For replaceable content, clearly the more free it is the better for our readers - and WP quite rightly insists on nothing but.  But for non-replaceable content, it seems to me that what best empowers people and frees people is to present content if we and our redistributors can, so we give the access to it, and then they the readers can benefit from it and decide what in turn they can do with it.
 * There's also an important difference between WP and software. Software is such that most software users don't have the time or ability to take it apart and put it back together again.  So restrictions on any part of the software become restrictions on the whole thing.
 * But WP is not like that - knowledge is what WP is providing (and I suppose text), which any of our users can take it apart and put it back togther in a different way. That's why it doesn't make sense to think of non-replaceable non-free content "tainting" WP in the way that it genuinely might "taint" a software package; because it is easy for any WP user to remove for themselves anything non-free, and still be left with all the value of what is left.
 * And that's why I think it's worth reflecting on how WP presents its key goals - they always talk about maximising what we do provide, never maximising what we don't. The law of course requires that we use no more content under fair use than serves a given purpose; and certainly it's the free content in Wikipedia that we can provide that is our core mission. But that is to maximise what we can offer the world, not to minimise non-free content for its own sake. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion, that we can host what content we will, and defer the decisions on copyright to other holders has been debated before. It's failed before. It fails now. If it were a valid argument, we could include as much copyrighted work as we felt like, and not worry about the consequences. The bar here is set considerably higher. You are quite in error. We most emphatically do maximize our limitation on non-free content. Failing to do so undermines our mission. We must, can, and do minimize fair use as much as possible to the point where removing it any further would significantly impair a reader's understanding of a topic.
 * Showing 50+ images of cotton mills that, to a lay person, look largely the same...big, many windows, stack, industrial looking, does nothing to improve a reader's understanding of the subject. If the image was historically significant, say the mill on fire or some such, or there were architectural details that set it apart and were notable enough to be worthy of discussion then maybe a case could be made for inclusion. But, including 50+ images purely for illustrative purposes is extremely far in excess of our purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. The fair use test in U.S. law is no pushover. We certainly can't host whatever content we will.  That is why NFCC are written the way they are, to make sure that we and our commercial reusers stay on the right side of it.
 * What depresses me is that despite what must be two years of hearing you quote slogans, I have never heard you say who you think your line is benefiting - and every time I have asked that question you have always shied away.
 * Policy recognises that good use of non-free content can be entirely complementary to our mission, and is an important part of helping the world nearer to our vision. Jheald (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Showing all the images may be more than needed to improve reader understanding of what a cotton mill looks like. But it certainly improves understanding of what these cotton mill looks like.  For example, I have ancestors who were connected with the Waterside Mill at Disley in the 1820s (a little to the south of these ones). I would be hugely interested to know what it looked like at that time.  Similarly, these mills were the major employers in their areas.  Whole towns sprang up around them.  To somebody who lives in that town, who is interested in its history, this article with its detailed pictures is fantastic.  A picture of a completely different mill in the next town simply isn't a substitute.  So, if we and our reusers can host these images legally, we should, because to somebody who is specifically interested in the cotton mills of say Shaw and Crompton or wherever, the images do add very significantly to their understanding of the subject they're specifically looking up -- in a quite different way to a generic picture of a generic mill.  Jheald (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who benefits? Every single person on the planet who is forbidden from obtaining access to the sum of human knowledge because it's locked up behind copyrights, subscription fees and purchase costs. You would have this project encumbered with so much non-free content as to make it impossible to distribute the content. Veganism parable. Your stance is flatly wrong. If your stance were correct, and how a building looked in the 1920s is fundamentally important to reader's understanding, then every time the outward appearance of a building changed an image should be included. We wouldn't even do that with free content much less non-free, in an article such as this. If the changing outward appearance of a building were notable for some reason and we had a separate article on that subject then maybe, but not in passing in an article such as this. Show many any article on Wikipedia with 50 fair use images that passed muster and is accepted as being minimal use. Any. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You would have this project encumbered with so much non-free content as to make it impossible to distribute the content. Do at least read what I have written. The test exists exactly to draw that line.  The non-free content we allow is that which we are confident can be distributed in our articles, even by our commercial redistributors.
 * As for Angr's parable, it was roundly rejected when he first presented it, and it still doesn't make any sense. Enwiki is not a free-content-only project, and has never set out to be.  Our vision is about people sharing in all knowledge, not just free knowledge. The comments of Wikidemo and Duae Quartunciae are particularly on point in that discussion.
 * And there I must leave it for the weekend. Jheald (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Knowledge, as in fact, is not copyrightable. As to the parable, you discount it. Yet, Jimbo Wales, our Founder, seems to think rather highly of it . I'll follow Wales' banner rather than yours. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to "how it should have been done". In the case of notable mills such that the mill would have its own article, a fair use image could be used if no free license alternative was available or could be created. In the cast of mills that do not have their own article, and instead appear only on a list, the use of a fair use image to depict the mill is not supported. We do not support list articles (or really ANY article) containing 50+ fair use images. This use must be deprecated. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is good to see how much we do agree on. The debate seems to be about the interpretation of WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC is easily dismissed as there are no other images available of the working mill.  If, WP:NFCC is aproblem at the moment for any mill-that needs to be flagged so the text becomes a little more pointed- but the article really is only at  'c' quality, and as it progresses to FL this will be addressed in any case. It is a chicken and egg situation, it is only with the image in place that you have enough information to place  certain mills- for instance you ascertain whether a mill is a ring or mule mill by the height of the floors (that can be taken from the photo). This takes editing to time- there are plenty of references to remembering that articles are a work in progress when making assessments. WP:NFCC seems to be the contentious issue, and flicking through the archives it seems that there is a well rehearsed argument that is used here. I have spoken elsewhere about the policy, and en:wikis interpretation of it, put it does seem that this needs to be clarified elsewhere, before it is applied to concrete objects (other than media related artifacts where it is my POV that the interpretation is correct).


 * I am in conversations with Courtaulds to see if we can get a copyright waiver statement- though this may not be forthcoming and may take some time.


 * In my post I identified these five issues, are little has been said about the other four. Has anyone any suggestions
 * Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
 * The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
 * The guidelines and the way they are laid out
 * how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
 * How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

--ClemRutter (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether a resource is unusual or no, it does not affect acceptability on Wikipedia. We accept images under either fair use terms or a free license. There's no inbetween on this. It is a great resource; I don't dispute that. But how great it is does not influence how we accept the content. It simply has no bearing.
 * As told, the guidelines and policy would never permit an article to have 50+ fair use images on it. That's far in excess of acceptable standards.
 * Your concerns regarding warnings and deletions may have some merit. I've not considered them for reply because they are a separate issue. If you'd like to raise them as a separate topic on this page, or perhaps Village pump (policy).
 * There's no "team" for fair use. We're all independent editors. There's a fair use project at WikiProject Fair use, but it's barely active (if at all). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've listed the photographs at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Text
Should there be something here about text? People include copyrighted lyrics, poems, translations, etc., in articles, and justify it as fair use. I'd like to know the policy on that. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something here about text. :) Non-free_content. Also helpful in determining policy, though, is C and FAQ/Copyright --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Quotes in context are fine- we can't have an encyclopedia without quotes. Full works, even when public domain, are not appropriate for style reasons (well, perhaps the exception of nursery rhymes or something- extremely short works are obviously an exception). Full songs/poems, or even random lists of quotes from them, should be deleted on sight if non-free and removed if free. Is this in response to a particular incident? Where have you found this to be a problem? J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the section on text. I was actually at WP:NFCC and stopped when I got to 'For the purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license.'  That sentence probably needs to be changed.  Anyway, silly of me to get to the full article and not to realize it was different.&mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidelines, too. This came up at Mikhail_Lermontov, which used to have Vladimir Nabokov's translation.  I replaced it with one of my own.  Understandably objecting to the ineptitude of my translation, people have twice restored Nabokov's translation, and I've reverted both times.
 * As for having the complete poem there, I'm in favor, not only to show what Lermontov's poetry was like, but also because as a citation shows, it's his correct prophecy of his death. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there seems to be a potential policy conflict. WP:NONENG says, "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."  On the other hand, the idea that we should avoid fair-use material implies that we should prefer our own translations to outside ones.  (I prefer "prefer to" to "prefer over".) &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When translations published by reliable sources are free, there's no conflict. We may use all that may be appropriate of Charles Eliot Norton's 1892 translation of The Divine Comedy, though we can't use Dorothy Sayer's version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right&mdash;I should have limited to my comment to the situation where the source is free but no acceptable translation is. There are many examples: Kierkegaard, The Dream of the Red Chamber, etc. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this like a free license?
http://www.larryelmore.com/faq.htm says "Q. Can I use your images?

A. You can use the images. All I ask is that you give me credit and make a link back to my website. Thank you for asking!" - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like Template:Attribution, but it may be best to e-mail the person and ask if derivative work and commercial work is allowed. Since this is a commercial illustrator/artist, I'd be surprised if this artist was actually releasing all images on the webpage under a free license.-Andrew c [talk] 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, a lot of these are things like Dragonlance cover art and DnD cover art, which was probably commercial work sold to TSR and Wizards of the Coast and other companies. That leads me to believe that those companies probably own the copyrights to those images (while Elmore may have retained rights to show the work in a portfolio setting). It seems almost implausible that it'd be possible for us to take say the cover of Time of the Twins (which is available on the webpage) and post it under a free license here on wikipedia where someone could then use is commercially.... -Andrew c [talk] 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

image
Can I use the image of this person from this biography page? It states that press release photos are not necessarily free to use, but the Fed is sort of a government institution. Thanks 161.150.2.55 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres06.htm
 * The images on that website are not automatically public domain- it would not be covered by this template. A brief search has not found any copyright info, but we have to assume that things are copyrighted until proven otherwise. Posted yesterday, but forgot to sign. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this image meet the non-free criteria?


I nominated the Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson article for GA and a reviewer isn't sure whether this image meets the non-free criteria. I have always thought that it did, but I could be mistaken (I am still pretty new to wikipedia so please pardon my ignorance). Any opinion on the issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. Bad intentionz (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with it. A NFC rationale is provided, and it seems pretty appropriate to the article's subject.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where would this fall
If I wanted to use an image like this, exactly where would it fall on the non-free/free scale. Is it free because it's a personal image of a person's arm? Is it non-free because there is not label clearly releasing it to the public? If it's non-free, exactly what license would I use?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without anything to explicitly say it has a free license for use, we'd need to assume a non-free license; it's also artwork (a derivative of a derivative work) so there's no way it would be free without a free license explicitly stated. (You may wanna try flickr to see if there's a similar image and has been put to CC license). --M ASEM (t) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem, I'll do just that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Userspace
Why can't you use fair use images in userspace? Fangoriously (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We're using others' copyrighted images effectively saying that "we really need to use this image because (a) it's very important to understanding this article and (b) I can't get a libre-licensed one to fulfill its same purpose." There is no need for illustrative copyrighted worked outside of articles, so we don't allow it to prevent overuse of copyrighted material.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

quandry
For the cast section of the article Law & Order: UK, I'd originally used libre-licensed images to illustrate four of the six characters' actors, while leaving the other two blank until such time as I could find free imagery for them (said version). replaced all the libre images with a non-free photo of the entire cast, replacing the free images as well as the lack thereof (said version). Should I leave the latter alone until I can find 100% free imagery? Should I crop the new image or find non-free for those actors solely and replace the libre imagery? I'd appreciate the advice of those who frequent this discussion, as I'm endeavouring to maintain this specific article as free as possible. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not use non-free images just to "complete a set" of images, if the subject can be illustrated by free licensed images (wich I'd say it clearly can in this case) we don't allow non-free ones as "fillers". Personaly I'd say any use of non-free images in that section would fail the significance criteria even if there had been no free licensed images available as it's just a cast list. Both the actors and characters have their own seperate articles . I would not in most cases object to prefeering a "in character" image over a photo of the actor in an article about a spesific character, but this is a list of cast, not characters, and even if it was a list of characters any non-free images should be in the individual articles and not the list itself. --Sherool (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor correction, there are no articles on the chracters themselves, but that doesn't rely change anything. Even a single group cast photo is not rely nessesary to understand the article or section since there is only maybe one paragrap on each character and nothing about their apperance on the show that needs an image to illustrate it. No image would be fine, but we have some free licensed images that are far better than nothing. --Sherool (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a gray area. (1) Non-free_content advices to use cast shots instead of single character images, so the non-free cast shot isn't wrong. (2) Some editors believe that costuming and make-up are important aspects of characters / of the show that (usually) cannot be replaced with images of the actors; other editors would disagree. (3) I have never seen a FAC for a (long-running) TV series where the article was opposed for using a non-free cast shot. Since Law & Order: UK is not long-running at the moment and since the characters do not look much different than the actors, using only the free images would be an admirable role model for future TV show articles. But current wiki-practise would not find anything wrong with the non-free cast shot either, and there is no policy or guideline to "force" the non-free cast image to be removed. – sgeureka t•c 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair?
I've just created this article about a guy who used to run in some pretty distinctive clothing (hospital shirt, gold suspenders and swimming trunks!). At the time he made the front cover of Sports Illustrated. SI have a version of this on their site -. What chance do I have of adding a version of this pic to the article? If so how do I do this?The Hack 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better to find a normal photograph of Meriwether in his running gear rather than a magazine cover but I would say there would be a strong case for permitting the use of a non-free image provided: (1) No free image of him in the relevant attire can be found (2) His unusual choice of running attire has been the subject of independent commentary. (3) It can be explained why a text description of his clothing provides insufficient information. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given we're talking early seventies the amount of online image content is a bit limited. There is though some contemporary news coverage of his attire. There's also the fact that his appearance in SI inspired a novel.The Hack 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical replacement
In some cases an image is clearly not replacable; the person is dead or the ship has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. In some cases an image is clearly easily replacable, like a photo of a building in New York. What I wonder about is: if an image is in theory replacable, but to do so would be expensive or difficult, should it be deleted immediately? There are two possibilities: the fair use image is deleted right away, or the fair use image is deleted only if and when its free replacement is eventually uploaded. Here are a few hypothetical examples of "expensive or difficult to replace" cases:


 * A person or object to whom access is severely restricted. For example:
 * A recluse who never goes out and rejects all visitors;
 * A rare diamond or painting stored in a vault that is only revealed to prospective buyers;
 * An underground bunker of the CIA that requires high security clearance to access;
 * A deep undersea cavern that requires expensive robotic equipment to photograph.
 * A person or object that is very difficult to locate. For example:
 * A fugitive who has been hiding from police for 10 years;
 * A stolen diamond that is being sold on the black market.
 * A photo that one would have to endure hardship to reproduce. For example, it may require trespassing or violating a museum's photography rules to reproduce.
 * A photo that can only be reproduced by first constructing an expensive artifact. For example, if there are no free photos of a particular type of rocket that no longer exists, you could in principle build such a rocket; but this is extremely expensive.
 * An image for which you could in principle purchase the copyright from the legal copyright owner, but only at enormous cost.

You get the idea. I argue that we must necessarily place limits on what we consider "replacable"; I raise the discussion of what those limits should be and how they should be codified, or whether images should be treated on a case-by-case basis (and if so, according to what guidelines). Dcoetzee 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the CIA bunker may have CIA-produced photographs that are in the public domain, and the recluse may have a non-copyrighted photograph in his high-school yearbook. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Considering that WP:Non-free content makes this note: 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, in which case the use would be acceptable., I think Dcoetzee's examples of what should made exceptions for the use of non-free images in articles should apply. -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Carnildo that treating them on a case-by-case basis is appropriate; however I also think it would be helpful to have a guideline specifying general principles to consider when doing so, so that we are consistent about how "easy" or "difficult" replacement ought to be. Also we should separate the issues of "difficult of replacement" from the very different issue of "informational value" addressed by the "disbanded groups" comment. Dcoetzee 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding museum items, we don't care about the violation of the museum's rules here; that's an issue between the uploader and the museum. As to the exception that Crackthewhip775 notes above, the appearance of individual(s) must be notable in and of itself. Weird Al Yankovic is a good example; his nerdy glasses were part of his shtick, but he got laser surgery for his eyes, and we can't go back in time to get a photo of him back then. An example of an image that doesn't qualify is of someone who was prominent some years ago (politican, sports player) but has since retired, although is still making public appearances. The physical appearance was not central to their notability, so a non-free image is not warranted in those cases.  howcheng  {chat} 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My actual concern about the museum is the "endure hardship" aspect: if we already have a non-free photo of a museum piece, and a person must get ejected or banned from a museum in order to procure a freely-licensed photo of the same piece, can we reasonably ask them to do that? It seems that by asking for a replacement this is exactly what we're doing. Dcoetzee 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use logos
Last May I uploaded File:Air Nunavut logo.jpg to Commons. Now it seems to me that if fair use images of living people can't be used, something I don't have a problem with, why is it OK for File:Airnunavut.jpg to exist? It would seem to me that if the image on Commons is a valid free representation of the logo why is there a need for fair use logos in Wikipedia? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hard-pressed to consider your commons image to be "Free"; it's a photo of a 2D work of art, and thus derivative of copyright and thus non-free. --M ASEM (t) 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the Commons image for deletion. Dcoetzee 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, under commons:Commons:FOP it might be permissible, although that is debatable since we don't know where the picture was taken, and FOP doesn't work in the USA.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was taken here at the airport but I just thought of something else. Does the copyright derivative rule not then make images like File:Fabregas newcastle emirates.jpg non-free? The Arsenal F.C. logo is quite clear there. I'm asking before I take more aircraft pictures and not because I want to go on an image deleting spree. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That would fall under commons commons:Commons:De minimis policy, and would be permissible.  MBisanz  talk 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re MBisanz: My impression is that FOP does not apply here (regardless of nation), because the plane tail is not "permanently situated" anywhere. Images that include logos as a minor element are de minimis, but straight-on photos where the logo occupies the entire frame are another matter. Dcoetzee 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you on the logo as the main element part, but the "permanency" of objects is something that still confuses me. I usually just send to COM:DR and let them figure it out.  MBisanz  talk 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I think there was another one where I got just the tail. I'll have to check. And of course I have yet another question. Can/should File:Air Nunavut.jpg be used to replace the fair use logo? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely yes. (from a non-free standpoint, the "damage" is done to represent the company (that is, a non-free is required here), but it's a much better logo in quality, so it should be used instead.) Above I thought it was the clean logo. As for that being a replacement image, it's possible, but I think that we can accept the use of the non-free logo over the free image of a plane to have a better picture of the logo for the identification of the company.  You can certainly use that free image of the plane to talk about its fleet, but not really for the logo.  --M ASEM  (t) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for the answers. I now have a better idea of what to focus on when trying to get more aircraft images. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of lyrics
The article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara is a song, and its lyrics are included, apparently in full, in the article (in both Croatian and English). I've previously provided a third opinion that including the lyrics in full is unencyclopaedic, so I have some bias here, but I'd be interested in comments on whether it represents fair use. References have been provided for both the Croatian and English version, and it's been suggested that because the song is a "hate crime" that copyright doesn't apply.

So... can lyrics be included in full? Is it correct that hate crimes are exempt from copyright? How do we determine if a song (or other text) constitutes a hate crime?

I'm looking for comments, really - I have no intention of getting involved with the article as, frankly, most of its editors scare me!

Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely not ok and I've removed the lyrics myself. I'm sure others here will back me up. There's that whole free encyclopedia thing we have to worry about. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I suspect that the lyrics will find their way back sooner or later, but that's good to know. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I spoke too soon. The issue seems to be about "hate crime lyrics can't be copyrighted" - is that relevant on Wikipedia (I know our policies go above and beyond mere copyright)? Is there a specific part of policy that we can direct people to? Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would that mean that they are non-copyrightable? I have reverted- unless an explanation is posted, I think we can continue to assume that they are copyrighted. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say, but previous debates on the topic have been fairly odd, with a large helping of "I didn't hear that" and bizarre replies to questions that missed the point entirely. This is not a "normal" article... Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, until someone provides evidence otherwise, normal rules apply. I'll keep removing them. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This dispute (and the "hate crime lyrics aren't copyrightable" argument in particular) has been going on for months. See the talk page for discussions going back to October suggesting the same thing. There's a legion of IP addresses and "new" users all arguing the same thing. I've started an RFC there and requested page protection (since I'm too involved). As to why it's not "normal", you just need to have a glance at WP:ARBMAC to see how much of a mess this entire region of articles is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images used in biography articles
What is the opinion here about non-free images being used in biography articles? The way I see it, the whole range of history falls into five sections as far as biography pictures are concerned: Sections 1, 2 and 4 are no problem. For section 5, WP:NFCC requires people to try and get a freely licensed picture of the person concerned, and non-free use is not allowed. My question is, what is the general approach for people that fall into section 3? Since the person is dead, is is not possible to go and take a photo. If attempts to get an existing photo released under a free license fail, is it acceptable to use a copyrighted image with a non-free use rationale, or not? The two examples I have are J. R. R. Tolkien (the issue arose at this review) and Michael Woodruff, both using non-free lead images to show the subject of the article. I am currently looking for more examples, but would like some opinions here on this first. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Dead people for which no image still exists (obscure figures or those from ancient history).
 * (2) Dead people for which public domain images exist (mainly artworks or late 19thC or early 20thC photos).
 * (3) Dead people where the existing images are still in copyright (early 20thC to present).
 * (4) Dead people where freely licensed images exist or are released (early 20thC to present).
 * (5) Still-living people
 * More examples: Anne Frank. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it time to mention the three non-free images which appear to be un-removable from Featured Article Preity Zinta again? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So it has been discussed before? I'm mainly focusing on the lead images here. For this article, the lead images is freely licensed, right? BTW, a bot request is here if anyone here is interested? Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a group (actually mainly one editor) who defends the Preity Zinta images on the basis that it passed FAC. However, this is how it managed to do that ... <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's... sneaky. You would probably be justified removing the images, or at least discounting the "it's featured" argument. The general question I have is: is it acceptable to have a single non-free image to identify the article subject if no free images are available (e.g. person is dead)? I'd say that for biography articles it would be simple to have a general rule that if there is a free lead image, the bar needs to be set very high to include non-free images elsewhere in that article. If there are no free images, then one (and only one) non-free image may be acceptable to show what the subject of the article looks like. Other non-free images for other purposes (e.g. critical commentary) could still be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, assuming the person cannot be photographed. If it is plausible (a very low bar) that a free image could be created, then a non-free image for identification isn't appropriate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you are supporting the use of a single non-free portrait image for the lead on articles like J. R. R. Tolkien, Michael Woodruff, and Anne Frank? The criteria seems to be: (1) Person is dead; (2) All known photographs believed to be in copyright. I would also add: reasonable search has been conducted in attempt to confirm (2). The final loophole is whether someone should write to a copyright holder and ask if they will release an image under a free license. Should this have been attempted or not? Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the person is dead, and no free images exist, and a reasonable attempt has been made to get an image released as PD, then i think one non-free image for identification counts as fair use, in the same way it would count as fair use of an object. It provides information that only an image can, and is kept to minimal use. But this is the only situtation: i don't think it is acceptable for a living person, if a free image is avaiable (but of poor quality), or for more than one image. I don't think being "iconic" is a reason to breach someones copyright, if free alternatives are available for identification.<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Carcharoth, I think there is a widespread practice that an article meeting (1) and (2) can use a non-free photo for identification if there is no adequate free photo. And I think that is fine, because the point of NFCC banning non-free images for identification in BLP articles is that we want to encourage the creation of free images. If creation is impossible (because the person is deceased) or extremely unlikely (a person held in lifetime solitary confinement) then we have to accept that no free image will be forthcoming. I don't think it's necessary to write to the copyright holder asking for permission; if the copyright holder were the AP, for example, this would be futile anyway. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you see now here, the way Black Kite presented the situation of how I managed to do this is untrue (I'm of course sure that he did not do it intentionally, he just misinterpreted himself the matter.)
 * The article was promoted after Black Kite already changed his vote to oppose. Many editors disagreed with him at this very FAC, and the article got promoted with him oppose still standing there. You can turn to Raul to get the answers. Now, I'm not the only one who defends it, Dr. Blofeld does that too.
 * These images have been there for a long time, their rationales are very well written and elaborated, and they explain why these images are acceptable. To make these images acceptable and make the rationales look good enough, I consulted several editors. I worked too hard on the rationales, discussed it too many times, spent a lot of energy on it, and now I'm exhauted.
 * The article was even featured on the main page with these images being included, so I don't really think there is one determined rule.
 * I have no problems removing the images if they still violate something, but I want to see a broader view from editors discussing the problem. And BTW, the Preity Zinta article is not the problem; the use of FU images in BLPs, especially on actors, is the real problem. Many FAs, from Diane Keaton to Cillian Murphy use FU images. I want this to be resolved once and for all. I want to know if the images are permitted or not. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the area of agreement. All three articles ([Preity Zinta]], Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy) use a free image from commons for identification (in the infobox). It would be bad if that were not true. The other nonfree images in those articles are a different matter. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An image being "iconic" is fine as a reason to include it, but not as an illustration of the person. Instead, the "it's iconic" argument applies only if the image is there to illustrate the image itself- IE "here's that famous image" rather than "here's an image of that famous person". As such, an image like that should not be used in the infobox of a living person, which should be an image to illustrate the person, but should be used whereever the image itself is discussed (which, if it is truly iconic, it will be). However, the fact an image is "iconic" may be an argument to use it over another in the infobox of a deceased subject of whom there is no free image. Finally, concerning the "should copyright holders be contacted"- yes, where reasonable. It's reasonable to expect editors to contact a few copyright holders with regards to pictures of a recently deceased rock star, but not reasonable to expect them to contact copyright holders of images of a World War II general. Common sense applies. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about iconic images or living people at all (except briefly). Those are different subjects altogether. I'm talking about dead people for which no known free image exists and no iconic image exists. Should we just accept that no image will be possible on such Wikipedia articles until the existing copyrighted ones fall into the public domain? When I write stubs on such people, I tend to link to wherever I find pictures of them. I do this for two reasons: (1) so the reader can go and look at the picture; (2) for future Wikipedia editors in 20 years time or so to be able to upload pictures that have become public domain by age (many people don't plan for that sort of thing). But when an article has been expanded and has reached featured article status, it feels silly to say "for a picture of this person, either follow this link, or come back in 20 years time". Having a well-written, educational article on someone (hence my not doing this for stubs), and wanting to use a picture of that person to illustrate it, is, I believe, the classic example of fair-use. I'm aware that the WP:NFC criteria are stricter than fair-use, but if they are interpreted to be stricter in such a way that they exclude educational fair-use, then something has gone wrong, in my opinion (though if the copyright holder objected, that would usually over-ride that argument for me). Does that make sense? If an article is well-written enough to be featured, then the bar for non-free images could be lowered slightly when compared to stubs? Or is that a double standard? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned iconic images, as this is currently in the fair use guideline, yes? Even if a free image is available, a non-free iconic image may be fair use?

"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, in which case the use would be acceptable."
 * And wasn't the Tolkein pipe image called iconic? I'm saying that in such cases, being iconic may be a reason for that to be the one fair-use image chosen, but it is not a good reason to have it in addition to another fair-use image. Especially if it being iconic is just an editors judgement.
 * completely agree with contacting copyright holders if reasonable, and any guideline should say so.<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 08:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked this a couple of months ago, and got a strange response - that having a non-free picture would only be acceptable if you could provide critical commentary on their looks - for a model or actor or something. :S --Malkinann (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if a free image could still be created, then such an image would not be placed at the top- instead, it would be placed next to where their appearance (or that particular photo) is discussed. A non-free "this is what they look like" image at the top of the page should be included only if a free image could not possibly be created. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas Chain Saw Massacre article
This is currently a discussion regarding the inclusion of a video game image for the Texas Chain Saw Massacre article. The discussion can be seen at Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. More opinions are necessary to determine a good consensus.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Userspace part deux
I've been removing non-free imagery from User:Justinduff, but it also contains play buttons for File:03TooLittleTooLate-Preview.ogg and File:07LeaveGet Out-Preview.ogg (both of which lack detailed non-free use rationales). Should these embedded audio also be removed per WP:NFCC? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 06:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my above inquiry, could somebody also help me out here? I'm apparently not getting through to this user re: NFC in the userspace. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left the user a personalized note. I've found that that works better than edit-warring and templating. --Carnildo (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Maximum needed size of fair use images
Recently, I reverted a fair use image of the Seattle Seahawks helmet to the maximum necessary size for one article the image exists in (Seattle Seahawks) where the image size on its long side is 160px. A while later, User:Zzyzx11 reverted back to the image version with 400px long side size noting that all the other helmets are 400px on the long side. In 2006, User:Zzyzx11 cited Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" as the basis for making it 400px. However, even at the time it was a proposed policy, and was never accepted as policy. I left a note regarding this particular issue on his talk page, however this is really a more abstract issue.

Non-free content criteria #3b notes "Minimal extent of use. ... Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."

Fair use images exist in the File namespace solely for the explicit purposes of the Article namespace. They do not exist on their own. This is supported by the fact that we do not permit orphaned fair use media to exist in the File namespace. In essence, having a larger size fair use image in File namespace than used in Article namespace is effectively having an orphaned file size.

The abstract question; why should we retain a higher resolution image in File namespace than the maximum resolution used of the image in article namespace? If we retain higher resolutions of the image in File namespace, how does this comply with WP:NFCC #3b?

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We should just say that files must be only uploaded at the size that they are used in their articles at unless sufficient rationale is provided for its size, and that anything significantly larger is not allowable. ViperSnake151 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be pretty restrictive and a bad idea. In some cases high-res images do no harm to the copyright holder -- SF007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as "Low resulotion" is not defined, this is an ongoing question. I say anything not big enought to allow for professional use is low enough. On a whole, consensus seems that "web resolution" is low enough. For me, that means that fair use images below 500-600 px (half the screen) fits the bill. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But how is an image in File namespace larger than any Article namespace use justified? The actual size is less of the issue here than at what size it is used. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the file use in the article namespace is as a thumbnail usually, most people expect to be able to click on a thumbnail image and see a larger version... not one that is the same size as the one they just saw. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an issue - there are times where's its practical to have the small version ("thumb") in the article to give the flavor while reading but with a click to give more details (File:The Shadow Proclamation by Russell T Davies.png used in The Stolen Earth is a good example: the 180px thumb is sufficient to convey the info, but at "full" resolution, other causal details can be made out but that otherwise don't enhance the article specifically). As long as the actual File: image is not beyond our arbitrary boundary of low-resolution (approximately 0.1M), it doesn't matter about what size is used on the page. Of course, if someone attempts to rationalize out a 1200x900px image that is thumbed to 180px, then there's concern.  That said, there should be attempts to strip out needless decoration and whitespace on nfc, as the drop shadow on the Seattle helmet has (effectively doubling the image size for no new information).  --M ASEM  (t) 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, readers expect to see a larger version when they click on the thumbnail presented in an article. Second, if an actual image size is decided here, PLEASE USE MEGAPIXELS to specify the size (not 400x400 or some such, because that assumes all fair-use images are a perfect square, and not some odd shape). I've suggested using images no larger than 0.8 megapixels in the past which would allow for an image of 1024x768 (typical screen shot size). 0.8 megapixels would also allow for odd shaped images to meet the critera: 200x3600 would come up as 0.72 megapixels, for example (we're assuming a panorama image here). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Hammersoft misunderstood my actual reason for reverted him. What he did was revert to a version uploaded by User:Rick lay95 at 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC), which is a different bit-by-bit image with a shadow effect on the left. When Rick lay95 did that, I quickly reverted him at 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) – but back then the ability to add an edit summary to a file revert did not exist back then, and thus I could only make a comment about it on his talk page, saying to not save over a different looking image.

When Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" was being discussed three years ago, I did in fact expand all of those helmets from 130px in width to 400px in width. When that discussion became inactive, I felt there was no immediate urgency to revert those images back (especially when there always seems to be long, drawn out heated debates here about does and what does not qualify under WP:NFCC). This image has now been reverted to the original 06:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC), 130px version, which should address Hammersoft's concerns. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although by the comments here, there still appears to be no consensus as to what exactly is sufficient resolution/fidelity/bit rate so these images are legible on widescreen high-resolution computer monitors. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)