Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 49

Non-free images in FA?
Reading over the FAC, and the page here, I cannot find any statement that an FA cannot include non-free images. However, this claim was made in the past, and an FA failed as a result. Does such a rule exist? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured articles may use non-free content within the bounds of the NFCC. Featured article candidates are often opposed because of improper non-free content use; it's something that must be taken seriously. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question was if this rule exists. Please, provide a reference to this rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no rule? I think you misread what I wrote? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that an FA cannot use NFC, nor one that NFC must be used in an FA. The only thing FAC will do is really put the NFC rationale under the microscope to make sure it satisfies the NFCC requirements. --M ASEM  (t) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is close to how I saw that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is good. I'm going to try again for ZETA then, but I think the current tag on the image may be wrong. Can someone take a look? My guess is that it should actually be free-use or crown copyright, not PD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead image has no source. By rights, it should be tagged for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is missing all the basic information, author, source, date. It would appear that no one has given it critical review since it was uploaded in 2004. Unfortunately none of the other sources that use the image confirm any useful details. My suspicion is that it is unfree unless you can find its details. ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, ok, this is not the knee-jerk I was expecting. Old images, uploaded before tagging even existed, should be assisted, not drive-by tagged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All files - regardless of age - since March 23 2008, are expected to meet the basics of NFC ( which means things like sourcing, article use, and some basis of a raionale) or can be deleted within 48 hrs, per the Foundation Resolution. We had a grace period of a year for older images. --M ASEM  (t) 14:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maury, it's important to understand that there are the better part of a million files here on Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of them are marked improperly, missing this, that or another thing. There's an absolutely enormous amount of work waiting to be done on images. Uninvolved people, like those to whom you raised your question, don't have an iron in the fire of the article you are interested in. Many people, myself included, are much more interested in people learning how to manage images, even if that learning is sometimes by some harsh methods, than trying to add to our own work in helping an article/image that has no relation to our interest areas. There's just too much work for us to do, and not enough time to do it, for us to do otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the UK govt releases expired Crown Copyright images to worldwide PD (ie it waives it's Uruguay Round rights). As Crown Copyright expires after 50 yrs, image should be PD. Also note, changes to the UK govt's position on copyrighting its own stuff from 1 October 2010 - see Open Government License which is going to release a lot of works that are currently NFC under Crown CopyrightElen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the Crown Copyright/PD situation and can't be bothered to look it up at the moment, but running with your tangent there is OGL ready to be used for any of that newly released material (help prettifying the template would be much appreciated). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a rule that non-free images can't be used on the main page, so as the pic for TFA there, which may confuse some people. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it turns out it is entirely academic anyway, the image is PD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While Crown Copyright expires after 50 years (I am presently holding onto a photograph taken in mid-1960 by the Crown, which will become PD on 1 January), normally there would still be Berne Convention rights to consider, since the US (where our servers are, unless they got us confused with WikiLeaks) does not follow the rule of the shorter term. There is, however, a statement on Commons to the effect that the Crown wishes those rights to be considered waived.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Microbrewery list, being transformed into whole series of articles
I recently removed a large number of non-free logos from Montana Breweries. All of the logos were uploaded and place on the article by User:Dsetay. Discussion between us began at User_talk:Dsetay, where I encouraged him to consider Notability if he sought to preserve these logos by way of creating a myriad of articles for every brewery on that list article. Despite this advice, he is now creating these separate articles, copying content directly from the list article to the new stub articles. Example: Montana_Breweries, copied to Angry Hanks Microbrewery. I rather doubt these articles can sustain separate from the list article. So far, the main source of references appears to be the Montana official state travel site. The articles created so far are: I've asked him to stop, and reconsider his actions. I have to leave, and am hoping another set of eyes can take over on this before the problem becomes worse than it already is. This might be more appropriate for WP:AN/I, but I'm placing it here because the crux of the issue has to do with non-free content and its use. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Angry Hanks Microbrewery (tagged for speedy deletion by someone else)).
 * Bayern Brewery
 * Beaver Creek Brewery
 * Big Sky Brewing Company


 * For God's sake, you're a whiner and jump to conclusions. Just like I did with the original uploading of images, I only did a couple at first to gauge the response.  I added several images to the Montana Breweries page awhile before I added the rest because I was concerned that there was some obscure rule that I was breaking and did not want to waste my time.  Of course, only after I had uploaded them all was I informed in a sanctimonious tone that I had made a mistake.


 * In the current case, I'm expected to believe that Bayern Brewery (the states oldest active brewery) or Big Sky (the largest brewery in the state and 37th largest craft brewery in the country. Moreover, I merely edited the page, not create it) deserves no notability.  Please forgive me that they do not meet the high standards of Bad Frog Beer, Feral Brewing Company, CaraPils, Astika Brewery, and numerous others that are not only stubs, but have no references whatsoever.  (Oops, Feral Brewing Company has a link to a PDF that it won a medal, is that all I need? What brewery still in business hasn't won a medal?)  Rules are rules, but apply them evenly; the Astika Brewery stub has been there for five years.


 * Moreover, I was only going to add several pages to gauge the response. I figured stub articles would give me time to look up more information to justify the claims of notability (that apparently works for the other 422 "Beer and brewery stubs" but I'm sure that 13-word Ninkeberry should get some leeway.  I mean it's been four years, but its from Belgium not the wilderness of Montana.  And Hair of the Dog Brewing Company must be important, it's from Oregon).  I didn't want to go through the trouble of re-uploading images and I thought this would buy me some time.

Dsetay (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, if I have to deal with this sanctimonious, hypocritical BS about notability, please first go through this entire  list since they were here well before any of my articles. For more information please see "Notability in Wikipedia"


 * Notability is a separate issue from non-free content, but as I understand the situation, you were trying to add non-free logos of the breweries to a list of said breweries to which Hammersoft removed. You thus proceeded to create a selection of stubs for each brewery so you could relocate the logos, which is now calling into the question if the breweries are notable.  In general, you are trying to bend the issue around two points, NFC and notability, so that you can retain the images.  The better solution would have been to develop your brewery list article better without having to include images so that you can talk about even breweries that aren't notable within the list itself.  If you then found a brewery that did pass notability (per WP:N and WP:CORP) you can then expand out that article and include its logo there, rather than trying to stub-ify all of the breweries to avoid the deletion of the logos.   WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a fair reason to use here, and if you feel they don't have the notability needed, go ahead and recommend them for deletion. --M ASEM  (t) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I got as far as "For God's sake, you're a whiner" and stopped. I will not debate any issue with someone who feels it necessary to devolve into personal attacks, per my standards on the issue. Please read and abide by No personal attacks. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of note: Both Bayern Brewery and Beaver Creek Brewery have been placed for deletion via AfD by another editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point is that much of these articles was a straight copyvio of visitmt.com and the various brewery websites. I have deleted Bayern Brewery as a straight G12 and removed 60K of Montana Breweries. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope you're happy Hammersoft. Apparently even lists of beers from a brewery and their ingredients can be copyrighted.  Thank you Black Kite, I'm sure the breweries will thank you.  Otherwise they would not be getting credit for such prose as " Caramel flavors, low bitterness, dark red in color" and "German black lager, well balanced hop and malt flavor".  So, I'll go through the entire waste of time of re-describing everyone of their beers.  Then, I'll go through the trouble of contacting the breweries to ask how they would like their beers to be described.  They will then tell me the exact same thing that I had already written down.  You'll once again say that these descriptions that are listed in every other description of their beers is lifted from their website and the circle of idiocy will continue.  Had you gone through actual research instead of pressing a button, you would have noticed that every description of these beers is the same on every website (and that's probably for a reason). But, as long as it makes you feel manly, do whatever the hell you want.  But, you're deletion of Bayern Brewery is just plain harassment; the page was a simple stub simply stating that the brewery was opened in 1987 and calls itself the only German Brewery in the Rockies and follows the German law of purity.  That's copyright infringement?  Please wait while I contact the author of every article ever written about that brewery.  What's next, banning the words 'golden colored' and 'hops'? Oh yeah, you already did. Congrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Wikipedia is not a beer catalogue, and (b) the problem was the prose that was taken from other websites, as well as the beer lists. And yes, when anyone creates an article that's simply copied and pasted from somewhere else, it'll get deleted.  I'm not quite sure how that's harassment.  And you need to wind your incivility in a bit, because people are merely upholding Wikipedia policy here.  Breaking those and then insulting those trying to explain that to you is not the greatest idea here. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's going on here now, but this edit by Dsetay seems rather unhelpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, please stop stalking me and then tattling. Black Kite, do whatever the hell you want with the page; I don't care.  Moonriddengirl, don't yell at me for following  Black Kite's requests to remove all the beer from the page (since it's not a catalog and yet a breweries infopage requests this information, and the legal section definitions are lifted straight from a government website because that seemed important to be word-for-word).  Ah, fuck it I quit. The Wikipedia overlords have spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs)
 * Nobody is stalking you and tattling on you, least of all me. You came to Wikipedia and had a set of conceptions on how things are run here. Some of those conceptions were inaccurate, and caused a problem on which some people attempted to educate you. Nothing more, nothing less. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I didn't intend this to come across as yelling. I said "please" and "thank you" and everything. :) From what I can see, the only issue here is the use of non-free content. We have specific rules related to that, and we just have to make sure that content is handled accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl - this is my last check in, but only to clarify my actions. You did not come across as yelling, I'm just tired of editors like Black Kite and Hammersoft and their condescending approach.  Believe it or not, I do care very much about copyright, but I also care about efficiency.  I felt it would be more convenient for people interested in Montanan Breweries to have access to basic information about each brewery instead of simply having a list of names which would be useful to no one.  There's a thousand places much more reliable than Wikipedia to get that same information.  I chose as my template for each section other brewery pages.  I found the infoboxes the most informative on those sites, and since once cannot add more than one infobox to a page, I chose to do the next best thing and add information that would be available in an infobox to each section (this includes logo, owner, beers etc.) before moving on to more detailed information about history.  Apparently, as I was informed, only breweries deemed notable are worthy of having such information displayed, and then, only on its own separate page.  There's no common sense here.  Brewery logos are widely and freely distributed and if using a logo at a brewery's heading isn't fair and rational, I don't know what is.  You'll notice that it wasn't an aesthetic issue since, as Hammersoft noted, the "Yellowstone Valley Brewery" logo was okay.  And, what is the most basic description of a brewery? When it was founded, where it is, who owns it, what do they sell.  Yes, history is important and so are notable controversies, but that takes more time to research and as far as I know, Wiki articles are not all written at once.  This information is requested if the brewery is "notable", but deemed a violation if it is not?  Yes, I used the breweries own descriptions of their beers; I felt that such simple descriptions (which I did edit in an attempt remove the promotional voice from those that had it) could not be copyrighted.  Again, common sense, you can't copyright a fact.  Still, I give up.  Too many here see their editor status as phallic symbol and not as a position needed to improve the site.  I simply wanted to create a page for Montana's Breweries in line with requests from WikiProject Beer, an any enjoyment I had from working on it is gone.  I'll leave it to those dedicated to memorizing every possible Wikipedia regulation and implied suggestion so as to troll around and enforce them with the compassion of an IRS agent (I've seen some of your other posts and seem to care, but you're an outlier).  If that's the type of community around Wikipedia, I don't want to be a part of it.  So, goodbye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsetay (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel as you do. You're quite incorrect, but you're welcome to your opinions of course. Regardless, several people attempt to help you. Your response has been to personally attack them, and you continue to do so. I fail to understand how you think this improves your argument. It rather does the opposite. If you're willing to engage in discussion without resorting to personally attacking people (such as implying they are trolls), you'll find this a very welcoming place. I'm sorry your experience has been less than what you hoped for. It can improve, but the choice has to be made by you. Nobody here is attacking you, trolling you, or treating you with condescension. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry too, but unfortunately if you can't stick to our policies after you've been politely (and repeatedly) pointed towards them - and copyright violation is something we take very seriously here - then this may not be the best place for you to be. It certainly isn't a case of "memorising every regulation", we simply can't have content here that is copied from a copyrighted website, it's as simple as that.  The initial issues that you met over non-free usage can be complex, I admit, but the ones about plagiarising copyrighted content aren't, and those were the ones I was concerned with. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Magazine covers, and multiples on one article
Do we have any clear policy on use of magazine covers?

Some time back, I scanned some old copies of Fine Woodworking to add cover images to the article. The magazine is highly notable, probably the most important US woodworking magazine, the second worldwide (UK's Woodworker beats it on age). As I had a copy of the rather plain 1st issue and others showing the cover styles of later years, I thought it worthwhile to use three. However I still haven't had time to expand the article (we've all been there). As it was, it's rather an image gallery but with the relevant expansion to the text (it's a significant magazine, the sourcable content is there) it would look a lot more balanced.

Today another editor, doing a purge run through non-free content, removed two of them on the grounds of "over-use of non-free images". It's a fair point, especially with the article in the poor state it's in at present, but do we have any clear statement on this? These aren't just duplicated images, one's a contemporary image, one's the first issue, one's representative of a different cover style they used for a long period. I could fan the same covers out and re-photograph to make a composite, which presumably would meet any policy, but that's not such a usefully clear way to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Three covers
 * Today, one cover
 * Let's say you fleshed out the article, and it was ten times larger than it is now. We'd still want to eliminate the images down to one as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise did with this edit. That is, unless there's significance sourced discussion regarding the covers. The rationales on the images state "To illustrate the history of the magazine, its cover design over the years and its publisher". But, without there being sourced discussion regarding the evolution of the covers, or the design of a particular cover, etc., then it's decorative fluff that has little connection to the article. It becomes a failure of WP:NFCC #8. If illustrating the cover design over the years was, by itself, enough of a justification for inclusion then there'd be no barrier to including ALL the covers of the magazine. Non-free content, beyond a single image for identification of a product/company within certain contexts, is used where absolutely necessary to support discussion in the article text. In this article as is, there's no sourced discussion at all regarding the covers or their evolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguably, there doesn't necessarily have to be sourced discussion of the covers. But at the very least, a major focus of the article would have to be a discussion - in some considerable detail - of the history and evolution of the magazine; and at the moment the article contains not even a peep. If the title has seen some very major changes, then perhaps different news-stand styles could be presented as representative of that, so as to be genuinely adding to reader understanding of the topic.  There are titles, I think, which have gone through very different guises during their history, for which such a case could be made (eg, if a title has made a repositioning from restrainedly up-market to the brashly mass-market, or vice-versa).  But there is no evidence being presented here that Fine Woodworking has undergone any such drastic changes in its nature; so different covers here look like loading up the barest twig of an article with NFC like a Christmas tree.  Jheald (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a discussion about the cover's evolution without being sourced constitutes original research. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article I have in mind has extensive discussion tracing the (wildly varying) market positioning of the magazine at different periods in its run, and some of the office politics behind that. The characteristic covers shown do very much reflect that, and make for a much more concrete reader understanding. The text however does not discuss the covers specifically, so there's no direct OR in that sense, apart from at one point giving examples of the type of people that the magazine was featuring on the cover in that period -- which would be verifiable from the relevant covers themselves.  So there isn't discussion specifically about the evolution of the covers; but the covers shown do very much add to reader understanding of the different positioning of the magazine, the discussion of which otherwise would be rather abstract, intangible and not clear.  The presentation of the NFC is subtle and well done, and in my view is well balanced given the considerable text content; it does not overwhelm the article, nor seem gratuitous.  Jheald (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position and my position on non-free content have effectively no overlap. I'm not interested in attempting to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. With no surprise, I strongly disagree with your statement. Our disagreement doesn't do anything to serve the OP's question. We've debated this before, and frankly I'm tired of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? -- The OP wanted to know whether an article could ever show multiple covers to show the development of a magazine's style. I was merely saying that in my view there could be such circumstances, and I was aware of at least one article that (in my view) did such a thing quite well.  But it could only even possibly be appropriate if a major focus of the article was a detailed discussion of the historical development of the title/brand.  The OP raised the question; that was my response.  It seems to me entirely on-topic.  Jheald (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the virtues of the magazine today is its extremely high production values. They're less noticeable today, as the whole of magazine publishing has improved so much, mostly due to the technology getting cheaper. FWW though was one of the first magazines in such a small niche to look so good. Cosmpolitan looked this good, Checked-Shirt Monthly didn't. This is characteristic of Taunton Press's output (look at Threads too). They see quality as a driver, rather than focussing on cutting production costs. In the 1970s the original magzine was rough, but then they all were. By the late '80s and '90s (the colour-bleed cover) this magazine looked different to the others out on the newsstand. That's a publishing issue more than woodworking, but it's still relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'm asking here in its simplest form is, "Where's the policy that says one magazine, one cover shot?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Already answered. Please read above. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's a combination of NFCC #3a and NFCC #8. For further images to be allowed, they must very clearly be adding something additional and significant to reader understanding, over and above what's conveyed by the first. Unless the second image is sufficiently enlightening about something the community really would see as important to the topic of the article (which sometimes - though not always - they may only appreciate if the article tells them why it's important), it's not going to be allowed. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient rationale, request correction?
Hi. Do we have a tag that requests that uploaders improve their fair use rationales? I'm hoping we have something that falls shy of requesting deletion but gives the contributor an opportunity to better explain how an image meets NFCC. I feel like there's one and that I ought to know where it is, but my ability to forget things I know is truly remarkable. :D If we don't have one, it seems to me that we ought to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Template:Dfu. But, that marks it for deletion. It has an accompanying warning message to be placed on the user talk page of the person that uploaded it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was hoping to avoid. :/ Just as we might add Notability to an article rather than tagging it for deletion, it would be good if we had a tag to request that fair use be supported without jumping to deletion request. This arises specifically in response to a WP:CCI, where there are a good many images that need improved rationales but which are probably retainable under NFCC. (Specifically, this CCI.) For example, File:Solomon-linda.jpg needs something better than "Only known image", but once it has something better than that, it'll probably be fine. Tagging all those images for deletion is kind of bitey; asking the reviewers of the CCI to correct the inadequate FUR is unfair (and unlikely to happen, to boot). Anybody object to my creating a tag requesting a more detailed FUR? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a warning tag, go for it. But, the reality is that precious little will be done. Very few people actually care about the rationales. Most people that add rationales do just cut/paste jobs, or use templates for their creation, leaving woefully inadequate rationales all over the place. Very few people are interested in writing truly accurate and sufficient rationales. It might be bitey to tag them for deletion, but it certainly motivates. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just my opinion, but I don't think we should worry much about biting in this particular case since the editor is by no means a newcomer (and even if they were unfamiliar with NFC guidelines, they shouldn't be by now). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be bitey or anything but I just tagged File:Hc-hagedorn-150.jpg with {{subst:dfu}} because its rationale is, frankly, the worst I've seen yet from Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. It only addresses 2 criteria from WP:NFCC. Like Moonriddengirl, I do too wish that there were the same kind of template that didn't request deletion, to save many images, and as well as because then perhaps would become as stressed as he has been when the same tag has been added to his images.  Jsayre64   (talk)  05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Hc-hagedorn-150.jpg has been saved. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to create a warning tag, you should probably be aware of Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_15. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:.hack (video game series)
There is an ongoing discussion about the use of a single (non-free) video game cover versus the use of a (free) logo to lead an article on a video game series. Third opinions appreicated. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Charts, graphs, and availability of original data
From WP:NFC, the following is unacceptable: "A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data."

Which of the following was intended, and if the latter, why? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A chart or graph, where the original data is available. Instead, create a new graph from the data.
 * A chart or graph, even if the original data is unavailable to recreate the graph.


 * If you want to keep the non-free chart or graph, you're going to have to make a very strong case as to why something serving the same encyclopedic purpose is not recreatable, as per the test in NFCC #1.
 * People have surprisingly often gone to quite some lengths to do this. Even when the underlying raw data may not be readily downloadable, it may be available simply by reading it off the image in question.
 * We want WP to have the reputation of providing originally-made content of our own whenever we can, rather than lazily reusing what's been found on the net.
 * If you want to use a ready made image, there's therefore really quite a high barrier to jump, to show that it really couldn't reasonably be recreated, more than just "the raw data isn't there on the net to download". Jheald (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 20
Thoughts are welcome at the above discussion. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Length of non-free video clips
Is there a policy somewhere that states non-free video clips cannot be longer than 30 seconds? I haven't seen a policy that states that and most clips are longer than that. I uploaded a clip to U2 3D and an editor is certain that the clip is too long and is opposing it in the FAC. Despite the length, the clip has a well-written rationale, and is the only non-free item in the article aside from the film poster. Other non-free media were removed in favor of this one clip. I am worried that the FAC will not be promoted due to this issue with this one editor. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NFC covers it. If you want to argue that is a guideline, rather than policy, you fell through the thin ice in so far as a FAC would be concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NFCI #9
Since this discussion went to the archive before we came to any conclusion, let me renew it.

-whereas the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on the licensing policy states that the usage of the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) should be, with limited exception, " to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."; -whereas WP policy states that non-free content is allowed in Wikipedia if it met non-free content criteria, especially #1 (no free equivalent) and #8(contextual significance); -whereas current WP:NFCI list contains only one example of acceptable usage of historical images (#8 Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.) -whereas, despite the the fact that the guidelines state that this list is non-exhaustive, the NFCI #8 has been used as a pretext for removal of non-replaceable and contextually significant images that served as an illustration of historically significant events, but weren't a subject of commentary per se, I suggest to add one more example to the WP:NFCI: #9 Images of significant historical events - As subject of commentary about the illustrated event within the article.

In connection to that, my question is: is that an example of acceptable use of non-free photographs? (I believe, it is not necessary to re-iterate that we discuss irrepcaleable and contextually significant images only.) --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - NFCC is vague enough as it is, and causes editors trying to enforce it enough problems, without having to argue about what a "significant historical event" is, and #8 covers this well enough already. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not discuss NFCC here, we discuss NFCI, the non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use of NFC. Re NFCI #8, it doesn't. Per #8, historical images are allowed only if they are a subject of commentaries, whereas the images that illustrate historically significant events without being a subject of commentaries per se are not covered. The problem with NFCI #8 is that it is frequently being used as a pretext to remove historical photos in a situation when according to both the Foundation's resolution and NFCC their use is quite justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, I know exactly what NFCC and NFCI are, thankyou (I should do by now, dealing for many years with editors trying to wedge in spurious non-free images ... ah, I've just answered by own question). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Paul, the answer really is "no", no matter how many times you keep asking the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to know your arguments. You presented nothing so far. Consensus ≠ "a right of veto".--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know them very well, please take a look at any of the discussions both you and I have participated in. No consensus has formed for your change at any of them. What you seem to be attempting here is an argument by repetition, where you keep raising the issue in hopes that one time will bring you the answer you want. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose So we're to allow the use of historically significant photographs in articles "without being a subject of commentar[y]"? If the non-free image isn't tied to the text in an important (and far preferably cited) way, then it is mere decoration. It becomes trivial to add non-free content just because an editor feels it is important, without having to identify any reason why. I also concur with Black Kite above. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have some historically important event that needs to be illustrated, the photograph of this event should be provided. No discussion of such a photo is needed, because it serves as an illustration. Per the Foundation's resolution, illustration of historically significant events is not just decoration, and it is listed among few examples of acceptable use. For instance, if some article contains the statement that during WWII the Jews were being routinely and massively executed by German troops, the photo of one of these executions can and should be shown, and no additional discussion of this particular photo is needed. In addition, you wrongly interpret the NFCI list as exhaustive, whereas the guidelines say that it is non-exhaustive, in other words, this list does not imply that other uses of non-free photos are not allowed. Moreover, the use of irreplaceable and contextually significant non-free images depicting significant historical events as subject of commentary about the illustrated event has been already allowed per policy (try to prove the opposite). The only thing I request is to explicitly recognize this fact to avoid future unneeded disputes in each particular case. Let me also remind you that NFCI #8 tells about iconic or historically important images, not about the images (regardless of their historical importance) that depict historically significant events. By contrast, we discuss the cases when the subject of a discussion is not an image itself, but the event it depicts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to remind you that the Foundation Resolution does not require projects to use images as it outlines there. The resolution sets a minimum bar that we can't use images with a weaker reasoning than that (eg decorative), but lets the individual projects set exactly how strict they want to be, including "none at all" as at de.wiki. So resting this argument on the Resolution does not work. It is understanding how these allowable and unallowable uses have come about that is the starting point here.
 * That said, I have to disagree when you say "these images can be used without any commentary about them", which I don't care how significant you may feel the image is, that is purely decorative. But I do support the case where there is a sourced discussion in the article (more than just one sentence) to describe events the the image is showing, along with a well-written caption to make clear what the image is showing in relationship to the text.  The image just cannot be present bare with the reader forced to make the connection themselves. What your statement above is saying probably does not give that point across well enough.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the Foundation's resolution. My point was that the English Wikipedia policy contains no clauses that question the Resolution's statement about the use of non-free photos to illustrate historically significant events.
 * Re your second para, you quoted me incorrectly. I wrote that no commentary about the images is needed if the event these images are supposed to illustrate is a subject of sourced commentaries. That is in full agreement with what you say. Let me remind you also that the text of proposed NFCI #9 is exactly what you proposed earlier (I just added the word "significant" to make it stricter). Do you have any comments on that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the amount of text devoted to the event illustrated by the image ("more than just one sentence"), it is obvious oversimplification. It depends on the level of concrete article. In large articles discussing some global events (and, therefore, having severe space problems), even one phrase is sufficient, whereas in the article telling about more local events even two sentences may be not sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, NFCC policy is stronger than the Resolution's minimum bar for inclusion. So there is something, and the Resolution does not come into play at all.  As to the language, I realize that is what I suggested, but the way you are promoting it, I can't support.  I'm not asking for discussion of the specific image (eg War Photo #239 taken by John Q Smith) but specific and sourced discussion that clearly marries the image with the text in a way that NFCC#8 is met - that the article would be more difficult to understand without the image.  The way you are describing it does not suggest this, simply that if the concept of the image is mentioned in passing (eg the case of German soldiers beating up Jews) without any lengthy discussion, it's hard to assert the need for the image per NFCC#8.  On the other hand, if an entire section of the article talks about the abusive treatment of Jews within concentration camps, you've got at least something going there. One phrase is nearly without exception impossible to justify. --M ASEM  (t) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit the Holocaust image we discussed before was not the best example. "Specific and sourced discussion that clearly marries the image with the text" is close to how I see that criterion, and since the Holocaust image not completely satisfies this criterion, let's forget about this concrete image. However, I cannot agree with your last sentence: in some articles (e.g. WWII), where sometimes no more than one sentence is devoted to even mammoth battles, one phrase is quite significant (although, yes, as a rule it is not enough).--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a "mammoth battle", there is likely an article on that battle or even subelements of it, where the image would be better suited. Eg: The storming of Normandy would be the type of thing that would get a sentence or two in the WWII article - and thus not enough for a NFC image, while its own article would clearly have more opportunity to discuss what people are seeing in the image. If the topic is minor, like a small skirmish that had no significant impact on a larger battle and thus not notable, there would need to be very strong reason to have a historic NFC image there to show that. --M ASEM (t) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agreed with your second point. With regard to the first one, it is a part of the more general question, namely, "are non-free images allowed in summary style articles?". I propose to discuss this question separately. In connection to that, I ask again: taking into account all said above, do you support NFCI #9 in the form proposed by you (plus the word "significant" added by me), and what else should be added there to avoid its misuse?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Something is discussed in an article and labelled "historical", and automatically we need a non-free image to illustrate it? No way. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example here. In Andrew Johnston (singer), his time in the Carlise Cathedral Choir is discussed at length. This is something of historical significance within the article. Does this mean that a non-free image that happens to show him within the choir is necessary? No, of course it doesn't. Under your definition, this would seem to be fine. You're completely out of touch with the nature of the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man arguments. Firstly, let me remind you that we discuss not policy but guidelines, so all images covered by NFCI are supposed to be contextually significant and irreplaceable, i.e. they have already passed the policy (NFCC) filter. I fully understand that the guidelines cannot take precedence over the policy: something labelled as historical cannot be included until contextual significance (per NFCC #8) has been proven. Secondly, nothing in my proposal implies that it is supposed to allow something automatically: as I said (re-iterating the Foundation's resolution), only images depicting significant historical event are supposed to be covered by NFCI #9. That means that, in addition to NFCC #1&8, the editor who wants to add some non-free image must provide a proof that the event this image depicts is historically significant (e.g., some major battle, war crimes, very important political conference, etc.) The example provided by you hardly fits these criteria: I see no historically significant events at all in the article about Andrew Johnston (singer), hence no need in non-free images there. In my opinion, it would be more correct to say that it is you who are completely out of touch with the nature of the NFCC, because you tend to apply the same criteria to logos, album covers, low importance contemporary events, and historically significant events. Such an approach is hardly productive, and many experienced users have already pointed at this flaw in your arguments.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I guess I'm struggling to understand precisely what it is that you are proposing. Are you saying that the guidelines should be different for events which are "historically significant"? What defines what is "historically significant"? J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose to remember that primary function of most images in encyclopaedia is illustration, therefore it is quite natural to use non-free images in such a way (and, accordingly, it is ridiculous to remove the image under a pretext that it is mere an illustration). I do not propose that the guidelines should be different for historically significant events, however, I assume that the lack of illustrations in the articles about significant events is more harmful for Wikipedia as whole than the lack of pictures in lower importance articles. Therefore, the NFCC #8 is easier to meet in the article about historically significant events that in, e.g. the article about some rock band. That is obvious, in my opinion.
 * With regard to "historical significance", this question should be resolved in every particular case separately, because it is hardly possible to propose simple and general rule. However, it is obvious that a revolution, a major military operation, an important summit of the world powers' leaders, etc belong to the category of historically significant events, whereas a concert of some more or less famous singer or some award ceremony can hardly be considered historically important. In any event, since the burden of proof rests with those who adds new materials, the fact of historically significance is supposed to be proven in every concrete case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You "do not propose that the guidelines should be different for historically significant events", but you believe that "NFCC #8 is easier to meet in the article about historically significant events"? Call me an idiot, but your post hardly sounds consistent. I really don't think we can start to define the use of non-free content based on the "significance" of the topic; if a subject warrants an article, it's "significant" enough to warrant non-free content where necessary, and no matter what the topic of the article is, the same criteria apply, whether it is some minor singer or WWII. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "if a subject warrants an article, it's "significant" enough to warrant non-free content where necessary, and no matter what the topic of the article is, the same criteria apply, whether it is some minor singer or WWII. " That directly contradicts to what the Foundation's resolution says: it treats non-free photos differentially, namely, the photos illustrating historically significant events are explicitly mentioned among exceptions (along with two other examples), whereas all other photos are not. Your idea that all non-free photos should be treated uniformly is your idea, it does not follow from the policy, and, importantly, this your approach has been criticised by many experiances editors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd shut up about that. Yes, an image I nominated for deletion was kept- that does not mean everything I say about non-free content is wrong, and it does not mean I have been wrong in the hundreds of hours I have spent working with NFC issues. Our policy does not differentiate between different types of non-free content- all non-free content has to meet the same criteria, and that's the way it should be. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you to stay cool. I also would like to remind you that I don't imply that everything you say about non-free content is wrong. Moreover, I concede that some our previous disputes have eventually lead to imprivement of the articles (and simultaneously resolved the NFC issues to mutual satisfaction). In addition, many your points are quite valid, and extensive (and exhausing) disputes with you lead to significant improvement of my understanding of the NFC policy. However, that doesn't mean that everything you say about non-free content is right, and this dispute is among few cases when you are wrong. Cheers. (And have a merry Christmas)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, I am right about the point of fact- the same policy applies to all non-free content on Wikipedia, whether it's an album cover, a photo of a "historic event" or a painting. That is the way it is on Wikipedia. As for whether that should be the case? I don't know, I guess that's up for dispute. I certainly think that's the way it should be, and if you don't, then you need to change the NFCC, not add something to NFCI. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy contains no explicit statement on that account. By contrast, the guidelines (NFCI) lists the examples where different images are treated differently, e.g.
 * Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
 * Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
 * Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary (no "critical", PS).
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The NFCC apply to all non-free content. The clue's in the title, and it does say so anyways- "non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Not "this applies to all non-free content apart from...". If you feel the guidelines imply that different "types" of non-free content are treated differently, then perhaps there's a problem with the wording of the guideline, as that's certainly not what the policy says. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I think most of what I said at the earlier discussion still holds true here. I will add on that over the years a lot of discussion seems to start at how people define "historic". In this case you are proposing wording that would suggest an article about an "historical event" could use a non-free image simply to show some element of the event. By way of example September 11 attacks was a historical event, but not every image taken on that day is itself iconic or historic. Furthermore there were so many images taken that day that use of almost any non-free image would fail policy (namely NFCC 1) in the context of an article about the attacks - an historical series of events. Your suggestion that such articles could use any non-free image taken on the day of, or during, an "historic" event simply to illustrate "the illustrated event" is off, at least for the narrow scope of non-free images being discussed. Also this type of image is not only about NFCC 1 or the context (NFCC 8) of it's use, but most iconic and historical images of historic events (especially images of "war" and, more so, older images of historic events - pre internet/pre "everybody has a digi cam and access to flickr/twitter) are distributed via commercial content providers so there is NFCC 2 as well. In an old discussion related to this form of use Damiens.rf said it very well: "historic moment" =/= "historic image" Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, straw man. The proposed NFCI #9 is not supposed to override NFCC. If free equivalents exists for some image it cannot be used. We discuss the situation when:
 * The photo depicts really historically significant event;
 * No free equivalent are available for this photo;
 * The photograph is contextually significant.
 * Therefore, most non-free images depicting 9/11 will simply not pass the NFCC filter (per NFCC #1), so NFCI will not be applicable to them.
 * With regard to your "historic moment" =/= "historic image", let me point out that you, J Milburn and Hammersoft seem to deeply misunderstand the very purpose of theNFCI list. In actuality, it is just a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use, so it does not apply additional restrictions on the use of non-free images: if some image is not a subject of commentary in the article, that does not mean it cannot be used, because neither the policy nor the guidelines prohibit that.
 * Re NFCC #2, please, keep in mind that the proposed NFCI #9 deals with the photographs of historically significant events that are not necessarily historical or iconic per se, so I see no additional problems with NFCC #2. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Paul, in your responses, it is clear you believe everyone is either (a) wrong or (b) producing a straw man argument or (c) both. Being combative with every person who disagrees with you (which is so far everyone) is not a way forward to your purpose. I believe there is a fundamental difference in your view of how this project should present itself and the views of the people who have so far commented. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, why did you decide I am combative, when I just point at inconsistencies in your arguments? If you believe I misunderstood you, please, explain what this misunderstanding consisted in. However, I cannot find a characteristic other that "straw man" for, e.g. your post, where you accused me in attempts to legitimise the non-free images that "isn't tied to the text in an important (...) way", whereas in actuality I just proposed to define another way to tie it to the text: the image that illustrates the event that is a subject of sourced discussion in the article. Secondly, I agreed with most arguments of one participant of this discussion (Masem), so your "everyone" is simply false. Moreover, the NFCI #9 has been formulated by him during our previous discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not everything is a "straw man" when we are trying our best to explain, by way of examples, how you are wording your suggestions is inconsistent with policy at Wikipedia.
 * Images of significant historical events - the September 11 attacks would qualify as "significant historical events" would they not?
 * As subject of commentary about the illustrated event within the article. - using the aforementioned "significant historical events" your proposal of an accepted use would be that *any* non-free image that was taken on September 11, 2001 would be acceptable to use to "illustrate" the events of that day.
 * In order for the acceptable use to be acceptable at Wikipedia such an image would have to meet all 10 of the policies criteria.
 * The most commonly discussed criteria when it comes to such images are if the image (what is it depicting) is freely replaceable (NFCC 1), is there respect for commercial opportunities (NFCC 2) and the context of its use (NFCC 8). And even if it meets those three it would still have to meet the other seven.
 * 1. NFCC 1 is pretty much applied across the board. If it fails that, it really need not go any further and the examples, either "acceptable" or "non acceptable" really don't matter.
 * 2. NFCC 2 is most commonly brought into play with the narrow type of images being discussed here because, as I said, most "Images of significant historical events" come to light via commercial content providers. By way of example, the bombing of the Swiss Embassy in Rome would qualify as a current "significant historical event" and, by your suggestion, this image would meet the "acceptable use" because it could "illustrate" an article about the bombing. But, because this is an image supplied from a commercial content provider it would fail NFCC 2.
 * 3. NFCC 8 would clearly, to me anyway, mean that the image itself has a context. Your opinion is that this criteria "is easier to meet in the article about historically significant events" even without actual discussion on the image itself. But in the above example I would argue that Wikipedia policy would not allow the image to be used in an article about the "significant historical event" of the bombing because the image itself does not show the bombing, or even the aftermath and without any true text based discussion of why the image itself is important it is, really, just a picture with no real context. Even if NFCC 1 and 2 were ignored I don't see, in this example, how an image of two forensic policemen, seen from the back, walking through a crowd of photographers/people really "illustrates" the actual "event". But, again, using your suggested example of an "accepted use" the simple fact the image was taken when it was taken, and where it was taken, would satisfy "the illustrated event within the article" part of the example so, based on how it reads, meet the "contextual significance" criteria as you define it. But before you suggest that too is a straw man I would feel the same way about this image or this image.
 * You keep saying that your suggestion is just part of what could be a long list of "acceptable uses", but you are not mentioning the potential longer list (based on Wikipedia policy that is more stringent that US fair use) of unacceptable uses. Vietnam was a "significant historical event" but it would be wrong to suggest that an "acceptable use" of a non-free image be used to simply "illustrate" that "significant historical event" when one of the "Unacceptable use" examples states "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war" and than gives a possible accepted use as "an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article." To me this is the one of the major issues you keep either ignoring or missing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now I see what you mean, and I understand what was the origin of misunderstanding. You simply do not understand that since we discuss guidelines, which cannot take precedence over the policy, we by default speak only about those images that meet NFCC. Let me remind you that since the NFCI list contains a reminder that
 * "The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Note that the use of such media must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information.",
 * I believed it was redundant to speak about that separately. In light of that, let me analyse the examples provided by you.
 * Re: "the September 11 attacks would qualify as "significant historical events" would they not? " Yes, they qualify, and to use non-free images would be quite correct, had no free images of the same events been available. However, as you can see, a large number of free photos are available that depict this event, so any non-free image on that subject will simply not pass the NFCC #1.
 * Re: "using the aforementioned "significant historical events" your proposal of an accepted use would be that *any* non-free image that was taken on September 11, 2001 would be acceptable to use to "illustrate" the events of that day. " Not "any" images, but those that increase a reader's understanding of the events. In a hypothetical situation when no free photos are available that would mean almost any non-free photo (except very poor quality non-informative photos). However, as you can see, that situation is purely theoretical.
 * Re: "In order for the acceptable use to be acceptable at Wikipedia such an image would have to meet all 10 of the policies criteria." Absolutely correct. However, that is too obvious to speak about that separately (see above).
 * Re your "1". As I said, that is correct, and I never questioned that.
 * Re your "2". Had this been correct, that would be an absolute barrier for use of any non-free media, because every non-free media can potentially be commertialised. In addition, not all non-free media are provided by commercial content providers, for instance, Yad Vashem, or the archives of many states, which didn't release their photos into PD, are not a commercial providers. Therefore, this your argument is at least non-universal, and, importantly, has no relation to the guidelines: is the policy prohibits to use some image, NFCI cannot override that. However, since we discuss the guidelines, let's stick to the topic.
 * Re your "3". You take the bad example. Let's discuss another one. Let's imagine a theoretical situation that the only photograph depicting the 9/11 event is the File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg, and it is non-free (this situation is a close analogue of what we have in many pre-digital-camera era historical articles: the archival photos are scarce and most of them, except American and British, are not in PD). In this situation, can we use this image just to illustrate the event (without discussing the photo itself), or we need to move it to a separate article about a history of this photo (where the photo itself would be a subject of detailed commentaries)? In my opinion, the answer is obvious: 9/11 was a very significant historical event, and it needs an illustration. There is no space in this article to discuss this photo, but that is not a reason for ghettoizing this photo in a lower importance article, because the quality of the top importance 9/11 article would be significantly decreased without this photo.
 * Re ""An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war"". "A war" is too general. Obviously, the image that is not conextually conected to concrete events described in the article cannot be used it in such article (and this example describes that situation). However, that doesn't mean that such an image cannot be used if the contextual linkage is strong and obvious. Let's consider another case. What about "the image whose subject is the battle, and which is being used to illustrate an article about this concrete battle"? It fits a situation when the image is being used "to illustrate historically significant event", isn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (In response to this first reply by Paul Siebert)
 * Overall - I am happy you admit, sort of, in the first section of your reply that the examples I provided were not a "straw man", even going so far as to rewrite/restate what my exact point was. However the second part is, again, you missing the key issue/s. I find it funny how you first said my example where there were free images available was a "straw man" but when I specifically present current non-free images that fit into your suggested wording you call it a "bad example" and, instead, use a free image and ask us to pretend it is non-free. Hmmm...sounds like a "straw man" to me. Not only that but you slid in that it is I that does not understand "since we discuss guidelines, which cannot take precedence over the policy" yet, based the replies you have given to everyone, your argument is what you are suggesting is only an example of what an accepted use is, yet that example is not in line with policy as currently written.


 * Beyond that, you argue An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war does not really mean that but rather something else. The example is clear - you can not use a non-free image that simply shows "war" (i.e - combat, soldiers, damage, death, tanks, jeeps, guns, etc etc) in an article about "the war". I am a native English speaker and I do understand that "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war" does, in fact, mean "An image whose subject happens to be a war,, to illustrate an article on the war" I also understand this applies universally - An article about "War" can not use non-free images of combat, or taken during wartime, simply to illustrate "war". An article about WWII can not use non-free images of WWII combat, or taken during WWII, simply to illustrate WWII. An article about one of the actions during WWII can not use non-free images of the action, or taken during that action, simply to illustrate that action. Even though you feel that I missed "some details" it is really you who missed/ignored the obvious wording in the example - If one of these "war" images is an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article than it may be considered acceptable use under Wikipedia policy. So, no - an image showing "the battle" can not "be used to illustrate an article about this battle" unless the image itself is notable enough to be discussed. The policy, and the plain English examples, are in direct contradiction with what your suggested wording of "NFCI #9" implies. And that is what everyone is trying to tell you.


 * "9/11 was a very significant historical event, and it needs an illustration" is solely dependent on, first, what Wikipedia policy allows for. Based on Wikipedia policy we do not need to see the plane hitting the tower because most people who read that a plane hit the World Trade Center can understand that. As far as the attacks in New York go there were people falling form the towers and hitting the ground - we don't need to see the non-free and free images that exists of their fall or their bloody remains to illustrate that. No image of Mychal Judge's body being carried is used in the article on him. or in the September 11 attacks article. even though though the video and the image is discussed in the article about him. Any number of non-free images (or free) could be used but they aren't because, at Wikipedia, there is no automatic guarantee than any image, free or not, will be used simply to "illustrate" something or "just because". This is part of how the whole "historical" and "iconic" wording comes into play. If somebody handed over 500 images of a "significant historical event" what one would/should be used? In the real world it is what photo editors do - they select the ones they feel might best represent the subject at hand. In Wikipedia, where "everyone" is the photo editor, the bar is set even higher because the requirement attempts to narrow the choice field down, at least for non-free material, to "historical images" or "iconic images" that represent "significant historical events". To narrow it down even more some types of images not only need to be "iconic" and/or "historical" but the image itself needs to the the topic of discussion.


 * Oh, and I do not know what you are blinded by NFCC 2 as relating to anything we are discussing. "Had this been correct" is wrong for you because the policy is explicit. How many random civilians were standing around snapping images during WWII? Korea? Vietnam? The context here is not non-free images of events overall but of events that were, are, or have become "significant historical events." By all accounts thing such as "wars" are covered by media first and foremost. As are larger events that could become "significant historical events." You really seem to fail to understand why the criteria go hand in hand.


 * Every example that editors have presented that reflects your generic "it's ok to simply illustrate with no critical commentary" suggested wording you argue with the examples as being wrong. If you want an extremely specific example of a very specific image put into the "acceptable use" section just present it as such. (See the unacceptable use - Barry Bonds Baseball card example for an idea) Otherwise this is somewhat beating a dead horse. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
Whoever watches this page is probably interested in the discussion happening at Featured article candidates/South Park (season 13)/archive2. There is a consensus about the article passing all wp:FA?, except for NFC. Since there is a discussion happening about establishing a precedent or not, I would like if more people familiar with this topic to provide their input. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

New exemption. Image of user on the userpage
I'd like to suggest a new exemption, to allow for the use of an image of the Wikipedian on the Wikipedian's userpage for the purpose of introducing the Wikipedian to the community. The image would have to be owned by the user. Possibly, the image may be allowable if it merely pertains to the user, eg. is of the user's house, or dog.

I think this would be for the benefit of the community. I for one find it easier to empathise with another user if I can picture them. But I think many users are reticent about releasing images of themselves for re-use.

I think this exemption would in no way detract from the intent of our policy in strongly encouraging free content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is to be used only to directly benefit the encyclopedia, not to allow people to decorate their userpages. If people want to show themselves but don't want to release pictures under a free license, they can link to external sites. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the image is owned by the user, then by uploading it under a standard license they're making it free content anyway, so there isn't an issue about them having it on their userpages. Many users have self-created images of themselves, their pets, etc. on their pages. The only issue is if they upload a non-free image for use there, fail to release the copyright on the image, or use an existing non-free image. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "All user-created images must be released under a free license. For purposes of Wikipedia, "free" does not merely mean that you don't charge for it, but it means that you allow everyone to use, alter, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This release is not revocable." This is from our policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Own_work and this is something we cannot change. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, J Milburn, people can, and a minority do, do that, but it is only an option for users with access to an external site. I guess that my question to you is: Do you not want to encourage users to decorate their userpages with a picture of themselves?
 * Yes, Black Kite, the issue is of uploading an image under a restrictive license, for this specific userpage purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "it is only an option for users with access to an external site"- is there a big problem with users being able to access no site other than Wikipedia? I don't feel we should be encouraging users to add an image of themselves to their userpage. They can if they want. I don't, though I am quite open about who I am. What I am sure about is that we should not be encouraging people to upload non-free content for the purpose of decorating pages, or to add NFC to their userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Utterly breaks many NFC and BLP policies to make an exception for user space. If the user is living, they can always create a free image of themselves.  Not needed at all. --M ASEM  (t) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

NFUR for album/single covers and posters
I have an important question and want to have a discussion. Generally when we upload a musical album/single cover, we use the Album upload template, which adds an automated fair use rationale, based on some inputs provided by the uploader. My question is, is that enough to pass fair-use? In recent times, many articles are facing opposes at FAC, because its rationale is not complete/strong enough, making reviewers ask: "why the image is needed in the article in the first place?" If there is no content/background behind the coverart, according to the reviewers, NFCC is failing. My question is, "isn't it a basic necessity that the article on a song or an album will have a cover art image, irrespective of whether there is a background story behind it or not?" Same goes for a film poster. If the rationale is strong enough and copyright is not being violated in any way, the images should be well within NFCC and acceptable in FA candidates. So can we have others state their opinion on this issue as I believe it is going to reflect the state of many articles, decrease the burden of such questionable opposes, and also, maybe enable us to reflect on the NFCCs that we have developed. Regards, — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never had, or seen, a major objection to a single identifying non-free use in the infobox of a musical recording. Where the use can be problematic is when users insist on more than that, i.e. alternative covers, stills from music videos etc.  Whilst those extra uses can pass NFCC sometimes (i.e. a notable example of a unique video style) those are few and far between.  Similarly, list articles (i.e. discographies) should not have non-free usages for individual articles in the list. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Fasach Nua has a very very high standard - probably higher than common practice - for NFCC when it is at FAC. The problem is here is that consensus has determined that "images for identification"-such as album covers, book covers, etc. where there is no explicit discussion of the cover in the article, but the article otherwise clearly discusses the work-are generally acceptable (recent attempts to alter this fail to gain consensus).  Now, I'm not a big fan myself of canned rationales like what's used for album covers, because really, each image is supposed to be exceptional to its use and thus should have a unique rationale for its need, but in cases of images for identification, they're going to mostly read the same.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen Fasach Nua stop by here in any recent time so I've tried to comment in a few FAC where the claim of a cover image is not with the NFCC as being against consensus. --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a single identifying image (album cover, film poster, etc) in the article on the subject (so, on the album, the film, the video game, the book- not discographies, authors, video game series, etc) is generally fine. Other uses of covers etc, and other non-free use images in those kind of articles, can occasionally be justified, but that is the exception, rather than the rule. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the use of single and album covers in the related articles. I think the "identification" argument is extremely weak, and the associated images do nothing to increase the readers understanding of the articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we could be stronger on when cover art is used - but consensus has shown resistance to this change; the use of an image in the infobox seems almost sacred. We would need a significantly fundamental shift in how NFCC is treated (which is not going to happen overnight) to be able to enforce higher requirements. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't the starting point to insist that FAs about albums and songs not have gratuitous images of covers and videos?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is what adds to reader understanding of the topic. Showing the key image identified with the object is clearly (as consensus has been absolutely solid over time) a significant part of the understanding about the topic an article should be expected to convey.  If such an article does not contain such as image, then on that ground it should fail FAC, as being materially incomplete.  Jheald (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It gets into a murky area: when do we have an informed consensus, and when do we have a chorus of editors that really don't care about WP:NFCC? I've never heard a solid argument for the concept that you can't understand an album or single without knowing what its cover image is. In modern times, where I usually never see a cover image greater than 100x100 pixels except in the Wikipedia article, the argument becomes nonsensical on its face.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think consensus on this point is pretty informed. For starters, it evidently appreciates that the issue is not that you can't understand an album or single without knowing what its cover image is - that's not the test that NFCC #8 sets out; rather, it is that the understanding conveyed to the reader about the thing is significantly improved by showing the key image associated; making it fully justifiable, particularly in view of the slightness of the copyright taking that its inclusion here represents.  Jheald (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for paraphrasing: my understanding of an album is not improved in any meaningful fashion by knowing what its cover looks like. The significantly improved standard isn't even approached.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is possibly your personal view, but if so it puts you in a minority of... not very many. As Masem indicates below, the dominant image chosen to represent the album is considered by most to be understanding about the album as a cultural item that is quite as significant as say its release date or its record label. Jheald (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)You're likely very right that an undiscussed cover image an infobox doesn't meet the standard of NFCC#8 that we normally expect for images in the body of an article. As for consensus and discussion,  this is one recent (Jan 10) discussion on such images and how NFCC#8 plays into them.   Here's another from around April.  Both seem to suggest that having the image that identifies the markings and branding of the work in conjunction with the article on the work is appropriate (and why the rationals are written towards that)  The better way to think about it is to consider what would happen if we were to start pulling cover images from articles that clearly were not discussed at any point, citing NFCC#8 reasoning. We'd be in the right - but oh man.  If you thought Beta was getting crap for trying to enforce NFCC...  --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why I think it should be enforced at FA review. In music articles particularly, editors use the FAs as templates. Get it right in the FAs, and the remainder will eventually follow.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing how "well" this approach worked with the MOS folks (Tony, Greg, etc.) on linking issues and the rest of WP (eventually leading to ArbCom involvement), I strongly discourage one niche area trying to set policy for the rest. I am not saying that we cannot create an RFC to challenge the defacto use of cover images and change NFCC to match that; that would be the better means to achieve change. --M ASEM  (t) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am completely being true to myself, I would agree with Kevin, that my understanding is really not increased by seeing the cover of an album/single when there is no critical commentary, but that is strictly for the cover only. I strongly feel that when critical commentary is going on, a music video image becomes essential to the reader's understanding. But then again, I must be in the minority to think so. I suggest we invite some of the FAC biggies like Tony1 and Sandy, Andy etc, to receive their views. I will leave a note at WT:FAC. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To me this all comes back to the real world vs Wiki-world. In the real world there is really no quesiton about use of an image of an album cover being fine to use in an article about the album. However in Wiki-world things are not so clear if you follow policy. For me, I not only agree with the exception about this sort of thing I honestly feel the exception should be made more broad in how it relates to things such as publicity/promo material, which album covers tend to fall under. But this is where the issue becomes cloudy. In the real world using an album cover in an article about one of the members of a band generally would be fine as well, but in Wiki-world is is generally not allowed unless there is "sourced discussion" about the image in quesiton. In which case it becomes a question of how to define things like "sourced discussion, "critical commentary" or "to illustrate a passage" (See "Related issue" below) and come back to the main idea of this thread. In the end do we follow policy here or do we ignore policy here and use real world logic? If Wikipedia is meant to be truly "free" than we need to follow the Wikipedia policy and accept that it is much stricter than the real world. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy is quite explicit. There is no absolute general requirement for  "sourced discussion", "critical commentary" or "to illustrate a passage". What is required is to add something significant to user understanding about the topic.  As WP:NFCI sets out, there are some classes of image where, particularly those which represent a higher value and more substantial copyright taking, what will be required for the image to be adding something sufficiently significant to reader understanding may be commentary on the image itself; and there are other classes of image, particularly those which have been created directly for the purpose of being a characteristic image associated with the item, where presenting the image itself is considered to appropriately adding something sufficiently significant to reader understanding.  If you're going to talk about going with the rules of the Wiki-world, please first understand what those rules are.  Jheald (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jheald said: If you're going to talk about going with the rules of the Wiki-world, please first understand what those rules are. <- I am guessing that was aimed at me? If so you are once again off base. I a extremely familiar with image related polices here, and you like to sometime take what I say to the extreme - such as how you said that I feel that non-free content is a stain on Wikipedia. What you seem to fail to grasp is that the Non-free content criteria is far more stringent than the real world copyright laws are in regards to how explicit it is. Now how is that defined in "plain English"? Well the definitions that are easiest to understand are found in the Non-free content guidelines, in the Unacceptable use - Images section. A non-free map, for example, may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article. A non-free baseball card may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself. A book cover can be used if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article And then we have the Non-free image use in list articles section which says, in part, Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements. And even the Acceptable use - Images section you cited in your response above saying there are no such wordings says that cover art should only be used for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. And I could go on, but if you firmly believe there is no policy in place to enforce these requirements you need to take a look around - you are mistaken. Image use policy, in the section about Image galleries says Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). Even though that section is about "galleries" the wording is about all fair use images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, another basic misperception. First, NFCI #1: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). What that says is not that "a book cover can be used if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article"; rather, what it says is that a book cover can be used if the book is the subject of commentary in the article.  NCFI #1 is about commentary of the item, not of the item's cover. And note that NFCI #1 does not imply that this is the only circumstance in which a cover can be used -- just that it is one circumstance in which it can.
 * The point of the examples in NFCI is not to require that there must always be sourced commentary; rather, for a range of different classes of images, it presents the different places where over time consensus has drawn the line. Jheald (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are just invoking a Monty Python sketch or maybe you really don't read what I say. I am am not sure anymore.
 * (All bold added for emphasis)
 * 1. Unacceptable use - Images - it gives several plain English examples of what would not be fair use at Wikipedia. One of them is this: 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, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.
 * 2. Acceptable use - Images - it too gives several plain English examples of what would be fair use at Wikipedia. One of them is the one you keep throwing out: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
 * In both these cases it is explicit that there must be some form of "critical commentary"/"sourced discussion" (i.e - text) that one can view (i.e - read) in order to understand why the image is being used. Simply saying, for example, in text that "They wore a blue shirt" is not enough to use a non-free image of a person with a "blue shirt" any more than saying "They are a singer" needs a non-free image of somebody in front of a microphone, or on stage, to show that. This relates to the "Related issue" below in that simply saying a person was in a band that released an album is not, in my opinion, enough "critical commentary of that item" to warrant use of an image of that album. On the wider issue, the point of this thread, is how does "critical commentary of that item" relate to the overall policy? I think that Zankyō, in the real world, is fine. But on Wikipedia, based only on policy, I would question it. Based on the example you keep giving the cover image is only being used for "identification without critical commentary" and would fail not only the example but the policy. On the other hand there is the Yesterday and Today article which is a clear case of where I feel that File:The Beatles - Butcher Cover.jpg is needed because not only does it fit the "historic and iconic" concept it is used "in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)" via the The "Butcher cover" section of the article. But as Masem pointed out below, and I agree with, I need to stress that I think we can do better to limit cover art, but consensus overrides my personal desires. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're continuing to ignore the intended meaning of "of that item" in NFCI #1.
 * This wording was specifically added to settle any ambiguity, and make clear that it was commentary on the item (the album, the book, the DVD etc) that was required, not commentary on the cover. This is explicitly clear in the discussion where it was adopted.
 * The wording did not change policy; it codified what was the policy already pertaining at that point; and what has continued to be the policy since. Jheald (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait - I see you said NCFI #1 is about commentary of the item, not of the item's cover and the A proposal for an alternative text change about the examples wording was/is meant to imply that as you were the one who suggested this. That is something that should, IMO, be looked into because the rest of the wording, based the same policy, does not say that. To broadly construe "that item" to mean "the underlying item" as it relates to an articles subject would imply that NFC 8 is wrong overall in how it is used, and explained. I could suggest that "As subjects of commentary" overall is meant to mean commentary about the subject of the article (Or "the underlying item" in your reading), not the image itself ("not the cover image" in your reading). The question you asked to make it clear what/why you wanted the change was "do you have to provide critical commentary of the image itself, or of the object with which it is associated?" My response would have been "Yes" as it reflects the overall policy. I see that the issue/s that Hiding raised somewhat mirrors some of the comment here: What we're disputing here is what constitutes critical commentary. and The image needs to illustrate a point in the article. If that point is that the album was well received, then sure, I don't have a real issue. If the point being illustrated is that the album exists, then no, I'm of the opinion that that isn't good enough. But overall what you mean is in your head - neither the policy, nor the example, carries any disclaimer that the "critical commentary" in question does *not* apply to the "the cover image." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sakes. Stop being obtuse. The point of the wording of NFCI #1, as it is today, as it has been for the last three and a half years, as it was made quite clear in that proposal, as was accepted by consensus then, and as has been accepted as consensus ever since, is that critical commentary is required on the item (the book, the DVD, the album), but not (necessarily) on the cover.  Now you might disagree with that - I am not quite sure for what good purpose to achieve - but at least recognise that that is and has been the settled guideline for the last three and a half years.
 * You claim there should be commentary on the image itself, "as this reflects the overall policy". But that interpretation of the overall policy was rejected on the basis of Graham vs. Dorling Kindersley even a year before I proposed the wording clarification that I proposed.
 * The bottom line is that NFCC #8 is as it is. It requires the image significantly add to reader understanding.  It does not necessarily require critical commentary on the image.  For some classes of image our guidelines suggest that may usually be required; but for some other recognised particular cases that it may not.
 * Specifically, in this case it adds to the understanding of how the album was presented and marketed -- which most people see as a very significant piece of information that any article about the album even aspiring to be adequate should contain.
 * It seems to be a line that, at least going by the last three and a half years, most people seem content to see as fair and well-balanced, and in line with what they want WP to offer, and how they want WP to be seen. Since you explicitly identify yourself as someone who does not have a "religious" objection to NFC, what is it you think would be served by changing this established status quo ?  Cui bono? -- who would gain?  Jheald (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your link and you suggested something and four people said it was ok. Two people seemd to indicate it was not. So in a way it was a consensus based on who was involved that day. I would have voiced the same thing I just did and would have agreed with what Hiding said, as I indicated. I overall see very few discussions that support what you imply - that "critical commentary" is meant to be about the article, not the image. As written in the example, as with the other examples, the implication is "critical commentary" is about the image, not purely the article. Do I really need to explain that?
 * The so called "satus quo" in your mind is that "everyone" understands that "critical commentary" relates to the article, not the image. However your explanation in a discussion saying that by "that item" I mean "the underlying item", not the cover image is not what the masses read when they read policy or examples, which all use a variations of "critical commentary" being needed/required.
 * The issue you seem to have is that I understand the concept of promotion and publicity and would love for Wikipedia to enter the real world in relation to use of all such material. However this is Wikipedia - Wikipedia requires any material that is not "free enough for Wikipedia" be either deleted or looked at for possible fair use claims via the non-free content policy. I disagree with the policy on that level but, because this is Wikipedia and not the real world, I use it as a basis for viewing images.
 * The other issue you seem to have it not with me, but with the concept laid out by Jimbo Wales and the Foundation. This is about the broader scope of what Wikipedia was supposed to be - and I did not create, nor set that initial concept. If you ask Jimbo "who would gain?" by enforcing the policy he would have a much different answer than you would it appears. I tend to see both sides of the coin and if the vision is to make Wikipedia "free" than the attitude needs to change overall n regards to not accepting more non-free content than everyone would gain because everybody could step into this and freely take everyhting and use it for anything. Because I live in the real world I don't see than happening anytime soon, but there are limits to illogical logic that is used a lot of the time here and it is hard to use my real world knowledge as a foundation for discussion when faced with it. In other words Wikipedia has a policy. Either you follow it or you don't.
 * Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The key element is is Allowable uses #1: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).  Now, I have no idea where this exactly came from (it predated my interest in NFC so I would have to dig and look) but unless there is evidence to show that consensus has changed against this, this is what consensus allows for.  (I need to stress that I think we can do better to limit cover art, but consensus overrides my personal desires).  Of course, I likely can point at thousands of stubs and start articles that include cover art but have no "critical commentary" yet in the article, and most likely there's no good chance we can improve much on these. But at FA, a album or single that is an FAC is pretty 100% for sure going to meet that requirement.
 * So, the steps to change are to first understand how #1 came about, what the intent and meaning was, and/or to launch an RFC to trying to challenge and change it to require that the cover art itself be addressed in some manner in the article. Knowing how NFC is used by consensus today, this is a futile effort. I mean, I will back any effort to change it, but right now I just don't see it happening at the wider consensus, and feel its a waste of my volunteer time to deal with it. Maybe in 6 months or a year, I dunno. Or maybe if the Foundation nudges projects to cut back more. But the thing to also consider is that people will game the issue  Say we change #1 to require discussion of the cover art in the article. People will find ways to keep article that really doesn't need to be there by having weak allusions to it in the text ("The album was released on Feb 31, with a blue abstract art cover.") And then when one tries to remove it, they will stomp and complain and fight it.  We need to be crystal clear of what we would expect to be in the article to retain cover art, and I feel that we would never gain consensus on that to make this effort worthwhile. Again, I'm all for change, but I see no way to do it without rocking the boat. --M ASEM  (t) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's what I've dug up. The change that basically introduces the #1 is back from Aug 31, 2005, and is based on discussion at Jimmy Wales' talk  and the Non-Free Wikiproject .  Remember: this all before the Foundation Resolution.  The idea appears to be that the editors then were trying to assert that via the NFC and through identifying specific classes of images that are appropriate, we would clearly have images that fall into accept US Fair Use laws.
 * Now, reading that and between the lines, I can argue there has been a significant shift - that being the Foundation Resolution which stresses that we are not just about meeting fair use of the country one is hosted in, but that we are trying to minimize non-free use, which is a significantly different concept (a very subtle one that takes a while to explain to others at times...) Of course, we still need to consider that the Foundation is only setting a minimum bar - where fair use is met - and lets projects come to their own determine where to draw the line. And that's the problem here is that while probably most involved in this discuss could vote down the use of cover images just because we can have them per fair use, I'm readily convinced there's no shot in heck of getting global consensus to agree to that.
 * Maybe what is needed is minor involvement of the Foundation to reassert where they prioritize the free content mission over fair use allowances. They could come back "whatever it takes to be education, be damned free content", well, we're back at the present.  If they come around and say "free content or bust" then we have a impedius to break global consensus to move forward. --M ASEM  (t) 18:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's perpetuating a misrepresentation of the Foundation's position. It's been made clear again and again, by the people who were there in the room, that the Foundation Resolution was not intended to signal a "significant shift".  It represented no intention to shift en-wiki policy; rather, as we have been told, it represented the development of explicit policy that had happened at en-wiki as an example of best practice, and the intention was to make other wikis carry through a similar policy-making exercise.
 * FWIW, it's worth noting that the word "minimal" itself comes straight from U.S. fair-use case-law discussion -- where it's used as shorthand for "no more than needed for the purpose identified". Jheald (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The line Such EDPs must be minimal along with "limited exception" and "narrow limits" all seem to imply differently. While I can't say I know for sure their intent while drafting this language, one interpretation of those two statements is they want to reduce the amount of non-free works to fit encyclopedic purposes. Clearly, the bar set by the Foundation is one that is stricter than fair use (specifically the free replacement concept), and en.wiki NFC is stricter than that.  But again, I'm looking at how the acceptable users image clauses were given circa 2005, and how NFCC itself only started to borne itself out a few months later. Clearly pre 2006, the idea was to use NFC that clearly fell into US Fair Use (either because case law existed that asserted it was ok, or clear extensions of that).  With NFCC, we became stricter, and while I agree that the Foundation resolution in 2007 did not force any additional changes on en.wiki's NFCC, it did assert that just meeting fair use was not enough. So I am suggesting that the bar when NFCI#1 was written and now has changed.  Is that enough to prompt a review, I don't think so, but this does suggest that what was ok some years ago may no longer be acceptable. --M ASEM  (t) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't say you know for sure what their intent while drafting this language, but the people who were there at the time -- people like Kat Walsh -- can say. And they have consistently rejected the "tightening" construction you are suggesting.  Jheald (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main switch at en-wiki was in 2005, from self-certification, requiring just a loose assertion that an image was "fair use", to the sharp set of criteria represented in NFCC. Jheald (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've written up before, there are two basic redlines that I don't think anyone here would allow NFC to contravene:
 * Firstly, the use of the images must be legal -- not just for us, but also for any commercial entity subject to U.S. law that wants to reproduce our pages verbatim. (In general, because of differences in laws, we can't make that guarantee for entities subject to non-U.S. law; but we can aim to achieve it for entities that are covered by U.S. law, and that promise is non-negotiable).
 * Secondly, we will not use non-free images (ie images not released to the world for use by anyone anywhere including for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes) if there is any possibility that free images could be found instead, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The Foundation has made clear that this too is non-negotiable.
 * Redline 2 was essentially imposed by Jimbo, ending by fiat the "promotional images" discussion.
 * Redline 1 has long commanded consensus, and (as presented above, including its essential groundedness in U.S. fair use law), was essentially the guiding light that our present NFC was worded to reflect. (Note that this is basically how NFC is "stricter" than the legal position applying just to Wikipedia).
 * That's not to say that Redline 1 is where we actually in practice draw the line. There is a third issue at stake, and that is the reputation/ethos of Wikipedia.  But unlike Redline 1 and Redline 2, which are very clear lines in the sand, there has never been a single view on how much further than Redlines 1 and 2 WP should go to restrict NFC.  Different people have always had a spectrum of views, and that spectrum of views has been expressed right from the start.  Our present detailed advice represents lines that have been thrashed out over time between of those different views, depending what consensus feels does or does not have the right "feel" for WP (eg the discussion on discographies -- apparently okay by the Foundation, but not how consensus felt such WP pages should look).  But thoughout this has been a discussion carried on by Wikipedians -- not the Foundation, which beyond Redlines 1 and 2 has scrupulously not got involved, however much Durin or others might have plead with them to. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with this. My argument is this: recently (last year or so, and lately from FAC) people have begun to question the allowable image use #1, because depending on one's reading of "minimal" from the Foundation, cover images could seem to fail NFCC#8 and thus aren't necessary. The question is if consensus has moved that far since #1 was added to consider changing it, and my gut tells me "no". But at the same time, the Foundation could at least imply which side of the argue - judicious use or minimal use, and which I think is the only other way we will get consensus to see why not all cover images are appropriate (if the Foundation prefers minimal use).  Without their input, I think we need to stay with the status quo of allowing covers per #1.  Any change that does not seek the greater consensus (eg if just limited to those at FAC) is going to be seen as a change by fiat and lead to the same problems with date delinking.  The Foundation could take care of some of the grumblings if they preemptive cleared up somethings or set a direction, but I understand their hesitation to do so. Thus, short of an RFC, I cannot see us invalidating #1. --M ASEM  (t) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. I use two basic thought process about this - first is that it is, and has been, accepted use despite any policy that implies it isn't. The other process is that, in the larger sense, promotional material is meant to be used for this and Wikipedia allows for it but clear descriptors have been shot down in the past. I would love to see far more consistency across the board but I agree that is never going to happen in the broad sense. I would even be happy to see something specific, such as Publicity photos, take hold. Clearly when Jimbo sees it as "dangerous" because the broader suggestion that publicity and promotional material be allowed "is diametrically opposed to the direction we have been heading with respect to fair use in Wikipedia" it lays out part of (was to become) a wider Foundation policy. To me it also adds confusion because of his feeling that The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example even though it too is part of the overall publicity/promotional concept. I think it aids more fuel to the fire that even the promotional/publicity side of it needs to be clearly laid out in policy form. Also remember these discussions happened years ago and were somewhat officially put to bed December 26, 2006. Even though the bulk of the discussions seemed to revolve around image if living people it would have applied to material such as promotional posters as well as album covers provided they still fit into the context of the article.
 * I guess my biggest issue has *always* been the idea that somebody who release something as promotional is releasing it as "free" for uses such as Wikipedia. A policy that says it is not "free enough for Wikipedia" is fine, but that policy should be applied equally. If I have an article about an album and the distributor/label says "This image of the album artwork is free to use in article about that album" there should not be an issue overall. Likewise if I have an article about the artist who appears on the album and the distributor/label says "This image of the artist artwork is free to use in article about that artists" there should not be an issue overall. But at Wikipedia we routinely exempt one and not the other. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about promotional images. We're not saying "these are promotional images, therefore it doesn't matter whether they comply with NFC".  What we're saying is "these images do comply with NFC, therefore it's not an issue one way or the other whether or not they are promotional images".
 * The key issue behind the promotional images of actors was NFCC #1. They were forbidden because they were replaceable.  But the album images cannot be replaced by a home-made image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.  Jheald (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have said this to me before ("This isn't about promotional images.") in such discussions and I have tried to explain - but if you are not involved in the industry I shouldn't expect you to understand common shop talk. By direct example, if you, Jheald, were going to be writing a review of an album you (in the old days) may have been provided an image of the albums cover artwork for use in the review. You may have also been provided a press kit on the artist which may have included a publicity shot of the artists as well. Or you may have been provided an advance copy of the album, which would have not had any artwork, and also be provided with a separate album cover for you to use. This type of material may also have been provided for an article on the artist - as most do rounds of media when promoting a new release. In 2010 things are still basically the same but you can be emailed images or download them from various sources. While, in a perfect world, every single user would follow Wikipedia requirement (Policy) for uploading images and sourcing them this is not a perfect world. Some users simply take out their CD or Vinyl and scan the cover. In those cases it would be true that the source was not publicity/promotional material, however the end result is that the end use is the same. non-free promotional could be applied to lobby cards, movie stills, headshots, posters, studio supplied artwork of covers (CD, DVD, VHS, book, et al.) and other items. But we also use more specific tags such as Non-free poster, Non-free video cover, Non-free product cover and Non-free album cover for those as well. I do understand that, because of these items, and because Wikipedia is open to everyone there is a lot of confusion about what it really what. NFCC #1 can be applied across the board - not only to an image of a living person. And it goes back to the concept of what this type of materiel is - promotional and/or publicity material. Such material was declared "not free enough for Wikipedia" several years ago. Since that time there have been many attmepts to sub-categorize material and that, too, is part of this discussion.
 * Standard disclaimer for promotional/publicity material is that is i freely usable "in any and all media" in the context of a discussion *about* that subject.
 * Wikipedia (or the community at large) had deemed *all such material* not free enough for Wikipedia so therefore it can only be claimed via Fair Use.
 * The Non-free content criteria policy was officially adopted as a policy in January 2006. It was not as refined as it is now and the overall "note" about what would become NFCC 1 was Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.
 * Another bullet of the original wording was The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. This became what is now NFCC 8 - 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.
 * There had never been anything specific about promotional or publicity material in that policy - and that includes album covers. There has been a lot of discussion about it. This included, but not limited to, this discussion from June of 2006 and the DVD/album/magazine covers; screenshots archived discussion Masem mentioned above.
 * There used to be Promotional, which was originally for everything (see 2004 version) but than was made more "clear" in 2005 that is was to be used for publicity/promotional material that promoted a "work or product" while Promophoto (which became Non-free promotional photograph) became for people - they both now are Non-free promotional.
 * I really don't care what way the discussion goes - I maintain that the policy is clear in the "broad" sense and as such we either:
 * 1. Change the policy to include a very narrow and specific kind of images such as are being discussed.
 * 2. Follow the policy across the board.
 * 3. Create an explicit sub-policy that addresses these kinds of images (Being promotional and publicity images) with a break down of each specific kind of image *and* pick a central location for it.
 * Just because "Contextual significance" doesn't explicitly state "commentary" or some like wording does not mean an image can appear without any article in main space. Common sense should imply that, free or not, sticking an image in an article without any context is meaningless. With non-free images context is everything and without it the image would fail Wikipedia policy. The same goes for "No free equivalent." On it's own that does not reply on "context" or "commentary" but there is no reason why, for example, File:Hollywood El Capitan marquee.jpg could not replace File:Beverly hills chihuahua.jpg if the "context" was simply to "serve a purely decorative purpose". And that does, 100%, relate to this thread. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is to understand what it is about promotional images that is objected to. It is not that they are promotional, it is that they are replaceable.  The album covers are not replaceable in that sense, so the objection does not apply to them.
 * As for "of that item", please read the discussion where those three words were actually adopted: . It makes quite clear what the meaning is.
 * Note that this wasn't a change in policy in 2007, it was merely a wording clarification of policy that, as you quote above, was already long settled: identify the subject of an article. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was in fact a period when, for a short time, it got written into policy that there had to be commentary specifically on the content of any image used, on the basis that this was thought to be the position under U.S. law. But that was rapidly backed out, on the basis of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley, which explicitly establishes the opposite.  Jheald (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One point on this: When we drop a cover image into the infobox of a copyrighted work's article, there is an implicit unstated text associated with it: "This is the official branding of the work in question". Note that this is far different if one dropped an album cover in the body of the article about the artist themselves with no further comment beyond, say, being next to where that album's influence on the artist's career is being discussed - that is purely decorative.  There is a function for using a cover image in the infobox, the question still remains is that a function that consensus wants from NFC, and the answer is likely "yes". --M ASEM  (t) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this conversation is happening all over the place now in this same thread but I agree, and know, that concept. (I said For me, I not only agree with the exception about this sort of thing I honestly feel the exception should be made more broad in how it relates to things such as publicity/promo material, which album covers tend to fall under.) But on the more narrow question at hand I think it is very valid concern to become more explicit. Using my example from above, based on policy, not guidelines or essays, real world or even common practice at Wikipedia, File:Hollywood El Capitan marquee.jpg could replace File:Beverly hills chihuahua.jpg in an article about the film, as the article is about the film - not the poster. However File:Hollywood El Capitan marquee.jpg could *not* replace File:Beverly hills chihuahua.jpg in an article about that actual one sheet or its' design. It could, however, be argued that File:Beverly hills chihuahua.jpg is not needed in an article about the promotion of the film because File:Hollywood El Capitan marquee.jpg is promotion of the film. In short: Nowhere does the current policy explicitly state "album/single covers and posters" are 100% allowed in articles about the "album/single covers and posters", and I believe that was the main question being raised. But if I can reach out to the real world for a moment - I read reviews and article on films almost daily and I can say it is rare to see a films one sheet used. It is much more common to see either no images or publicity/promo shots from the film or the actors. I don't think it is necessary to see artwork for a film, or a record, to understand the article *unless* it is something such as Yesterday and Today. I also tend to disagree with the argument about album covers not be freely replaceable. Look Metallica (album) - can it really be argued that nobody can make a black image to replace the non-free one? Than there is the Back in Black cover which was just "replaced" with a free one (But not re-licensed): File:ACDC Back in Black.png. It is just a question - again, not saying that I disagree with the use of non-free album covers or one sheets but rather I see the 3 basic options I mentioned above on how to proceed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree these are possible replacements, and this goes back to the whole Snow White thing. Unless we can accurately recreate the simple image (as we often do with text-based logos), any free replacement - drawn, photo, or otherwise, inaccurately represents the branding of the work, the reason we use the image in the infobox in the first place. While it is a free replacement, it is not an equivalent free replacement because the branding is gone. (And I would argue that to the degree of clarity of the signage in the BHC marquee shot, that's not free in the first place). But as it has been pointed out, WP:NFCI explicitly allows for covers to be used in articles about the work that that cover is on. --M ASEM  (t) 22:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCI is not the policy, and the policy does not explicitly mention it. That was part of my point. Branding is not part of this discussion at all, but it is a valid issue that probably should have its own discussion. The questions way up at top were about the need for non-free images to be used and if they were simply presumed to be "needed" than why can't we somehow say that in policy. I agree. But I also disagree that the concept of "critical commentary" is not laid out anywhere or, as has now (and in the past) been suggested by Jheald, the "critical commentary" does not mean commentary about the actual image but about the subject of the image - which is 100% not what the policy implies or the many examples about the policy explain. *If* that is true than it needs to be explicitly laid out in Policy first of all, followed by the many examples. Overall I agree with the Image use policy in that However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate. Part of the implication in this thread, based on common usage of such images, is that every single article on every single album/single/film/etc requires a non-free image be used because without one the reader would have no understanding of the subject. I do not agree with that at all. And policy indicates the opposite of that overall - there are no guarantees that any image, free or not, will be used "just because." I agree with Masem that "We need to be crystal clear of what we would expect to be in the article to retain cover art." I have zero issues with that. Right now the argument to keep because a movie poster being a "brand", or an album cover being a "brand", can be tossed aside because country to country there are different versions of these things. It is not uncommon for, here in the U.S, to have advance one sheets, teaser one sheets, "Style A", "Style B" one sheets and so on. If an article is using "style A" without any "critical commentary" about "Style A" who is to say "Style B" and "Teaser One sheet" as well a "German release" can not be used? And by the same token - why can't a lobby card be used? Why can't a promotional postcard be used? Why can't an advertisement from the local paper be used? Based on policy there would only be one possible answer: Whatever image is being used meets all 10 of the policy criteria *and* it the most iconic/historical depiction of that subject. The overall use for such image right now is that we simply allow such use no matter what and it is up to various editors to decide which version of the non-free material is best suited to the subject. Policy be dammed. The argument goes both ways. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy section break
We're making this way too complicated. The issue is simple: So in one case of editors, there is no issue; in the other, there is a significant problem. Note that I am not saying either side is wrong because NFCC#8 is extremely subjective. The question is "what is consensus?" and my read of the general population of WP is the former approach : that cover art in infobox is contextually significant. And importantly, without some other impetus, changing that consensus will be difficult. Importantly, there is no right or wrong here, as everything falls within the minimum bar set by the Foundation - it is just what editors as a whole think best for WP and image use. That's it. To make any change from this, we are likely going to need an RFC because this is very significant. --M ASEM (t) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) NFCI#1 (yes, a guideline, but in place since 2005) states that cover art can be used on articles about the item in question.
 * 2) NFCC#8 (a policy) says that non-free images should have contextual significance.
 * 3) One group of editors argue that the cover in the infobox provides contextual significance (branding, markings, whatever) - hence NFCI#1 does not conflict with NFCC#8
 * 4) A different group of editors argue that cover art presented without discussion of it fails NFCC#8, and thus NFCI#1 conflicts with this.
 * Well, I tried to read all the above, but could only get about half way. So I am skipping to the end to comment. I have had no involvement in the history of NFCC policy, and have never been involved in proposals to amend it: I am strictly a "user"/"applier" of the policy. I have a fair bit to do with it because one of my main fields of editing is contemporary art. I am well aware that inclusion of a single image of album cover art has become a kind of article standard. I have never been convinced that cover art meets the NFC policy if there is no commentary in the article text about that cover art. I was suprised to see several people claiming, above, that the policy was always meant to be interpreted as meaning that it was legitimate to use one cover image to illustrate / assist discussion of the album. I always, as an outsider, interpreted it to mean that the image can only be included to illustrate / assist discussion of the cover itself. I'm sure some of the editors above are experienced and were 'in the room' during some of those discussions. My view is that, to the extent there is a consensus that an album image is OK, it is a concensus of editors who are in denial about the standard we are working with. Don't get me wrong, as an editor who absolutely relies on non-free image content, I wish there were more latitude - but I don't think there is, and unless an album cover is actually discussed in the text, the image should not be there. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that it sometimes seems that someone needs to have taken classes in statutory construction to be able to read our policies. Image criterion #1 says, "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  The reference to "commentary of that item" uses the word "item," which is used earlier in the sentence ("cover art from various items") to mean "the thing that has cover art."  So, the way to read the criterion is as saying, "in the context of commentary on that thing that receives cover art."  I think that you raise an important issue here--this point should be written more clearly.  But what confuses me here is your insistence that an interpretation that was not intended by the authors of that point is the ONLY way to read it.  You can take a look at some of the old discussions that Jheald linked to see otherwise.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While the thread started off as one thing it has shifted into something else, and it is a valid issue. What Jheald linked to was his clarification about what "critical commentary" means (the subject of the article and "not the cover image"), however, as I already said, someone reading the policy and the examples is not going to get that meaning by default, more so because when discussions come up about fair use on Wikipedia, "critical commentary" (or slight variations of it) is always used in terms of commentary on the image, and that if there is no commentary on the image it fails the criteria. That concept is explained as An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war in the example of an unacceptable use for non-free images showing "war". That type of "critical commentary" explanation is used across the board, so to speak. Some examples (Bold added):
 * For music - a short clip can be used "when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder"
 * Other audio - a clip can be used "when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the speaker/author."
 * Screenshots (Tv, Film, Games, software) - "For critical commentary."
 * Promotional/Publicity material - "For critical commentary"
 * A video clip - can not be used "without sourced commentary in the accompanying text."
 * Material from commercial content provider can not be used "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article"
 * Baseball cards - can not be used unless they are used "to illustrate a passage on the card itself"
 * Newspapers/Magazines - can only be used "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article"
 * For lists - one shouldn't use a non-free image for each item, but "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body" may be allowed, and are "are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements."
 * And then we have the subject of this discussion:
 * For album covers - "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."
 * So it is 100% relevant if, out of the common usage of non-free images, there is an explicit exception where "critical commentary" on the non-free material does not mean the image itself, but the articles subject matter it should be stated differently than all the rest. In other words:
 * Logos - "For identification"
 * Which implies no "critical commentary" is needed on the logo itself.
 * Stamps/currency - "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject."
 * Which implies no "critical commentary" is needed to use an image of a stamp or currency. On the other hand it also implies that the "subject" whose image appears on the stamp or currency does not allow reason enough to use it an article about the "subject" whose image appears on the stamp or currency. This is opposite of the "war" example, but more clear in it use if fine sans any "critical commentary".
 * If all cover art falls under the "subject of the article, not the subject of the cover" concept that I suggest "Acceptable use - Images":
 * 1. Cover art: For identification.
 * or:
 * 1. Cover art: For identification of the product that is the subject of the article.
 * If you want the example to be more explicit that simply add on something like "The articles subject must also be the subject of the product, not the subject that appears on the cover art." Or using the "war" and currency examples - "An image whose subject happens to be an album/DVD/Video, to illustrate an article on the album/DVD/Video, not the artist/performer/musician/actor/director/etc." As I pointed out way up top somewhere I agree with the idea there needs to be something laid out that is more explicit/clear. I think what Legolas2186 said below sums it up nicely: ..why not come to a consensus as to the threshold of the non-free usage? For obvious usages of album/single covers, is a critical commentary essential? We should have the page reflect this. If "critical commentary", in the same vein as it is used for most other non-free material, is not needed than simply remove that wording from the example. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording for criticism and commentary for the item in question of where we are using the cover image is there to prevent - for the most part - using the cover image when the work is mentioned but even isn't discussed (as one would often find in discographies, episode lists, etc.) So trimming that language out would allow NFCI#1 to be abused in those areas. If the idea is to be more explicit, I would almost say that we can called "use in infoboxes" and "notable works" to assure that there is discussion about the work at hand.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But I think, beyond what I have said, re-reading others comments and the general use of "critical commentary" for fair use images, the use of the "critical commentary" wording is the issue. The overall accepted use it that it isn't needed, or isn't meant to be used, in the same vein as other non-free content. When you say that the "critical commentary" wording is there to prevent use in lists and such it does bring back the "critical commentary" meaning as used for other material however. (And for the record I do agree with that rationale because that is what I think "critical commentary" is all about - detailed text that discusses the non-free material itself.) Bear with this next "radical" suggestion - how about remove it from "Acceptable use - Images" and move it to the "Unacceptable use - Images" and word it along the lines of some of the others. Sort of:
 * "A DVD/Video/CD/Album cover, to illustrate the article on the artist/performer/musician/actor/director/etc. However, if the DVD/Video/CD/Album itself is the subject of an article it may be appropriate"
 * Obviously words can be moved around and/or changed but maybe we are looking at this from the "inside" rather than the "outside." Lets define the "Unacceptable use" and base the "acceptable" off of that. Soundvisions1 (talk)
 * I think again you're making this a lot more confusing than it needs to be. Because NFC is supposed to be "exceptional", we need to take the approach of when NFC use is acceptable. The use of covers, if you follow the links that have been provided, are a result of the fact that using covers to show the work in question when describing the work in detail has been affirmed as fair use under US Law. As such, NFCI#1 was added to reflect that.  Most other uses of covers (eg used in the article about the person it depicts without a strong rationale) are not allowed and already outlined through NFC:UUI.  The present language is not that confusing, but it seems to me that all that you want is to be clear when we're using a cover in the infobox of an article about the media it is the cover of, where there is significant coverage of that media in the first place (that is, it is likely notable).  We can alter the language but I don't see the present as confusing at all - as long as we work from the basis that NFCI#1 reflects current consensus.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have said many many times that in the real world use of album covers in articles/reviews about an album, or even the artist, is fine. But this is not the real world and I think everyone agrees that what is allowable via fair use in the real world is not the same as what is allowable at Wikipedia. Album covers are a perfect example of this - in the real world I could interview an artist or review a live concert and use an album cover in the resulting article. At Wikipedia such use is not allowed. This is where the whole "critical commentary" concept enters the picture. Remember I did not start this thread, and if you re-read it there are others who also are saying/asking the same thing. So, really, at this point what I am saying is to define what is not acceptable Wikipedia usage of such material and work backwards. You even said that "we could be stronger on when cover art is used". Jheald asked/said "The question is what adds to reader understanding of the topic" and they seem to feel an image is needed to understand an album is being discussed. On that part alone I would agree with what Kww said, that in an overall sense I think the "identification" argument is extremely weak, and the associated images do nothing to increase the readers understanding of the articles And even the creator of this thread, Legolas, said that their understanding is really not increased by seeing the cover of an album/single when there is no critical commentary...


 * That is why mentioned Zankyō. If Jheald's "question" were put out there, that "what adds to reader understanding of the topic", I an not so sure that the "consensus" would be that the article really meets any sort of "critical commentary" for use of the album cover. Does it really add to reader understanding that the album is/was "the tenth studio album"? That "It was released on 30 June 2009"? That it "reached the number 1 spot on the Oricon chart with sales of 260,917"? Now compare to Yesterday and Today. Is there any doubt that use of the album cover/s in that article does "adds to reader understanding of the topic"? Is there any doubt that The "Butcher cover" section of the article is "critical commentary" on the actual cover? That is not really that confusing, or hard to understand. And even hamiltonstone has said basically said the same thing - that they have never been convinced that cover art meets the NFC policy if there is no commentary in the article text about that cover art. So, for example, if one were to use Yesterday and Today as a good use I would say Zankyō is a poor use. The only real way to justify Zankyō using a non-free image is to say what Jheald said "critical commentary" was meant to be about - the articles subject (in this case the album "Zankyō") and "not the cover image."


 * And, again, in the real world it wouldn't really matter how much "critical commentary" there was about the cover itself. (As an aside - in the real world I looked carefully at the Sunday paper and in the 7 film reviews two had no image and five had studio supplied promo shots. None had images of the poster. There was also an interview with Natalie Portman which had studio supplied promos from Black Swan - one was a still from the film and the other a shot from the set. None of the book reviews had any images. There were no CD reviews. All images were being used for editorial use, they fall under fair use. But not one of these would be allowed in the same manner in Wikipedia) Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again the core problem is understanding where NFCI#1 came from and where the current treatment of NFCC (which post-dates NFCI#1!) have separated and how to reconcile it. We are not going to do it here with only a small input of editors. We are going to need a full RFC to reassert where consensus is for this as I explained above. --M ASEM  (t) 22:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two quick replies--first, the argument that an image of album art adds significantly to the reader understanding of the album does not depend on the image adding to reader understanding of some piece of text in the article. My argument, at least, is that seeing the art helps people understand the album and that knowing what the album looks like is itself informative.  Also, as far as consensus is concerned, I'd expect editors who are not particularly interested in the debates that occur at this talk page would go ballistic if there were some kind of large scale deletion of album art.  I don't think there's any chance at all that consensus would support that, and I think that readers would find our articles much less useful than they were before.  Second, the analogy between a newspaper review and an encyclopedia doesn't really hold.  Encyclopedia articles are quite different from reviews, which serve a much narrower purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ...which is why I think after the new year I will start an RFC to resolve what the consensus is for the intersection of NFCC#8 as used now, and NFCI#1, which has pre-dated it, announcing the RFC at VPP, FAC, image policy/guideline talk pages, and at wikiprojects where cover art is commonly used (eg music, video games, film, books, etc.) That way if consensus agrees that NFCI#1 is too weak today, we can justify a mass removal of cover images which are not discussed further in the article.  (I don't put this here to elicit comments on this aspect now, only that I think that this is the only next logical step). --M ASEM  (t) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help but reply here. I can't find any way to read your comments to mean that you're not interested in "justifying a mass removal of cover images," which is kind of odd thing to throw out there and then ask people not to discuss.  The only way I could imagine any kind of consensus behind that is if it's not sufficiently publicized/explained to the rank and file editors.  Concerns over removing fair use content really is reserved to an ivory tower within the community.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, right now, if someone decided to run through and mass delete cover images on the assumption NFCI#1 is broken and NFCC#8 is strictly correct, there would be community backlash because there has been no wide discussion if this is truly the case. Given the use of cover images has generated significant discussion at least 3 times that I'm aware of in the last few months, it is high time to resolve the issue if NFCI#1 has community consensus per NFCC#8. That needs to be discussed in a wide venue - the RFC I propose to start in a few days. What I'm not suggesting and what I am discouraging is regurgitation of these arguments now by the NFC regulars that will get us nowhere before this RFC is in place. --M ASEM (t) 23:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Related issue
As there is much discussion on this sort of thing of late here is something to ponder. At face value I, personally, would feel that the non free images being used in the Greg Leon article do not meet the policy. I feel they simply show the subject of the articles, not the product - in this case albums. The lack of an infobox seems secondary because, overall, the argument would have been we don't allow images of this type to be used in infoboxes to illustrate the subject, unless that subject *is* the subject of the image. In "plain English", taken from Unacceptable use - Images: A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. and A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. The same principal should apply to album covers used in articles about a band member, infobox or not. On the other hand does "Elizondo and Vera's replacement, Chuck Stevens, played with Leon on the Greg Leon Invasion picture disc released by Azra/R2R in 1983" qualify as enough commentary to allow use of File:GLI LP.jpg? And does "(Don Dokken has since made his first album, which graces Leon on the cover, available for download to the public)" qualify as enough commentary to allow use of File:Dokken Back In The Streets.jpg? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. These images are primarily being used to show the likeness of a living individual, so fail NFCC #1.  Jheald (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But note the fundamental difference between these images and album cover images on album articles. These images fail because they are (at least potentially) replaceable for the purpose of representing the living individual.  But album cover images are not replaceable by free images with the same encyclopedic purpose.  That's what makes the two cases different.   Jheald (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did note the difference between an article on a subject (I.e - an album) vs an article on a subject related to the main subject (i.e - a person who appeared on the album) I said I feel they simply show the subject of the articles, not the product - in this case albums. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed that difference, but you are missing the critical difference which is the basis of the two different treatments of the two cases: replaceability. Jheald (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, not overlooking that either. I said At face value I, personally, would feel that the non free images being used in the Greg Leon article do not meet the policy - and that includes NFCC 1 as well as the idea of this thread - which, as created by Legolas, is asking "isn't it a basic necessity that the article on a song or an album will have a cover art image, irrespective of whether there is a background story behind it or not?" Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the point is that the reason - NFCC #1 - which is what makes the non-free images used in Greg Leon not be used appropriately does not apply to the album covers used on album articles, because those covers are not replaceable in the sense of NFCC #1 in the way that the Greg Leon images are. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is kind of going in a loop, why not come to a consensus as to the threshold of the non-free usage? For obvious usages of album/single covers, is a critical commentary essential? We should have the page reflect this. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been consistency from the start -- as that diff from Masem shows ; as the text of NFCI #1 is supposed to clarify; as even hard-liners like JMilburn attest; and as the standard template Album cover fur sets out.
 * It is sufficient that the album cover is used for identification. We require critical commentary about the album; we do not require commentary about the cover.  Jheald (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard template is quite frankly crap, and I routinely tell editors who bring non-free images to WP:FAC to rewrite them as no template magically absolves you of thought. In regards to the original motivation (I believe) behind this discussion, it wasn't "should album covers be used in the infobox about the album" so much as "should home video release covers be used in an infobox about a television season". They are distinctly different cases in my mind. I would not argue that virtually every time you can defend a film poster or album art as meeting the requirements of WP:NFCC. However I'm not sure that the same visual identification and utility argument can be made for a season of TV which does not have the same intrinsic and fundamental connection to a single promotional image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could argue that album covers aren't necessary in the same manner because nowadays most people buy one or two tracks from albums they like via digital download services, and so. Or there's the argument that nowadays TV is produced to be delivered to home media, just the when-and-where is unknown when it airs.   The distinction between the two cases is there, but it is so fine a point that if we try to nuance it (without establishing strong consensus for it), we will have numerous editing wars where those less savvy on NFC ways will insist their image is needed, arguments falling either side of that point.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But even if they are downloading single tracks it's still got the same album art, and most television shows (excepting some cable series) are still primarily created for the purpose of advertising revenue... I'm not saying there needs to be any wording change, the guideline says "for the work in question". My point is that the work in question is a television season, not a region DVD or Blu-Ray release of that season. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your logic nor that its wrong - I'm saying that the distinction is so fine that if we actually tried to implement it along those lines, there would be numerous disagreements, lots of crossover cases (eg direct to video releases), and lots of gaming of the system to meet that. If cover art is used at all per currently NFCI#1, we have to draw a line that is pretty clear.  To that end, we're pretty good with, for example, not justifying a screenshot of a TV episode falling into the same line because it clearly isn't cover art.  Is it perfect? No, but neither is any aspect of NFC handling. --M ASEM  (t) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Riot
I'm really not sure where to post about this, but I figured it's central enough to attract enough knowledgeable users (I hope). At Talk:Richard Riot there's a discussion which I'm afraid has gonna more into circles. It concerns this revision -- I have reverted a fair bit to remove the quote because I feel it is too large and takes up too much of the section. The discussion has went nowhere, and some outside opinion would be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot.  Maxim (talk)  05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup
There is a user attempting to force the usage of multiple non-free images of future venues regardless of the fact that articles about said venues already exist and that the images add almost nothing to the article. see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football ΔT The only constant 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 6
Hi, I have nominated a non-free content template for deletion. Input is welcome. J Milburn (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8
Moved this 123 kb thread (which is likely to swell) to Non-free content/Cover art RfC, along with the rfctag. Hopefully, it will be easier to monitor there as well as not overwhelming the regular business of this talk page. I'm trusting this will be uncontroversial; hearty apologies if I'm wrong. :) (User:Moonriddengirl) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-free content/Cover art RfC

High usage of a single non-free item
We currently have 7 items that are each used on at least 25 separate pages. It boggles my mind how that could be considered minimal. The highest count is 44 pages, and we have a total of 81 images that are being used at on at least 10 page each. Can someone please tell me how such usage could ever be considered minimal? ΔT The only constant 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We haven't really had a good understanding (outside of the sports logo) if multiple reuses of the same image constitutes a problem. 25 reuses seems an issue, but not necessarily 10.  But of course it depends on the image and what its used for. --M ASEM  (t) 05:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Abclocalradio.png is being used on 44 articles..... ΔT The only constant 05:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A spot check of all the articles using that logo shows that none of the stations are notable, and instead that should be a list with 1 use of the image to define the broadcaster. --M ASEM (t) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the top 50 items listed at ~betacommand/reports/high_use_NFCC.html. ΔT The only constant 05:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With the assumption that the use of a non-free logo is appropriate to represent an entity on an article about that entity - even when the entity is using the same logo as its parent - then its hard to find a problem with some of those on that list (like the MTV logo). Note that this is different from using the parent logo alongside the entity's own logo to identify that relationship, which I've believe we found to be not appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably be a case-by-case judgement. We probably don't want to set numbers and say "no more than X articles should use it", because we could probably come up with at least one example where X+1 articles are allowable under current guidelines and policies.  If a use seems inappropriate, it would be good to remove that use. If a use is appropriate, it should be allowed. But to set an arbitrary numerical limit seems like a bad idea. -- Jayron  32  05:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I check the high usage page many times a week, and have worked long and hard to reduce uses that are clearly inappropriate. We've made some inroads, but in general the status quo hasn't changed. People want to sprinkle logos wherever they think they can, and add template rationales to make them 'acceptable' uses. Working against this is a never ending task because the general mentality of the majority of our editors is to use non-free content wherever they want, as much as they want, so long as it's legal. Δ isn't suggesting a numerical limit, nor should there be one. I do agree that we need to take a more stern stance. Some case points; That's just the top three. I think it's clear from this that our heaviest abusers of non-free content are in large part because of exceptionally poor encyclopedia construction. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not so sure that the USAC logo isn't already in the public domain? MLL is clearly excessive for a bunch of unreferenced "articles" (I use that term loosely) and the abc logo meets all the criteria for copyrightability and needs to be minimized. — BQZip01 — talk 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to File:Abclocalradio.png, Masem is absolutely correct. I checked 10 of the 44 articles where that image is used. Not one of them contains a secondary source, not one of them is anything more than a few recoverable sentences. Assuming they all fit that pattern, all of them should be turned into redirects, and the distilled content pushed into a list article.
 * File:United States Auto Club logo.png; used 28 times. Every single one of the uses is for a USAC season article. We've fought long and hard against this sort of use, and there's still a great deal of dissent over it. But, it still happens despite best efforts.
 * File:Major League Lacrosse logo.svg; used 26 times, 9 of which are on season articles, 10 of which are 'award' articles, such as Major League Lacrosse Rookie of the Year Award, 4 of which are draft related articles. All of the award articles are unreferenced, containing 1-2 sentences with a table of winners. This should be merged to a list article. The draft articles are all unreferenced. Also, compare National Football League Draft; no logo. National Football League Rookie of the Year Award; no logo.
 * I've nominated the group of ABC Local radio stations for deletion. See Articles for deletion/ABC Riverina. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, after Australia woke up the AfD has turned into a landslide keep. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

56-second-long music sample
Recently, an editor who uploaded a music sample has been involved in a discussion with myself and Δ over the use of and length of the sample. The full discussion is at User_talk:Δ and the section subsequent to it. The editor is defiantly insisting that a 56 second music sample is acceptable and necessary, and has now claimed that if I tag the image for deletion, that it will be seen by him as a personal vendetta from me against him. The original song is apparently 3 minutes and 18 seconds long, so this sample comprises nearly 30% of the entirety of the song. The sample in question is File:14 - The Sad Ballad Of Danny Boy.ogg. Would someone else please step in? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be me. There is no vendetta, except perhaps on Hammersoft's part who is specifically targeting this sample and not others, which I claim is perhaps apart of an edit war, as it sprouted from an altogether different discussion about fair use rationale. My defense of the 56 sample is that it states in the Rule of thumb that it is "not intended to be strictly accurate" in regards to the rules on fair use rational of the sample. In my defense, I said the sample probably could be cut by another 10 seconds, but I also feel that the sample is not excessively long to accurately portray the juxtaposition of a light bouncy verse with a heavy dark rock chorus (for identification).Leitmotiv (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see... it's used in Glyph (album) with absolutely no critical commentary necessitating a sample, and in Floater (band) it once again has no mention beyond that it received heavy airplay. There's no defensible reason per WP:NFCC a song sample needs to be used at all, let along 56 seconds of one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on what most often is used as the definition of non-free files needing "critical commentary" this sample fails because it has none. However, pending the discussion/s above outcome, if the definition of "critical commentary" is redefined as meaning the overall text of the article and not detailed text about the subject of the material in use it may end up being acceptable use simply because it mentions the title of the song. (But to be clear - as of right now there is no real indication of why the sample is needed, especially in the info box) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the new metric, we're screwed. We could then have 30s samples of every track on an album, every alternate cover, every single cover, ad nauseum. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just "mentioning" something in the text does not pass WP:NFCC. You need to demonstrate that for every non-free usage the reader's understanding of the subject (in this case, the band) would not be significantly degraded. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my whole point, sorry if that was not clear. As the policy, and definition of "critical commentary"/"sourced commentary", stands right now there is not enough of it to justify use of the sample in the articles. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can get the references in place to support a critical commentary on the song. Heck the song could have it's very own page. But seeing as how I am involved in this discussion and on the heels of the flu virus, AND on a special diet, I am a little lethargic to fix the problem at the moment. I will provide the references that detail the dual nature of the song as well as it's influence on the band being nominated for a Grammy in NARAS in the future. I, too, am eager to see the outcome of the above discussion regarding critical commentary.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it shouldn't be used in more than one article, that's just overuse. If it's indicative of the band's sound as a whole, the band article would be the place for it. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The song is not indicative of their sound as a whole. They're quite eclectic. Why is it not acceptable to have the song on the album page too? Especially when some people may know the song, and not the band? In that event, I think it would very much be needed on the album page for researchers not aware of the band name. And yes they exist.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not representative of their sound as whole, it probably shouldn't be in the band article at all, because it's not significantly improving the reader's understanding of the band's sound (WP:NFCC). That's the only reason for having sound clips in articles in the first place. ("Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder.") Black Kite (t) (c) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No the song is not indicative as a whole, but in parts, yes. It contains both in contrast. Whereas other songs have usually one or the other, and sometimes something completely different. The clip is necessary to identify the band because it was played nationally and band recognition for the song is low. This is the song people relate to, and they may not be aware that it's Floater who plays it. It is representative of their sound: It's representative of a time in the band's history, their biggest hit, and it's reputation for being a catchy sing-along.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So why does it need to be 56 seconds long out of a 3:18 song? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At this rate it probably won't be 56 seconds long, but I am requesting that the person who supplied it truncate it to 30 seconds to satisfy you guys and disregard the rule of thumb proposition that it's not a strict enforcment, despite my earlier attempts to explain its justification by juxtaposition, et al. I'm even considering taking down the other samples to reduce clutter and fall in line with the rest of the parade.Leitmotiv (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Black Kite et al. And frankly, I see a lot of very questionable usage of non-free pop-music clips, even if less than 30 seconds long. Of particular concern is articles on recent hits, top 40, etc, where the owner is very likely to be deriving significant income from sales of DVDs, CDs, downloads. 56 seconds is quite unacceptable for fair use, no matter what the total length of the track. Tony   (talk)  10:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Vancouver Whitecaps FC and non-free logos
Recently, User:Δ removed some non-free logos from this article for lacking rationale for the use, per WP:NFCC #10c. Rationales were added for the images (File:86erslogo.png, File:Vancouver-Whitecaps-FC-Logo.svg, File:WhitecapsFC.PNG) and the logos were re-added to the article. After seeing the article, I removed the logos from the article as decorative fair use, failing WP:NFCC #8. I noted my reasoning at Talk:History_of_Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC. In all three logo cases, there is a main article to the respective iteration of the club, where the logos are also hosted. I was reverted, and told that what I saw as decorative, two regulars to the article see as illustrative. Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Press kit rationale
I have nominated the above template for deletion. Thoughts are welcome at the discusssion. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Pound and others
There's something of a dispute surrounding Ezra Pound and related articles. The images in question are:
 * File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg, used in the Pound article only, and nominated for deletion here
 * File:Hdpoet.jpg, used to lead the article on the subject, but also used in the Pound article and imagism
 * File:DorothyPound.jpg, used to lead the article on the subject, but also used in the Pound article (there's also a debate about whether the image needs to be tagged for being public domain despite being non-free for Wikipedia's purposes)

Despite there being numerous technically unrelated issues, editors have requested that this is discussed centrally somewhere. As far as I can see, the HD and Dorothy images should not be used outside of their own respective articles, as it simply doesn't matter what the people in question looked like. Other users involved in the various discussions disagree. It'd be nice if we could have some kind of clear consensus on this without any bloodshed. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We know the publication date of the second photo and it is before 1923, so that image should be public domain according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. At the time of the second photograph coming out, ""Publication" was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." (according to the Cornell link). I think the licenses need to be looked at and honestly changed, especially for the second one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The dates given on the image page possible dates it was taken, not published. If we can confirm any of the images as free, that would save a lot of heartache... J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (2 x ec) It's unhelpful to adopt an extremist interpretation of the fair-use guideline, JM. You've said elsewhere that an FU image must be essential to an understanding of the topic, but very few (if any) images are absolutely essential, just as very few words are essential (a point Pound would heartily agree with).


 * The question is not whether they are essential, but whether they are didactic, and if so whether someone's copyright is harmed by our use of them. The answers here are yes, and no. These are old images, all taken before 1923, showing women who were very important in Pound's life. They are almost certainly PD, but we can't claim that because we don't know the earliest dates of publication. The first shows him in military uniform at school, something the section remarks on, and something Pound referred to. The third is free in the country it was taken. They are all used in sections where the subject of the image is discussed. There are no copyright issues, no harm done, and they educate the reader.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we should not be playing the "do they do any harm" game. We have our NFCC, and so we should stick to them. It's not our job to sit here and guesshow sued we're going to be if we do something with whatever image we come across. We have to consider these images as non-free, unless we have evidence to the contrary. If there's any unhelpful position here, it is your blatant disregard of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Whilst these images probably are PD, we need to ensure that is correct.  And if they are non-free, then their use in certain places fails NFCC - for example we don't need a non-free image to see what women who were important in Pound's life looked like, unless their appearance is particularly notable for some reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For File:Hdpoet.jpg, if these were sent in the mail before 1923, I would call that "publicly distributed." For the third image, do we know if the photographer was American or not? However, regardless if it was published outside the US first, if the photograph was before 1923, it is also public domain in the United States (regardless of when the author died). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:DorothyPound.jpg - photographed in London c 1915. Not published as far as my research shows until the latter half of the 20th century. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also FYI, previous review of the two Pound images here. Also discussion here regarding the first image. Essentially, the copyright for the images has not been determined, and cannot be determined. Whatever is decided, it would be nice for the policy to be consistent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the postcard of Hilda (the second image above) can be considered published. Personally I would see it as published only if available to the public in the sense of being given away or sold. I don't see sending a card to someone with my photograph on it as publication, but if others want to argue that constitutes publication that's fine by me. But the other two are definitely not PD that we can establish, because the earliest publication dates we know of are 1970. (Zscout, it's the year of publication that matters for PD 1923, not when the image was taken.) But there is absolutely no problem with claiming fair use for a picture of someone as a kid with his mum, and an early image of his wife, both taken before 1910 as I recall, and with absolutely no issues as far as copyright holders are concerned.


 * If people here are saying there is a problem with claiming fair use, I suggest we hold the discussion on a more centralized page to get broader input. All policies and guidelines (and it's worth bearing in mind that this page is not policy) have to be applied with common sense. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. If those images are non-free, how do they pass WP:NFCC? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense says that if they add to the educational value of the articles then they become important to claim Fair Use considering the age and rarity of these vintage images...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again though - how do they pass WP:NFCC? I'm unconvinced that being able to see images of related people "significantly increases" the understanding of Pound himself. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on, page 5 under "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date", the first image, where we do not know the photographer and thus cannot figure life+, we use either 90 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Publication is unknown (possibly as late as 2008), so 120+1898 = 2018. Image must be non-free. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that in the link you provided, Masem? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Page 5 into 6, which says The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms apply to them as well. The 95/120 rule ( one I wasn't familiar with) is listed in the immediately preceeding section, For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. --M ASEM  (t) 14:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg - in a phone conversation with the curator of the Pound collection at the Beinecke Library at Yale, I was told scholars have tried to identify the photographer without success. The image was created in 1898, presumably in the Philadelphia area, and that's all we know. Also in a phone conversation with an editor at New Directions Publishing, who owns copyright to much of Pound's work, I was told that they would be very happy if the photographer for the image could be identified, or if the image can be declared free. They don't hold copyright, but believe the the licensing is murky. The photograph is currently held by a museum in Hailey, Idaho - I also spoke with the curator there: they acquired the photograph from Yale, but they do not know who the photographer was. They do not hold copyright. For whatever that's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has that photograph been exhibited either by Yale or by the museum in Idaho? If so when?...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been displayed at The Sun Valley Center for the Arts in the Pound House in Hailey, but the Pound House museum is newish - only recently acquired. I don't know how long the Beinecke has had the collection, but not all that long. The problem I kept running into in the summer, and the reason I don't want to put anymore time into this, is that everyone tells me they believe the image to be free because the copyright isn't held by the estate, the publisher, the musuems, but no one can prove it's free, so it has to be treated as non-free.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have to have been displayed before 1924 to change the 120 year from creation point. --M ASEM (t) 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike, Black Kite; can I please leave this in your capable hands? If the images turn out free, great, if not, could you please ensure that their use is consistent with our NFCC? I've found this whole issue a little draining, and I would like to bow out from it if possible. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As Zscout stated, ""Publication" was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." The first image seems to be a clear work for hire (the photographer took this image for the individuals in the photo and sold it to them), this, in effect, is publishing the photo. As such it was published in 1898 or shortly thereafter and is PD. Your thoughts? The other two seem pretty squarely in the PD realm. — BQZip01 — talk 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, we can't call it PD just because of that. Copyright office says that if the date of publication and the work is unknown, copyright extends for 120 years from creation (1898 means 2018 in this case). --M ASEM  (t) 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since "publication" wasn't defined until the 1960s with respect to copyright. What is your definition of "published" since you and I clearly have differing views. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All explained here . As we have no idea if it was published, we assume the worst case - 120 years from creation. --M ASEM (t) 06:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, after reading 12 pages, your definition of what "published" means is not explained. Please do. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Still looking for a definition here. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Free and non-free sports logo
Today, I reverted an addition of a non-free logo (File:USCGamecocks.png) to the University of South Carolina article. I did this in part for failing WP:NFCC #10c, no rationale for the use, and also because the non-free logo was being used to replace a free logo which serves the same purpose. Prior to doing so, I looked at the source of the free logo, located here. If you look at the text in the section titled "PRIMARY ATHLETIC SPIRIT MARKS" it says "Spirit marks 5-10 are available with the Block C, with the Gamecock, and as type only on white, black, and garnet backgrounds." (emphasis mine). I read from this that the university recognizes the File:South Carolina Gamecocks wordmark.svg wordmark only logo as being an official primary athletic spirit mark. So, this begs the question; since the university recognizes the copyright free wordmark logo as being an official logo, should we even have File:USCGamecocks.png? WP:NFCC #1 implores us not to use non-free content when a free alternative serves the same purpose. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind when they look at File:South Carolina Gamecocks wordmark.svg that the team(s) being referred to are the South Carolina Gamecocks? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there's significant commentary on the non-free logo itself that requires it to be imaged, then no, the non-free fails "free equivalent replacement" test. --M ASEM (t) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that even if there is a free alternative, people still want THAT logo to be used and will accept no other (which is the problem I am running into with enforcing NFCC 1). College logos always haven been a problem to enforce when it comes to NFCC policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In this case though, I think we have a clear case where the university in question is asserting that a wordmark logo is an official athletic logo. Further to that source, there are wordmark logos specific to every sport. I don't know that we have any other university where there's as clear an intention as this one that we have a free alternative certified as being acceptable to represent the university. That's what I think makes this case different, and where a strong stand can and should be taken to get rid of the non-free version. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The PDF file has logos for basketball and football and I just put them on the Commons. I do not know the font or sizes that are used for the other sports. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, an IP is edit warring with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the workmarks where it says "G A M E C O C K  F O O T B A L L" appear to be very, very close to arial. It's blocked a bit more than standard arial. It's possible it's a custom font for USC. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will stick to what is available from the PDF file and the IP is connected to the school. This is something I had issues with the other images I dealt with; people from the school want the main logo and does not matter if it breaks NFCC 1 or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a hard battle policy vs. emotions. Do they really think someone is going to be confused on seeing File:South Carolina Gamecocks football wordmark.svg such that they don't know it's South Carolina Football such that File:USCGamecocks.png is going to convey information that will reduce confusion? If I knew NOTHING about USC, and saw the latter "C" with a caricature in the middle, I would have nothing to go one to understand the logo is of USC, whereas the wordmark gives considerable more information. The desire for the "C" logo is an emotional one. Fans certainly recognize it, wear it, etc. But, we're not building to USC fans. We're building to the world, and the wordmark logo IS official, even if the fans don't like it, and even if the fans think we're enjoying being disruptive, and even if the USC professors laugh at us. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll weigh in with my two cents responding only to the basics of the argument.

Just because a wordmark exists doesn't mean all usage of the main logo should not exist. It is the primary logo and it certainly should be entitled to be used as it is the primary means by which the school has its brand and likely its primary identity, but that doesn't mean its usage shouldn't be strictly limited (i.e. just the article about the athletics organization, the school, or the teams it fields...or perhaps a combination). We've tried to create some concrete guidelines in the past, but until we can create a concrete set of rules from which to base our decisions, we will always have this problem.

I think it is worth having the discussion again and, perhaps, we can come up with a reasonable conclusion? — BQZip01 — talk 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anybody want to respond? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Photographs of individuals years after death
My image knowledge is minimal so I wanted to ask; what is the policy on fair use images of people several years after their death? I'm working on an article about 1975 murders, so obviously no new images will exist. Can we use images of the individual under fair use? I tried to track down a free one without luck. --Errant (chat!) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a biography, yes, non-free images will normally be fine. In an article about a murder, however, you have to ask yourself whether you actually need to show a picture of the people involved. Do they add anything to reader understanding, or just serve to decorate the article? I've written one on a murder case, and I couldn't see any reason to include them. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this particular article/case I would support having a photo of the victim/victims or crime scenes..--BabbaQ (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, what? What is this case? Or are you trying to make rules for every article on a murder? J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but now you have lost me totally....I dont know what you mean at all. I was referring to this article and in no way,shape or form to any other.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway its not up for me to decide, I let Errant make up his own mind which I think he is perfectly capable of doing. I will not respond to this discussion any further. peace out!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that we don't know what "this" article is (unless I've missed something?) I was just trying to give general advice. There is no kind of automatic entitlement for non-free images of victims or of crime-scenes. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I was not being deliberately vague (just asking a general question); the article is Murders of Eve Stratford and Lynne Weedon. More general comments (or specific comments to that case) appreciated. I'll make another effort to get a photo release. --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From what's in the article right now, I don't see how the appearance of the victims has any real bearing on the text (also, you have what appears to be a typo; the date in the lead says 1969-1975 but the body says the victim was 16 years old.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another non-free gallery
Can I get some help removing the gallery of non-free images at Canadian_Forces_Land_Force_Command? ΔT The only constant 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think many of those images can be redrawn. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the ones that are simply bands or loops can be redrawn and called free, any redraw of the higher-ranking ones with more decorative elements will be a non-free derivative work. --M ASEM (t) 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To the OP, do you have evidence that they are not free? Were they pulled from a website? Or are you just assuming they are not free because...what exactly. I see no reason to doubt the alleged creator of the images unless you can show reasons they are clearly not free.
 * Masem, your comments assume that the decorative elements are eligible for copyright in the first place. The lion is taken from the top of the Coat of Arms of Canada which has existed since 1921, therefore: applies.  — BQZip01 —  talk 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are tagged as non-free and unless proven otherwise I shall continue to assume that. ΔT The only constant 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS you might want to actually look at the version I was referring to ΔT The only constant 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what is the problem with these images of the rank? the maple leaves are not copyrighted/copyrightable. The shape of them isn't copyrightable. The crown and crossed swords are PD. The lion is PD (and is on the current version of the page). Are you saying that the labels simply need to be changed? — BQZip01 —  talk 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, even the simple versions which cannot be copyrighted (and match up with the services of other countries...who would exactly own the copyright then? Wouldn't they all be suing each other for copyright infringement?)? Why not just fix the labels then and replace them with ? — BQZip01 —  talk 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is just too much for us to call it pd. we need proof. The individual components of the designs may be pd but that does not make the whole image pd. Giving the layout and design factors I cannot call them pd. ΔT The only constant 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not call them PD either. There are simple cases of things that we can tell fall under the threshold of originality, but these certainly aren't.  There needs proof that claims them PD to use them that way. (and it doesn't matter what happens in the real world, we're talking our non-free policy for images, that's all that matters) .--M ASEM  (t) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current arms was adopted in 1994, so that is still under copyright (and some of the insignia do have the arms on it). I personally think that a lot of the insignia can be redrawn (except for the ones with the arms) and they are only be cited as fair use because works of the Canadian Government are attached with Crown Copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's back this up. What on earth is copyrightable about File:Army sleeve Pte(R).png? You have the word "Canada" and an epaulet, right?
 * Oh, and "we're talking our non-free policy for images, that's all that matters"? The real world indeed matters. If something is PD in the real world, then it is also PD here...WP exists in the real world. I guess you don't take the author's word either? Why not? You are perfectly willing to use this image on your user page and you aren't demanding "proof" from the author. By the exact same logic, you should assume that this person is telling the truth as well. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to step back and check your facts. The images that where removed where tagged as non-free. The ones that have a free license I left, some of the non-free images may be able to be created under a free license (the example that you gave) however most of those images cannot be claimed PD just because you want them to be. see Masem's and Zscouts comments above. ΔT The only constant 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have no problem when something is PD. The problem is the determination if something is in the PD if it is not explicitly stated. We must assume that works are copyrighted if this cannot be shown positively. --M ASEM (t) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delta, I am not saying they are just because I "want them to be"; please don't be so condescending. You are both responding to comments I made WAY out of context. Example: The image I pointed out that was removed was because Masem said they are all copyrighted, when in fact it is not and there is nothing about it that is copyrightable. I've asked for specifics on the subject and neither of you have responded to said query. What you are perpetuating is a discussion about the overlaying problems, not the specific image in question, so let's start there and we'll work that direction, k? — BQZip01 —  talk 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

break for new query
What is copyrightable about File:Army sleeve Pte(R).png? — BQZip01 — talk 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The image itself is copyrighted, but because it falls under the threshold of originality, someone can make and upload a SVG that would be free due to that. But not all the images given fit that mold. --M ASEM  (t) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about "all the images", we are talking about this specific image. If it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, then, by definition, it cannot be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, any derivative of the image would be copyrighted as well. An svg doesn't change it — BQZip01 —  talk 06:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't isolate one image in the discussion. Its the gallery that's a problem, and thus all the images have to be considered. Some are likely PD by lack of originality, some aren't. --M ASEM (t) 06:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you are dodging the discussion quite a bit there. By your own admission, it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Therefore it cannot be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then changing it to an svg does not relieve any copyright (it might make it a better image, but it is still a derivative and therefore copyrighted). So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BQZ, I am working on the Navy images now (I am leaving out the Canada workmark since a lot of images do not inclue it). As for that specific image, I do not think there will be a major issue (it was only tagged as fair use because it was something related to the Canadian military). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Zscout370/gallery User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific bits and pixels of the current images are someone else's work which they have not specifically released into the PD, even though the image represented is likely to fail threshold of originality. A remade version that looks exactly the same but placed into the PD by the uploaded will be an appropriate free replacement.  Several of the images can be done that way. Several can't. --M ASEM  (t) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the terms of accuracy, I can do all but the coat of arms image (so that is only 3 fair use) out of 50 something that I cannot do now. I am working on the Army images now, but if someone wants to help me knock this out, I greatly appreciate it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ZScout, I appreciate your assistance.
 * Masem, you are dodging every question I pose. Either this image fails the threshold of originality or it doesn't. There isn't a middle ground here. If it does not meet the threshold, it is PD by definition as it meets the criteria for inclusion. If it DOES meet the threshold or you are treating it as such, I (or anyone else) cannot recreate the same image and it suddenly loses its copyright; the image I, or anyone else creates is a derivative image. Again, there is no middle ground where it "kinda might meet the threshold of originality, but you can remake it in a different format and it will lose its copyright. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A subject of an image may be free, yet the image itself may not be, which is what he is saying. ΔT The only constant 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That nails it. All we need is for those that do fail the threshold of originality is to be recreated and put on commons under a free license.  But there's a key point here is that this won't work for 100% of the images that are being used, since some clearly show creative elements that 1) can't be easily recreated and 2) need to proven to be in the PD to be even considered free. --M ASEM  (t) 02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You both seem to completely misunderstand the concept of threshold of originality
 * "The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not." If it fails to meet the threshold of originality, then it cannot attain copyright. Therefore this image is PD in the first place as the US government does not recognize it to have a copyright.

It is also worth noting that I am stating the image itself does not have the ability to attain copyright, not the subject of the image. However, in this case, we can certainly discuss that as well. The subject of the image does not have the possibility of attaining copyright either. As such, a faithful reproduction of a 2D work cannot attain copyright either. We are not talking about a photograph of the venus de milo (in which lighting and other effects can be artistically arranged). This exact matter was handled in the 1999 Supreme Court case "se Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp."
 * "The court ruled that exact or "slavish" reproductions of two-dimensional works such as paintings and photographs that were already in the public domain could not be considered original enough for protection under U.S. law, "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original""

— BQZip01 — talk 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm completely clear. We can recreate most of the images for free to avoid any copyright issues because there's no assurance that the images as posted are completely free of them.  This is preferred for anything that fails the Threshold; remake it to make it free to commons, no strings attached. --M ASEM  (t) 07:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And when it comes to the images of this class, crowns and stuff are used in a lot of Commonwealth arms and flags, so having the designs done are not hard. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried explaining this so many times, so let's back up to the basic questions only:
 * Do you agree that an item that fails to meet the threshold of originality cannot attain a copyright? If not, please explain why.
 * Do you agree that this image fails to meet the threshold of originality? If not, please explain why.
 * You have stated that this image has copyright issues. What are they?
 * Do you agree that recreating a copyrighted image does not make the new image free from copyright as it is a derivative work? — BQZip01 —  talk 16:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Masem? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not so much "copyright" but simply the source of the bits of the image. I agree there's no legal copyright issues with an image that fails the ToO. But people that create these images may attempt to claim some type of ownership or that they do have copyright, etc. Even that they may be legally wrong, we avoid the issue by recreating the image ourselves; a derivative work of an image ineligible for copyright can be a free image. By creating it ourselves, we can then CC-license it and put it to commons. I do not believe that commons would allow us to upload an image created by another without explicit CC-BY licensing even if that image is non-copyrightable.  Hence, it is always best, if not required, to use user-recreations of such images. --M ASEM  (t) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first part to an extent. You are indeed correct that there is no copyright issue. I believe the best course of action is to alter the tag on the image. My rationale is that if the owner believes it has a copyright, they will contest the change of tag. If we, instead, produce an image nearly pixel-for-pixel, and put it up under a different tag, and they believe this is a derivative work, they would STILL contest it. The only real difference between the two options is that someone creates a new image. (Of course, if they don't contest it, in either case, then there is no problem and again, the only difference is that someone used more time to create an image that didn't need to be created).
 * As for the second part of your statement, I vehemently disagree. Commons has hundreds (if not thousands) of images "created by another without explicit CC-BY licensing even if that image is non-copyrightable."
 * Examples: File:BU Logo.svg, File:Florida International University FIU logo.svg, File:Colorado.gif, etc.
 * If you disagree, please explain why. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still better for us to recreate failing-ToO images than to reuse those found on other webpages - it simply gives us more copyleft "control" and less hassles with the final product. And of course, not related to copyright, we prefer SVG when its possible, or transparent PNGs for display reasons. So no, it's not wrong use the existing images, but we urge their replacement by user-submitted replacement. --M ASEM  (t) 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Masem, I have to say I disagree. Those images I mentioned are perfect examples. We should represent uncopyrightable logos with their official images (at least as official as possible), not user-created ones. I think we're close to agreement here and I think this should be annotated more clearly in policy. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 —  talk 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It really depends on how the images are provided. The ones in question are poorly done, and someone skilled with SVG can recreate them easily. On the other hand, if a company provided nice, transparent PNGs as part of its official media, sure, makes no sense not to use them. But in general, if the image is non-copyrightable, we want the highest quality image possible, and this often turns us for making the images ourselves. But again, keep in mind - ToO is a subjective metric and only is one tested in court cases.  Not for these specific images, but if a person created an image that neared the ToO but claimed copyright on it, we would be hardpressed to try to overstep that. --M ASEM  (t) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the university sport logos that BQZ pointed out, I personally only like to use logos that are provided by the university or find an official university style sheet. This has a couple of effects; first we are using the official trademarks authorized by the school, so we are complying with their rules. Second is that we know it is accurate so there isn't a dispute if that logo is real or fantasy. Another thing too is if it turns out they are not really PD, since the source was the university itself, we have a strong fair use case. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree that QUALITY is an issue that can best be addressed by upgrading the images from .gif to .svg. In that case, we certainly should upgrade, but the images should retain the correct (copyright) tags as the original. If they are tagged incorrectly, then they should be fixed and remade (as necessary); remaking them from .gif to .svg doesn't change their copyright status. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already two steps ahead of you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) — BQZip01 —  talk 08:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Related NFCC#10c discussion
Please see WP:AN ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to change how to handle #10c removals
Following on a WP:AN thread, there is suggestions that we may need to handle the remove of images that fail #10c problems (lack of the article name in the rationale) differently than now, specifically with the lack of any notification outside of the edit change comment. This has created a split between those that currently enforce this in semi-automated methods, and those that have to fix the images.

Given that we've long gone through most images to make sure #10c was met in light of the Resolution, those images that fail today are generally (but not always) the result of page moves without redirects, and where the mover didn't go back and fix links. There's other odder cases, but most are like this.

From the WP:AN thread, some of the suggestions for this have included:
 * Notifying affected articles/users. Thus can include a message on the article talk page, the uploader's talk page, or something equivalent. This is noted for semi-auto changes by editors (not by bot) to be a time consuming aspect of the process.  Other suggestions for notification have been to include a link to an essay page in the edit summary (or this talk messages) to explain the problem and how to fix.
 * Automating removals. This gets us the benefit of having the bot do auto notification. (Did not BCB do this before he was blocked initially?)
 * Automating broken move page problems. A bot to identify page moves that include non-free images, and to at least tag these images or change the rationales directly.
 * "Requiring" those removing #10c images to try to fix easily-correctable ratioanales, like those from bad page moves or from misspellings. "Requiring" -- more like "strongly suggesting" as WP:BEFORE is aimed to do - its not an issue if you miss a few or have a different opinion of what is obvious, but if there's enough complains and consensus finds your lack of attempt to fix a problem, that may require action.
 * Tag broken #10c images with a template like we do when they're up on FFD giving users 2 days to correct or have a bot remove them.

There may be other solutions, including "leave well enough alone", but in lieu of the WP:AN, it seems something needs to be said as recommended practice, or changed in #10c enforcement itself, simply to calm complaints. I do agree that when we take out images for #10c problems we need to be clear what the issue is - this - and lack of license - are the only two ways that we immediately strip images, and many users come to assume that they're being removed because of the image being improper use of NFC, as opposed to the simply technical problem of lack of rationale. (Improper use of NFC in most cases needs to be discussed) --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've performed about 2000 NFCC #10c removals. For the record, NONE of my removals have EVER been done by ANY automated or semi-automated process. I do everything by hand, and have no automated tools but my fingers and keyboard. The vast, vast majority of those removals have (a) gone unopposed, (b) not for there having been a page moved, but non-free images used in addition to where they were originally used. To date, I've never seen a shred of evidence to suggest that placing a message on an article talk page (as the bot did once upon a time) did anything to help alleviate any problems with NFCC #10c removals. I leave a detailed edit summary with every removal I do. If (and this is pretty rare) an image gets restored without a rationale being provided, I place a message on the talk page of the editor who violated NFCC #10c policy. This is targeted, and has been very effective in addressing what problems have arisen. Placing a message on a talk page of an article does not in any sense ensure it will be read, whereas a message to the editor violating policy does get read. There's been lots of feel-good talk about 10c removers supposedly doing a half assed job because we don't notify every article talk page, every uploader, every person who adds NFCC 10c violating content. I've been told that I'm not doing my job because I don't do these notifications, and if I'm not willing to do these notifications I'm some sort of cretin for being unwilling to do it. As I mentioned, I don't have any automated tools. Demanding me to double, triple, even quadruple (with some proposals) my workload to do what largely goes unopposed is impossible. If you place additional rules on how NFCC #10c is supposed to be enforced that makes it considerably harder for 10c enforcers to do the work, you might as well get rid of 10c as a requirement; it will go unenforced. There's precious few people who enforce it now as it is. A suggestion was mad e at WP:AN for an essay to be created regarding the removals and to include a link to that essay in edit summaries. This sounds very reasonable to me, and I'd be happy to link to the essay. Somebody volunteered to create it, but so as I'm aware it hasn't been created yet. Btw, we used to have another bot besides BCB doing this work; User:FairuseBot. But, it hasn't edited since March '09. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see a major problem with notifying people or trying to fix obvious simple problems. If you are going to perform mass removals of images, perhaps you SHOULD use some sort of automated tool. Creating a few simple templates would also fix the problem.
 * I'm also tired of the exaggerations (no one asked you to inform every article talk page, every uploader, and every person who adds NFCC 10c violating content), the pseudo-threats ("if you require me to do more work in the area I like, I'll quit and no one will do the work!")., and the woe-is-me attitude displayed above (no one called you a cretin or said you did a "half assed" job, HS).
 * I think the solution is a semiautomated process much like the rollback feature. This would allow simple drop-menu inputs to quickly/succinctly make such changes. As a matter of fact, we could use the rollback feature with a few different warning templates and the problem might just be solved to everyone's satisfaction. I, for one, would support HS to have rollback rights. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do. Tag broken #10c images with a template like we do when they're up on FFD giving users 2 days to correct or have a bot remove them. is just vandalism when the image has been available for over a month. Am I bitter? Probably. You upload a group of rare images, that are correctly attached to an article. It is August, you are away from the computer, your article is tidied up and renamed. John Smith (politician) becomes John Smith (US politician) and the image is now orphaned- 28 days later to arrive back at your terminal with 600- 800 images to upload to commons, and your WP watchlist is plastered in red, with smug comments and you now have to start repairing the devastation. I have several suggestions one that is probably polite I can appreciate that there is a problem with naive upload of obvious copyvio relating to media, films and music- but I see there is a bigger problem with bots and deletionistas not appreciating valuable images, with untraceable copyrights in the field of industrial archaelogy, company histories.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC) These are all good suggestions, but they relate more to how we should develop automated tools and mass editing practice than they relate to the substance of NFC. I'm reluctant to add too many procedural instructions to content rules because that creates policy creep. All of the rules around here, even rules inspired by foundation directives, have to be applied with a good dose of common sense and collaborative effort, and sensitivity to the specific situation. For an editor to make unapproved and/or uncareful mass edits based on their interpretation of one rule in isolation of the others, in an absolutist or extremist way, is a recipe for a meltdown. That's the issue here, and I don't think we need to add a long footnote to every rule on the limits of automated tools. If we want to talk about how to handle this one specific issue, how to deal with page moves of articles containing nonfree files, no harm doing so here. But I think the outcome should apply to that specific issue, and it doesn't change the baseline expectation that editors have to be careful and work with the rest of the community when making mass edits to fix any other problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * new #10c- to be processed as is, #10c that are over a week old, to be tagged for 10 days, then moved into a quarentined category, which can only be viewed by the creator, admins and mature editors, thus depublishing but not erasing. They remain there for one year or till the problem has been fixed.
 * any editor can only delete the same number of files as he has contributed or fixed.
 * files first published over 50 years ago should be treated respect, while files first published in the last 25 years are fair game
 * AGF
 * Be aware that the Foundation requires us to remove disused and improper non-free content within 7 days of notification, and gives no weight between historical and recent images. Now yes, when a page is moved, and the mover does not go through to fix links in rationales, that's something that should be caught, but that could be done automatically. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the one of the few NFCC requirements that are black and white: #10c - is there a rationale for the use of the image on the given article with the article name present. It's either there or not.  Now, the issue is that these are often wrong by "one-offs", typos, results of page moves, etc, and the Foundation requires us to remove them. There's no real room in this specific case for "feelgood" handling of them.  (This is contrary to a disputed rationale, for example). --M ASEM  (t) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Page moves by themselves are not an issue, the issues occur once a page is moved, rationale is not updated and the redirect is re-purposed into a Dab or other use. Redirects in rationales are permitted, its just that they can cause problems. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Great. Lets work on it.
 * Catch the page-move-orphans-links and rectify.
 * Draw to the foundation attention:
 * Experience now tells us that seven days is not a reasonable time limit when a stable image falls foul of #10c- and suggest the solution I proposed
 * Some valued images over 50 years are trapped by the definition and they should be cared for in a different way to files first published in the last 25 years ;giving the examples of images from catalogues of defunct engineering companies.
 * remove references to 2 days- and extend it to 7 days, then at least we will be able to take a long weekend. This is a case of being destructive for the sheer hell of it- that is vandalism. Mill-image-pending.jpg
 * You say that the image has to be removed- the biggest problem is the image description page that has been zapped and has to be reconstructed- if the image description page is retained 'in quarentine' if you like, the image can go- it then becomes a simple job to undo reload the image and undo the damage. Or if you prefer overwrite the image with a suitable bland image- (I designed one for 'Image Pending' to use in a list page).--ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (/edit conflict)
 * A solution can be found when one is willing to find one. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we drop the "these were published more than fifty years ago" nonsense? We have two classes of images- free, and non-free. If they're not free, they're non-free, and must meet our non-free content criteria. You're not trying to streamline any process here, you're trying to introduce a new class of images... J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @ClemRutter: Some of this discussion has centered on the problem of articles being renamed. The thing is, I know of virtually no 10c enforcement that looks at a redirect for a renamed article as the target for the rationale and the 10c enforcer not realizing the target for the rationale is a redirect to where the image is used. I know I don't do that. As for "deletionistas", you're of course welcome to your opinion. I don't have your perspective, and you don't have mine. Mine, I frequently come to an image being used entirely inappropriately on an article, which also happens to fail #10c. So, I removed it for failure of 10c, and if it gets orphaned, I tag it as orphaned and notify the uploader. Trying to unravel where the original uploader wanted to use an image, why a rationale doesn't exist for that target anymore (or at all) and what the intentions of later editors were with that image is next to impossible. It's searching for a needle in a haystack most of the time. If that makes me a "deletionista", thank you for the compliment.
 * @Masem: Honestly, I rarely see 'one offs', where there's a typo and where the image is used is at "Buzz Lightyear" and the rationale says "Buz Lightyear". I honestly can't remember a time I've run across that sort of error.
 * @Δ: The issue you describe, where an article is moved, and the redirect it creates is repurposed; that's a real issue, but I also rarely find that. It does happen, but it's rare.
 * In general: Honestly, I think we're looking for a problem to solve. The periodicity of the problems outlined is not high. What I frequently see, and what is probably responsible for 80-90% of the NFCC removals I do, is editors seeing an image file already available here, and using it on another article. This is fine when the image is free license/PD. It's not fine when it's non-free. Most editors frankly just aren't educated on NFCC issues, and I would even argue that a large segment of administrators would also fail a basic quiz on typical non-free image use problems. So, these editors think all they have to do is add in the code for using the image in the article they want, and they're good to go. It doesn't work that way of course. Rationales must be added. Now, some editors have complained to me before that if I find a rationale missing, I should add it, and they link WP:SOFIXIT at me. My way of 'sofixit' is educating editors that there are limits to NFCC usage, and it is strictly enforced, leads to a far better educated body of editors. If in all of my 10c removals, I even got just 5 editors to start writing rationales (and I know it's a lot more than that) than I've quintupled the amount of work I could have done. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that other experienced editors rarely comment on this page. The guys here who dedicatedly keep WP out of hot water need to be appreciated- and to benefit from other perspectives so they can refine the process. I am willing to do that job- explaining an alternative point of view- attempting at all times not to get personal or rubbish other peoples points of view. Sure I am probably a little off thread- but on Masem clear explanation I have put forward 4 clear suggestion to address a part of the problem. They are
 * Catch the page-move-orphans-links and rectify. (Can be done by a bot- good- so do it)
 * Draw to the foundation attention:
 * Experience now tells us that seven days is not a reasonable time limit when a stable image falls foul of #10c- and suggest the solution I proposed
 * Some valued images over 50 years are trapped by the definition and they should be cared for in a different way to files first published in the last 25 years ;giving the examples of images from catalogues of defunct engineering companies.
 * remove references to 2 days- and extend it to 7 days, then at least we will be able to take a long weekend. This is a case of being destructive for the sheer hell of it- that is vandalism. (Major improvement for most editors that suffer a deletion- but not for ones on vacation )
 * You say that the image has to be removed- the biggest problem is the image description page that has been zapped and has to be reconstructed- if the image description page is retained 'in quarentine' if you like, the image can go- it then becomes a simple job to undo reload the image and undo the damage. Or if you prefer overwrite the image with a suitable bland image- (Major improvement for most editors that suffer a deletion- the serious editor will have to do a reload)
 * Even the example used above "Buzz Lightyear" demonstrated the total focus on media related images produced in the last 25 years. I personally am discussing images such as "Pollittt & Wignell-LP cylinder-horizontal tandem engine- Deepdale Mill (1935).jpg"(I haven't uploaded it or written the list page where it should go- too many NFCC issues).
 * Hammersoft has raised a significant issue Most editors frankly just aren't educated on NFCC issues, and I would even argue that a large segment of administrators would also fail a basic quiz on typical non-free image use problems. This is where work should be done, and to that I would add Most editors frankly just feel that it is pointless to discuss NFCC issues, because the 'deletionistas' feel so threatened their response is oppose anyone that dares to comment. Obviously this needs to addressed.
 * There needs to be away whereby editors are assisted in uploading their images- AGF- and not made to feel guilty for trying.
 * The process of caring for NFCC and sucessfully uploading it needs to be explained far more sucessfully.
 * There needs to be regular feedback on new difficulties and issues facing the NFCC team that is disseminated to each Wikiproject that can be included in their regular newsletter
 * There are many other NFCC issues that need to be discussed and if regular Project pack with copy can be sent to each wiki-project- some sort of control can be kept on the timetable. But at the moment I think I have tabled enough suggestion for discussion- and hope that when implemented it will reduce the work of the deletionistas and the experienced editor that produces articles and needs to upload and re-upload rare images. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have approached the Foundation before for clarification, they do not have anything to add, so assume the Resolution is word of god and unchangeable. Again, there is no distinction between the age of an image: its either free or non-free as pointed out above.  And just because it's old or hard to get, we don't considered that effort in relationship to NFC. --M ASEM  (t) 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another approach is needed:Hindus will point out there are many faces to God. And the other suggestions they don't need foundation approval and implementation would remove some of the vitriol in this area.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that deleted images can now be recovered, if that is so then perhaps the following might help:
 * Replace deleted images with a thumbnail, keeping the meta-data and historical use data.
 * Allow automatic undeletion when/if:
 * The image is released as free use.
 * A fair use claim is made.
 * Copyright lapses.
 * Sounds good?
 * Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

User notification tag
Thanks for uploading File:Wcvefm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

I lifted this from another experienced users talk page. When was this tag last looked at? There are issues
 * The user will not have been following these debates of AN
 * Why isn't the user, or me as a viewer informed of which file the image was purported to be associated with? This is important when the rationale has been deleted. (48hrs or 7 days later)
 * I followed the links (as if I had never been there before) claim of fair use- links to Non-free content which is a policy page that is not for the faint hearted- not a succinct help page- and doesn't do what it says on the packet.
 * orphaned is fine to you read the definition of orphaned image on the page! Orphaned image: An image not used on Wikipedia the link should go- it confuses
 * You may add it back links to Be bold. What does that tell me? How is that relevant to anyone? I despair. Could this one tag be the reason why the arguments here get so heated so quickly?


 * And finally see our policy for non-free media is helpful: yes it is legal gooblydegook- but the link tells us it is policy so we expect that!
 * I would expect the template to state the deletion is to be carried out under criteria 7 or 10c so the user can cross refer.


 * It is also inconsistent to explain in the next paragraph that images will be deleted in seven days- but to tag the image with 48 hours.

I am beginning to suspect that a lot of the problems here are just down to poor communications. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all straight forward, if you spend enough time to understand NFC and its allowance and limitations, which is all there when you hit "Upload file". Most people just click through that and then balk when images are deleted. That's not our fault.
 * As for specific complaints: nothing in the message requires knowledge of AN debates, at all. The bots cannot easily tell what article the image used to be used on - all they see is "zero" uses and its an orphaned file - this is why the message is to the uploader as they will know what they used it on. NFC is complex and there's no way to trim it down. That's why we caution people all over the place when they upload to make sure they understand what's going on.  Orphaned is explained just fine - zero uses means its not used. And no, Be Bold has nothing to do with it.  I've rarely seen that as the problem with image debates, and more people insistent on an edit war. --M ASEM  (t) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the issue with not knowing which pages it was on it technical, hence solveable - and the image may have been used on pages the uploader didn't know about. NFC is probably trimmable. Orphaned is explained fine, but there's really no need to use the jargon "The image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia." covers the same ground. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * I don't know if determining what pages an image was on in previous revisions is easily done because that requires reviewing the history of all mainspace articles (the image "page" itself has no knowledge where it is used, that's generated dynamically by the Wiki). Presence of rationales help significantly, of course, but again, it may have been orphaned from a page without a rationale. --M ASEM  (t) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page it was previously on, if any, is essentially irrelevant anyway. It is being deleted because it is not used on any pages, not because of anything to do with any articles it may have been used on at one time. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It may be to you- but when working in a Project- this gives valuable information as to pages that are not on your watchlist but may have been inadvertantly changed or vandalised. It gives clues to areas that people are working so they can be supported- or clues as to where they may be found, it gives clues as to what resources they possess. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's nice. What does that have to do with the fact a file is being deleted? If no one watching the page cares enough to reinsert the image, and no one watching the image knows of anywhere it belongs... I'm really not feeling your argument here, I'm not even sure I understand what you're saying. You feel it is essential that people who uploaded a non-free file are told which pages it has in the past been used on when they are told that it is not currently in use? J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see you have never done it. You pick up this information when you are researching another users talk page. This sort of forensics is quite common in certain academic fields. WP is a big place.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Masem: Yes, I was thinking of lifting the page name from the rationale- I was presuming a different tag was used for an image with no rationale and I think we could start by sorting out this tag first. ( I was suggesting elsewhere that the rationale should be maintained even when a image is deleted so we leave an audit trail.)--ClemRutter (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An image with no rationale has no special markup to determine this. Even if a page has a rationale, there's no requirement that it has to use a special tag, meaning that we can't automatically detect the intended article the rationale was written for. (Yes, most use non-free rataional which does have this, but that is not a requirement). --M ASEM  (t) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I do think that we should make that mandatory- if editors do need to use NFC as I do- then being made to attach the non-free rational tag is no inconvenience and won be noticed by most. Insisting that the back catalogue is tagged is another matter. However, if an image is orphaned and the uploader restores it then the use of the template can become mandatory. It is a small price for NFC. Back on thread, any image that is orphaned and doesn't have a non-free rational can be placed in a hidden category, and a once a week batch run could trawl the server looking for matches on any on the missing templates. Even without that a 70% solution is a vast improvement.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

More overuse of non-free images
Thirteen non-free images are in Pocket God (comic series) with 8 being in a gallery. I dont see any reasonable justification in the rationales for all these images. Surely this is way too many? ww2censor (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I nixed the gallery as that's outright disallowed. Scanning through, I only see need for 2 images; the cover at the top, and the concept art; the rest seem duplicative and unnecessary, but that's an issue to take at the talk page. --M ASEM (t) 03:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Post removal of the gallery, User:GWPSP090 sprinkled the various images that were in the gallery throughout the article. So instead of all the inappropriate stuff conveniently stacked in a gallery, it's now all the inappropriate stuff scattered throughout the article. Fun fun. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They can be removed and tagged. At this point it's a fair argument to make that posting the pages is infringing on their rights to profit from the work anyhow; it's not in keeping with fair use, definitely not keeping with WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted to the talk page of the editor who has done virtually all of the edits on the article (User_talk:GWPSP090). We'll see what happens. But, if someone else wants to go through and remove what is obviously inappropriate, please feel free. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The images are definitely inappropriate, but there, the extensive plot summaries probably fall foul of copyright too. There's a line between briefly describing a work, and retelling it so thoroughly that it's a derivative of the original. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, and thanks for pointing that out! The plot section comprises 17k of 33k content of the article. Half. Ouch. I've tagged it with plot. Also, ALL the references appear in the lead. After that, no inline citations at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should hard limits be set on the number of non-free items in individual articles? (Closed.)
Would the purposes of our non-free content policy (see WP:Non-free content criteria/Rationale) be served if a hard limit (aka "redline") on the number of items of non-free content allowed in any given article was added to the policy criteria? If a universal redline does not serve our purposes, should the non-free content guideline examples include redlines for various article types, such as genre articles?—DCGeist (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC
It quickly became clear that there was no support for setting limits on maximum use of non-free items either in policy or the accompanying guidelines. However, the discussion did clarify the crux of the dispute, which comes down to two opposing and incompatible principles concerning the implementation of our NFC policy. An RfC to determine which of those principles enjoys community support follows immediately hereafter.—DCGeist (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)