Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

	Fair use (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

It seems that it is impossible to enable e-mail notification of changes to your watchlist or even your user page. For people who don't live in Wikipedia, this makes the current notifications about deletion next to useless. As a "mostly reader", I don't need to be logged on very often (indeed I don't bother when doing editorial changes), and Wikipedia actively logs me out after some time (seems like session lifetime is measured in hours), so I have to actively sign in and check manually, which is obviously too inconvenient to happen in practice. In fact, I'm amazed I found out about the deletion a mere fortnight after the fact...

Ideally, these things should be fixed in general, as it would be improve usability and load on mods in general -- I'd appreciate if someone could point me to the right discussion page. In the interim, I request that the bots and mods send e-mail to users (who have enabled that option) in addition to adding a note on their talk page, at least when the offending material was uploaded more than a few days ago. Kjetilho 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are already complaining about the "spam" they get from such bots, so having the bot e-mailing people every time they tag an image would most likely not be a very popular feature. I'm not sure why the option to activate e-mail notification upon recieving new messages have not been eneabled on enWiki, but a quick work around is to go to your talk page's history page and subscribe to the RRS or Atom feed there using your favourite feed reader (FireFox and Opera have built in readers). Then you can just check the feed once in a while to see if anyone have been editing your talk page. You can do this to every page by the way, good way to "watchlist" pages of great interest to you without logging in all the time. Oh and make sure your browser is set up to accept cookies from the Wikipedia domain, if it is and you check the "remember me" option at login you should stay logged in untill you explicitly logg out (carefull if it's a shared computer though). --Sherool (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. Sure, a user should be able to disable e-mail notification to avoid what would amount to spam for some, but this won't be necessary for many. My Talk page has seen 1 (one) message since I joined Wikipedia :-). See how e.g. Facebook handles this, you can choose what kind of events are reported via e-mail, but the default is to be relatively "spammy" -- and that's exactly what I want, I want to know when someone sends me a message or tags a picture with me in it. This makes for much more dynamic discussion, even if the user isn't polling Facebook daily (or hourly). An RSS feed isn't a very good alternative, since it still means I need to poll it (I might be old-fashioned, but I don't subscribe to any blogs so an RSS reader would be yet another thing to poll for me). Since subscribing to such a change feed is a manual operation which not many users will think of, it wouldn't really solve the problem either -- casual Wikipedians would not set it up, and would not be notified about the issue in time for them to respond. The problem with my being logged out may be due to connecting from different IPs during the day, I haven't researched it properly yet. Of course I only use computers with appropriate access controls, and I don't even restart my browsers more than once a month or so. Even so I get the problem with being logged out. Kjetilho 00:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki does have various e-mail notification options (on Commons you can set it up to e-mail you when you get new messages and/or when pages you have on your watchlist change from the preferences page), they don't seem to have made that option available to us here though, I would guess performance issues, but you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) why it's not eneabled on this wiki. As for RSS feeds I guess that depends on your software. I use Opera so for me it's a one click process to subscribe to a feed and they are automaticaly checked for new messages periodicaly, but yeah I do need to be at my computer to see them. --Sherool (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread at AN/I that concerns the use of copyrighted images in articlespace disambiguations. Since the use of images in disambigs is generally not encouraged unless absolutely necessary, and since any image used to aid in disambiguation could be converted into text, I'd like to propose adding disambigs to the contraindications listed at WP:NFCC#9. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me likey. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Just to be safe, can anyone think of any situations where a non-free image would be necessary in a disambiguation?Wikidemo 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not I. β^_command 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig is navigation, not proper article content, so free images only. ed g2s • talk 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the (few) cases where images are needed in dab pages. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) only gives two examples, Congo and Mississippi Delta (disambiguation), both of which use maps. Of course free images should be (and are) used in these circumstances. But suppose, for instance, if there were two or three versions of a copyrighted character (e.g. Optimus Prime), each sufficiently important to have its own article, and primarily distinguishable by sight. Would an image of the character ever be needed on a dab page? I could see a page like Darth being a dab, and I could see images useful (though not necessary) there. Or what if there were several different famous photos or paintings with the same name, each with its own article? Or imagine if, like the Congo example, there were several overlapping and conflicting regions with the same name in a fictional world, like Middle Earth -- would a non-free image ever be needed there? Keep in mind also that Football used to be a huge disambig page. All in all, I'd say non-free images are never necessary in dabs, but it some unusual situations they might be useful. (By the way, I suppose rds shouldn't have non-free images either, but I doubt it's ever happened.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine The Last Supper (disambiguation) as an instance of multiple paintings by the same name. There are many public domain renderings of the concept, but also several made in the past century. What, if any, image should be featured at this disambig? Is it necessary to distinguish between the various art styles and artists, or would a listing suffice? I guess the point here is that the inclusion of any image would have to accompany some commentary or comparison, and such content is best left to the main articles. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried hard and can't think of any cases where they're appropriate. If a rare situation pops up someone can always argue that exception to the rule is necessary - most every rule has a possible exception, so I would not be too concerned.Wikidemo 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include category pages? I have run across a few instances where non-free images have been added there as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we skip the enumeration of namespaces where they're not appropriate and stick with the simple statement at the beginning that they're only appropriate in the main article space. Saying it twice actually weakens the sentence. Incorporating the above it becomes:

• Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in articles (not disambiguations), and only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace, except where there are exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked using [[:IMAGE:imagename]], not inlined, when discussed in from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Wikidemo 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good, barring any objections, I'd like this language inserted in WP:NFCC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this basic approach. ... Kenosis 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are the "exemptions" there? Why not just "Non-free content is only used in articles (not disambiguation pages) in the main namespace." ? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the policy page the word exemptions is linked to a subpage, like this: exemptions. The draft language preserves that. Wikidemo 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that link. The problem with a vague statement "except for exemptions" is that it may lead to false hope that some usage that is clearly not acceptable might have an exemption. I think "except for narrowly limited exemptions" would be better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the new wording is now implemented, along with "Exemptions are determined on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus for inclusion and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it to reflect the version we discussed without the additional material. Selectively quoting guideline material that appears on other pages is rarely a good idea and this is no exception. When you quote part of a rule, but not all of it, you give an incomplete picture and the meaning changes when out of context. Inserting the language seems to ratify it as policy when in fact it hasn't gone through that process - the "exemptions" page is not as well written or thought out as the policy page. Finally, we want to keep the policy short and to the point, and talk about examples, special cases, etc., elsewhere. The "exemptions" are such a rare thing that a link and a few words is more than enough. Saying on the main page that there is a case-by-case process for exemptions tends to give a false hope that it's a regular thing and will invite fruitless debate as people try to argue their images are exempt.Wikidemo 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that statement is a fairly concise summation of the exemptions page. I'm all for trimming unnecessary language, the inclusion was intended to explain that exemptions are not automatic and must be backed up by consensus/licensing policy. Although the "case-by-case" bit would encourage too much wikilawyering, so I can see your point. How about, simply, "subject to exemptions"? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Nothing wrong with your summary, just that the exemptions page my be too ambiguous to summarize. The requirement for case-by-case broad consensus applies to "exceptions", a word that appears only halfway down the page. Even if that's meant as a synonym for exemptions, that's odd process-wise. Better let people wade through that only on the rare occasion it comes up than out front in our primary statement of policy.Wikidemo 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a photo of a modern work of art that I have taken myself. Swedish copyright law only allows photography of artwork if it is permanently displayed in public, which is why I've uploaded it to en.wiki with a fair use rationale. However, this would be my first time applying fair use, so I would like to have some feedback on whether the info I have provided is enough to justify fair use or not.

The picture in question is Image:Mickey spreads joy.jpg.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me except for the "replaceable" line. The issue isn't so much about the photo itself, but about the copyrighted sculpture. Since this is used as an example of the kind of popular art the ship's original ornamentation has inspired, what it needs to address is whether there are any free-license sculptures that could serve the same purpose. The answer needs to be "no" for this to be valid non-free use -- and that may well be the case if there are no examples of this kind of thing from prior to the ship being raised, or otherwise old enough that they're now PD. But you'd know that better than I would. (Alternatively, do you work at the museum and do you know the sculptor? If so, would he be willing to license your photo under the GFDL?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Yes, I work at the museum, but the artist, Olof Lundström doesn't. I only work in the gift shop and I only started working this summer. Lundström was one of many art school students that made art projects for an exhibition called the The Model at the Vasa Museum in the late 90s. Mickey spreads joy was made along with a similar sculpture called Jocke har hårda nypor när det gäller budget och ekonomi ("Scrooge is tough when it comes to budget and economy"), which is done in the same style, but is taller and more slender and has Uncle Scrooge on top and a pile of money at the bottom. Other works of art were done, but a lot of them were in a less permanent style (one was made out of crisp bread and Swedish caviar) and were far more abstract. And I frankly don't know where any of the other pieces are today. So I'd say the pilaster parodies are very unique and difficult to replace with free content.

I'll see what I can do about getting in touch with Lundström and getting him to license a picture under GFDL.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if I want to convert an image such as Image:ASROC-mission.GIF to svg, as requested by the project tag, what licenses do I need to careful of ? I will always attribute the svg image to the original uploader of the raster version, but do some licenses forbid me to convert the image ? With Image:ASROC-mission.GIF for example would I be allowed to convert it to svg ? In case anyone doesn't know I think basically converting to svg is like placing transparent film over an image and tracing the lines (either by hand or using a script, or both). It is not a bit for bit copy at all, and is not technically derived from the original image at all either, however to the human they look very similar, almost identical, but the file is nothing like the original. If someone could tell me which licenses on wikipedia forbid me to make this conversion to svg, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Jackaranga 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a derivative under copyright law, just like a human-drawn copy-by-eye would be. SamBC(talk) 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any authority or references for that? It's not obvious from the face of it that an SVG copy has the requisite creative input to be more than a "slavish copying", which would be a straight copy and not a derivative work. Wikipedia does encourage people to use or make SVG copies, right? Either way, if the original is copyrighted the copy will be too, and use on Wikipedia if any subject to WP:NONFREE. Wikidemo 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it would be at least a derivative work, and the point is the same either way. The original comment seemed to imply that the SVG copy would be "more free" than the original. SamBC(talk) 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not implying anything really, at least I didn't mean to, if I make an svg of Image:ASROC-mission.GIF, what license should I use, the same one as the original ? Or I am not allowed to copy that one to svg ?Jackaranga 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I left this remark regarding this thread.

It seems to me that the kind of dispute indicated above is at least partially encouraged by the following basic principle specified in this guideline:

   You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions 
   are legal.

This does not look good. In situations that may involve "close calls," it encourages "the uploader" to engage in ad-hoc legal analysis, and encourages responding admins to try their hand at legal rebuttals by way of reference to both this policy and their own personal experience of what's been done in the past here on WP.

As far as I can tell, WP has absolutely no interest in encouraging its contributors to engage in any kind of legal analysis at all. Even if such analysis were encouraged, or even necessary in some circumstances, it is almost certainly not within the purview of WP to communicate that analysis or conclusions to the potential uploader. Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer spells that out quite plainly.

Instead, in order to maintain consistency with WP:IANAL; the focus of this guideline, (and all communications related to assessment of potentially non-free content) should be dramatically shifted to this basic principle:

     You, as the uploader bear the sole responsibility to demonstrate that your
     contributions are entirely compliant with Wikipedia terms of use and the GFDL.
     
     If a contribution is not consistent with these terms, or if the determination
     requires additional expert analysis, the content is subject to removal.

Moreover, admins and contributors who contest potentially non-free content with uploaders should provide a simple "boilerplate message" that is no more elaborate or revealing than this simple statement:

   A Wikipedia Administrator has deemed this content inappropriate for Wikipedia, because
   its compatibility with the terms of the GFDL is either too ambiguous or too difficult to
   determine without expert advice.

This approach is much more desirable, because it clearly relies on the terms and conditions of Wikipedia itself, and makes no pretense of offering a legally-consistent analysis. dr.ef.tymac 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The wikilawyers won't like this though. They will be out of a job. Carcharoth 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly sounds good to me, except when dealing with images the GFDL is not the only license to consider, basicaly you have to make sure whatever license the image uses is one that we consider free and that you have complied with the terma of said license (attribution and what not). It's kinda hard to explain properly on just a few lines of text though, and longer explanations tend to get skipped. The original statemnt is true though (AFAIK IANAL etc), if someone upload or add anyting illegal (child porn, libel, or copyright infrindgements etc) it's theyr ass, Wikipedia is pretty much in the clear as long as the offending material is removed in a timely fashon, but the uploader will have no such protection and can in theroy be targeted by legal actions even if the mateiral have been removed. It just generaly doesn't happen because it's too much work to secure evidence and track down the real identify of the culprit. --Sherool (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been established that there is a clear consensus for articles about a song to use the cover of the single. Is there any consensus (or discussion) on when, how, or if alternative covers should be used? Now, I'm assuming that a gallery like the one in What a Girl Wants (song) is clearly inappropriate, possibly even the amount used in Steal This Album!, where the images are no longer the "primary means of visual identification of the article topic" as stated in the rationale. Are alternative covers (such as when different singles are released in different regions) acceptable so that readers from different places can identify the single? If so, is there a limit on how many? And if an official single cover is being used, should promotional single covers (see Parabola (song) for an example) be avoided since most readers will recognize the official release? Obviously, all of this information is too esoteric for this policy, but it might be a good idea to add something to WP:MUSTARD if there is a consensus. 17Drew 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to use cover art for song articles? I don't see why myself, over time a song may be included in any number of compilations, proformed by different artists and so on, how can we say that any particular cover proerly identify the song? Anyway I'd say drop the alternative covers unless the look of such covers are of great importance to the article, and then I'd want to see an explicit rationale rater than some boilplace explaining why the extra cover is nessesary for the understanding of the article. --Sherool (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First cover would be logical. The same problems is encountered with books, when you have many different editions and often the first edition cover is difficult to get hold of. But then that is the one that will fall out of copyright first... Carcharoth 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but if an article is about the actual song, as opposed to a particular single release I don't see why we need cover art at all. The point of the albumc or single cover is to identify that particular release. Maybe it's just me but I never identify individual songs with any particular cover art when I hear it on the radio or whatever, for example I would never in a million years asosiate Hound Dog or Yellow Submarine with any of the cover art used in those articles. In the case of Yellow submarine a picture of the sub from the movie would probably better identify it for most people. I just don't see why you would need to use cover art in song articles unless the cover was actualy somehow significant to the "storry" about the song itself (if it was a painting that inspired the writer or somesuch). --Sherool (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are about songs in the sense that they should cover any topics related to the song, including the single's track listing and sales of the single. Lots of album articles (maybe a couple song ones) have discussion of the cover (see Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Surfer Rosa, The Sweet Escape), though I can't say that I've see any sort of discussion of an alternate cover unless it's a sentence pointing out a minor and obvious difference between the two. 17Drew 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about Image:Wii Wiimotea.png. It looks to me like a derivative artwork of a Nintendo product. Since people can't fully release pictures they have taken of copyrighted designs, and can't fully release artworks they have drawn of copyrighted designs, isn't the licensing of this image as GFDL incorrect? Carcharoth 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is generally okay - see Commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F. See Commons:Image:HarryPotter.jpg for an example of what is probably not okay. Haukur 13:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section below that says that pictures of toys are not OK. What is the difference between a toy in that sense, and a gaming console in this case? Carcharoth 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. I honestly don't know. A generic toy would probably be okay and a very elaborately and artistically designed gaming console would probably not be okay. Haukur 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in this comment from Mike Godwin, WMF council: [1] Personally I think this is a facile oversimplification which dodges the real issue but he's a lawyer and I'm not. Haukur 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check Image:Goebel William.jpg. Are we right to say that this is a copyrighted image? It is a photo of a painting, and the copyright is claimed for the photo, not the painting. I think that this is invalid per that court case, the name of which I can never remember. If the painting is public domain (the artist was G. Debereiner, date of painting unknown, but probably before 1900 when Goebel died), I think we can use it on the main page. If not, we should use Image:William Goebel statue.png instead. The TFA blurb and picture will be on the main page in a few days time (25 August). Carcharoth 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman v. Corel, you can use Template:PD-Art. Note that you still need to establish when the painting was first published (not just exhibited). If it was first published between 1978 and 2002 it is still under copyright in the United States. Haukur 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How would I establish publication, and how is that different from exhibiting? Might it just be easier to use the statue pic (taken in Germany, hence freedom of panorama statue restriction doesn't apply, I think...). Carcharoth 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can e.g. find an art book or an exhibition catalogue which has this particular painting. More than 99% of our images don't actually bother to do this, though. Haukur 15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction of US copyright laws with photographs taken in Germany and involving freedom of panorama is a headache. I have no advice on that. Haukur 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statue photo was taken in Frankfort, Kentucky, not Germany. "State capitals for $200 Alex!" -- SWTPC6800 02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. You are quite right. Ditch the statue option. Back to the painting. Carcharoth 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found Image:Stimzettel-Anschluss.jpg (on Commons), and was wondering if this really can be GFDL. Let's say someone in Spain (where this seems to have come from) scanned their grandfather's copy of a ballot paper they brought with them from Austria, can they release that as GFDL or not? Carcharoth 15:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, GFDL is wrong. The person who scanned it in doesn't hold the copyright and so can't release it under the GFDL. You may be able to argue for PD status on some grounds, though. Haukur 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an image! You might want to do some research on ballots. They may all be public domain because of what they are. If it's not PD/GDFL it's almost certainly an appropriate non-use in the right article as an important historic document with no free equivalent Wikidemo 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the country, but if we cannot claim GFDL at all, as Wikidemo said, it is a perfect case for fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it would be {{PD-AustrianGov}} since "it is of predominantly official use", right? 17Drew 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link. Depends if the ballot paper was from the Austrian government of the time or not. Possibly that license is meant to be for modern stuff, though it doesn't say. Carcharoth 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as of March 2008, if it's genuine, it will be in the public domain because it was published anonymously or pseudonymously, i.e. with no author identified as might be particularly expected of that time period in the Third Reich. It's difficult to believe that it might not be in the public domain already. If genuine, certainly it's fair game as historically important. I should think it likely there is no copyright holder that will claim it today. The question I have is "What evidence do we have that it's genuine?"

Here's the main problem at the moment, though: If it's genuine, no one would appear to have the righte to grant a free license for it, particularly if it's already in the public domain. If it's not genuine, then perhaps the author has every right in the world to grant a free license, but the question then becomes "Is it useful to anyone in WP?" .... Kenosis 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the 2008 number from? If we asume it's copyrighted it won't become public domain in the US untill like 2033, if the copyright holder is unknown or some kind of organization (most likely the german state in this case) the copyright term is 95 years from publication (it might be shorter in Germany, but US law does not recognize shorter copyright terms). I would rater reccomend looking into what exceptions there are in German copyright law. Even though most nations will retain copyright on everyting the government produces there are often spesific exceptions for scertain kinds of official public documents and this would seem to fit in that category (though I'm not fammiliar with German law so I can't say if they have such an exception or not). --Sherool (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Sherool, given the reference to 95 years, is referring to US copyright status of works published in other countries for which copyright did not expire before 1996. Firstly, a copyright claim requires an existing copyright holder to claim it. If the copyright holder doesn't exist, there's no one to claim copyright. Secondly, in the present-day EU, n the case of a "work" (like, for instance, a ballot?) that is published anonymously or pseudonymously, any rights to claim copyright expire 70 years after publication. In this case, assuming it's an authentic reproduction, the expiration of the 70 years happens to be 2008. I do recognize, of course, that no-longer-existing governments may be a special case. Or, heck, maybe the present government of what's now Austria may assert that it's grandfathered in. IMO, it's ridiculous, because we have no evidence where this image came from. ... Kenosis 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the image again, and it would be embarassing if this was a spoof image. The "yes circle is larger than the no circle" does seem faintly ridiculous. I'm going to investigate futher... I found plenty of discussion, and confirmed that there was a referendum on that date, but nothing confirming that the image is genuine. Probably need a German-language source. Carcharoth 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I found this statement in some places: "However, it is believed that the Germany ballot from 1938 is actually a hoax; in 1938, people from Germany did not use the term "Bist Du"; they used "Sind Sie", a formal way of saying "do you"." - this statement, worryingly, traces back to the Wikipedia article Anschluss... removed here, but originally added here, and removed and re-added several times since. It could still be genuine, as I can't judge the (unsourced) argument against it, but this is why sources are a good thing to have for images. Carcharoth 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is apparently authentic. See another (marked) version of the ballot, from the collections of the German Historical Museum. nadav (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also intrigued by some other ballots in the museum's collection, especially the one that says "Adolf Hitler" in big letters with only a space for one type of vote... nadav (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations/opinions: This is a remarkable development, the link to "another (marked) version of the ballot, from the collections of the German Historical Museum" given by Nadav. It's positively surreal. If Wikipedia users don't find a way to allow this within the sometimes overly cautious approaches that some users demand, IMO we're nuts, bonkers, idiots. So let's figure it out please. As to specific scenarios: First, there's no existing copyright holder, and it would make an extremely interesting case if the present government of what's now Austria were to have a lawyer send a demand letter to the Wikpedia Foundation to cease and desist, or file in some court for copyright. Such an assertion of copyright would be especially interesting since the Third Reich had taken over Austria's government at the time. Further, the redrawing of borders after WWII would create a derivative scenario wherein some of the ballots were argued to be under copyright and others were not, unless it could be shown that the present Austrian government inherited all rights to the Third-Reich Austrian government (do we begin to see how ridiculous this becomes yet?). Second, the current German government could step forward and assert it has copyright, because its predecessor the Third Reich commissioned the work. Third, the actual author of the work could publicly declare that e.g. "I Klaus von Idiotberg, created this work, and hereby freely license the work, with the following limitations:_______" Fourth, it's presence in the German Historical Museum gives no author attribution, so we cannot calculate the commonly cited author's life plus 70 and will need to wait until March, 2008, assuming some crackpot doesn't publicly claim it is [choose one: his / hers ] to keep for another few decades. Fifth, we could call, write or e-mail the German Historical Museum and ask them if it's OK to use it in Wikipedia. Sixth, seventh, etc.: I trust that collectively we're intelligent enough to figure out how to manage this situation... Kenosis 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "pick a free tag at random and see if anyone notices"? Actually, that might not work. :-) I agree, this should be sorted out, but as the image is on Commons, it won't be me that does it. I think the idea so far is that GFDL is not appropriate, but that some form of PD tag might be. Carcharoth 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the ballot meets the threshold of creativity in Austria or elsewhere. Haukur 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a certain element of creativity in making the "yes" circle larger than the "no" circle... Or in making "Adolf Hitler" a larger font than the other candidates. I can just imagine a scene in the Fuhrer's office: "Make the circle larger! Larger! Ja, ja, I vill be president of Austria by de hook or de crook. No! Not crook. Don't write crook on the ballot paper. I am not a crook!" <scene ends, exuent stage left to sounds of obsessive muttering>. Carcharoth 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*applause* :D Haukur 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that this is some sort of PD. {{PD-AustrianGov}} is the closest tag we have, so why not just go with that. BTW, I found a more detailed description of Austrian public domain law, but it doesn't specifically mention the issue of Nazi era photos. [2] Also, since the ballot was "published" outside the US without compliance with US formalities, then it's {{PD-US}}. nadav (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional images are de facto free images. If an artist or company releases a certain image as promotional, it means the media is fully authorized to use said image to illustrate articles about said artist or company. Thus, I believe they should be allowed in Wikipedia without restriction. -- Stormwatch 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet the criteria of free images. Free images must be free for anyone to redistribute, modify, and use for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial. Promotional images would generally not be allowed for use in commercial purposes, and it's also generally forbidden to modify them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People suggest this from time to time, but it's not going to happen. We need an explicit release under terms compatable with a free license in order to consider something free. What you believe theyr intention is doesn't rely matter. Sometimes people are in fact prepated to release promotional or simmilar material under a true free license if you just ask them nicely (especialy independent artists who don't have layer upon layer of corporate legal beurocracy to deal with), they may simply be unaware that it is an option, but unless we have that comfirmation from the copyright holder directly we can't simply make asumptions about how freely they intended to allow theyr material to be used. --Sherool (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this sentiment is that copyright lasts too long. There is publicity material from old TV shows and movies that will not fall into the public domain for another 50? years. So does that mean that wikipedia has a barren article page so that it might hold up its 'ideal' of completely free content? No, it doesn't, because that would mean that Wikipedia's purpose is not to build an encylopedia, but to build up the 'GFDL'. Building the 'free' is wonderful where it can be done, but not at the expense of building an 'encyclopedia'. The two are not mutually exlcusive. -Nodekeeper 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are successful at building a free encyclopedia, people will release free images for us to use, because they want to have them in the articles on their shows. If we use nonfree images too often, people have no incentive to release free ones for us. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute over proper application of this guideline is at present overflowing into many other parts of Wikipedia and disrupting the normal day to day work of building a high quality free encyclopedia. As an aid to the smooth running of this work, and as a means to reduce the level of bad feeling between different perspectives on the use of non-free content, especially images, I would like to propose that we add to the current guideline a clearly stated clarification on application of the transcluded official policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

This proposal is a revised version of an attempt I have made in the Fair use review page to calm the waters a bit.

Here is my proposed addition to the guideline, which I suggest could be usefully added after the transclusion of the policy itself. (The section heading in the box is deliberately given so as to prevent wikitext expansion of a new section heading on this talk page.)

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a {{editprotected}} tag above, since I think the need for this kind of guidance is currently urgent. Of course, further suggestions or comments remain very welcome. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the need for this. The page should be shortened if anything. When you restate the obvious on a policy papge it makes them less clear, not more. Wikidemo 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am proposing this for the guideline page, not the policy page. In my view, there is a clear need for a plain statement of the obvious in the guideline, spelling out implications that should be apparent on reading through the policy. The problem is that these obvious points are being overlooked as people cite clauses of the policy in many debates on the use of images in particular. The demonstration for this need is the massive volume of distracting debate on just this matter currently overwhelming the Fair use review page. The same need is apparent in some of the more contentious exchanges going on within Images and media for deletion, and in the talk pages of many image files. This has been a long standing problem, and I think this emphasis in the guidelines may help to address the problem somewhat. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with 'just another guideline' is that other editors are throwing around guidelines like they're law (or policy for that matter) which they are not. I haven't been participating heavily except the last couple of days and I'm seeing it all over the place. -Nodekeeper 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Item #3 is factually wrong. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We can discuss these changes, but this edit is not urgent certainly, it obviously lacks consensus anyway. I agree with Wikidemo, restating things on an already long policy page is just confusing, better to have clarity than length. Also, while I think I understand what you mean by point 3 it will be misinterpreted if it were on the guideline. - cohesion 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept that. But the comment provided by Abu badali does demonstrate some kind of need for guidance, I think, and I hope this can be clarified here.

If there is a consensus here that item #3 is factually correct as I have given it, then the comment added by Abu badali does illustrate the need for explicit guidance on the policy, at least for Abu badali's benefit.

On the other hand, if there is a consensus that item #3 is factually incorrect as I have given it, then I withdraw my proposal without reservation, and will accept this as guidance for my benefit on the policy.

I think Abu badali's comment and mine, being so diametrically opposed, demonstrates a need for a consensus on the point. Either the policy should to be reworded with words that explicitly convey the notion of necessity, or else there is a need to underline that the policy does not incorporate a requirement of necessity, but rather of significance. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, Abu Badali is towards one end of the spectrum in terms of vigilance over unnecessary fair use images. However, much of the problem is the word "necessary." It has different meanings to different people. When you restate a contentious issue in different terms, you get a multiplicity of possible interpretations, not a narrowing. Wikidemo 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I am trying to avoid that, by underlining that the term used in the policy is "significant". Rephrasing that as a different term is a personal interpretation of the policy, and — with all due respect and recognition of good faith — the manner in which that personal interpretation is being thrown around in other pages has become highly disruptive of the work going on to review the use of non-free images.

Perhaps the third and the fourth point could be combined to drive home the matter of what terms are actually used in the policy.

At the very least, if Abu badali could be persuaded to recognize that this is a real distinction, then it would be very helpful for preventing disruption of many different debates. I would prefer that this persuasion be done cordially as a matter of helpful general advice on the guidelines, rather than by singling out a user as a problem. But there is a problem, and it is arising because every legitimate instance of people showing that an image goes a significant contribution to understanding that could not be obtained by text or other images is being dismissed out of hand by appeal to an idiosyncratic rephrasing of the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this strongly. What is happening now is disruptive editing, and it is a problem, which they hang their decisions on the single "necessary" and an absolute inflexible interpretation of what that means. -Nodekeeper 10:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Abu that #3 is factually wrong. But this discussion is all spread out; I thought it was being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use review#Clearing the air on the non-free content guideline. I'll repeat what I just wrote there:

I simply see no other way of interpreting the wording of 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", than to say that the policy does require that non-free images be essential or necessary for understanding the topic. If a non-free image merely gives a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, but without reaching the level of being essential or necessary for understanding the topic, then the omission of the image will not be detrimental to understanding the topic. What NFCC8 says in simpler language is "If the article can be understood without the image, don't use it." —Angr 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, that's not what they policy says. You're reading one sentence to negate the other, which is never a good way to interpret a policy statement. Many editors discussed this language for quite a while and chose their words carefully. The policy is an underlying principle that non-free images must significantly increase understanding, not that it is essential for an understanding. If we had meant essential we would have said essential. The application of this principle for most common situations is detailed in a series of examples and categories in the guideline. The guideline needs some serious copy editing and a little thinking through, but it's basically sound. If a matter is covered explicitly in the guideline there's no use going back to the policy page to think it through from scratch. "Necessary" isn't a very good word to use here because as I said it's subject to multiple meanings and interpretations. If you go out in the cold, some people would say a coat is necessary because otherwise you will be cold. Others say a coat is unnecessary because you could wear a blanket instead. It's just not a precise word. Wikidemo 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote, "The policy is an underlying principle that non-free images must significantly increase understanding". Can you give an example of a nonfree image that significantly increases understanding? One that cannot "be replaced by text that serves a similar function" (as the criterion also states)? Because frankly, I've never seen one that does. —Angr 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the strongest argument in that line is for artistic works such as Guernica (painting). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I expected someone to say: we can't discuss a painting or photograph without showing it. However, we do seem to be able to discuss pieces of music like Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) without including a sound file of the entire symphony; why should paintings and photographs be different? —Angr 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We certainly can discuss a painting without showing it, and we would do so it we were not permitted to use nonfree images. But you asked about significantly increasing understanding, and I said the strongest argument in that line is that images of painting increase the understanding of the painting. We could (do?) include a reasonable part of a symphony as a non-free media file in the article about the symphony for the same purpose. But actually I agree with you that in most cases I have seen the nonfree images do not significantly increase understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I am not on a campaign to revise policy in line with my views. As a comparative newcomer, I'm feeling my way and wanting to work with the system you have in place. My understanding of wikipedia is that policy can change, if need be, to follow consensus; but that by and large policy is a pretty good guide to the consensus. I was trying to underline what I took it to be saying. I'm relieved to find the words were intended in much the way I usually use them; and appreciate that this still leaves scope for deciding what is and is not significant. Fair use reviews will continue to deal with conflicting views; but I'd just like to find some way to nip in the bud the endless distracting debates about what the policy means, where one side just dismisses every contribution of an image to the article as invalid because it fails to show that the image is essential, while the other just keeps describing ad nauseum the nature of the contributions that particular non-free images are making. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, I have an example where I think images significantly increase understanding of the topic of an article. Please read this old version of an article, and see what you think and what it tells you. Then have a look at this version. Have the images increased your understanding of what the article was talking about? Can you write an article that doesn't need the pictures? Carcharoth 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second picture adds very little to the article - only that the car was large. It should be removed, The first image is not necessary to understand the article, but our policy would allow nonfree use of it as there are no vehicles left in existence to produce a free photograph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images did not increase my understanding of the topic at all. What would increase my understanding of the topic is clearer prose and a more encyclopedic tone. —Angr 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They increased my understanding. Significantly.Wikidemo 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there, in microcosm, is the problem with NFCC#8 - it is subjective - what is significant for one person is not for another. Carcharoth 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this: [3] is the main reason for this dispute. I'm definitely a visual learner. I guess that deletion advocates are strong verbal learners, so pictures are never important for them.SuperElephant 03:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, can you describe in words what a "vestigal bonnet" is? Note that the phrase "vestigal bonnet" does not explain what a vestigal bonnet is. For more examples, have a look at Category:Photographs. There will be some examples of non free use there where using words would not adequately convey the information given in the image. Some of the non free use from that category and its subcategories are: 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute, Burst of Joy, Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, The Falling Man, A Great Day in Harlem, V–J day in Times Square, Raising the Flag at Ground Zero, Photo 51, Piss Christ, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Red Ceiling (actually using an album cover based on the artwork, not the artwork itself), The Soul of a Horse, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967, Tank Man, Tourist guy, Nguyễn Văn Lém, Thích Quảng Đức and Che Guevara (photo). Some articles use external links instead of non free use rationales, such as Yo Mama's Last Supper. Related, because of the circumstances that led to the worldwide withdrawal of the picture by the photographer, is Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath. What do people think of the non free use in these articles? Carcharoth 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the template in the two images in Streamline_Cars_Ltd to indicate public domain in the EU and US, with rationales. Part of the problem for many EU images before 1937 and US images before 1963 is that many users misunderstand the relevant copyright law. With time this will improve, I would hope. ... Kenosis 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*I* can't explain in words what a vestigial bonnet is, because I know nothing about cars, but I am confident it is possible for someone to explain it in words. Wikipedia does have blind users who can't see the pictures; they need things to be explained in words that their screen readers read out loud to them. And as I mentioned above, it should be just as possible to discuss visual works of art without showing them as it is to discuss pieces of music without sound files of the entire pieces. A 30-second clip of a symphony is like a 1-square-inch detail of a painting, but yet we manage. —Angr 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Abu that Item 3 is factually wrong. See also WP:NFCC#3(a), where it says that a non-free item "is used only if necessary" (emphasis mine). Once you introduce a wording that says that a non-free item doesn't have to "be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic", you're opening the door to having people arguing that non-free images can be used any time they want to use them. We're already having people insisting here and in other places that non-free book covers are validly used in Intelligent design because they "give the reader something to visualize, and make for a much more readable, accessible article" or because "the knowledge of its visual appearance is information of immediate and direct relevance to locating the book in the shelves". ElinorD (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clause WP:NFCC#3 refers to the amount (quantity) of use of non-free content. It indicates the resolution should be reduced, and extracts kept concise. The quality of substantive contribution to the article is addressed by WP:NFCC#8. These are different considerations, and both need to be taken into account.

Assuming that the content is deemed to provide some "significant" increase in understanding (the quality of contribution), there is still the question of how much of that content is required to have the effect (the quantity of content). My reading of the policy is that the quantity clause says that no more of the non-free content should be included than is necessary to give the associated benefit.

I cannot see any basis in a natural reading of the policy to say that it requires the content to be "necessary" to the article as a whole. That simply does not seem to follow grammatically. However, I am not wanting to indulge in wikilawyering over interpretation of an inviolable text. I'm just using the text to make a natural inference to the best of my ability of the intent. We have, I think, people here who were involved in writing the policy and who have a good insight into the consensus it is intended to express. Can they clarify, please?

To avoid misunderstanding here, whether it be mine or Elinor's, it would be good to tighten up the wording. Either (if Elinor is correct) the clause WP:NFCC#8 should be tightened to use a word like "necessary", or "essential", or something like that, which would help avoid my misunderstanding. Or (if I am correct) the clause WP:NFCC#3 should be tightened to indicate that the requirement is that only enough quantity should be included as is necessary to make its particular contribution, which would help her misunderstanding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD's assertion (Once you introduce a wording that says that a non-free item doesn't have to "be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic", you're opening the door to having people arguing that non-free images can be used any time they want to use them ), which is basically an assertion that a non-free item does have to "be essential or necessary for understanding of the topic", conflates #3(a) and #8, taking an adjective out of context from #3 and applying it to the balancing test set forward in #8.

With respect to the use of words like "necessary" (or synonyms like "essential") mentioned by both ElinorD and Duae Quartunciae. In NFCC#3, the word "necessary" does indeed point the reader in the way Duae Quartunciae has described just above. If the word "necessary" from #3(a) is applied to #8, however, I think it would be a substantial mistake where interpreting it in practice can easily become a slippery slope, because at the end of the analysis no images or media files are necessary in Wikipedia no matter what their licensing or copyright-related status. Indeed Wikipedia is not necessary (though it's very useful to have, IMO). NFCC#3 states:

(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
(b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.

NFCC#8 states: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

Note the language. Section 3(a) is titled "Minimal use". The statement "as little non-free content as possible is used in an article", on its face, is a loosely worded command to "keep it to a minimum, people, don't let it get out of hand". Yet, it is possible to argue in favor of deletion of anything on the basis that the article could "possibly" use less, or "possibly" use none at all. And as I said just above, all articles on Wikipedia could "possibly" use no images at all. The statement "Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used" is also a directive to keep uses minimal, not necessarily nonexistent. Because, again, no images or other media files are strictly necessary in Wikipedia, free-licensed or not. Incidentally, the words "are used", "are not used" and "is used" are in the passive voice with the agent omitted, implying that this is in fact the existing state of affairs in WP. If we care to get literal in our interpretations and micro-parse the language for every single word, then these phrases are all wrong, because this NFCC, like all of NFCCs, is in fact a command or directive, not a statement of already existing fact or even long-established tradition, at least not yet. Thus, the extraction of the word "necessary" in support of arguments for deletion takes the word very much out of context. If the word were applied to #8, the possibility for users to take the word out of context would be far more problematic because of the nature of the test presented by #8. Fact is, #8 is today a balancing test that must be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis, and my contention is that it should remain more-or-less as it is currently written. The words "significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic", etc., raise the bar somewhat beyond "a tiny little bit", but fall short of something untenable like "necessary" or "essential".

W.r.t. DQ's proposed qualification of #3 at the top of this section, I disagree with it. If there is a significant enough problem with NFCC#3 that it requires that kind of clarification to avoid people taking the word "necessary" out of context and applying it as if it were a mandate w.r.t. all NFC, then NFCC#3 should be appropriately rewritten so it does not require a separate clarification. In the meantime, a more reasonable interpretation of that one word in NFCC#3 would appear to be in order. ... Kenosis 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes excellent sense, and Kenosis hits the nail on the head with why we should not need this kind of rewriting. The trouble is, by saying this plainly I am likely to cause offense or run the risk of being uncivil.

The biggest problem here is that there are a couple of people who are either being stupid, or who just don't care what the policy actually says and are making far fetched reinterpretations in conflict with basic English, and are willing to argue the absurdity up and down the halls of wikipedia regardless of the corrosive effects this has on the community. That's harsh, but it sure looks that way. I'm not lumping everyone in that category; I've had a couple of cordial exchanges with individuals who are working for image deletions well beyond what I think is appropriate, but who nevertheless show a clear demonstration of good will and sincerity.

What I would like to do for the sake of concord is maintain the assumption of good faith for everyone, and keep personal doubts on its reality in some cases to myself. I don't think the policy is actually particularly unclear; and I agree that the policy should be concise.

On the other hand, I think there is a place for the guideline to help resolve these disputes. Rather than make a lot of potentially divisive personal remarks, I would like to have the guideline nailed up with brief statement of a few points that really ought to be blindly obvious; but which if underlined might make it just a bit more difficult to push ridiculous reinterpretations through any crack in phrasing. Discussion and review of non-free content can and will continue; but let's help it stay on track. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline needs some rewriting, in addition to any nailing up. It's rather unruly and the examples are a bit of a hodgepodge. Wikidemo 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that pictures tagged as historic are being nominated for deletion by editors who don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind the tag. I propose that a separate discussion be started on images tagged with that template Template:Non-free historic image to settle once and for all how the NFCC criteria should be applied to that category of images, and to clear up the misunderstandings that have arisen. More on this can be found here and here. My argument can be summed up as follows:

Template:Non-free historic image says: "It is believed that the use of this image [...] to illustrate the event in question where [...] the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event [...] qualifies as fair use" - this is exactly what fair use was intended for - to protect historical and cultural heritage and allow such images to be used in encyclopedias like this. Statements that misunderstand this include: "Either you fail to understand the difference between a notable image and an image of a notable event, or you fail to understand the importance of such difference to a fair use claim." and: "We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period." This in in direct opposition to what the Wikimedia Foundation policy says: "Their use [...] should be to illustrate historically significant events"[4]. There may indeed be excessive use of that historic template, but there are differences between how to handle 2-3 years old pictures of contemporary popular culture, and 50-70 years old pictures of historic events. I fear that this approach to deleting non free images of historic events is damaging the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a debate that results in clear policy-derived guidelines as to how to use the historic tag. This will be more efficient than the piecemeal nomination of images in that category at IfD. Future nominations would then have to take the policy-derived guidelines on historic images into account, and previous nominations could be reviewed at deletion review. Where is the best place to have this debate? Carcharoth 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the guideline here currently says "Wikipedia might allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting a historical event". The audio clips guideline talks about "historical commentary", but there is nothing about historical images in the examples of acceptable non free use given at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. I suggest adding a "historic images" clause there. Carcharoth 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Non-free historic image}} tag is indeed used for non-free, non-replaceable historic images, but not all historic images are allowed. For instance, if the AP has copyrighted its image of a historic event, and leases that image to news sites that want to display it, our use of the image without paying for it is a violation of NFCC #3. Or, for a different example, suppose we have free images of a person, but no free image of a person at a specific event (and their presence was historically significant). If a non-free image shows nothing more than the fact that the person was at the event, then the image fails NFCC #8. The point is, we don't give carte blanche to historic images; they still have to adhere to all ten non-free content criteria.

It's true that Abu badali takes a stricter view of these sorts of images than I do, but I don't see that as a problem. I think it's a good thing, and a sign of healthy debate, that we have some NFCC-policy-wonks that have a more liberal view (e.g. JHeald), and some that have a more conservative view (e.g. Abu badali). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sign of healthy debate, but it also leads to inconsistent decisions. I have no doubt at all that various image agencies do lease Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg to various news sites. That makes a complete mockery of your interpretation of NFCC #3. Ditto for many, if not all, of the more recent 'historic' images. NFCC #8 also falls over its own feet when it comes to images of historic events. Descriptions in the article of the notability of the historic event should be sufficient, but Abu is mis-using NFCC #8 to claim that you need an article on the image. I don't mind people pushing at the boundaries of the NFCC, but when people step outside the boundaries and start to get it wrong, then they are damaging the encyclopedia. Please look at this debate and give your opinion. Then come back here and help write a "historic image" clause in the NFCC guideline. Carcharoth 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Makes a complete mockery"? Please, tone down the rhetoric. If you can provide evidence that a specific image is being leased or sold to news sites for money, then we can't use that image. This is true even if the image is undeniably historic and important. Note for instance this log of a now-deleted image of a plane crash. The image is unquestionably historic, important, and non-replaceable. But it's also copyrighted by the AP, who charges a fee to news sites that use it (many of which see Wikipedia as a competitor, and that's not an unreasonable view.) It was deleted for failing NFCC #3, and and admin restored it, reasoning (as you do) that we should keep it since it's historic and important. Jimbo Wales then re-deleted the image, calling it a copyvio, and ending the debate. It may be sad, but it's true: nearly any judge would rule that it's not legally "fair use" to use an image for free if a competitor has to pay to use it. The only exception would be in the case of "parody" or "critical commentary", which fair use covers, but this only applies if the image itself were being commented on, and not merely for the display of the event depicted. But even then, that's shaky ground, and some judges would say that's not "fair use" either. For purely legal reasons (not wanting to get sued), we can't republish historic, important photos if the copyright-holder charges a fee to similar sites for using the image.

As for the Neville Chamberlain debate, I have looked it over very carefully. I see you calling another user's arguments "utterly incomprehensible", "unthinking", and "careless", and you asked "Have you ever studied history at all?" And all this for an image without any information on the source or copyright holder. I would ask you to calm down and show respect for those who disagree with you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry for the emotion, but historic images are an important part of the educational mission of the encyclopedia. I care deeply about that, and I have to take a deep breath sometimes when I see people claiming that historic images are "unnecessary" and can be "described by text". Historic images are part of our collective visual heritage, and deserve to be treated more carefully than contemporary popular culture images.

Thanks for the example of the aircraft deletion. Could you provide me with evidence that that image is being sold by AP? I am uncertain whether this was a case of someone saying "look, it's on the AP website", or whether this is a case of AP directly complaining to us.

The Iwo Jima flag image is on the Corbis website. Please. Go there. Search for it. It is also an AP image. If you truly, deeply believe that NFCC #3 need rigorous enforcing, I would ask you to start a wider debate on that image. Have a look at Category:Photographs. There are some articles there with non free images that might fail NFCC #3. If you think that NFCC #3 needs rewriting to exclude images that we have articles on, then please start that debate.

As for the Neville Chamberlain image debate, you are quoting me out of context. Please don't do that. I apologise for the rhetoric, but don't flag it up and then switch to the source issue while failing to quote this bit I said: "You do have a point with the sourcing concerns, but that should be easily addressed." The background to some of those comments, which I should have made on Abu's talk page, is that I have repeatedly asked Abu what knowledge of history he brings to historical images. I haven't seen any indication that Abu talks about history in relation to historic images. Others who take part in the discussions often demonstrate that they are aware of the history, or of the specific issues surrounding old images. I respect the work Abu does, but if I feel someone is consistently misjudging things in a certain area (in this case historic images), then I will say so. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nearly any judge would rule that it's not legally "fair use" to use an image for free if a competitor has to pay to use it." Let us not confuse the Wiki policy against non-free content and the laws of the US about copyright. I don't think that this prong of the Fair Use test controls over the other three prongs. In other words, I have not found a case that said using one of these copyrighted images that comply with the all other aspects of the fair use law is wrong simply because the image happens to be leased as a stock image. I don't think that you can predict how the courts would rule on this. That does not mean that the stricter rule of Wikipedia might not prohibit using the image. --Tinned Elk 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else already noticed this, but the Demi Moore magazine cover, given in this guideline as an acceptable example of a notable magazine cover, has no sources in the article establishing notability of the cover. I couldn't find any references in a quick online search. This should either be sourced, or another example given in this guideline. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a source establishing notability of the cover? That's not in the policy, as I understand it. Vanity Fair is itself a reliable source already. The policy requirement is that the image gives increased understanding. That's covered. There's to be no possible free replacement. That's covered. The cover itself is the object of interest and not merely what is portrayed in the cover. That's covered. And so on all down the list.

There is certainly a requirement for verifiability of information in the article. But that's not at issue here, is it? The matter of whether or not the image is notable is to be addressed by the community in deciding whether this is appropriate use. The article should be about Demi Moore, and the image is from a reliable source contributing to understanding as required by policy. You don't need to carry these policy debates into the article itself. You just need to make the case for whatever inquisition is set up, and the case you have to meet is what is in the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This usage seems just barely acceptable - the article really needs at least one source showing that the cover actually was famous or widely discussed. Not every sentence saying "so and so appeared on the cover of such and such magazine" deserves a nonfree illustration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Carl said, what people are asking for here is a sourced paragraph in the article about the notability of the image. This is effectively asking for the NFCC#8 bit of the non free use rationale to be sourced and placed in the article. However, some people also seem to miss the point that talking about an event depicted in an image is already historical or critical commentary on the picture (as required by NFCC#8). The missing step is often a "this event was portrayed in an iconic picture that was published around the world and became famous" bit. That sort of thing is easy to say in an article, but can be difficult to source reliably. It can also be tangential to the article, and it can distort the article into focusing on the image. Non free images can increase understanding in an article, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the article has to be turned into something about the image, rather than the topic of the article. A brief sentence or footnote should be enough. Carcharoth 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth beat me to it, and said it well. I was writing this at the same time. This is what I don't get. I grant that there is a need to establish that the cover actually was famous or widely discussed.

But WHERE is that to be established? That is to be established in front of whatever court considers whether the image is appropriate in wikipedia. If it can be established for the rouge cabal or whatever that the image is notable, then it gets a tick under that policy requirement. The verifiability policy does not actually apply to the deliberations of the inner cabal. It applies to wikipedia articles. Is there any doubt here of the images notability? If not, what's the problem?

There's no mandate that I can see for the article itself to document notability of the image. Sure, it might be a nice addition, but it is nowhere a requirement for use of the image. Vanity Fair itself is reliable; the article is perfectly free to comment upon the image and whatever comments are given need to match up with wikipedia guidelines. But the non-free content policy does not demand that a case for image to meet policy must be written up as a part of the article. You just need to satisfy the cabal. Anything else is another arbitrary addition to the policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reliability of Vanity Fair is an issue here. Surely not every cover from Vanity Fair should appear in an article. The question is determining which ones should. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is, of course, a policy decision that should involve careful consideration of the language. Duae_Quartunciae, for instance, described it in Wikipedia:Fair use review in this way: "...a magazine cover may be acceptable if the cover itself is the relevant topic. That is; you cannot use a magazine cover as a convenient way to get an image of some object, but you can use it if the magazine cover itself is the object of interest. The specific example used in the guideline to illustrate this distinction is the famous Demi Moore cover in Vanity Fair."

What do we mean by "the cover itself is the relevant topic"? Or by "can use it if the magazine cover itself is the object of interest"? I feel secure the participants can lock in on a language that adequately captures the concept. Another question I have is: Shouldn't this also be mentioned in "Examples of acceptable use"? A reasonable agreement of this kind of issue here could save a great deal of unnecessary conflict elsewhere on the wiki, IMO. ... Kenosis 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that you don't use the Vanity Fair cover as a convenient way to have a picture of Demi More, and you don't use the Times cover as a convenient way to have a picture of a chimpanzee or Michaelangelo's Sistine chapel painting of God. You use them because the very fact this cover is presenting these images is relevant to the article, and because being able to actually see the cover conveys a significant increase in understanding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not saying this cover should be deleted or is not notable. I'm just saying that an example given on the guideline page should be a crystal-clear example that would not be misunderstood. I was thinking of the God is dead cover (certainly one of Time's most iconic), but its notability is also unsourced and the image lacks a rationale. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This example is about as crystal clear as you can get. As summarized in [5], "The August 1991 cover of Vanity Fair contained a photograph of an extremely pregnant Demi Moore, clad only in diamonds, with her hand covering her breast. The cover provoked the most intense controversy in Vanity Fair's history: ninety-five television spots, sixty-four radio shows, 1,500 newspaper articles and a dozen cartoons. Some stores and newsstands refused to carry the August issue, while others modestly concealed it in the brown wrapper evocative of porn magazines." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anetode, it would be great if you could source that into the Demi Moore article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is becoming laughable (no offense intended). I looked at Image:Timeisgoddead.jpg, and that is text on a page. It is the perfect example of something that can be described with text. "The TIME cover had a black background with the words "Is God Dead?" in red". That gives as much information as the image does. Carcharoth 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two articles about the Vanity Fair cover: [6][7]. 17Drew 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. Since the "Is God Dead?" cover of Time is a culturally significant cover, it is also relevant to see the massive font and the stark domination of the question over the cover. The cover is written for its visual impact, this should be weighed in the balance. If it was a free image, then there would be no question in my mind that an image gives a substantive benefit to a discussion of that cover. The question is, as always, the trade off between having free-content and having high-quality. In some cases, like this one, whichever way the decision goes it will be at the benefit of one principle and the detriment of the other. That's normal in policy decisions, and we should not shy away from it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vis-a-vis my new version vs. Remember the dot's "clearer" version, I've got a newan even newer version up there that I hope is "clerer plus." I'm trying to do the following:

• "is tagged with" -> I wanted to be clear what that means because novices reading policy aren't always clear what it means to tag an image. We talk on this page of applying copyright tags, "fair use" tags (I try to get rid of that term because it just means copyright tags), and violation notices. So I want to be clear that this applies if XX and YYY copyright tags are used.
• "The rationale is presented in clear, plain language." I didn't like the use of passive voice. Also, the sentence has no qualifications, whereas the requirement for a use rationale is conditional. People could figure that out but it makes the whole thing a little awkward. Better to move the "clear, plain language" requirement to be a simple modifier where the rationale is brought up. I'll refrain here from asking what the point is of exhorting people in a policy section having to do with copyright law to use clear, plain language.
• "Relevant to each use" suffers from the same issue -- When? Which uses? I tried to be a little more specific.
• The word "media" as a singular noun to stand for image files. Some people think it's grammatical, some not. It sticks out and looks funny. Best to avoid. I tried to use "use" as the operative noun.

Note: this is a friendly copyediting exercise, wikignoming on the policy page, not a debate or edit war.... Wikidemo 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This took a bit longer than I thought it would, but please try and read through to the end... :-)

I am going to attempt to lay out here the ways in which the current wording of the 10 non free content criteria (WP:NFCC) fails to address the different needs of historical images as opposed to contemporary images (those taken in the last 10 years). By historical images I typically mean those taken more then 50 years ago, or more than 70 years ago. Those taken between 10 and 50 years ago vary in their history and how they should be handled. Please note that for most of the criteria below (except 'significance') I am purely addressing the age of a photo, not whether it is of an historic event (that is mostly a different issue). Henceforth, I use the phrase old image to refer to historical images taken 50-70 (or more) years ago, that are still in copyright.

• (1) No free equivalent - in many cases, old images are of buildings or objects that no longer exist, of people who are now dead, or of an event in history (can't be reproduced). Whether or not a free equivalent exists often depends on determining whether similar pictures exist that are free - such as an older picture where the copyright has expired, or an alternative picture where the photographer (or agency, eg. the US government) has made the image free. How much of a burden should be placed on the uploader to demonstrate that no free equivalent exists? How easy is it to demonstrate this for old pictures? And how does this compare with the same processes for contemporary pictures?
• (2) Respect for commercial opportunities - commercial use of old images is interesting. What needs to be made clear here is that the commercial opportunities argument depends on an adequate claim of copyright by those making money from the images. Commercial image libraries do make money from free photos and images of uncertain copyright status. I feel we should only enforce this criteria for old images if it is made clear that the image library has exclusive control of the image. Old images can exist in several different forms and several different copies can be in existence. For instance, the original negative may no longer be extant, and sometimes several different prints are circulating. Later generations of the families of the long-dead people in the pictures may have different copies of the pictures, and so forth. This is different from contemporary images, where the commercial use is often clear-cut. There is also an argument that iconic non free images being exploited commercially should still be used in articles about the images, as this is central to the educational mission of Wikipedia and the educational claim of fair use. ie. the educational aspect (the article accompanying the image) should over-ride the normal situation of Wikipedia's non-free use criteria being stricter than fair use.
• (3) Minimal use and Resolution/fidelity - no special concerns here for old images.
• (4) Previous publication - the issue here with some old images is that previous publication is usually (but not always) certain, but that the date of first publication is sometimes not known. Again, this is purely an issue because of the age of the image and the difficulty in tracking down the records of the event. Here, Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, setting the bar higher for old images. Is this reasonable?
• (5) Content - no special concerns here, except maybe the issue of verification of the source, and verification that the picture is genuine, which can be harder for old images. But then such verification is a concern for all material on Wikipedia, and rightly so.
• (6) Media-specific policy - this is poorly explained in the guideline, and the reader is shunted off to read another page: Wikipedia:Image use policy. As far as I can tell, nothing in that policy that is not already explained here, is of special concern for old images.
• (7) One-article minimum - no special concerns here for old images.
• (8) Significance - this currently concerns how significant the inclusion of an image is for the quality of an article, but also of note here is whether or not the image itself is independently notable (I think people sometimes conflate 'significance of an image for an article' and 'image significance'). For old images, the distinction between historic and historical comes into play here (all old images are historical, but only some are historic). For pictures that are merely old (historical) and of a random object, but where the copyright is certain, then the onus is heavily on the writer of the non free use rationale and the article to justify the inclusion of the image and whether it increases the reader's understanding of the article. It is usually easier to demonstrate 'significance of an image for an article' and image significance for historic images (those depicting a historic event). It seems that the bar here for old images is widespread publication of the image (which usually means that many people recognise the image), sometimes leading to the image becoming famous and iconic in its own right. Less old pictures (0-50 years) can also become iconic, but if a 50-70 year old picture has become iconic then that in itself can say something about the notability of the image. Sometimes a picture can become iconic without depicting any particularly notable event (eg. Che Guevara (photo)). When an image reaches the stage that it has articles written about it, then there is usually a strong argument that the image is needed for the reader to understand the article. Respect for commercial opportunities can over-ride this, though it may be rare for 50-70 year old pictures to have sufficient copyright veracity for exclusive commercial exploitation. This is the difference with contemporary iconic images, which often are still being commercially exploited.
• (8) (contd) For merely historical old images (that is, 50-70 years old and showing something from history, which all old images do by definition), where the image is not showing a particularly historic event, or where the image did not become iconic, the argument sometimes comes down to whether the fact that the image is very old is in itself educational. Some can argue that pictures from 50-70 years ago are often educational merely because they show how different the world was back then particularly in cases where the object being depicted no longer exists. As always, there would need to be something in the article pointing out the informative nature of the picture, and it would need to be made clear in the non free use rationale that words alone could not convey the full impact of this historical information. The difference with contemporary images seems to be that using words to convey the information in modern images is sometimes easier than doing the same for historical images.
• (9) Restrictions on location - no special concerns here for old images.
• (10) Image description page - the requirement for the presence of a copyright tag and use rationale is the same for old images as for contemporary images. What is sometimes problematic for old images is "Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source." - when the records are clear, there is no problem here. The problem arises in cases where the records are non-existent, presumed non-existent, lost, or presumed lost. In this case, the source will often be secondary, and the ultimate origin might not be known. Sometimes the copyright status is uncertain and the name of the photographer is not known. Unlike contemporary images, where there is a reasonable expectation that this information could be found, and that the photographer is still alive, it is sometimes reasonable, after a standard search, to presume that the photographer is unknown, that the photographer is dead, that the photographer's estate are not making claims on the photograph, and/or that the copyright status is genuinely uncertain. The latter cases would be a good argument for bringing back {{Non-free unsure}} (see the mis-named Category:Public domain unless fair use images). As stated in the analysis of the 'previous publication' criteria, I think that requiring 70 years old images to be held to the same standard of record-keeping as contemporary images is unreasonable, and that Wikipedia's non free content criteria are, possibly unwittingly, effectively setting the bar higher (or too high) for some old images as regards determining the copyright holder. Is it reasonable to relax the standard here after a standard search has been conducted?
• Other contemporary vs old issues: one of the major differences between contemporary images and old images is their age. This means that old images will invariably fall out of copyright long before contemporary images do. In some cases, old images are close to falling out of copyright, and have done so in some jurisdictions. I've argued before that keeping track of such images would be a sensible thing to do, instead of deleting them. Would there be a way to set up a page where we link to external copies (or link to a deleted image), and then upload or undelete in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years time when the images fall out of copyright?

I haven't covered everything above, but I consider this to be a fair summary of the arguments I have been making on IfDs and in other places over the past few weeks. I would welcome feedback and suggestions, particularly those aimed as distilling the above into a line in the guideline describing how some historic images are an example of acceptable non free use, or even producing a separate, subsidiary guideline for historical images. I would also hope that starting and finishing such a process would avoid, or reduce, endless arguments over historical images, and might lead to a 'category discussion' for the images in Category:Non-free historic images, which would lay out broad guidelines before systematically going through the category - this would lead to consistent decisions. The easy option would be to let the consensus be decided at individual IfDs, but I think that the 'multiple IfDs' option will lead to inconsistency compared to the option of discussing the above and formulating a guideline for non free use of historical images, and clarifying the existing guidance on historic images.

After all the above (and congratulations if you made it this far), what is the best way forward from here? Carcharoth 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking this on behalf of the editors who specialize in reduction of non-free images (such as User:Collard, User:Pekaje, and User:Fuzzy510) who are constantly questioned on size reduction of non-free images. The accepted standard seems to be 0.1 megapixels or less (about 315x315 for a square image such as an album cover) with special exceptions for images where reduction to such a size would eliminate their encyclopedic value. However, so far as I know, none of us has been able to find a written guideline on non-free image size, so we face constant debate. Does anyone know of such a written guideline, and, if so, should it be included here? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I do not believe the image size for non-free images needs to be any larger than that needed for display in the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede it would be a useful guideline if there is consensus for this idea. Personally, I'd prefer not to insist on this. Let's take the example of the "Evolution Wars" cover of time magazine as a case in point. The image as uploaded is significantly reduced from the original, plenty to satisfy the need to prevent the image being able to give a passable copy of the original cover. However, it is still fairly large (400 x 530). The image is displayed in a reduced form (165 x 219) in the article on Intelligent design.

The thumbnail display on the main page is sufficient to give the essential features of the iconography for most readers, but the larger version makes the text of the question posed on the cover legible, and gives a bit of additional detail without becoming comparable to the original cover.

My own POV here is that there is no cost to the encyclopedia that I can see associated with having the 400x530 uploaded form available. It still meets the all the requirements for using low resolution versions of non-free content, and there is some small additional benefit in having the version available at 400x530 for people who want to consider this artifact of the controversy more thoroughly. It may also be useful for readers who have some reduced level of visual acuity. On the other hand, I think at this point I am starting to skate on thin ice; I would not consider it a major problem if the uploaded form was smaller. Videmus Omnia's proposal may be a reasonable reading of WP:NFCC#3. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, if there is encyclopedic value in the higher-resolution image that is justified in the non-free use rationale for the image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0.1 megapixels and below there's not much point in reducing the resolution, so it's OK to keep a 0.1 megapixel copy in the image namespace, even though it may only be displayed at a lower resolution in the article. The extra resolution in the image namespace does not pose a legal liability, can aid the reader's understanding of the topic, and it also gives us flexibility if we need to display the image at a slightly larger size in the future. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the issue be addressed on this page or in WP:IUP#Size? This guideline doesn't currently seem to have a section on image size. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh ... That's a tough one. The debate on this is quite literally scattered throughout a heck of a lot of pages. I don't have time to dig up the exact pages right now, but I remember having seen discussion on it on several template talk pages, a couple of category talk pages, I think somewhere over at the village pump, and there was also an attempt at defining a policy, which failed. The reason it failed became clear to me once I began the resizing work. The range of possible image types is incredibly large and both the context an image is used in and the dimensions and quality (e.g. TV screenshots already typically have reduced information content, so they don't suffer much by downscaling) of the image can affect what can be considered reasonable use. An example I've used before is the rather thin image Image:Nelzelpher.jpg. For the use in the article it has a very reasonable resolution at 120x300. At 0.1 megapixel that would be incredibly huge and I think most editors would agree that it's inappropriately large. Therefore there should be a limit to maximum dimension. But a hard limit of 300px is also not the best choice, since other cases might give a significant loss of important detail at that size, so in many cases it's not unreasonable to extend the limit to 400px. One should also consider the use. One case I'm particularly interested in is computer game covers, where I generally aim for a consistent look in the infoboxes. That wikiproject appears to have a consensus on 256px wide pictures, and combined with the typical height/width ratios of covers this gives approximately 256x370. Since that's just within the previously mentioned accepted standard of 0.1 megapixels, that's what I use in those situations. But considerations of use go the other way too. Take album covers for example. They are almost exclusively used at 200px width in infoboxes, so I have a hard time justifying a resolution much larger than 250x250 when I rescale (slightly larger to account for a possible future change of the infobox). Of course, I don't feel a rescale is worth the effort at less than about 350x350. In the end I'll refer to the instructions for admins that I worked out at Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old. It's simply what I've seen to be usable in just about every case I have so far encountered, and I would like to have it put into a guideline somewhere. However, as you may understand from this lengthy post, it's an extremely tricky issue. --Pekaje 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright essay contains a relevant Guideline section that raises some of the issues being discussed here. I gather it expresses a consensus of the project rather than a formally recognized official guideline. The advice it contains on covers, on resolution, and on substantive input, all looks to be clearly stated and in line with policy. Here are those subsections, with section wikitext remade into bold. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was specifically intended to spell out guidelines in the context of comics; but some of the principles and the clarity of expression may be beneficial in a wider context. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, a lot. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what the current comic guidelines say, for an 8x10 comic, no larger than a 612x720 pixel image should be used (72dpi). This seems fair. Although occasionally a cover will be used for identification, like a cd cover or book, often a comic cover will be discussed critically as artwork {{Non-free 2D art}}, with linewieght, penciling or inking needed to be high enough resolution to identify or study. Clearly, in these instances the highest (72dpi) should be used. 72dpi is, of course, is barely "printable" as most print work is 300dpi. --Knulclunk 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility is a good standard. If you can't read the text on the image, then it's resolution is too low. The 300x300 rule is also useful for if there is no text to go by. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but in many cases the use of a comic page is not for the purpose of reading the text, but to show the character or the style of the artwork. In that context it's certainly possible to argue for a lower resolution. Just selecting a panel with some text on it should not be a way of circumventing the spirit of the guideline. --Pekaje 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming someone would want to circumvent the guideline. On a case by case basis, you can argue the merits of a chosen resolution.--Knulclunk 12:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has to big enough to see the significant features. A movie poster may require more pixels than a postage stamp. On this project page the Billy Ripken baseball card is given as an example of appropriate fair use. The card is 384 × 534 pixels and if it were smaller you could not read comment on the end of his bat. -- SWTPC6800 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what's relevant about the image is text, the text can be written in the caption, or better yet, in the main body of the article. There's no reason to use an image at all in cases like the Billy Ripken baseball card: simply telling us that the baseball card shows a baseball with the words "FUCK FACE" written on it is sufficient. The claim has to be backed up with a reliable source anyway; we don't need a copy of the card itself to prove it. —Angr 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball card is a derivative work, and display of it for editorial purposes is allowed under current copyright law. This is the thing that I am realizing more and more here. Essentially, it should not be the place of policy makers to make editorial decisions. I would not have a problem with your idea of replacing the baseball card with text if you went to that article's talk page and decided with other editors that would be the best thing to do. Then that would be great. As it is, any image that may be 'non-free' (if that's really the issue at hand, I'm not even sure of that anymore), a select few editors have now reached the natural conclusion of this policy and are saying that the image (or any image for that matter) can be replaced by some amount of text. Which is not just incorrect, but wacko. -Nodekeeper 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to announce and explain my reordering the policy [guideline] page.

The page is long and messy. It needs a cleanup, bad. Things are said twice. There is extraneous material and some editorializing, a plethora of formats and mark-up styles, different voices. Terminology is inconsistent. Sections announcing what the policy is are jammed in with other sections that provide background or helpful hints.

I'm starting by getting everything in its proper place:

1. The transcluded policy

2. The guideline examples

(a) acceptable use

(b) unacceptable use

3. Implementation and enforcement of policy and guideline

4. Explanation of why we have the policy/guideline and what they mean

In connection with this I changed some heading names. I didn't change the wording of the text inside. Copy-editing doesn't require consensus so I just went ahead. Feel free to reorganize, rename, etc. But please, let's at least get started by sorting this page into rules, examples, explanations, and background. That way we can bite off a piece at a time, probably on a "proposals" page. Thanks, Wikidemo 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up I also updated the headings on the policy page and edited the introductory section to be more concise and to the point. Wikidemo 07:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is maybe a bit unfortunate that you have renamed the sections. I have seen a great number of section links to amongst other things "examples of unacceptable use". Would it be acceptable to insert manual <span id="whatever"/> elements with the old names? At any rate, with such a large page, it may be a good idea to have shortcuts to the sections most commonly referred to. --Pekaje 09:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sure. The inconsistent section header levels and names were was part of the problem. I already added ID tags for the former names "Examples of unacceptable use" and "Examples of acceptable use". As you can see from the comments in the project page the names have been changed before. Shortcuts are a good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 17:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

If a fair-use image is allowable in an infobox of a band/performer, would it be allowed as an identifying picture in their discography? The particular case I'm concerned about is using this image in this discography (as opposed to the free image there at the moment) based on the fact that it's allowable in this article's infbox. Any ideas? Drewcifer3000 07:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue has been brought up with other subarticles (I think I remember something about lists of programs and the station's logo). I believe the consensus is that subarticles don't need the image if it's already contained in the main article. In this case, it's not necessary to know what the band looks like to see a list of their releases, and the only incoming link is from The Make-Up, so the reader will already be familiar with the band. 17Drew 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 09:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict between the Wikipedia's 'free' mission and its 'encyclopedic' mission becomes most obvious when iconic (very famous) images fail NFCC#2 (the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion) but pass all the other criteria. Until recently I was only aware of one example of this, but another example seems to have been uncovered. I would like to discuss these examples here further, and see if there is any way that "educational fair use" (as opposed to merely identifying the subject of an article) can ever, or should ever, over-ride the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

The two examples are: Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg and Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg.

• Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg is a copy of a picture taken on 30 September 1938 of Neville Chamberlain at Heston Aerodrome, London, on his return from Munich, waving his now infamous "piece of paper", his agreement with Hitler and the basis of his statement that he believed it was "peace for our time". An agreement that was shown to be worthless with the outbreak of World War II a year later. This image was uploaded to Wikipedia on 15 August 2003, was tagged and commented on at various points, and eventually tagged with "historic photo" in July 2006. It was nominated for deletion in August 2007. During the ensuing deletion debate (here) there seemed to be consensus that NFCC#8 (significance of the image for the articles it is used in) was not a concern, but late on in the debate, following a reminder of the NFCC#10 (source and copyright) concerns, a search uncovered a history for the picture, including a current claim of copyright by Getty Images. The history is best summarised by this quote from our article on Picture Post (an early photo-journalism magazine that started in 1938):

  "The photographic archive of Picture Post became an important historical documentary resource, and was set up by Sir Edward G. Hulton as a semi-independent operation called Hulton Picture Library. It was bought by the BBC in 1958 and incorporated into the Radio Times photo archive, which was then sold to Brian Deutsch in 1988. The Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images in 1996, and Getty has retained the Hulton Picture Library as a featured resource within its large holdings."

  Thus it seems that the original photograph was taken by a Central Press stringer and passed to Picture Post. This initial history is not certain, the photograph could also have been distributed to other newspapers by "Central Press" (I am having difficulty confirming the existence of a 1930s organisation called Central Press). The history after that, ending with the copy that Getty have, is clear though, as shown in the quote above.
  • Some questions that follow from this, then:
    • (1) Can we be reasonably certain that Getty Images have exclusive copyright over this image?
    • (2) If we are certain on point one, should we nevertheless use this image on Wikipedia on the principle that its historic value contributes more to the encyclopedic mission than its non-free nature detracts from the free mission? Or should we say that we cannot use the image?

• Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is a copy of a picture taken on 23 February 1945 by Joe Rosenthal (a war photographer working for the Associated Press). The events depicted therein, and the history of the photograph, are described in our featured article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. The original Wikipedia image was uploaded on 22 March 2005. On 31 March 2005, permission was obtained from Associated Press to use the image (and another one not mentioned here) on Wikipedia. See Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. The part of that letter quoted on the image page is:

  "Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal/The Associated Press"

  It should also be noted that the AP letter also said the following:

  "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use."

  • Some questions that follow from this, then:
    • (1) Is the permission from the Associated Press sufficient to over-ride NFCC#2 (respect commercial opportunities) criterion in the current (August 2007) non-free content criteria? ie. Have the changes since March 2005 made any difference here?
    • (2) Should such, or similar permission, be required in similar cases? eg. The Neville Chamberlain image mentioned above.
    • (3) Do we have any Associated Press pictures we are using under fair use despite the specific restriction against that use that was stated in the AP letter of March 2005?

Also of note for these cases is that the Iwo Jima image is available on the Corbis website. I'm not certain what the relationship is between the Associated Press and Corbis - maybe someone could clarify this?

Finally, I'd like to raise the issue of "original market role" (mentioned in NFCC#2). What was the original market role of the Chamberlain and Iwo Jima pictures, and are Getty and the AP still using these pictures in their original market roles? What was the reason for this "original market role" clause? To stop people buying up old pictures and claiming copyright on them and reselling them?

This has (again) got a bit long. If anyone found this too long, they are welcome to comment instead on the longer (maybe it is shorter now?) section I posted further up the page "Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria... :-) Anyway, to summarise the questions, and add a few more:

• (1) What should be done when the encyclopedic and free missions collide?
• (2) Should the answer to question 1 be a blanket favouring of one mission over the other, or a case-by-case discussion?
• (3) Should there be any exception for iconic images? (ie. Images we have articles on. More examples available on request.)
• (4) Is the copyright history of the Chamberlain image clear, and what should the verdict be?
• (5) How does the answer to question 1 impact the case of the Chamberlain image?
• (6) Does the case of the Iwo Jima image need to be revisited?
• (7) How useful are the AP-type of permissions quoted above?
• (8) What to do about other non-free AP pictures in light of the letter quoted above?
• (9) Why is the Iwo Jima image on the Corbis website?
• (10) What does "original market role" mean in the NFCC#2 criterion, and what does it mean here?

Oh dear, the summmary is almost as long as the original. At least I got 10 questions, the same as the number of NFC criteria. Does anyone want this in more manageable chunks? And finally, though I have participated in several involved IfD debates, I am not a lawyer. Do we need a lawyer? Is there too much pseudo-lawyering on this page? I know there are some legal types around here, but at what point should we ask the Wikimedia Foundation counsel (Mike Godwin) for advice? Carcharoth 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iwo Jima image does not need to be revisited. We don't need AP permission to use the image - that's the entire point of fair use law. The fact that they gave us permission is entirely irrelevant to our decision to use the image, because it it nonfree either way, unless they release it under a free license. We have nonfree user rationales on the image for that reason. I will have more to say about "permission to use" images at a later date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this settles it pretty well. Staecker 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although quite humorous, I certainly hope not. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googlefight? That's funny. Any serious responses? Carcharoth 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We deal with these issues all the time. The policy and guidelines in their current state are a balance between the two goals, reflecting the current consensus (if you can call it that) among editors active on the issue, as informed by the Wikimedia Board. The attitude of the public and editors as a whole is probably in favor of the encyclopedia - the millions of visitors to the site each day just want to look up stuff and most editors just want to make a good article and don't give a hoot about free content. Many people object to the large scale deletions of images based on on technicalities, something they see as disruptive. But a small core of concerned people have held out for free content. Whether they're visionaries or misguided ideologues is unclear; the advantages of free content are still pie in the sky at this point.

Regarding the case at hand, most iconic historical images do not fail criterion #2. We take claims of photo banks with a dose of salt. Many if not most do not actually own the copyrights they assert. We base our use on a claim of fair use, not any license offered by them, so their letters and policies don't decide the issue. Use on Wikipedia does not diminish the market role of the original copyright. These agencies are creating a new role by scooping up images and then charging for them, basically charging for fair use. That's an interesting question of law though.Wikidemo 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The IfD (linked above) on the Chamberlain image is still open if you want to contribute to that. I'm not so sure the claim there should be taken with a pinch of salt. "The Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images in 1996." That is not just "scooping up images". On the other hand, the question then arises, when will the Chamberlain image fall out of copyright? Getty will still go on selling it, but we could then use it as a free image. I don't think Getty identify the photographer. They just credit "Central Press/Stringer" (whether that is a person called Stringer, or an un-named stringer, is unclear). The AP letter specifically stated that they didn't agree with the fair use of any other AP images. I think the case there is clear - AP would have to contact the Foundation. On the other hand, can you just see an OTRS volunteer wondering what to do if AP contacted them? I'm still puzzled that Corbis have a copy. Maybe Rosenthal brought the image back from AP and Corbis are his agent? I am fast coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia editors discussing these matters have little chance of actually getting to the bottom of these issues, so why do we bother with the interminable IfD debates in unclear cases? Carcharoth 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated elsewhere, I reject the idea that Wikipedia has two goals that conflict with each other. Wikipedia has one goal: to create a free-content encyclopedia. The "encyclopedia" part of that goal is not in conflict with the "free content" part of that goal; the two go hand in hand. Anything contrary to Wikipedia's single goal is to be avoided. —Angr 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. Do you agree, though, that a free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content. Also, to further the aim of a free-content encyclopedia, should we not be, instead of deleting old non-free images that will fall out of copyright in the next 5 years, make a note somewhere to reupload (or undelete) them when they become free pictures? That really would help the encyclopedia. (I say five year as any more than that might create a very large list). Carcharoth 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that a free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to a conventional encyclopedia, at least not because of being free-content. (One that's written by amateur volunteers will sometimes be inferior to one written by paid professional experts, though.) Keeping track of encyclopedic content whose copyright will soon expire sounds like a good idea, but it would be an enormous undertaking, and a lot of hard work might quickly be for nothing if copyright laws change. —Angr 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]