| Revision as of 13:31, 29 September 2007 editTghe-retford (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,939 edits Non-template fair use rationale guideline dispute← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:27, 17 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)213 edits Undid revision 1269999479 by 102.88.111.42 (talk)Tag: Undo |
| (341 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
{{Shortcut|WT:FUR}} |
|
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" |
|
|
| align=center|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
== Moving towards <s>agreement</s> argument == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
It seems like there is general agreement that for at least some groups of images standardized rationals would be acceptable. These could be templates or possibly be recoded in some centralized location. There is some disagreement about whether the EDP requires a text rationale on each image page, and the related idea of not including written rationales on image description pages. Is there any strong opposition to the idea that standardized rationales are ok for some images? - ''']''' 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The templates being proposed are ''semi''-standardized, and we really need to emphasize that the person using the template has parameters to select in order for it to be valid. From a technical standpoint, I don't have a major objection to it, but I think in the real world we have a very high abuse potential with such templates. I also feel the discussion is putting way to much emphases on making the process easy, rather than accurately evaluating image use. In a perfect world, it works, but this isn't a perfect world. Our goal isn't to keep as many non-free images as possible, it's to weed out the unnecessary ones, but still making it reasonable for legitimate uses. For some images a ''semi''-standard template might be able to do both, and if so, great. We need more discussion and more tweaking before actually encouraging the use of such templates. -- ] 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::And for the record, I disagree to ''any'' form of standardization of nonfree image rationales. I also disagree to any "blanket" allowance of nonfree images in a class of articles. A fair-use rationale should show why ''this image'' as used in ''that article'' passes ]. It shouldn't just say "Well it's an album article, we always do that!". ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That position makes no sense to me, and is out of tune with the copyright laws that underly our concern for non-free images. If we take a very narrow example, it is unnecessary to say the least to require a person to make an argument for why the Miami Dolphins logo belongs in the Miami Dolphins article that is distinct from the argument for why the Chicago Bears logo belongs in the Chicago Bears article. Actually if you look at ] and ] the rationales are perfunctory cut and paste jobs anyway. They are by definition standardized, as are all rationales, they just aren't automated or categorized. The only thing ad-hoc rationale creation seems to buy us is a lot of unhelpful rationales. ] 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I could not agree with this more strongly. Maybe we should ask Mike Godwin to weigh in so we can move forward? --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, do remember intentionally invoking good old Godwin voids the whole thing. :) But as to Wikidemo's posting here, I believe I see the confusion here. ''We don't just want to follow the law''. Our nonfree image requirements are deliberately and intentionally much stricter than what we could legally use. The reason for that is that this is a ''free content'' project, and the intent is that the vast majority of our content should be free, with very limited exception. We refuse a lot of things which would be perfectly legal (Misplaced Pages only permission, noncom/educational only, use but no modification, etc.), because those are not free licenses. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There is no issue here other than law. That's what free use is, free of ''legal'' restrictions. Content, copyrighted or not, that has no legal restrictions on use is in fact free content. You're confusing the attempt to be more restrictive than the law requires with there being a purpose other than the copyright. When you forget that, it just becomes deleting images for the sake of deleting images. An ad-hoc handwritten rationale in each case does nothing to serve the goal of ensuring that content is free to us as well as potential re-users. Even if we had some goal other than avoiding copyright restrictions, I see no benefit to it. It's just busywork. ] 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Free content" and "free from legal restrictions" are not the same thing. If they are, then let's go ahead and scrap every bit of "non-free" content. Consensus, which has gone as far as renaming most misguided invocations of "fair use" from our vernacular, does not agree with you on that point. Our standard for free content is much stronger than "will it ever get us in legal trouble?" - and this is a good thing, in my opinion, and I believe consensus reflects this. (])<sup>(])</sup> 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::ESkog is dead on here: Wikidemos statement is incorrect. I can tell you with confidence that that Wikimedia Foundation would forcefully reject the notion that "There is no issue here other than law". See this for a explanation of the thinking that went into the licensing policy. |
|
|
::::::::At the same time Seraphimblade's up thread position isn't right either. We're wasting everyone's time if we require extensive work to include images that we are going to accept. Valid image should be easy to add, invalid images should be easily and frequently removed.--] 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Kat Walsh's statement proves my point: free content is that which has "no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the content for any purpose." The definition I quoted form earlier is ], nearly identical, which the Board cites in its resolution and has been at issue in every significant debate on the matter. The point is these are ''legal'' restrictions. The reason our restrictions are more stringent than the law requires of us, as is explained constantly, is that we are considering possible down-stream users who modify the images, use them in different contexts, and/or are operating in different jurisdictions. Suggesting that non-free images should be restricted for reasons other than the legal ones goes beyond the goals of free content and the resolution of the board, and to the extent it interferes with producing a good encyclopedia it collides against the mission of Misplaced Pages. You'll find no consensus for the proposition that images that can be re-used by anyone for any purpose despite their copyright should be deleted. Again, making people write unique, handwritten, ad-hoc, non-templated rationales does not make the images any more legal for us, nor does jumping through those hoops make them any more free for our re-users. Those are two separate arguments. ] 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I am having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say, so let me make a simple statement: any media that is not licensed under one of the licenses that meets the free content definition at freedomdefined.org (or is not copyrightable, or in the public domain) is not considered free media for the purposes of use on Wikimedia. It is Wikimedia's position that use of non-free media should be restricted for reasons other than legal ones; our mission is also to encourage the development of free educational content. ] ] 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Thanks for weighing in on this. The definition above is certainly more specific than the ones that refer to "no significant legal restriction." If we adopt and reference that as our official definition of fair use, that will end some of the debate. I and others have argued that because nothing (copyrighted or not) is ever without legal restriction, and because some copyrighted images are as re-usable as they come, properly categorizing and tagging images will go farther towards allowing people to re-use Misplaced Pages content than will overly detailed and rule-bound attention to individual instances of non-free use. However, I agree that if the goal is to encourage people to produce original content, release it to the public domain, or license it under an applicable license, ''that'' is a non-legal goal. The other half of my argument stands, that we're not supporting that goal either by unduly complicated legalistic rules and rationales. The question there is, how likely is it that a free use could be found, created, or released, that would serve the educational purpose of the article? That would suggest a tilt in the rationales, if we keep them, to answering that question rather than the fair use components like purpose and character of use, portion used, etc. We can both assure legal compliance and encourage more free content without requiring ad-hoc, individually created uwe rationales ] 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I told you so. ;) This is what I was trying to geat across in the "spirit" discussion on Wikpedia:Non-free content. I'm sorry I was unclear. If the definition of free content stuff is new to you you'll also want to read the ]. After working on this subject for a number of years I fear that I've lost the ability to express some of the basic point clearly, I'm sorry about that. I'm glad that this is cleared up now.--] 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::"''If we adopt and reference that as our official definition of fair use, that will end some of the debate.''" Um, do you not get it? This is, and '''always has been''' our official definition of fair use. <s>I can only assume at this point that you are intentionally trying to twist and misrepresent the situation to suggest that this was never official when it has been all along.</s> -- ] 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Should I remind you of civility again, or would you prefer I remind you to assume good faith? ] 02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::AGF only applies when you don't have a valid reason to think otherwise. You're a smart guy who's become very familiar with the policy, and you continue to act dumb on a number of issues. It's misleading, and I don't understand what you hope to gain from it. -- ] 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Are you accusing me of acting in bad faith? You seem to be in a mood right now, here and elsewhere. You've been uncivil to me before. Please, take a deep breath and remember we're all here because we want to be. ] 03:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::<s>You appear to be acting in bad faith. You appear to be wikilawyering and trying to game the system. I am pointing this out because it is disruptive behavior, and doing so is not being uncivil.</s> -- ] 03:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I'm sorry, I am getting a bit worked up. I do not know if you are doing this intentionally or not. -- ] 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Thanks! I can assure you that I only want what's best for Misplaced Pages ''and'' all its editors and readers. I'm editing lots of articles and often taking my own pictures to add to the public domain. I'm not a big user of non-free content, except logos for my articles about companies and the occasional wine bottle label. Other than the occasional mistake, which I try to quickly correct, it's not my images at stake. I consider Misplaced Pages the most important reference work ever created, and potentially a good source of reusable content. I'm pleased as punch that free content, which was relatively obscure and marginal only a few years ago, is happening on such a big scale as an alternative to copyright. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about the role of fair use and copyleft in empowering the people of the world with information. I see some on flights of what looks like doctrinaire rule making and enforcement that seems to forget our mission and be quite disruptive, and so I question whether some things are really policy, agreed to, or in the best interest of the project. I don't think earnest questioning ''can'' be bad faith, and on many points where you disagree with me you'll probably find my opinion widespread. I certainly am not doing it to play devil's advocate or to advance some other agenda. We're all on the same team, no?] 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Regardless of the past dust-ups we have been in on all sides of this, it seems that we are as close as we've ever been to a fairly broad-based common ground. I know I've not always been immune to incivility throughout this; it happens - the important thing is that we seem to be close to a clear, easy-to-follow policy which still upholds all of the Foundation's mission. Let's try not to lose sight of that. (])<sup>(])</sup> 04:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, now that I had a chance to read ], it seems clear that the EDP does ''not'' require text rationales on each image page. We should not either, except at best in nonstandard cases where the matter is subject to reasonable disagreement. Common rationales ought to be standardized and referenced, rather than affixed, to the image pages. CSD I6 and NFCC #10c ought to be deleted or changd to reflect this, but in the meanwhile there is nothing in policy that requires the rationales on each image page to be in text form or hand-written. We only have some people arguing vehemently that this is what the Foundation requires, which turns out not to be the case. ] 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wouldn't be in support of removing the inline rationales in the templates.--] 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::We should create rationales for all the common justified use scenarios as part of our EDP. In some cases those rationales will be complete or nearly complete; in others they will only be partial and require additional information on a case-by-case basis. Every use of an image in an article should be supported either by reference to an EDP rationale, with any required information provided, or a statement of why it fits the non-free use policy despite not cleanly fitting into a category of use. We should categorize this as much as possible, and avoid case-by-case restatement of matters that are common to all of the images in a category. ] 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We pretty much have this already, as part of the Non-free templates. One of the things on my todo list is to change all the non-free templates so that they build themselves our of a single meta-template so the broad rationale is only encoded once. It's useful to have it on the image page because it makes it clear to anyone who clicks on the image that it's not free content like the rest of Misplaced Pages. It also cuts off some number of complaints by would-be copyright complainers. It's good for user education, harmless to have it encoded there, and it creates no work for people adding images. --] 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The use-rationales was a part of the policy long before the Foundation made their statement, so no, not having their support does not suddenly invalidate the long-standing requirement. -- ] 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== When the heck was this added == |
|
|
|
|
|
] asks this question, perhaps rhetorically, in removing the "proposed" guideline tag and restoring this to a guideline page. Without taking any position whatsoever on the merits, the answer is August 5, in . If you look a couple posts down under "Bluap's Revert" (above), ] comments, "This page was made into a guideline just a couple of months ago without any active support. I'm going to revoke the 'guideline' status of the page, since there isn't a clear current consensus for it to be one." This had something to do with the issue of whether we should require written rationales in all cases. Cheers. ] 02:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ah, I see. Well, considering the bulk of it was simply taken from the image help page that everything linked to, and accurately describes the process, I'm not sure I understand the objection. See ]. This is pretty much the same information we've been advising users to go to long before it was on this page (it's actually transcluded so it updates to its old location on ] as well). It seems to me that the guideline tag was removed over the dispute about ''if'' a rationale is actually required or not, rather than ''how'' to write a rationale. -- ] 06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wow I think Ned and I have seen this come full circle now, ] and . I think it should be a guideline, whatever it says, because otherwise it's status is just confusing. I do agree in the current discussion though that unique rationales shouldn't be required on all images classes. But, I don't see these two things as being the exclusive. I think this should be a guideline, and I think it should say some images can use standard rationales. I think Gmaxwell just made it a proposal while it was in flux, which is probably a good idea. :) - ''']''' 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::We need a tag like <nowiki>{{advice}}</nowiki> or something like that. This page offers suggestions for how to comply with the requirement which is (and always has been) part of the main policy. In a couple of discussions above, there seems to have been some confusion, and suggestion that the requirement originated from this page. Clearly labelling this as advice might help to reduce confusion. Perhaps we should even consider moving it into the help namespace? --] (]) 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I dunno, isn't that what a guideline is? A suggestion? I agree this should never be considered policy, but beyond that I don't have any strong feelings. To me help is more straightforward though, like how to use user scripts, how to change your signature etc. This certainly stems from policy, so to me guideline is the most appropriate. The guideline text says things about common sense, and occasional exceptions. Maybe I have a less-strict view of guidelines than consensus though. - ''']''' 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::That's what I was thinking, we're basically describing a guide.. so it makes sense to call it a guideline. I do think there is a how-to tag, though, if that will make people happy. -- ] 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Need help on Licensing == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, when you use the <nowiki>{{Non-free album cover}}</nowiki> license on album covers do you still have to add a Fair Use rationale to be able to use it in the albums page? I always thought that the template itself was the rationale. The template states: |
|
|
|
|
|
"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." |
|
|
|
|
|
So do you stil need a rationale? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! |
|
|
--{{User:The-G-Unit-Boss/Signature}} 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Unfortunately, yes. —] <sup>(])</sup> 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::But the template has it all in it. Theres loads, like loads of album covers which dont have a rationale with them. (btw thanks for speedy reply)--{{User:The-G-Unit-Boss/Signature}} 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I asked at ] to change the policy to not require extra rationales. Based on this discussion, I made the change, but . So, basically, few agree with the policy, but somehow it remains in place. —] <sup>(])</sup> 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
So basically you are ''supposed'' to still have a rationale but nobody actually does and most admins dont mind? --{{User:The-G-Unit-Boss/Signature}} 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Essentially, a small number of overzealous users are tagging images for deletion based on lack of rationales, and the admins are supporting it despite lack of widespread support for the policy. Maybe you'd like to petition to change the policy. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would support replacing the current {{tl|Non-free album cover}} with the one Wikidemo made, thus requiring only one template. If the template is configurable, one can argue that the configuration is an individual rationale for a given situation/article. -- ] 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK. So, |
|
|
:*How are you planning to explain this new procedure to users? |
|
|
:*How are you going to deal with templates that use the numbered parameters for other uses, such as categorization? |
|
|
:*What are you going to do with all the legacy images that this shift in policy would create? |
|
|
|
|
|
:These questions need to be answered, and answered well, before we can implement that change. The change you propose also would not require extra rationales, so I really don't see why you're opposed to eliminating the rationale requirement. —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This will be a major task, and I firmly believe this is the future of fair use tagging on Misplaced Pages. We can make a guide for uploading, we can make many options in many templates and have custom overrides, we can update old images. The new system will be the rationale itself, as it would require the uploader to make a statement about the use of the image, but in the form of multiple choice instead of essay. A rationale will always be required, and we will require uploaders to accurately evaluate the use and need for non-free images. -- ] 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
All we want to do is eliminate the need for a rationale when the {{tl|Non-free album cover}} license is used right? --{{User:The-G-Unit-Boss/Signature}} 10:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would like to eliminate the need for a separate rationale for {{tl|Non-free album cover}} and other similar "no brainer" templates, yes. —] <sup>(])</sup> 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree. The Foundation resolution says these images have to have a rationale, but it doesn't say it has to be a separate (non-form) rationale. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::OK, I it again. We'll see if it sticks this time. —] <sup>(])</sup> 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Just wanted to mention again I made up a proposed template ] a while back (]), but the conversation seemed to lull. This seems like what gmaxwell and others were talking about. Obviously we would need to make more etc, the change isn't really that big though. Feel free to change it all up if you want of course. - ''']''' 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Well, you still need to address the 3 issues I brought up above before I would consider this to be an OK option. —] <sup>(])</sup> 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I'm not pushing for this solution, but it seemed like most people wanted something like this before. Point 1 I think is the most problematic. For 2, which ones use the numbered params for something? This would only be a problem on templates we think are ok for rationales, are there any that would cause a conflict? For 3, it shouldn't cause a problem, the name of the template won't change, and it doesn't require a parameter, so the old ones will just not have a param, it will place them in a tracking category and people can add them if they want, or not. - ''']''' 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::{{tl|Non-free promotional}} and {{tl|Non-free software screenshot}} both have an optional first parameter already. —] <sup>(])</sup> 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Those are named parameters, also it would only matter on the ones that we want to act as rationales, so maybe the software one. Although, I don't think this really matters anymore since this initiative seems to have died :( - ''']''' 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::What we need is a big 'ol structured RFC of some sort to help give some direction for all these rationale things going on now. I was hoping that fair use survey would have filled that job, but I'm not sure how long it will be before it's open. There are some simple situations where traditional FURs probably aren't required, but there are still others that can't be easily described, or have a unique use. A rationale, in some shape or form, is required on all images. Now it's all about finding which images need basic rationales, which ones need detailed ones, and so on. -- ] 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The survey has been marked as historical. Which is good imo, I think it would have turned into a riot rather than a rfc. - ''']''' 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Umm......What? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I may just be a bit naive here, but since I can't understand a word of the article, I've no other place to go. What the heck is this thing talking about?!?? Non-free use ration-what? What are the "rules", or whatever, and what's goin' on? Please, can someone just tell me in a simplified form what the rule her is? ] 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage |
|
|
|
|
|
:It may be easier if you ask a specific question. The policy is somewhat complex, and it might be easier to learn about it by taking it "one step at a time" in a way. A good place to ask questions is ] page, or feel free to ask at my talk page. - ''']''' 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I guess I just want to know why we can't use some images, but can use others. I mean, what's the difference between them? And what do we need to be allowed the use of the images? Is there some kind of process, can we only use pictures from certain websites, or can we put on pictures we made, if they're good quality? I don't really get much at all about this. ] 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question about multiple article rationales == |
|
|
|
|
|
, this seems to imply that you need to duplicate the basic statements "This image is low-resolution, a small part of the work, does not impact the owner's ability to make a profit" for each article the images appears in as well as saying why it's necessary for each article. Is that ''really'' necessary? I think we could work on a format for rationales that doesn't require this unnecessary duplication while still requiring an explanation of why the image is fair use for each article it appears in. --] 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:See also ], the point of which is that ] is not in agreement with our current policy. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The current "policy" to which CBM refers makes no demands that an image be limited to any particular article in a way that would properly permit deletion advocates to impose the interpretation of CBM and a number of other users upon the participants that wrote the article. The notion of requiring "critical commentary" or otherwise limiting the images use to one particular type of article is actually a "guideline" and not a policy that can be summarily enforced, though attempts have been made to do so by a number of image-deletion advocates. This particular page was summarily raised to the status of "guideline" after discussion by a small group of local "no fair use" advocates. See . See also, . Only recently, bit by bit, a small cluster of articles at a time, has this been brought to the attention of the broader community. |
|
|
::<p>As to the extra statement currently expected for each use of a particular image, that is still being debated. But for now, it is safest to provide the extra statement of why this image should be used in the additional article where the image is relevant. ... ] 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't see exactly what you're saying. The policy requires that use of a nonfree image be minimal across all of WP and significant in each location where the image is used. The point of the use rationales is to explain why the use is significant in each location; that's why a separate explanation has been required for each location. These requirements have been in place since at least Jan 2006 ; it's not a recent change to the policy. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And "minimal" does not mean "in accordance with the decision of people who happen to have made 'no-fair-use' or image deletion their specialty". Once the expectation of "minimal" is made clear around the wiki, it can as easily be decided by article editors as it can by those pushing to delete as many as possible. ... ] 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Minimal use is determined, of course, by project-wide consensus. There has been discussion on ] about it, and I'm sure there will be more.— Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Back to the original question, most images are used only once so it's not an issue. When you use an image twice, you have two different rationales - there are commonalities but also some differences. The prevailing view (but obviously not unanimous) is that it's easier to deal with multiple written statements even if they're redundant than to mash everything into a single statement of rationale. There are inconveniences either way, but a single rationale can get awfully messed up and hard to automate when an image is added and removed from multiple articles over time. People are working on some proposals to take the completely redundant info out, e.g. the portion used and the source. Other stuff isn't always duplicate even when you use the same image. A particular image that doesn't interfere with the original commercial purpose in one article may interfere in another because a big part of the question is how it's used. ] 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:So in its current state ] should say something like "Displays Hulk 2099. Displays Hulk 2099."? Someone keeps lazily slapping a deletion proposal up on there. -- ] 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please review ] and ] for what a rationale should look like. The summary comment above is not even a use rationale, let alone a sufficient one. You can look around for what other people use for comics but note the situation is different for each. One is used for purposes of identifying the subject of the image (much like a book cover). The other is used for commentary about the image itself (I think), in the context of a discussion of various alternate portrayals of the Hulk. Each rationale should include a link to the article where it appears, so it's clear which rationale is for which use. I restored the "no fair use rationale" tag but you should have plenty of time to figure it out or ask for additional suggestions. ] 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The problem seems to me to be that a non-free/fair use image uploaded for a specific purpose is then use elsewhere on WP, with the original rationale no longer applying, which sort of undermines the idea of restricting these sort of images, so therefore the rationale for each separate use of such a picture should be given on the picture page. Some parts of the rationale will largely be the same, as put forth by the original questioner above, but the reasons for using an image may well differ: to illustrate the object in question, to use as an example of the work of the creator, perhaps even to show a certain class of objects. |
|
|
Is that correct? --] 07:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Non-template fair use rationale guideline dispute== |
|
|
|
|
|
When I upload a image which is fair use to Misplaced Pages, I always followed the non-template guidelines on the page which should be acceptable. Now I have found one image to which I have followed this guideline is being deleted under ] even though it has a fair use rationale. One person suspects it may be bots which are going through images and any without {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} are being nomiated for speedy deletion. Therefore, if it is the case that pages can be deleted without this template, the non-template section needs to be removed and the community alerted to use the template on images they have uploaded to prevent speedy deletion of other images. --] <small>(])</small> 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
