| Revision as of 21:13, 3 October 2007 editSeb26 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,834 edits →Using images more than once: cmt← 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 |
| (326 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}} |
|
== Need help on Licensing == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
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) |
|
|
::::In general, yes. Consensus, in this case, tends not to be determined by project-wide consensus by article editors, but more by a localized consensus of the users who have participated in making these decisions about which uses will be deemed appropriate non-free/fair-use, on this page, at ] / ] and in closing decisions of deletion proceedings (]). I've been advocating that the second and third usages just mentioned ("as an example of the work of the creator ... ... to show a certain class of objects") be more explicitly permitted. The recent interpretations of this issue, though, have tended to disagree that these uses are valid non-free/fair-use, instead tending to restrict the use to only the article about the work itself. Presently a number of participants in this quarter of the wiki are working on standardizing the rationales for several important categories of use, especially cover images. The range of permissible use, e.g., in an article about the creator or topic or genre, etc., will need to be discussed. In the meantime, a well written justification will be needed for each use you propose. ... ] 18:28, 29 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) |
|
|
:That is not true. I run the non-free bot, please give me an example of a image that is currently tagged. ] 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::] --] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I fixed that rationale see you had the wrong page listed in the rationale. ] 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Strictly it is British Sky Broadcasting (they're the company who ran Sky Multichannels) but thanks for your help. --] <small>(])</small> 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not a problem, when you write rationales please make sure that when you write rationales that you include the article name when writing a rationale. ] 14:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Using images more than once == |
|
|
|
|
|
If a valid fair use rationale is provided for an image for use in an article, how many times can it be used in that article? ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:You mean using the same image more than once in the same article? If you can explain or link to a page where that happens it might help. I'm having a hard time imagining how this would come up unless you're using it for some kind of decorative border or navigational element, which are both prohibited as per image use policy. ] 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::'']'', an article about an album, where the fair use image in question is the album cover which is being used first in the infobox, but the cover art section discusses the album cover in detail. ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I understand. The image appears once on the page but it's used in two senses. I don't know what the exact rule is but I would combine them both in the same rationale. For instance: "the album image is used in the article about the album, both for purposes of identifying the album and also for commentary on the cover art itself." Any other field or query where the multiple purposes comes up, just mention them both. I think that works. ] 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK, thanks. ~ ''''']''''' <sub style="font-size:8pt;"></font>]]</sub> 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== question == |
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, don't get it. what do you want me to add exactly? thanks. --] 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
