Misplaced Pages

talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:26, 22 April 2008 editDragon695 (talk | contribs)1,687 edits →Enough is enough← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:09, 23 January 2025 edit undoWhpq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators146,959 edits →File:Kayra v Farazi.jpg: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPFairUse}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{calm talk|pink}}
{{WikiProject Fair use}}
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
{{WikiProject Images and Media}}
| align=center|<imagemap>Image:File.svg|100px
default ]
desc none</imagemap>
|-
| ]
|
|}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 35
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Policy-talk}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=336
|index=no
|minkeepthreads=5
|minarchthreads=2
|nogenerateindex=1
|maxarchsize=856000
|numberstart=71
|header={{Aan}}
}}
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}}


== Criterion 8 objection == == CRW Flags ==

OK, it's my own fault for not paying attention but to criterion 8 is really unacceptable. And I'm surprised because ] was involved in the for that wording. The whole point about having this clause is to prevent people from just adding non-free media to articles because they simply "increase the reader's understanding" in some vague way. No, there has to be a specific need for the non-free media. The article will not make as much sense if that media is not there. Does this make sense? <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:No, it doesn't. As I recall, there were some who wanted a clause that would say that; but it was never a consensus view, nor even close to a majority view. The criterion has never been "would the article no longer make sense without this image?"; rather it is "would valuable understanding be lost without this image?". ] (]) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::Right, and that's what "...and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" is supposed to represent. An image can always convey more than just text. The problem we were seeing was that people were adding images and claiming that they improve the article, when the article was just as understandable without the image in the first place. The phrase "significantly increases" by itself is simply too ambiguous and then depends on what people consider "significant". Having the second part of the statement is clearer as to the intent. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:Two more observations:
:*The "whole point" of the clause is not prevention. The clause promotes the thoughtful selection and application of materially informative fair use images that serve an educational purpose that the available body of free images does not. In other words, the clause supports our mission of creating a high-quality encyclopedia.
:*In practical terms, the phrase that was excised—in suggesting a nearly impossible standard—lent itself to misuse by those looking for a backdoor to eliminate all nonfree images from the English Misplaced Pages. The wording arrived at by consensus more fully respects our existing policy and its overarching objectives.—] (]) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::OK, I concede that "prevention" of excessive non-free use is not the whole point, but it is a large portion of the point. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

::From that July 2007 discussion: ''"The test is if it provides sufficient guideline that reasonable people using their judgment plus tools like reflection, precedent, debate, and common sense, can reliably produce consistent results across a wide variety of unanticipated cases."'' I submit that NFCC#8 failed that test over the past nine months. The theory is that the root cause is the way the old wording (the July 2007 wording) presents two opposing viewpoints, the positive and negative viewpoints (does it improve or does its absence detract?). Most arguments over NFCC#8 that I have seen descend into "it improves" vs "no it doesn't". Admittedly, this new wording won't stop that, but it will remind people that improving the encyclopedia is the ultimate goal. And yes, removing copyvios and excess non-free use ''does'' improve the encyclopedia, but there needs to be stability, not a continual battle being waged over this. The old (July 2007) wording allowed people to selectively quote according to which "side" they are on, and that is not good. ] (]) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Then those people should have been informed that ''both'' clauses have to be applicable and that cherry-picking the statement is not allowed. I also contest that those are two opposing viewpoints. The idea has long been that non-free content is necessary for the article, not just that it improves it. Its presence must be required and we only use it in cases ''where we have no other choice'' (including the choice of omitting it). Find wording that makes this concept clear, and I have no objections. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::: What's the distinction between improving the quality of an article and being "necessary"? What would it be necessary for? — ] (]) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*Tony's edit was good and should be reinstated. First, consensus can change, so the July 2007 discussion is certainly not the final word, even if the consensus then was to include both clauses. Second, there was an extensive more recent discussion, just last month (as reflected in his edit summary). It is now archived at ]. There was no support in that discussion for the continued existence of the negative clause. That recent discussion was widely advertised, or I'd never have seen it (as opposed to this one, where howcheng notified me). As such the wording on which we reached consensus then is most likely to be the current consensus position. Nor do I believe that howcheng's argument holds weight, the revised criterion still requires a ''significant'' increase in understanding, so "some vague way" is not enough justification for including an image. The editor has to be able to explain how the inclusion creates a significant increase in understanding. ] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I read the archived discussion before starting this. As I stated above, "significant" is too ambiguous a term for my tastes. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also was negligent in not following this page for a while, or I would have commented when the change was originally proposed. The default state of our articles should always be to have as little nonfree content as possible. The standard of NFCC needs to be high enough to discourage people who would confuse a nonfree image that is ''nice'' for the article with a nonfree image that is sufficiently beneficial for us to make an exception from the default, free-content state. If an article is not made worse by omitting an nonfree image, we should omit the image every time. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
* Carl is completely correct. This change to #8 was unacceptable it its current form. It smacked of a small group of people suddenly having a show of hands and saying "yes, we all want to remove this". In case no-one had noticed, one of the three words in the top left hand corner of this page is "Free". That part of #8 was <i>necessary</i> because the word "significant" is a classic example of a word that can be wikilawyered over.
** "I removed that image because it didn't significantly improve the reader's understanding of the article"
** "Well, it significantly improved my understanding of what this character looks like...."
* Are we a 💕 or not? (We can leave the argument over "encyclopedia" to another forum). Discussion - more visible at ]. <b>]</b> 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:Your characterization of the discussion and the consensus arrived at is inappropriate. If you would take a look at the link to the archived discussion (]) already provided by GRBerry, you would see that (a) the discussion lasted for two weeks, (b) Tony posted a notice at the Village Pump, and (c) no opposition was voiced.

:Yes, we are a 💕. And we are also an encyclopedia that pursues excellence, which means we sometimes aggregate non-free material to improve the educational quality of our work. Inline images (like inline audio samples) are considered to be aggregated with our articles, rather than integral parts of them. Reusers may add or remove any aggregated media and still be making a verbatim copy of our encyclopedia articles (see ]). Thus, ''judicious'' use of fair use images does not undermine our mission to be a 💕, while it does support our mission to be an excellent encyclopedia. If you disagree with that position, rewording criterion 8 isn't the way to go. You want to eliminate fair use images from the English Misplaced Pages ''tout court''? Make a case for changing our overall policy.—] (]) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:: No- I don't want to eliminate FU images completely from enwiki. But that part #8 was a vital tool for those of us that deal with non-free abuse in ensuring that editors understand why certain images need to be removed. It's a thankless enough task as it is - my talkpage is permanently semi'd because of IP death threats - why make it more difficult for us to deal with obvious violations? <b>]</b> 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Cutting down on the volume uploaded in the first place would be best. The current situation sees those editors who want to encourage ''educational and historical'' fair use (you know, the encylopedia stuff and the free content text that the images illustrate and improve) are getting overwhelmed by the tide of contemporary popular culture media, and admins and other editors indiscriminately deleting or tagging en masse and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that the volume needs to be reduced, but there has been precious little effort to analyse the problem. What is clear, from the available stats, is that over half the non-free images on Misplaced Pages are either album covers or logos. Those wanting to reduce the overall amount should focus on that. And the new form of NFCC#8 doesn't stop you enforcing it. Oh, and instead of edit warring, why doesn't someone propose a new wording altogether? ] (]) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::: See what I just wrote at ]. I completely agree with you - and I wrote it somewhere else today - ah, - that the volume uploaded is the problem (because we're making inroads into the previous overuse). Why can't we make it really clear in the upload process to editors what the limits are on non-free images? Surely it can't be that difficult. Working party, anyone? <b>]</b> 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

: Yes, we are a 💕 that includes some non-free content. — ] (]) 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Yes, agreed - see above. <b>]</b> 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::: There is no problem with the "volume" uploaded. The criteria is about the usefulness of the images, not the number of them. If the images being uploaded are encyclopedic, legal, and not replaceable by free content, they should be permitted. — ] (]) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

''What is clear, from the available stats, is that over half the non-free images on Misplaced Pages are either album covers or logos.''
: Is there something wrong with that? — ] (]) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

===Dispute management===
Unless we want a dispute tag riding indefinitely on what is perhaps our most significant media policy page, we need to resolve this.

To recap:
*On March 17, a discussion began on this Talk page ].
*On March 18, the discussion became intensive and turned toward clarifying the meaning of criterion #8 via rewording of the clause. Virtually all participants in the subsequent discussion favored rewording the clause.
*On March 27, a formal proposal was made to reword the clause.
*On March 28, the proposal and associated discussion were ]. Note that, aside from the proposing party's own argument, all arguments backing a position on the proposal came after this advertisement.
*A clear, unambiguous consensus in support of the proposal was reached. Aside from the proposing party, six participants in the discussion argued in support of the proposed revision; no one argued against the proposed revision.
*On April 1—two-and-a-half days after the last participant in the discussion had weighed in, in support of the change—the language of NFC criterion #8 was changed to reflect the .
*For the next nine-and-a-half days, the policy page was completely stable, aside from a minor bot interwiki edit. No belated opposition to the change was raised on the Talk page.
*On April 10, two editors on their own initiative reverted to the previous wording of the clause. I reverted them per the history detailed above.
*Later that day, ], perceiving the makings of an edit war on a policy page, froze the page and placed a dispute tag on it.

In order to remove the dispute tag, we need to reestablish a consensus on the wording of NFC criterion #8. We may choose to focus the debate on the two wordings currently in dispute. Let us call the version supported by the consensus in the recent discussion and applied on April 1, version A:
<blockquote>
'''Significance.''' Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
</blockquote>
Let us call the previous version that was reverted to by the two editors on April 10, version B:
<blockquote>
'''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.
</blockquote>
Shall we debate simply between these two choices, or is there a proposal for a version C?—] (]) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*In addition to Dan's chronology, I announced a day and half ahead of the change that I would implement it, just as a final notice to those who might have not yet participated. The heavy-handed tactics of these latter-day participants disgust me. If they ignored the original process and its advertisement at VP and elsewhere, they should '''not''' expect to be able to stomp in here and change what I'm afraid ''is'' based on a new consensus. It's insulting to be told above that it's ''our'' fault for gathering consensus here, not ''their'' fault for failing to participate. These tactics are fine for Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but are not part of a democratic process, and suggest that there's no point in trying to establish consensus on this page for anything, in fear that others will weigh in and tread all over it as they please. The proper thing to do now is to reinstate the consensus-driven change, and to raise the issue here first. Otherwise, it's a carte-blanche for others to launch in and do what they please to the policy, which will result in its permanent freezing. If these people aren't going to play the game fairly, they can't expect others to. ] ] 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
**Those are strong words to be throwing about here. I've already stated at the very beginning that it was my own fault for not paying proper attention (and so did ]), and you did an admirable job in advertising and notifications. However, consensus isn't decided just based on those who show up at the right time, because what you're saying is "You weren't here, so you don't get to have a voice." This wasn't an election; it's a policy discussion, and we don't operate on a ] (yes, I know that essay is about articles, but it's the same principle). We take as long as we need to get it right. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:*I'd just like to note that since the individual reverts of April 10 by editors ] and ] and the latter's advertisement of the new debate on the Administrators' noticeboard, one editor has joined in support of their position, ]. On the other hand, six editors—], myself, ], ], ], and ]—have made clear their continued support (in the case of the last five named) or newly expressed support (in the case of Jheald) for the consensus established through discussion in March and enacted April 1. Let's keep tracking this.—] (]) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::*So if you were to, say, add me to Black Kite's "camp", that would probably make 4 vs 6 look a lot less impressive. -- ] 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::* Notably, those are three admins who deal extensively with non-free images. <b>]</b> 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*Notably two of the three admins supporting the change deal with non-free images, or at least have well-developed views on image policy. I don't know what GRBerry's position is, but I would hope Black Kite and Howcheng are aware of my views on non-free image policy (maybe I should actually write an essay), and Omegatron's views can be seen at ]. I would really hope that Black Kite doesn't mean "admins who delete non-free image" when he says "admins who deal extensively with non-free images". Black Kite should certainly not assert that admins all have the same views on non-free content policy and how to interpret and enforce it. ] (]) 10:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:*I've ].—] (]) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - The second part of the sentence (which was removed) was simply a restatement of the first part, and, thus, unnecessary. ] (]) 05:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:* No, it isn't. As I mentioned above, when dealing with an article where non-free is being overused, it's <i>much</i> easier to explain the problematic nature of this using the second clause of #8 rather than the first. What I'd actually like to know, is "what was the actual <i>purpose</i> of removing that clause"?. Because looking at some of the comments above, I have to conclude that it was done in order to hamper non-free overuse enforcement, and thus ensure that more non-free content stays on enwiki. <b>]</b> 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::*I've also made my arguments above and see no need to repeat them here. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I think we should talk about this some more, and listen to the things Black Kite is saying. I'm not sure if I have much of a personal preference in all of this, but it sounds to me that there are several well thought out reasons to having this specific wording. -- ] 06:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not trying to impress anyone, Ned (oh, 4 vs. 7 now, if we were to, say, add Badagnani to the respect-the-recently-arrived-at-consensus "camp"). I'm trying to track whether a new consensus is emerging to overturn the consensus that was reached over the course of two weeks in March and enacted April 1. We've got a long way to go, I'm sure, but 4 vs. 7 hardly looks like the birth of a consensus to overturn.

:As for your point about Black Kite, I encourage everyone to read that boring ol' discussion that led to the consensus Black Kite loathes so terribly. Yes, there are arguably valid reasons for the older wording. I and other contributors to the discussion have clearly been conscious of them. The result of the discussion was that virtually all the participants recognized that the arguments for changing the wording are ''more'' valid, ''more'' supportive of both policy and good practice, ''better'' "thought out." That's all.—] (]) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I have no stance on which version is better, just to make that clear. <font face="comic sans ms">] <small>]</small></font> 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, while I think your actions summarily reverting the policy page were really out of line and far beneath what we expect of our administrators, I do understand and respect what you go through dealing with the tidal wave of nonencyclopedic non-free images that are uploaded here. You asked about the "purpose" of the rewording that was supported by consensus. I'd like to reproduce the argument that I made on March 27 that apparently inspired Tony to make his formal proposal for the change:

:Tony's proposal—to lop off the second, more recent clause and restore the older version
<blockquote>
:Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
</blockquote>
:does not exacerbate any perceived conflict with ] and would likely reduce contention around this criterion. Furthermore, the positive tone of the wording would likely encourage editors on all sides to focus on the primary principle underlying this particular criterion—maintaining and improving the educational quality of our encyclopedia.

:Just as the injudicious use of non-free content is a detriment to Misplaced Pages's goals, so is the injudicious deletion of non-free content. Not only is the encyclopedia's educational mission subverted, but there appears to be a poisonous effect on editors whose productive contributions of non-free content are discarded indiscriminately along with the dross. Maintaining a sensible balance of emphasis in our policy language benefits all concerned.

:Most of the criteria steer editors to limit or avoid the use of non-free content—and this is proper, given the overarching Wikimedia diktat. But we must also guide contributors who identify non-free content as crucial in raising particular articles to our desired standard of quality. We serve our mission when we steer them to select such content thoughtfully and to use it well. If there is any NFC policy criterion suited to this positive purpose, it is criterion 8, ''Significance''. —DCGeist (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In sum, the purpose I believe the rewording achieved is certainly not "to hamper non-free overuse enforcement" (I can imagine what it's like wading through the dross) but rather to support the entirety of Misplaced Pages's mission more fully. As I stated elsewhere, no wording of the policy will ever be perfect (i.e., no wording will ever completely facilitate all the purposes we'd like it to), but I—and all the participants in the discussion—agreed the wording enacted on April 1 constituted an improvement, overall, both in philosophy and in practice.—] (]) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

* The point I was making is that the removed clause is not prescriptively there to limit non-free use - it's there to limit non-free <i>over-use</i> - which is a completely different thing. None of our admins active in NFCC are going to, or have ever, gone round mass-deleting FU images out of articles when they are borderline. Hence the interpretation part; for example, an album cover in an article about that album technically fails NFCC, but it's accepted as being reasonable. But if I've just removed, say, a dozen images out of an article that clearly fail multiple parts of NFCC, that second part of #8 is the most useful to explain to the obligitary outraged editor <i>why</i> it was done - I can point to it and say "would the article be less understandable if I hadn't just removed those 12 pictures of minor characters out of it?". That's why removing that clause will hamper what is in the end enforcement of policy. Meanwhile, "Significance" is a problematic word - what is significant to one person may not be to another - it's easy to wikilawyer round.

*To sum up, the problem is threefold.
** Many articles (it's in the thousands, easily) suffer from non-free image and other media overuse.
** Naturally, when such articles are made compliant (or at least more compliant), editors that hve worked on them object.
** When explaining to those editors why the changes have been made, too many <i>other</i> parts of NFCC are too open to interpretation, or difficult to understand, to start removing the parts that aren't.
** (side issue). Given the upload interface, editors are unlikely to ever know about NFCC until someone removes an image they have uploaded. By which time they are naturally antagonistic that someone has undone their work. They need to know <i>before</i> the non-free content goes in, and NFCC needs to be accessible

* This is why I suggested above that we need a proper working party to look at these issues - it was clear last night when Howcheng first raised the problem, that not enough people had noticed the discussion going on. I don't have WT:NFC watchlisted (I do now, though), but I do have WP:VPP watchlisted, and I still missed the single posting pointing towards the debate (which incidentally was posted 11 days after the debate began!).
* See also the discussion at ], which is useful. <b>]</b> 07:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:All of these points are rational, which is why we have a discussion and look to build a consensus out of multiple viewpoints that often diverge. Now that you're engaging in a substantive discussion, I can respond. (Before I begin, I'd like to reiterate that while the Village Pump ad was indeed posted 11 days after the March discussion began, it was posted within a day after the formal proposal to reword the clause was made—there was a definite effort made to get the broader community involved.)
:*You argue that "the removed clause is not prescriptively there to limit non-free use - it's there to limit non-free <i>over-use</i>." The argument is fine in theory, not in practice. Editors less responsible than you have interpreted it as there to limit non-free use per se.
:*You argue, "None of our admins active in NFCC are going to, or have ever, gone round mass-deleting FU images out of articles when they are borderline." I believe this is simply in error. I have certainly seen editors mass-delete FU images from articles in borderline cases, even if they have not gone so far as to entirely delete those images from the database. As for predicting what no one is ever "going to" do—let's not crystal-ball each other.
:*While I appreciate the utility of your preferred wording of NFCC#8 in the efforts you describe, as I read your argument, you're fundamentally claiming that it facilitates a rather difficult task. The wording arrived at in March does not, I think, make your task prohibitively difficult (it is certainly not intended to); it does call upon you to conceive of new ways to accomplish it efficiently. We can certainly grapple with that in the working party you propose. Meanwhile, the wording arrived at in March does serve the positive purposes described in my reproduced statement above, while supporting our policies in a broader manner.
:Though we may continue to disagree on several of these points, I'm happy to engage in a productive discussion of these matters. All the best, Dan.—] (]) 07:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::Yes - perhaps I should've phrased that as "should go round mass deleting...". I do tend to concentrate on articles that are blatantly in violation, mainly because (a) it's easier to explain to editors - though it's still horribly difficult, and (b) because it's obviously a better use of my time to fix articles with dozens of images (i.e. much of the content of ]) that can never be justified under NFCC than one with a few images that possibly could be. The little revert-war that occurred last night was unfortunate, but I understand why Howcheng reverted back in the first place, and when I saw Tony1's uncivil little comment about other editors that I quoted in the edit summary, you can understand why it appeared that a minor coup had occurred.

::The discussion itself; The other point is that the discussion actually appeared to make claims that I believe are demonstrably untrue. Tony's quote near the start of "any rule that is impossible to interpret is a bad rule. I think it should be recast" is notable - because removing that second clause actually makes #8 <i>more</i> open to interpretation. Also, I think the discussion wasn't as clear-cut as is being claimed -
::* There was a brief discussion on #8 with varying viewpoints.
::* Tony formally suggests removing that clause
::* there is some more discussion with varying viewpoints
::* Another editor suggests tweaking #8 <i>but keeping the second clause</i>
::** A second editor agrees.
::*** Tony responds with his "over-zealous NFC police" comment
::**** As if on cue, another editor (a fairly obvious sock actually - new accounts don't find WT:NFC with their third edit) chimes in with the standard "some of these users seem to get a kick out of taking down material that other people have put a great deal of work into".
::* DCGeist agrees with Tony, and Tony formally proposes lopping off #8.2
::* Carcaroth says "I too support this change, but you need to advertise it much more widely, and there will undoubtedly be opposition.". He was right, and one post at VPP wasn't enough to do that.
::* Dragon's flight's support includes "I also support hitting NFCC #8 over the head with a shovel and burying it in the backyard."
::* Geni then actually states an oppose view, but doesn't actually bold an '''Oppose'''.
::* GRBerry supports, but says " If the presence of the non free content does significantly improve understanding, then it is also automatically true that omitting it would be detrimental to understanding" which, as I've said above, patently isn't the case.
::That's my take on it, comments welcome. Cheers, <b>]</b> 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Three important points.
:::*On the suspected sockpuppet: I'll tread very carefully here, as I consider accusations of sockpuppetry very serious. Even assuming that Black Kite is correct and that the editor who made the "kick out of taking down material" comment is a puppet, ''neither'' the assumed puppet ''nor'' the editor who I assume Black Kite assumes to be the puppetmaster (yes, being so careful here)...''neither'' of them were among those who either made the formal proposal or argued in favor of it.
::::* I didn't assume anyone to be the puppetmaster, because I didn't look that heavily into it, and no such accusation against anyone should be assumed - apologies if my comment was not clear. <b>]</b> 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*On Dragon's flight: I hope you don't mean to imply that Dragon's flight's argument should be discounted because of that rhetorical flourish. I know (and I assume, if you think about it, Black Kite, you know) that neither you nor I nor most of the people participating in this discussion would pass that standard. Let's applaud Dragon's flight for being honest and humorous and not take advantage of those virtuous traits in an inappropriate manner.
::::* My point here is that if Dragon's flight wants to throw #8 in the bin completely, he probably holds a position on non-free images which isn't really compatible with the discussion that was taking place. That's not to discount his support, of course. <b>]</b> 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*On Geni: BK's interpretation is reasonable. My interpretation, is that--given that the discussion was well into a clear ''support/oppose'' paradigm--Geni's statement was more of a provisional counterargument than a definite opposition to the rewording. Geni's statement was directly and explicitly responded to, and Geni did not follow up in any manner. I have trouble registering that as an ''oppose''. Even if we do, I believe that still leaves us with a clear, unambiguous consensus—not a perfect consensus, but I've never claimed that, and I've never seen one on a significant matter.—] (]) 08:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::::* In the end, my objection is that I just don't think 6-1 on a non-particularly-visible talkpage can be taken to be a consensus to change a core Foundation policy, and I think Carcaroth was right in his comments. The sginifcant opposes since the matter came to light show that the matter is more controversial that can be dealt with like that, I believe. <b>]</b> 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
* Centralised discussion now at ]. <b>]</b> 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
**I do hope it wasn't me you were accusing of sockpuppetry ... No point in making the accusation unless you come clean and name the person. ] ] 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
***I suspect that so-called sockpuppetry is often spectators jumping in to join in the fun. Lurkers who turn trolls for want of a better term. ] (]) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*A point should be made about ideology. Black Kite said ''"he probably holds a position on non-free images which isn't really compatible with the discussion that was taking place"''. Equally, there are people who openly campaign for non-free use (or fair use) to be removed entirely from en-Misplaced Pages. See ]. Those people also hold a position that it could be said, if you agree with Black Kite's logic, is incompatible with them contributing to a debate on the policy. ] (]) 11:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the same person as the Greek girl who was also involved in the conversation on that day. In fact, I just added a little biography to my page. Although I possess an inactive account that I no longer use (due to the fact that I was essentially being "stalked" by a couple of really obsessive users), I have never pretended to be the same person on any single thread.

I also want to express my concern about what is happening to Tony here. We had a fair and honest vote a couple of weeks ago (note that I did not actually vote on anything). That vote can be taken as a statistical representation about how most people feel regarding this issue at any given time. ] (]) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

* Call me a pedant, but what's the substantial difference between the two versions DCG mentioned above? If an image "significantly" increases understanding, it seems to go without saying that omitting it is damaging to understanding -- likewise, if removing it is ''not'' damaging to understanding, it seems to go without saying that it does not "significantly" increase understanding. This is an awfully big argument over what seems to be a non-change. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 04:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

=== Helps who? ===

Images can help the understanding of those who can not read, of those who read English poorly, of those who are too young to understand all the words in the text, of those who have learning disabilities such they are far better at mentally processing visual imagery. Think of the children :) Help the disabled! Stand up for people who primarily communicate in other languages! Are we trying to be useful or elitist? ] (]) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:We're trying to be free content. See ] and ], that one's a version of "Are you with us, or with the terrorists?" We're writing wikis in other languages, creating free media of our own, creating free read-aloud audio versions of articles, etc., etc., and giving all that effort away to the whole world for free, even letting them copy it at will. That's hardly elitist or unwillingness to help children, the young, non-English speakers, or the disabled. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but WAS has a point. This parsing of the word "free" is very reminiscent of Richard Stallman. What, we want to be free to suck? I, for one, think this wiki-lawyering by a bunch of GPL fanatics has gone too far. Quite frankly, this entire affair since 2006 has been spearheaded by a bunch of purity trolls. We aren't interested in your ideology, what we want is a visually acceptable resource, with a mixture of image sources. If a free image exists, use it, but don't remove fair use images if there is no replacement currently available. Our bios are quite lacking because, if you aren't aware, it isn't possible for many subjects to be photographed unless you are a crazy paparazzi. I think it is high time we take this to the village pump and take a poll on whether editors feel quality has improved or declined since 2006. Moreover, we should ask if they feel current policy is too strict or too lenient, and then go from there. We are suffering by this ] campaign. --] (]) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

== Criterion 2—two problems in the wording ==

When I drove the overhaul of the criteria last May, I might have been blind to the fact that 2 says:
<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to ''replace'' the original market role of the ''original'' copyrighted media.</blockquote> (My italics)

I'd have thought the legal environment was such that this should be tightened to:
<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in a manner that <s>is likely to replace</s> ''may in any way reduce'' the market role of the original copyrighted media.</blockquote>

#It is very easy for a wilful editor to argue that their use of NFC does not replace the market role (all or nothing concept, replace—sounds like taking over completely the market role); it is far harder to argue that such use does not infringe the role.
#Can someone explain the meaning of "the original market role"? It seems to me that it could be construed as meaning the market role of the item when it originally hit the market (say, 40 years ago, but not now—significantly weakening the application of the principle here). Thus, why are there ''two'' occurrences of "original" in this clause? ] ] 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*I agree that "replace" is loose wording, but "infringe" requires someone to demonstrate infringement, which is much harder. Arguably, the pictures at ] and ] ''do'' infringe (a published textbook or encyclopedia would likely pay for these images), but that applies to ''any'' images currently in an image library. This is one of those points where NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 conflict. Some people argue that even if an image passes NFCC#8, any fears (and sometimes the fears are justified sometimes not) about NFCC#2 should be enough to remove an image. Others, like me, say significance and fair use is an adequate defence against legal exposure, but we are not lawyers, so it is difficult to progress any further. As for "original market role", I too have questioned that. I think "original copyrighted media" is to cover cases where people refer to a later version of the product/image/film, rather than the original, and that "original market role" refers to changes in what the product/image/film is being used for. But again, like you, not 100% clear what that means. ] (]) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::Can you think of a word other than "infringe", then, that does the job? I think "replace" is very risky indeed, and invites wikilawyering by editors who would try to game the system. "... have a negative impact on ...", um, don't know about that; or the simple "affect"? Any ideas? ] ] 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think we can address this until there is clear answer as to what "market role" means. Of interest in relation to NFCC#2 is ], example 6: ''"A photo from a press agency (e.g. ]), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: ])."'' and ]: ''"Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis."'' (one trick to watch out for is not to rip up and throw away public domain images also sold by photo libraries with a 'copyright' tag). See also ]. ] (]) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) <small>Updated and extended after edit conflict.</small>
:: Can you think of a word other than "infringe", then, that does the job? I think "replace" is very risky indeed, and invites wikilawyering by editors who would try to game the system. "... have a negative impact on ...", um, don't know about that; or the simple "affect"? Any ideas? ] ] 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Further thoughts: perhaps part of the problem lies in "is ''likely'' to". I suggest instead "may". "May affect"? "May have a bearing on"?
:::And yes, the "original" thing just ''has'' to be grappled with; it's certainly risky if ''we'' can't even understand it.
:::PS What's wrong with "market role"? ] ] 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::::What does it mean? ] (]) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In simplistic terms, it is saying "don't use a picture if someone else is trying to make money out of it". In reality, the obvious infringements are people nicking pictures of sunsets, animals, architectural pictures, and so on, most of which are freely replaceable anyway (fail NFCC#1). The tricky ones are the historical ones. News photographers make a living out of such photos, but at what point does news become history? ] (]) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:Maybe too simplistic (no offense intended). Using ] to illustrate an article about the ] replaces (or infringes) the original market role of the image. Using ] to illustrate ] does not. Remember, fair use is about the <u>use</u>, not about the image.
:That said, the "market role" of the Iwo Jima image is to illustrate texts about the Iwo Jima battle, about war, about the army, about history.... but not to illustrate texts about the image itself, or about photography, about Associated Press, about war propaganda... --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::So why does the say ''"Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..."'', rather than saying ''"Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate <u>articles on photos of</u> historically significant events..."'''? ] (]) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Has this strayed from the original purpose of my post, to straighten out the bad wording? See the partly struck-through version at the top. Market role of the original is clear to me: that it doesn't threaten or reduce the potential of the owner to make money from selling it. ] ] 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::::While I take "market role" to mean the same thing as you, I've never loved the locution—it strikes me as a bit jargonistic (and, supporting that impression, its meaning doesn't seem clear to everyone). Here's a somewhat wordier proposal, adapting language I now use in my FURs (mmm...weasel). You might find this of some use:<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in a manner likely to interfere with the rights holder's ability to promote or profit from the original copyrighted media.</blockquote>
::::"Likely to" can, of course, be replaced with "that may" if you think that's necessary to put us on safer legal ground.—] (]) 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Wording along the lines of "ability to derive benefit" may be more appropriate (although probably still not optimal). Profits and promotion are not the only aspects which may be harmed by misuse/violation of copyright; there are also intangible aspects of copyrighted material (associated goodwill, trade name, etc.) – especially in the case of logos – that we might be wise to recognize and articulate. “Benefit” seems vague, but I’m not sure of a more precise word that would be all encompassing. ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Agreed, at least in concept. "Promotion" and "profit" are indeed aspects of "deriv benefit"—promotion is the primary, but not the only, means for seeking benefit from copyrighted material; profit is the primary, but not the only, benefit sought from copyrighted material. As with "market role", the discussion here is primarily about which phrasing is most effective ''in practice''. For instance, I specifically use the phrase "ability to promote" because I believe it effectively connotes the idea of not interfering with the maintenance of associated goodwill. It becomes a matter of how wordy we want to get. Because, you know, policy criteria should be succinct (sorry, mate, in-joke).—] (]) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website {{url|www.crwflags.com}}, which appears to be getting its images from ]. If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like ] and ]) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at ], though that seems mainly due to ] than ]? -- ] (]) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Mate"? Rather cockney for a New Yorker! In view of this discussion, then:


:CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in a way that may in any way reduce the owner's ability to benefit from the original copyrighted media with respect to .... .</blockquote>


== Getty images open content ==
Fill in the dots? Or trash the whole idea? ] ] 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Neither! You've been right from the get-go that the current language can and should be improved. How 'bout we take what you just suggested, cut one of those ''way''s, and restore the period:
:Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see ] ] (]) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in any way that may reduce the owner's ability to benefit from the original copyrighted media.</blockquote>
:You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See ]. -- ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Copacetic? (I know, rather 1920s for a 21st centurion).—] (]) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, I like your version, which removes my accidental repetition too. ] ] 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Good, but is the "original" needed? Brevity aside, it implicitly exempts derivative works. ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree. This seems too broad, though; "benefit" is vague and could extend beyond commercial factors (e.g. censorship). Also, "may reduce" needs some qualification; a faint possibility of a 1 cent reduction in their profit should surely not be a factor. How about:
<blockquote>'''Respect for commercial opportunities.''' Non-free content is not used in any way that may significantly reduce the owner's ability to profit from their copyright.</blockquote>
-- ] (]) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
== ] ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:I'm not sure ] meets ] given the subject still hasn't gone to trial, and all of the media attention generated by this particular case. On the other hand, the subject's appearance does seem to have generated some critical commentary in reliable sources and might be something at some point meeting NFCC#8. -- ] (]) 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::The file has now been taken to WP:FFD, if anyone wants to chime in: ]. I do have a question there about WP:NFCCP #1 if anyone wants to answer. ] (]) 23:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== Orchestra ==
Hi. I disputed the rationale on this image because it has no attribution of the copyright holder as required per #10a. The uploader says that this is unknown. What do we do in these situations? ] (]) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Do we expect people to be able to provide an own orchestra for the purposes of ]?
== Low resolution ==


For example, the copyright to ] will expire in the United States next year, and it is already in the public domain in most other countries in the world. The section has two non-free recordings of the work, ] and ]. Do we tag these two as replaceable non-free files on 1 January 2026, or do we assume that it is too difficult to create an own recording? --] (]) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The example I've seen mentioned elsewhere is ], which it appears has been shrunk with the larger image deleted (to the apparent detriment of the image). Despite having "The resolution is as low as possible to still be able to illustrate the use of deep focus shots, which cannot be illustrated at a lower resolution." in the rationale, a human still went through and reduced its size. --] 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:This is exactly why the system need to be changed to allow people to explicitly add a "higher-res=yes" exception that bots and bot-like editors can then be reprogrammed to ignore. The images in question would then go in a category and could be periodically checked to make sure the parameter wasn't being abused. WP 1.0 has logs to track changes in assessments over time. The same should be done with images. ] (]) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


:You'll hate me—I already hate me–but in a VST-laden world, surely such a replacement is at least plausibly a replacement given the analogies in other media? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== Replaceable images of dead people ==
:They should be marked as replaceable non-free files. In general, the difficulty in creating a free version isn't a factor in whether we allow a non-free version or not. There are some extreme exceptions, such as individuals incarcerated for life without parole. --] (]) 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do we have a tracking list of files files which will violate ] in the future?
::Another thing I've noticed is that articles about books sometimes don't use pictures of the first edition, so this is also a situation where files will violate ] in the future. I've been checking 1929 books, where the first edition just entered the public domain in the United States, and sent a few book covers to FFD these past days because a later edition with a potentially different cover was used. We might wish to track covers for the 1930s in advance. --] (]) 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If we could have a tracking list of future violations, this would probably also help the editors concerned. If we tell them, say, half a year in advance that this or that file will violate ] on the first of January next year, then they have plenty of time to find an orchestra or locate the cover of an earlier edition of a book and won't get just a week or so when the file is sent to FFD at the beginning of the year. --] (]) 10:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== WP:NFCCP #1 question(s) re: incarcerated people ==
Compare ] (free license) and ] (non-free). The former is, perhaps, quite the worst "free" picture of a dead person that I have ever seen. My point here is that, theoretically, until other images drop into the public domain (or are released under a free license), we are stuck with that picture. Was that the point of the free content movement? To promote poor quality free pictures for the next seventy years or so? The normal argument is that poor quality pictures provide an incentive for people to release free pictures, but that makes me uncomfortable in this case. Is it possible to remove this picture under a "better no image at all than this one" philosophy? ] (]) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:give me a day or two and Ill get photoshop to the free image and clean it up, you might also try and contact The Roddenberry Estate and see if you can get a better free image. ] 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


The two recent FFD discussions regarding the images of ] and ] have me wondering: Is there a guideline anywhere that says fair use images (of living people) are only limited to people sentenced to life in prison or people incarcerated for X amount of time (and if so, what would that specific length of incarceration time be)? {{pb}} I'm curious because there seems to be somewhat of a silent consensus that non-free images of people imprisoned for life fall under fair use, but there is also the possibility of the "lifers" or long-term incarcerated people getting out of prison (either by getting their convictions overturned by appeal court or by being pardoned, etc.)--not a high possibility, but there is a possibility. The current wording of WP:NFCCP #1 seemingly restricts any fair-use images of living people due to the possibility that a free equivalent {{tqq|could be created}} (including for lifers who could get their convictions overturned). Is that the intended purpose of WP:NFCCP #1? If so, should the wording of WP:NFCCP #1 (or at least the "could be created" part) be amended or clarified in any way?


{{pb}} I see that a similar discussion was had here: ], but with no consensus. ] (]) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== Okay, I am not understanding, then ==
* If a person is sentenced to prison for life, then we normally do not expect it to be reasonably possible to create a freely licensed photo of the person, so the image isn't necessarily a violation of ]. However, I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the ] guideline. It should probably be added somewhere.
: If a person is sentenced to life but is let out of prison, then I would say that the non-free file violates ] starting on the date that the person is let out of prison. Probably these should go to FFD instead of using {{tls|rfu}} as you may need to provide a rationale for why it violates ] and there might be a discussion.
: I don't know if there is a conclusive rule on how to do if a person is in prison for a short time, for example five or ten years. --] (]) 10:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok one, there is no conclusive rule. Two, we haven't added such rules because the more you add rules, the more people find wiggle room to argue about. It's like clenching a fist full of sand. Past a certain point, there's little or nothing to be gained from codifying every possible permutation. The closer you get to corner cases, the more it needs to go to FFD. --] (]) 13:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think there needs to be a "rule" per se, but maybe some clarification regarding non-free images of living people in the ] section would help. ] (]) 14:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As I see it, it could be something as simple as a clarification of ] §1. Currently, there is an exception for photos inaccessible private properties, and a photo of someone in prison is a photo ''inside'' such a property. --] (]) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Another question I have, since I've only seen these fair use images being used for incarcerated people -- are there any BLPs (who aren't incarcerated) that have non-free, fair use images of them in their biographical articles? ] (]) 14:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::] has the infamous image of him in the tank that cost him his presidential candidancy, and that's a case where the image itself is the aspect that is discussed in depth, not just because it illustrates who Dukakis was. ] (]) 15:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Chiming in to say I know of at least one very notable example: ]. The artist is well-documented as refusing to allow photographs of herself to circulate (as noted in '''' and other reliable sources). The non-free image is a widely discussed portrait of the artist covering her face with her hands, which itself has been discussed in a variety of sources. It's definitely an edge case because the image itself is the subject of discussion in addition to serving as the primary image in the infobox. But I'm not sure if other folks have taken a look at the rationale for this image, so I could be just stretching the rules without realizing it. This might be a useful opportunity for a second set of eyes tbh. ] (]) 15:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Item 8 of NFC#UUI ==
What is precisely wrong with the ? What is needed in the summary or rationale that is doesn't have now? The following message:
<blockquote>
:This image does not meet Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy. The image needs a fair-use rationale that links to the article or articles it is for. If this is not fixed within a week, the image will be removed from any articles without a proper rationale, and may be deleted.
Please remove this tag once the problem is fixed. This image does not have an adequate rationale for the following article(s):
:*Anti-Iranian sentiment
</blockquote>
I never added it to Anti-Iranian sentiment, and would have never suggested adding it to that particular article, for I have a feeling that it was imported tothat article while someone was looking for an image to represent anti-Iranian sentiment in '']''; which discusses Persians, not Iranians. Furthermore, neither the poster, nor the character depicted cannot be cited even by the simmest of OR as anti-Iranian. - ] ] 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Item 8 of ] reads as follows;<blockquote>A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on ]. The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the ] article.</blockquote>
:Um...where did you get the message? Nothing seems to be wrong with the image at the moment. It has a proper summary, license, and a FUR for its use in '']''. now, if someone else added it to ], then they either need to provide a FUR, or it should be removed. Right now it looks like its been removed. ] (]) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, I tugged it myself from the second article, as it had nothing to do with the subject, and quite a bit about looking for apricots in a room full of peaches. - ] ] 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Is this to be interpreted as meaning no non-free baseball cards are ever to be used as the primary image in the main infobox of articles about baseball players (current and former), and, to the extent, the same applies to players cards for other sports; or, is the issue that a non-free baseball card isn't to be used in the main infoboxes articles about living baseball players? I've always felt the problem was more to do with a non-free image being used for a living person than a baseball player per se, and Bonds and Ripken were just referenced as examples; however, the tagging of ] for speedy deletions for UUI#8 reasons makes me wonder whether a literal reading in how this is expected to be applied. If the "living" aspect is the real issue, then perhaps this should be clarified either directly in UUI#8, or as a "note". -- ] (]) 10:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== The post-arbitration discussion at ] ==
* As Mitchell Page is dead, we normally allow a non-free image in the infobox if no free image is expected to exist. I think that the ban on baseball cards is meant to refer to decorative use in the text, not as the main infobox image if the person is dead.
: As ] specifically mentions ], probably there was a baseball card in that article in the past? How was the image used? As Barry Bonds is alive, a non-free image would normally violate ]. --] (]) 10:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* ], I think that points 7, 8 and 9 of ] relate to the 2nd point of ]: respect for commercial opportunities. Like Marchjuly, I think this point should be clarified in the rule itself. — Ирука<sup>]</sup> 15:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== File:Kayra v Farazi.jpg ==
The ''Betacommand 2'' arbitration case recommended a community discussion on bots and NFCC enforcement. I'm trying to get that discussion going on ] (which is where Carcharoth said was the appropriate place for it). I believe that page is still a bit obscure, though, and I don't think many people have seen it. Would anyone care to head over there and respond? ] / ] 09:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Can ] be considered one of the exceptions to item #1 of ] as being a photo of a disbanded musical group? I learning towards that it doesn't, but just want some other input. Just for reference, the "file is being used in a userbox template" is in reference to ], where the file was being used before I removed it. The use in ] is the usage I'm asking about. -- ] (]) 04:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Enough is enough ==


:No, unless there was an article about the group itself. Right now, it is a mere mention in the rapper's career. -- ] (]) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It is bad enough that good biographies are being butchered by ] wikilawyers without this absurd polemic pogrom against fair-use. I refuse to use this newspeak term that distorts the meaning of free. Free means many things to many people, but I want to know where the entire community has weighed in on this and not just a subset of biased editors. I don't want to assume bad faith, but clearly other projects, like Debian Linux, have suffered greatly from so-called "purity trolls." I think the overall negative reaction to the bots is a backlash against this bad policy, but many feel powerless to have their concerns heard. It will only continue unless we, as a community, have a high profile poll or other discussion to see where the consensus is. I urge this be coordinated at the higher levels so that all the bad feelings and concerns can be properly put to rest. And, yes, I am saying that even foundation licensing terms should be up for discussion. If we are truly to be a community project, then we as a community, and not a handful of board members, should get to have a say in the formation of said terms. --] (]) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:09, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-free content page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFair use (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page 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
WikiProject iconImages and Media (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.
See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

CRW Flags

Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website www.crwflags.com, which appears to be getting its images from Flags of the World (website). If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png and File:Flag of Opp, Alabama.png) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at c:COM:Bad sources#Flags of the World, though that seems mainly due to c:COM:FAIR than WP:RS/P#Flags of the World? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Getty images open content

I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! Qqars (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see WP:PDI Masem (t) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See c:Template:Getty Center. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione § Infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure File:Photo of Luigi Mangione taken by the Pennsylvania State Police in Altoona, PA.png meets WP:FREER given the subject still hasn't gone to trial, and all of the media attention generated by this particular case. On the other hand, the subject's appearance does seem to have generated some critical commentary in reliable sources and might be something at some point meeting NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The file has now been taken to WP:FFD, if anyone wants to chime in: Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2025_January_17#File:Photo_of_Luigi_Mangione_taken_by_the_Pennsylvania_State_Police_in_Altoona,_PA.png. I do have a question there about WP:NFCCP #1 if anyone wants to answer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Orchestra

Do we expect people to be able to provide an own orchestra for the purposes of WP:NFCC#1?

For example, the copyright to Symphony No. 4 (Prokofiev)#Symphony No. 4, Op. 47 will expire in the United States next year, and it is already in the public domain in most other countries in the world. The section has two non-free recordings of the work, File:Symphony Op.-47-1-2.ogg and File:Symphony-Op.47-2.ogg. Do we tag these two as replaceable non-free files on 1 January 2026, or do we assume that it is too difficult to create an own recording? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll hate me—I already hate me–but in a VST-laden world, surely such a replacement is at least plausibly a replacement given the analogies in other media? Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
They should be marked as replaceable non-free files. In general, the difficulty in creating a free version isn't a factor in whether we allow a non-free version or not. There are some extreme exceptions, such as individuals incarcerated for life without parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Do we have a tracking list of files files which will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future?
Another thing I've noticed is that articles about books sometimes don't use pictures of the first edition, so this is also a situation where files will violate WP:NFCC#1 in the future. I've been checking 1929 books, where the first edition just entered the public domain in the United States, and sent a few book covers to FFD these past days because a later edition with a potentially different cover was used. We might wish to track covers for the 1930s in advance. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
If we could have a tracking list of future violations, this would probably also help the editors concerned. If we tell them, say, half a year in advance that this or that file will violate WP:NFCC#1 on the first of January next year, then they have plenty of time to find an orchestra or locate the cover of an earlier edition of a book and won't get just a week or so when the file is sent to FFD at the beginning of the year. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP #1 question(s) re: incarcerated people

The two recent FFD discussions regarding the images of Luigi Mangione and Derek Chauvin have me wondering: Is there a guideline anywhere that says fair use images (of living people) are only limited to people sentenced to life in prison or people incarcerated for X amount of time (and if so, what would that specific length of incarceration time be)?

I'm curious because there seems to be somewhat of a silent consensus that non-free images of people imprisoned for life fall under fair use, but there is also the possibility of the "lifers" or long-term incarcerated people getting out of prison (either by getting their convictions overturned by appeal court or by being pardoned, etc.)--not a high possibility, but there is a possibility. The current wording of WP:NFCCP #1 seemingly restricts any fair-use images of living people due to the possibility that a free equivalent could be created (including for lifers who could get their convictions overturned). Is that the intended purpose of WP:NFCCP #1? If so, should the wording of WP:NFCCP #1 (or at least the "could be created" part) be amended or clarified in any way?

I see that a similar discussion was had here: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_73#Non-free_images_of_still_living_persons_convicted_of_a_crime_yet_only_incarcerated_for_a_comparatively_short_period_of_time, but with no consensus. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  • If a person is sentenced to prison for life, then we normally do not expect it to be reasonably possible to create a freely licensed photo of the person, so the image isn't necessarily a violation of WP:NFCC#1. However, I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the WP:NFC guideline. It should probably be added somewhere.
If a person is sentenced to life but is let out of prison, then I would say that the non-free file violates WP:NFCC#1 starting on the date that the person is let out of prison. Probably these should go to FFD instead of using {{subst:rfu}} as you may need to provide a rationale for why it violates WP:NFCC#1 and there might be a discussion.
I don't know if there is a conclusive rule on how to do if a person is in prison for a short time, for example five or ten years. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok one, there is no conclusive rule. Two, we haven't added such rules because the more you add rules, the more people find wiggle room to argue about. It's like clenching a fist full of sand. Past a certain point, there's little or nothing to be gained from codifying every possible permutation. The closer you get to corner cases, the more it needs to go to FFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there needs to be a "rule" per se, but maybe some clarification regarding non-free images of living people in the WP:FREER section would help. Some1 (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
As I see it, it could be something as simple as a clarification of WP:NFC#UUI §1. Currently, there is an exception for photos inaccessible private properties, and a photo of someone in prison is a photo inside such a property. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Another question I have, since I've only seen these fair use images being used for incarcerated people -- are there any BLPs (who aren't incarcerated) that have non-free, fair use images of them in their biographical articles? Some1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Michael Dukakis has the infamous image of him in the tank that cost him his presidential candidancy, and that's a case where the image itself is the aspect that is discussed in depth, not just because it illustrates who Dukakis was. Masem (t) 15:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Chiming in to say I know of at least one very notable example: Cady Noland. The artist is well-documented as refusing to allow photographs of herself to circulate (as noted in The New York Times and other reliable sources). The non-free image is a widely discussed portrait of the artist covering her face with her hands, which itself has been discussed in a variety of sources. It's definitely an edge case because the image itself is the subject of discussion in addition to serving as the primary image in the infobox. But I'm not sure if other folks have taken a look at the rationale for this image, so I could be just stretching the rules without realizing it. This might be a useful opportunity for a second set of eyes tbh. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Item 8 of NFC#UUI

Item 8 of Wp:NFC#UUI reads as follows;

A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

Is this to be interpreted as meaning no non-free baseball cards are ever to be used as the primary image in the main infobox of articles about baseball players (current and former), and, to the extent, the same applies to players cards for other sports; or, is the issue that a non-free baseball card isn't to be used in the main infoboxes articles about living baseball players? I've always felt the problem was more to do with a non-free image being used for a living person than a baseball player per se, and Bonds and Ripken were just referenced as examples; however, the tagging of File:Mitchell Page.jpg for speedy deletions for UUI#8 reasons makes me wonder whether a literal reading in how this is expected to be applied. If the "living" aspect is the real issue, then perhaps this should be clarified either directly in UUI#8, or as a "note". -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  • As Mitchell Page is dead, we normally allow a non-free image in the infobox if no free image is expected to exist. I think that the ban on baseball cards is meant to refer to decorative use in the text, not as the main infobox image if the person is dead.
As WP:NFC#UUI specifically mentions Barry Bonds, probably there was a baseball card in that article in the past? How was the image used? As Barry Bonds is alive, a non-free image would normally violate WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Kayra v Farazi.jpg

Can File:Kayra v Farazi.jpg be considered one of the exceptions to item #1 of WP:UUI as being a photo of a disbanded musical group? I learning towards that it doesn't, but just want some other input. Just for reference, the "file is being used in a userbox template" is in reference to Template:User Kayra, where the file was being used before I removed it. The use in Kayra (rapper)#Career is the usage I'm asking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, unless there was an article about the group itself. Right now, it is a mere mention in the rapper's career. -- Whpq (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions Add topic