Misplaced Pages

• (Indents becoming too large) I think I see why you're pushing for both the inclusion and omission clauses. So let's look at the linguistic problems in your latest suggestion. I don't like the "non" and "not" so close, worsened by a third negative straight after ("unless"). I don't like "conversely" and "likewise" in the same clause (both appear to be attempts to apply "in a way that words alone cannot" to both clauses, but it has to be spelt out again). I don't like the indicative ("increases") contrasted with the conditional mood ("would be detrimental"). And I don't like the unqualified "detrimental" (to my health?). What about this, then?

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding in a way that words alone cannot make good. Tony 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand your objection to the triple-negative part and what you've written to that end makes just as much sense, but do we need to repeat "in a way that words alone cannot"? Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I still think that leaving "detrimental" by itself is enough to be understood in context (because "health" is not the logical conclusion), but I'm not going to quibble about that. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right about the repetition of the "words cannot" bit; the last three words ("to that understanding") are essential. So, do we have lift-off in your latest suggestion? Tony 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support howcheng's new proposed wording for criterion 8. It's not too much of a change, and it's a bit easier to read and understand as well. -- wacko2 18:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new language is clearer and I would support that change, eXCEPT, (always an except), by changing the word "media" to "content" it seems that this criteria also applies to words that are non-free. That makes the "words alone" part of the sentence not clear. So does this criteria apply only to non-text non-free content? Maybe we could just omit those words as below? put them in an example? or change the word "content" back to "media"?

• Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --Tinned Elk 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the above, with or without the deletion. It is strong, clear, and to the point, and we can flesh out in the guideline page how that applies in various contexts and to various examples. Whether here or there, we need to clarify that a non-free picture should not be used where a brief amount of text would engender the same understanding. That could be here or in connection with criterion 1 (i.e. uncopyrighted text is a free alternative to a non-free image). Wikidemo 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot agree with Tinned Elk's deletion. The "words alone" portion is important for media files, otherwise that opens a loophole where people start adding random images because simply because they "increase the reader's understanding" in some vague way. However, it has been made clear to me that I wasn't thinking about the use of non-free quotations and such. How can we make it clear that the use of non-free content is only allowed when it's really required? Something along the lines of:

Non-free content is used only where its presence is required for readers' understanding of the topic. If it can be omitted without any detriment to that understanding, it cannot be used.

--howcheng {chat} 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that subject of free versus non-free text comes up. First, if an image is replaceable by non-free text, isn't it always replaceable by free text because you could reword it? Second, even if it were only replaceable by non-free text, non-free text is better to use than a non-free image. So either way, if words do the trick they should be used instead. Without the deletion, the passage is good. Wikidemo 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Tinned Elk's issue is that the wording without the deletion doesn't make sense when the non-free content in question is text, not about replacing non-free images with text (free or non-free). howcheng {chat} 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case I think we should live with the harmless lack of precision, go ahead with the deletion, or add a second sentence that clarifies for media, because trying to work that into a single sentence gets awkward and/or changes the meaning. The statement is already there in the first sentence of Criterion 1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Interesting approach, but I think it might be too much of a leap to comprehend for a lot of people (that a non-free image mentioned in criterion 8 can be replaced by free text as stated in criterion 1, when the two criteria don't seem to have much to do with each other). So that leaves us with adding another sentence:

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. Media files (sounds and images) that can be replaced with equivalent text may not be used.

How do we like that? howcheng {chat} 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Howcheng got my objection right.--Tinned Elk 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. Yes. At the risk of a quibble, let's choose either "media files" or "sounds and images" and clarify what "equivalent" means. How about: Non-free sounds and images may not be used if they can be replaced by text that serves an equivalent function.

Wikidemo 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not thrilled with "sounds and images"; there are videos, too, and that starts to get clumsy. What's wrong with "media files"? And rather than "equivalent", why not "similar"? (It's too easy to argue that "there's no way those words serve an equivalent function to the image you wanna delete"; but "similar" gives patrollers more scope and fair-use claimants less scope, don't you think?) I like the brevity and simplicity of Wikidemo's last one, apart from these issues. Tony 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so based on the input from Wikidemo and Tony1:

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

How do we like that? howcheng {chat} 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Tinned Elk 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good. Just one tweak for consistency of mood:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. Tony 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Implemented now. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria explanations

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(discussion of that page moved to that page's discussion page)

• I like it, and suggest that we work towards making it an explanatory section of this page. Desperately needs a copy-edit. Tony 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I'm glad you like it, and SOFIXIT. :-) – Quadell 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy overhauling the MOS and trying to stop FACs with crap prose being promoted. Do you think you could call on a few copy-editors first, and then I'll have a look. It's a great advantage to have people who are unfamiliar with a text to scrutinise it. Find them in the edit histories of similar pages (or of any good article). That's what I did for my Criterion 1a page (the excellent User:Hoary did it, but he probably won't be interested in this type of job). What about the League of Copyeditors? Apply to them and say why it's so important (and an unusual request). Tony 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable use of images under fair use?

I have made several scans of book covers for reference works used in compiling and article, reduced these to thumbnails, and included them in the reference section. The article in question is Structural history of the Roman military. The article is undergoing FA candidacy and a reviewer has questioned whether this use is acceptable under fair use or not. My own understand is that such a use is acceptable given that:

1. this is a scan of a book cover, and book cover is an acceptable listed fair use choice on the file upload menu
2. The scan is ultra-low res (25 pixels wide) meaning that there is no possible loss of earnings to the copyright holder of the book design.
3. The scan is so low-res that it does little more than give an impression of the book cover, certainly not enough for the book cover to be reproduced. In fact it is doubtful to what extent it is even the same image - in the extreme example a 1x1 pixel version of any image is going to be the same as any other image and cannot even be said to be that original image anymore. Likewise, a 25-pixel wide image cannot truly be said to be the original image anymore in any case.
4. The example of reasonable fair use given for a book cover or similar ont he file upload wizard is that "a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself" - by analogy surely a shot of a book cover is acceptable to use when talking about the book itself?
5. The image appears on a page not on the topic of the book, but the image appears only in direct relation to the book.

This seems fairly clear to me that this is acceptable use, but as I say there is some disagreement. Could I get a consensus of opinion on this please? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an attractive effect, isn't it. And helpful. Under UK law, I think these would be ruled "not a significant taking", and therefore freely usable. But that's because the UK doesn't have comprehensive "fair use", only "not significant taking" and "fair dealing". I'm going to have to defer to the Americans as to whether under U.S. law you can take so little from a work that it ceases to be "fair use" and becomes effectively free. Jheald 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are my feelings too. Logically, such a cutoff point must exist or you would not be able to write the book's title or add quotes from the book. I will await and see what others think. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The only argument would be from significance: Non-free media is not used unless its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot, and its omission would be detrimental to the reader. I'm not sure omission in this case would be detrimental, since I can find the books by using their ISBN pretty easily. Sancho 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I did see that sentence but it seemed to contradict almost everything els I read on wikipedia's implementation of fair-use. It is very strongly worded and in fact I see above that there is some discussion over whether the wording needs changing. Given this, I do believe th fair-use policy allows such use, but as I say I will see what the general consensus is. What is your own view on this?? - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very importnat part of the policy, and I wold say the images are purely decorative and thus not at all acceptable per our non-free image policy. If you want to argue that the images are not non-free because they are so small the copyright becomes moot, that's one thing, but as long as we are arguing from a non-free image perspective this is not acceptable use at all. As for the "to small for copyright" argument that's not rely something we happy amatures can descide by arguing amongst ourselvesl so I'd say err on the side of caution and get rid of those images unless you can get an actual IP lawyer to agree that they are not protected by copyright anymore. --Sherool (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is still some talk, but I think it is related to whether line 8 should say "detrimental to the reader", or "detrimental to the reader's understanding". My opinion is that this is also covered in a related example at Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Images. Cover art is acceptable when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items. The acceptable use of other non-free images (posters, screenshots, etc.) have similar requirements: that they are used in articles about the subject of the image, or in major sections about the subject of the image. In these cases omission of an image may be detrimental to the reader. I don't think that a bibliography entry is sufficient critical commentary to warrant the cover art. (Whether copyright applies at all is another question... I didn't even think of that, Sherool.) Sancho 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your hard work here is for naught, because these images are really not crucial to understanding the text. They will have to go. And Sancho is right, the only niggling about the wording is that it may be possible to be misconstrued, so we're just trying to make it clearer. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the position on manually creating a 25 pixel "sketch" of the book covers by hand from scratch and using these? Is this or any other means an acceptable way around this? It seems madness not to be able to show the book you are referencing, since after all the picture of a book is really no more than a slightly more accurate representation of what the book is than its title is. I don't really see the different between using a book title and even quotes from a book on the one hand and using an attributed picture of what the book looks like on the other. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a sketch would be considered a derivative work of the original cover and still not allowed. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think these images are getting to the point where there is nothing left that connects them uniquely to the originals. At that point, I think technically they cease to be derivative works. Jheald 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a beautiful footnote section! There is a concept in US copyright law of de minimis use, whereby if the use is so small there is no fair use balancing test. So you don't have to argue whether it competes with the commercial purpose of the original, whether there is critical commentary, etc. You simply argue that the use is incidental and tiny. An example of this use is a photograph or artwork that appears in the background of a motion picture, unrecognizable and out of focus. I have my doubts that the use here is truly de minimus because the very purpose of putting those book images in the table is to make them identifiable, and they are front and center in the images, however small. Otherwise there is no purpose, might as well mock something up. Anyway, the circuits are divided, as they say, as to where de minimis ends and fair use begins, how it applies, and whether de minimis is even a separate defense or whether it is simply a specialized case of fair use. As far as I know Misplaced Pages does not have policy on this. In a different context, Misplaced Pages does not concern itself with de minimis uses, for example a photograph of a street scene with a building or storefront in the background. But this is not that kind of incidental appearance of a copyrighted work. I would argue that as beautiful as it is, it is a novel thing for Misplaced Pages and you are using the images outside of any well-established guideline. As such you would have to run this up the policy tree and see whether people will accept it as a new class of images. I'll hazard a guess that in the current environment that's unlikely. We could make a good case for this particular article, but if we create a new class of de minimis thumbnails for Misplaced Pages it adds to the confusion and complexity for downstream users who may be operating in very different legal contexts, and thus makes the whole base of articles less free. Sorry. Wikidemo 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Every printed book I own manages to have a reference list without thumbnails of the works mentioned. I don't see why we need them here; they appear to be primarily decorative, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is decorative. Very nicely so, I might add. They took our advice and replaced the non-free images with free images. Not as useful, but in a mixed bibliography or reference section the style they created could be a useful graphical navigation aid. Wikidemo 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very nice. Maybe a different image for web docs, paper docs, etc. I also liked the split between primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing. We're well off topic now :-) Sancho 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're off topic, I'll point out that the style for reference lists has been degenerating rapidly over the past few months, starting with the two-column thing and now this. There's no reason that plain, unadorned text at ordinary size in a single column isn't sufficient for presenting references. I'll try to find a MOS page where I can leave a better comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please post a link here to where you start a discussion. Sancho 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Low resolution

I've just made the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim and the list of album covers without fair use rationale. The only thing I need to know in order to start adding missing rationales is what the term "low resolution" means precisely. 200x200 is a clear-cut case. I guess that there should be no problem with 300x300 too, but does 400x400 or 500x500 still qualify? By the way, anyone willing to help to clear these lists is welcome. Jogers (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To selectively quote from Wikidemo's template, the image should be "of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover", and should "properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image", but still be of "lower resolution than the original cover", so that "copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork".

In practice, that gives quite a lot of flexibility, according to the particular image in question. There's no bright white line resolution, rather there is a tapering from acceptable to unacceptable, with different balance points appropriate for different images. Jheald 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit confusing. I've just noticed this note though so I think I will just leave anything bigger than 300x300 alone. Jogers (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, fair-use images should be no larger than the resolution at which they are displayed in the article. If it's only shown at 200 x 200 in the article, then the 300 x 300 version of the image isn't shown in any articles (NFCC #7) and it's larger than is necessary (NFCC #3). Of course having a 400 x 400 album cover in an article would be distracting and inappropriate. – Quadell 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for that. It might be used at a different resolution in a different article. I also see no basis for a 300 X 300 rule of thumb. For purposes of creating free content for the world, the reason behind all this, I don't see any benefit. Wikidemo 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't keep a non-free image around because it might be used in an article, if it's not used in any articles currently. In the same way, how can we keep a 400 x 400 resolution of an image around if it's not used at that resolution in any articles? – Quadell 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Images are re-used, articles get edited. Having a somewhat larger but still compliant source for the image is of some benefit without hurting anything, whereas the technical and administrative complexity of enforcing a policy banning such images is vastly out of scale with any benefit. What would the solution be? Surely not to delete images. Shrinking the image to the largest extant use in an article, then deliberately getting rid of the lost information so that it can't be un-shrunk? That seems pointless. The image pages aren't the potential copyright violations; they are just there to support the use in articles. Wikidemo 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about fair use image

I want to make sure Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg is actually free. The only potential problem is the USB icon visible on the plug; nobody seems to know the actual status of that icon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but they could also be easily edited out (blurred, etc.). Sancho 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a possible solution, but the question is whether there is anything that makes this image non free. I am under the impression that our image policies deal with copyright only not trademark law. As the inclusion of the icon in this image is not the central subject (it's a picture of a plug first and foremost), I think that makes this image qualify as free. I would like to know if that's right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See also the discussion two sections up, #Acceptable use of images under fair use?. IMO we do need policy about when images should be considered free because the use of copyright content is very slight, in no way likely to be contentious, however and wherever the image might be modified and/or re-used downstream. I think that would be a better solution, rather than doctoring the image. Jheald 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, but I think it's a different case because the images there are meant first and foremost to represent the book cover. This image is meant to represent a USB plug, but all USB plugs will have the icon stamped on the front. Also, we know the book covers are copyrighted but the status of the USB logo is unknown to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The USB logo doesn't have enough creative material to be copyrighted. It's certainly patented trademarked , but we don't seem to have a policy on dealing with patents trademarks, other than to pretend they're copyrights. If it were copyrighted, I would argue that this is de minimus use, similar to a photo skyline that includes a Pepsi logo on a billboard. – Quadell 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by not enough creative content to be copyrighted. An image of that complexity is certainly subject to copyright. By "patented" you mean having trademark rights or registration? Yes, but that's a completely different issue that Misplaced Pages barely addresses and that tests the limits of the whole free image thing as I understand it. But yes, I think the use would be considered de minimis from a fair use standpoint. Photoshopping for more contrast would be helpful. Wikidemo 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I mean trademarks, not patents. Major faux pas. Anyway, simple designs can't be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. That's why type-settings (fonts) are not eligible for copyright in the U.S. – Quadell 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Q: are you saying the Image:USB_Icon.svg can actually be licensed as a free image? That would be ideal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well. . . the logo itself is not copyrighted, so there are no copyright concerns about reproducing the image. There are trademark concerns, but I don't know trademark law very well. – Quadell 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A scan of a trademarked logo is not free use. However, in the US, you can take a picture of a product and as long as there is a creative element such as a camera angle, (meaning you didn't just plop it on your scanner) the image is free. Copyright is not the same as trademark, and can't be treated the same. Trademark law stops you from using a particular design or logo for your own advertising purposes, but has nothing to do with a picture of a cable that happens to have a logo, unless you try to use that picture for advertising purposes, which we are not. That being said, pictures of the type being discussed are always preferred *not* to have a trademark since we don't want to promote any brand over the other. Also, this way, all legal issues are nullified. (Think Andy Warhol - his Campbell's soup can are portrayed a trademark, not a copyrighted image and there was a creative aspect, so he was legally allowed to make such a painting and call it his.) pschemp | talk 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. So long as there is a creative element, you get a copyright to your work. But that doesn't remove any rights anybody else has in what you've photographed. That may or may not be a problem (in non WP settings) because you may well be able to claim fair use; but it may affect your freedom to license or otherwise dispose of your picture of as you see fit, which here people get very picky about. Jheald 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If my understanding is right, we don't consider trademarks when sorting images into free/nonfree, only copyrights. If that is true, it seems I am being told that both images I have linked above are fair use on WP. Is that right? I just want to get a resolution so I can tag them appropriately, and others of the same sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag on the cable picture is correct and doesn't need to be changed, but I think you mixing up free and fair use. It isn't fair use, because it isn't being used under the provisions of the fair use laws. However, it is free since it was released under GFDL. The logo svg needs to follow the guidelines at WP:LOGO, as that is a completely diffrent situation. First, someone needs to check and see it it is trademarked or not. Second, it's use right now in the article seems to meet the criteria at WP:LOGO, so I don't see a problem with it, however it does need an appropriate tag and rationale if it is trademarked. pschemp | talk 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check US trademarks at http://www.uspto.gov. But like copyrights, trademarks exist in the US whether or not a registration is filed. The rights arise serendipitously or by design, when a slogan, phrase, name, logo, image, sound, symbol, or the like becomes sufficiently associated in people's minds with a product or service to come to designate the source, origin, or sponsorship of that product or service. The object of the trademark may or may not have a copyright associated with it, based on the usual rules of copyright. Text trademarks are almost always too short and unoriginal to be copyrighted. Logos and graphics usually are. Wikidemo 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Album cover fur

While the discussion started above, I'd like to start a new section heading for this to gain further attention

Template:Album cover fur

No way to this. While the semi-generic template usage is it's own discussion, the use and rationale presented in this template are not clearly acceptable. Album covers are not on the same level as logos, and identification alone is not enough. Some may disagree, but something so highly disputed should not be generically used like this. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be used, and a pronouncement to the contrary based on something that is not policy is unhelpful. The template helps the user produce cogent, sufficient rationales that compy with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on the subject. Just like the existing master template it can be used properly to produce good rationales; if used improperly it can produce insufficient rationales -- just like the existing template or typing by hand. It is up to each editor to decide if the rationale they are working on based on the parameters they type in is sufficient; if so they can save it as is. If not, the template provides plenty of ways to change the parameters and make the rationale as customized as the editor wants. The use of album covers to identify the album in articles about the album, as per our recent discussion and consensus on the subject (elsewhere in the page), is sufficient. There is no dispute about that. Nevertheless, just like typing by hand or using the official master template, this template is entirely transparent as to what constitutes a complete rationale. If you don't have enough on the subject you can always type more. Wikidemo 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, there isn't a consensus that using the art for identification only is acceptable. The rationale has been rejected several times, and we don't do things here by popular vote. Considering generic templates are very much under debate right now, to add this rationale on top of that is simply not acceptable. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't say "identification only". It says "identification and critical commentary of the work", and there's a solid consensus that a picture of a copyrighted work can be used to identify it when there's critical commentary on the work. 17Drew 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It does say that, but check the usage for the template. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The specific consensus on the subject, which is clearly laid out in the closed discussions still on this page, is that cover art passes the significance test "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items." We reached that conclusion with album covers specifically in mind, and it is part of the guideline in the form of an example of acceptable image use. Nevertheless, as I said the template is neutral to the question of what might be required in a fair use rationale; like using the existing mater template or writing it out by hand it is only a way of generating one. Wikidemo 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A four day discussion does not establish consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this template substed to the image pages? Now it's all just a mess. 17Drew 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we're closing this loophole. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This template transcludes the official one, template:Non-free media rationale, and feeds a bunch of parameters into that template. If you subst it, what you get is all the formatting commands from Non-free media rationale, and then all the parameters in the transcluded rather than final form. That is the "mess" you see. I'm trying to figure out how to substitute template:album cover fur out of the way so it disappears, yet leave template:non-free media rationale in place. That involves something called "partial substitution" that I am still trying to figure out. If anyone knows how to do it let me know. But I'm working on a next version that will do this automatically. Wikidemo 05:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can do the partial substitution, I think, but I'm curious why. If the source and purpose are left as parameters, as they currently are, why bother making the user subst: it? The biggest advantage of the template seems to me to be that the generic parts of rationales could be improved or updated simply by editing the template. Λυδαcιτγ 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please don't subst this template.

If anything, since 95% of the use of this template is for the case of albums being used in infoboxes on the album article, the thing to do would be to create another template even upstream of this one, say Template:Album Infobox cover fur, which would feed text into this Template:Album cover fur, in the same way that there's a hierarchy of geolocation templates. Then people could use "What links here" on Template:Album Infobox cover fur template to get a list of all the cover usages which are 100% plain vanilla infobox (which could be rather easily policed with a bot), and "What links here" on Template:Album cover fur to get a list just of the 5% or so of cases where something more complicated is going on. Both of these lists would be advantageous to be able to create, I submit. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

About the identification part: I don't rely have a problem with that myself, I think cover art can generaly be said to be a "identifying protected work" on par wtih a logo when used in the article about the work itself (I think even Jimbo is on record saying he doesn't see a problem wtih such use, and he's by no means a big fan of non-free material). Outside of such articles I agree that critical commentary would be needed though. My biggest problem wtih this template is it's name, people could easily get the impression that if asked for a rationale for an albumcover all they have to do is apply this template and they are all set, regardles of how the cover is actualy used. I agree that a boilplate rationale can work as long as it's just for say albumcovers in an album article, but the template should not attempt to be a "catch all" for all potential uses of such covers. I've already seen this rationale applied to covers that are not at all used in the article about the album, but rater as the portrait image for the artist's infobox... It should probably be called {{albumcover fur for album articles}} or some such to make it's scope that more clear. --Sherool (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added this template to about 150 to 200 images, namely a full survey of at-risk cover images starting with the letter 'J'. Never to images being used in a discography. About 95% of the time to images being used for infoboxes. A couple of times for images being used substantially to portray dead artists, with a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale (which could/should perhaps be standardised), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (dead)" in the use field. A couple of times for images being used to portray artists as they were (as as they were merchandised) in their heyday, where a current image would not fulfil the same encyclopedic purpose - again using a substantially bespoke rewritten rationale), and clearly identified by putting "Artist (heyday)" in the use field. And a couple of times for "one album wonders" on their Artist page, which I reckoned was quite well covered by the standard rationale generate by putting "Artist" in the use field.

I believe that all these are appropriate fair use per the policy. The advantage of using a standardised template, in an unsubst'd form, is that (i) it becomes rather easy to find these usages -- and (ii) if the language for the rationale needs to be improved, this can be implemented for all usages at once.

As I said, I used bespoke language for Artist (heyday) and Artist (dead). But it would have been better if I had created a new additional template option, so that the language for such usages, which I believe acceptable, could be standardised reviewed and refined centrally. I would argue the way we should be going is more unsubst'd templatisation and central quality control of more standard usage cases, not less. Jheald 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding this template to low-resolution album covers used in infoboxes in articles about albums they illustrate like here. From what I understand it's a clear-cut case. I'm not a fair-use expert but I can't see what's wrong with this template. The rationale it generates appears to be well written to me. Jogers (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like having this template. Its very existence gives the impression that if you want to have an album cover in an article for even the flimsiest of reasons, all you have to do is slap this on and all is good, because I highly doubt many of the people using it even bother to read it. A hand-written rationale, even if from boilerplate text, is more likely (but still not guaranteed) to make people actually read it before they save it. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Why is a boilerplate text any better than the template with several options that generates well-written fair use rationale? Jogers (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on on this policy page about whether logos and album covers can be used without critical commentary or not. I can't help but notice that it's not being discussed on the talk page. Anybody want to talk? – Quadell 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been so much discussion, both here and elsewhere. I really thought we'd reached consensus, with a position all parties could live with. Sigh. We've found in the past that the meaning "critical commentary" is difficult to pin down; so to me an operational definition seems much steadier.

I thought we'd reached the view that if WP had a whole article devoted to a subject, or a prose section of a bigger article on it, that that was appropriate grounds, per U.S. Fair use law, and per the Foundation resolution, to allow an identificatory image. Wikidemo is after all a practising U.S. copyright lawyer, even if I can understand why he really really doesn't like us referring to that fact.

Although I may sometimes have a say about US copyright laws, Misplaced Pages policies go beyond that and, as such, my voice doesn't count for more than anyone else's on how far beyond they should go.

I commend the new version, because I think it is a much clearer test. Jheald 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible problem: some users believe that any article that mentions an album can have an image of it. So you get articles like List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s, which used to have 67 non-free album-cover images on it. I took them out because NFCC #8 seemed to forbid this use. Surely the text here should make it clear that "identification" only, absent other rationale, isn't enough. – Quadell 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Jheald has misunderstood what it was that I was changing. This is the change I undid. It was made by Wikidemo just three days ago, and completely removes any requirement relating to critical commentary, leaving the example referring to "identification" alone, which in no way is an acceptable use of non-free content. In reverting, Jheald referred me to this discussion, which concerns to the same part of the page but relates to a completely different change. --bainer (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish that Jheald and others would do everyone the politeness of proposing the actual textual changes here before unilaterally implementing them on the policy page. I say this purely from a language perspective. He doesn't write well (at least, not that I can see), and things need to be tidied up before being exposed to the world on the policy page. Tony 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, if you'd like to give me some pointers on my prose style on my talk page, I'm sure I'd welcome that. Always trying to improve. In point of fact, when I have made changes, I thought I generally had put them up for discussion here, with this as a typical example. The texts being discussed here are not mine. To the bainer: yes, I'd just been reading the Nevermind discussion on WP:FUR, and your twice unilaterally attempting to outright delete Template:album cover fur, while we and WP:AN were specifically discussing it, and I'm afraid that yes, I did misread your change.

That said, I stand by what I wrote 2 comments up: when we have an article or a specific section on an album, I think showing that cover for identification is appropriate fair use, both per US law and per the Foundation resolution -- and I think that is the view that almost all of us in good faith came to. Jheald 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "identification of the subject" can be ok in the article about said subject. I don't agree that this will extend to any other article where the subject is merely mentioned though, in those cases there needs to be some commentary on the image itself or otherwise require the image to be understood. Examples: I think it's ok to use a company logo on the company's article, I don't think it's ok to use the company logo on every article about said company's products. Simmilarly: Team logos are ok on the article about team, not ok in articles about leagues, championships and other plages where the team is just mentioned. Same with album covers, ok in the album/single article, not ok in discography lists or artist articles where the album is merely mentioned and isn't required to understand the article. I think if we can find clear and to the point way to make that distinction clear most of the friction on this issue could be resolved. --Sherool (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You know, the trouble I go to in posting drafts of powerful texts on WP's talk pages and painstakingly negotiating consensus and engineering compromises (I did it here in May, in the biggest recasting of the criteria in a long while, and I'm doing it now at MOSNUM). I just wish the process of change was more systematic here, as suggested in the note at the top of the policy page. As I keep pointing out, non-experts in this field (myself included) need these rules to be as succinct and crystal clear as possible, because it's such a complex area and everyone needs to know about it. Over to you guys. And BTW, please don't tell our readers to "note" this and "note" that. Tony 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason for the requirement of critical commentary is that there are many substub articles that don't contain much more than a picture of the album - I've seen several as I've tried to start plowing through the fair-use image backlogs. "Foo is a 2005 album by Bar" is not enough textual commentary to justify using a copyrighted image in the article - see also the consensus on discographies, which sometimes contain more data than stubs (and make no mistake, I'm strongly against nearly all inclusions in discographies). I have seen problematic interpretations of the "critical commentary" piece, but that's true of any policy, and is a reason to help editors understand what our consensus means, not a reason to throw the whole thing out. (ESkog) 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we all in agreement that this use is a policy violation, but this use (a non-stub article about an album that does not include critical commentary on the album-cover art or the image itself) is acceptable? – Quadell 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Emmaneul 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog's statement directly above makes me unclear whether he would agree. – Quadell 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say so yes. If the album article is just a list of tracks and a infobox it should probably be PROD'ed or something anyway, if that's all there is to say about an album it clearly doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. --Sherool (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion we hashed out the specific language in word-by-word detail, first as a proposed addition to WP:NFCC but at the last minute as examples in WP:NONFREE. This was a fully discussed and negotiated change that represents not only a clarification but also a compromise on both sides of a dabate going back to May 4, when Criterion 8 was first modified to forbid lists, galleries, etc. If you're going to challenge consensus on the question of what is and is not allowed you are undoing a compromise, so please don't pick and choose what you like. If you are agreeing with the consensus but says the language is not clear enough, please discuss it rather than making reverts that change the meaning. You will see that everyone has been tolerant and supportive of copy-editing that is done in good faith and achieves clarity without actually changing things. I argue that the language in the example requires that the article or section be about the subject, so a mere mention is not enough. "About" is a tougher standard than "critical commentary." Every article or major section about a subject contains critical commentary about that subject, but not everything that contains critical commentary is about a subject. If an article is a mere list of facts it is invalid for other reasons; if a section is merely a collection of facts with no prose, Durin has been calling that a one-item discography or list and I have been saying that is simply not about the subject. Wikidemo 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, album covers cannot be added without critical commentary, why do you think that galleries of fair use images were removed from all of the discographies all over Misplaced Pages? Fair use policy #8 states that significance of relevant text must be present to add a fair use image, there is no exception to album covers just because a generic rationale can be written. Bridge over Troubled Water is an example of fair use applied in a correct manner, yes. You don't need commentary about the art, per se, you need commentary about the album/single relevant to the article, and I think changing the sentence on the main page takes away the affect of that. Ex. One sentence about Nirvana saying "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's" in a article doesn't require a album cover, while and article devoted to that album, despite commentary about the art, does call for an image. — Moe ε 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree... And by the way, the example used is "Bridge over Troubled Water", a very well known album consisting of 2 notable artists: Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. The album contains several Top 10 hits and these hits still get airplay globally. It's naive to say a picture is not justified in that article. If these ideas are going to be policy, that would be the end of wikipedia. Emmaneul 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the revert one last time, so now we're at 3R.

The ongoing deletion of images from discographies is a controversial subject and hardly illustrative of any consensus; it was part of the mix in the debate. Among other things the consensus we reached approved that, after the fact, and inserted discographies as an example so people would have something specific to point to when faced with people who argued that policy does not forbid discographies.

User:Moe Epsilon's example, "Nirvana changed alternative rock in the 1990's", does not fit the reworded cover art example and is therefore its use to support an image of a Nirvana album is not enabled by the example. The example covers only articles or major article sections about the item that is packaged by the cover art, which in the case of albums covers means articles or major sections about the album. The Nirvana example is a sentence about the band, not the album, so it does not justify a picture of the album. Moreover, it is a single sentence so it is hardly an article or a major section. So: too short, wrong subject. Wikidemo 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest getting consensus for this wording rather than give example of how it's used then. If someone is reverting you, then that means that they disagree, thus no consensus. While the deletion of images from discographies is controversial, it's one made in favor of policy and has been for a while now. I know it's not enabled by the example, but the wording is not clear on that. Want me to choose a wording that is more appropriate? — Moe ε 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We had explicit, negotiated agreement on this exact language. Please, don't undo prior consensus by merely asserting that you don't agree. That is edit warring on a policy page, not good faith editing. The current language stands. If you wish to propose a change, please do so. However, your reverts in their present form change the guideline and undo something we have already agreed upon. I will either restore them again, or failing that put a tag on the guideline that it is in dispute. Wikidemo 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the consensus that "critical commentary" should be removed from our requirements, nor any discussion of that specific wording. Am I just looking at the wrong place? (ESkog) 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you assume that good-faith editing is not good-faith when you don't assert the same amount of respect back? There is no consensus for that wording and if multiple editors, not just myself revert you, you don't obviously have it, and suggest you get it again. So are you going to let me help you, or do you care to violate 3RR? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of respect intended. Merely, once consensus is agreed and implemented it takes more than an after the fact complaint to say that there was no consensus. If that were true, the "lists, galleries" section of Criterion 8 would be long gone. Anyway, I think you are looking at the wrong place. I don't know how to hyperlink to it but if you do a page search for "cover art" on this page and look for the mentions in the darkened-out sections (which are the most relevant recent discussions leading to the consensus). User:howcheng first proposed this language at 17:16, 11 July 2007, and we subsequently discussed whether to put it in the policy or guideline. Eventually, under "where are we on consensus", we agreed at appx. 20:32, 11 July 2007, to move this and the "lists, galleries", etc., section to the examples part of WP:NONFREE. I'm happy to improve the wording, but revert warring on the guideline page over what we already agreed to in the meanwhile is not the way to go. Wikidemo 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees with the principle you are applying, I think they disagree with the wording. Please see what you think of the wording below, and I can assure that revert warring will cease over this issue. — Moe ε 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary about that item and/or only to identify the items in question in articles about that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

for wording? — Moe ε 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Many people have been saying (here and elsewhere) that a non-free image is only justified if there is critical commentary on the image itself, and that discussion of the subject of the image is not enough. (Note the deletion discussions here, for example.) I don't agree. But if critical commentary on the image itself is required, then the album cover image at Bridge over Troubled Water can't be used, because the article does not discuss the album cover (just the musical attributes of the album.) I'm not suggesting a change in policy here -- I think it would be bad to require critical commentary on the image itself -- I'm just looking for a clarification of our policy. – Quadell 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree, commentary about the images artwork is not required, and I have reflected that in the proposal for wording. All that is required is critical commentary about the subject of the article, not the actual artwork itself. — Moe ε 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that wording. It accomplishes what I think/hope most people were reading into the previous wording anyway. (ESkog) 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the objective, in which case this is a rather trivial argument over wording. It's trivial as long as we get the wording right, anyway. The above is a good first stab but: (i) the "and/or" is inclusive when I think it means to be exclusive; (ii) it leaves out "major article sections," which we agreed to; note that "major article sections" is actually more restrictive than merely requiring critical commentary, and is intended to draw a line as to how much critical commentary is required. A word? A phrase? X sentences? The answer is "a major article section, at minimum."(iii) the word "only" creates an exclusion that's not intended, i.e. if cover art used in an article serves several identification purposes simultaneously and only one is the permitted one in the example, it would inadvertently disqualify the image for having more significance than required; and (iv) it's kind of wordy so it could confuse people. How about this?

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).

If we modify the cover art section we should do a parallel modification of the logo section, no?

• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

-- Wikidemo 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clearer, scratch "image" and replace it with "cover art" in the first of the two proposed sentences. Wikidemo 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that change to it, but we need more people to comment in order for consensus to occur, not just parties in the revert war, leave this up for change for a couple of days and we'll see where this goes. The main issue I think that was presented was that 'critical commentary' was removed, and replaced with sheer identification, which is incorrect. The places I see people messing up on Misplaced Pages in regards to album covers is:

The discographies being filled with fair use images, and people claiming fair use because it's a discography.

Adding images of albums to a single sentence about the band or album, which is entirely inappropriate.

And removing images from albums' infoboxes on the main article about that album (like if someone removed the image from Bridge over Troubled Water's infobox), which is an entirely wrong interpretation of policy

As long as this wording can clear this up, I am fine with it. — Moe ε 18:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Meetoo (AOL) – Quadell 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"critical" commentary?

• Quibble: Does the commentary need to be "critical"? This came up in a recent discussion about Barack Obama's current book. Was it sufficient to discuss its significance in the frame of Barack Obama's political ambitions (commentary?), or did the article have to discuss whether the book is any good (critical commentary?) ? Do we need the word "critical" there, or would it be fairer to say that what we demand is "significant commentary" ? Jheald 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We have constantly argued about the meaning of words like "minimal" (ref foundation resolution) "significant" (ref fair use policy) and now "critical". The interpretation of these words is subjective, and it's highly unlikely we'll come to agreement on what those words mean. If there's going to be headway, concrete examples of what is and is not acceptable need to be shown, and any attempts to game the system to circumvent examples needs to be dealt with head on to clarify examples as needed in the future. --Durin 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But do we need the word "critical" there at all? Can you think of an example where it makes a difference, is useful and is worth keeping? Jheald 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Good point. I say pitch it. – Quadell 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The use of the term as how I think you're using it is a negative connotation. Critical commentary isn't necessarily negative; critical commentary can be simply discussing the work. Just having "commentary" could leave the illusion that one sentence is enough. --Durin 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • (Edit Conflict X4) Critical in this sense is (this is a definition) "characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment". IMHO, in regards to adding a album cover to Misplaced Pages, "critical commentary" is a major article section that is significant to the article and describes the album (in this case). And since it hardly differs, I think replacing "critical" with "significant" shouldn't be a problem since critical has double meanings and could be avoided. I agree with Durin too, to avoid this kind of gaming of the system, examples, along with that wording above, need to be given to avoid this later. I can think of examples of critical commentary, I can give examples of significant commentary, but comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. — Moe ε 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've only ever thought of "critical commentary" in the terms Moe Epsilon provides. It is in the actual United States copyright law (as the word "criticism"), so it is (IMO) more relevant and exact than "significant" would be. I do not think that it should be removed. --Iamunknown 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good points, all. Section 107 of the copyright code refers to "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." So if we wanted to go with the law the correct phrase would be "criticism or commentary" (the other uses are not adopted by Misplaced Pages because even if we can claim those uses, downstream users probably cannot). "Critical commentary" is a shorthand sometimes used by lawyers and judges as a term of art. We shouldn't have to keep re-explaining a legal term of art, or that "criticism" is used in the technical sense described by Moe Epislon as opposed to its vernacular meaning of expressing a (usually negative) personal opinion of something. And I would argue that even in its more technical usage to mean careful evaluation, "criticism" implies that the discussion is about a thing's innate qualities and carries a subjective judgment, which we don't do on Misplaced Pages. So I'm in favor of dropping criticism as a separate class. So I agree that we had best leave it at "commentary." Wikidemo 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, we can drop the word "significant" but it's intended to complement the statement "in prose form" and be a little more specific and strong than the copyright law is. People might otherwise argue over just how much commentary is required. The copyright law leaves this intentionally vague so it can be interpreted over time, but we may want to be more specific. Wikidemo 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree because of the problems this will engender with people presuming it could mean "well I commented on it in a sentence" The point here is to make things easier. Removing it does not do this. I'm also against dropping "significant". --Durin 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that's a good reason to keep it as "significant commentary"; but for the reasons already set out, I think "significant critical commentary" is actually unhelpful, and more likely to mislead than enlighten. Jheald 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that "commentary" is insufficient. Durin says it succintly, but I would like to point out that, in the past, the idea that non-free content could be used merely if it were commented upon is the reason we have such things as User:Durin/Fair use overuse.
• I don't understand why the word "criticism" is inappropriate here. It accurately and succinctly says what we are trying to say: that most non-free content may not be used merely to identify the subject (except, upon cursory glance of the current revision, logos), but only when there is careful, exact evaluation and coverage of the topic. Perhaps we could put an endnote after the word "criticism" to note that it is does not refer to negative reviews; but I am of the belief that most people will understand (perhaps those who are not scrutinizing the document like us will understand it better). --Iamunknown 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe we've already agreed that logos and cover art may be used to identify articles (and major sections) if there is sufficient discussion of the relevant matter there. We don't apply an extra test for article quality or content. It need not be any better, or any more careful, exact, or evaluative than any other Misplaced Pages article. In the case of logos and cover art the issue is whether there is a significant enough discussion of the subject legitimately identified by the image. The word "critical" clouds things by seeming to add what looks like a further restriction, but without any clear guidance as to what it is. Again, in copyright the concept is "criticism or commentary", not "critical commentary." We don't have to follow the law here, but nor is it a good idea to adopt legal-sounding terms and use them imprecisely or out of context. Wikidemo 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In 17 U.S.C. § 107, "...the fair use of a copyrighted work" is more accurately defined "as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." But "criticism" is not exclusively a legal or legal-sounding term, we are not using it imprecisely, nor out of context. It is used correctly in the context of this document, as established in the first six introductory paragraphs (the second sentence, "Because the inability to include these examples limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions, people may use such works under limited conditions without license or permission", of paragraph three is particularly relevant). I maintain my objection to removing the word "criticism" because I think it is an accurate definition in the context of United States copyright law and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content itself, and because I think its removal would leave the intent of this document less clear. --Iamunknown 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Because "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...." means not just criticism. Jheald 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Those are fair points. I disagree, however, that they are problematic. Specifically, "news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research" are not appropriate for a encyclopedia aiming to be verifiable and based upon reliable sources, and mentioning "comment" seems to indicate to some that they can have 130+ non-free images in a single article. Thus we are left with "criticism". --Iamunknown 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If you look at the discussion, as well as the wording, 130 pictures in one article would not satisfy the significance test because it would either be a list / discography (which is explicitly prohibited), or it would not be for identification use in a major section. I cannot imagine 130 major sections in an article, each with an album to identify. So it's covered. Nobody is arguing that news, teaching, scholarship, or research should be valid fair use reasons here. I'm saying that criticism shouldn't either, to the extent it differs from commentary. Neither word alone imposes a minimum threshold. If we want it to be significant, it's best to say the word "significant" (or some other word like meaningful, substantial, etc). Wikidemo 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Which discussion are you referring to? --Iamunknown 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• People are once again drifting away from the fact that Misplaced Pages's inclusion or exclusion of non-free content is a superset of U.S. fair use law. We should be striving towards the ideals we were founded on, not striving towards making sure we are legal. If we strive towards our ideals, the law becomes utterly irrelevant. --Durin 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (at least in this topic) is really arguing along those lines, Durin. The problem here is unclear language - not so much what the policy is saying but how it says it. I for one agree with deleting that word, in the interest of readability and transparency for the layman editor. Drewcifer3000 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming into this a little late, but I think we should say "significant commentary" instead of "critical commentary", if only because the policy should be easy to understand for the average user who doesn't read all these discussions on the talk page. -- wacko2 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of edit war

One of the editors participating in the present edit war has just made widespread selective reversions to WP:NFCC. It is hard to tell exactly what got reverted, but among other things it reverses the consensus recently reached regarding item 8, as well as quite a number of other changes. The same editor has repeatedly blanked a template used to facilitate album cover rationales, an act that some consider vandalism because it disrupts several hundred image pages and leaves instructions on them to be deleted. I am asking that everyone cool down and not escalate things. The status quo is that we have agreed to a number of changes in the past month, and anyone who does not like it or wishes to change things further is free to discuss it here. I am asking that the WP:NFCC page be kept in its present form (before the massive reverts) and protected to avoid any attempts at an expanded edit war Wikidemo 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to July 10th's version. Several changes confused the policy and did not reflect discussion. Changes like this completely confuse the 48 hour non-compliance policy, and needlessly detail the deletion process. (see here). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you didn't know, the 48 hours is for any image failing any part of NFCC, not just fair use rationales. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mention elsewhere there are 2, 5, and 7 day periods for deleting images and it appears to me at least to be factually inaccurate that all noncompliant images are subject to deletion after two days. You object that things finalized in a four-day process that ultimately resulted in this change and this change were not sufficiently discussed. By way of claiming lack of consensus you remove the notations put on the talk page to show how the process worked. You reverted everything, from agreed to policy changes to copy editing and minor improvements done by a number of editors. Yet you leave intact the change that started the debate, done after less than 16 hours discussion, and clearly done without consensus. The recent change was not a step back from the May 4 changes; it solidified a real solution to the three-month old debate. The actual wording changes to the pages were modest, and represented a both things widely accepted and a desire to find a middle ground. If there is no consensus on significance, Criterion No. 8, there is disagreement on a lot of what is happening here. Wikidemo 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Care to discuss?

There has been an impasse on non-free content policy and guidelines, illustrated most starkly by the recent reversions of everything done in the last six days, but other reversions too. The policy and guidelines pages have been at a de facto standstill for weeks, and now they are edit protected. We need to get all sides on board on a policy so that we can resume the normal business of improving Misplaced Pages.

I hope we don't have to further debate the wisdom of making unilateral reverts and policy edits. If anyone is truly trying to clean up the policy, I commend that. But a few editors have been bold lately, very bold indeed. The "editing makes right" approach is frustrating because it shuts down discussion, consensus, and reason. When one side of a debate does it we have a troubled process. If everyone did that there would be chaos. A number of people have been pointing to each other and saying they did not have approval.

Some asked for more time to discuss WP:NFCC Criterion 8 and associated WP:NONFREE guideline examples. Now we have it. What are we going to do with Criterion 8? Lists, galleries, discographies, navigational aids, user interface elements, cover art, and logos? When are they permitted, and when not? I'll take the lead and suggest that the changes we agreed to already and that were in place, as modified through subsequent discussion, are the way to go. Who cares to differ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

To people who have recently (re)joined the current debate, I would like to emphasize that we did reach a consensus some days ago. Apologies if that did not seem terribly obvious on the talk page, but it was a long-winded debate which covered several different sections on the page. Therefore, please feel free to discuss here any changes you'd like to make to the current wording, but out of respect to the previous consensus that was agreed on, please do not revert the main page until the desired changes have been discussed and agreed on. Thanks. -- wacko2 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is, as I have suggested above, a gross mischaracterization of the above conversations. They were arbitrarily closed after a very brief discussion, and one user determined that he saw consensus through the crystal ball. No one has yet been able to point me to the conversations where this consensus was actually built or demonstrated. That said, all parties to this dispute (myself included) have probably gone too far in the bold-revert-discuss pattern, which is what got us to this point in the first place. (ESkog) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth just identifying the different changes, and leaving a straw poll open for a few days to assess whether they have consensus? I did think we had pretty much got to agreement on this, and I'm not sure who exactly feels they have issues with what changes. A straw poll would show formal buy-in, or not. Jheald 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to ESkog: The point at which we neared consensus was Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Where are we on consensus?. At that point, we negotiated through the remaining issues that people had with the latest proposal, including moving all examples of use from the official policy to the list of examples. This was agreed on, and I specifically asked if anyone had any other objections. There was no dissension, so we (howcheng, Wikidemo and myself) started implementing the changes that had been agreed to. From that point, it was simply a matter of tweaking the exact wording along with the appropriate discussion. For example, I originally added Example #16, which was reworded for clarity, which I agreed with. Admittedly there was no single point at which anyone said "We reached consensus!" but there wasn't any further dissension at that point either. I hope that makes things clearer for you. -- wacko2 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the point is now moot, to say that the discussions ended arbitrarily, that I acted unilaterally, or that I have not and cannot point to the conversations is flat out wrong. I asked time and again whether we had consensus, if everybody agreed, what everyone's position really was, and if they agreed with the final language. In the section headings I used the word "consensus" and highlighted WP:NFCC so that nobody could miss what we were talking about. It was a more thorough and formal consensus process than I have seen for any changes here. It went beyond consensus. I urged that given the controversial nature of things we needed unanimity, and we got it. When I asked if we were really done I got calls of "let's do it!" But instead of honoring the outcome people who came late to the conversation simply reverted, and rewrote history by deleting the discussion templates that show consensus. I can understand someone saying "not so fast, let's talk some more" or "we need input from more people" -- both fair calls, I think -- but to revert and edit war is not the way. The consensus discussions are highlighted here and the initial changes here and here.

The current edit-protected state of affairs is a nearly complete reversion to the July 10 version of WP:NFCC and WP:NONFREE, but with some apparently hand-picked stuff that went back in or got modified. Whether consensus was adequate or not is moot now. We need consensus now or else we'll go straight back to policy gridlock or edit wars once the protection is lifted. I think it's wasteful, and dismissive of everyone's hard work, to roll things back completely to July 10 (or more appropriately, July 2, the last stable version as per User:Howcheng) and re-argue every change made since then. That includes a lot of side-issues, copy edits, improvements made to the updated version, and things that are not really part of this debate. Let's start with the most recent intact version and discuss what if anything ought to change. The latest NFCC is here and the latest WP:NONFREE is here. If you do want to propose a specific change to the language it is helpful if you can do that in markup form, with the "ins" and "del" tags. Thanks. Wikidemo 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add, that if we are starting with the best and latest, there is a proposal most people have accepted under Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Edit_war to modify two of the sentences in WP:NONFREE, which are the subject of some of the earlier changes, to read:

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art).

and

• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

- Wikidemo 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note, discussion on these two specific items but not the other changes is continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#NFCC_.231 Wikidemo 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe a image that is suspected of not satisfying criterion 8 should be always be brought into discussion before any action is taken, since "significance" is subject to personal opinion. You may think something is significant, I may think it is not, and so on. There really is no bright line rule about significance, so discuss before hand.--Kylohk 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Such discussions do often take place at Misplaced Pages:Fair use review and Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. (The former is non-binding, the latter, as a deletion venue and barring a deletion review, is binding.) A serious problem, however, is that they simply do not scale. We have 335,223 non-free images (see "Template:Non-free media" on Special:Mostlinkedtemplates); the task of examining them is daunting, at best. We need a more scalable and efficient process. --Iamunknown 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think criterion 8 is too strict. With that in place, many images in Misplaced Pages right now may be considered to be insignificant. I am sure many people can understand the subject by just reading the words, but there are also many people who will find it hard to understand or will not bother reading without a proper picture to accompany the words, so it's really opinion. Also, an image that is informative (subjective view) should also be considered significant, like the childhood picture of someone, or a picture of someone being awarded for a very historic event. Hence I feel the usage of images that are significantly hard to get a free version of should be encouraged.--Kylohk 01:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is my quick summary of how this works. If you look at the extensive discussions on this page, and in most of the archive pages linked to it, you'll see that there is a lot of discussion about what significance means. Yes, there is a major shift to allowing fewer fair use images, and tightening up the criteria for when they may be used. For better or for worse this is a conscious decision from above by the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Misplaced Pages is a part, and it also represents the efforts of people on Misplaced Pages to carry that out. Fortunately, we do not have to evaluate all 300,000 + images one by one by looking straight at Criterion 8. If you go to WP:NONFREE there are a series of examples in the guideline that divide things into more manageable categories like album covers, logos, pictures of living people or existing groups, etc. People have interpreted the significance requirement in Criterion 8, and agreed that as a general rule some types of image use are nearly always okay, some are nearly always improper, and some are proper only if certain conditions are met. So with each image the question doesn't require you to re-think #8 from scratch, it is just a matter of asking if the really fits in that category and whether there's some special reason why it is an exception. That is a much simpler task, and that can be dealt with on an image by image basis without having to bring it up here. The person who uploads and uses the image is supposed to think that through and add the right meta-data. In 99% of the cases or more, the answer is pretty obvious and there's no reason to discuss -- although, for historical reasons, about half of the images to date were not notated properly with the fair use rationale and sourcing information, and nobody enforced it, so we are cleaning up that mess. But for new images, there is no reason for trouble and should be no controversy in 99% of the cases. For the remaining few images we handle that through nominations for deletion, speedy deletion, and informal discussion, and only bring them to everyone's attention if it's a particularly controversial, interesting, or confusing issue. Again, my summary only. Hope that helps. Wikidemo 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Having read the Meta page on fair use, I found that the English Misplaced Pages is already more fortunate than some other language versions in this field. I mean, certain Wikipedias actually prohibit the use of fair use images!--Kylohk 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Most do. – Quadell 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
          • What a pity, this implies that a lot of personal effort will have to be taken just for the purpose of adding illustrations to articles (such as camping the ticket sale web site to book a front row seat in a concert in the future so you can get the opportunity to take a free picture of the singer on stage!). Anyway, another idea is to add a link to an essay detailing what the Foundation thinks is significant and what is not.--Kylohk 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
            • (Sometimes asking is all it takes -- see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and especially this featured image nomination.) – Quadell 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

We're two ships passing in the night right now on this argument. What started this edit war was the decision someone made to remove references to the phrase "critical commentary" from this policy page. You can point up above all you want, but no conversation ever even hinted at the possibility of so radically transforming our definition of acceptable non-free use. To argue "I had consensus for this other change over here, which I also did" is misleading and doesn't get at the heart of why this page has been protected. The question on the table is: Should we reject our current long-standing consensus that a non-free image must be accompanied by critical commentary? To this I still say no, while I would accept a reword to "significant commentary" which I find to be logically equivalent. (ESkog) 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't fairly characterize the changes, or discussion prior and since. The policy change did not remove "critical commentary". If you read the discussion, as we were reaching consensus we explicitly agreed to move two proposed additions, 8(a) and 8(b) from the policy section to the examples in the guideline page, which was done [here. The language approved for the guideline was "when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items," not for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." So that is fully approved. This particular example is not a shift in the guideline, but a clarification and strengthening of the guideline because it replaces "critical commentary," one of those legal sounding but undefined concepts that has crept in, with a higher standard, that the article or section must actually be about the subject of the image. Between that, the prohibition of lists, and the new, explicit ban on discographies, it is clear that neither a passing mention nor a raw collection of data without prose commentary is enough. What people think of as "critical commentary" is required, and more.

Nevertheless, some people want to make that doubly clear and expressed their feelings by reverting. I think we had all settled in the aftermath on: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the item identified by the cover art) and a parallel provision for logos. We decided to leave that up for a while to see if anyone had objections, and then the edit war got renewed and expanded by reverting the policy page as described above. Wikidemo 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see this edit as removing the requirement for critical commentary, then I don't think consensus is even possible here since we seem to be reading two different pages. (ESkog) 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of acting on my own to remove a requirement from the policy without consensus discussion. I point out: (i) the text was removed from guideline, not policy; (ii) there was consensus for the specific changes made; (iii) although the edit changed the wording it does not remove the requirement because "to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items" is a tighter and clearer standard than "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item"; (iv) the issue is moot because we are in an edit lock and have to hash it out; and (v) we already seem to have agreed on new wording that satisfies your concerns. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by arguing otherwise. It's your decision whether or not to participate; no need to point to my reading comprehension. Wikidemo 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of being sure about consensus now, if the proposed wording is acceptable, would you be prepared to sign it off in the straw poll below, so we can start moving forwards again? Jheald 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering sets Request for Comment

A fair-use debate has been going on for some time at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets over whether it is acceptable under Misplaced Pages's fair use policy to include a small set symbol image with each set (specifically WP:NFCC 3a and 8). A section has been opened at Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Request For Comment for comments, and much of the original discussion is preserved in sections above it. (Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Fair use overuse, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Clarifying the issue at hand, Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#New suggestion, and Talk:Magic: The Gathering sets#Set Symbols Rationale are the major sections of debate.) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It never ends. --Durin 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't really end before, so I thought it'd be good to get some outside opinions. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else want to comment on this issue? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC #1

Our first non-free content criterion is by far the longest, and the least clearly written. It currently says:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

I have a number of problems with this wording.

1. The sentence beginning "If non-free content can be transformed into free material" is confusing. If a non-free, copyrighted work is "transformed", then the result is a derivative image, also subject to copyright. I assume this mean "replaced", as in a map being redrawn from scratch, but that's not transformation. I've had a number of newbies ask me what that part means. It also gives the false impression that "it can't be transformed into free material, so I can use it".
2. "Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." This is problematic because even if one of acceptable quality is not available, we can't use non-free content if free content could be created to replace it. This is technically correct, but it's a special case that has led many newbies to believe that the absence of an available replacement implies acceptability of a non-free image.
3. It includes examples
4. The "quick test" text is ambiguous. If no free alternative exists yet, but one could be created, then someone could reasonably conclude that the image can't (at this time) be replaced by a different one, and that would be misleading. Plus "different one" doesn't specify "free one".

I would suggest it be rewritten as simply "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If it's better to have a quick test, I would re-write it as "As a quick test, ask yourself 'Could a free image be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion." – Quadell 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, shorter and to the point, we already have relevant examples under the Examples of unacceptable use header so no need for those in there. Maybe put some emphasis on the "or could be created" part, sometimes people seem to mentaly drop out after reading the "no free equivalent is available (...)" part and asert that the image is not replacable because theyr Google search didn't turn up any free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple days. If nobody objects, I'll make the change. – Quadell 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the change, except (perhaps) to drop the "As examples, (...) and take a picture" and "If non-free content can be transformed (...) a fair-use defense" sentences. But, then, it would need to be copyedited, because it would read in a halted manner. (I'll go ask Tony.) --Iamunknown 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the transformation of non-free content to free could happen with a copyright holder creating a free license under GFDL, i.e., releasing their copyright. Although I can't imagine that happening, asking the copyright holder for a release is one way of creating free content, and perhaps this could be explained somewhere in connection with this criterion.--Tinned Elk 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and in some respects wish that editors were required to contact the copyright holder before uploading media under a "non-free content" claim. That, of course, would spark outrage, would be very difficult to manage, etc. And it might not be good to mention it in the "policy" section. But it is a very good idea, and we do repeatedly have success in getting copyright holders to freely license non-free content (see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images and User:B/Obtaining free images for some examples). --Iamunknown 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree (with the change). The crux of the policy is the first sentence. The third sentence, maybe, and I can see the quick test being useful, but the rest is unnecessary. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the change and with the broader approach to avoid "ask yourself" questions, and move examples to the guideline page. However, "is available or could be created" should be changed to "is available or could reasonably be created" to cut off the far-fetched but often earnest arguments by some over re-creations that are hypothetically possible but practically impossible. There was one suggestion to disallow an image of a long-ago disbanded musical group becuase in theory one could take photos of the surviving members and photo-montage them together (something that would violate the policy on doctoring photos). Incidentally, be careful when getting consensus for changes. We are in edit-protect lock-down over a dispute over whether four days' consensus discussion was enough to change criterion #8. The lock-down trapped WP:NONFREE with a new version of the example, but WP:NFCC with the old version of the example too. If you look at WP:NONFREE, example #17 reads: "Pictures of people who are still alive, groups that are still active, and buildings still standing; these are almost always replaceable because of the relative ease of taking a new picture, provided such an alternative would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Wikidemo 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of #8, we could really use some more opinions in the above discussion, which seems to have stalled. howcheng {chat} 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm very annoyed that this Ned Scott person reverted my removal of the bloated example in Criterion 1, without participating in the discussion on the talk page beforehand. I'll make life difficult for him unless I receive an explanation. Tony 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Having calmed down now, may I offer a proposed text? Please remember that I'm a dummy, technically, and deal only with the language. So please hack away.

• :No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve a similar encyclopedic purpose.

There is currently lots of repetition, I agree. I've changed "the same encyclopedic purpose" to "a similar encyclopedic purpose". Isn't that the spirit of the policy? It's too easy to argue that (exactly) the same enc. purpose can't be served by any other content. "Image" was inappropriate, since we're talking inclusively of all NFC (sound files, vids, etc). The more I looked at this bloated wording, the more it all boiled down to just the first sentence. The shorter the better, especially at the start, because we're trying to engage effectively with complete non-experts. Tony 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording. – Quadell 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we nearly there yet?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If User:ESkog is right, and the only real problem was on "critical commentary", and it is acceptable to replace that with "significant commentary", then it seems to me we must be just about there. But this time, let's make sure there's no mistake. So are we ready to poll consensus? Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll 1: Re-wording the "images" section

Proposal: Replace

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Misplaced Pages:Logos.

with

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).
• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

Content

• Support Jheald 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wikidemo 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (Are we discussing the other changes separately?)
• Um, I support. Hope I'm not being evil by participating. – Quadell 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not content

Oppose - unless we have a rigid criteria explaining when is it appropriate to have a "major article section about the item".

I don't like the idea of showing a magazine's cover every time we mention the magazine issue in question. This have a side-effect of articles giving unnecessary importance to some non-notable magazine issues.

I have seen a lot of abuses where articles are changed to include some sentences about some magazine issue just to justify the presence of a cover image found on google images. We should be extra rigorous with original research in articles mentioning magazine issues. We should only comment about some magazine issue or cover if it was commented by various other reliable sources.

It's far too common for articles on some athletes to include passages like "Due to his success in that season, Sports Illustrated featured John Smith in his January 1986 cover, where he appeared smiling, using a blue t-shirt, and there was headline saying "John is the Best!".". We shouldn't discuss covers that were not notable enough to be discussed by others. --Abu badali 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are addressed by the new wording, certainly better than the old wording. First, for cover art such as a magazine cover, a mere mention is not enough. It must be used to identify the magazine, the article or section must be about the magazine (not about someone who happens to appear there or the fact he is in the magazine), and it must contain substantial commentary about the magazine. I think your concern is also addressed in the policy against original research and secondary sourcing. If you still think that's not clear enough, and/or if people continue to believe that as a rule magazine cover art may be used in articles about the subject of the photo rather than about the magazine, what we should do is add another item in the list of negative examples. Wikidemo 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It has to be a major article section about the subject. Image policy isn't meant to decide whether or not there should be a major section about something. Other policies deal with that. – Quadell 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• m:Polls are evil. We're not going to use a poll to determine consensus on this. --Durin 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I might normally agree, but this seems to be the best approach here. At last check the agreement was unanimous. This may help flush out if anybody opposes.Wikidemo 19:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) My thinking was we already have pretty much got consensus. The question is how to formally sign off that agreement, and confirm that everyone is happy. This seemed the most straightforward way. Jheald 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I believe that "significant commentary" is logically equivalent to "critical commentary" and will interpret each the same way. Polls are silly and don't lead to consensus. (ESkog) 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Call it what you will, we're talking here about consensus. If the two are logically equivalent we should use "significant" because it is more clear to more people and avoids confusion with the copyright code (which mentions "criticism" or "commentary" and sounding like a legal term of art. Wikidemo 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• This poll should be shut down immediately. Polls can and do directly hinder consensus development. Enough of this. --Durin 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Durin, how do you suggest we see whether we already have consensus? Jheald 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Read and live by Misplaced Pages:Consensus. We keep moving forward with proposed changes until we come to something we can agree on. If we can't agree, we remain as we are. It's pretty simple. It's obvious from the above discussion that we do not agree. This poll can not help that process, and isn't even binding if it did. I.e., it's useless. --Durin 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• You don't agree with the above-suggested change? Why not? – Quadell 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • We are trying to reach consensus. We did reach consensus. We're trying again. And the results of a consensus reached this way or another way are binding. If people would respect that instead of unilateral revert wars we wouldn't be in this mess. The Wikimedia essay mentions five reasons for avoiding polls, none of which are present here. We have debated this issue for a long time, and until now the results have been unanimous. There are no sockpuppets here. People, those who care to actually comment instead of obstruct, are saying what they think. Yet when we go to change the policy people have been reverting claiming there was no consensus. So we need to figure out where people stand. If people keep obstructing attempts to come to consensus we're back to edit war or stalemate. And if we have edit wars on the talk page, like people trying to shut down polls by archiving them, we're quickly going to need mediation or arbitration, which is a terrible way to make policy.Wikidemo 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• "the results of a consensus reached this way ... are binding"???? Sorry, no way. From Misplaced Pages:Polling "Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case" and "that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree" Enough of this! The poll is ill thought out, undermines consensus, and now it's being used as a bludgeoning tool to somehow affirm "this is consensus" and other opinions be damned. If changes to this guideline happen as a result of this poll, using this poll as the basis to assert those changes, I will immediately revert and report this to WP:AN/I. --Durin 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Durin's right to assert that no consensus is ever binding (i.e. consensus can change), but he's (she's?) wrong about most of the rest of it. A poll to evaluate where editors stand on an issue, and to understand how people feel about it is appropriate. It's just not a vote. Cheers, WilyD 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jheald, how is starting a poll is to confirm everyone is happy? -- FayssalF - 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, Fayssal. I didn't mean to be divisive. Maybe polls inevitably are. But I wasn't sure how else to test whether we had consensus. We tried editing the page, and seeing what stuck, and it seemed to be becoming pretty stable. But then somebody ripped out all that work saying there was no consensus. And now the page is locked down. So, how do we find out whether we've got consensus, or on the other hand, what remaining issues we still need to look at?

Polls aren't binding, no; and they absolutely shouldn't be used as votes. But they can be useful as diagnostics, to map out just where we're at, and whether we do nearly have consensus now - on this change at least. But if there are better ways to go forward, then I'm all ears. Jheald 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous, and I refuse to participate in this poll. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which is what we should be doing; consensus is not binding, which apparently some think this poll will produce; and we don't need to be going so quickly—I personally cannot be on this talk page 24 hours per day waiting for some "binding" poll of consensus, and I am sure others cannot either. --Iamunknown 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought was we seemed to have wording which more or less worked, so to formally put it up, leave it open for three or four days, and then we'd know how near or not it was to consensus. But all right, let's go forward without it. Jheald 20:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For people who don't believe in polls

If you don't believe a poll is the right place to voice your opinion, could you please participate in the discussion on the change described above? Here would be a good place. I am sure people will heed your participation and the outcome will not be a sheer vote count. Wikidemo 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) After some further discussion with User:Durin, I think we could better discuss this outside of a formal straw poll. I think it's okay to close it, not as a way of ending the discussion or discounting what anyone has said here, but to have a more productive free-form discussion. So I'll remove my objection to closing the poll discussion and I'm happy to discuss with anyone....but really, enough of the meta-discussion about consensus, let's discuss the actual policy. Wikidemo 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Restarting non-poll discussion

So does anyone object to the text that jheald suggested in the aborted poll above? If you're not happy with it, why not, and what changes could be made that would accommodate your concerns? – Quadell 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to two WP:NONFREE guideline examples

The current proposal, one of several changes under consideration, is to replace

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
• Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Misplaced Pages:Logos.

with

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significant commentary in prose form about the item identified by the image).
• Logos: Logos, when used to identify products, brands, or companies in articles or major article sections about the same (i.e. the article or section must contain significant critical commentary in prose form about the product, brand, or company identified by the logo).

Discussion

• This is useful, as cited above, because it specifies what kind of critical commentary is needed, ending the question of whether the commentary must be specific to the image itself, as opposed to the work it represents. I still don't care whether we use "critical" or "significant" - as I have said above, I will continue to interpret either in the same way, as it seems to be the sense of everyone on this page that they mean the same thing and this is solely a cosmetic change. (ESkog) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed changes, if people really want to make it clear that significant commentary is necessary (if not already implied by "articles or major article sections about the item"). As an aside to the aborted poll above, I'd like to note that magazine covers can be treated the same as book covers, i.e. they only represent the magazine itself, and cannot normally be used to represent anything pictured on the cover. Exceptions to the rule must be justified by significant commentary on that particular cover by multiple reliable sources, and usually this only happens if a magazine cover becomes famous, or infamous as the case may be. -- wacko2 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the kind of change that I believe we still need in the wording (See my prototype suggestion bellow). --Abu badali 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, misuse of magazine covers is a persistent problem that may continue whatever we say in the generic case of cover art. We may have to modify example 7 to be more emphatic in telling people that in general use of magazine covers is not permitted to illustrate the subject of the cover photo.Wikidemo 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are targeting an yet more evolved abuse of magazine cover images: To "circumvent" example #7, some editors add some paragraphs about a non-notable magazine issue to articles, so that they can use that pretty photo of their favorite artist/athlete. We want to make it clear that we should never discuss magazine issues that had not been significantly discussed by multiple reliable sources. --Abu badali 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC are not supposed to tell editors what prose to include or not include in articles. WP:UNDUE works fine for that purpose. 17Drew 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But where is the line? The article Willy Brandt has a four line quotation from Time as to why it named him Man of the Year in 1970 -- which is accompanied by a picture of the corresponding cover. That seems appropriate to me, the quotation is an excellent summation of his key position in the world at the time, and the cover is intimately related to that story. Similarly if Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling in 1975 (which as far as I know it didn't), I think it would be fully appropriate in the article to bring home in the most direct way the then mainstreamness of the theory. If we look at the poster example of the image as the story, the famous cover image of Demi Moore, it is actually only discussed in 3 lines of text in her article.

I agree that the criteria must be qualitative instead of quantitative. And that would rule out the current use of Willy Brandt cover. The paragraph "discussing" the cover is just a quotation from the magazine (i.e., fair use of text). To be used there, we should point out to reliable sources that have discussed Willy Brandt's appearance as the Man of The year. If no other publication about Willy Brandt found it relevant to mention that he was the Man of the Year, then we (as an encyclopedia) should not be the first to do so. (The fact that the Time's writers elaborated an "excellent summation of his key position..." is not an excuse for us copying their content verbatim).

Likewise, we should only mention the hypothetical Newsweek coverage on Global cooling if that coverage was notable itself. To point out the "mainstreamness" of the theory, we don't need non-free images. We just need a sentence saying "This theory had abundant mainstream coverage at the time" followed by numerous references, including the hypothetical Newsweek story.

Also, the Demi Moore example can only be accepted if a good number sources are added to the claims of "...enormous attendant publicity..." and that "...the image was endlessly parodied..." --Abu badali 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So I think the requirement of being central to a section is appropriate when the image is being used solely for identification. But when the image itself is the story, I think qualitative rather than quantitative standards need to apply. We need to tread carefully: we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jheald 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This example only covers uses for identification. Other uses are discussed elsewhere. I think we'll have to address insignificant mentions directly rather than by restating Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirements. Most articles lack adequate sources and we can't clean that up through the image policy; conversely, as much coverage as there is of the media someone trying to game the system could find independent sources talking about magazine covers even where it's not a worthwhile issue to discuss. Isn't there already a standard for what is worth talking about in an article? We could say "major article section worthy of inclusion in the article" or "prose commentary worthy of a major article section" but we're getting wordier and wordier. We could also tighten up example 7 for magazines to be clear on that point. Keep in mind that if someone games the rules we can always call foul. The examples say "normally," not "if you stretch your use to fit." Wikidemo 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NONFREE is a guideline, i.e., something to explain the police (rather than the policy itself), why not extrapolate the scope a little bit and add some brief note explaining that the "item" being commented must be notable? What about start with "Cover art for notable items, when used to identify the items...". Or maybe at the end: "article or section must contain significant, properly sourced, commentary in prose...". --Abu badali 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the notability standard any different for major article sections than for articles? Probably not. I see no harm, and some benefit, to User:Abu badali's suggestion. I would keep it simple and insert "notable" once in each of the two halves, "notable items..." and "notable products, brands, or companies..." That would prevent people from writing a large amount of prose about something unimportant just to justify a picture. Wikidemo 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "properly sourced" bit is important, though. It kind of reaffirms the importance of WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The text could be copyediting significantly. And I would suggest that, before we agree to commit any changes, that we copyedit the entire "Examples of acceptable use" section. How about:

• Cover art is used in articles or major article sections alongside significant prose commentary to identify the item.
• Logos are used in articles or major article sections alongside significant prose commentary to identify the associated organisation.

That is, if we want to "Examples of acceptable use" section to be in the imperative mood, as the policy section is. I again firmly suggest that we work on copyediting the entire section. --Iamunknown 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"The text could be copyediting significantly." Was that intentional? Either way, I was amused. – Quadell 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit changes the meaning significantly and makes things unclear. I haven't found a way to shorten the proposed text without that result. Wikidemo 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know. If you just look at the proposed changes and not the criteria you could say that discographies are ok if you talk about the album for at least a paragraph. That logo's of sports teams are ok in the Super Bowl XXXVIII article etc. Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists are explicitly banned elsewhere, and one of the reverted proposals that is not discussed here but will be soon is an example explicitly banning discographies. But the present example does not enable them either, and is harsher on them than the existing language. If you were to add a paragraph or more of prose and make a major article section each of multiple albums, the article is not a discography. Even if you went through the motions and made twelve different headers for twelve different albums you would be hard pressed to say that each is a major section of the article. What you have is probably a mess that needs to be divided into multiple articles, one for each album. That's a style guideline from elsewhere. This one example can't tell people how to write good articles; it just says how they can use images if they do. Wikidemo 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If this proposal turns the current discography articles into lists of well sourced paragraphs commenting about each album, then we're surely in the right direction. --Abu badali 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the end result is that e.g. the usage of this image in this article is deemed acceptable, the wording above sounds agreeable. Tarc 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is identification important enough to justify the use of non-free images? Does anyone have an argument besides "it helps you know you have arrived at the right place", "you might not remember the title, but you might remember the cover", "it helps you find what you are looking for faster", or "it looks nice"? None of these are particularly good reasons to include non-free images. We do not need book and magazine covers in every section about a half page article on page 80 in the magazine; or screenshots everytime someone is interviewed on television or the cover of a magazine (normally there to show you what the subject looks like, what else is there to show that is important?); or the album cover everytime someone writes a paragraph about an album; or a sports team logo in an article about every game they played in or sections of a player's article where their career with that team is discussed. The guideline must explain what is actual policy, that non-free images are only used in limited circumstances when they are actually needed. Kotepho 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That identification of the subject matter a legitimate use of non-free cover art and logos is a widely accepted policy point. I don't think that's up for debate right now. Part of the reason to implement this guideline is to quiet objections overs something this fundamental, where people occasionally read the significance requirement and come to a different conclusion for themselves. Identification is certainly important. The user knows they have reached the right place, and it makes the articles more useful, accurate, and reliable. In the case of logos it inherently tells a person what the company's brand, image, and approach is (that is the argument behind trademarks). In the case of cover art, it tells people what is inside. That is the purpose of cover art. Using these non-free images for identification is using them for their intended purpose. If identification were not so important, I doubt companies would be spending tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally on branding and trade dress.

Most examples you list are not identification uses so they are not part of the discussion about these two examples. A magazine cover used to show that there was a half page article, or any article, in the magazine is identifying the article, not the magazine. If someone wanted to game the rules, then it would be caught under the requirement that it has to be part of an article or major section about the magazine or the issue itself, not the fact that someone appeared in it. Screen shots of an interview are not cover art or logos so they are not treated by these examples. Album covers are permitted for identification of the album in articles or major sections about the album, and that is absolutely a legitimate use for the reasons indicated. People do associate the album art with the album, and using it in this way is a significant help for the article. You may disagree, but there is widespread acceptance, e.g. the oft quoted comments by Jimbo Wales. Logos have even wider acceptance and are mentioned specifically as allowable uses by the Wikimedia licensing resolution we are trying to follow. I don't think there would be any consensus for categorically banning logos or album covers, or requiring case-by-case justifications of why they are significant beyond identification use. Back to your examples, however, a logo is not permitted in a list of games or a list of teams played on because that would be a list, an impermissible use. Further, a sports logo is not permissible for identification in connection with a game at all because the logo identifies a team, not a game. A sports logo would only be permissible on a player's article if it identified the team in a section with significant commentary about the team, not the player, which is unlikely. Wikidemo 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Identification in an article about something makes sense; identifying whenever it happens to be mentioned does not. Saying that identification alone is justifiable anywhere is starkly against our actual policies of limited use. The argument for identification itself is flimsy and completely falls apart when you are talking about sections in other articles. How are you sure you "arrived at the right place" in such an instance? Everytime we have a section that is about a company we should include the logo so the reader is sure we are talking about the correct company? Is this different for sports team logos, movie posters, book covers, film covers, or album covers? No.

All of those examples are things that would be covered by the proposed wording and are things that I have actually seen in articles (or something like it). If you have a paragraph about an article in a magazine, the cover of that issue could be said to identify it. "...using it in this way is significant help for the article." there is no good argument presented for this. Knowing you are in the correct place is weak and does not apply to sections in other article at all. Usefulness in the sense of helping people search the text for something is not important. The use of images in this manner does nothing to improve the accuracy or the reliability of a section unless the section is actually about the image instead of just identifying something. The cover of an item does not normally convey any actual information about the content of the item (there is even an adage about it, "Don't judge a book by its cover" or somesuch). Arguing that people spend money on it, so it must be important does not make sense. "but there is widespread acceptance, e.g. the oft quoted comments by Jimbo Wales." Your claim that this has widespread support is unfounded and you are misrepresenting the quote, which is that an album cover is a suitable illustration of an article about an album, not a section about an album. I am not arguing for the banning the use of logos (although that argument could be made and I might welcome it, but that is not the point under discussion). There is consensus that there must be an argument for each use and identification alone in not enough, even if that were not the case it is not up to us to decide. I never mentioned lists in any of my examples. I do not find it would be unlikely in either case for there to be commentary on the team. An article about a Superbowl could easily have a section talking about a team's performance before and after they participated and how it was a major turning point in the team's history. A quarterback's article could easily talk about how they lead their team and changed it, however the specific details are not actually important. The wording arguably allows such things or could allow it, even when we patently do not. In the cases I outlined the purpose of the use was identification in a section arguably about the object of the image. Kotepho 06:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed wording is far too weak and obfuscates what is actually necessary for the use to constitute fair use. It takes away "critical commentary" and replaces it with "about" (and "commentary", but only in brackets). It also leaves the door open for people to think that using material for identification alone is acceptable. I fail to see how moving further away from forms of words similar to those actually used in the legislation and by the courts is an improvement. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with brainer. A long time ago (for the internet, that is) I believed that identification alone was ok for TV screen shots, and was very mistaken, which I later realized. I wasted a lot of time and effort, and I don't like the idea that others might be doing the same. We have a need to make this point clearer, to help avoid situations like that. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I sound a little dense, but I'm not sure what you mean by "identification alone." Are you saying the policy is fine but the wording isn't, or are you arguing that there needs to be appropriate commentary (setting matter of word choice aside for the moment) about the image itself and not merely the thing the image stands for? In the former case we could collapse the statement to the following.

• Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items (i.e. the article or section must contain significantin the context of critical commentary in prose form about the items identified by the image.

I could support that, but if you're arguing that "critical" has a meaning beyond "significant" we need to define that term because it sure isn't obvious to people. Or are you saying that the image has to do more than identify the item? If so, what? I have a feeling that's not what most people are thinking and it might be hard to get consensus for that kind of policy change. Wikidemo 05:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't consider merely identifying a cover a valid use. Some bands have more then one cover, and I challenge anyone to identify 3 out of 10 random albums from the covers (with no text on the covers, just by the images). —— Eagle101 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's highly unlikely that we'll come to agreement that mere identification is enough to warrant inclusion of fair use images. There's vociferous camps on both sides of the issue, and no middle ground that can readily be achieved. The closest we've come to a compromise is that fair use images are ok for identification if use only on articles specifically about those things. But, even that is controversial. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but we've argued endlessly about this without making headway.
• What does happen as a result of poor interpretations of this policy is that identification means liberal use is allowed. That's an all too common mistaken impression, and is one that sucks up a huge amount of time trying to explain the issue to a dizzying array of editors who do not understand. And on and on it goes. --Durin 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-compliance

I've pointed out on Wikidemo's talk page (User talk:Wikidemo#Stop for the full discussion) specifically why this change was inappropriate. Here's some of the discussion:

"Actually, "Non-compliance" was added to WP:NFCC before it was added to CSD. It actually took a while to get CSD updated to reflect the update. So it's not a matter of NFCC reflecting CSD, but CSD needs to reflect NFCC. It was added one year ago as a result of this discussion. "Non-compliance" was added as policy, not as helpful instructions.

"The only exception to this is for orphaned images, since they are hard to track (as in, an image does not have a history of what pages it was once on) and can be removed by accident or by vandalism. Same with vandalism to the image description page, where someone might have blanked the page, removing source info and FURs (but that's much easier to track and correct). -- Ned Scott 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

In a moment I'll collect my thoughts about the other edits, but I thought I would point out this issue on it's own. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Images for use by "members of the media"

Is this usage policy okay with wikipedia? SRI is allowing any "member of the media" to use these images. Is Misplaced Pages a part of the "media"?

We are not accredited and the images cannot be modified completely. Unless you got a major fair use claim, I suggest to avoid uploading these images. User:Zscout370 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is non-free content, so must pass WP:NFCC. Jheald 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Compliance rate

Greetings. I frequently pore through Special:Newimages, looking to see if the recently uploaded images are in compliance with our policies. The short answer: they're not. Only perhaps one in four new image uploads is actually released under a free license -- the others are non-free content. Only around one or two percent of these are in compliance with our policies. A large fraction have no source or tag. Many more have an incorrect tag. Many others are not used in any articles. Still others are blatant NFCC #1 violations. And those few that are left almost invariably have no rationale.

All registered users are able to upload non-free content. 98% or more of these are not done according to policy. This really isn't sustainable. I personally delete hundreds of non-free images every day (all according to policy, mind you), and I can't keep up. There are literally hundreds more new non-free images in violation uploaded daily. How important and valid is a non-free content policy if it is only followed 2% of the time (and that's being generous)? An analogous situation would be one where 98% percent of text edits were direct copies from copyrighted sources, or else violated our text submission policy in some fundamental way. When the "rule" is the exception, something's gotta give.

I am of the opinion that if there is not some sort of effective restriction placed on image uploads, we cannot have any sort of enforceable non-free content policy. We could soon become like Napster used to be, officially saying not to violate copyright, but being used almost exclusively for that purpose in practice. We're not that far off now -- look through a random page of Category:Publicity photographs, and you'll find that over half are NFCC #1 violations, and nearly all are NFCC #10 violations.

What's the solution? I'm open to suggestions. But I think we ought to have some sort of a process to give users the ability to upload files. Sort of like RFA, but much less formal, a new user would have to apply to gain that ability, and any admin could remove it for repeated violations (after which, the user could re-apply). It could be very laid-back -- perhaps the user could merely request it, and any any admin could grant the ability. This would take a coding change, so I don't know if it will happen. But if something doesn't happen, the number of out-of-compliance non-free images will completely swamp those in-compliance, if that isn't the case already.

All the best, – Quadell 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but whenever I've proposed this in the past, it's always met by a strong crowd of "if someone's abusing image policy, just block them" - which is not necessarily sustainable on the scale of this problem, but I do think that part of the solution is to be more strict with policy violations and not just throw 50 "fix your image" notes on frequent abusers' talk pages. (ESkog) 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, in your opinion, what fraction of the problem images are being handled by existing bots? For example, bots essentially cover the problem of unfree images that are orphans, lack licensing tags, etc. Other concerns, like criterion #1, are more subjective and can't effectively be handled automatically, and it the subjective areas where we are more likely to fall behind. Dragons flight 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that bots do handle non-free orphans or untagged images. I find a lot of them, and many are quite old. I'm not sure if there are holes in the bot logic, or if the bots can't even keep up, or what. What percentage of out-of-policy non-free images do bots pick up? I really don't know. What percentage would bots pick up in an ideal-bot-world, where all good bots I could dream up ran effectively? Let's see. . .

By far the most common problem is NFCC #10 violations, and bots can only be partly effective in this. Bots really can't tell if there's a source or not -- any attempt would create far too many "false positives" where the person wrote a source long-hand and the bot tagged it anyway. That's no good. And of course it can't tell if the source is valid or not, or if the copyright-holder is the same as the source, etc. It can tell whether there's a tag or not, but it can't tell whether the tag's valid, and it's frequently not. And it really can't tell if there's a rationale -- it can only tell if the image description is empty (or close to it). So it could flag, say, one in ten.

NFCC #1 and #2 are also common problems, and a bot can't help with this at all. It might be able to catch some extreme violations of NFCC #3, but not many, and it would be useless for #4, #5, #6, and #8. A bot could catch violations of #7 and #9, but that's not a large fraction of the violations. (Maybe there would be so many #7 and #9 violations that it would be a significant fraction if the bots weren't already doing their job. I don't know.)

So all in all, bots can probably only catch a tenth of the problems. And even after it catches the problems, it only tags them. A human still has to go through later, verify that it's still a problem, and manually delete them, since BAG never approves bots with admin functions. – Quadell 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pssst. It's an open secret that Misza13 uses a adminbot to delete images with no copyright tag or no source and fair use images that are orphaned. Has been for months. Dragons flight 23:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I wasn't "hip" to that, thanks. Good. But is this another symptom of the problem, that policy must be violated in order for policy to be effectively enforced? – Quadell 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is technically feasible but if I could wave a magic wand --

• Newly registered users could not upload images until they have reviewed (or opted out of) a short tutorial on how to upload
• We get much more user-friendly upload facilities, license tags, warning notices, and the like. Something that is a "how to" instead of links to policy
• New users would be restricted to, say, 5 images per day for their first 50 images (or something like that), except by special dispensation from an administrator.
• Bots instantaneously delete non-compliant images, and/or you can't even save an image with an improper license or without a fair use rationale. Write the rationale first THEN upload the image. If you can catch people as they're uploading then it won't be so difficult or contentious.
• Encourage people to use images within approved contexts, e.g. infoboxes and other templates approved by various wikiprojects. Make image uploading easier to use in those contexts, and harder if you are simply adding a random image to a page.
• Make certain meta-data mandatory and in parameter / variable form, not free-form wiki text. E.g. use, source, copyright owner, copyright status, etc. Use this as a rudimentary rights management system.

There's an old saying. It's never the lab rat's fault if he can't solve the maze. I first started uploading images under a different regime. I tried to do everything right but my first dozen images were noncompliant and it took the bots, and some trial and error, before I figured it out. It wasn't very user friendly. Many people who are trying to do it right are probably facing the same thing. Incidentally, I took a long random walk through old images, not new ones. Some observations. About 1/2 of all non-free images lack fair use rationales. Perhaps 75% of the old ones have rationales that are incomplete or so poorly written to be worthless. About 1/2 of the new rationales are okay. Rationales written after a warning notice seem to be better than those initially attached. About 90% of the images with bad or no rationales or lacking source information would be fine, but 10% are simply not appropriate. Of the 80%, most are simple routine cases but about 10% are complex issues that need some review. That's under what I understand the current majority understanding is of appropriate images. If you want to disallow massive numbers of movie posters, book covers, album covers, and logos, then you would want to adjust those numbers but that's a policy question. The compliance rate varies greatly by the type of image and type of article. Wikidemo 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You want to avoid technical restrictions that encourage other bad behavior. For instance, a daily limit will encourage multiple accounts; a required rationale before upload will encourage bad (and non-bot-spottable) rationales. Just a thought. – Quadell 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very interesting and enlightening, and the practicality of enforcement sheds some light on the debate about what policy should be. Given the above should we: (i) greatly restrict the number of images, the people who are entitled to upload, or otherwise make it harder; (ii) accept that the images are messy but keep trying; (iii) greatly expand the efforts to review images; (iv) require each image use to be separately reviewed and signed off on by an administrator? Something else? How do other encyclopedias, newspapers, television studios, corporate blogs, and others who use fair use images on a massive scale go about record-keeping and approval? If a TV reporter wants to shoot something that's copyirhted, how do they go about getting approval and keeping records? Maybe that can offer some inspiration.

I know you say it encourages bad behavior, but how about at least a little record-keeping and meta-data every time someone uploads or uses an image? At the very least (in an ideal world) something to enforce that the name of the article, type of use (e.g. publicity photo of dead person used in article about person), and either a rationale or a notation that the rationale is missing, is stored once per use? Is it better to let people fail and then have other people mop up the mess than to give them strict requirements for which they might fake compliance? Maybe it's education. I'll bet people aren't disobeying the rules on purpose because they want to hurt Misplaced Pages. They're probably trying to make the best-looking and most useful article they can, and it just hasn't hit home for them that a pretty article that violates copyright is of no help to the world. Wikidemo 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least we should have an option to revoke the ability to upload without having to completely block someone. Currently "problem uploaders" are rarely blocked if they are otherwise constructive editors. If we had a way to prevent them from uploading more images while still retaining the ability to edit it would be much better since we could take action without it beeing such a "bid deal", we could also use this to "force" people to clean up theyr exsisting uploads before they are allowed to resume uploading and such. Some system to restrict uploading for brand new acounts might also be good, though we have to be carefull. We want that random reader who happens to have a self taken photo of someone or something we are in need of a free photo of to be eable to upload the image without having to jump though too many hoops, while at the same time we don't want people uploading 200 untagged screenshots from theyr favourite anime show right off the bat either... I guess the real 10.000$ question is: How do we educate people about our image policies before they upload something without boring them to death or make the process so involved that no one will bother contributing those self taken photos we are in need of. --Sherool (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users from uploading isn't a bad idea. Perhaps we could get that kind of feature added to the software. We could probably also use more admins to help prevent backlogs from building up. —Remember the dot 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More admins are always nice to have, but what we rely need is to get more admins actualy involved in image work. The majority of admins just don't "do" images. Especialy the more contentious areas like missing rationales and replacable images tend to be shunned. People are just not interested (some have even argued that images don't belong on in CAT:CSD and should be shoved away somewhere where the "image people" can deal with it) or don't feel qualified to deal with them. We can't do much if people just don't want to deal wtih images, they are all voulenteers afer all, but maybe we should look into writing some better "toturials" geared towards admins so people willing to learn could at least pick up the basics. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More admins could help in cleaning up the categories for no-source, no-license and the undisputed ifd nominations. For replaceable-non-free and disputed ifds, where knowledge about the policy and compromise with the Mission is important, image-unexperienced admins are (sometime) dangerous. WP:RFA tests popularity, hard-working and civility, but hardly policy knowledge nor compromise with the Free content. The number of admins that do not understand WP:NFCC and WP:IUP or that openly dislike it is not something to be overlooked. But that's not a problem I have a solution to propose. --Abu badali 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it in another perspective. If 98% of non-free images actually do not comply with the policy, what's the likelihood that those editors (generally acting in good faith) going to learn in the near future? If a rule is made so that it is very difficult for the populace to obey, and is impractical to enforce, the rule could possibly bring more harm than good. (Just like Prohibition) If the compliance rate is so low, it may probably mean the policy has to be either rewritten or made less strict.--Kylohk 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point of this discussion: to either make the rules easier to obey, or easier to enforce, or both. The Foundation resolution on use of copyrighted content takes your preferred option off the table. (ESkog) 06:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it's always a matter of making it easier to obey or enforce, since that's the point of a rule. But looks like the latter option is harder due to the users. For instance, YouTube starts to remove all those copyrighted film uploads and so on, and yet new uploads come up faster than they can remove! So, making it easier to obey is more practical, and the Foundation may have a dilemma really, since they may have made a resolution that is good in principle, but can be extremely hard to carry out.--Kylohk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the commons monobook.js. There is a JS hack to upload block users. It wouldn't stop anyone with a clue, but it doesn't need to... It's useful on commons because of all the language barriers. Here I think there is another measure we should require to improve communication: require a confirmed email in order to upload. We discussed this a year ago, and it didn't have much opposition but someone slipped in some "wait until SUL" and that killed the discussion. With a confirmed email address for every upload we could be more agressive with having bots do first pass image checks because we'd have a reliable way to bring the uploader back to fix their work.--Gmaxwell 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One point for perspective... I recently blocked somebody because of their continued failure to comply with the non-free content policies. They are a great contributor otherwise... I wish I could have only blocked their ability to upload. But then, that's just asking for sockpuppets maybe. Sancho 07:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to block them for violation of something as important as our copyright related problems then they are not a great contributor. Even if you don't accept the importance of our copyright related policies the ability to work with the community and not need blocking to convince you to stop violating policies is utterly fundamental. Someone who needed to be blocked this week to stop bad uploads would eventually need to be blocked for violating some other policy they disagreed with, that they haven't yet found something else to disagree with is no reason to say that blocking them wasn't a success. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this view, Gmaxwell. I have encountered many editors that are great text-contributors, that follow and enforce WP:MOS, WP:BLP, etc., but that are a pain in regard to image uploads. It's sad to see these editors being repeatedly blocked for 24hs, 48hs, 1 week... Not all chronic image-policy-violators are wiki-sociopaths (term just coined to define editors incapable of work in community). Some few of them are even good admins. --Abu badali 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree... I firmly believe that we do ourselves a great disservice when we refuse to ban someone who refuse to follow such an important set of rules. Needing help uploading is one thing, but willfully getting it wrong to the point where blocking is required is another mater... In any case. I suspect these folks will just flame out once you upload block them, and they'll end up blocked in any case. --Gmaxwell 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, currently, we have to block/ban users that refuse to follow the image policy. We seem to disagree on either or not would it be useful for admins to be able to simply upload-block these users. Your "flame out" theory is something I hadn't think about... but maybe we could try it to see if it happens.

In any way, I see other occasions where an upload-block feature would be useful. For instance, I've seen cases when a clueless newbie is uploading bad images and, for being clueless, not responding to request on his talk page. The current solution to this situation is a 30min block, but an upload-block would be better. Another situation would be to upload-block an editor that have more than N image-warnings on his page, (as good faith editors also violate the image policies). The editor would be forbidden to upload any new images until he/she fixes all the images problems, what may require editing the image description page or the article using the image. --Abu badali 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot's got a feature that lets me blacklist uploaders by automatically tagging their images for speedy deletion. Would it be worthwhile to turn this on until the MediaWiki software can be modified to allow disabling uploads? (Note: I'll be on vacation for the next ten days, so don't expect an immediate response from me) --Carnildo 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we'll see the feature in MW proper: It was Brion who convinced me that we're better off banning people who we can't allow to upload. Even on commons where I think upload blocking is more useful, due to communications problems, it doesn't get used much. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating stuff. Then maybe a technical change isn't needed. Perhaps we can just set up a process like this: A page is set up of "non-upload" users. It's permaprotected so only admins can edit it. Any user listed is prevented (as much as is reasonably easy) from uploading. Obviously, long-term, recalcitrant copyvio uploaders would go here, but so would well-intentioned, clueless users who don't stop uploading NFCC #1 violations after a warning. In those cases, the admin who placed their name on "The List" would also leave a note on their talk page saying something not unfriendly, like "You seem to be having problems uploading images. Many of your uploads have violated our policies and have been deleted. For the time being, you have been prevented from uploading further images. Please read <these pages> and leave a note <at this page> when you're ready to try uploading again." Or something. Does this sound like a good idea? – Quadell 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be worth a shot, I would prefeer an actual MediaWiki feature, but in the meantime that JavaScript solution to "soft block" uploading is better than nothing. If people circumvent it and keep uploading bad images they can at least not claim to be acting in good faith anymore... --Sherool (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, they can't make that claim after the nth time we've asked them to stop.. Though I'm not opposed to the JS kludge (I wrote it after all), I think we should regard it as a tool to get new users to talk... and not as a tool to deal with long-standing users who won't conform to our mission and rules. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The orphanBot solutions doesn't solve the problem of human-work. Images tagged for speedy deletion still have to be processed by admins. The JS hack seems perfect, as there's no way to assume good faith on those hacking the JS (excluding lynx users, etc. ;) ).

Anyway, would we need to draft Wìkipedia:Upload block criteria? --Abu badali 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More stats

I just ran a test of my own to confirm Quadell's shocking results. That's not to say I doubt his review; I don't. Just that 100 images here or there might not give a solid picture of what is happening. That said; today we're going to have approximately 1600 images uploaded to Misplaced Pages. Quadell's and my test sets were both more than 5% of that total, thus our results should paint a relevant picture.

My results; I broke images up into several broad categories, with results as follows:

Next, I took a look to see what problems there were in each group:

In total, 38% of all images in this group were uploaded correctly, 62% incorrectly for one reason or another. If (big iff) we assume that 1600 image uploads per day is an average day, then approximately 30 thousand images per month have problems of one kind or another. 11 thousand per month lack rationale.

Opionion;
I too wonder if the bots can keep up with this, much less the humans. If we properly police all image uploads, then every category for the type of problems as above is likely to be badly overloaded. This seems an unmanageable problem with current resources. Throttling of uploads is definitely one possible solution, and should be seriously considered. --Durin 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: And how many included "the name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline"? Maybe one of them? – Quadell 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't specifically look for that, but a number of them were correct in this manner. I was using as broad a paintbrush as possible to indicate permissible fair use. I'm largely against fair use, so I was trying to use the paintbrush that most favored fair use, to help eliminate bias in my own review.
• Very depressing thought; I did a further review just now, and determined that we will see approximately 76 thousand image uploads this month. Of those, 33 thousand will be fair use images. Only about 20 thousand of them will be properly uploaded. Extrapolating over a year, and assuming modest 20% growth (it's really much more than that), we'll see 500 thousand new fair use images over the next year. The charade that we are a free content encyclopedia is a joke. We're anything but. --Durin 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well.. between 2007-06-01 and 2007-07-01 enwiki had 65,549 total distinct image page names deleted. None of these numbers are shocking to me. Our image deletion rate has doubled from 6 months ago. --Gmaxwell 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to have to spike considerably higher to contend with the problem as it currently is, much less future growth. --Durin 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, although deletion rates doubled over the past six months, upload rates have been constant to a slight decline. We are now deleting at almost the same rate as images are uploaded. --Gmaxwell 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's interesting. How many image uploads did we have in January? March? May? --Durin 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jan: 74450, Feb: 67907, Mar: 76407, Apr: 74452, May: 70356, Jun: 65722. --Gmaxwell 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As bad as it sounds, 38% complians seems like an improvement over the legacy images. Perhaps we should set a realistic target of, say, 95% compliance and see wht it takes to get there. To know where to address the efforts it would be nice to know what the patterns are for bad uploads. Is it a few people doing a lot of bad images, or is the problem more disperse? Is it newbie users mainly? What happens for new uploads / new users when they get a deletion notice? Do they fix their image if they can? Abandon them? Attach improper rationales? Start to comply or keep unloading bad images? If we have the numbers on this we could see what it takes to chip away at the compliance rate. Blocking users only works if a major chunk of the bad uploads is from a few persistent problem editors. Wikidemo 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I would say 75% is the minimum needed in order to say the policy is "effective". – Quadell 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting if we could get statistics on how many inappropriate versus appropriate uploads come from each selection at Misplaced Pages:Upload and even each selection in the drop-down menus. Perhaps we could then work on the problem areas. --Iamunknown 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "publicity photos" and photos with nothing in the image description page at all are the two categories where you'll find the most problems (images that can't be "fixed" to adhere to policy, but should never have been uploaded regardless of the information provided.) – Quadell 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversing the default for some subjects

Right now our default is to allow non-free images in any article until someone educated in our non-free content policy looks checks it out. This, in theory at least, should be okay for articles where a non-free image is expected. However, there are a great many types of articles where no non-free images make sense. For example, most articles about mathematics or other pure sciences should never have any non-free images (enough negatives there?). The same is true for many articles in just about every subject area except pop-culture, recent art, and people. There are, of course, valid exceptions... places where you'll find a mathematics article with good cause for a non-free image. But they are rare.

Yet non-free images show up in articles which belong to classes of articles where there should be none (Example: Image:Bilateral_symmetry.png). I would argue that it is these cases which are the most harmful, and not the borderline pop-culture cases that take most of our time and attention.

I think there is an easy way for us to make a big improvement. Make it so that, for some pages, the default is to forbid the addition of any non-free media. We could accomplish this simply: an empty template (thus invisible to readers) could be added to the end of the page such as {{free media only}}. A bot would detect any non-free images being added to pages with that tag and remove them right away. Likewise we could watch for the incorrect removal of the tag. We could require a consensus or admin driven process to add/remove the tag, but I don't think that it is needed.

If we approve this idea, I could get started by taking the lists of articles in categories (like all the mathematics articles) which don't already have non-free images, and add the tag. I would also produce lists of articles in those categories which have non-free images for manual verification.

What do you think? --Gmaxwell 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, but a few concerns and suggestions. We should do a survey to make sure we're not missing any special cases where fair use images are often properly used: films, novels, cartoons, tv shows and episode guides (though that's a messy one), business articles with logos, biographies, articles about historical places and events? I'm uncomfortable requiring consensus here or admin approval before admitting images to a new kind of articles. People who oppose non-free images will simply filibuster. We should let experienced editors who know what they're doing and who have not abused the system to add an image anyway but with a special notation that they have personally reviewed the guidelines and can vouch for the image appropriateness. Maybe all those can go in a special template like template:non-free image box for non-standard article use or something like that, and the bot would leave those alone. Anyone who wants to manually review them will know where to find them too. In fact, for similar reasons I would support requiring all non-free images to go in an approved template box, either by themselves or one of the infoboxes. Existing pages with images properly notated should be grandfathered in to avoid indiscriminate deletions. Existing pages with deficient images should go through the usual deletion process, not a separate process for the new bot (so that it coordinates with the other parallel efforts to fix and to delete images). Also, is there a more user-friendly way than just deleting people's images with a bout? That's going to annoy and confuse a lot of people. Could we find a way to block or warn them when they try to save the page, something like "Oops. I see you're trying to add a non-free image to this page. Please be advised...." Wikidemo 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I really like the {{free-media only}} idea. I think it's easier for an experienced editor to simply remove the {{free-media only}} tag if there's a good reason to use a non-free image in an article, rather than have a special exceptions page. Let's keep this as simple as possible. I like the idea of the bot notifying the person who tried to include the non-free image, too. I could help with this. – Quadell 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great....but I still think a special flag or template for the exceptional image is better than removing the tag, because removing the tag opens the floodgates for people to start adding more images once they see the first one. Wikidemo 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we have two tags {{free-media only}} and {{limited non-free media}} a tag like {{Non-free allowed in}} to form per-image exceptions to the latter? --Gmaxwell 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it would be better to just have {{free-media only}}, because it's simpler. But having two tags would be much better than not having either, and I don't want to delay implementation by debating the details, so I'd be happy with any system that works. – Quadell 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. How about we plan on {{free-media only}} for now, but not preclude the possibility of a second tag later as we find ourselves removing the tag for single images more often? It'll be a long time before we've gotten the first tag in good use. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. But can I put in a plug for going about this gradually and with some communication to other parts of Misplaced Pages? Also grandfathering in existing images? One bot to add a bunch of templates, and another bot to delete a bunch of image uses, could get messy, controversial, and troublesome if it's buggy, done without process, or in the hands of an impatient bot owner. There could be problems nobody has thought of yet. I'd hate to see the reaction of, say, the airplane lovers if all their pictures, logos, and signs suddenly disappear because nobody thought to add them to the list of articles where non-free images are okay. Maybe we can start with one significant group of articles as a test, say add the tag to all of the biographies of living people with permission from the biography wikiproject, and see how it goes before deploying project-wide. Wikidemo 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My plan was to get more input, but I needed to get support here first. :) I also plan on not tagging any article which already has non-free images. Instead, I'll produce reports of articles that did... and people can go resolve them by hand. I'll start by producing a list of mathematics articles and subtracting out articles on books, movies, and people. I'll post the list and we can go from there. :)--Gmaxwell 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I came up with a criteria for math articles. In that set there are 13,548 articles which shouldn't have non-free images. Of those, 49 currently do. Thats less than there would have been because I recently made a list of all math articles with non-free images and the wikiproject math folks have been fixing them. Many of the 49 pages shouldn't have non-free images, but some are probably okay but are not well enough categorized to get excluded by my criteria. You can see the list of 49 at User:Gmaxwell/math_fu2. I'll get with the wikiproject math folks and see if they approve of my lists and criteria. --Gmaxwell 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the non-free licensing tag applied to Image:Corner.jpg was for an older version of the file. Someone else uploaded a PD image over it , so I'll restore that file, although I don't know what anyone would want it for. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good move. Tony 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it is these cases which are the most harmful, says GMaxwell above, and I would ask - harmful to what? Our encyclopedic mission? Or our continuing free-content evangelism? I suspect the latter, since building an encyclopedia by stating, flat out, that there are certain types of material - including legal and useful material - that are not going to be included seems to be extrordinarily limiting, and a rather odd way to go about building an encyclopedia.

However, Misplaced Pages, and the Wikimedia foundation, do face a number of limits, as free-content beacons in a copyright-encrusted world. So, GMaxwell, instead of yet another half-assed, half-step toward the elimination of fair use, and another set of rules, restrictions, templates, policy, etc. which would, I'm sure, quickly help fill up countless number of deletion and deletion review pages -- why not propose the elimination of fair use on EN? Kat got reelected, you've got the momentum, you've got plenty of righteous and enthusiastic "non-free content enforcers" on your side, you've got the BetacommnadBot ready to start stripping out thousands of unfree images... You have the tools, people, and philosophy in place. It seems like now should be the time to turn Misplaced Pages away from being a merely popular website, and in to being one which is more truthful to its core principles. That is, of course, if you're not just being hypocritical about non-free content... which I'm sure everyone here loves for the number of pageviews and editors it brings to the website, but loathes because it's so... (shudder)... unfree! Just get rid of it! A quick "German"-style removal of fair use from EN would be preferable to the slow bleed you're subjecting the site to. (Think "Band-aid(TM) ripping off techniques"...quick is almost always better than slow...)

It should go without saying that I think this is the entirely wrong direction for the project, but hey... I am one voice, and there are many who seem determined to get rid of fair use, bit by bit... I'd just prefer if they were a little more above-board about it. Call it what it is - another step toward a completely libre Misplaced Pages, which relies on NO fair use. After all, that is the "perfect" goal toward which the Foundation would have us work, right? Jenolen 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe it would be a substantial loss to bar all non-free content from enwikipedia. I think that when we write about a subject that is copyrighted (like a book, a movie, a painting, etc) that we be able to use excerpts from that work to facilitate our discussion. So do many of the other folks here. No doubt from your tone you're upset about something that was removed, but the fact that we support removing many sorts of non-free content doesn't imply that most of us don't also support keeping it around.--Gmaxwell 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Really, the problem I foresee is that there's no reason to add another restriction to the already quite restricted use of non-free content. And, contrary to your assertation, there are plenty of people who do NOT support keeping non-free content around. And, in fact, that's Misplaced Pages policy - high quality, non-free content MUST be deleted, if it can be replaced by lower quality free content. Don't make it sound like Misplaced Pages is a welcoming place for non-free content; it isn't, at all. And that's fine. But these continual additions of new layers of rules and guidelines - which are all subjective, and will be vigorously interpreted by the most enthusiastic members of the anti-fair-use community - seem to be patently UNHELPFUL when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. If someone can make non-free content work under our current guidelines in a non-traditional context, shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

In fact, I can think of no cases where some of the vigorous enforcers of policy would allow non-free content to stand in a non-traditional setting, so to me, this whole layer of "non-free media prohibited" labelling, templates, etc. seems like really overdoing what is already our de facto policy - non-free media is ALREADY largely prohibited on Misplaced Pages, and its use is the very, very rare exception, not the rule. I mean, let's remember: We're talking about a website that bans the use of official state government photos, because they're not "libre" enough. Or the website that decided to make its OWN, non-standard, non-international International Symbol of Access, because the standard, international icon wasn't libre enough.

And you think the "problem" is that we allow too much non-free media? Please.... Jenolen 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Yes it's already policy to not allow this use of non-free content. He's not suggesting any new sweaping policy changes. Just a mechanism to help keep non-free images out of articles we should not use non-free material to illustrate. To give a few examples: Recently I removed a screenshot from a recent movie that was used to illustrate a 15th centiry pope. Why would we need anything not already PD to illustrate such things? Other examples beeing game screenshots used to illustrate ancinet military units, images from D&D monster manuals to depict ancient mythological creatures we have tonnes of PD ancient art of. Game screenshots used to illustrate medeaval weaponry and so on and so forth. Non-free content have it's place, but I don't see what the problem would be with having a better system to keep it out of areas where it clearly does not belong. --Sherool (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

dubious fair use

Justin_Foote (talk · contribs) tagged a huge number of images of works of art with "fair use" I find many of them dubious applicability. Please someone experienced in copyright, review the contributions of this user. `'Míkka 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For the most part it seems that {{Non-free 2D art}} would apply to these images. This template contains a rational for why fair-use would apply. It seems to hinge on what counts as critical commentary. For example Regular Division of the Plane (for which the images were deleted) does discuss some properties of the art, relating them to the fact that they are based on the principle of tessellation. --Salix alba (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of this editor's contributions are just fine. However, he does from time to time create galleries of images, as in Regular Division of the Plane and other articles. At other times he uses multiple images not in a gallery as such, but to illustrate an art movement or a painter's life, without actually discussing each of the images he is including (save, perhaps, for the name of the work appearing in a list of works on the page or a passing mention). You are probably confusing people by calling it a "copyright vio" because it is unlikely that this is an actual copyright violation. However, it is against what many people consider to be Misplaced Pages policy, i.e. the WP:NFCC criterion #8. Although there is some dispute over this policy statement (see discussions elsewhere on this page), it is currently under discussion and an explicit prohibition against lists and galleries will likely survive the outcome of the discussions as a guideline example in WP:NONFREE. It would therefore be most accurate to classify this as a disfavored list or gallery and leave it at that. It would be good to let this user know what is going on, and that lists and galleries are likely to be removed. He is a serious, prolific editor of articles about art, so if you do not tread lightly he and the people on that wikiproject might have a rather strong and disagreeable reaction to learning that we're removing their images en masse.

This is not a case of what kind of commentary is "critical" or not, and I hope we don't get to that. Any substantial commentary on the art, whether it be about the art's historical importance, how it relates to the life of the artist, the public reaction, the history of the artwork itself, etc., should be sufficient. The word "critical" can be misleading and should not be confused with art criticism or critical in the sense of assessing whether something is good, bad, or indifferent. It simply means that the subject is discussed in a serious way. Wikidemo 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I'm trying to understand what's going on here. Can someone sum up, or direct me to a discussion? (1) Why is boilerplate Fair Use Rationale bad? (2) Why is using an image of a published work only for identification of the work (without critical analysis of the image itself) bad? -Freekee 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

1) You are making a claim of fair use. I'm not saying a template to help you write the correct rational is wrong, but you do have to put some thought into it. 2) Lets go with album covers for example: if there are more then one album cover, how does the one cover identify the album? I would also read above in the "suggestions" section above. —— Eagle101 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eagle. I half expected some big argument to start anew. -Freekee 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "non-free media rationale" now? - we need a better term

Yesterday an editor proposed, and is now boldly implementing, a change of "fair use rationale" to "non-free media rationale." Hence, we no longer have "fair use rationale guideline." We now have a "non-free media rationale guideline."

I think that's a bad choice because it makes a confusing issue even more confusing. Here are my reasons:

• Bureaucrateze. The term is a verbose piece of bureaucracy-speak. Unlike the old term, nobody can type or discuss this one without an acronym ("NFMR?") or a nickname ("rationale" for short?). We use words like "policy," "guideline," "consensus," "editor", and "administrator" in specialized ways. If we're going to change all of our common words so people truly understand that we do things differently here, how about "Misplaced Pages consensus-building process", "volunteer moderating-editor assitant" and so on?
• Agenda-pushing through language. The purpose of the change is to remind people that our standards are higher than the legal ones for fair use. That is certainly true, but why force people to acknowledge your point by adding an extra three syllables, five characters, and a hyphen, every time they use the term?
• The older term was fine. Fair use rationales are indeed rationales of why an image is fair use. All of the components go to fair use, and the underlying issue is fair use. We simply have a higher standard than the legal one because we are trying to be extra careful and applicable for all uses in all jurisdictions.
• New term is confusing. The old term is in widespread use here, and is referenced on many different policy and talk pages, as well as in many tens of thousands of image pages. Changing the term now causes a rift. Even if you could avoid misstatements and broken links by replacing the term consistently and project-wide wherever it appears, it confuses people to turn a common name into a technical one.
• Does not mean what it says it means. One reason it is so confusing is that it is not clear English. The word "rationale" modifies "media" to suggest that we are trying to justify the media. We are actually trying to justify use of the media in an article. The old term is more accurate here because rationale modifies the word "use."

For all these reasons we should leave it the way it is. If we must change the term to highlight that we have "fair use plus" instead of "fair use" on Misplaced Pages, we need something that is short, to the point, pronounceable, and easy for people to understand -- particularly the people we are trying the hardest to reach, new users who upload bad images. Something like "image use rationale". Wikidemo 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's a logical extention of the rename of this policy. We have a non-free content policy and you need to write a non-free content rationale... Ok, it's a bit verbose, but I think it's importnat to emphasis that we are not asking for a rationale for fair use in the legal sense, we are asking for a rationale explaining how something meet our non-free content policy... --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The verbosity is my main problem. Can we have a contest or something to see if someone can keep it down to four or five syllables before we turn Misplaced Pages into an acronym fountain? Wikidemo 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if anyoe can think of a better name without introducing yet another new term (at least it's fairly consistent now (aside from all the lingering references naturaly) "Non-free justification", "Unfree use rationale" um... Anyway the name is not set in stone or anything, I just saw the previous debate to rename had died off, and descided to just go and do it seeing as most people seem to at least accept the "non-free" naming scheme. --Sherool (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good move, since what we're asking for really is only tangentially related to the well-defined concept of "fair use." I do share Wikidemo's concern that it's a little unwieldy, but I'm having trouble coming up with a better way to say what we mean. (ESkog) 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Still thinking. The full term, properly, would be "non-free media use rationale," even more of a mouthful but more precise. How about that, and "use rationale" as a short form for people to use conversationally? Wikidemo 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That could work. I like it. (ESkog) 20:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about simply "non-free use rationale", or "rationale" for short? The word "media" is more in there as a filler word, we all know that the policy doesn't apply to text. —Remember the dot 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Media is also nasty because it's plural, but usually with a rationale we're referring to a single object. Jheald 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's plural is Latin, but it can be either singular or plural in English. Like data. – Quadell 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote is, "The medium is the message," and I assure you that McLuhan was speaking English. That imprecise usage has become common is no excuse. Not that I insist on prescriptive usage, but any usage such as this one that reduces expressiveness is to be resisted. There's also a deliberate program in the media (ha!), enforced by manuals of style, to de-Latinize certain plurals, and this is as prescriptive as it comes. Thus we get "millenniums" instead if "millennia", which is not only borderline illiterate but just plain ugly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Media (singular) has a particular meaning, namely the channels of communication - tv, radio, press etc. And even in that meaning its use in the singular is not uncontroversial. Jheald 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like "use rationale". We can tell new users that to use a non-free image, you need to supply a use rationale. Free images can be used without a use rationale. It's brief and intuitive. – Quadell 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very nice and simple. "Non-free use rationale" commonly referred to as a "use rationale" :) - cohesion 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use license tag

Whilst we're at it, the term "fair use license tag", as used inter alia on the page formerly known as WP:FURG, should die. Whatever these tags might be, they certainly aren't any kind of licenses for fair use.

Suggest "non-free media copyright tag" or "copyright tag" for short? (They're currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/Non-free and categorised under Category:Non-free image copyright tags). Jheald 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The generic term should be "copyright tag." To get specific it should be "copyright tag for non-free media" or the inverse. If we're removing the "fair use" language we should avoid it here to in order to avoid confusion. We should also clear up a major source of confusion that copyright tags are for uploading, and use rationale tags are for using non-free media in articles. The need for both, and the one-to-many relationship, are a big source of confusion to people. We're not changing that system but the wording could be more helpful. Wikidemo 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the tags is for categorisation, and to facilitate the identification of non-free content in a machine-readable format (ie, to allow non-free content to be stripped out of database dumps). See point 2 of the licensing policy resolution. If someone can come up with a name for the tags which reflects this, that would be great. --bainer (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I agree entirely with Wikidemo's argument above (except that pushing agendas through language can be good or evil, depending on the agenda: heck, this whole policy should be pushing its agenda through language).
• I have a problem with the substitution of "content" with "media", because the latter excludes words. A similar issue has been under discussion under Criterion 8 above.
• Talking of pushing our agenda, "justification" is stronger than "rationale", because it emphasises the need to actively justify the use of NFC, rather than appealing to mere logic. (The policy is not entirely driven by logic, is it?) Tony 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples section

I think that the two examples sections (Acceptable and Unacceptable) should be merged into one. As they stand they are both just lists of examples, and therefore not that useful as a quick Fair-Use reference for the layman wiki editor. The Unacceptable section is especially unwieldly, since at least the Acceptable section breaks the examples down into media type. Not to mention that the two are in completely different formats, despite being essentially the same thing anyways. I'm not sure how to format such a section (table?), but I thought I'd bring it up here first. Drewcifer3000 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, when the storm settles, both sections will need a good copy-edit. Will a conflation of the do and don't sections make it easier for non-experts to comphrehend the policy? (Maybe.) Tony 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we tackle the active issues and then we deal with the jumble of examples as a whole. As an illustration I proposed a tabular format here. Please don't worry about exactly how I did it, that's ancient history now. But just as an illustration that you could use a tabular format to list examples in one column, and then discuss in a second column why the example is allowed or not. You could order or structure this anyway you want. I broke it down among uses disallowed because the uploader didn't provide the necessary information, and uses disallowed because the image is fundamentally inappropriate. Wikidemo 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to break it to you guys, but I don't think we'll ever settle every possible Fair Use dispute. That's just the nature of the beast, wouldn't you say? Now is as good a time as ever, in my opinion. Drewcifer3000 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images promoting films

Could people have a look at WP:IfD#Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg at IfD. User:howcheng and User:Abu badali are contending that they cannot be seen as promotional images, because we don't know the full terms on which Fox released them.

Yet it is clearly one of a standard set of X-men "character photos" issued by Fox in the run-up to the Xmen 3 movie, picked up by sites which specialise in such image releases, such as a movie site , and a comics news site . Smaller versions of the same images are also presented for download on the film offical site for use as icons for AIM messaging, livejournal entries, etc.

Do people think this matters? The images were clearly widely released, not commissioned as exclusives for a particular magazine. And they are clearly representative images of the characters being discussed. Does that not then make them entirely appropriate to select for fair use? Jheald 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale text: where?

Sometimes I see a fair-use rationale that states which articles the image is OK to use in. If such a statement is important, it shouldn't be on the image's page, but on the article where it's being used. I would think it could be placed in the image tag, but commented out. Do you think a usage-specific rationale is important? -Freekee 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw criterion 10(c): The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free media rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. It seems strange to me that you have to edit the fair use rationale on the image page every time you add it to or remove it from an article. Is it really necessary that the rationale be listed there? -Freekee 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. The rationale of, for example, Image:RichGirlVideo.png should make it clear that the image is acceptable for use in the Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) article but not in Gwen Stefani. 17Drew 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of screenshots of computer-generated reports

On articles such as Spyware and elsewhere, we use images made by taking a screenshot of a proprietary computer program. The purpose of the depiction is not to show off the artistic value of the computer program's user interface, but rather to illustrate the facts that the program is reporting, and that the program is capable of reporting those facts.

For instance, this image shows how Microsoft's anti-spyware program reports and blocks an attempt by an adware program to install itself on the user's computer.

It seems to me that screenshots such as this are actually representations of program output, not of the program itself. it is my understanding that under U.S. copyright law, holding copyright to a program does not convey copyright over the program's output. For instance, Adobe (makers of Photoshop) have no copyright claim over images that people produce in Photoshop, and the Free Software Foundation (makers of the GNU Compiler Collection) have no copyright claim over programs that are merely compiled using gcc.

In short: Screenshots such as these are not portions of the copyrighted work (the program). They are program output; as such, the copyright interest of the program's creator is either (a) nonexistent, or (b) vastly diminished, such that we should feel quite free to produce and use such images. --FOo 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say is true up to a scertain point. If you just show a graph generated by a program or a table of facts and simmilar (output of a DIR or systeminfo command for example) then yes, those will most likely not be copyrightable. However it's not all cut and dry, for example the anti spyware example you give contains copyrighted text (description and advice bits) displayed inside the programs copyrighted GUI. A word document is not copyrighted by microsoft, but if you take a screenshot of the document opened in Word with all the word GUI stuff visible it would not be a free screenshot etc. --Sherool (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free content survey

With board member Erik Moller's encouragement and approval, I have drafted a survey designed to probe community sentiment regarding the future direction of non-free content policy on Misplaced Pages. Before opening that survey to the general population, I would like to get a feedback from this community regarding any refinements, additions, or changes, that you feel might be useful. I've already asked a number of people privately, but most have declined comment so far. Please comment at the survey's talk page. Dragons flight 00:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-done survey and it will be useful to know what people think. However, I see some risk of survey bias:

• It accepts as a premise that uncopyrighted images and audio may be freely reused. That is simply not the case. Any reuser must still be concerned about rights of privacy and publicity, copyright, trademark, etc. People might be biased to oppose copyrighted content on the false assumption that this would make the content completely re-usable.
• It overstates the dichotomy between fair use and re-usability. No matter what we do and say, a re-user must assess the legality of their use on a case-by-case basis. If they can easily strip non-free images, their presence does not hurt reuse. Bulk re-users are better served by consistent image metadata, and a rights management system, than by content restriction and free-form image descriptions. So the dial to be turned may be tight versus loose image tagging, not inclusion versus exclusion of fair use images.
• By using Misplaced Pages terms of art, depending on how the survey is disseminated it may encourage selective participation by people already active on the issue who support the current regime, rather than the larger body of people who use and edit Misplaced Pages and are presumably much more interested in the usability and quality of the encyclopedia than its more abstract goals (to the extent one poses that there is a tension). To be meaningful, this survey needs to reach people far afield from the policy pages and notice boards. Wikidemo 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots in actor articles

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has a list or can explain how to create a list of actors on whose article page it is ok to have a fair-use screenshot from one of their films. For example on Gong Li and and Johnny Depp there are screenshots of both actors in films. In the case of the Johnny Depp article the image doesn't even have a fair use rationale for the Johnny Depp article, only for the Jack Sparrow article.
Is it that you can only add a fair-use image if the article already contains a pd image ? Or is the problem that I took the screenshot myself. If this is the case what would stop someone simply putting the image somewhere else on internet first, and then saying "oh look what I found"
Also a separate question, when filling in a fair use rationale am I supposed to lie and say it is not replaceable? I notice many people just fill in "no", but don't provide any proof they asked the copyright holder to release it into the public domain first, and that the copyright holder declined. If I were to write an email to the film company, and they did not answer would it then be ok to say it is not replaceable ? If so after having waited for an answer for how long?
Thanks for any answers on this, fair-use images are one of the policies I am still very confused about. Jackaranga 16:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also another question, (sorry), how come many users, including administrators overlook copyright violations, they just pretend they are not there, whereas childish vandalism is stamped out at first sight. For example in the article John Ritter there is the image Image:Jacktripper.jpg. It has been on[REDACTED] for over 2 years with no fair-use rationale. Where I live I think the penalty for making copyrighted material available on a large scale is something like 10 years imprisonment and 1 million € fine. And the penalty for looking at it is also very severe (prison sentence). However there is to my knowledge no law saying you can't add "haha lol" or something into an article, and yet this kind of thing is removed straight away. I'm not saying we should leave vandalism in place, I just don't understand all this very well. Shouldn't[REDACTED] report the IP addresses of users who upload copyrighted images without good reason and users who view these images to Interpol ? Does[REDACTED] not risk any problems by systematically failing to report copyright violations?

If[REDACTED] is not reporting the users to the authorities and the images are not bothering other users why is there a policy that regulates them ?

Thanks for any answers anyone has to all these questions, and sorry for making it so long. Jackaranga 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing a point or asking questions? Of course you should not lie. Misplaced Pages is premised on people acting in good faith, and on catching the occasional person who doesn't. If you out-and-out lie, the policies aren't built for that. In most cases a statement that an image is irreplaceable is not enough because there should be an argument as to why. However, there is currently no requirement that you prove your point by asking the copyright holder to release the image, and that would make no sense for many images where that just doesn't happen. Some images like logos and album covers are inherently irreplaceable for some uses, but in my opinion you should still use a rationale that explains why. The copyright comes not from making the screen shot but from what is on the screen. Therefore, the person who makes the screen shot is not the person you need a release from. It is the party that owns the underlying content, if any.

The draconian criminal penalties for copyright violation are for piracy, which does not apply on Misplaced Pages. Don't confuse violation of copyright with violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If there is fair use for a copyrighted image it is legal to use with or without a rationale; the rationale is only a Misplaced Pages requirement. The John Ritter image you mention violates current Misplaced Pages policies but probably not those in place or enforced at the time it was uploaded, and it does not violate US copyright laws. Misplaced Pages also prohibits a great deal of content that is legal to use.

Vandalism is a completely different issue than copyright policy. Whether one is over-enforced or under-enforced has nothing to do with whether we should enforce the other. Administrators are volunteer editors just like everyone else. They only have so much time and each has their own areas of expertise and interest. If they decide to make an issue out of one thing and not another that's their prerogative. Wikidemo 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)