Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 28 August 2007

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

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

Archives

Adding disambigs to NFCC#9

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

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

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

Not I. β 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ballot papers copyrightable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promo images as de facto free images

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

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

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

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

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

This rationale is flawed for a number of reasons. But I'm not going to restate something that has most likely been argued a mumber of times anyway. -Nodekeeper 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people actively seek to be anal-retentive, sticking to the minutiae of formality and not bending to reasonability. Most are lawyers, but some are Misplaced Pages admins. Hope you'll never have to meet one in person! -- 201.9.110.152 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Will someone explain to me... why is there a "Non-free promotional" tag if promotional images are not supposed to be used?! --Stormwatch 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Many editors such as you and myself were uniformed about the policy changes that a large cabal of editors have put into effect (following a policy statement from above). The only way that it changes is if a large number of editors stick around to change it. I am not hopeful. BTW the 'non-free promotional' tag will most likely eventually be deleted. Somebody is welcome to correct me on this. -Nodekeeper 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, nonfree promotional images are acceptable, just like any nonfree images. But they still are nonfree images, and must meet all the standard requirements (minimal use, irreplaceable, non-decorative, etc. etc.) The template just illustrates the copyright status of such an image. I doubt if it will get deleted. Seraphimblade 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a subsection on application of policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I simply see no other way of interpreting the wording of NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", than to say that the policy does require that non-free images be essential or necessary for understanding the topic. If a non-free image merely gives a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, but without reaching the level of being essential or necessary for understanding the topic, then the omission of the image will not be detrimental to understanding the topic. What NFCC8 says in simpler language is "If the article can be understood without the image, don't use it." —Angr 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't follow the WP articles on musical pieces in general. But I can say that a verbal description of, e.g., a "vestigial bonnet", to someone interested in automobile design, piques the interest in seeing what its visual appearance is. Upon seeing the image(s) of the product, a person interested in it gets a sense for what the text is referring to ("g'ol dang, there's thatthere vesitial bonnet they's talkin' about"/"Um, no, Clem, those are the tires--here's the vesigital bonnet! ", or "interesting feature; yes, judging by my recollection of earlier autos, I'd agree it's rightly called vestigial", etc.). I can also say with some confidence that the musical clips are far more dangerous from a legal standpoint, and such reproductions tend to run right into the teeth of modern copyright law. IMO, it would be sensible to devote some focus on making sure, to the best extent possible, that WP media clips do not under any circumstances exceed, either in length or audio/video fidelity, the amount of material that is presented gratis by music and video sellers to give customers a similar sense of what their product is like. ... Kenosis 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic tag needs wider discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demi Moore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure thing; but buddy, if you can't find sources discussing this photo in a cursory online search, you need to expand your toolkit. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

10(c) copyediting questions

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

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

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

Historical images and the 10 NFC criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Need guidance on WP:NFCC#3b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the personal attack. Misplaced Pages puts much stricter limitations on our use of non-free material than required by copyright law, because our goal is to be a free-content encyclopedia, so the fact that our usage is legal does not mean it meets our own requirements. Using violence in self-defense is legal too, but pacifists refrain from using violence even when it's legal. And local consensus within a single article cannot override the third pillar. —Angr 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm sorry. I take that back. It's not wacko. It's censorship to promote a GPL soapbox. In the futile search to make every single thing free, editors are being put in a prison for using content that would normally be available for such editorial purposes with nary a qualm otherwise. If that's not taking the 'free' out of '💕' I don't know what is. The irony is astonishing.

BTW you are missapplying the the third pillar. Nowhere in the third pillar does it talk about excluding all 'non-free' images. The same way that text may be 'excerpted', so should images be allowed to be 'excerpted' for editorial purposes. Neither activity is prohibited by the GFDL. Take away either, and you do not have an 'encyclopedia'. After you are done with removing all the 'non-free' images off from encylopedia, you can start in on all the scraps of text that come from 'non-free' sources -Nodekeeper 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguing this point to individual editors on this page is futile. If you object to the policy, you should address this to Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation, not to the editors who follow it in good faith. Videmus Omnia 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're not kidding. I just made it through the archives. I see that they have already passed out the kool-aid. I have not been keeping up with things for a while. I bet I'm not the only one. I was kinda stating something that has already been argued ad-nauseum. Unfortunate. There really needs to be a page about this explaining everything. So, yeah, I guess you're right. We need to purge the unholy images out. -Nodekeeper 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The default thumb setting for many users is 300px, in most cases (album/book covers, movie posters) a larger version is not necessary. If the subject is a piece of art or historic photograph, a larger image may be necessary to show the reader important details about the piece. By itself, the .1 megapixel guideline is fairly insignificant, as reproduction of print-resolution copyrighted material is only inappropriate in the majority of cases. Video game screenshots and promotional photographs, for instance, are released in high resolution specifically to promote usage of such content in print. In those cases, using > 1. megapixel images does not infringe on the copyright holder's ability to commercially distribute content. "As little as necessary" is a good guideline, however, and I have trouble imagining instances when a >.5 megapixel image is absolutely necessary. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But for those of us who hang out in Category:Non-free image size reduction request, it's nice to treat "0.1 megapixels" (or some other arbitrary figure; I like 0.09) as an absolute, because that permits us to plow through possibly hundreds in a few hours, something that careful editorial judgment simply does not permit. As I said to another editor, maybe one or two slip through that could be reduced even further, but not to the point where they're putting Misplaced Pages in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. More importantly, the backlog of images which might do so are getting cleared at a pace that judgment and careful editing would not permit. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we've had this discussion before, but I think your helper application needs to be improved so it's possible to individually specify the dimensions, so context can be considered (I'll see if I can code it over the weekend). IMO, the backlog over there isn't large enough to warrant a semi-automated run-through based on the 0.1 megapixel limit, particularly since we're currently at least three people working on it. Besides, there will nearly always be some manual editing following a rescale, as the usage in the articles often specifies a fixed with that is now wrong. --Pekaje 10:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

K. Well how about, I'll use the 1/10mp limit for images for which it is appropriate, and leave alone the ones which might require somewhat more judgment? Teamwork in action? :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. A heck of a lot of screenshots fit that description. It also works quite well for album covers, which are typically relatively square. I'm about half-way through coding the query script to locate high-res members of a specific category (like album covers), BTW. --Pekaje 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem. Here we have a semi-automated process that resizes all images to 300px without consideration of editorial concerns or presentation. Because of its arbitrary nature, some editors assume that there's a hard-coded limit to enforce, this inevitably leads to petty arguments over a few dozen extra pixels. Is there a counter-process, one that identifies images rendered illegible and worthless by resizing? :) Ultimately it is usage (& substantiality), not simply resolution, that defines copyright infringement. Online retailers and publications routinely make fair use claims on images topping *gasp* one megapixel. Misplaced Pages has far stricter standards, I know, but there is room for thought and flexibility in how we enforce them. ˉˉ╦╩ 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. If there's any arguments (other than this one) over it I've missed them entirely. The counter-process you spoke of already exists: remove the {{non-free reduce}} tag and explain why it has to be in such high resolution. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 15:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3b proposed guideline principles (basic)

I'm thinking about formulating a proposed standard over the weekend, and it would go basically along these points:

1. Generally speaking, a copy of a non-free image in the image space should not be significantly larger than conceivably needed for display in the article space.
2. The generic guideline should be 0.1 megapixels, or 300px on the long axis, whichever is larger.
3. The image should be of web, not print resolution (approx 72dpi).
4. Exceptions to the above are accepted, but the need for larger size/higher resolution should be addressed in the fair-use rationale.

I'm hoping to get some thoughts on the above general criteria - thanks! Videmus Omnia 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts ...

1. Sounds good.
2. I still don't like what sounds like a hard 300px limit. By far the most movie posters/DVD covers/book covers/game covers have an aspect ratio an currently acceptable use that they would become between 300px and 400px in width. And what exactly is meant with "whichever is larger"? Could a very thin image (as referenced elsewhere) be larger?
3. I would not spell out the 72 dpi (which is what most people consider web resolution), because it is entirely inappropriate or even impossible to determine, for a range of pictures. Think movie screenshots (how many inches is that across?), think movie posters (that could be 2000x2800). Even for comic book scans (from where this suggestion came) I think it's inappropriate in many cases. I would instead change this to "The images should be of sufficient quality for web display, with no consideration for print quality".
4. Sounds good.

Some of them sound like they could be in conflict with each other, so a clear priority should be determined. --Pekaje 10:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably start out with simple principles, then refine. Started new thread below at #Proposed rewording of WP:NFCC#3b Videmus Omnia 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reordering sections on policy page

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

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

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

1. The transcluded policy

2. The guideline examples

(a) acceptable use

(b) unacceptable use

3. Implementation and enforcement of policy and guideline

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

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

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

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

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

Fair-Use in discographies (no it's not the same discussion we've had a million times)

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

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

Good points. Thanks. Drewcifer3000 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright on highway shields

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

Encyclopedic mission versus free mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny response

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

Although quite humorous, I certainly hope not. Ben Hocking 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would agree that a "free-content encyclopedia will sometimes be inferior to an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content" in the same sense that an encyclopedia that uses fair-use content will many time be inferior to an encyclopedia that completely ignores copyright and includes every information it sees fit. In both comparisions, the second will include more information, but the information will be less usable (and I'm not event meaning "downstream reuse"). We have to stabilish wish encyclopedia we want to be, and work on that goal. In the case of Misplaced Pages, the Foundation already stabilished that. --Abu badali 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a 💕 with appropriate fair use of the most important and iconic images of our time, and contribution from millions of dedicated editors in all walks of life, is certainly the best encyclopedia there is. There is not necessarily a conflict between the goals; however, an extremist position on either side may be in conflict with one goal or both. Those who do, or purport to, hold copyrights often take the extreme position. It's in their interest to do so. Bowing down to them is giving in to their efforts to make money at the expense of freedom of information, the very cause Misplaced Pages exists to uphold. They also corrupt the legal system by making far-fetched claims about the law and, where they can, encouraging legislation to turn their fantasies into actual law. I cannot imagine an encyclopedia being complete on the subject without some use of the Iwo Jima photograph. Claiming an absolute copyright on images seared into the world's consciousness is, in effect, saying they own your mind. Not good. Wikidemo 20:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Any encyclopedia that uses non-free material under a "fair use" defense is not a free-content encyclopedia, no matter how its text is licensed. Of course it would be better if copyright laws were abolished, but until that happens, members of the free-content community serve their cause best by proving to copyright holders that we don't need them. We can write an excellent encyclopedia without their precious, precious, copyrighted material. —Angr 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We can write an excellent encyclopedia without them giving their permission for use of their precious, preciuos, copyrighted material. Haukur 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "fair use" doctrine is an *exception* to the copyright laws that is recognized by the copyright laws themselves. Use of "fair use" materials is completely legal. Your statement above contains the eroneous premise that these materials are somehow illegal; they are quite legal. What we are discussing is policy, not legality - if we were only discussing legality, there would be no objection to using "fair use" images in Misplaced Pages. -- Ssilvers 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is free in every conceivable way except by an extreme definition that assumes the conclusion that incorporating fair use content makes it unfree. What you mock when you say "precious, precious" happens to be the sum total of nearly all creative, artistic, commercial, and scholarly creations of the past 80+ years, including most documentary photographs. If you put your blinders on and ignore everything that falls under copyright you are describing a limited world, indeed. The encyclopedia, without pictures, certainly becomes less excellent. Most people believe that, and even most people who consider the issues seriously would say it's better to leave the matter up to the re-user to decide whether or not to include fair use content than to make that decision for them. As I said, it is a determined minority who advocate for eliminating visual content, and inasmuch as the free content goal hasn't made a difference so far whether they are right in the long run remains to be proven.Wikidemo 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The other point here is that if you take an extreme position on excluding non-free content, erring on the side of caution, then what happens is that you leave a large amount of borderline content to be 'claimed' as copyright by various organisations, and sold for money. Why shouldn't the free content movement stake a claim in these borderline cases? Is it because the free content movement want to be seen as purer than white, and beyond reproach? The real battleground is in ensuring that the lobbying to extend copyright again and again does not succeed, and to not miss out on tricks whereby content falls out of copyright. If all people have to do is create a little bit of doubt in the mind of those wondering is something is free, then people will back away from it and the free content movement will lose out. Don't assume because someone has put "copyright" on something, that it is true. Find out why they are claiming copyright. In the case of modern imagery, a lot can be recreated for free, but in the case of historical imagery, that is not possible. I agree that we should be encouraging the creation of free content now, but we should also be encouraging a more rigorous and sympathetic search for free content at the other end of the copyright gravy train, finding the stuff that falls off the train (ie. falls out of copyright) and staking a claim. At the moment, for historical imagery, we have a lot of wrangling and people erring on the side of caution in cases that really aren't worth the effort. If you agree with this, don't just comment here, but add something to the other long section up above. :-) Carcharoth 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are passionate calls here for a significant change to the policy. I can respect that. Abu badali and Angr above are emphatic that non-free content runs counter to the goals of wikipedia, and that it should be removed. If there is a consensus for this, then I have no problem. But you should establish that this really is a consensus, and if so then rewrite the policy accordingly. Until that occurs, it is highly inappropriate, and disruptive to the day to day work of building any kind of encyclopedia at all, to insist that your preferred stronger position is already part of the policy document. It is not.

I do have a view on what would be best in the non-free content policy. But that is secondary. My major concern, which I think it a matter of urgency right now, is one of the five core principles of wikipedia: the code of conduct. Discussion and review of delete motions for non-free content can be stressful, and here it is especially important to be tolerant and understanding of others in the community with whom we might disagree on certain points. Managing these debate requires more than simply politeness of expression. It also requires a bit of common sense about what is provocative and what is reasonable.

This page here, and the policy page, is the place to argue for changes in policy. The pages for review of non-free content should be guided by policy as written. It is disruptive of the encyclopedia and injurious to our working atmosphere to insist throughout all discussion bearing on non-free content that your perspective is actually policy now. I'm begging here. I understand you want non-free content removed. So go ahead and work towards the necessary change in policy. But let the debate on non-free content proceed without endless disruption based on desires for a new a stronger policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, avoind putting words on my mouth. I'm not againt the presence of non-free material in Misplaced Pages. --Abu badali 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not "putting words into your mouth" in the sense of attributing words to you; but I certainly am trying my hardest to give a fair account of what you want. I could get that wrong, I admit. If you can clarify any inadequacies of my description, that would be welcome.

Your comments earlier about the images having to be "necessary" does stand as a change to policy. You disagree, apparently, but I don't think you have a shred of a case. The actual words in the policy are a requirement for "significant increase in understanding", not "necessary to understanding". Where the word "necessary" appears in policy, it is in a different clause relating to quantities, and refers to having no more content than is necessary for the particular contribution of that article. Again with all due respect to you as an individual, your passionate argument on these matters throughout many debates on images throughout[REDACTED] has become disruptive of the day-to-day working of the encyclopedia and is fostering ill-will and discord. That same debate here, however, is helpful for sorting out policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs to be useful and attractive to users so that it will be used by the widest group of users. It's a very good goal to try to add free content where available, but if we are being honest, we must admit that much of the text of Misplaced Pages is added under the "fair use" doctrine: that is, it is created by COPYING existing sources and then combining and re-stating the language until the new text no longer violates the copyright laws and contains only small amounts of copying that qualify in each case under the "fair use" doctrine. Many areas of the encyclopedia would be far less useful if we could not use "fair use" materials. So why should we not add "fair use" images when suitable free images are not available? These only make Misplaced Pages richer and more useful. The goal of adding free images is a good one, and free images should replace "fair use" images as they become available. But in the meantime, IMO "fair use" images are an important, useful and user-friendly part of Misplaced Pages. -- Ssilvers 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Like fried chicken is an important and useful part of a vegan dinner party. —Angr 05:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's really the attitude, I can see where the problem might be coming from.Wikidemo 06:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a vegetarian. So, it doesn't kill chickens, but it occasionally eats an egg.SuperElephant 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody takes vegans seriously. --Knulclunk 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this isn't the right place for it, I've put a parable extending this metaphor on my user page. —Angr/talk 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Hopefully someone will do the same for the meat-garnished vegan dish. Carcharoth 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I kinda liked it (although I believe that Analogies are Dangerous(tm)). The great problem is that it's an open-for-all dinner, and some of the people joinning in don't even understand what a vegan is. --Abu badali 16:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncomparable things. People are using Misplaced Pages because they don't have to pay for it, not because it doesn't contain fair use images. If anyone wants to use it for other purposes than reading, it's simple to check which images are free and which are just fair use. Even if you delete all non-free images, there won't be higher amount of free content. And, too bad that English word "free" can mean almost anything...SuperElephant 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Angr's point is: If you want to please everyone's taste, don't call it a "vegan dinner". --Abu badali 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought my point was: If you're going to make a philosophical commitment to something, don't back down from it the moment it becomes inconvenient to you. —Angr/talk 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The slogan "The 💕 anyone can edit" is indeed misleading. THe English Wikipdedia is actually "The mostly 💕 that anyone has the revocable privilege to edit". --Abu badali 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very different from veganism. What harm it does to have fair use images?SuperElephant 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the statement of goal from the overview FAQ for Misplaced Pages; followed by the rationale from the policy for non-free content.

If you want to talk about a "single goal", you need to acknowledge that this has several dimensions. As is almost universal when designing anything, there are sometimes decisions to be made involving a tension between two facets of the goal. For example, Abu badali notes, correctly, that there is a tension between "anyone can edit" and "high quality". In extreme cases, you need to ban some individuals for the sake of other goals. In my opinion, trying to make this explicit in goal statements makes the statement of goals unclear and confusing. It is better to state the goals simply and emphatically, and rely on a bit of common sense to appreciate that sometimes you make trade offs between your goals. We've also got guidelines to policy, which can give a bit more detail and discussion, as an aid to applying policy, and for underlining the obvious for when common sense fails.

Although several people here have argued vociferously that there is no need to compromise between free content and highest quality, the policy as it stands at present asserts that there is, and provides a way to handle cases where a tension exists. The resolution in official policy does not set either "free-content" or "high-quality" as primary. If that policy changes, then fine. I will abide by it. But in the meantime, the drive for change is disruptive in those pages conducting the day to day work of applying this policy, largely because of a refusal to acknowledge that it is plainly a call for a change to official policy. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think parts of the policy needs to be suspended while these issues are worked out. Specifically NFCC#8 that certain editors use as their primary motivation for delete page article editing. -Nodekeeper 09:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Historic images

I think shorter, simpler questions might work better. :-) I would like to get advice here on whether the following statement is correct or not. "We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period." (Abu badali, 22 August 2007). This seems oversimplistic to me. Clearly {{Non-free historic image}} is meant to be applied to historic images. So I'd like to ask here where people think the line should be drawn between historic and non-historic events. I think it should apply to notable events that have a lasting impact on history, and events that are "firsts", "lasts" or things like that. The article should, of course, make clear the historic nature of the event depicted in the image, but the idea that all historic images should be at the level that the article should start to discuss the image, rather than the event (though this sometimes happens), seems to me to go too far. What do people think? Carcharoth 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case it wasn't clear, this historic argument primarily applies to NFCC#8. Obviously, if an alternative, free picture, of the event was available, we should use that (NFCC#1). Cases of NFCC#2 are a bit more tricky. Historic images often start out as newspaper pictures. The original market role is selling papers. Once those archives of newspaper pictures get sold on, and become historical archives, the market role has changed, widening from newspapers to history books and historical documentaries and encyclopedias, therefore NFCC#2 no longer applies. Is this a valid interpretation of the "original market role" clause of NFCC#2? Carcharoth 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When the market role changes to "to history books and historical documentaries and encyclopedias", NFCC#2 gets even more important, since we're direct competition for those. --Abu badali 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why is NFCC#2 written as "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."? Why not write it as "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to compete with other encyclopedias."? The reason is that other encyclopedias could use fair use as well. They often don't actually, as they can afford to pay for the images. The difference probably comes down to volume of fair use. Is there a difference between 50 fair use images in a 5000 page print encyclopedia and 5000 fair use images in a 2,000,000 page encyclopedia? Probably none, as can be seen when you look at the explicit need to make the fair use rationales be written for each case. If each use rationale applies, there is no problem. If the rationales are written individually, you have to argue against each fair use rationale on an individual basis, rather than with a blanket argument against them. Do you see what I'm saying here? Carcharoth 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I fully understand your view. Are you saying that Brittanica chooses not to use fair use because they can can "afford to pay for the images"? Are you saying that they could freely take an image from Associated Press documenting an important event and use it to illustrate their article about that event? It seems that you're saying that "this image is very useful for us" is a valid fair use claim.

Your suggested change to NFCC#2 makes it less general. The current wording already covers "compete with other encyclopedias.". I don't see your point here either. --Abu badali 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My view is that many organisations pay for possibly fair use images to 'cover themselves', and to avoid potential problems later. They also pay for the convenience of having someone else supply the image for you, rather than having to go out and get it yourself. Also, they may be a commercial organisation. Misplaced Pages is not aiming to make money (though the downstream reusers might be), but when an organisation is aiming to make money out of an image, then paying for it is generally the only option. Fair use covers things like school kids using images in a school project. If Misplaced Pages had no commercial downstream reusers, or it removed its non free content before passing on the free content, then NFCC#2 would not be a concern, IMO. Misplaced Pages would still be competing with encyclopedias that you have to pay for, but those encyclopedias can, and do, release free (ie. not costing anything) content to entice people towards their encyclopedias (think Encarta and Britannica), so removing fair use from Misplaced Pages would give commercial encyclopedias an unecessary advantage. I think. Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As for your claim that the current wording already covers "compete with other encyclopedias", I don't see that in the current wording. Sure, if the original market role was for encyclopedias, yes, but then anyone can claim that the photo they have is intended for any market, so I'm still left confused by the need for the "original market role" phrase. Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's criterion is whether the use "replace the original market role." In the case of a historical photo scooped up by a rights agency, the original market role is usually gone and there is a new role, that of being licensed out to the world. It's a lot murkier if the photo is part of a press agency from day one, because ancillary licensing for websites, encyclopedias, and any other use at all, is an intended market role of each of their photographs. That's what they are in business to do. This may be one rare case where Misplaced Pages copyright policy is not as stringent as the law and where the ten criteria, if improperly interpreted, could potentially admit an infringing image. The law uses a balancing test, not an absolute filter, but its equivalent question is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of" the work. Note that it looks to the potential, not the original market. It's an interesting question whether licensing uses that would otherwise be fair use is a legitimate market. An agency like AP buys up (or in some cases claims it has but doesn't really have) exclusive copyrights to images that had been used for a purpose, then expands the purpose to essentially include any use at all of the image. In so they basically say "our market purpose is to make people pay for fair use reproductions of photographs." Will the law support them in doing an end-run around fair use? It's not clear yet as far as I can tell. An interesting question of law that may be resolved in the next decade or two. Wikidemo 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Slowly but surely my 10 questions above are being answered. :-) Does anyone remember what the original explanation was for the "original market role" phrasing? And what does what you said above mean here and now for Misplaced Pages? Carcharoth 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A Better Process

I have a couple of thoughts after having reviewed some of the images for deletion. It seemed that there could be a more orderly method of dealing with the non-free images. First, before the wholesale deletion process started, I think that it would have been wise to collect statistics as to the use of images in the various articles to get a metric on the size of the task at hand and best startegy to use. Secondly, I think that an intermediate stage for 'non-free' images would have been appropriate. Where all the 'non-free' images would be tagged (and coded as to type of image) to give the editors and people visiting the article additional period of time. In this period of time the article editors could try to locate the origination of the image (not that I think that would have been productive, but going along this path would have been the best decision) or find a replacement or edit the article appropriately to deal with the deletion or otherwise resolve issues with the image. That would have prevented the destructive edits that are now taking place, and prevented arguing editorial decions on the IfD page, which belong on the article talk pages anyways. It would have transitioned the articles smoothly, and would have harnessed the available horsepower of the community to help deal with 'non free' images, and come up with ideas for images that are more difficult to replace such as album covers.

Then you would have had a pool of images that would be a lot smaller, easier to deal with, and easier to decide if it was really needed. Instead of the hodge podge method of sticking images up on IfD. Did anyone consider a plan of action such as this? -Nodekeeper 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a better process is needed. I fear that trying to change the processes will run into groups who are happy with the current system and who will think that changes will lead to different results for some images. What would need to be made clear is that any change would be aimed at increasing community harmony and efficiency. Better to sort images into similar groups and establish guiding principles, rather than rehash the same arguments every time. It would also be very helpful to review past IfDs and see if there are emerging consensuses out there, and then point to examples. We should have a much longer list of acceptable and not acceptable non free use, with clear explanations. I also think some NFCC concerns should be kept separate from the others. eg. Raise the most serious and obvious concerns first, eg. an NFCC#10 concern (missing source and copyright details) and allow that to be resolved or not, with a note that there are further concerns but that the primary aim should be to find a source or copyright holder before moving on to discuss the other concerns. Mixing up the clear and subjective concerns really doesn't help. In fact, maybe all IfD nominations of nonfree use should be in the form of 10 bullet points, saying whether the nominator thinks the image meets each criteria, and then pointing out what needs to be done to resolve them in each case. The current nominations suffer from an excessive use of shorthand and jargon. I'll try and find one to demonstrate. Carcharoth 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images in "list of..." articles

Hi! I've got a question regarding the non-free policy, part 3(a). For a "list of in " article, how much leeway does 3(a) provide? As a specific example: List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion was tagged today with the {{non-free}} template. There are currently 25 non-free images in the article. Of the corresponding character entries, only 10 have their own separate articles, and the rest do not have enough information to justify splitting them into their own articles, which to me would justify the use of the images for those entries even if the images for the articled characters were removed. What should be done? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of that part of the policy is that they're only disallowed for galleries and trivial lists, such as discographies and TV show season lists. In the above article there is a non-trivial amount of coverage for most of them, so I think it might be acceptable. Just because an article is called a list, does not (IMO) immediately disqualify it from having non-free images. Particularly a fictional character list does seem to need to show what the character looks like. --Pekaje 10:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) was tagged today in the same fashion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) certainly has too many images - it has multiple images per character for most of the characters. Although it might be nice to be able to illustrate our articles in this way, nonfree images are not permitted to be used so liberally. List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion is more reasonable; it uses one image per character to identify the characters. There is some debate about whether this is acceptable, but since one image would be allowed per article if these were split into separate articles, I think it can be defended. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with the above statement. For some of the entries in Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion), I wouldn't have a problem with cutting the number of images down (especially the ones with images from the trailers for the new movie, as their source can't be readily viewed by non-Japan-based web access), but for a few of the entries, the multiple images are used to depict either drastic changes in the appearance or nature of the character (especially here, since the images are taken from two separate works) or illustrate plot points of the episode of the series in which the character appears. If the entries have to be cut down regardless of this, are links to the image source(s) permitted? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some latitude for non free image use to illustrate the different ways a character is portrayed in different adaptations. For example, have a look at Frodo Baggins#Adaptations. Most people throw their hands up in horror at seeing a gallery of non free images (and one free image), and fail to stop and think about the purpose of the gallery. The gallery is not showcasing different images of the same thing, but it is putting images of different things together, and the accompanying text is given below (or above) the gallery. It is more a layout choice, than ZOMG! GALLERY! When a gallery is informative, can this over-ride the non free content criteria? Another example would be a gallery of the changing appearance of a building over time, with some free and some non-free pictures, or other historical timelines. These would seem, to me, to be justifiable collections of non free content. Normally, the images would be scattered throughout the text, but sometimes a gallery layout looks better, and is easier for the reader to follow. Can we come up with examples where galleries of non free content are acceptable? Carcharoth 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Frodo Baggins#Adaptations is acceptable. There isn't nearly enough text about the various adaptations to justify four nonfree images. This isn't a matter of the images being inside <gallery tags: it's just nonminimal use of nonfree content. Nonfree images use to illustrate the appearance of each adaptation belong in the articles about the adaptations themselves.

What is needed to support the nonfree images in that article are reference to reliable sources who have commented on the appearance of Frodo. Then we can use a nonfree image to support our commentary. But just including four images to show that the character is different in each adaptation isn't right. Of course he looks different in each adaptation. Consider a hypothetical case in which Death of a Salesman includes four nonfree images to illustrate four different actors all portraying Willy Loman in different productions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Guideline page cleanup, first step

Taking off a very small and uncontentious bite here...the "Acceptable use of text" examples. I propose rewriting this section as follows:

• Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". Text must be used verbatim: a ny alterations must be clearly marked for added text, an elipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets (). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed. In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy.

The example that follows is more confusing than helpful so let's strike it. The section will then read in its entirety:

• Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is generally prohibited.

Any objections? Wikidemo 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Videmus Omnia 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections, though I would prefer the first revised sentence end with "or attribute a point of view or idea." Excellent copyedit. --Iamunknown 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful illustration of the benefit of brevity. I think you can also omit "generally" from the last sentence? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. User:Zscout370 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it, the simpler the better. Seraphimblade 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Minimal use requirement

I propose adding to item 3a a line like: Non-free content should only be used in the main article concerning what is depicted in the image and not in ancillary or broader topics in which a subset of the main article is included.

Editors are taking a copyrighted image and sticking in multiple articles, which violates the concept of minimal use. -Nv8200p talk 04:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What stance would that take on the subject of: images of fictional characters used on both the characters' pages and the actors' pages? — pd_THOR | 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, images of fictional characters have no business on the on the actor's page. -Nv8200p talk 12:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 3 is about using as small a portion of the original as one needs, not about using it as infrequently as possible. The latter concern is already addressed in Criterion 8, which says use it only where it is significant. There are indeed a number of proper uses where the article is about a subject other than what is depicted in the image, e.g. an album cover in an article about the album (not about what is shown in the album art), a logo in an article about the company that uses the logo (not whatever image the logo depicts), etc. Similarly, a fair use image may well be significant to more than one article. A photo of a contemporary artwork may be relevant to the article about the work, as well as an article about the genre and an article about the technique used, among other things. Wikidemo 08:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image on multiple pages

The artwork Gravitation by M.C. Escher has a somewhat iconic status among us afficionados. Page Kepler-Poinsot polyhedron has a thumbnail of it next to a link, while the Small stellated dodecahedron page has only a link (but IMHO would benefit from a thumbnail too). Question: is the thumbnail Fair use? I have been assuming that its iconic status justifies its presence, since many people familiar with the appearance of the work and the name of the artist will not know the name of the work. But another person has been arguing that it is unnecessary, just a link is fine. Maybe this particular judgement hinges on how "iconic" it really is? Thoughts and advice greatly appreciated. -- Steelpillow 09:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Justified for the article about the artwork, no question. No real need to use it on any other pages though. I would just link to the artwork article from the small stellated dodecahedron page. Carcharoth 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image from small stellated dodecahedron, and removed the non free use rationale for that article from the image page. In these cases, I do think we should leave it to the readers to follow the links. They only need to see the image when they get to the article about the image. Carcharoth 10:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my point about the iconic nature of the work. WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable_uses item 4 gives, A work of art, not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably "fair use" where there is a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.) With the thumbnail there, people who visit the geometry page can see it and think for example, "well, I never realised that famous picture was one of these". If someone does not know the name of the work, they may never know what to look for unless the thumbnail is there to guide them. -- Steelpillow 11:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have an article about the image, then minimal use should suggest that it the image is only used on that article. Everything else can link to that article. In cases where there is no article about the image to link to, a non free image can be used on several articles if they have a strong claim for use of the image. It makes sense to me, but is hard to put into words. Maybe "if a non free picture can be replaced by a link to an article about the image, then this is nearly always preferable"? Carcharoth 00:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a non-free image with no article, used on three different articles. Then imagine that someone writes a well-written, informative article about that non-free image, and uses the image there. The three other articles using it can now replace their uses of the image with links to the article. Linkage and information is kept, and non free use is minimised. A win-win situation. Carcharoth 00:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. But again I refer you back to that quote, "However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably "fair use" where there is a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica." In other words, there is a getout clause where the work is "sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers". Nobody's reply has yet made reference to this, to say either "Yes, this getout clause does after all take precedence over what we just said", or "No, it does not apply in the present case because ...". This is the ruling (if that's the right word) that I am seeking. -- Steelpillow 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the Guernica example. Have a look at the Bombing of Guernica article without the image. It doesn't suffer at all, in my opinion, from a lack of the image. If people are unsure what this 'Guernica' painting is, they should click on the link. I'm normally all for articles being self-contained, and for explaining context in articles, rather than leaving the reader to click a link, but in the case of minimising use of non-free images, it makes sense to send people off to the article on the image instead, if one exists. Carcharoth 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and made changes to the policy and the guideline. Probably best to discuss in the new section below. See Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Articles with their own images. Carcharoth 16:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical images and NFCC#2

My more detailed post above got no response, though a later thread did cover the issue, so I'm raising the issue of "respect for commercial opportunities" (NFCC#2) again here. The basic issue, already covered as CSD, is a need to insert a clause into NFCC#2 saying that the mere presence of a historical image (or indeed any image) on a stock image library, or an archive image library, doesn't automatically mean that NFCC#2 should apply. Free images are sold by image libraries, though they apply the standard copyright tag to all their images regardless. These free images may be ones that were always free (eg. NASA pics) or ones that have become free (expired copyright, public domain by age). What I want to see is whether there is a consensus to explicitly acknowledge this in the NFCC#2 section.

An example of this is the following:

"The Hulton Getty Picture Collection (formerly the Hulton Deutsch Archive) scarcely needs an introduction. Based in London, this collection is universally acknowledged as the greastest library of photojournalism in the world. The collection comprises in excess of 15 million photographs, prints and engravings, including the work of such famous names as Keystone, Picture Post, Fox and Central Press. More recently, the HGPC became responsible for the management of Mirror Syndication International and for the digital archiving of the Reuters News Picture Service; it has published several CD-ROMs covering evocative images of a selection of decades from the twentieth century. HGPC is also co-operating in RACE project called MEDIATOR, which involves the production of a digital newspaper. From its vast archival collection, the HGPC is contributing 15,000 images for the main HELIX database and another 7,000 images for a module covering the Social and Political History of Britain from 1859 to the present day (SPHB)."

This and other image libraries perform a valuable service in archiving and preserving historical images, and a lot of works goes into finding, restoring and scanning old images, but I'd really like more guidance on when the images fall out of copyright, or whether historical archives can and do renew the copyrights? Note that even when images have fallen out of copyright, the image libraries will still mark them as copyright and carry on selling them. The mere presence of a historical image on an image library's website shouldn't lead to automatic cries of NFCC#2 (respect commercial opportunities). For a start, low-resolution images impact commercial opportunities to a very small extent. Image libraries provide extremely high-resolution scans for print purposes, and if we wanted high-resolution scans, we would need to do those ourselves.

I'm not sure how NFCC#2 needs adjusting for this, but how about:

"Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content should not be used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Please note that image libraries and other organisations often mark all their images as copyrighted, including ones that they have obtained from free or public domain sources, or that are now free or public domain by age. This means that the presence of an image on an image library's commercial sales website does not automatically mean this criterion applies. What also needs to be determined is the actual copyright status of the image."

Possibly all this is implied in the phrase "original market role of the original copyrighted media", but I am not sure people are actually understanding what that means. If there is a more elegant way to phrase this, please suggest it. Carcharoth 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot. Sometimes old image archives include unpublished old negatives, and the image library is effectively publishing the images for the first time. In these cases, NFCC#4 applies, so care should be taken there. Carcharoth 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that many libraries and museums maintain that they hold copyright over their collections when they in fact do not. I think, however, that there are more appropriate places, such as a copyright tutorial or essay, to detail false claim of copyright than in the non-free content criteria. --Iamunknown 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But such an essay is long overdue. I am willing to make a start, but what would be the best title? Carcharoth 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An issue I worry about is that we have no way to "determine is the actual copyright status of the image". Especially for historic images, we often have no publication information, no information on the creator, etc. As an ordinary editor, I see no way to comply with the last sentence of the policy paragraph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem. However, it doesn't stop people trying to delete historical images under NFCC#10. Maybe change to "What also needs to be determined, as far as is reasonably possible,' is the actual copyright status of the image." We should have a template for "historical images of uncertain status". We used to have {{non-free unsure}}, but for some reason (I suspect copyright paranoia) it got deprecated. Carcharoth 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you plan to differentiate "images with unknown copyright status" from "images the uploader didn't find the copyright status in a google search"?. As a side note, do you have any idea how unhealthy for a discussion it is to classify opinions you disagree with as "paranoia"? --Abu badali 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of WP:NFCC#3b

Note: This conversation originated at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Need guidance on WP:NFCC#3b.

Current wording:

(b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace.

Proposed wording:

(b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used. The copy in the Image: namespace will not be significantly larger than that needed for display in the Article: namespace. A need for higher resolution must be justified in the fair use rationale for the image.

Hopefully an agreement on the basic principle will allow to develop better/more specific guidelines, but I think an agreement on whether or not the Image space copy needs to be larger than the Article space copy is an important first step. I understand there will be exceptions, I just invite comment on the general rule. Videmus Omnia 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no to this proposed change. #3 is about all media files. Please keep in ming that the types of media files that are the most problematic in present-day copyright law are audio and other non-still files. Low resolution still images need only be adequately low resolution that the image copied off of a Misplaced Pages page cannot be used to produce a counterfeit version of the image that could be sold by someone or otherwise used in a way that would interfere with or dilute the creator/publisher's ability to make money off of it. Generally, with a book, magazine, comic book cover, any resolution equal to or less than what' already widely put on people's browsers by, say, Amazon and the numerous mirror sites, or Barnes and Noble, Borders and other booksellers, is adeuqate to meet this standard. If someone wants to undertake a project to copy and reduce the jpeg resolution of images en masse, then that's a separate discussion that should under no circumstances be part of NFCC #3. If anything should require discussion under #3(b) it would rightly only be resolutions that are greater than that already widely disseminated by booksellers, article sellers, audio/CD/DVD sellers to offer their products for sale to the public. ... Kenosis 14:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is the first I've heard that #3 is about media files. I've been digging and can't find the previous conversation on this - can you point me that way? The thinking behind the proposed change is the statement in the licensing resolution that says "...EDPs must be minimal." If a 300px image is all that is required for illustration, then a 700px image in the Image: namespace is not "minimal". Videmus Omnia 16:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

VO, sorry, I thought this was understood that the Board, in its Resolution, was giving an (er, pardon me) "illustration" of the principle, using an "image" to give WP a (pardon me again) "picture" of what they were referring to. But #3 is about NFC in general, most relevantly NFC media files, which of course includes still images. Minimal use is also a term of art in copyright law, but in the NFCC it refers to all kinds of media files. Thus the use of "high-resolution/fidelity" and similar terms. ... Kenosis 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I've gotten accustomed to thinking of "media" in terms of audio/video, my bad. Speaking in general terms, why would Image space copies need to be significantly larger than Article space copies? Videmus Omnia 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this proposed rewording actually belongs as supplementary clarification in the guideline page? --Pekaje 16:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size states: In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting). This is a small image, which gives an impression, but not much detail, which is why a bigger image would need to be available in Image: namespace. Images on the web with a maximum dimension of 500 or 600 pixels are generally regarded as low resolution, so it might simplify matters to pick a maximum dimension of 550 pixels and define that as low res for our purposes, as the image use policy states this size "can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors". Tyrenius 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, that is for the size used in the actual article, and is meant for all images. The NFCC policy is additional requirements for non-free content, and can (and IMO should) certainly impose stricter requirements. --Pekaje 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I see where you're coming from - however, that section doesn't differentiate between free images (the bigger the better) and non-free images ("must be minimal"). Videmus Omnia 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The thumbnail option in articles, defaulting to 180 pixels wide, is recommended for all images, free or not. The current proposal wording ties the Image namespace size in with that, or else encourages people to needlessly make the article image bigger, so the Image namespace size can be justified as being bigger. It makes life simpler for everyone and prevents numerous arguments, unexpected deletions and bad feelings, to simply set a size for non-free images. I am suggesting 550 pixels maximum dimension, with maybe a preference for a smaller size where possible, say 350 pixels maximum dimension (but failing to meet this would not be a cause for deletion). It makes sense to base the protocol on the Image namespace size, which will be a constant, whereas the article image size is liable to fluctuation through editing. Tyrenius 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We're getting away from use rationales as it is. I wouldn't support making them a dumping ground for more information or creating any more busywork, particularly not the obvious. Moreover, there are already rules and a procedure for reducing image sizes and challenging images, and I see no sign of a significant problem that warrants adding new things to policy. Finally, policy violations are enforceable by deletion. Overly large images should not be deleted, they should just be shrunk.Wikidemo 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That was always my understanding until recently, where there have been disputes over image size in the Image space. A policy/guideline specifying a threshold would be extremely valuable in preventing disputes/wasted time. I really like Tyrenius' suggestion, above, though I would prefer the common-law 0.1 megapixels (which is unfortunately confusing to some people). A 550px image would be pretty narrow on the other axis to fit within this. Videmus Omnia 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess basically what I am asking for is an image equivalent of Misplaced Pages:Music samples, which specifies length and sampling rate for non-free audio. Videmus Omnia 19:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be very unwise to say that no images can be wider than 550px. For one thing, this would quickly become unfair in the case of very tall images. Also, software screenshots are often 800x600 pixels wide, and any reduction in resolution would make them difficult or impossible to read, thus defeating their purpose. —Remember the dot 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I said max dimension, i.e. height or width. Neither to be larger than 550 pixels. If that's correct about screenshots, then it can be listed as an exception. There can be exceptions. Tyrenius 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any articles where images that large are displayed? Videmus Omnia 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Few, if any, because of basic layout concerns. Some images require 500-600px resolution to maintain a proper, decipherable presentation, e.g. Dali's Hallucinogenic Toreador. I'd say that a max dimension of 550 is reasonable, this would roughly translate to a .3 megapixel limit. Exceptions could be made for certain classes where print resolution doesn't matter, like software screenshots. Fair use claims on sound files are traditionally limited to 30 sec. or less. Anyone know what to do with PDFs? :) ˉˉ╦╩ 21:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For 0.1 megapixels you have elsewhere cited Image:John Cleese.jpg, which is w x h, 246 x 365 pixels, which seems a bit on the small side for anything with much detail. It also seems restrictive compared with the music standard of 10%, as on this reckoning the original image would be 1 megapixel. It depends on what is meant by "original image", but even family digital cameras would far exceed this to generate an image. Tyrenius 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Professional cameras today are well over 10 mega pixels. A check of a typical image (42-18102696) on the Corbis site shows that 427 by 640 is lowest resolution offered. The highest resolution for this image is 3400 by 5100 (17 mega pixels). Corbis recommends the low resolution image for a 1 inch by 2 inch print.

I don't think a pixel limit is the best way to test the appropriateness of an image size. 300 by 300 may be too generous for a postage stamp and too small for a movie poster. A pixel per inch limit may be a better metric. If the text on a magazine cover is significant to the article it must be readable. Shrinking the image so the text is illegible is vandalism. (I am talking about reasonable fair use image sizes. For example: A 400 by 500 existing image resized down to 240 by 300 to meet a 300 pixel rule.) -- SWTPC6800 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A max dimension (height or width) of 550 pixels is less than the lowest resolution offered by Corbis, then — and even that is only considered suitable for a 1 x 2" print. I suggest a yardstick of a maximum size to start with (with stated exceptions). Maybe it would be a good idea to look at different subjects and image sizes already on Wiki/Commons to see what works. Tyrenius 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Images that mainly serve to illustrate a copyrighted item

I am interested in opinions on Image:Seagate_160_GB_hard_drive_box.jpg. Our longstanding practice is that this is a nonfree image because it is a derivative work of its subject. Recently there is a discussion on commons about such images, including a comment by our lawyer that I don't understand . For our purposes, is this image "non-free"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, it isn't, though I could be wrong. 17Drew 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of what he (Godwin) is saying there, is that we shouldn't delete such images, or overly restrict their usage, unless we (ie. the Foundation or the OTRS people) receive a complaint. But best to check with him directly, obviously. My view would be to tag the image as copyright, or use a tag that states that it is of a trademarked object or copyrighted design, and then provide a non free use rationale. And then show Godwin's comment to 'those who have a narrow interpretation of Misplaced Pages's non free use criteria and argue for the deletion of the image', while you respond by politely suggesting that it really wouldn't do any harm to keep the image. Then, if the image still gets deleted, take it to deletion review, quoting Godwin at each stage if needed, though don't rely too much on Godwin's quote. If he gets involved, all the better. If not, you've made a principled stand. Obviously, you won't be able to tag with a copyright tag on Commons, so upload it to Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I may be the one with the narrow view here. If we have to put a nonfree use rationale on this, then it isn't a free image, and for the use it has in the article it's replaceable. The question is whether we can just put a GFDL tag on it and nothing else (which is what I believe the uploader would like to do). — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on. I thought the image was being used in the article about the product. I was wondering why someone took a photo of the packaging and not the product inside. Then I realised it was being used to show misleading labelling. Scrub the above. Godwin's comment doesn't apply here. The labelling does not need to be illustrated. It can be described by text, and needs to be sourced to reliable sources, not 'proven' by a series of photographs. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for exposes or original research or investigative journalism. Carcharoth 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's comment still applies: "a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues." That is regardless of any article content. The objection, "not a place for exposes or original research or investigative journalism" applies to the article per WP:NOR, but is not relevant to the photo copyright issue. Tyrenius 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This photo doesn't "happen" to include the copyrighted work - the entire purpose of the photo is to reproduce it. A particular reading of Godwin's comment might suggest that a photo of an album cover serving only to reproduce the cover could be a free image. That's why I said I don't understand Godwin's comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the image given as an example at the beginning of the thread Godwin commented on: Image:CornNuts Dscn0266 crop.jpg. It seems to be the same situation as the example you are querying. A possible rationale is that the photo is of a package (cardboard boxes aren't copyright) which happens to have a design on it. An album cover reproduction is usually just of the design as the substantive part of the image. Maybe if the album cover was at an angle in a larger setting it would just "happen" to have a copyright work included. That is only speculative and it really needs further definition from him. Tyrenius 02:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how significantly featured the copyrighted/trademarked work is. If I take a photo of a street scene, and included in that photo happens to be a Starbucks logo on a visible store and a discarded Coke can in the street, Starbucks or Coke can't come after me—their inclusion is incidental. On the other hand, if I obviously set up a Coke can with a totally white background and nothing else in the shot, and it's the obvious subject of the photo, Coke can probably claim it as a derivative work. Seraphimblade 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is not a general theory, which is more difficult anyway. I'm looking for opinions about whether th eimage named above is free or nonfree. That's a specific question that should be simpler to answer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New class of acceptable images

I've added a new class of acceptable images. See my edits here. The new text is: "Iconic and historic images: Some images attain iconic status (eg. Che Guevara (photo) and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." Does anyone have any problems with that? Carcharoth 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add that these images should only be used in the context of commentary about the images themselves, but recent ifd discussion are implying that now we can use any good image for any purpose (even when in direct competition with the copyright holder) as long as it's useful for us.

Personally, I'm not sure I still care. Maybe we could remove all but item #4 in WP:NFCC. It would save a lot of time wasted on deletion discussion while just marginally increasing the number of non-free material uploaded daily.--Abu badali 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to discussions I participated in, or other ones? I don't follow IfD that closely. I did notice a lot of effort being expended on that evolution image. Is that an example of what you were talking about, or do you mean other ones? If you mean historical ones (I saw the Nobel photos debate as well), then I seriously doubt that old black-and-white photos account for most of what is uploaded every day, though I'd welcome being corrected on that. Carcharoth 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles with their own images

Articles about non free images provide a convenient way to minimise non free use. I've edited NFCC#3a with this edit to say "If an image has its own article, other articles should link to that rather than use the image." Does this seem like a logical and non-destructive way to minimise non free use? I've also modified the Guernica example here. Carcharoth 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that's appropriate in every instance, so I'd rather not see it in the policy. I'd rather have the guideline strongly encourage this kind of minimization of use. Not sure how to phrase it, though. --Pekaje 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Encourage rather than set in stone, I'd agree. The problem with putting stuff in the guideline and not the policy is that the policy doesn't clearly say "see guideline below" it relies on people to carry reading past "the fold". Also, the guideline doesn't currently refer back to the policy, and specifically the numbers. Carcharoth 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't find where was this (rather substantial) change was discussed. Since this talk page and its archives are getting quite long, could you point me to it? --Pekaje 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free_content#Non-free image on multiple pages. But that was really a preliminary discussion, and I gauged that the response (or lack of responses) was enough for me to be bold and get more responses by actually making the changes. So the real discussion is taking place now. It is dispiriting to make suggestions and comments (read the many talk page threads above) and get little response. I've seen too many discussions bog down and not achieve anything, so I wanted to try something different here. I note my other bold change above (the historical one) hasn't generated any opposition so far. Carcharoth 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The change gives an invalid commentary on NFCC#3a. The third criteria makes no mention of multiple uses of the same item. It is about multiple items where one item will suffice. The commentary that has been added gets this wrong.

The proper basis for omitting the image from Bombing of Guernica would be lack of critical commentary in that article. The policy does not include a limit to the number of articles, but rather general restriction on any use in any article, which are sufficiently onerous in their own right that use will limited to a small number of articles where it is of significant relevance. I think the policy gives the appropriate way to manage the balance between high-quality and non-free content; and that this change to the guideline gets the plain meaning of NFCC#3 wrong. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I've confused excessive non free use in a single article with using the same image in multiple articles. I do think that something along the lines of what I said in the earlier section should go in though. "Imagine a non-free image with no article, used on three different articles. Then imagine that someone writes a well-written, informative article about that non-free image, and uses the image there. The three other articles using it can now replace their uses of the image with links to the article. Linkage and information is kept, and non free use is minimised. A win-win situation." - I now recognise that this is a separate issue, but would you support something like this being added somewhere? Carcharoth 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems rather unhelpful for someone who can't click to another article (such as someone reading a paper version of an article). 17Drew 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is unlikely that paper versions would use non free images. I may be wrong though. In any case, people reading a paper version would see a bold name, and turn to the page with that article on it. This is quite normal in print encyclopedias, who have less room for pictures and so tend to keep them where they are needed. Carcharoth 23:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, I think that if there is a consensus that an image helps to give an increase in understanding to an article, and if there is commentary specifically on the image, then it should be permitted for use in that article. But if all critical commentary on the image is deferred to another article dealing with the topic more thoroughly, then the image should be limited to the other article as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds very close to what I've just put here. I also removed the Guernica example (while reverting back to the previous wording), as it is not clear enough, in my opinion. Would you be able to change my edit to add your exception ("if there is a consensus that an image helps to give an increase in understanding to an article, and if there is commentary specifically on the image, then it should be permitted for use in that article")? Carcharoth 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae, I agree with the version you wrote, but indented it, as I'm unsure if we need to preserve numbering or not. People don't generally refer to these examples by numbers do they? They should probably be rearranged and organised thematically anyway. Carcharoth 00:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsie... edit conflict. Try again. Here is my attempt, with indent shown also.

I've also replaced "extensive" with "critical". The policy does not require "extensive" commentary, and I don't think that should be implied. I've gone ahead with the change... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced all "extensive"s with "critical"s, and added some more "critical"s in other places. Carcharoth 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to print versions of the entire encyclopedia. I'm referring to off-line versions of articles or mirrors where there aren't any links used. The whole idea behind summary style is that the article can stand and be understood on its own. If the article needs an image to properly discuss a topic, then readers should not need to go to another article to understand what's being said. They should need to go to the other article if they want further details. 17Drew 08:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Related: A new numbered point has been added as follows:

As worded, this addition goes beyond limits on non-free content, and actually expresses a limit on content in general, apparently in an effort to ensure that any argument for using an image is removed. I oppose this addition to the guideline. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I modified that with "in general", but I see it merely as a rewording of what you wrote: "A non free work of art should not be used in an article if all critical commentary is given in a separate article on that artwork. A link takes readers to the image and the commentary." How is that any different from what I wrote? Carcharoth 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording given here actually advises limits on the critical commentary on other pages. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I'll retract that example. OK, I've now done that, but generalised your wording to cover all images, not just artworks. Carcharoth 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch; yes, I should have said images. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A change by User:Wikidemo has the same problems as I identify above.

This change goes beyond rules about non-free content, and makes a general restriction on content in an article itself. It should not be presumed that discussion in the context of one article should be deferred to an another article specifically on the image. There are many conceivable cases in which an article on a particular topic might consider issues related to the image which are properly discussed in the context of the special topic, rather than in the article about the image itself. We should not be attempting to constrain the content of articles as a way of controlling non-free images. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Large percentage of casual readers

I've just tided up unacceptable uses 4 and 5 with this edit. I hope the shorter wording still preserves the spirit of the examples. The main change was to remove the hopelessly subjective "not sufficiently well known to be recognized by a large percentage of casual readers" clause. Those wanting to keep an image will say it is sufficiently well known, and those wanting to remove an image will say the reverse. The "large percentage" and "casual readers" bits are hopelessly vague. I've replaced all that with "unless the itself becomes the subject of extensive commentary." This is far more objective and easier to prove. Does this look OK? Carcharoth 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's much better, and you're correct it's much more objective. It's also in line with the general principle that we decide by sourcing (or lack thereof), not personal viewpoints or guesses. Though we might want to define that the extensive commentary should be in reliable sources, otherwise we'll get people trying to use blog chatter or the like. Seraphimblade 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern with the word "extensive". The phrase in policy is "critical", which I think is better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've added lots of "from reliable sources" throughout, plus some other minor changes. See here. That also introduced one big change, which I'll discuss in a new section, but could someone do a sanity check on that edit? The section above (and Duae Quartunciae in the comment directly above) also suggests that extensive should be replaced with critical, which I'd be happy with. I don't care either way as far as that goes. Carcharoth 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to guideline examples

I'm going through some of these trying to keep the tone and format consistent from one example to the next, avoiding unnecessarily specific examples, keeping things short and to the point. Also, "from reliable sources" is not a relevant issue here. Everything on Misplaced Pages must be sourced. However, the issue is that there must be commentary (or whatever else the issue is) in the article about the image; whether there is commentary about the images in reliable sources is not directly relevant. The commentary in the article is not from reliable sources exactly (it is from a Misplaced Pages editor, technically). Rather, it is sourced to reliable sources. But that goes without saying because under WP:V everything must be. So no need to repeat it throughout the examples. I'm concerned we might be going a little fast....if it works, fine, but an effort to change too many examples too quickly could crash. Despite / in addition to these changes we'll still need to go through all of the examples methodically and clean them up. That might be safer one section at a time on a "proposal" page or section. Wikidemo 08:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - in going through these some more I found I could not constructively deal with them except by reverting (which I didn't want to do) or going all the way to edit them as they should be. I hope that's not too big of a chunk all at once but there really is no middle ground. I've tried not to change the meaning or purpose of any examples. I eliminated quite a bit of redundancy and extraneous detail so if you see something specific missing, it's probably there in a different form. Also, generally attempted to iron out inconsistencies in terminology, tone, format, numbering, etc. A few things that came up --

• Vis-a-vis my last comment "sourced xxxxxxx" is probably the best phrasing, not "xxxxx from reliable sources." Phrased that way it's accurate and brief.
• "critical commentary" should in nearly all cases be "commentary." The word "critical" comes from the copyright statute but is not properly used as an adjective to describe commentary - in the statute it is "criticism or commentary." We don't do criticism here on Misplaced Pages, we just do commentary.
• For similar reasons "analysis" is probably not a good word to use and should be changed to "commentary" too. Analysis implies original editorial contributions. We don't analyze, we just comment.

-- Wikidemo 09:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it will all come out in the wash. I probably did make too many changes too fast, but if you go through each diff, you should be able to see how the text evolved. I'm going to look through the changes, but from what you say above, they look fine. Carcharoth 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked through the recent changes, and they look fine. In fact, the re-organisation by theme has made things much clearer. A few points:

• Could the examples of Guernica (painting) and Che Guevara (photo) be restored. Possibly even a mention of Category:Photographs if people want examples of photographs that have articles, or parts of articles, written about them. For example, the media impact image of a Buddhist monk self-immolating is discussed at Thich Quang Duc#Political and media impact, something that unfortunately seems to be missing from Phan Thị Kim Phúc and others.
• "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." - could there be more guidance on this? I know it is difficult to draw the line, but examples of what might be considered excessive, and what might not, would be helpful.
• If possible, could we have an explicit mention of {{non-free historic image}}, or even a link to a separate guideline explicitly explaining how the main Category:Non-free image copyright tags relate to the NFC criteria.

I'm also going to raise the text issue in more detail below. Carcharoth 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Retired people

I added "Care should be taken over retired groups and people, as images of them now may not serve the same purpose as images of them during their career." to suggest the possibility of some exceptions for the living people rule. This could be controversial, so I'm raising it here (along with nearly every edit I've been making to the page). The argument goes that pictures of an actor or sportsperson or musician during their career are the encyclopedic ideal, and that pictures of them long after they have retired, maybe when they are very old, may be less than ideal. The equivalent for buildings, which I didn't mention, is that a building may get partly demolished or rebuilt or extended. In other words, the appearance might change significantly. What's the verdict on this? My guess is it comes down to whether the change in appearance is discussed in the article or not, or whether the mere act of illustrating a unique historical moment is enough. Carcharoth 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is already covered. The key here is wheter or not a free licensed image can be created to serve the same ensyclopedic use. If the image is spesificaly used to discuss how someone looked while they where active 40 years ago then obviously a random photo of them today won't do the same job. That said it obviously needs to be used in that way in the article and explain why it's use is significant in it's rationale. It may well be non-replacable, but if it's not significant either it will still fail the criteria, albeit a different part of it. --Sherool (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image used in multiple articles

I disagree with the following clause currently present in the guideline as an example of inappropriate use:

This seems to go against the policy, in which it appears to be expected that an image can appear in more than one article, as long as it meets the criteria in all instances. This clause also runs the risk of going against the minimal use clause WP:NFCC#3. The intent of the minimal clause is to limit the number of different images. It is desirable to have one image used in different articles, rather than have different images for each case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how using the image in only one article rater than two would go against any of the non-free policies... Sure the same image can be used in more than one article provided it meets all the criteria (for example a picture of two fictional characters could be used in each of theyr articles), but one of the criteria is minimal use, and if there is an article spesificaly about the image there is no need to inline it as illustration in other articles that mention that image, just link to it's article. If there are significant discussion about the image in two different articles most of it should probably be merged to the image article anyway. Using an the image in only one article rater than two sounds like it's entierly in line with mininal use to me. --Sherool (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not go against the policy, so much as add an additional criterion not in the policy, and unreasonably limiting on non-free images that have been recognized as acceptable. The minimal use criterion is all about limiting the amount of a particular non-free item; and makes no mention of limiting the number of articles in which it may be used. The policy already has tough requirements, which must be satisfied for every article in which an item is used. The irony is that restricting an image from an otherwise well justified use, simply because of its use in a different article, might actually work against minimal use, in that there becomes a motive to look for a second image that is not used elsewhere.

Minimal use, as described in policy, is best satisfied by ensuring that if there is good case for using non-free content under the policy criteria, then the image is best to be one that is already accepted for use in another context. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From a copyright perspective, each I believe each individual placement of the image counts as a separate infringement for which a fair use defense has to be provided. It doesn't matter whether you have three infringements of picture A or one infringements each of pictures A, B, and C. Hence if a disgruntled editor replaces the removed picture with something else, it's the same situation, not worse. Therefore, this rule can potentially only improve the situation, not make it worse. (Though, I'm still not sure whether I support it.) nadav (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of proud of the way I phrased that :(. The example dovetails with the prohibition against lists and galleries, and also a style issue, that it is better to link to the main article about a topic than to have a mirror or alternative discussion about the topic outside of its main page. Thus, in an article about peanuts you wouldn't have a section complete with pictures of Snoopy, Charlie Brown, and Lucy van Pelt (Note, how the real article does some of that, though). Rather, if you do have a list or section on the characters you keep the list short and link to the main articles. By contrast, it is okay to use the image of the painting No. 5, 1948 in the article on abstract expressionism because it's not used in the context of a redundant section on the painting, but rather to illustrate the characteristic style of the movement. Please note the intent is for users to omit non-free images entirely in favor of a link, not to encourage them to hunt for an alternate non-free image. Indeed, using an image more than one place when one place will do, or an image when a link will do, both run against the spirit of minimal use (even if they're not a clear violation of that policy). However, I don't have a strong feeling one way or another. Wikidemo 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If our goal is to generate reuseable content, then images should appear everywhere they're needed. A CD version of Misplaced Pages's content, or a print version will almost certainly drop a lot of "minor" pages, which probably includes most specific image pages. WilyD 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should appear everywhere they are needed. But if there is an article on a particular person, there's no need to put a nonfree image of the person on every article that mentions the person, since we expect readers to follow links when they want to learn more. The same applies to fictional characters, works of art, etc. That's what was meant by "article about the image". — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Images probably in the public domain

I have raised a question here about how to handle images which are probably, but not certainly, in the public domain. I'd appreciate any feedback there. – Quadell 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be relevant: Save Orphan Works. --Abu badali 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we discussing this here or there? Can someone consolidate the discussion and relocate everything to one location? I think a note on DRV pointing here is best. For what it is worth, DRV shouldn't be taken as precedent. The people at DRV are no more or less competent than the people at IfD. It is entirely possible to renominate an image that was overturned at DRV, and get a new IfD consensus to delete. Of course, what is really needed is authoritative information. Carcharoth 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts of copyrighted text

I'd like to consider the acceptable use of text:

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

Some examples, taken from articles on works by J. R. R. Tolkien because I know where to find them, though I am sure more representative examples can be found:

• A Elbereth Gilthoniel - three versions given, but no commentary to justify such extensive quoting.
• The Road Goes Ever On (song) - again, different versions given, some comparison and commentary, but probably not enough to justify the extensive quoting, though unlike the previous example, only the first poem is given in full. The later stanzas are just excerpts, though still fairly long ones.
• Oath of Fëanor - again, different versions of a poem. The thing that struck me here was that these versions are scattered through different books, and I was only aware of a few of them. Though I own copies of all the books (The History of Middle-earth series), I haven't read them all. In effect, the gathering together of the poems here has made it unnecessary for the reader to read them in the posthumous books, though some (many?) will follow this article up in the posthumous books.
• Namárië used to be only an extract, but now has changed beyond all recognition, with a full quote and translation and previous version.
• Errantry and The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late, are examples of extracts only.
• Secret Fire is an example of quotes giving examples of a phrase.
• Malbeth the Seer, and All that is Gold Does Not Glitter are examples where the quoting may be excessive.
• Bilbo's Last Song, Fastitocalon and The Mewlips, are examples where there are no quotes at all.
• The opening section of Mirkwood is a good example of a justified quote for the "beyond Myrcwudu" bit.
• The One Ring is an interesting example. It used to have a template that quoted the Ring Verse, but that got deleted. I then made these changes to "reduce quote and add commentary and explication". I wasn't terribly surprised to find, while writing this, that someone had later 'helpfully' extended the quote with this edit.
• Finally, J. R. R. Tolkien itself has quotes from his letters and some quotes from his essays. An example of more extensive quoting from his letters can be seen at The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series).

Anyway, this has been discussed before at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Middle-earth, along with the need to consolidate and merge some of the more obscure articles on minor stuff that only die-hard Tolkien fans are interested in. A different, and even more extensive approach is seen on another wiki here. Not all those entries on that other wiki quote the whole poems, but some do, such as this. Some quote excerpts, such as this. An extremely extensive quote is here. Those are all examples of early stuff, but examples from The Lord of the Rings include this and this and this. I realise that others doing this is no defence, but wanted to give examples outside Misplaced Pages. Another example is the approach taken at The Encyclopedia of Arda (which is not a wiki), such as here, where they give a short quote for "atmosphere". Of course, Misplaced Pages is aiming for encyclopedic content, rather than atmosphere, and explicitly avoids literary analysis. Anyway, getting away from wikis and other sites, and back to this one, without commenting overly much on the fannish aspects and some instances of original research, I'd appreciate any guidance on when quoting something becomes overly extensive, and on what is the best way to handle this, especially with regards to literary analysis. There is a growing body of secondary literature on Tolkien's works, and much stuff can be reliably sourced on the literary analysis angle. How much is it acceptable to quote to help illustrate a particular point of literary analysis that is being made? Carcharoth 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How much text to quote is a complex subject that depends on so many factors that the subject seems to resist any rule of thumb or quick summary. The Tolkein gateway goes well beyond what we would allow and includes some things that in my opinion are clearly outside of fair use and are therefore copyright infringements. But as an example of how complex this is, including an entire copyrighted poem, whether in original English, or one of Tolkein's invented languages (or in somebody's translation of them), seems wrong because it replaces the original in its entirety and goes far beyond the minimal amount necessary for commentary or analysis. Even an entire stanza of a long poem is unnecessarily wrong unless the whole stanza is needed for the commentary. If a poem is only one line or one stanza then it might be too much to quote the whole thing even if a quotation of equal length would be reasonable if it's only a small part of a longer work. Moreover, most links to Tolkein poems are going to be links to copyright violations and therefore disallowed. We might just be stuck here, with no practical way to do certain things. On the other hand, it's equally clear (in my opinion again) that it's okay to quote the entire "One ring to rule them all" poem in its entirety, if that's used for analysis. The reason? It is not a freestanding poem. Nobody buys a book of poetry just to read that poem. It is a tiny part of a much long novel, and quoting the poem is transformative and in now way replaces the commercial value of novel. There are many, many articles, essays, tutorials, etc., about this in the context of fair use.

I wouldn't put any of that in these guidelines because anything we could say would either be too short to be helpful as guidance, or if complete it would be so long it would bloat an already-long page here. But it might make sense to have a separate sub-page, guideline, or essay, on how to quote text, when it is okay, and how much is okay. Also, how to link to sources when quoting text. Do we have something like that already? If not that would be a good project. There are lots of examples on the net of people doing this in the context of fair use. Of course our rules are a little different than fair use but it might be useful to review some of these to see the different issues and situations that arise and how they're handled. Wikidemo 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. I think quotes of single lines, or several lines from poem, with ellipses, might be the way to go. Would I be right to say that separate quotes, broken up, put out of order, and each quote relating to a point raised in some independent souce, would be OK? For example: "The poem in question starts with line 1. In 1990, Professor X said this about line 5 of the poem. In 1994, line 3 of the poem was used as the title of a music album. In 1996, literary critic Y interpreted line 4 to mean this. In 2003, a book published on Sindarin translated line 2 as this." If the whole poem was 5 lines long, with the first line provided for identification purposes, then would quoting all the other lines, out of order as described above, be acceptable? Theoretically, the whole poem could be reconstructed in order, but I think the above is OK. I agree that some of the examples in our articles go too far. That will be something that needs to be looked at in the not too distant future. Carcharoth 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of NFCC#8 (image significance for article)

I wondered if it is worth comparing four different approaches to commentary on an image:

• Image:Time evolution wars.jpg in Intelligent design: "The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005. The cover shows God facing off against a chimpanzee"
• Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg in Neville Chamberlain: "During his tenure as Chancellor, Chamberlain emerged as the most active minister of the government. In successive budgets he sought to undo the harsh budget cuts of 1931; he also took a lead in ending war debts, which were finally cancelled at a conference at Lausanne in 1932. In June 1933, Britain hosted the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Describing the event as the "most crucial gathering since Versailles," top U.S. newsmagazine Time featured Chamberlain on its cover, referring to him as "that mighty mover behind British Cabinet scenes, lean, taciturn, iron-willed... t is no secret that Scot MacDonald remains Prime Minister by Prime Mover Chamberlain's leave.""
• Image:Burningmonk.jpg in Thich Quang Duc: "Browne's photographs quickly spread across the world wire services and leapt off the front pages of newspapers worldwide. no news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one In Europe the photos were hawked on the streets, and Communist China distributed millions of copies of the photo throughout Asia and Africa as evidence of “US imperialism”. One of Browne's photos remains affixed to the sedan in which Thich Quang Duc drove to his self-immolation and is part of a tourist attraction in what is now Ho Chi Minh City commemorating the event."
• Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima: "The photograph was extremely popular, being reprinted in thousands of publications. Later, it became the only photograph to win the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in the same year as its publication, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images of the war, and possibly the most reproduced photograph of all time." (from the lead section), plus Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima#Legacy and other sections.

Given the examples above, is it possible to come to an objective decision on NFCC#8 cases? There is a whole spectrum of way to add commentary, from a range of sources. What should be assessed? The relevance of the visual information to the commentary, the impact of the actual image, the lasting legacy, or what? Many more examples can, and should be provided, to guide people on this.

On a separate, but related issue, I think some consideration should be given to the educational nature of historical images. I think the simplest way to put this is that sometimes old images are needed in history articles purely to increase the reader's understanding of the history. Text descriptions can only go so far, and the educational value of showing what things looked like at the time cannot be overestimated, in my opinion. This would apply even when the particular picture was not iconic or remembered as a picture. Thoughts? Carcharoth 09:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a really random result, that gets the policy badly wrong. Of these images, the one that has the best cause for actually increasing understanding of the topic itself is the one that was deleted. It reflects the fact, meaning no offense, that people are actually being guided more by the iconic nature of the image than by real contribution to understanding as provided for in the policy. The other images are more forceful and memorable, I grant. This seems to be the real basis for decisions, I guess. IMO —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The second one might get deleted as well. A parallel discussion is going on at User talk:Neil#Interpretations of NFCC#8. I'm going to try and end that and ask him to copy his thoughts over here. I'll bring my comments over as well. Carcharoth 11:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(copied across) Well, of the four examples you give, only the latter two contain critical commentary on the image (note that critical is not used in the sense of criticism, rather in the sense of discussing the value/impact/legacy/etc of the image). I don't, personally, see how showing Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg adds to the current text when the current fair use criteria are applied. It is possible to come to a subjective decision - the important question as regards the NFCC#8 criterion is "is the image itself (not what the image portrays, or the fact the image exists) discussed within the article"? If yes, NFCC#8 is met. I agree that educational value of "what things looked like at the time" would be really useful; this is not, at present, within the criteria - and in the present climate, I don't forsee any attempt to make the less stringent or more inclusive being succesful. Neil ム 11:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe sustained impact is a better way to phrase all this? The two TIME images certainly had an impact at the time, but it needs distance in time to ascertain the historical legacy of something. My gripe is with 70+ years old images which are old enough, in my opinion, to qualify as genuinely historically educational (eg. Image:1heldeplatz.jpg), without the image itself having its own legacy. The problem seems to be people applying the letter of NFCC#8, rather than the spirit of it. Historical images that are educational due to their age are definitely in the spirit of NFCC#8, in my opinion. My evidence for the spirit comes from {{non-free historic image}}, which seems to have been meant for images of historic moments regardless of whether the image was itself notable with its own impact and legacy, and also, surprisingly to some, from the Foundation licensing policy itself: : "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." I can't interpret that any other way than to say that the WMF is saying that it is OK to use images just to illustrate historically significant event. NFCC#8, which is part of Misplaced Pages's response to the WMF policy, seems to go beyond what was intended. What do people here think? Carcharoth 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the oldest photographs (those older than the date of the author's death plus 70 years) are immediately public domain under US, EU, Canadia and most other laws (most others are less restrictive than the 70 years). It's the historical images that don't fall into that criterion that the problem applies to. People are (rightly or wrongly) very stringent about applying the letter of policy with regards to image copyright (a lot more so than text, I think because images are far easier to deal with). The Foundation policy and the en.Misplaced Pages policy differ, yes, and so the Misplaced Pages fair use criteria could be changed, but a change in the criteria itself, even if it's just in the phrasing, would be the only way to change it so people were happy that images solely used to illustrate historical events could get onto Misplaced Pages. Neil ム 11:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree user rationale requrement weakened?

I know that the possibility of removing the need for nonfree use rationales for certain categories of images (album covers, say) has been discussed. Was there an outcome to those discussions? It would be helpful for those who resolve the image deletion backlogs to know the current consensus on this issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they cannot be completely removed because the Foundation resolution requires them. I think the current discussion involves using standardized rationales for certain categories. (But if I'm wrong, feel free to call me a happy idiot!) -- But|seriously|folks  16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just happy. But Kat Walsh recently clarified that the foundation resolution is not intended to impose a requirement for explicit written rationales for each image or image use. Following that, the requirement was removed from the policy page (10(c)) for a few days, then the change was reverted. Also, deletions for lack of rationale seem to have ground to a halt in the case of legacy images but they are continuing at a clip of 100-200 per day for new images added without a rationale. In short, we're in a bit of a holding pattern right now. Wikidemo 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)