Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 19 August 2012

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

	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

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 1 section is present.

Uncceptable image uses

I propose to add something to WP:NFC#UUI that explicitly prohibits the use of the logo of a company or event in articles about the event of a specific year, except if that specific event has it's own logo. That means if we have a logo about XYZ, then the use of the logo in articles such as 2000 XYZ, 2001 XYZ, 2002 XYZ is inappropiate. The rationale behind a separate point for this is that this is a very common unacceptable use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a good idea. If someone is interested in the logo, you can go to the main article about the event instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly done so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that while I fully agree with the addition, this has been a point of contention in the past (specifically for logos for college teams (acceptable) and reuse on their individual season articles (what this is calling unacceptable). --MASEM (t) 13:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was wondering when that was going to come up. My cynical belief is that if it were applied to '20XX <college team>', the applier would be told this new addition has nothing to do with college sports teams. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Since the link to the main team article would have the logo, minimal use would be exceeded by also having it in season articles, so we definitely need to clarify the prohibition. Not letting people splatter a nonfree image all over the place is often "controversial", especially when you involve fans. There are, of course, some logos that fail to meet the threshold of originality and are public domain, so those could go in season articles if desired. Seraphimblade 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• And there's where we run into a hell of a lot of trouble. Lots of schools have non-copyrightable logos. So, they get the logos on their season-team articles. The schools that have copyrightable logos don't, and we end up with a bazillion editors who want their favorite sports team to have (copyrightable) logos because arch-rival (with non-copyrightable logo) does too. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, this has a history. Again, I completely agree that reuse of logos on per-season or rivalry pages is unacceptable and unnecessary, but I know that if we actually started doing this en masse, someone will complain.
• On a second point, considering that if a team had a PD logo (ineligible for copyright), reusing the logo for identify per season is not appropriate. This sorta follows for recent changes in flag icon use. Even though its a free image, its reuse just for identification purposes on secondary articles about the entity it represents is spammy and inconsistent with those that are stuck with a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• The flag icon stuff is a joke. It's an MOS guideline, but it has no standing on any sport that wants to ignore it and say their particular favorite sport is exempt. I've yet to see removal of flag icons in infoboxes stand when done on an article that has the watchful eye of a sport specific project. I've given up enforcing it. It's yet another case where do as we do rules as opposed to do as we say. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• My solution for this is that we should treat any trademarked image as non-free, regardless of its copyright status. There's no reason we should be hosting anyone's branding, whether it's a college football team or IBM. Use it once and be done with it. Franamax (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uhm, say we actually DID this. Who is going to delete the (probably) hundreds of trademarked PD textlogos on Commons then? And who is going to enforce NFCC on these logos here at the English Misplaced Pages? Apart from that I think doing this would open a can of worms. I mean, if we treat trademarked images as non-free, are we going to treat wordmarks as NFC too? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• And by the same argument we should then get rid of all cover art and the like which is implicitly used for branding. Which I can tell you is going to fail to gain any consensus. We can be restrictive on trademark/branding use (and maybe this is the way to present it) to prevent both over-use of non-free and mis-use of the trademark, but I don't we can ever remove these under claims of avoiding of brand hosting. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nope - cover art has the function of uniquely identifying one specific thing, and we allow that to permit visual identification of the one thing. The blue strip-ey IBM logo identifies IBM, but is not needed at all to identify individual products which may have their own article - though there may be a NFC rationale to use a non-free image which contains the logo incidental to uniquely identifying the subject. And the individual season and "rivalry" articles are similarly the product of the sporting team, or charity for that matter - so maybe an "Owls vs. Pumas DeathMatch" NFC poster would pass muster, but not the individual PD Owls or Pumas registered-TM logos, as they don't identify the match itself. And it's the cases where the Owls used a thick orange circle and the Pumas have some fancy-drawn logo, why should the Owls fans get to splash their own uni logo across this encyclopedia? And Toshio, to answer one of your points, the way to figure out wordmarks starts quite simply: are you inserting a node from File: space? If so, why? I'll be the first to say this isn't a fully fleshed out proposal, but generally, if you are using an image with a visible TM or R symbol, then it should be considered in the same way as non-free images - because it is patently NOT free, they went to the trouble of stamping their ownership on it. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're actually hitting the point I'm trying to make, in that we could introduce language about logo use when they are being used specifically to uniquely identify the entity, organization, event, or whatever, that they were designed for, and not for individual seasons, years, games, products, whatnot. This should apply to both free and non-free use of logos, in that it helps reflects on the trademark factor even though that we're not bound to that at the present time. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Which now becomes a question of IP legislation, rather than copyright law. and that's where I don't know how to proceed. (Or to discuss the "morality" of WP, which I've done lots of elsewhere on non-free text topics, and we really can't have morals IMO, though we can have principles). "Logo" is what I (and probly you and we in general) are talking about, but the generic argument becomes "trademarked". And sooner or later someone will trademark the texts "Fra" and "namax" and claim I'm infringing them or promoting them or something. If I could have thought up clear wording for this, wow, I would have done this so long ago. Basically, what you just said above, but more elegantly stated... Franamax (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the problematic articles (usually US college sports) should be held to a different policy - there are thousands of football (soccer) season articles and WP:FOOTY has managed to sort those out without logos (although I'm sure there are a few that've been missed). Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I do see a reason why they should be held to a different policy. See, the core issue is this; raise enough acrimony and you set policy by default. So many people get annoyed with having to deal with acrimony that those seeking to uphold policy just shut up and walk away. Stridency wins the day, every time. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not just limited to non-free, but we need some larger scale metric that is better for dealing with walled gardens that exist on WP. The dispute resolution process is necessarily favored towards them, as each step to get broader input you generally get less involvement. Wikiprojects or groups like that simply can't override global consensus and can't simply !vote in blocks to counter the application to their little place on WP. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But, in reality, they do. Mustering the strength of the overall project to show the proper way forward despite the local project's insistence is exceptionally difficult. Why should people who have no interest in <insert TV series, or sport, or hobby> feel motivated to try to educate a local project for <insert same> that isn't cooperating? The <insert same> people are very motivated to defend their pet interest. This structure exists throughout the project. The difference is only in whether a given local project has one or more people willing to fight tooth and nail. As Samuel Adams said, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds". --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Porno pics meet copyright issues

There's a bit of reverting going on WRT the uppermost pic in Tom of Finland, which I replaced last month with one of the pics used on other WP articles on this topic—considerably less in your face.

This brought me to examine the copyright status of the one in question (supposedly uploaded by the artist, but shouldn't it have an ORTS ticket?), and another used further down in the article (flakey fair-use claim, I'd say).

Could someone please advise? Tony (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both non-frees are marked ok (rational + license present); we don't require anything with OTRS if its a non-free uploaded by the author.

The use of the cover (second image) is generally unacceptable if the work itself lacks an article. But, arguably, it could also be used as a tame-ish example of the artwork (between that and the photo of the bedroom, the style is readily there), and in this case, would likely be preferable than the explicit art piece (first one). Not that we wouldn't allow the first one, but I wouldn't be using it in the infobox due to the principle of least astonishment.

As a comment on the infobox, as the artist has passed away, do we not have a photo of him to use there? --MASEM (t) 13:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Masem, I've just checked: no pics of the artist. None of the other 16 WPs with an article on this topic uses the explicit one (even WP.de). What status does the principle of least astonishment have if it comes to further debate on that talk page? Tony (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There are photos of him on his Foundation's website (i.e. ), although they would of course be non-free. Black Kite (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The principle of least astonishment should apply here in that, until this morning I had no idea what Tom of Finland was, so I would be astounded to find nude images (irregardless of the genders involved) in the lead. (This, as opposed to going to "penis" where there is a reasonable expectation you are going to see nude images). Thus, the lead image should be something that doesn't shock people - later in the article more explicit material's fine (we don't censor), but we can at least be reasonable at the lead. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, agree with all; except I'd still prefer a less aggressive pic, if an example is to be positioned further down. The artist's style can be quite adequately displayed with an image that isn't so pointy. Tony (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is the style of his work we are illustrating, not the content (and actually the majority of his work appears to be less explicit anyway) Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And agreed too. This is actually why I think the book cover - which is a reasonably tame pic (suggestions, but not explicit) - would actually be a decent pic to use here, that while we normally don't allow book covers, here it doubles as an example of his art. Since he's passed away, non-free images of the person himself is allowable (as Black Kite pointed out above). --MASEM (t) 11:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that allowance for pics of those who are no longer alive; I'd better refresh my knowledge of the NFC rules. Tony (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically its NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free images if there's a free replacement. With nearly all living people, its always possible to get a free picture so we never allow non-free images barring unique situations (the person's incarcerated for a long time, or a known recluse). When they've passed away, there may be free images around that have yet to be discovered but it is impossible to create new ones, so we do allow non-frees there. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in most cases; however if the deceased person is one who there are likely to exist many non-free images of them when they were alive (for example, the singer in a rock band that toured regularly, or a politician that held many public meetings), NFCC1 would still apply. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Even then, I would argue it depend on the year, considering the available of digital photography. A person who should be highly visible during the 2000s but died has a much much higher chance of a free photo existing than a person big in the 1970s and died recently. This article is more on that latter side. That said, I wouldn't race to delete a non-free photo of a touring musician if they happened to die tomorrow and that non-free was the only apparent image we had of them, I'd simply tag the article talk page and suggest they keep a look out for a free image, and as soon as one appears, replacement has to be made. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have added "recently" in front of "deceased" there. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, guys: this is informative. So does that mean I can upload a non-free image of Nobel laureate Patrick White, who died in 1990? It seems impossible to find a free one (I've tried). Tony (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep. --MASEM (t) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's back. I've reverted to Black Kite's version with an edit summary referring to this thread and advising that a less agressive example of his style be uploaded. I didn't mention the matter of positioning such a pic further down in the article while leaving the photo of the museum-bedroom in the infobox. Tony (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

More input is welcome for the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content review#Notification of the uploader - should it be required?. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

New Unacceptable Use - near-duplicate cover art

Rising from a question on WP:MCQ regarding film soundtracks that are included in the film article, as well as past discussions on alternate CD cover art, I would like to add to "Unacceptable uses" with something like:

"Additional cover art - typical alternate covers for albums, or film soundtrack album covers on articles about the film - where there is little difference (ignoring aspects like framing, coloring, and word/logo placement) between the main cover or identifying image, and the alternate cover. Exceptions are made if the alternative image is the subject of discussion within the article (for example Dark Side of the Moon's alternate art is acceptable due to discussions about that image in the text body)."

This should be a no-brainer but I wanted to check before adding it. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course that is an unacceptable use, but I've no doubt that morons would take that to mean that, if there is a significant difference, then as many covers as they care to find are usable. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I'm trying to identify "differences" that are trivial, like framing and text placement, are not considered significant. Mind you, there probably should be a separate statement for album covers and their alt. art which is likely similar to what standards the music project uses to limit excess alternate art covers. (Personally, at least in the case of film soundtracks, that if the soundtrack isn't notable enough for its own article, neither is having a CD image of it, but there's so much gaming of that in image use and notability that I'd rather make sure we simply don't dup the film poster on the album artwork.) --MASEM (t) 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Of course, people have rabidly fought against this sort of restriction before. Gotta have every single cover their blessed album ever had on the article else our poor idiotic readers will be totally confused about what article they've landed on. <rollseyes> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Derivative work issue

Hi everyone- rather sticky issue concerning whether an image constitutes a derivative work. Input would be appreciated here. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why NFCC enforcement is futile; it's systemic

I used to constantly enforce NFCC policy, but I gave it up as futile. Why? Here's a perfect case example, which is unfortunately all too common.

Yesterday, User:EamonnPKeane added a non-free logo to a template diff. This editor has been a contributor to the project for __seven years__ and has more than 14,000 edits. By amount of time on the project, this editor has been around longer than any ArbCom member. He's also never been blocked. He's one of the top 4000 most active editors in Misplaced Pages history. It's not like he's a newbie to template editing either; he's got nearly 700 edits to template. Yet, despite all that experience, all that time here, all that exposure to editing templates, this editor acting perfectly in good faith violated our policy on the use of non-free images on templates.

If you don't like cows patties in your field, you don't spend year after year after year after year cleaning up the cow patties and never think to ask how the cow patties get there in the first place. Yet, this is exactly what Misplaced Pages does. There's no effort to address root causes and come up with a good solution for fixing the root cause. It's always about cleaning up the mess and never wondering why it gets messy.

Despite years of effort at cleaning up just this one small corner of NFCC problems, there are still more than 1700 violations of the NFCC #9 policy on the project, and this number continues to grow. Insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. Policing NFCC is insane because the root cause is never questioned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This claim is extremely silly recognizing how WP works. You're manufacturing a problem that isn't a problem, just a nuance of a system that requires human interaction over 4million articles+.

It is completely possible to work 7 years on the project and never encounter NFCC so they could have been completely ignorant of its existence. It is the type of thing that would have been caught by bots looking for nfc in non-namespace. The only way this type of thing could be caught before then is that when edits introduce NFC into an article is to have a big warning thing reminding them if they've checked for NFCC compliance, and that I'm pretty sure would require MediaWiki changes to insert itself into the editing process, or otherwise a bot that looks at any NFC addition and sends out warnings. Neither are feasible issues.

The BLP people have the same problem, compounded further that there's no computer tools that can really help id BLP problems. We deal with it as they are found, end of story.

NFCC#9 violations are 100% objective, so you can remove them without any question (We should have a bot doing that, in fact). --MASEM (t) 17:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)