Misplaced Pages

:Non-free content review - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Csernica (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 19 June 2007 (→12 June 2007: another try). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:28, 19 June 2007 by Csernica (talk | contribs) (→12 June 2007: another try)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

WP:FUR redirects here. You may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline.

Archiving icon
Archives

On Misplaced Pages we have a considerable number of fair use images (see Category:Fair use images). Many of these images should not be on Misplaced Pages. This is because fair use is a specific legal doctrine that requires consideration of several factors:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Note that since the validity of fair use depends on the use of the image, and since the {{fairuse}} tag is deprecated, there should not be any images in Category:Fair use images directly; all should be in an appropriate subcategory (typically via the use of a different template).

Misplaced Pages frowns on the use of fair use. We are an encyclopedia that wishes to give free access to our content for everyone, commercial or non-commercial. Fair use should only be used under Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria.

Policy review

This Misplaced Pages page is currently determining ways of reviewing the use of fair use, and whether a fair use claimed image should exist on Misplaced Pages. Please contribute to discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fair use if you'd like to help.

Useful tags

(shamelessly copied from WikiProject Fair use)
  • {{fairusereview}} – to mark questionable images for review
  • {{subst:dfu}} – to actively dispute fair use claims
  • {{reviewedfairuse}} – to mark images which have been independently reviewed and deemed likely to be fair use
  • {{subst:rfu}} – for images which could be reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives.
  • {{Non-free reduce}} – for large images which should be reduced in size and/or quality.
  • {{subst:or-fu}} – for orphaned fair use images that have not been replaced.
  • {{subst:or-fu-re|Image:Image.ext}} – for orphaned fair use images that have been replaced by a free image
  • {{subst:frn}} – for images without a fair use rationale listed (for images uploaded after May 4 2006)
  • {{subst:nsd}} – for images without a source listed
  • {{subst:nld}} – for images without a licence listed

Images

This section will be to review existing fair use images and to see if they satisfy the Misplaced Pages fair use criteria.

8 February 2007

RBD

There's an audio sample box with samples of sixteen different songs, most of which are only briefly mentioned, if at all. For example, "Wanna Play" is mentioned only in the navigational template. ShadowHalo 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I know you posted this a while ago, but I'm still concerned. The audio files are no longer included in the page RBD, but they are neither deleted ... they are just elsewhere (see old version from February 13 2007). I haven't examined them all, but I feel that using that number of audio files could seriously harm the market of the musical group by providing a significant amount of music as to discourage people from buying their music. What do you think? --Iamunknown 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

24 April 2007

given that the image itself is not iconic a fair use claim could be quite hard to justify (I assume south africa runs under some derivative of old UK copyright law?)Geni 11:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My justification is this: The image is used in the first article to show that Cruywagen is famous enough that he is depicted in murals, and to illustrate the public's perception of him (black and white: been in TV a long time, Proudly South African: respectable, iconic, patriotic). It is used in the second article to show that the Proudly South African campaign is well enough known to be used in murals. Furthermore, I understand that the murals on that wall were painted by schoolchildren as class projects, and not by commercial artists who would intend to protect their copyright. The mural is also next to a busy public road, so anyone can view it. --Slashme 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The photograph itself is GFDL. The underlying art is reproduced via a fair use claim. I have updated the image description to reflect this. – Quadell 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

14 May 2007

  • Image:Canadian2004PoppyQuarter.jpg - copyrighted photograph from Canadian Press of a Canadian coin. Another editor has argued that the coin itself is public domain (is it?), so that the copyright claimed by the photographer doesn't disallow its use in Misplaced Pages. The coin is quite common, and a free version of the photograph can be be fairly easily created and submitted. Rawr 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If the coin is public domain, then we definitely need another image so we don't have to rip off someone else's work. If it's not public domain, it would be nice to have our own image so we don't have to rip off someone else's work, but since it's fair use anyways, it's not as big a deal. Determine the status of the coin and then go from there. Either way, we're probably better off with our own free image. MECU≈talk 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Most currency designs are copyrighted. (U.S. currency is an exception -- EU currency even has a © symbol.) Unless someone provides evidence that Canadian currency is public domain, we have to assume that it's copyrighted.
That said, this image is copyright Canadian Press. Anyone could photograph a poppy quarter and release that photo under a free license (although the photographer would still have to make a fair-use claim on the underlying design.) As such, this image is replaceable. I'm going to tag it as such. – Quadell 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

12 June 2007

  • Image:PN Chalmers 300.JPG. I am concerned about whether this image is in compliance with our policy on non-free images of living persons. The uploader says the image is not reproduceable because it shows the subject at a unique phase in his research with three of his robot creations surrounding him. I have trouble understanding what this means. In any case, I sent a letter a few days ago to the copyright holder asking for the image to be released under a free license, but have yet to receive a reply, so I am putting this image up for review now. nadav (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Replacing the image with one only of the person would not replace the unique content of the image. Such an image would not include the robots. Rogerfgay 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:AGF. And for what it's worth, Nadav's concern is perfectly valid. He has been very patiently trying to explain this to you and does not deserve this treatment. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. That really didn't make any sense. I'm the one in this case who's put in the work trying to create a good, high-quality article. WP:AGF applies to me and my effort. Not giving any credence to what I say seems clearly to violate the AGF principle. My reaction to this should make perfect senst to everyone. What's the practical value of my effort if results are rejected without a reasonable basis? Deciding to simply not give credence to my claims is mere character assault. Those who are just trying to help should go look for an image themselves if they doubt I'm right about what I'm saying. If they find one that's just as good to replace it with, we'll all be happy. Otherwise, my claims are really all we have. Rogerfgay 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I doubt that was the only day somebody took a photograph of him with some of his creations. Addhoc 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It apparently was. I've been digging. I suppose it is possible that someone took a picture for their private collection, but unless they come forward or post the image on the internet where I can find it, it's just as good as non-existent for the purpose at hand. These particular creations are essential to the story. They represent the beginning of an era of robots that create and maintain their own behavior. They have since been dispursed (museums). The image is also set in the environment of their creation - at Chalmers University during The Humanoid Project where they were "born." The image does actually illustrate a unique and important historical event that is tied directly to the article. This judgment is based on an understanding of the subject. Rogerfgay 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a posed photograph of Nordin with some robots. There's nothing about this of historically importance. What is meant by "historical importance" is that it records a past event of some moment, like the Liberation of Paris or the Apollo 11 landing. Posing for a picture with some machines that aren't even doing anything isn't such an event no mater how prominent the subject in his field or how unique the machines. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You're making a judgment without knowledge of the subject and without having searched for photos yourself. That's the problem I'm faced with. In the world of robotics, the development of these particular robots by Peter Nordin is an important historical event. It's apparently not a subject familiar to you, but that in itself should not be the basis for a judgment about its importance. The image is in context - the time and place of the event. Robotics science and technology doesn't happen in a particular moment. There's usually no explosion or the possibility of a picture of troops crossing a bridge. There is no other such image that can be used to replace this one. The robots themselves are no longer in one place. Even if they were brought together for another photo, it would be out of context - years after the actual event, etc. Even one was found (and I've searched enough to doubt that one ever will be), I doubt it would have a free license. There's no one associated with the project who has had any reason to think that way. Peter Nordin himself would probably grant a free use license if he had an alternate image - but he doesn't. There just wasn't anyone around thinking about the eventual posting on Misplaced Pages and current posting preferences, and no possibility of repeating the event. There is no possibility of getting Peter and the robots back together to create a new image. Rogerfgay 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop accusing everyone of ignorance. It's not getting you anything but a bad reputation. I'm moderately familiar with the subject, and I'm also much better informed on US copyright law and Misplaced Pages fair-use policy than you are. There is nothing uniquely historical, in the sense applied here, about anyone posing for a photo next to a collection of machines he built no matter who he is or what the machines are. There is ample precedent for this within the project. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I know you don't agree with me, but I think that to the layman, this photo does not convey much more than showing what Nordin looks like and that he works with robots. The former is not acceptable for policy reasons, and the latter could conveyed by mere text just as well. You should realize that the fact that uninitiated readers like us are not able to appreciate the importance of this picture is exactly the reason why the image fails the fair use criteria. Historic photos manage to convey important aspects of the events they depict. Contrast this with what I'll term "historical" photos, an example of which would be an photo of a US soldier in Vietnam who is just sitting there doing nothing. The photo is "irreplaceable" and "important" because of its historical context and setting, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. nadav (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a Misplaced Pages expert yet, and did not add the reviewed tag. But what it says makes perfect sense in consideration of everything I've read and gone through regarding use of the image. The contraversy over whether the image is historically important may not be the critical issue at all. To the extent it is of interest to other editors, I don't think it makes sense to yield to "but I think that to the layman" arguments. I never feel like this is going to insult anyone, even though TCC seems to feel differently. I know that I don't know everything, and neither does anyone else. We all tend to have specialized knowledge. In context, the whole point of an encyclopedia seems to be the transfer of specialized knowledge from people who know a subject to people who don't -- i.e. laymen. As someone who's dealt with editing, non-fiction writing, and training for a long time - I can shed some additional light on the question of historical significance; not, unfortunately without having someone somewhere in the world believe that I'm insulting however. It's a problem when any attempt to explain things (that are among those specialty pieces that I happen to know something about) is interpreted as an insult to anyone who reads the explanation. So - although I feel it's a lesser response (actually less respectful of others in my opinion) - I'll just say that I disagree that every image of historical significance will be exactly like the examples given in Misplaced Pages instructions. In order to understand what passes as an historically significant image, you really must consider the subject. There are a lot of books and articles on the history of science, technology, scientists, etc. These are real subjects. Whether or not the form is impressive to the layman, is not among the criteria to decide what's important. By definition, the layman is supposed to be learning from it, if they have the interest to do so. Rogerfgay 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed somebody added a {{reviewedfairuse}} tag to the image. Can that tag be used when a lot of people disagree? nadav (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, so I've removed it. I wish that any user who adds the tag would (1) be active on this page and (2) explain why he or she added it; neither happened in this case, so I feel justified. --Iamunknown 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown - That could be construed as an act of vandalism. Please don't do it again. Rogerfgay 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, Iamunkown and me get along well, he and I have discussed this...and actually I agree with him now. -N 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I re-added the tag. Let me explain why. First off, the tag just says "user" reviewed the image and believes it qualifies as fair use. I am a user and I have reviewed this and I believe it qualifies as fair use. We have another tag {{Reviewedfairusedisputed}} for disputing the first tag. Now I know that the subject of the photo is a living person. However, photos of living people are not always replaceable. For example, nude photos in a porn magazine are almost never replaceable (i'm going to exclude any other ways they may fail the nfcc from my argument). Photos of an actor in a notable role are also almost never replaceable. This image shows an important researcher in the field of robotics showing off his creations. I'm not sure why people are saying this photo is historic, it's not. It's just like any other photo of Peter Nordin showing off his creations. However I note he is no longer working at the project where that photo was taken. He may not have possession of those robots anymore. It is quite possible he no longer is capable of taking a photo with them. It is my belief that this photo is not replaceable at the present time. -N 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument fits the facts almost all the way. I've explained that this is the only image with the subject and these robots that is available in any form. There is no replacement. The robots are no longer available. The image cannot be recreated. Even if the robots were available, and everyone involved (subject, museums, etc.) agreed to create another image, I don't even know if they would all agree to make it available under a free use license. But that's beside the point. It's not possible. Other editors do not see the historical significance of the image. It's not Washington crossing the Deleware. In context however, these particular robots and what was accomplished with them in the particular project related to the image, is a really nice piece of the history of robotics (and artificial intelligence), that is very directly related to the reason the subject is a notable person. What's not stated in the article (yet, because it hasn't actually happened yet), is the subject's assertion that he will deliver "a complete cognitive system for robotics" to the market. (This is mentioned in a linked article related to his current research.) Research with the particular robots in the image brought this to the point of being a credible claim - a serious possibility - for the first time in human history. We'll see whether the claim in fulfilled anytime, and if so, such a success should certainly be added to the article. But even if that doesn't happen, what has already been accomplished with these particular robots in that particular project is of historical importance; in the history of robotics and artificial intelligence. Another slightly different way of looking at it - it's a very important event / relationship in the history of the person - why he's notable. I'm quite confident that there is any better image to illustrate the article. Rogerfgay 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and you do this in the middle of a lively discussion about the image to which you are not even a party? How chilling, dismissive and rude. I've added {{Reviewedfairusedisputed}}. --Iamunknown 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I did not realize how terrible my statement was until I mulled over it. I apologize. I think that any further discussion in this thread should go to the talk page. --Iamunknown 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary (June 19th): Image meets fair use criteria - not in dispute. Image accepted for use in article on Misplaced Pages: The question whether the image is replaceable with a free use image is reasonably raised in connection with the Misplaced Pages preference for free use images and the general pressumption that additional images of living persons can be created. An implicit assumption seems to exist that the additional images of living persons are offered with a free use license; an assumption not supported by fact in this case. Facts have been asserted at every step in the process in support of the claim that the image is important to the article and is not replaceable. No fact has yet been asserted in support of replaceability other than those used to raise the question: i.e. the subject is living, Misplaced Pages preference for free use images, etc. Whether or not the image is historically important has been questioned and the question responded to multiple times. Whether or not this is a critical issue has not been settled; given that no free use alternative has surfaced. No argument has been given against use of the image beyond repetition of policy statements. Everyone in the discussion recognizes that free use images are preferred. Misplaced Pages provides tags and a set of criteria for non-free use images and recognizes that acceptance under fair use supports the mission of "producing a quality encyclopedia." Policy arguments reasonably support raising the question. The question has been responded to, through tags and discussion. According to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, decisions of this nature must be made objectively. Facts in the dicussion weigh in favor of acceptance of the image. In addition, it has been pointed out that Misplaced Pages does not face any legal risk related to inclusion of the image. That the fair use criteria have been met is not in dispute, and the photographer has given permission for use of the image on Misplaced Pages. Rogerfgay 09:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Convention has it that all images of living persons except exceptional cases such as hermits or prison inmates are considered replaceable. Misplaced Pages is "The 💕," so it encourages people to go out of their way and spend considerable effort on creating or obtaining free content. If you could explain why no reasonable amount of effort could obtain free images of the robots, then I would understand your argument. Why is it impossible to snap a free photo of the robots (have they been disassembled, say)? Why is it impossible to take a picture of Peter Nordin? You have to address these questions instead of repeating the same talking points. The burden of evidence is on you. (Also, not that Fair use criteria is merely the old name of the non-free content criteria, and nonreplaceability is the first item of course) nadav (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, according to the tag information, the burden is on you to show that the image is replaceable. I came back to post that information and found your response. You have created about as much pressure as you can to get free content. No free use alternative is available. My guess is that the people who wrote the rules that shift the burden to you at this point, understood well the problems of having someone demand proof of a negative. On the other hand, proof of the positive (if it's true) would be quite easy: just deliver the free use alternative. Just as an add on, I think it's useful to review what this is about. There is no promise at this point that the image cannot be used by others. I'm sure that it can. If there is any doubt regarding its use for a particular purpose, one should contact the provider and ask. As far as making images available to the public, the use of this image on Misplaced Pages is positive for anyone who wants to publish something about the subject. It lets people know that the image exists, that it's available, and where to go if there's a question about its use in publication. (Also the source of the high resolution version.) According to the policy of the supplier (which is one I can't change), the image is available for free for a variety of uses. It's just not up to me or Misplaced Pages to promise its free use. It's probably free use, but does not come with a "free use" license. When in doubt, one should contact the provider and ask. That really doesn't seem terrible or unusual in any way. Rogerfgay 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It may also be that the image qualifies for use of the Non-free promotional tag, which is something that wasn't investigated. Roboticist Joanne Pransky's image on Misplaced Pages uses that tag to characterize an image from a similar source; in her case Tufts University. (In this case, Chalmers University) I note that most roboticists on Misplaced Pages have no images. (Don't you agree that having a really good image is better?) Free use images on some may have been supplied by the subjects, who in some cases may have created their own articles. Not all images for living roboticists have free use licenses. Rogerfgay 11:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The argument for fair use of the image on Misplaced Pages must be accepted under AGF if nothing else. The necessary tags are included and justifications have been given. If anyone has a substantial argument against use of the image, let them "speak now or forever hold their peace." Kviki 11:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Have you tried contacting Peter Nordin for a free picture? -N 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" does not mean "assume fair use". In fact, if an image is non-free (which this is), we default to not allowing it unless it clearly passes all our non-free content policy criteria. – Quadell 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It passes the fair use criteria. That is not in dispute. Rogerfgay 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And I think Quadell oversimplifies the argument; "defaults" to not allowing. Quadell - This is far beyond the default stage. Fair use and Fair use rationale tags are in place as required. Those tags exist because fair use can be accepted. And despite almost a week of tough battles, Nadav1 has not yet actually made any concrete case that the images actually are replaceable. As Rogerfgay points out, a substantial case against fair use of the image has not been made. Kviki 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I am an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages, very knowledgeable about our non-free content policy. I deem this image to be replaceable, and therefore not within our guidelines. Here is my reasoning.

This non-free image shows Mr. Nordin with his creations. It is clear than a new photograph of Mr. Nordin could be created and licensed under a free license, and that (separately) a new photograph of these robots could be created and freely licensed. (In fact, it seems likely to me that it is possible to create a new photograph of Mr. Nordin with his creations, but this is not the reason for my decision.) I believe that separate free images of Nordin and the robots would adequately replace this non-free image in the article. To argue otherwise, you would have to imagine a reader who says "I can see what Mr. Nordin looks like, and I can see what his creations look like, but I can't imagine them together. What would that look like? I can't get a clear picture of what this would look like without using a non-free image." This is silly, of course. If separate, free photos were provided, the non-free image would fail criterion #8, and since these image could be created, this non-free image fails criterion #1.

The argument Nadav1 makes about the free use images you describe were merely hypothetical. The set of images needed are not available with free use licenses. I know of no images of either Peter Nordin, nor the robots, that come with a free use license. Rogerfgay 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are disappointed that an attractive image is not usable on Misplaced Pages. If you can convince the copyright holder (probably the photographer) to license the image under a free license, then we can use it without difficulty. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for guidance. All the best, – Quadell 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Hi Quadell. I understand that Nadav1 asked you here to repeat these arguments. We've been over them a few times above. It seems each time we go through them, he asks someone new in to start it over again; stating how reasonable it seems that a free use image(s) could be produced. As disappointing as it may be to all of us, there doesn't seem anyone connected to this that has an interest in providing images under "free use" licenses. The arguments given that the image can be replaced with free use images are merely hypothetical. Effort has been put into getting a free use image, but there is none. In that sense, by definition, the image is irreplaceable because there is no replacement image. I have contacted the photographer who was willing to give permission and explicitely accepted "fair use" of the image; and I have cited another similar example of an image being used on Misplaced Pages under similar circumstances. (University supplied image, in the other case listed as promotional - but really the same thing provided under the same kind of university policy.) An image of this quality, so clearly illustrating the importance of the subject cannot be recreated for more than one reason - given above. The robots are dispursed, in museums. There is no possibility of turning back the clock to capture the historical event again. I understand that Nadav1 and others do not recognize the historical importance of the image, and how easy it is to think that nothing connected to a living person can be of historical significance. Nonetheless, as someone familiar with the subject generally and specifically, it is clear to me that the image is historically significant. If the image is rejected, this article will not have an image. In my view, that will significantly reduce the quality of the article. The image in my view, is quite important. Also - that the image meets the fair use criteria is not disputed. Rogerfgay 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So far 4 people dispute it: myself, nadav, Quadell, and Iamunknown. -N 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But I must point out, once again, that the arguments you've given are merely those from the policy guidelines that are sufficient to raise the question. The policy guidelines themselves are not in dispute. Speculation - hypotheticals - have been added; but those logically, merely illustrate the policy guidelines. Wouldn't it be nice if .... and we (including me) can see that the alternatives suggested are not in most cases of living persons, unreasonable expectations. The substantial, factual arguments in this case however, are all on the side of acceptance of the image. Rogerfgay 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The policy is that if a free replacement image could hypothetically be created, then we cannot use a non-free image. By the way, no one asked me to state any particular arguments. I was simply asked to comment, which I did. – Quadell 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that he did not specify the details of the argument that he wanted you to make. I noticed his request at your talk site before you posted here. I merely recognize the pattern of bringing in someone unfamiliar with the details again and again - and again and again we start over at the beginning - policy review - usually living persons, etc. A hypothetical is defined by conjectural: based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence. What is in evidence is that there are no free use images available and reasons why inclusion of the image is important. There are no facts supporting the hypothesis that the image is replaceable. What you said above is that negating the fair use rationale, etc. requires only that someone imagines replacement of the image. Rogerfgay 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Close, but not quite. Our policy says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The phrase "could be" is in the subjunctive. You may not like Misplaced Pages's policies, but you are still expected to abide by them. – Quadell 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No one has shown that a free use equivalent could be created in fact. If you want to operate as a paparazzi, and worked long enough and hard enough, there might be a chance that you'd get images. Perhaps they would even be what you want - i.e. that in your opinion (in which the current image has no intrinsic value) would be good enough. But, that wouldn't get Misplaced Pages a free use license to use them. There would probably be issues with invasion of privacy that you haven't taken into account. And, I am sure they would not be as good -- i.e. not really equivalent. Rogerfgay 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to comment, but am afraid I can't help much, as it is a close call. The subject is alive, and active, so will presumably make more robots, since that's what he does, and he isn't a recluse, so theoretically a photo can be taken, so "I can't get a replacement image" is not the same thing as "the image is irreplaceable"; but posing him with his first robots all in one shot isn't negligible, and I can see the effort that Rogerfgay went through to find a more free image, just from the disclaimers he did get (release for all web use, etc.), which, true, aren't quite what we need, but are certainly better than just grabbing a pic from a web site. So, close call, close enough that I have no useful opinion. Sorry. --AnonEMouse 12:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are misunderstandings on the meaning of "replaceable" on this discussion. For an image to be considered replaceable, we do not need to be able to reproduce it exactly as it is. All we need is to be able to find/produce a different image (or images) with the same "encyclopedic value".

In this case, it seem the "encyclopedic value" is to illustrate a scientist and some of his creations. And as was pointed out before, there are many ways this could be done with free material. The fact that they are together in one picture doesn't specially helps the understanding of the article.

We never do with unfree material what we could do with free material alone. This is one more of that cases of a beautiful cool picture that we refuse to use because we are a 💕. We're here to do more than just build the most beautiful encyclopedia in the world. --Abu badali 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out hypothetically that there are ways to replace the image with free material. There are in fact no images of the scientist or his creations that are available under "free use" license, and no one involved who is interested in granting "free use" licenses for images of themselves or their creations. There might also be a variety of alternatives for classifying use of the image. As noted, the same situation using an image of another scientist (university provided) the image was classified as promotional. Rogerfgay 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's long established that the current absence of free images of a given subject is not an acceptable argument for irreplaceability. The very presence of a fair-use image greatly reduces the chances of ever obtaining a free image. You'd be surprised how many times there's been a fair use image with no current free replacement where the uploader swears up and down that no free image will be created... and then as soon as the fair-use image disappears somebody goes and creates or finds a free one. As you state here that a free image could be created, there's essentially no argument remaining; you've conceded the only argument you have, and the image should be deleted forhtwith.—Chowbok ☠ 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A primary concern in Fairuse is copyright infringement. It is clear that Misplaced Pages is not at risk for copyright infringement. RE: Chowbok's argument that the presence of a fair-use image reduces the chances of obtaining a free image - the argument suggests a less than credible use of removal authority. It suggests that denying use of fair-use images, regardless of whether fair use criteria are met, will force people to create free use images for Misplaced Pages. This is certainly not the rationale provided in the Misplaced Pages guidelines. What makes sense, and is apparent to me, is that good faith efforts are accepted. The rules, even by their mere statement are encouragement for the use of free-use material. It is clear that free-use is strongly preferred. There is nothing in fact however, beyond a good faith effort. The rules don't say that a group of editors should continue to kick anyone around who makes a fair use argument until they've bled to death - maybe then they'll produce a free-use image. Chowbok's argument also assumes some connected vanity at play. Are the robots going to step forward with their own free use images for fear they won't get sufficient attention? I think Chowbok has given an honest argument however. I think maybe some in opposition to the use of fair-use images generally might be taking it out in the Peter Nordin page, when their arguments for exclusion of all fair-use material should be directed at the rules committee. As for Chowbok's assertion: "As you state here that a free image could be created" -- no I did not. Rogerfgay 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't really copyright infringement, although that's of course a concern. The point is that this is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. That's one of our core goals. Every fair use image takes away from that goal. In some cases, there can be exceptions to this general preumption, but such exceptions should be rare. I don't think you've made a convincing argument why this image should be one of those exceptions.—Chowbok ☠ 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As stated, copyright infringement is a primary concern. Inclusion of the image also does not change the status of Misplaced Pages as a 💕. (Possibly a little confusing because the 💕 concern and the copyright concern are one in the same.) The only argument you've made against is that you don't like fair-use images. You speculate that excluding them (regardless of whether the criteria have been met) will force creation of free-use images to replace them. That doesn't address the objective case. Rogerfgay 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion of fair-use images dilutes our status as a 💕, absolutely. You do understand what is meant by "💕", correct?—Chowbok ☠ 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is at risk? This calls for speculation. I don't know if there is anyone at risk for copyright infringement if they reuse the image. Here's what I think might be true: a professional publisher including the image for profit and not for educational purposes may be at risk. In that case, I could expect the question to be dealt with by professionals who know what they're doing, and will find it very easy to request an image from the university (and possibly get it for free - I haven't quite imagined how someone would use this image without being able to classify their use as for educational purposes). And in such a case, I would expect them to want the original high resolution image instead of the one on Misplaced Pages. Rogerfgay 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Public domain? The image is from a Swedish government source. Misplaced Pages instructions however, make it clear that automatic "public domain" classifications are only related to use of United States government material. I'm not a Swedish lawyer. I can't tell you about public domain and the use of Swedish material. I can say that I've talked to people about these things, and the response has always been - "Just use it." "I'm sure it's not a problem." Rogerfgay 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Government-created works being in the public domain is a quirk of United States law. As I understand it, it's unique in the world (and even in the U.S.; no state government images are public domain).—Chowbok ☠ 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They indicate in a policy statement, that there's a difference between using the image on the web and in print. When I asked for it, the high res. version was freely given. The statement on their site is (just) part of my basis for believing that professional publishing houses might possibly be at risk for copyright infringement, particular if (although I can't imagine why) their use of the image is not for education purposes. Does anyone think they have a realistic fear - rather than a bureaucratic complication - regarding use of this image? Rogerfgay 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I am yet another administrator who is very familiar with our image policies. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that this image cannot be used on Misplaced Pages as-is. This is not about "covering our ass" with respect to copyright infringement. It's about freedom -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content, including the images. We have made exceptions for certain types of images, those where it is absolutely impossible for a free alternative to be created (such as TV screenshots or logos), or for images of great historical importance (where the image itself is important, such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), or for recluses like J.D. Salinger. However, this image does not fall into these classes. As it stands, only Misplaced Pages has been granted permission to use the image, not any of our readers or perhaps even our downstream clients, and that's why it can't stay. If this specific image is of historical importance, you need to show us proof -- cited references that discuss this exact image and what influence it had on others. Otherwise, it clearly fails criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria because a photo of the person could be made and photos of the robots could be made separately. There is no need to show all of them together in a single shot. I'm sorry you have gone through a lot of effort to get this image, but it is not inline with the goals of Misplaced Pages. howcheng {chat} 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that's not what criterion #1 actually says. A week has passed and within this time, no freer image has surfaced, despite all the wishing and hoping. (And I've worked on this for more than a week.) "Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." There's your absolute statement - always replaced - IF a freer alternative of acceptable quality is available. The can be / could be arguments have not borne fruit. "If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense." It's been tried. No dice. "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" No. Such a thing can be imagined (although I would disagree that an out of context, out of time image would pass the simple thought test), but that's not the same thing as actually "can be replaced" - no replacements at all are available under free use license. You are supporting an ideal. But the tags and processes and rules are actually written with recognition that the ideal cannot always be met. Rogerfgay 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they haven't borne fruit yet. There is no hurry to have a photo in the article. We have been willing to wait weeks, months, and even years to get free-use photos of people. Listen, and I mean this with the utmost respect, but so far nine separate users (two admins and others who have expertise in image use policy) have told you that this image can't be used, with only one "no comment" (I'm not counting Kviki who only has 5 edits). At this point, it should dawn on you that your interpretation of the non-free content policy is incorrect. I respect your efforts and your passion in attempting to make the image usable here but you are not going to win this battle. You are not the first user to challenge the criteria and you may not be the last, but this type of image has always been turned down. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have run across mentions of the rule of concensus in editing, but not one that clearly allows politics to over-rule what the rules actually say. I get that the criteria aim toward the ideal you support, but allow that the ideal won't always be reached. The mechanism, according to the criteria, is not to leave the article without an image - but to replace the image when a freer image becomes available. This is very clear - actually stated explicitely in the criteria. I'm beginning to wonder whether the repeated arguments to the contrary add up to harassment. Rogerfgay 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You've been an editor here for 11 days, and you're repeatedly telling the people here, who have in many case been on Misplaced Pages for years and dealing with fair-use image issues for a long time, that they're all wrong about the policies... and when everybody tells you you're mistaken, you think it's harrassment? Sheesh.
Perhaps you should rack your brain and think of other possible reasons every single user and admin here is telling you you're wrong, aside from a desire to annoy you. Hmm...—Chowbok ☠ 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Every single user except his sock. -N 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
N- User space harassment: P... placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs)
No, that's what those tags are for. And I actually have to put them on your page. No really, the Misplaced Pages rules, which you don't seem to quite grasp, say I do. -N 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


It's not my first round in politics on the web and regardless of my short time as a Misplaced Pages editor, my reading comprehension skills are in the top percentile. The Non-free content criteria, criterion #1 upon which the current argument is based; actually states explicitly, in language that is not at all unclear, that fair-use images will be replaced IF a freer alternative of acceptable quality is available. Rogerfgay 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Peter Nordin has been a conference speaker, he's a public figure, somebody will eventually be around him with a cell phone or a camera and take a picture of him. It's ludicrous to say nobody could EVER take a picture of him. -N 19:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, actually it says: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created". See those last three words?—Chowbok ☠ 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not missing the point at all. If that happens, and the result is a freer alternative image of acceptable quality; then according to the rules, then, at that point in time, the image should be replaced. If you don't have a freer alternative of acceptable quality, you don't have a case. Rogerfgay 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Chowbok - create the image! Imagining something is so and making it so are two different things. Nothing has been done to show that a free use image can actually be created. But at least 9 people think that it can. Assuming all 9 are correct, then one might reasonably expect that the current fair-use image will eventually be replaced according to the rule. Rogerfgay 19:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately for me, the rule isn't "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created by Chowbok". —Chowbok ☠ 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


“ The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." ”
— Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Chapter III
Heed the advice. Ignoring what's actually written should set off an alarm. Logically, I can see that the rule makes it unlikely that fair-use images of living persons will survive; thus, protecting the ideal. But I also note that unlikely isn't the same as impossible. I've noted a similar case of another roboticist on Misplaced Pages, similar image source, in which a non-free image has survived for more than a year. Rogerfgay 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A different point of view perhaps, directed towards Rogerfgay: Since our goal is education through building an encyclopedia, don't you want an image that will/can be used by all reuses of Misplaced Pages to help further this goal? That is, settling for a fair use image of someone because it's there now hurts our chances of getting a free one in the future. It has been proven that having no image on an article encourages free ones to come forward while having a fair use one discourages anyone from attempting to bother. Our policy on the replaceability is quite firm and clear in this case. We do want no image instead of a fair use one, when it possible a free one could be created/exist. Fair use is meant for images of things that can't ever be free, like album covers and logos. I hope you can understand that we do this for the betterment of Misplaced Pages in the long run, even though we all agree that having a pretty picture in an article is better than just boring text, we suffer without an image to hopefully get the free one in the long run. MECU≈talk 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time that straw argument has been presented. There is no reason to suspect that using the fair-use image will reduce the chances of getting a free use image in the future. OK - "suspect" all you want, if you want, but the rule is not to deny use of images that are allowed under the rules in an attempt to force the creation of free use images. That's already been argued. Rogerfgay 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Mecu - I assume that you are sincere, so let me extend the argument. It's been said that Peter Nordin is a public figure. It's also been said that his work is important - even "historícally" important. I believe it very very likely that more images of Peter Nordin will surface in the future. If one is created under free use license, it will only a question of finding it. The question in this case isn't about whether someone will look for one. It's about whether or not a freer alternative exists at all. By the rules, it's about whether a freer alternative of acceptable quality is available. Look all you want. No such creature exists. Rogerfgay 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And I definitely agree that inclusion of an image is better - much better. That's why I've argued so vigorously in favor of inclusion of the image that is available - especially since it so very very nicely and appropriately and without gratuitous complexity compliments the article. Rogerfgay 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The entire explanation, starting with the title “no free use equivalent” says that fair-use images are allowed if there is no freer alternative of acceptable quality – either by use of another freer image or by transforming an image to free-use – is available. “no free equivalent” is subject to a quick test. "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It doesn’t say, can you imagine it’s replacement or is it conceivable or likely that it could – it says “can” this image be replaced …. The answer is obviously no, if no freer alternative is available. The opposing arguments ignore the entire explanation in favor of a claim of an implicit meaning of one (or three) word(s) – “could” be created – in which the claimed implicit meaning contradicts the entire explanation as well as the title. I’m pretty sure Tolstoy would be on my side in this debate. Rogerfgay 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy, which this scenario is not. It has happened time and time again on Misplaced Pages. A non-free image hurts us because it discourages the creation of a free alternative. You have been here 11 days; how can you have any experience with what happened earlier this year or in years previous? Let me give you an example: A non-free image of David Cameron was added in February 2006 where it sat in the article for eight months. I replaced it with a low quality photo in October 2006, which people did not like much (it was rather noisy). Lo and behold, less than a month later, a high quality photo was created and put into the article (and it's still there today). Without the incentive of having no image or a bad image, do you think someone would bother creating a new photo? Admittedly, Cameron probably makes more public appearances than Peter Nordin, but the same argument applies. You may consider this a hypothetical, but you are not the first person to be in this situation. If you stay on Misplaced Pages for a while and work a lot images, you will see this pattern repeat itself. A lot. howcheng {chat} 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to read, understand, and accept what I'm about to say here. It's the truth. It may be a truth you don't like, but some truths are like that.
  • It is the opinion of everyone experienced in Misplaced Pages policy that this image is replaceable fair-use within the spirit and letter of the established fair-use policy.
  • This opinion is not being expressed out of malice toward you or the subject of the photo. In fact, no one here has any reason to bear you any ill will at all, unless you have given someone a reason in this discussion.
  • "Encyclopedic purpose" means that it provides information to the reader. What Nordin looks like provides information to the reader. What Nordin's robots look like provide information to the reader. Nordin together with his robots provides no information the above in combination do not provide.
  • The goal of this project is to create a free content encyclopedia. That is the primary concern behind the fair-use policy as it stands, which is actually more restrictive than the law requires. It is contrary to this goal to upload nonfree content. It should therefore be done sparingly, and only when no free image will have the same encyclopedic effect -- which is to inform, not to thrill before a unique assemblage of subjects.
  • Obviously, a free image of Nordin could be made. It is equally obvious that free images of his robots could be made, even if they're not publicly accessible in ordinary circumstances. This puts us in a far easier situation of one image I saw removed for invalid free use -- a lead engineer together with a satellite he had worked on. That satellite is now in orbit, and cannot now be photographed at all. It was still removed since it did not have sufficient encyclopedic value to justify its use. The present case is orders of magnitude simpler.
  • The policy clearly calls for the removal of nonfree content even in cases where a free equivalent is only hypothetically available. That's what "or could be created" means, whether or not this has actually yet been done. No amount of minute parsing is going to change that.
  • There is no time limit for the creation of free content, and there are no deadlines. Is there no free image of Nordin and his robots yet? Then there is no free image yet. We can wait.
  • There is no argument here. The facts are clear: this is a non-free image that may not be included as fair use under Misplaced Pages guidelines. We're not arguing with you. We're attempting to make you understand the policy. You need to believe what you are being told. Nothing you say is going to keep the image on the servers anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

18 June 2007

  • Image:UniversalHorrorCharacters.jpg This was the current picture for Horror film. Although I didn't upload it myself, I thought that it was a pretty good picture for the article as it showed a large number of classic horror films in one image (all the old Universal Horror films like Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff as Dracula and Frankenstein's monster respectively). It was removed by another user for the old "It can be replaced by a free image" bit. Arguably, one can grab an old 1920s horror film screenshot thats lapsed into the public domain but it wouldn't demonstrate the same thing as this picture does.--CyberGhostface 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    It is a non-free image, and a free image could easily be found. We can't steal copyrighted images just because we like them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    This is another tiring case of copyright paranoia. Fair use images aren't allowed for living people and existing buildings, but images for movies are allowed. As of now, there aren't too many free images that could describe the horror genre as an omnibus shot of several of the most definite horror films.--CyberGhostface 02:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    This is a case of a copyrighted image of a rose being used to illustrate rose. Non-free images are not allowed to illustrate general concepts unless it is impossible to use a non-free image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    But a free image of a rose can easily show the same thing as a copyrighted one. This isn't the same as an article about horror films. And if a free image could easily be found that demonstrates the horror film as well as the old one, then where is it?--CyberGhostface 02:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    There are many horror films in the public domain, as well as many public-domain or otherwise free images of horror pioneers, horror films being made, and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    But are any of these as informative for horror films? I can think of a handful of silent films but even something as classic as Nosferatu probably wouldn't display the genre better than a group shot of several of the classic monsters that everyone associates with horror.--CyberGhostface 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(<--indent) I disagree. I think a classic creepy shot from Nosferatu would convey the idea of a horror film much better than compilation of monster heads. nadav (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can be open for Nosferatu to be the main image if we can find something else for the silent film section since Nosferatu is being used there.--CyberGhostface 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A Dr. Caligari pic perhaps. So many of those films are public domain now; there really shouldn't be a problem in selecting an alternative. nadav (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll right I'll try finding one.--CyberGhostface 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

19 June 2007

  • Image:Maroon5Promotional.jpg - Used as infobox image for Maroon 5. It's a great picture and I wish it could stay, but I don't think the fair use rationale is appropriate as they are living members of a touring band. If such images could be used on WP, I think every band article would have one in use. LaraLove/C 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree and have marked the image as replaceable fair use. I expect it to be disputed. I do not understand why the PUI didn't result in deletion though. It is clearly replaceable. MECU≈talk 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason was that I was cleaning a backlog from over two weeks and wasn't going to futz with a fair use image which is not possibly unfree, but totally unfree. :) And are group photo's also considered replaceable? Btw, my opinion on that is yes. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review Add topic