Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Suggested addition to NFCC#9: Collaspible content

I found that the template {{Infobox software}} allows one to include a "collapsible" parameter that will hide the screenshot if included. Thinking about NFC, I am pretty confident that a NFC image that starts off collapsed by the default loading of a page is basically a non-essential NFC image. This is not just in infoboxes but anywhere there can be collapsible lists. NFCC#9 should include restrictions of NFC being used in as-loaded collapsible sections. (Sections that can be collapsed later, that's fine). This will be a rule that affects use of templates like these infoboxes as well as some infoboxes themselves - eg the infobox software template documentation doesn't mention this aspect at all in the "collaspible" instructions and really should. --MASEM (t) — Preceding undated comment added 2014-07-06T06:19:52‎

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it should be in WP:NFCC#8 instead? If it is so unimportant that it can be hidden by default, then its removal isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article.

I think that this has been discussed somewhere else before. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like instruction creep to me.

-- For one thing, if a collapsed section also includes content directly discussing the NFC, it seems reasonable to go on having the one there with the other.

-- For another, we're okay with the idea that image description pages may validly be able to show a higher-resolution version of an image than can be visible in the initial thumbnail. Is clicking to reveal an image description page so different to clicking to un-collapse a collapsed section?

I too seem to remember someone having once raised this on one of the boards. But I'm not sure it led to any removals. Jheald (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, first consider that key content should never be hidden per MOS; hidden content should be limited to additional data that is not necessary but helpful (eg track listings for soundtracks associated with other media). So I cannot see a case where non-free tied to content , together as a whole would be considered "additional data" that would be appropriate to hide per the MOS. And no, the fact that clicking an image to bring a larger image isn't a factor here; images added to pages should be at a size that the broad aspects of the picture should be able to be seen at the thumbnail resolution without clickthru - if more detail is needed (without exceeding fair use allowance) to be seen in conjunction with the text, then the image should be properly clipped and enlarged to show the needed detail, or the image size on the page adjusted away from the default to show this. If you're using NFC, hiding it by default is not really meeting the NFCC#8 aspects (when tied to the MOS advice about hiding content). --MASEM (t) 22:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jheald that this is instruction creep. The problem here seems to not be with NFCC, but with a question of why a software infobox template would allow for the screenshot to be collapsed. A screenshot of the interface a piece of software uses would be something I would view as very important, and certainly worthy of inclusion despite being non-free. Reso lute 23:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to do that, I'd amend NFCC 7:

Displayed in at least one article. Non-free content must be visibly displayed within the body of at least one article.

"Visibly displayed" in this context would exclude use in collapsible boxes, because they are not visible within the body. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much a problem to include in a section that can collapse, but the default visibility of that section must be visible on a normal page load. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll also have to be careful with the wording; such a rule could effectively ban all non-infobox non-free images, because sections are displayed in a collapsed state by default in the mobile view. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That is true, this would be specifically aimed at non-free collapsed on the otherwise default (not-logged in user) view on a regular web browser, as the reasons to collapse on mobile devices are reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Also note that nothing is collapsed anywhere if you disable Javascript. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New legal note

Hi, guys. :) In response to multiple requests from users, the legal department has prepared a new wikilegal note at m:Wikilegal/Primer on U.S. Fair Use/Copyright Law for Website. I mention it in case it is of some use to you, although I realize it may not contain anything you don't know. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I have gone ahead and placed on the guideline page's "See Also" links. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A milestone

Within the last month, we have reached 500,000 non-free images on this "free encyclopedia" project. Just thought this milestone should be noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. That seems yucky in relation to our mission to provide free content. TLSuda (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

With 4.55M articles, that's about 11% of articles using non-free, which is about the same ratio as has been for several years if not lower. I know we can do better but that requires a massive sea-change regarding images "for identification" which I can tell from current discussions isn't going to happen for a long time, but we certainly haven't gone up in the ratio of usage. As long as people continue to add new articles, we will continue to increase non-free both good and bad uses. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming 250 pixels height average per non-free image (that's conservative), if we laid all the non-free images end to end, they would stretch 27 miles/43 kilometers. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That's extremely conservative, and off by at least 100 pixels from what I usually see. Either way, its something we need to work on. I have nothing against non-free media, but that many/that high percent says to me that we have way too many improper uses. TLSuda (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Compliance with 17 U.S. Code § 1202 - Integrity of copyright management information

While our fair use rationale rules are quite in-depth to begin with, it, unfortunately, does fully not comply with a particular aspect of U.S. copyright law. 17 U.S. Code § 1202 imposes rules on the handling of "copyright management information" (CMI), and forbids the altering or removal of CMI. We already comply with most of the information defined as part of CMI, but, we do not entirely comply with providing:

(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright.

I interpret this as a requirement to include the full copyright notice as specified by the publisher. In response, I propose a strict re-write of part of NFCC 10a, which should read:

Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented with information about the artist, publisher, and the relevant copyright notice containing the publisher and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value.

Does this make sense? ViperSnake151 Talk 18:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think we need WMF Legal to review that to determine exactly what that means, since it would apply to all projects on US servers (including Commons). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Would 17 U.S.C. § 1202 be overruled by fair use provisions if you have no way to tell who the copyright holder is? There is also 17 U.S.C. § 106A (moral rights) which looks similar to § 1202, but specifically mentions fair use. I think that we should ask the Foundation how or if § 1202 affects us. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely something the WMF needs to look at. If we fully implemented this, I think it would cause us to lose a sever number of fair-use files, for for both good and bad. Maybe @Mdennis (WMF): who was recently on this page dropping us a note can get us to the right person/people for the best answer? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

- I'm happy to. Can you put it in the form of a question? Back-and-forth isn't always possible with these matters, so if I get one shot it's good to have everything in you want related to this. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  - @Mdennis (WMF): I'm gonna try to put all of the pieces together: In relation to 17 U.S. Code § 1202 referring to copyright management information, specifically part (c)(3), how does the WMF interpret the requirements in relation to our non-free content policies/how we handle fair-use? Do we need to include a full copyright notice as specified by the publisher? If so, how do we need to change our WP:NFCC policy, specifically 10a to address this? Further, if we do need to include this notice and/or change our policy, how do we process the possibly over 500,000 files that are lacking this specific information? Any further guidance in this situation that we may not have specifically asked about would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some things that I would like to know:

If we need to include the original copyright notice (or other source information), then where should that information be located? On the file information page, or in the image caption? See for example this court ruling about the attribution requirement in the GNU Free Documentation License. The court decided that linking to the file information page on Wikipedia (that is, de:Datei:1986_Ulf_Fink_800.jpg) was insufficient attribution and that the copyright to the image had been violated.
What do we do if it isn't trivial to identify the original copyright notice or other required information? Many historic images are sourced to secondary sources which do not necessarily reveal the origin of the image, making it very difficult to identify the original copyright notice.

We need to formulate and agree on some questions to send to the legal team. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Original market role?

Question: I know an educative website with some biographies of notable people. It uses photos to illustrate those biographies, and they are often non-free material. If I copy one of those images from THEIR biography into OUR biography of a given subject, am I replacing "the original market role of the original copyrighted material", as forbidden by WP:NFCC#2?

I understand how I would be replacing the original market role of a photo if I take a journalistic photo from (say) photo agency Getty Images and freely use it here, when Getty makes money exactly by licensing its photo for uses like ours. But when the image just belongs to an educative website, whose intent is to spread knowledge, am I damaging or helping them by reusing their copyrighted protected material?

(of course, assuming all other criteria on WP:NFCC are fulfilled, biography subject is dead, etc. ...) --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My evaluation of such an image would be based if they were selling those photos individually as just using them to augment the main "commercial" opportunity, this being the complete bio page, photos and text and all. In the situation you describe, I would think it fine to use such images (presuming all other NFCC aspects are met). --MASEM (t) 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Woah, woah woah! You can't just throw out a blanket response like that. At the least WP:FREER in addition to WP:NFCC should be considered unless the image has fallen out of copyright. You can't just say, "oh someone used the picture this way, so it's ok for me to use it this other similar way". That edu website may have paid for the rights to host that image with no rights to reassign usage, or they may have been given an exclusive use right, or any number of possibilities. If there are any doubts, you need to contact that site directly and confirm the information about the photo before acting. BcRIPster (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there may be those types of issues - that's the blanket that "all other NFCC aspects are met". If you use the picture from the school's website with the school expected to be the authoratative source (eg talking about a former, deceased dean), one is expected to have to scoured the website for any licensing details, including rights of the photo. If the person that made the website used a photo that should have been licensed differently (eg copyright belonging to a specific photographer), and they don't include that on the website, it is not our fault for making the normal presumption that the photo belongs the school and falls under their copyright. There is no requirement to contact for non-free/fair use use since copyright law nowaday automatically assumes copyright with publication. If the school published wrong and the photographer takes issue and can prove it was their photo and consider it a commercial product, then we fix that on our end by removing the image. This is why it is generally a good idea if a site is hosting an image without a by-line that seems odd for them to have access to, reverse image searching to find other sites - particularly Gettys/AP images - is good practice. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're in agreement there, although I'm not as strong on the idea that someone would automatically assume that a photo posted by a school (sans notification) belongs to that school. I can think that almost assuredly it would be just the opposite. BcRIPster (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mean, where there is a potential chance that a photograph is one that would fall into the issue of NFCC#2 (eg being a work that is meant to be sold for money) then yes, one can go and do that legwork. To mean, however, taking the case of photos of former staff of a school for example would have been done by a photographer as a work-for-hire if not done by the school itself, and thus not for the photographer to have images to sell individually (in the manner that press sources would do), so it's not much of a problem for us if the school's website neglects to mention the photographer (That omission is an issue between the photographer and school). On the other hand, take the case of the Kim Jong-Il article - people have attempted to pass off images of the leader from various random websites that do not mention a source for a photo, and this has been a case that nearly every one that has been attempted I can TinEye/Reverse Image Search to find the AP/Gettys or other wire service's original photo or some more reliable website that does us the photo but provides the proper documentation to the source. We have to use a bit of common sense. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Damiens.rf: User:Masem is correct. Non-free media that meets all of WP:NFCC, can be used on Wikipedia. Specifically what you are talking about falls under WP:NFCC#2 and the long-standing consensus is that this particular point is intended to prevent use of materials where the purpose of the original source is to make money from the photo. This is why we do not allow photos from press agencies (as that is the source of income) unless that particular photo is the subject of the article and it meets all of WP:NFCC. If you do intend to use a photo, you need to find the original source (not just the website it is currently hosted at.) If you have any questions about particular photos, you can ask at WP:Media copyright questions‎. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: and @Masem:, when WP:NFCC#2 mentions "commercial opportunities", does it means "opportunities to make money by licensing the picture" and just that?

If this is the long-standing consensus, we're done. But my worry was that, when we download a picture whose purpose was to illustrate Senator Denis Denovan's biography at Indonesia University Online Encyclopedia, and use it to illustrate Senator Denis Denovan's biography at Wikipedia, we are somehow making the Indonesia University Online Encyclopedia's website less valuable.

Don't fair use law says something about "transformative use", that we should use the work in a different way? Does it apply here? --damiens.rf 18:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Transformative use means something completely different (see Univ. of Minnesota Law Library). I believe it applies to allow more items to be used as fair use when the original item is transformed significantly (like in a parody). In your situation that you described about Denovan's photo, we are not preventing them from making money, or taking away value. They sell the encyclopedia, and not the photos themselves. As long as the photos meet WP:NFCC we aren't hurting anyone by reusing them here. There is, however, always the option of approaching the original copyright holder and asking them to release the work under a free license. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

TLSuda said it better than I could. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: a parody never works as a substitute for the original work, while our Donovan's biography works perfectly as a substitute for theirs. Isn't it what makes the parody a transformative use and not ours? --damiens.rf 17:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Damiens.rf: Sorry, I should explain better. Transformative use is not one of the four requirements of fair-use law in the United States. Its a later (1994) addition that can, possibly, sometimes, allow for use under fair-use, even when the item doesn't necessarily meet the other requirements. We are not required to have a transformative use to use fair-use materials. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we do capture the transformation use to a degree by NFCC#9 (requiring content to be used on article space as to at least be alongside education text) and NFCC#8 (requiring more than just decorative use), if not other ways. By meeting NFCC we assume non-free images meet the transformative use of fair use law, but we have no special call out to otherwise describe that; in contrast NFCC#2 is specifically aimed to show that that fair use concept is met, and similarly NFCC#3 is aimed to reduce the non-free taking. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo

In case you happen though here, I wanted to let you know that large numbers of Wikimedia/Wikipedia image editors don't know about these exceptions at all.

And telling them about this is almost futile--

As the other documentation on acceptable use of images claims that there are no exceptions whatsoever. Therefore when told about this page they don't believe it, don't look at it, and just aggressively start deleting.

I am talking about images of dead people, not living persons.

Also-- there really should be specific examples written out here, because those editors (who do actually read about the exceptions described here) can't figure out how to apply it.

Appreciatively,

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to be more specific what images you think are being deleted outside of the allowances here. Remember that while WP:NFCI (a list of allowable examples) is there, all conditions at WP:NFCC must be met, so just because the image is of a deceased person doesn't mean it is immeiately allowed. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want Jimbo Wales to "happen through here," you should ping him via WP:Echo like I just did in this sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Log/Cliffswallow-vaulting, I see no uploads at all by this user. The complaint therefore doesn't seem to be about files uploaded by the user himself. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cliffswallow-vaulting: if you are referring to c:File:J. Frank Raley, Jr., Maryland politician;.jpg, the problem was that you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons instead of here on Wikipedia. Commons is a repository for free media and does not accept non-free/fair use content (see c:Commons:Fair use). January (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Are you saying that Wikipedia will accept fair use (as opposed to Wikimedia)? If so, is there anything I need to pay special attention to?

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts fair use content that meets all of the criteria. However, an image of a deceased person is usually only accepted as fair use in an article about the pictured person, the image that was deleted from Commons was being used in St. Mary's College of Maryland where it is unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#8. January (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Well, I will upload his picture and it put it back into the article about him then.

Appreciatively,

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you all for the help! And thanks to Jimbo not just for this, but also for Wikipedia & Wikimedia!

Sincerely, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I have one last question just in case anyone still has this on watch.

With the "Fair Use" J. Frank Raley photo (mentioned above), it was pointed out it could well be acceptable as a Wikipedia image for the article about him.

But one last point about the St. Mary's College of Maryland article-- J. Frank Raley is effectively the founder of the school--

It was a tiny Junior College before and he led a state campaign that greatly expanded it into a four-year college with far more students.

Not only that, but--

Then he was president of it's board of trustees for 30 years, under his leadership the school then rose to being ranked "5th in the Nation" (for public colleges) by U.S. News and World Report.

Would those facts allow for use of the "Fair Use" image of him on the St. Mary's College of Maryland article as well (if supported by quality citations)?

I'm not arguing the point, just trying to see what you think.

Thanks,

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, if we have a separate article on the person, the link to that article from the College's page would let the reader to see the person, but we would not allow that person's picture to be used on the college page that way. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the info! :-)

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm thinking of archiving this thread. If anyone has any objections, please let me know in the next 24 hours (from the time of this post).

Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"The logo may be obtained from <name of company>"

Is this compliant with WP:NFCC#10a? This text is inserted by {{logo fur}} if no source is specified. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If we consider this, we need to consider the specific FUR templates for music and movies, etc, because default to saying something along the lines of "This cover can be obtained from the distribution company..." Personally, I think both are too general for being compliant. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, {{logo fur}} is not the only template with this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If it were the case that logo fur was only used for the infobox identication image, I would normally be okay with that (though with preference to provide a hard source), but because people use the logo fur inappropriate for non-identification images, I think we need to require a source for the logo nowadays. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

the default text is probably OK if it is known to be true. Of course it is better for the uploader to tell us wehre it came from, but that can also be in the information template or free text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not "always" true. For a majority of cases, yes, but I'd argue the number is around 95% and that's too much of a problem to say it is "fine". The fact that text is coming from the template's default language is a problem, making uploaders sloppy in doing that work. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The boiler plate fair use rationales have been a plague on the project since creation. They have dramatically contributed to the overall decline in lack of understanding of the NFCC policy. I don't see what tweaking the wording will do to help. Leave well enough alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's legal, it's ok.

Please read a recent posting on my talk page by User:Jheald. Apparently, a discussion he had with the Foundation and its staffers leads to conclusions that strongly disagree with commonly held beliefs here on this project. My concerns are:

Effectively, the supposed stance of the Foundation is "if it's legal, it's ok". This stance has been strongly disagreed with by common practice here for many years.
There's no documentation anywhere that this is the actual stance of the Foundation; just a discussion. The discussion apparently disagrees with Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.

Discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's put into writing for all projects to see, we should assume that the Resolution that minimizes non-free use holds. Second-hand word of people that may not even have been responsible for the licensing policy is not going to override that. (Add to the fact that there's even long term editors that mistake our non-free policy with the concept of fair use, which are related but quite different, and I could see Foundation members being similarly confused if they weren't part of the original discussions). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, when somebody questions whether the overriding imperative suggested by "The focus of both of these items of policy is to limit the use of copyrighted, fair use imagery as much as possible" is really the balance that the NFC policy was intended to strike (because that certainly wasn't the thought when the NFC policy was written), they get told "we have to do that because this is what the Foundation wants".

But then when somebody actually asks the Foundation, they get told "No, that's not how see the policy. Not coming from us."

Doesn't that seem even slightly troublesome?

There are good reasons for being very vigilant about non-free content, which follow directly from reading the word "minimal" in the Licensing Resolution in the same sense that it is read in U.S. fair use case law -- viz. no more than needed for the purpose identified. The principal concerns are that images must be legal for use on WP, per US law; images must be legal for our major commercial bulk reusers, who cannot rely on Wikipedia's non-profit, educational, and charitable status to pass the famous 4 factor tests of US fair-use law; and images should not overbalance readers perceptions of WP -- it's our free content we are about, the role of fair use images on any particular article should be ancillary to that.

That's the line the NFC policy was originally drafted to reflect; and it is the line as currently understood by Foundation staffers. If some would advocate a more hard line view, it worth noting that it does not come from either of those two sources. Jheald (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) For the record, let's remember that it was also Kat Walsh's line immediately after the Licensing Resolution was passed -- it wasn't intended to tighten existing practice on en:wp, it was intended to recognise what en:wp had done as best practice, and spread it to the other language wikis, if they were going to use NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with staying by the word that is published by the Foundation, as opposed to second-hand nature. Hammersoft (I believe) has in the past even tried to ask the Foundation to give more insight on their policy by email and they didn't response or chose to clarify. So unless they write something down to express what they want that everyone can read directly, there's zero reason to question the Resolution. And no, NFC was written on a much stronger line, expanding past what fair use would allow. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the licensing policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies", so whatever the Foundation may think is fine, the Foundation has decided that we can't do anything which isn't permitted by the licensing policy. The licensing policy says that an EDP must be minimal and that it must be "in accordance with [..] the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". I'm not sure if WP:NFCC satisfies the last part. This page tells that English Wikipedia is the predominantly accessed language edition in the United Kingdom, and this page tells that 10.8% of the readers are from the United Kingdom, so maybe the United Kingdom is one of the "countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". I'm not sure how big changes would be required to make it legal to use English Wikipedia articles in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious that this secondhand "understanding" is nonsense. For example, the WMF licensing policy states "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." That's much stricter than American "fair use" law (and, so far as I know, anybody else's). The foundation's resolution states that EDP's must be "minimal". Saying that any fair use is OK would be maximal -- we couldn't legally go any further in any reasonable way (and "use anything and we'll take it down if there's a legal threat" isn't reasonable.) It's impossible to square this with the idea that Wikipedia content should be presumed for-profit reusable, as well. Even if somebody did say this, it's not as though Foundation staff haven't seemed to go beyond Foundation mandates before. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was taking NFCC #1 as read, because it's absolutely crystal clear, and not in dispute.

As regards "Maximal", maximal use of images is not fair use. Use has to be minimal, as U.S. law understands the term, or it is not fair. And we are stricter than "anything we can get away with", because (i) we want our use to be legal, whether or not anyone is challenging it, whether or not it ever even remotely be likely to be the subject of challenge; (ii) because it is not just our use we want to be unquestionably legal, but also that by any commercial bulk reuser -- a higher bar; and (iii) even when legal, we value WP's reputation for using fair use content sparingly, without dominating the page.

I should make absolutely clear that I think the ten NFC criteria are well judged, balanced and appropriate. What I think needs reflection is the injunction sometimes championed by some that we are under some kind of imperative to read them in the narrowest least permissive way possible, to always reduce fair use above all other goals -- "building a fence around the Torah" if you will. That is not the spirit in which the NFC were written. It's not the attitude Jimbo took over e.g. pound coins recently. And it seems it's not something the people working for the Foundation recognise either. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

US Fair Use law has no concept of "minimum", it is a new concept here and thus a specific declaration of the Foundation. US Fair Use defense compares how much of the original work was taken in considering whether there was a legal copyright issue, in addition to other tests, but "minimum" is not a factor there; obviously the less you use the more likely you can claim your fair use defense. Our goal here is to promote free materials and minimize the amount of non-free to only the most necessary cases where free content (including text) cannot do the same job at an encyclopdic summary of a topic. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether fair use is minimal typically plays into factors 1 and 3 of the U.S. fair use analysis: viz the "Amount and Substantiality" of the taking, and the "Purpose and character" of the use. Minimality, in the sense presented above i.e. the taking being no more than needed for the purpose identified, is something often discussed in such cases. Jheald (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes but fair use does not require a minimization of use (only if the use is minimal compared to the whole work), while the Licensing Resolution does. There's a major difference here. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the University of Texas had to say, summarising recent decisions, in guidance updated in 2012 [1]: they "follow recent trends in court decisions in collapsing the Fair Use Statute's four factors into two questions: Is the use you want to make of another's work transformative -- that is, does it add value to and repurpose the work for a new audience -- and is the amount of material you want to use appropriate to achieve your transformative purpose? Transformative uses that repurpose no more of a work than is needed to make the point, or achieve the purpose, are generally fair use." (emphasis original)

So: an amount appropriate to achieve the purpose ... no more than needed to make the point, or achieve the purpose.

Fair use can include an entire work, if the entire work is needed to achieve the purpose; or on the other hand quite a small taking may not be fair use, if it is more than needed to achieve the purpose. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's why the Resolution is specifically stricter than that, specifically minimize non-free inclusion as an explicit aspect, since under fair use, the full work could be justified. As we are trying to create a free resource, there is almost no case where the full work is required (in the case of 2D photos/paintings, the work at full resolution) to be able to talk about it, so minimizing non-free is right in line with that goal and beyond the requirements of the US Fair Use defense. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, while I do have the greatest respect for you, this time you're pulling this out of nowhere.

People on the Board at the time, and current WMF staffers, both deny your interpretation.

As set out above, "Minimal" is a standard term in US fair use law discussion, meaning no more than needed to achieve the purpose. Jheald (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The question is what is needed to achieve the encyclopedic purpose. If 300px is sufficient to achieve the purpose, then we go for 300px. But if (as in a number of cases), slightly higher resolution is required, in such cases we allow slightly higher resolution. This is entirely in line with what I have set out above. Jheald (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Until it is writing and put to meta. to be shown to all of the Wikimedia projects to counter the Resolution, we go by the resolution. I don't care what you claim to have heard, that has zero influence on the written, dated resolution set by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going by the Resolution. If you're so sure that the Resolution says more than I say it does (and WMF staffers say it does), then why don't you go to the Foundation to see if they'll support your views. Oh, except Hammersoft tried that, and they didn't. Jheald (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No you aren't. The Resolution is contradicting what you claim that the WMF staff said. The Resolution has language that goes beyond Fair Use law (eg "such usage must be minimal" and the restriction on using non-free where free content can be expected to be had or created). So we need the Foundation to issue an official statement or an updated resolution to reflect that change in our policy. Further, there is a huge difference between not getting a reply back (which is what happened) and being told one's view is wrong - and in either way, there's a least a trial of documentation for that. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "minimal" is the specific word I put to the WMF staffers and asked for interpretation on, having explained that there were two points of view on this. Their view was exactly the same as mine -- and quite forcefully expressed too, I might add. So don't say that the word "minimal" logically entails your interpretation, because it simply ain't so.

NFCC #1 is a separate issue, that clearly does go beyond fair use law, but it is not the issue in contention here, and not something I have ever challenged.

There is no change in policy, because the word "minimal" was never intended to bear the interpretation you have subsequently put on. Supporting my view there are the intentions of the original contributors of the relevant NFCC criteria, contributed to bring NFC policy into closer alignment with US fair use case law; there is the statement of Kat Walsh, immediately after the resolution was announced, clarifying that it was intended as a confirmation, not a tightening, of en-wiki policy; and now the statement by relevant staffers in the relevant department of WMF, directly after a talk on the use of NFC. Against that, what is there to support your reading of the Resolution, apart from your own point of view? Jheald (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no documentation of your claims, and considering that at the time en.wiki built out NFC before the Resolution was in place, it was to put limits far stronger than fair use (there's the whole reason that language was changed from "fair use" to "non-free" to reflect this.) It would also seem that a "fair use" level of allowance would go against everything the Foundation says it is doing in trying to provide free content material. Words like "exceptional" in the Resolution do not ring true with the concept of fair use as you are describing, while staying true to "minimal" as we expect. Further, even if the Foundation put out language that altered the Resolution along the lines you are claiming, you then subsequently would need to change NFC policy on en.wiki; as long as our version of NFC still meets the hypothetical weakened licensing resolution of the Foundation, we can continue to strive to keep use minimal. The aim of minimizing how much non-free we use should be an intellectual challenge to editors - how far can they take describing a topic before requiring the use of non-free - given that this is still a free content encyclopedia. Basically, you're asking us to radically change policy on your word "This is what the Foundation said" with nothing to back that up. That's not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The current text of WP:NFCC is entirely compatible with what I've said. No changes would be necessary. After all, it's the principles I've expressed which formed it in the first place. Jheald (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely disagree that our NFCC is compatible with the summarized view "if it's legal, it's ok"; we have chosen much stricter inclusion than just US fair use law. US fair use law, for example, would let us use samples over 10%/30 sec of songs, or have multiple cover images of published works, or use multiple screenshots for visual works, which we would certainly be in the right to us since we are meeting the educational goal. But, importantly, we have chosen not to do that, purposely, to maintain the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Use of Image

[2] Images of Argentine currency are subject to copyright but there is a reasonable FUR for using them on Argentine peso. A couple of editors are suggesting placing an image of the 20 peso note on Juan Manuel de Rosas and there is a FUR for that purpose. I have in turn suggested images that require a FUR should not be used repeatedly. Further, there is no need to include it as you can simply state his image is on the 20 peso note and include a wikinlink. I would welcome comment from editors with more experience of FUR at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Twenty-pesos note. W C M_email 19:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-free text

I've started to run into situations on TV and Film related pages where people are quoting large portions of dialogue. I'm curious as to the stance regarding this, and how this should be address in the respective guidelines for TV and Film. For example, Forever (U.S. TV series) contains a transcript of the entire opening dialogue of the show right below a summary of the show that is basically a paraphrase of the dialogue they are quoting. To me, that appears to violate the non-free content guidelines, as it's the entire dialogue (not a portion), it isn't needed for context becuase paraphrasing works just fine, and there is no critical commentary on the dialogue itself by third-part sources. I'd like clarification on this, as there has been resistance to removing pieces like this on article pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be covered here, but quotes are considered straight up fair use within policy, but does not fall under non-free concerns (we don't require rationales, the only requirement is that is it clearly marked as a quote, and has a source to immediately identify it inline). As such, the length of the quote should be within consideration of normal US Fair Use law. Looking at this (I assume you mean Forever (U.S. TV series)) I don't think the show's intro quotation used in full is a problem but it's not very good writing. If there are phrases from the introduction that can help in the synopsis, they should be used in line, but I can't directly find fault with that use. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the page I was referring to. Ok, I guess it was concerning to me that we would allow the posting of portions of a script with no rationale for why it needs to be there. To me, it's no different than posting a screencapture from the show, or posting excessively detailed plot summmaries about a show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

From a copyright/fair use side, it would be difficult to counter the use of a few sentences used in the common intro sequence of a show, as that it well within fair use law. (On the other hand, if a full transcript of a full act was used... ) But there are editorial reasons to challenge the use of the intro without any other context, just that there's strong policy behind that. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the thrust of this discussion. Basically, I am not a lawyer but I doubt if there is any legal problem here at all. It's clearly a quote, marked as such, and as such plainly fair use. However, I think it's not encyclopedic and jarring as compared to our normal style. So I'd personally argue against having it there on those grounds, although I can see other perspectives as well. (For example, one could argue that we should quote more.)

I just went looking for an example and I found an interesting one that strikes me as more in keeping with our encyclopedic style. The very very very famous "Where no man has gone before" opening from Star Trek is just mentioned in our article Star Trek, not fully quoted. But we have an article Where no man has gone before about the quote itself, which does quote both the original but also modern variants. That seems about right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from sources posted to Talk:Ayurveda removed wholesale

I am posting here hoping editors with more knowledge of/experience with fair use of quotations from sources on talk can provide some insight. I made a sizable post including small quotes from 20+ sources to Talk:Ayurveda diff. It is clear to me that the last quotation I posted (from Sujatha 2011) was probably to extensive. My question concerns the other quotations. I believe they were brief enough to qualify as fair use. Another editor reverted my entire posting, including points that contained no quotations and points that had quotations of a single sentence. I am seeking guidance on what can or should be restored and general information on quoting sources on talk. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina

Inclusion debate resolved by discussion at WP:BLP noticeboard --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lina Medina#34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:NFCC#10c

Fair use rationale added and image re-added to article --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have some question about the use of the logo Persib logo.png as seen in Persib Bandung. The team also have a reserve team that use the same logo which is Persib Bandung U-21. Stefan2 removed the logo on the reserve team article because it violates WP:NFCC#10c. I know that the logo only have fair use for the main team article, but the reserve team also uses that logo. Is there anyway the image description page of the logo be updated to include the reserve team also? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is complete. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Clarification

Under No. 9, the policy states that images may only be used in articles. I had created a userbox using an image that I got directly from the main article. I was wondering if images would also be able to used on Userpages as well, and if not, what is the reasoning behind being unable to use an image in this way? Leobold111 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No you can't. The reason we don't allow it as the Foundation requires non-free media to only be used in context of actual content, so things like talk pages, user pages, etc. which are not part of that content cannot qualify for such use (we allow excpetional cases, but not too often) --MASEM (t) 07:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Leobold111 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images and SVG

I notice that there is a category Category:Fair_use_images_that_should_be_in_SVG_format, mostly logos, but I think this is definitely either in violation of WP:IMAGERES or pointless. Vector formats are inherently scalable and the software would automatically generate high-resolution versions of them (not to mention the file itself would be hosted on Wikipedia, even if the scale parameter is default low, it still contains all the information that would be present in a default high-resolution SVG). The page there suggests that one "reduce the detail" of the SVG, but this seems like a much murkier proposition than simply leaving them in a low-resolution raster format.

I think it would be worthwhile to clarify the official policy on vector versions of images and when they would be appropriate. There was some discussion of this 7 years ago at Template_talk:Should_be_SVG#Logos, and it seems to me that in general everyone agrees that vector images are inherently unlikely to meet fair use rationales, but the result of the discussion was simply to warn people that it's probably a waste of time - this might be OK, but the user trying to decide whether or not it's a waste of time would likely come to either WP:NFCC or WP:LOGO to determine whether or not it's acceptable, and vector images are not mentioned in either location. This seems like a point that should be clarified. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If the image is non-free, the only time we allow SVG if it is the logo as pulled directly from the entity's own distribution channels, as such that there's no misrepresentation of the logo. A recreation of a logo in SVG is not appropriate if the logo doesn't qualify as free/uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree even with this. Consider that if you get a high-resolution logo from an official distribution channel, you still need to scale it down in order to meet WP:IMAGERES. Similarly, rasterizing the SVG should also be part of minimal use. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If a vectorisation has been taken from a company, then we are potentially not only using someone's copyrighted logo, but also a derivative work of someone else's vectorisation, which may be separately copyrightable as a computer program, independently of the copyright status of the underlying logo. Therefore, we should always seek to obtain permission from the one who created the vectorisation and ensure that the vectorisation isn't derived from a non-free source. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as we are getting the logo from a company's official channels (like off their website), we are assume that the logo was done as a work-for-hire either within the company or a third party, and as such, even the SVG part of the file would be copyright to the company as a work for hire. That's why the source is important as to verify it's both official and that there's no other special notes about copyright. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If a non-free SVG file doesn't meet WP:NFCC#3b, then please nominate the file for deletion. Just the fact that an SVG can scale to any size is not the important thing. WP:NFCC#3b is more about image quality, and the quality of an SVG file depends on in which detail you encode it. The quality of a PNG file depends more on the number of pixels, making it easier to determine the quality of a PNG file. I'm not sure how to easily determine if a given SVG file satisfies WP:NFCC#3b or not, but if it has extremely high quality, then it obviously doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the SVG file can scale to any size makes it inherently impossible for it to be minimal use. Resolution is not a meaningful concept in vector files, as that is just a display parameter. The Wikipedia software will automatically generate low and high resolution versions from any SVG, and even if that mechanism were removed on non-free images, you're still hosting what is essentially the full, high-resolution image. The safest bet is to rasterize before uploading. Either way, I think it should be explicitly clarified in the policy, as people may not understand the fundamental difference between raster and vector images. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution (as in "pixel count") is only meaningful for pixel graphics (e.g. PNG, JPG or OGV). It is not meaningful for sound files (such as MID or OGV) where there are other quality considerations. Similarly, the pixel count is not a useful measurement for telling if an SVG file is big or not. You could render the same logo using either 10 or 10,000 geometric shapes, but if you use 10,000 geometric shapes, the SVG file will be a lot more detailed. One way to determine the size of an SVG file is to count the number of geometric shapes used to render the logo, but it can't be the only requirement as different logos need different numbers of geometric shapes. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While I think technically there are direct analogs to resolution in music, I take your general point, but I am having trouble coming up with a situation in which it would be relevant. I can't think of a situation where the most valuable minimum use form factor wouldn't be a low-resolution rasterization of a vector image. At the very least, I think we should prefer minimum-resolution rasters for non-free vector images unless there is a compelling fair-use justification for using an actual vector version. Consider that the standard is "minimum use", which means that if you can use less of the image (i.e. a lower quality), you should. If you can create an SVG version and display it at a useful size, anything higher-resolution than that useful size would be by nature superfluous additional resolution - resolution provided by the SVG (due to infinite scaling) but not by the raster. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

For images, it may be a good idea to combine WP:NFCC#3b with WP:NFCC#7 and require that all parts of the image must be used. If some parts (some pixels or some vector file elements) are not used in an article, then those parts would be removed. However, this solution would maybe cause problems with software screenshots where it sometimes may be required to show more detail on the file information page than in the article. It also does not address sound or video (except the video's pixel count). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This argument has come up many times over the years. However logo's have an exact opposite requirement, in that the organisation that uses or supplies them wants the logo to be used as a good quality to avoid tarnishing its image. Some SVG files used as logos have been converted from other forms supplied from the company, or may have been supplied in the form used. In any of these cases where the logo is used to identify the organisation, it is likely to be used according to the organisation's conditions and then used with permission. SO although this is not according to a Wikipedia policy it is still legal and desired by the supplier that the image is used according to its maximum resolution. In this case there should be additional text to say if the logo supplier wants it to be used at high resolution rather than a poor quality version. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again I very strongly disagree with this. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy about using images with restricted permissions. WP:NFCC#3b indicates "minimal use" - that doesn't mean a low quality image, it just means the lowest quality image that conveys the message appropriately. If an image looks bad at the resolution displayed, then using a higher resolution version of it should be acceptable, but nothing will justify hosting, say, a 2048x1024 image of Wal-Mart's logo, when the only articles using it are displaying it at 200x100. Using an SVG version of the logo is effectively using a high-resolution version of the image. Given that this has legal implications, I'm guessing we should get someone from WMF to weigh in on the appropriateness of vector formats in fair use images, to clarify these points, and from there we should clarify the situation in WP:IMAGERES, which is currently providing no guidance with respect to fair use vector images. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sysop of hy:wp here. I was browsing to understand exactly this - How do we deal with non-free SVG logos on different Wikipedias. So I strongly support idea of reaching out to WMF for legal clarifications. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hammersoft believes that this thread is completely dead. My belief was that we are currently stalled waiting for WMF comment. I've left a message over at User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#WMF_Legal_Response_on_WP:NFCC.3F on the question. I suppose I'm happy to start an RfC on this, though that seems unnecessary, since, 1.) this is a matter of copyright law, not a matter of consensus, so WP:OFFICE applies and 2.) there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that we need clarification on how to deal with SVGs on WP:NFCC, just disagreement as to whether or not WP:NFCC#3b can be satisfied for vector versions of things. Do the participants here truly believe we should archive this thread while we wait for WMF comment? Should we start an RfC? Should I advertise this discussion more widely so we can get it settled? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the response from WMF staff on Philippe's talk page, the e-mail address I sent the original message to was not the right one, and it was not one that was routinely checked. I've sent a new e-mail to WMF legal today and am awaiting a response. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As everybody else in the thread has said, the longstanding view is to allow SVGs so long as they originate with the company; or contain no further detail than that needed to present the image at the resolution needed to properly inform the user (ie use of an SVG containing this level of detail is considered appropriate, despite the fact that for an SVG the image can be cleanly blown up larger). Moreover, as Graeme Bartlett has noted, it is a valid consideration to present the image in as clean a way as possible to avoid tarnishing the brand image. The word "minimal" in the Foundation resolution (as WMF staffers have confirmed to me) was and is intended as a direct shout-out to US fair-use jurisprudence -- no more than needed for the purpose identified. Here the SVG is no more than needed to present the company's logo without tarnishing the brand image. And given all the other factors, it is clearly fair use. So I really don't see why you seem trying to pick such an issue here. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to "pick" the issue because currently there is no guideline akin to WP:IMAGERES that addresses non-free SVGs. I'm assuming at the moment that this is a WP:OFFICE issue, since it concerns copyright issues. If that is not the case, then I think we explicitly determine a consensus about exactly what is allowed and include it in WP:NFC. My personal view of it is that since we literally never display the SVG on Wikipedia (it's always rasterized when displayed) and we have the option of rasterizing the SVG in the exact same way that the Wikipedia software would before uploading it, I don't see how an effectively infinite-resolution version of the logo could possibly satisfy WP:NFCC#3b, but again, I'm really just looking for codification into policy. Personally, I am a huge booster of SVGs, so I'd be happy to be wrong on this count - the whole reason I wanted clarification in the first place was that I've been going through and creating SVG versions of existing raster images. This subject has been discussed many times over the past 7-8 years, and the discussion always peters out before action is taken. It's well-overdue for being included in policy. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC Proposal

OK, I received a response from Wikimedia Legal - the gist of which is that the WMF does not consider this an office matter, so we are basically free to make a community decision about the use of SVGs. I'm thinking that we should proceed with a (widely advertised) RfC to determine exactly what the policy is going to be, then we can draft some proposed wording one way or the other as a subsection in WP:IMAGERES. I've had some RfCs that suffered from major format problems before, so before I get one started, hopefully we can agree on a single yes/no question? How about this:

Title: Should vector images (SVGs) be allowed under a fair use rationale?

Question: The terms of WP:NFCC#3b state that images uploaded under a fair-use rationale must minimize the extent of use, specifically requiring that low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bitrate should be used. Resolution is not a meaningful concept in vector images (which are infinitely scalable), and as such WP:IMAGERES provides no guidance as to how to apply the NFCC#3b rule in the case of SVG images. Should vector graphics be allowed under a non-free / fair use rationale, or should they be rasterized at the target, minimal resolution before upload?

I know that this has been discussed many, many times, so before starting the RfC, I'll gather as many links as I can find to this and similar discussions on the various disparate venues and neutrally present them as background. Does this sound good to the people involved here? 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten any feedback on this yet, I'm going to notify the previous participants in the discussion, as I would like to try to keep the RfC statement neutral, and I'm aware that I've already taken a position on the matter. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would clarify that we are talking about vector graphics that are established to have originated from the copyright holder of the image they represent, as opposed to mock-ups of non-free images done in SVG created by a WP or otherwise different user (Which we would never allow). --MASEM (t) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is no guidance whatsoever in NFC or NFCC on vector images, I'm not sure it's necessary to make this clarification, but if there's a consensus on this page that vectorized versions of non-free images are definitely forbidden, I can modify the RfC wording. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If WMF are saying that they don't regard this as a legal concern, what would we be supposed to be trying to achieve by requiring non-scalable raster images, which can't even be rescaled cleanly to be smaller? Jheald (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Presumably that's a question to be addressed in the RfC. To be clear, they didn't make any comment on the legality, just said that they cannot advise us on this legal manner and that questions of fair use and non-free content have historically been decisions left to the community. That does not mean we can do whatever we want, it just means that it is up to us to make the call. Either way, I'm mainly just interested in getting something codified so that we have some proper guidance in the future.

Also, regarding downscaling, while that's a concern, it's not nearly as much as a concern as scaling up, since downscaling is a lossy process, and reversing it requires information that was lost in the initial scaling. Either way, if {{u}Masem}} is right that we would ban any SVGs not created by the corporation themselves, if a smaller scale would be required, it seems likely we'd be able to re-scale it from the original source anyway. It seems like a pretty severe edge case that it would be an image that 1.) won't cleanly downscale and 2.) has a dead or otherwise missing original source. Either way, I'm not seeing much objection to my proposed wording for the RfC here, so if there's no objection before next weekend, we can close this discussion and I'll create the RfC. Hopefully before then people will weigh in as to whether or not it's already consensus that a vectorization of a non-free image is not allowed. I sort of think that the existence of the "fair use" category of {{Should be SVG}} would argue that there is no such consensus at the moment, but that the warning message associated with that category indicates some ambiguity on the topic. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with file metadata cleanup

Hi. WP:WPFU is labeled as "inactive" but I notice that several users have been editing recently, so I'm hoping that you can help me: pinging Masem, ChrisGualtieri, Howcheng, Mwanner, Gaff.

As you may have heard, I'm currently working on a File metadata cleanup drive, whose goal is to make sure that all media files contain machine-readable metadata. When metadata is machine-readable, it can be extracted and shown in places like PDF prints, Media Viewer or third-party reusers like Kiwix and WikiWand. In the case of fair-use files, you know even better than me how important it is to properly indicate the copyright status of a file.

The English Wikipedia is the wiki with the largest amount of media files after Commons. Nearly 70% of those already contain machine-readable metadata, but that still leaves almost 300,000 files lacking machine-readable information.

From what I can see, many of those remaining files are fair-use images like posters, book/CD covers or recent paintings. They usually have the appropriate fair-use templates, so fixing them can be as easy as adding a few special markers to the templates.

I'm hoping some of you can help me go through those templates and add the markers. You're probably much more familiar than me with the variety of templates, and familiar with their peculiarities and architecture.

Do you think you could help? Even occasional or small edits are appreciated. I'm happy to help on the technical side if you need any support or have any questions regarding the special markers. I'm available on-wiki or via IRC and email to answer questions if you're not sure how to proceed.

Can you help me or recommend people who could? Guillaume 23:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Many non-free files use custom fair use rationales instead of using variants of {{Non-free use rationale}} or {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. Even if the tags are added to the templates, the files with custom fair use rationales will remain without machine-readable information. What to do with those? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, they would need to use the standard templates, so that all of the information is machine-readable. But as a first step, we should be able to mark the generic templates, even if we don't include the fair use rationale. If we look at a random example, the rationale is in the wikitext directly, which isn't great, but the page still has {{Non-free audio sample}} where some markers could be added. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Migrating to the standard fair use templates might be possible with a bot that would recognize the most common rationales, and templatize them. Do you think this makes sense? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you list out the key data that has to be there for metafile'ing the information? That'll be at least a start for what you are looking for. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's more info at m:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata, but in a nutshell: Ideally, we'd need two sets of data:

"Information" data: description, author and source;
"License" data (or other copyright information): Short name of the license, long name, link, and whether it's non-free.

Information data seems like it's usually unstructured, with rationales in plain wikitext, so to mark this we could try to use a bot to templatize them. License / copyright information is usually already present in a template, so we can add the markers there more easily. See this edit to {{Non-free use rationale 2}} for an example that included both types of data. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that User:MGA73 has fixed the templates on many other projects. Maybe he can help fixing our fair use ones too.

Licensing: All non-free files should contain {{non-free media}} somewhere. This template is transcluded by copyright tags, rationale templates and other templates. Also, all files containing {{non-free media}} should be categorised as "fair use". Maybe the licensing parameter simply could be added to {{non-free media}}?
Information: Files with templated information use {{Non-free use rationale}}, {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, {{Non-free media data}} and possibly some more. There are also several specialised tags such as {{logo fur}}, but those simply transclude {{Non-free use rationale}}, so maybe those are taken care of automatically if {{Non-free use rationale}} is fixed. There is also the problem that there are lots of files with custom rationales which aren't machine-readable and for which we can't easily add the information. Fixing those will take a lot of time.

If some information is missing, the files will be categorised into four special categories. Maybe the first step could be to add the parameters to {{non-free media}}, {{Non-free use rationale}}, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free media data}}, and then ask a bot to post "action=purge" with the "forcelinkupdate" parameter to all files so that we can see how much we have left in the categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried to fix the template but gave up because it was hard to figure out how it worked. So instead I have been working on copying all the file to Commons or get them deleted on the smaller wikis. But it only works on wikis without fair use and only if there are active admins who will help. --MGA73 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding the markers to {{non-free media}} is an interesting idea. I'm wondering if that could work, but I'm afraid the variety of cases might be an issue.

{{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} already have the markers, so the files that have those templates shouldn't be appearing on the inventory. Other templates like {{Non-free media data}} are blocked on bugzilla:73332. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Something to ask: One issue I see is that we have the potential of multiple uses of a non-free file on multiple pages, each which requires a rationale. The information of the metadata that is being sought is within the templated versions of these rationales, and while this data (source, copyright holder, etc.) should not change from rationale to rationale, we are duplicating it and thus creating a problem here. This would need to be part of a much larger effort but there's likely a way to have a single information template (like there is for commons, etc.) and then the individual rationale template, so that the metadata is easier to grab. But that would require going through the boilerplate templates, too. It would actually be easier to prep the non-templated version in the right way to do this. I'm not saying it's impossible but I think this is a surprisingly much larger effort to rework the templates and how they are applied correctly to help with metadata. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the information is the same from a rationale template to another for the same file, this shouldn't be an problem for the metadata; I imagine only the metadata from the last template will be retained, but if they're identical that's fine. A proper reorganization of rationale templates like you suggest might indeed make sense if we switch to Structured data one day, but that's far enough in the future that we have plenty of time to think about it :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the information part is identical in all rationales, then it should be possible to write a bot which migrates the rationales from multiple {{non-free use rationale}} and/or {{non-free use rationale 2}} to one {{non-free media data}} and multiple {{Non-free image rationale}}. If the fair use rationales contradict each other, the file might not satisfy WP:NFCC#10. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Whopper bar.jpg at BK Whopper Bar

I tagged this image as replaceable fair use. The defense for keeping it was "The image shows the planned model of the store that BK Corp proposed". An administrator denied the deletion with no rationale, just saying "kept". Given that BK Whopper Bar locations are open and available for anyone to walk into, I fail to understand why we have to have a non-free image when anyone can take an image of an actual whopper bar and release it under a Commons compatible license. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is freely replaceable for exactly this reason - as long as such a bar exists, a free photo can be taken. (And even then, not sure if a non-free is necessary to represent this idea). --MASEM (t) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fut. Perf beat me to the FFD. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_December_8#File:Whopper_bar.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lists

Do the lists in the Global city article pose an NFC/copyright problem? The lists are mostly copied from various city-lists published by sources such as the Economist or Foreign Policy; each source uses their own ideas for what constitutes a global city.
WP:NFCC rules out "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner". bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the lists appear to based on an objective set of criteria (even if the metrics are created by a body, though once set, the rest of the inclusion is objective), so this would be okay. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Repetitive removals of non-free images from tables

As most of you know, I gave up NFCC enforcement a long time ago, barring a few edits here and there over time. There were a multitude of reasons. One of them was the never ending repetitiveness of the tasks involved in NFCC enforcement. The same things keep on being done over and over and over and over and over again. As the saying goes, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

For me, a poster child of this is List of political parties in Lebanon. If we stick to WP:NFCC, we are never going to allow this table, of more than 100 entries, to have every logo for every party represented. The vast majority of the logos are non-free. Just today, I removed 11 non-free images that an innocent IP editor spent an hour adding. If I were the IP, this would be frustrating to say the least. I come to an article, find missing images, and think "Great! I can contribute here!". I spend an hour adding the images, and very shortly thereafter my work is completely undone for some bizarre reason. Enter drama, enter edit wars, enter threads here, enter threads at WP:AN/I, enter blocks, enter article protections. If this were isolated, we'd shrug our shoulders and move on. It's not isolated, as all of you who are regulars on this page know. Yet, we shrug our shoulders and move on anyway.

We set up these traps for editors all over the project. Then we sit in high holiness, proudly waving WP:NFCC as the banner of truth, light and the free culture way. Meanwhile, we smash editors to pieces for violating this policy, which putatively claims to discourage non-free content yet has allowed more than half a million non-free images to date, and growing. To further complete the idiocy, we repeat this ad nauseam, like some sadistic theatre, strutting across a stage in an unending run on Broadway. The same tasks that were being done years ago are still being done today.

Why?

I propose an addition to to WP:NFG that says (or something similar):

“

On pages where tables are used to display information that includes logos, and where one or more non-free logos would be needed to complete the logos of the table, the use of logos, whether free or not, is strongly discouraged and should be removed.

”

I hold no expectations of this gaining acceptance, and I'm quite confident this change will never be made. Another five years from now, and we'll still be removing non-free logos from tables that use logos where some are free and some are not. This is why WP:NFCC enforcement is idiocy in motion. Nothing will change. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no problem if it was, say, 10% or less of the entries in such a case that this would be fine. But any more, and it starts pushing it. In the example list, to fill in all the blanks would be a problem NFC-wise as it seems more than half are missing. I'd also strongly be against it if the majority of entries on the article are not otherwise linked to their own articles, and the page is basically then just a dumping ground of NFC logos without contextual discussion to support them. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And so it becomes controversial. We only allow 0% of entries in a table to have a non-free logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fine if we are allowing just a few NFC logos to fill the gaps of a table that has a near unanimity of free images, as the missing images does make those entries stand out, and assuming that we have articles on the entries lacking the logos, it's not a significant departure from the purpose of using NFC. But going beyond that point is ripe for gaming. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

See you in five years. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: first, on this list, I'm not seeing anything in the immediate history of image removals (back to 2012), so calling it "removing images for the (infinite) time" is not really true. Second, I'm not seeing any message to the IP about why their image additions were inappropriate, and there's no sign that the IP editor was upset or even questioning the additions. The problem, again, is that as long as WP continues to push its as a open-editable wiki, we cannot preemptively enforce NFC, and can only respond to new editors when the situation happens. It's how we deal and respond that is important. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you didn't check the extensive edit history of the article before 2012, despite the fact that I referenced a diff from 2008. Second, you missed several NFC enforcement edits from 2012 [3][4][5]. Third, "It's how we deal and respond that is important" has been completely ineffective as a means of stopping the ridiculous idiocy of repeated, ad nauseam edits that have been happening for years. Yet, you wish to continue the current paradigm? Do you really want to be here five years from now doing the same edits over and over and over again that have happened for years? Why? Why not come up with something better that SOLVES the problems rather than exacerbates them? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a problem that extends from the very nature of an open wiki that allows unregistered users to edit - there is no way to force them to read NFC before they add NFC to an article. We cannot preemptively deal with that situation without reducing the openness of the Wiki. And the arguments you are using here for list articles would easily creep to other facets (like say at Kim Jong-Il which several times had a non-free be used). We just have to be tolerant of such accidental misuses and remove them, and if asked, explain the situation. As long as we are to remain an open wiki, and the Foundation has put the resolution in place and we are not going to outright block any NFC images, we're are going to have to be reactive to problems and require patience in dealing with them. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear. If you have a list which has 20 logos, and there's blanks for 80 other logos which are non-free, it is a trap set for new editors to include the 80 non-free images. The list will never be complete with all the logos. Yet, we insist on including the free logos anyway? Not to mention the stylistic issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe the free logos should be removed instead, if the table is consistently edited to add non-free, or if the table is that "empty" of images- just because some free images are available doesn't make it a good idea to add them. This is not the case here based on the slow edit history, nor is that an action I'd recommend, since the slow addition is easy to mitigate. Further, I'd argue we have the same "traps" throughout WP: living persons with no free picture come to mind easily. As long as people can edit without having to read NFC (which we can likely assume will never change), we just have to deal with it. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And therefore doom people to repeat tasks that have been repeated lord knows how many times before. There are other options Masem. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It is interesting that this is being debated. Nine years ago, I lost 53 images from a list of 53 items, that I had scanned from a 1951 promotional book from a defunct company. I haven't seen another copy of the book (a family heirloom)- the images weren't credited, the book had no ISBN and for all I know the text might even have been written by my long deceased mother. Each one of those images has been uploaded again and is wrapped in a full start class or C class article so is now pukka. None of them can be sourced with non-free (its no longer 1951) all are low res. The procedure was proper but just stupid- and a plain waste of time. Now there are two other way.

1: the article is presented to the a committee of three- lets just take the three names Masem, Hammersoft and one other. The committee agrees that repetitive deletion is inappropriate and tags the list with a big red warning.

“

Wikipedia prides itself in respecting copyright but believes in this case the included non free images are unattributable or in public domain though prior unattributed use. If you do have a legal interest in any images contact us on blahblah@enwikipedia.org and the image with be withdrawn within 1 working day, while evidence is presented and the issue discussed. Copyright theft is unacceptable- or something similar.

”

2: the image is moved from the list, and a bot creates a stub article for each image, and writes a link to this file instead of the image caption. The bot revises the fairuse statement, and checks the other conditions have been met. The uploader is informed. The committee decides on which Wikiproject it appropriate to inform- and messages are sent to them. When the bot writes the stub article. The image should be placed in a sub-section ==Image== with nothing else- thus it will be possible to use a template to transclude the section newpage#Image into the item in the list. The wording and spirit of NFCC have been preserved as nothing has moved - and everyones time has been saved. Quite simply humans are creative- and computers do the repetitive work, reverse that and you affect editor retention.

Can I just give a word of warning about removing photographs of some candidates or their logos from a list- this is a deeply political act, and could breach local Election Law, and affect Wikimedias charitable status in that country. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The case here is different: each of the images were already existing on WP, in a separate article about the parties. So we're not losing images, just the duplicative use on this table. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Having just stumbled across this discussion, I am pleasantly surprised that Hammersoft has come to see the huge problem that NFCC, as it is currently stated and enforced, creates for editor retention (One of our studies has found that no editors whose first edit was to File namespace have continued to edit ... it's easy to guess why). So I support adding explicit language to the policy about this. We should also encourage table compilers who feel the need for an image field to put comments in the blank fields to the effect that only free images are allowed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've come to believe NFCC is a failed policy that does far, far more harm to the project than it helps. I think the charade of being a free (as in libre) encyclopedia needs to end, in so far as images are concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make it a user right to add non free images to pages. And then only grant the permission to those that can prove they understand the policy. Then those that try to use the images will be alerted earlier. Most people don't seem to understand copyright, so they need to be helped to stay legal. However the use of political party logos in tables is likely to be entirely legal, complying with fair use, just it does not comply with the NFCC policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked about that years ago and was told it wasn't technically possible (I think it was on VP/T). This may no longer be the case, of course. Black Kite (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We all how incredibly difficult if neigh impossible it is to enforce NFCC effectively. Daniel Case makes a point I have used for a few tables that keep getting non-free images added. Each image field that does not contain an image has a note like this: . It is by no means a perfect solution but has reduced the incidence of adding non-free images that are in use in biographical articles elsewhere. The same may apply to logos. It's just one idea some of you might find useful. Otherwise one should implement a restriction on anonIPs posting any non-free images but that is likely impossible to put into effect and even then uploaders claim the images are their own work so often too. I know Hammersoft's view on NFCC but unless the polcy is changed we are stuck with it for quite a long time to come. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Which, now, seems silly to me. We know that downstream users will have to justify fair use of images for their own purposes if they are to reuse our content. So, we hamstring ourselves by insisting on limiting non-free content (if anyone can not laugh while calling half a million non-free images 'limiting') even though our downstream users have to defend fair use for their purposes anyway. It's a contradiction that seems quite absurd. We are an educational resource. The law is quite forgiving on fair use where it applies to educational purposes. Eliminating the NFCC policy would go a long, long way towards improving the project in a number of ways, not least of which is editor retention. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For all my present and past criticisms of it, I'm not willing to junk it. It serves a purpose. But I think it is applied too rigidly and too broadly, and the reason we have it is not explained clearly to other Wikipedians, much less newcomers. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding CSD criterion F7

I have proposed reorganising speedy deletion criterion F7, which deals with invalid fair use claims, into sub-criteria to improve clarity. Your comments on this would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#F7 - split into sub-criteria to improve clarity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Video game screenshot size limitations

I previously raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and was advised to bring it up here for additional input. In the modern age of gaming, being able to show a game's HD graphical fidelity and smaller minute HUD elements can be very important to the reader. At present, a 400 x 300 screenshot of a modern game has questionable encyclopedic value due to its small size. Since gaming is such a visual medium, shouldn't this guideline receive an exception by the VG project? Even when requesting the higher resolution exemption due to whatever reasons, the reviewing admin usually just applies the blanket low-res policy to the image regardless. It is in my opinion that the resolution limitation of our non-free screenshots be raised to at least HD quality. Any thoughts? DrNegative (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the details of any HUD or equivalent that need to be seen. VG articles (speaking as one from the VG program ) should not be detailed manuals of how to play so the details of the HUD components are not normally significant - a 400x300 shot can show like where a mini-map, info display, and other features can generally be found. If, however, there is a need to call out a specific HUD aspect as documented by secondary sources, it is fine to use larger sizes, but still should be as small as possible to still make out the detail. And in terms of fidelity, remember that the average reader is not a gamer and is not always going to appricate this - fidelity only matters when comparing shots, not as a standalone. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of a non-free image is always to be used in an article. Other potential uses, such as the ability to view the image on the file information page, are irrelevant and can be ignored when judging whether the file satisfies WP:NFCC#3b or not. If the article uses the wikicode [[File:Example.jpg|400px]], then the purpose of the use of the image obviously isn't to show small details, and then it is safe to reduce the picture to 400x300 pixels. On the other hand, if the article uses the wikicode [[File:Example.jpg|4000px]], then displaying small details might be a purpose of the use of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It was my understanding that we keep images small as thumbnails to present the article in a cleaner looking fashion. The option for the reader to click on the image and pull up a higher resolution has always been present, but our screenshots are never able to enlarge beyond their original, small resolution without misrepresenting the game. This is because it is impossible to ever have a free image of a copyrighted videogame. All modern games are natively HD now and we are still limiting our screenshots to the same resolution of 3rd and 4th gen video games. Using our arbitrary 400 x 300 size limit is a very old rule from the project that has slowly become obsolete and unnecessary. We even have an image expander built in that enlarges the image after clicking it without taking the user to the file information page. The game itself is the copyrighted work in question and we are unlikely to ever have a free equivalent in our lifetime My concern wasn't the size of the image being displayed within the article, but the size of the original image we are uploading for the thumbnail. If a user wants to blow it up by clicking on it, they should have that option. And when that is done, they shouldn't need a magnifying glass to see the finer details or the higher resolution textures as a whole because of our ancient blanket policy. A picture says a thousand words, our little postage stamps only say a couple. DrNegative (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First, we actually have been able to get CC-licensed screenshots of various games, mostly indie, by politely asking the developers (see, for example, Dustforce). That said, we don't expect, under NFCC#1, that game screenshots can always be made free.

Second, we as a general encyclopedia and not a game guide, are not interested in the finer details, unless secondary sources have put emphasis on that. You don't need to be able to make out the specific text of a HUD if the only thing important is to identifying where things like maps, life meters, control buttons, etc. can be found. There are plenty of other sites out there that have loads of screenshots for the gamers that need to know, we do not need to provide this same functionality. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect Masem, we are not talking about other gaming websites here, we are talking about a policy/rule within this website. Websites outside our project are irrelevant to this discussion. I also don't see how you are linking "game guide" with a proposal of a higher resolution screenshot to represent a game article. We only provide 1, maybe 2 screenshots on average for the reader. I just don't see how that could be looked at as a guide by bumping up their resolution and quality a bit so as the reader could see the game in its native resolution as intended to be seen by the developers. It wouldn't hurt or tarnish the game's commercial value, in fact it may very well do the opposite. This rule was made back in 2006, when the majority of web browsers were running on a 15" 4:3 cathode ray monitor. Times have changed, I'm simply proposing we look at it from that angle and reevaluate our policy on the arbitrary NFC resolution we have chosen. I'm not trying to push an agenda though, just wondering what other people thought, as it seems I'm in the minority here in believing it would help our encyclopedia more than it would hurt it. DrNegative (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free policies requires minimum use both in the number of files and the size of those files. Most games can be described in an encyclopedic manner using a screenshot that is no larger than 400x300 which shows enough of what the game's visuals, art style, and GUI are like for how we describe them in a non-gaming manner. We are an encyclopedia so we do expect other sites to cover more specifics than we do. Similarly, we don't use larger shots for films or TV shows (which arguably have the same increase in resolution since then), so there's no need to increase here. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore those size limitations if you can justify it. I've never adherred to the arbitrary 100000px and 400x300 "rules", because the resolution and detail required are subjective and require your judgement. File:Sword and Sworcery - Gameplay.png is 598x384 because any smaller would wreck the 1px fine details, it's still 4 times smaller than native, and below SDTV resolution. Here's what happens when you allow bots to make decisions about image sizes, File:Dear Esther Screenshot Large.jpg, one of the most beautiful games turned into useless noise. - hahnch e n 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NFC, like BLP, is not a policy readily applicable to IAR, because it is based on a Foundation mandate. And if people are uploading at full size (that Dear Esther was at 1920x1080, no way we'd allow that), they are going to be shrunk down. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

100,000 is a number plucked from the air. It just means that your already low resolution image is at risk of some automaton tagging such as File:DuckTales Remastered.jpg & File:Pinocchio-1940-poster.jpg. Ignore the size of the source material, ignore the detail and the content, ignore the quality of the scan and encoding, because File:Dishonored Lady poster.jpg is 0.14 MP! Why not have the bots fight one another to degrade the images as much as possible? File:Thor-272.jpg!

I trust the judgement of a video games editor who knows the source material over the box ticking brigade. If the image requires more pixels, give it more pixels.- hahnch e n 15:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to check into what TLB is doing on those images, as while 0.1 MP is a suggestion, it is not a hard-coded requirement and those resizings its done seem very pointy - just that if you have an image that far exceeds that, we're probably going to look into reducing it unless you clearly have justified the resolution. But we aren't about to allow 1080p-resolution images if the resolution requirement is not clearly made. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The point of the non-free content criteria is to deliberately restrict the amount and quality of non-free images. I would ask DrNegative what case examples do we have where the HUD is the subject of critical commentary and requires a non-free image to illustrate it, or else the article is irreparably harmed? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My feelings are that we do not have to "deliberately restrict the amount and quality of non-free images" for video game screenshots, at least not to the level currently implemented. Not only does it provide to reader with a better understanding of the game visually, but represents said game more authentically. As an example, I took our arbitrary 0.1 megapixel rule and overlaid it on the same picture from which the developers intended the player to see it. Not only are the HUD elements more detailed and visible, but the models, textures, lighting, post processing and the world in general created by the game engine can now be prominently displayed for the reader who clicks the thumbnail seeking this enlargement. Providing this would not hurt the commercial value of the game in any way, as I said earlier it might even help it. It is in my opinion that every single video game article we have on the encyclopedia would benefit from an HD (>=720p) screenshot, so choosing one would be trivial. I've seen past discussion of this nature that have really found no consensus. One discussion here started by Masem himself seemed to stall, another discussion summary had consensus to find an exception for video game images which I'll quote:

In the case of screenshots from video games and computer applications (which are meant to be showing the game or application itself), though, because the original source image exists only digitally (and has a resolution of around 92 px per inch), resizing the image could cause the loss of important information contained in the screenshot, and would ultimately make the final image noticebly less useful for an encyclopedia. (Additionally, in video games there is a well-established culture of using screenshots for discussing and identifying games, potentially making it a less problematic legal category in any case.)

I think we should up our maximum resolution, plain and simple. In closing I will quote Masem from another discussion which summarizes my other point clearly: "there are times where's its practical to have the small version ("thumb") in the article to give the flavor while reading but with a click to give more details." DrNegative (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your feelings aren't grounded in policy. From WP:NFCC, the purpose of the policy is "to support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media; to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law; to facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Minimal extent of usage is explicitly declared as a part of the policy. No doubt it'd be great to have high-res copies of screenshots from games; we have in the past gotten publishers and developers to release screenshots under free licenses to allow it. But the point is that unless you can justify it strongly for each and every case, there's no automatic allowance to even include any non-free content, let alone high-definition versions of that copyrighted material. Again, unless you have a clear example of where our coverage of a game is severely inhibited without high-resolution images of specific HUD elements, these seems like an academic exercise that goes nowhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Come now David, that is why we are here. Policies can be amended, all of them have been now many times over. If you would have tried to increase the then 100px limit back in 2006, they would have told you to stop your "academic exercise", 0.1 megapixels is much too large for non-free content. Yet here we are now. It's subjective really. DrNegative (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

0.1 is not policy. Is this flimsy argument all it took to set 0.1 as a guideline? That guideline has succeeded in turning all the factors one has to consider about image quality into one single overriding standard that unthinking persons can outsource to a bot. It's lead to the pointless downscales we see above, a one way degradation of image quality, which are irreversible to most. If you don't watch your files, if you're not active, and if you do not have admin rights, 0.1 just may as well be policy. Just fucking look at this File:Drchaos boxart.jpg. Here's a downgrade of a (actually free) file File:All Men Are Mortal, 1946 French edition.jpg. Here's ET. Here's a bot telling DrNegative he's not fit to resize images, File:Dragon's Prophet logo.png. The detail on this cover? File:Discworld 2 cover.jpg Nope, says the bot. - hahnch e n 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hanchen: I don't see any reason to disagree with you that you probably shouldn't be having a bot come along and make an arbitrary sizing decision; bots can't see anything in the images. That's something worth bringing up with the bot ops. @DrNegative: Then you need to start an RfC, but "I think having .1 megapixels as a rule of thumb is bad" and "We should be allowed to use high-definition images" are two different arguments, and the latter one flies in the face of the spirit and practice of one of Wikipedia's bedrock principles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I will agree that TLB should ignore image reduction requests that are just outside the 0.1MP range (the examples give are bitey for the most part), but as David says, the bot can't see the images - the fault they were tagged is on users that are misreading NFC's page which is a guideline (not policy) , and in the IMAGERES section, is clear that 0.1MP is a suggested limit but not a a hard one. However, we're not going to be allowing higher-res shots (say, 640x480) just becuase "the pixels!" - the art direction or the elements of the GUI have to be of significant discussion to necessitate an image of that size. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument is not "we need high res", it is that the 400 x 300 guideline and the arbitrarily bot stamped 0.1 guideline are out of date. Given how games left 4:3 behind a decade ago, I agree. File:Starcommand2013battle.jpg, which I saved from the clutches of TLB, is nearer double the guideline and is fine. I'm loathe to describe any new guideline given how ridiculous the unthinking have taken 0.1, instead we should have a short series of links to various acceptable images at different resolutions and their rationales. - hahnch e n 19:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding bot use, please see Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_re-examination_Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FTheo.27s_Little_Bot.2C_Task_1. - hahnch e n 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot does not tag the images. The bot only responses to human editors that tag the images. I will agree the bot should not operate on pointy resizes - like native iOS to 0.1MP ranges - but it is not the one to judge when the tag should be applied. Take that up with editors that are reading WP:NFC guideline as a "policy" and tagging those images. We do need bots to deal with images far over the practical limit, so it is very silly to be blaming the bot when it cannot tag images. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

how wikipedia operates

Change the positive sounding word: "fair use" into "non-free" The title of this article speaks volumes on the company culture of Wikipedia today - very closed and intolerant to new users.

I suggest a new more positive name, similar to fair use. Namecheapblues (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free is the wording the WMF uses in the non-free media resolution Resolution:Licensing_policy. We also need to avoid "fair use" because non-free content is a stronger requirement than fair use, and do not want to give that impression that fair use is the requirement of the policy. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

hello masem. WMF?

I understand your position clearly, a restricted smaller wikipedia. So much of the policing done by self appointed guardians of wikipedia is extremely harmful and detrimental in the long term. There are a million articles like this, more everyday. But you enjoy the power structure and support the underlying company culture, so you will justify away the decline of Wikipedia.

Just because less than a thousand core editors voted on a policy does not make it utterly absurd and corrosive to the overall project.

You get my underlying point?

Namecheapblues (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the key things that Wikipedia operates on is that we are to be developing a free content encyclopedia - that's the WMF (Foundation's) goal, and since they pay the bills, that's what we have to go with too. Copyrighted images are detrimental to that. That's why the Foundation labels them in the negative as 'non-free' - that they are allowed in exceptional cases, but they should be avoided. It's not about a power struggle or the like, simple that we aim to keep the amount of non-free to a minimum. We don't operate under "fair use" though non-free policy is derived from that. And again, this is a mandate from the people that pay for WP's server space. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The bureaucracy surrounding the use of non-free images on Wikipedia is destructive to Wikipedia. There is a dizzying array of requirements that are codified, and an order of magnitude more that are not. It is essentially impossible for a new editor to Wikipedia to upload a non-free image and get it into an article without running into problems. There are people who will adamantly war against improper use of non-free images, and they have the weight of the WMF resolution, local policy and local guideline behind them. These patrollers of non-free content generate sometimes enormous quantities of ill will. This paradigm has been the norm for a decade now. Notwithstanding, the English Wikipedia now hosts more than half a million non-free media files. We have no way of ascertaining how many people have been run off of the project by this war. What is clear is the war has failed; it hasn't successfully stopped improper inclusion of non-free content nor even stemmed the tide, it has alienated certainly large swaths of editors, and it has detracted from the quality of the project in a number of ways.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that as Wikipedia declines, so do the number of people willing and able to be a non-free content patroller. Over the last few months, the non-free content violations and over usage have ballooned. I've written about decline topics before, and we're seeing a permutation of that now in non-free content patrolling. Even here on WT:NFC, where's seeing a drought of edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

500,000 to 4.7M articles is about a ratio of 1 to 10, which has been the ratio for the last several years considering WP article growth. The number of non-free may have increased, but as new articles are created, the potential for non-free usages allowed by the Foundation also increases, and as long as the ratio doesn't get out of control, that's not an issue. As long as we're working on being an open wiki that anyone can edit, patrolling non-free is always going to be an after-the-fact once the image is up, and still a requirement of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A stance frequently iterated by you, but has failed. It's interesting to observe, nonetheless. Before we get into an argument about whether it has failed or not, let met just state that (a) I'm not interested and (b) time is inexorably on my side, and the article linked above rather dramatically points this out. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Horace Pippin

I just added two images of pencil sketches from the World War I diaries that Horace Pippin kept in 1917 and 1918. Due to injuries, he didn't become an artist in earnest until the mid-1920s or so.

It would be nice to add a color image of one of his real works of art like something from this search, which basically means one image of one of his paintings made between 1930 and 1946. Would that be allowable under fair-use?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A color example seems reasonable to include about his post-war works as a notable artist. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Vector images of non-free logos from unofficial sources

When evaluating non-free content, an issue that has come up is whether a vector image of a logo has its own copyright that exists separately from any copyright on the logo itself. (For example, see the cases of File:2000_Stanley_Cup_logo.svg and File:Gen_Con_logo.svg.) At the end of the section about Meeting the no free equivalent criterion, would it be useful to add something like the following:

For a vector (i.e. SVG) image of a non-free logo or other design, US law is not clear as to whether the vectorization of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo and should not use a vector image from a site such as seeklogo.com where the vectorization of a logo may have been done without authorization from the logo's copyright holder.

(If the copyright holder of a non-free logo has provided a version in a vector format such as EPS, then it presumably would be OK for an editor to convert the image to SVG before uploading it.) --Elegie (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elegie: I think you have misunderstood those reviews, as they seem (to me) that they are not related to the 'no free equivalent' criterion.

It seems clear (to me, and I am not a lawyer) that the vectorized image is a derivative work and can never be a 'free equivalent'. Whether or not the additional work has sufficient originality to create a new copyright does not affect us at Wikipedia or at Commons. We only need to decide whether the underlying work is free, and ask for the new work (if any) to have a compatible free license.

If the vectorization is done without authorization from the copyright holder, we need to treat it as any other Fair Use image. Vectorized images are routinely speedily deleted when they don't meet NFC criteria. I don't think vector images meet the 'low resolution' criterion, but it seems there is no longer a consensus on that.

There is no reason to refuse unauthorized vectorizations when they both satisfy Fair Use law and meet Wikipedia's NFC criteria.

On your specific points,

the Gen Con logo was accepted as free, not because it was vectorized, but because it was a "Use of a typefaces and geometric shapes". The remaining question was about who held the copyright to the underlying source code.
the Stanley Cup logo review is not yet closed. Its issue is unrelated to 'no free equivalent'. @Masem:'s point (which I disagree with) is although it is unfree and might meet other NFC criteria, it is a 'huge copyright problem' and the community should reject such images because of that problem.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is still wrong, because until there is case law that decides how the underlying SVG code is treated as copyright (an equivalent problem to HTML and any other XML markup language designed to create a visual effect), we have to treat the SVG itself as copyrighted. We work on the principle of having strong evidence of a work being free and assume the worst otherwise. As such, the vectorization of a non-free logo done by a third party has two copyright issues involved, and we would have a free-er equivalent of using the one that we know was done and/or owned by the same copyright owner of the logo. This in additional to frowning upon the use of non-free SVGs in general due to the lack of "low resolution" they may have. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Why is the one by the underlying copyright owner more free than the one done by a third party (with a CC grant)? Aren't they are both completely unfree? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Because one done by a third-party has two copyrights - the original work and the potential copyright on the SVG. It is a similar situation to the difference between the copyright a photographer has and the copyright of the work that the photographer took; if a non-free image of a work is necessary for an article, we would want one that is take with a CC license on the photo, so that when the material photographed goes out of copyright protection, we have a completely CC work at that time. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't think of that (though perhaps it has the opposite effect.) Debates aside, I haven't been watching this page for a few years and I see now from the archive it is an FAQ. We should have a simple answer but we don't (yet). Though my reasoning is different, I agree with Masem that we should reject vector images of copyright logos if a raster version is available from the original author. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A vectorisation made by the logo author violates WP:NFCC#8 (there is no sourced critical discussion about the vectorisation) and WP:NFCC#1 (the vectorisation is replaceable by a different vectorisation of the same logo). This assumes that the vectorisation meets the threshold of originality in the first place, of course. The vectorisation would have to be licensed per WP:FREER, and the person who creates the vectorisation would have to be careful not to violate WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a vectorisation made by somebody else is more free than a vectorisation made by the original logo owner, then I think that's wrong, or at least not appropriate.

As a rule we're pretty cautious about derivative works made from non-free content -- it weakens the fair use case for showing the content (given whatever reason we think our readers would gain understanding from seeing the original content), if it's not actually the original.

For logos there's usually also the issue of not tarnishing the trademark, which promulgating a variant unofficial version might be held to do. Jheald (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-free quotations in drafts

User:Fuhghettaboutit edited the guideline with this edit which I have reverted. This edit adds an exception to allow the use of non-free text in draft articles. This has not been explicitly stated as an exception before. I believe this is potentially problematic as draft articles can exist indefinitely, allowing non-free content to exist outside of mainspace with no time frame on the allowance. It also creates a dichotomy where we allow non-free text but do not allow non-free media. If we should allow one, we should allow the other. I believe we need to discuss this before making such a sweeping change. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hammersoft. My addition to the policy simply memorializes what we do (and do not do) by our conduct in allowing drafts that include quotations and close paraphrasing in them. We cannot on the one hand, consistently operate to allow drafts to contain fair use of copyrighted text, without question, removal or deletion on copyright infringement grounds – all day every day – and on the other, not agree that we have (not will but have and do right now) exempt such text in drafts.

To make it clear, I am asserting that I am adding nothing new to the policy, but rather I am making the policy statement explicit and consistent with the policy we actually implement on the ground. If the policy statement should not include this material, then really we need to institute a mass change in our conduct to start removing every quote from every draft as a copyright violation, since each such quote included is an implicit claim of fair use, made outside the article mainspace.

The reason to treat text differently from media in drafts is really one of pragmatism. We don't need media files in drafts in order to write them or review them. Near tautologically, we do need the text of the draft in place, for it to be a draft, and articles often use quotations in some measure for a logical flow. Keeping out all quotations will until a move to the mainspace result in some vast mess. Imagine: we come upon an AfC draft to be reviewed in the future with three cited quotes in it that are seamlessly incorporated, and then we remove them with an edit summary like "can't use fair use text outside of the mainspace".

Mind you, I am not necessarily championing that the policy of allowing fair use of text in drafts is actually proper under copyright law, but it is what we already do. The policy should reflect that reality. (BTW, I will not be able to respond to any reply to this for a few hours). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and no worries about how fast you respond. We need to set a bit of ground work here. The issue at hand isn't one of copyright violation, but of violation of our non-free content guideline. The former is an external requirement that might or might not apply, and the latter is an internal requirement. Note that our guideline on the use of non-free content is a superset of fair use law within the U.S.
Policy and guideline "describe ... best-known practices". So it would seem our WP:NFC guideline should stipulate that we accept non-free text in draft articles, as that is a practice we allow by the simple act of inaction in anyone patrolling such violations. While it is easy to patrol for the use of non-free media files, it is more difficult to do so for text. This almost certainly contributes to the existing dichotomy in practice of apparently allowing non-free text but not non-free media. Does this mean we de facto allow the use simply because it is difficult to patrol for? I don't think so, at least not without a thorough discussion here to permit such an exception.
Personally, I would not have an issue with permitting non-free text and media in draft articles in the draft namespace. However, we would need to have some mechanism for removing the violations after N period of inaction on the draft.
Of note; we have at least twice discussed the possibility of permitting non-free media in draft articles. See this and this. Both failed. I could not find any reference to discussing non-free text. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the point has been brought up many times that the non-free content policy does not restrict text, only media, and we only discuss the nature of text because some people might come here to learn about that. Text is a different nature of copyright-checking than images and the like and we have different sets of policies and practice to deal with problems (eg WP:COPYVIO). It relates to the fact that quoting text materials with citation is a long-standing writing practice that is well established as a fair use defense, even with CC-type licensing. In other words, as long as we're not taking huge swaths of copywritten text, the "non-free" nature is just not there, reusers can use that material without any question of their national laws (as long as they retain attribution of the original text). Media is a different beast because it is discrete material and much easier to track, and less common to use in research writing, and certainly not allowed within CC licensing. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If that be the case, then the WP:NFCC needs to clarify this. As written, WP:NFCC #9 prohibits non-free content, not just non-free media. The copyright and fair use issues are really a lesser issue here in my opinion. The issue is our allowance of non-free content under Foundation directive and local policy, which as I noted are a superset. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is likewise unclear on this point, interchanging "content" with "file" and "media". My concern here, if we permit this modification of the guideline, is that we ensconce the status quo as being permissible, and thus further buttress the contradictory and murky situation we found ourselves in. We need to be clear, not deliberately confusing. To that end, if we count text as required to follow NFCC, then we need to either allow non-free text and media in drafts, or neither. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

NFCC already makes the distinction "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." --MASEM (t) 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

...which clarifies nothing. Note that it says "in accordance with the guideline"...which contains no guidance of any kind regarding the location of non-free text. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fixable (and which I have done, adding the links to the appropriate guideline/policy). And the prelude of the 10 NFCC points is clear this only applies to media files, not all non-free. Still, there's still a clear line made in NFCC between how we handle non-free text and any other type of non-free media. It's not difficult a line nor a problem that they are handled differently (eg allowing non-free text in all areas of WP, while limiting media to only mainspace). --MASEM (t) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are to allow non-free text in drafts, we should allow non-free media as well. It's senseless to allow one and not the other. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We have talked of having a process that would allow for temporarily use of images in drafts as long as there was a process that was followed to remove and delete images that went beyond this temporarily period, or if the draft was not approved and the draft removed. We don't have anything like that in place, and that would need to be handled, and it would have to be treated as exceptional to the normal process. That needs to be discussed before changing anything for that and make sure that the drafts page (AFC even?) are all coordinated to understand this. Key thing is that editors should not be drafting articles to immediately work in non-free content, it should be something that happens at the latter stages once sourcing and other free media are in place.
But this still comes back that, outside WP, the use of copyrighted text in works is treated very much different from copyrighted media in works. Both are covered by fair use, but as long as the text is attributed and not at length, the use of copyrighted text in a fair use manner is used everywhere without question. Our policies reflect that. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) My personal view here: I'm fine with it being an "unwritten rule" that you can use non-free content in an article draft you are actively working on, but I really don't like the idea of actually spelling it out in the rule because it creates a potential for wikilawyering over it. ("Oh, this non-free image on my user page isn't to decorate my user page - it's a part of an article draft.") I have published a query at User:B/Fair use images used outside of mainspace that shows the non-free images used outside of article space. I've slowly gone through and cleaned up some of the more egregious cases (non-free images on templates and userboxen) but I have left actively used article drafts alone. --B (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to allow non-free media (non-text) in draft space we need to have a bot to patrol and manage it as it is an exception. Just thinking off the top of my head, we'd need a machine-readable template that dates when an image was added to a draft page (perhaps via the perm id number) and remove it if the draft still exists in drafts and the image is still used within 2 weeks. We cannot have pages created in draft space (with good intentions of course) but that go stale and are never removed with non-free on them. If non-free is going to be used in draft space, it should be with the intent that the page is going to be finalized soon and moved to main space, not at the start. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, right now, there is no bot going around fixing non-free images in non-article space. The only way it gets removed right now/today is if a human decides to do it. If a bot were to start doing this again, why not just go 2 weeks (or 1 week or whatever) from the last edit rather than 2 weeks since the image was added? That's very easy to do ... if you look at my list, it's sortable by date of last edit. --B (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I can see the case of someone that the first they they do in creating the article is rush to create the infobox and add the image, but then spend time actually developing the content, which is the wrong approach with drafts. Non-free images should be a last thing to add before moving to article space, a check to make sure content flows fine and layout issues. I can see editors gaming the "2 weeks of editing" to keep non-free images floating around drafts forever. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins with external links

For many years now there's been controversy regarding the use of non-free images, the use of images from Commons, and external links. A very large number of images have been deleted from Commons that were uploaded by users who then subsequently added them to this article. We have an example case going on right now at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Greek Euro coins uploaded by Skonix. Due to the never ending disputes over images on this article, some editors have undertaken an effort to use external links to point to images of the coins, rather than upload images to Commons or here.

The problem here is WP:ELNEVER: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." There are several sites that are linked from €2 commemorative coins:

http://www.2eurocommemorativecoins.com/, a very comprehensive blog on euro coins.
http://abload.de/, an image upload/hosting service.
http://www.numismatica-visual.es/, appears to be another blog.

and a few others. These sites have not licensed the works. I have a hard time believing these sites would comply with fair use requirements, but others may disagree. Thoughts? From another angle; is there any other article on Wikipedia that handles large numbers of non-free images via external linking? Is this how we really want an article to appear? I'm loathe to remove the external links as I'm sure it'll start yet another fight, and I'm tired of fighting.

Another option, which hasn't been tried, is to upload all the non-free euro coin national sides and put them on the article. This would instantly generate the largest article user of non-free images (at over 150) on the project by more than three times over (current holder is History of painting at 42). That might open up another can of worms, the unspoken special exclusion that currency articles get from the WP:NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) (Pinging recent significant contributors to the article; @Gerd.Seyffert:@LitoPap:@194.126.99.34:)

They should be linking to the ECB's page, here [6], the authorative and copyright holding-source. Links to blogs like this falls into WP:ELMAYBE, but if there's a better site as the one I just included, that definitely makes these other ones unnecesssary and inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(To add, I think the sites given are within fair use, but again, we have a more authorative source that does the same job, that removes all doubt from their use). --MASEM (t) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@MASEM: Linking to the ECB's page is no solution to the dilemma, because the EU - not the ECB - is holder only of the design's copyright of the reverse sides (naming the value of coins from 1 Cent to 2 Euro) and of the obverse sides of the - up to now - three common commemorative coins of 2007, 2009 and 2012. I contacted the European Commission (DG Economic and financial affairs - Unit Financial institutions and stability mechanisms - Eurocash and Legal Issues) and they wrote to me on 30 July 2013:

"Two issues have to be differentiated: access to reliable information on the coins and reproduction of the design. Reproduction of the national sides of the euro coins (ie. of "regular" euro circulation coins and 2 euro commemorative coins other than 2 euro common commemorative coins) is governed by the legislation of the issuing euro area countries, since they are the holders of the copyright of the design of the national sides. Therefore, reproduction of these designs is governed by the respective national law. For reproduction of the national design features, euro cash users and collectors must revert to the national authorities, it being understood that Member States acting under national law competence may indeed put restrictions on using their design for reproduction.

@Hammersoft: I then contacted the German National Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank), which gave me this hint: responsible for the emission of German coins is the Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Referat VIII A) in Berlin. Finally, after many months of pushing, on 26 May 2014, I received this statement:

"Das Urheberrecht am Münzbild der europäischen Seite der Euro-Umlaufmünzen hält die Europäischen Union, die es ihren Mitgliedstaaten übertragen hat. In der Mitteilung der Kommission zum urheberrechtlichen Schutz des Münzbilds der gemeinsamen Seite der Euro-Münzen (2001/C 318/03) hat die Kommission die Übertragung mit der Auflage verbunden, Reproduktionen in Form von Fotografien zuzulassen, sofern sie wahrheitsgetreu und nicht in einer das Ansehen des Euro herabsetzenden Weise erfolgen. Unter diesen Bedingungen ist die Abbildung der europäischen Seite des Euro in der von Ihnen beschriebenen Art in der Onlineenzyklopädie „Wikipedia“ zulässig.

I'll try to translate the main points, also referring to the mentioned document http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2001/318/03&from=EN

The copyright on the design of the common face of the euro coins belongs to the European Community represented by the Commission. The European Commission has assigned to each of the Member States adopting the euro all the Community rights as regards the territory of such Member State. Reproduction of all or part of the common face design of the euro coins is authorised without recourse to a specific procedure in the following cases: for reproductions in flat format provided they are in faithful likeness and are used in ways which do not damage or detract from the image of the euro...

Under these conditions the depiction of Euro's "European" side in "Wikipedia" - in the way you described it - is permitted.

Hinsichtlich des Münzbildes der nationalen deutschen Seite der Euro-Umlaufmünzen ist die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vertreten durch das Bundesfinanzministerium als Münzherr, ausschließlich nutzungsberechtigt. Die Abbildung des Münzbildes in den von Ihnen unter „Wikipedia“ erstellten Artikeln stehen auf Seiten des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen keine Bedenken entgegen. >>> In terms of the depiction of national sides of German Euro coins, the Federal Republik of Germany, represented by the Ministry of Finance, is only authorized user. There are no objections of the Ministry of Finance to depictions of coins in Wikipedia articles (like the ones) you edited. [By the way: On the phone, they explicitly approved depictions in Wikipedia!].

Sofern die Abbildung des Münzbildes anderer Mitgliedstaaten beabsichtigt ist, sind die entsprechenden Staaten von Ihnen unmittelbar zu kontaktieren. >>> For depictions of coins of other member states these states have to be contacted directly.

Eine freie Lizenz in dem von Ihnen heute vorgeschlagenen Sinn kann leider nicht erteilt werden; insbesondere die dort vorgesehene gewerbliche Nutzung der Münzabbildungen steht unserer Verwaltungspraxis entgegen." >>> A free license as you proposed today [as required by Wikipedia] can not be granted, especially because the (included) commercial use contradicts our administration practice.

One year of efforts left me quite frustrated. Nevertheless: hope to have been of use, Gerd--Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gerd, your efforts are extraordinary! They are far and away well above the effort I've seen put forth by anyone here to help clear up copyright issues on any single image, much less a group of images. I commend you! With what they've responded above, this confirms that any depiction of national sides of Euro coins (from most countries; Finland is an exception for example) would have to fall under terms of fair use and comply with WP:NFCC policy. Previously, we have linked to images on the German language Wikipedia, which has a differing standard. Nevertheless, I don't think that usage is usable here unless we locally host it here with a rationale, rather than pointing to them and saying they say it's free therefore its free (when it obviously isn't). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You could link to the appropriate pages from Official Journal of the European Union which are located here: [7] and include the images of the coins on the various pages. But I would not object to the ECB site being used either only because of their position as being the central back of the EU, that they would have clear fair use allowances to use the coin images as part of their function in an official capacity. These blogs, on the other hand, are just blogs and their use is questionable. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

To add, even if the Official Journal of the EU doesn't own the copyrights on the coins and they belong to the member states, their inclusion via the journal of an official gov't entity is not going to trip anyone's copyright alarm that WP:EL concerns itself with. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks for your remarks! Especially since German Wikipedia was instructed 2012 by a verdict (concerning copyright of stamps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Loriot_decision.pdf), that depictions of stamps are not considered to be Public Domain, I was fighting hard to keep depictions of Euro coins out of that quarrel. In vain. The above quoted statements are much less than the tip of the iceberg... Differing standards of German Wikipedia are imminent to be wiped out. The apodictic stance of Wikipedia, to insist on free licenses, ruined all efforts. By the way: The times they are a changing - Finland changed its rules, as far as I know - it's only Lithuania nowadays, which considers depictions of coins to be Public Domain...

@Masem: I would'nt object to the ECB site as well - I appreciate all kind of information and depictions of Euro coins! --Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also as a possible help: if any of the images can be hosted on en.wiki under NFC, specifically meeting NFCC#8 (in that there is sourced discussion and commentary about any of the coin images that goes beyond a simple description or artist details, such as a source critically commenting on the artistic aspect of the coin's engraving as it relates to the country it represents), that's a further option. The offsite linking to the Official Journal or ECB is always there, but you have this option if such exists (it usually doesn't for most coins). --MASEM (t) 20:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to stir a hornet's nest, but provide information to the discussion. Currency articles are subject to a unwritten special exemption from the NFCC policy. You do not have to have sourced discussion about the design in order to allow the image onto currency lists such as the article being discussed here. In theory, this article could host more than 150 non-free images, and be compliant with policy. See examples Banknotes of the Australian dollar (over which there was a huge debate a long time ago), Nicaraguan córdoba, and many more. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the differentiation on currency articles is showing the base current bills/coins in circulation across various denominations, as both the links above give is likely appropriate for encyclopedia completeness (even though I honestly believe there is a better "less NFC use" solution without impacting that factor), verses a series of special print bills/coins for commemorative events, which do not serve the same encyclopedic nature. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: As mentioned above, the Federal Republik of Germany, represented by the Ministry of Finance, claimed to be only authorized user of the copyright (of the national sides of commemorative coins). I doubt that and guess that they are trying to avoid to stand straight. I spoke to two of Germanys most succsessfull designers of coins and they told me, that the copyright of the coin's design has to be assigned to the Ministry of Finance when the design is chosen and the deal signed. The designer himself does no longer hold the copyright of his work..! --Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the sites you mentioned in your first post, that is linked from €2 commemorative coins - abload.de, an image upload/hosting service - hosts the scans I made, I have to confess...--Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For shame, for shame! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All my sins are already deleted and (as the refs of 2eurocommemorativecoins.com as well) replaced by the 2014 Official Journals of the European Union. Poor visual quality, but according to Masem's smart advice... As soon as the Official Journals of the 2015 coins are known, I will replace the refs to numismatica-visual as well. Friends again ?? --Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jerk ;) No, seriously, thank you again for your work on this. Truly appreciated! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just linked all available 2015 Journals of the European Union. My pleasure! Gerd--Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just managed to revise 2013. It needs a lot of concentration to detect all those journals. Quite dizzy already... I'll work my way back to 2006, steady, but slowly. --Gerd.Seyffert (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about screenshot usage

I normally would have posted this at Wikipedia talk:Software screenshots, but that talk page has been dead for two years, so...

Is there a set determination on when website screenshots are acceptable and when they aren't? I ask because of a screenshot I placed on Feminist Porn Award that kept getting removed (by a user who I requested an IBAN on, btw, but that's another story). Including said screenshot doesn't appear to violate anything on WP:SCREENSHOT, and I clearly stated that in the edit summaries when I restored it (I only restored it twice because I didn't want to violate WP:3RR, although the other user warned me about 3RR anyway; strange, because he did it three times). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While there may be times this isn't the case, I think your screenshot fails NFCC Criteria 8. There is nothing in the text that references the layout or design of the website, nor do I see how having the screen shot increases reader understanding of the subject. We all know what websites look like, so there would need to be something special or unusual about this particular one that text is insufficient to describe, which there isn't here. Which means it is basically just decoration; that is perfectly acceptable when the image is free, but not allowed when the image is being used under NFCC. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Monty845. However, if you can obtain an image of the award itself (is there one?) rather than just the website, that would be acceptable. See for example Academy Awards.
NFCC issues aside, there's serious problems with the nature of your editing. Communicating with someone through edit summaries is rarely helpful. Observed WP:BRD which isn't policy, but a very useful essay. After Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed the image, or at the very latest have you restored it, you should have initiated discussion. This did not happen. Instead, an edit war erupted. Edit warring in an attempt to push an image onto an article rarely, if ever, works. Also be aware that WP:3RR does not give you permission to revert three times and only be blocked on the fourth within 24 hours. Next time, begin discussion and support your position with policy/guideline as you did here rather than edit warring. The two of you have been in conflict before, at least as far back as 2013: [8][9]. Trust me, I know all too well of the drain on your soul that happens when an editor maintains a conflict with you for years. The way through this is not edit warring.
Of note; you are correct about Wikipedia talk:Software screenshots. There are fewer than 30 people watching the page (and even those may be long gone) and it averages just over 1 page view a day. Yet another symptom of a dying project with fewer and fewer people actively editing. I've redirected the page to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is still active and has close to 2000 watchers. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale and machine-readable data

{{Non-free use rationale}} does not contain any author field, so all files with this template are sorted into Category:Files with no machine-readable author. Any suggested solution to this problem? The other two information templates for non-free files, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free media data}}, do contain an author field, but it is not always filled in. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Author" is not a required element of an rational in contrast to something like "Source" which we do need to know (prior publication). It would be nice if an author was identified, obviously. If anything, we could add an author field to the rational, which would be empty for all of them to start, nor would I expect anyone to backfill these, so it will nearly always remain empty. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of "Could be created"

Hi, I think "Could be created" in the guideline could do with some clarification here. I took it as meaning "Could in principle be created by the uploader". But the admins who delete the images seem to take it as "Could in principle be created by anyone".

This is particularly for photographs of geological structures and species in remote parts of the world. In my case it was for photographs taken at high altitudes in Antarctica. I had permission from the photographer to use it, but not to use it commercially, as it was copyright Mount Erebus Volcano Observatory.

Anyway the argument for deleting it was based on an interpretation of the guideline here that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

I didn't get much discussion, but from what little there was, seems that the idea is that if the photograph could in principle be created by someone else on an expedition in Antarctica, even if nobody has yet - then we can't use the non free version.

If so it might do with some clarification. I spent a fair bit of time on this, trying to find free images (many hours of searching) and when that failed, obtaining permission from the photographer to use this image in wikipedia. And it seems that many people are uploading photographs that get deleted. Our time would be more productively spent improving wikipedia, and it might help perhaps to do a bit more work on the wording of the guidelines?

Something like adding an extra line somewhere

"Photographs of natural phenomena and species in remote places that are non free can not be included even with permission of the photographer so long as there are people who continue to visit those places who could take photographs in the future and release them with a free license".

I don't really understand the reasoning here. If there is no free alternative, then it just means that those wikipedia articles are not illustrated at all. And obviously nobody is going to sue wikipedia for a non free photograph included with permission or photographs from press releases. So what benefit is that to wikipedia to delete photographs, of difficult to access geological phenomena and species?

But if that is what the guideline is, and it's been decided that this is the policy over extensive debate, well I think it would help us if that was made clearer on this page. If this is not the intention of the guideline, then that should be made clear also. Surely this must have been discussed in the past many times?

See discussion of the ice fumerole photograph here: File_talk:Fumarole_near_the_lower_Erebus_hut.jpg.

Thanks, Robert Walker (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right to conclude that it has always meant "Could in principle be created by anyone", but I am sad that it has been such a painful journey for you. I hope that you can find suitable non-commercial websites (or create your own) to host these hard earned photographs. Your situation is unusual so I think the lengthy quote is not needed, but we should go ahead and add some wording after 'be created'. 'by anyone' is ambiguous as it is not clear if it is inclusive or exclusive. Would 'by a person' be adequate, if a little legalistic? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a further distinction that needs to be clarified. Does "Could be created" mean "Could be created as free media"? We have regular cases where a physical item is controlled by a rights holder. It is trivial for them to create representations of it, maybe to choose to license them freely. Often they do create such images and distribute them, but not under a free licence. However, as they control access to the object, it's impossible for others to do so, or to control the freedom of licences.

Is this "possible to create" or not? Those deleting non-free media all too often assume superhuman powers on the part of GF editors expected to recreate this non-free media as free. It's very easy to say "Recreate this as free media and in the meantime delete the non-free version", but it's a lot harder to actually do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'controlled by a rights holder'?

Would this example in our guideline apply? "For example, we would not expect a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations."

Indeed, would the legal restrictions on access to Antarctica mean that the exception also applies to Mount Erebus?

(Ideally, I would like to see those controlling access encourage photographers to use free licences, as institutions in the GLAM program do, but perhaps the community intended these exceptions all along.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Our concern about the use of non-free images has little to do with preventing Wikipedia from being sued. As an educational resource, we have very wide latitude for the use of copyrighted images.
Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. Lots of people attempt to 'give' us material under the proviso that we can use it, but can't distribute it. This arrangement goes against the very fiber of Wikipedia. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" (emphasis mine) An image used 'with permission' here is not free.
It can be hard sometimes to obtain or create free imagery. But, our mission is to do exactly that. The only times we make general allowances for media of a subject is where it would be extremely difficult or impossible for someone to gain access to the subject. The allowances we currently make are for people incarcerated for life and people who are noted recluses. A general rule of thumb here is that if people are able to take photographs of the subject, then so can one of our editors. Example; Colton Harris-Moore. We had an interesting debate some time ago about this felon. People were saying it was effectively impossible to photograph him. Yet, plenty of photographs exist on the web of him...which disproves the point. Same goes for Kim Jong-un. Is it difficult? Yep. Impossible? Nope. That a geological feature is in a remote place does not make it impossible. Difficult, but not impossible. The geological feature is likely not going anywhere. We can be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks all this is helpful, and I understand the situation much better now. Yes something like "could be created by a person" or whatever is best way to express it would have made it much clearer to me. And - is there any page that explains what you just said? E.g. with those examples you just gave? It might help to link to some more detailed explanation, just a thought, to give it context, why you have this rule. I mean this thread makes it all clear now, but this page will be archived.

I will be able to use the image elsewhere yes, I write science blog posts, and I may well do something that mentions these towers. And meanwhile also, I'll replace the image with a link saying "For photographs of ice fumaroles see "Ice Towers and Caves of Mount Erebus"^[1]..." or some such.

On the idea of using the exception "controlled by rights user" - that's good to know about for the future, but I don't think that would apply to Mount Erebus. Because mountaineers and other adventurers can get permission to climb it and often do. I found several photographs of that sort in my image search, but so far, none were free in the sense needed for wikipedia.

Thanks again for your help and clarification! Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You might consider reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and following the instructions there for obtaining release. Being an educational institution, the rights holder might be interested in releasing some under a free license for general edification. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think I looked into that, searched and found a page about the educational establishment's image use policy. If you look at it from their point of view, the thing is that releasing it for wikipedia isn't just releasing it for educational use.

It gives permission for anyone to use your image commercially as well without paying you anything for it. You have to renounce any possibility of getting royalties from it in the future as well as any possibility of telling someone they can't use your image (e.g. for an advert or whatever). So they could well be in general support of the aims of wikipedia, and happy to give permission to use their image, but once it is explained, not willing to renounce all control over commercial use of their images. Robert Walker (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think if it is made clear that once available under a free license, the commercial aspect of it is moot. Nobody would pay to gain rights to use an image when they already had rights to use the image under a creative commons license. The idea of releasing the photo for general edification should be one that is appealing to an education institution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly. And then can also use it for adverts or anything they want to. And the institution has lost any chance for revenue from the photographs. Some might not mind or might like this. So it might appeal to some educational institutions yes. And NASA for instance has no problem at all with this requirement. While the ESA, DLR (the German space agency) and Roscosmos (Russian space agency) do not permit either public domain or creative commons release of their images.

DLR, ESA and Roscosmos are all keen on education and release images frequently which are used for news stories and for education purposes - but they are not public domain or creative commons - so it is a matter where you can have diverse views amongst organizations with largely similar aims. And I think they need to be respected for this, that that's a view that it is understandable and legitimate for people or organizations to take, however much one might hope for the ends of wikipedia that they would decide otherwise. Robert Walker (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can these photographs be uploaded with a fair use license?

Hello! I would like to add photos of the Dragon Kings or temples of the Dragon Kings in articles about Chinese religion, in order to illustrate the concept that this deities symbolise. The two photos linked above are both licensed to be shared, but with "no derivatives" and "non commercial" restrictions. I wonder if they could be uploaded for fair use.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that won't work, as they'd be clearly replaceable with other, free photos of the same objects that somebody might take some day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I know that you can include a fair use photo of a deceased person on Wikipedia. I know you can include a PR shot that was issued with a copyright notice, before a certain date. I know you can use a PR shot that was issued with copyright, if it's to illustrate the article for that movie.

But what about a PR shot of a movie to illustrate a biography? Anne Ditchburn is very much alive (at least, I don't know anything to the contrary) and the uploader hasn't claimed that the image was issued without copyright. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are very limited cases where a non-free image can be used on a living person, and typically requires at minimum detailed discussion of the look of that person in context of when the picture was made, and generally from a earlier period of the person's life. A strong example of acceptable use is "Weird Al" Yankovic's "old" look, which was noted to be his signature look during his earlier career, but made several appearance and health changes for his new look (of which we otherwise have free images for). In the case of Ditchburn, there's absolutely nothing like this, so those images should not be used, unless they can be proven free (which they likely aren't given the years and films). --MASEM (t) 14:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

TV poster used in article body

Does File:SIXTEEN Members.jpg have appropriate fair use rationale? It is a TV series poster, used in the article body (not infobox). Random86 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:SIXTEEN_Members.jpg --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Template discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 20#Template:Non-free use rationale television screenshot. As my objection to the template is more related to this policy than any template-specific guidelines, I am advertising the discussion here. Comments/discussion either way would be very much appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image in an infobox - does the text have to discuss the image

Because my question concerns two articles (Caitlyn Jenner and Death of Leelah Alcorn) and WP:NFCC, I have centralized discussion here and left pointers to here on each article's talk page.
Talk:Caitlyn Jenner has an FAQ, Q3 of which explains why the Vanity Fair image of post-transition Jenner is not used in the infobox; it says "Per WP:NFCC, copyrighted images may only be used at Wikipedia where the text of the article discusses the image itself. The magazine cover is only appropriate directly next to the text in this article where the magazine cover itself is discussed. As a general illustration for the infobox, where there is no accompanying text, we cannot include the image in that way." However, the article on the Death of Leelah Alcorn uses Alcorn's picture in the infobox. I don't see a specific discussion of the legality of that in that article's archives, but I gather that one difference is that there are no free images of Alcorn, whereas there are free (albeit pre-transition) images of Jenner. It seems that one thing I could do is update the Jenner article's FAQ A3 to note that the existence of free images is a reason to avoid using a non-free image. I wonder, however: the Death of Leelah Alcorn lead doesn't discuss the (non-free) image, so is it in fact the case that "[the Vanity Fair] cover is only appropriate directly next to the text in this article where the magazine cover itself is discussed"? If not, that bit should be removed from the Jenner article's FAQ A3 (right?); whereas, if it is the case that "images may only be used at Wikipedia where the text of the article discusses the image itself", is it problematic that Death of Leelah Alcorn is using a non-free image in its infobox without discussing the image in the lead (the portion of the text which is net to the image)? -sche (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The key issue with the Alcorn article is that the non-free image serves as illustration of a deceased subject of whom no free photos are known to exist. I believe consensus arose that the only way to obtain potentially free images would be through her family, who have repeatedly denied her gender identity and thus would likely provide photos that would misrepresent/misgender the subject. It's a murky area, but a non-free magazine cover should absolutely not be used as the main photo for Caitlyn Jenner, who is still living, when free photos of her (albeit under her previous gender expression) exist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the short answer is that we should aim to always feature free images over non-free images in the infobox/lede of an article when there is a choice between free or non-free. While I don't know if there are already images of Jenner after the operation for free, we know they can be made (she is alive, and is not recluse), so we should be seeking to get one of those, while using the pre-op free images in the short term. This does not mean the VF cover is inappropriate in the article, as there is sourced discussion of that, but it is just not appropriate as a cover image. (Contrast that to Alcorn, where there is no way we can make a new free image and no expectation of free images existing, so the non-free to identify the person , particularly in light of the issue, is fine.) --MASEM (t) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

NFCC does not require that a non-free photo be discussed in an article. That is only one possible criterion that satisfies contextual significance. Other criteria have to be considered as well, such as availability of alternative images and impact on commercial opportunities for the copyright holder. - Mr X 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I have updated the Jenner FAQ in an attempt to more accurately explain why the Vanity Fair cover isn't used per WP:NFCC. -sche (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification requested regarding UUI#17

No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI currently reads as follows:

The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable.

Strictly speaking, this seems to imply that there the logo of a parent entity is never allowed to be used for a child entity, regardless of whether the child entity officially uses the logo of the parent entity. There is, however, some disagreement (see WT:FOOTY#National Team Badges being removed.) as to whether No. 17 should be applied to the logos of sports organizations such as national teams.

Since national sports teams typically use their federation's logo on their uniforms, social media pages (if any), publicity materials, etc., some editors argue that some allowance should be made for the use such images regarding No. 17. However, previous NFCR discussions, such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 58#File:Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe.svg to name just a few, seem to imply that no allowances should be made at all in cases when the child entity "officially" uses the same logo as its parent.

For reference, No. 17 appears to have been added for the first time in June 2014 with this edit by TLSuda. The relevant talk page discussion that led to the edit can be found at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item. The closing comment state that "this discussion is simply about adding a clarifying point to this guideline that piggybacks off of an established consensus with a better, fuller explanation", but I have been unable to find the "established consensus" being referred to. Is it Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1 or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2?

Personally, I do not feel the use of such logos is needed in national team articles, especially when the federation has a stand-alone article which can be wikilinked. Doing so, in my opinion, is no different from using the logo of a manufacturer in articles about the products it manufactures. I also think that trying to make exceptions to No. 17 only for national sports teams is going to be tricky (not impossible perhaps, but tricky) since other editors might want exceptions made for other images and other articles as well. I do realize, of course, that not everyone agrees with this position which is why I think it might be time to revist this topic and try to resolve this matter (perhaps by a formal WP:RFC) or at least provide clarification/examples as to how No. 17 should be applied. Consensus, after all, can change and maybe the community as a whole will decide that the time has come for No. 17 to be changed.

If this talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this, then please advise as to where it should take place. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So the short story is that non-free national association logos are being used on national team articles? Hack (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is the much shorter version. Apologize if my OP was too wordy. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved in the brief discussion on the project page. Before making any wider points, I want to be clear I am not trying to get exceptions created for a specific project. I appreciate the NFC guidelines are enWiki-wide. However, I have two observations:

I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of historic discussions could point us to the consensus above which Marchjuly is struggling to find. I am surprised that consensus for an established guideline is not clearly available, but appreciate that discussion threads can get lost in wider archives. However, if this consensus cannot be found, seeing as Point 17 appears to be a later clarification, then it needs to be removed immediately until such consensus is found or achieved in the first place. At the moment, without it, this discussion has no merit whatsoever, and there is nothing wrong with child entities being illustrated by parent logos.
A more wider point would be that I would raise the following objection to Marchjuly's rationale (although I note that from a technical standpoint there is nothing inherently wrong with their actions):

I would question the extent to which these actions really help fulfill the second element of the WP:NFCC rationale, namely, To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

I'm just not sure how using a logo to illustrate the teams that exist solely under the auspices of a given federation instead of just the federation increases legal exposure in any real sense. I would appreciate some linking to discussion where it was made clear when these rules were agreed upon how the use of parent logo to illustrate child entities genuinely increased legal exposure in a practical sense. For example, is it realistic to consider that enWiki has greater legal exposure to the FA by using their logo to illustrate all their official teams, particularly when the FA do so themselves on the shirts of those teams?

If this cannot be shown, then I would reach the conclusion that this argument is purely bureaucratic as it has no substance in the real world and would therefore have difficulty presenting sound objections to editors WP:IARing in this instance. I appreciate that the NFC rules have been deliberately designed to be more restrictive than US Fair use law, but as I hope I have illustrated above, the inherent issue with this is the fundamental problems in applying these rules in a practical sense in real-world scenarios where legal opinions would probably be substantially more generous.

Marchjuly's argument that child articles do not need parent logos because they can be wikilinked is illogical. By that rationale, no non-free media should be on enWiki as it can always be linked to externally. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to add clarification regarding "wikilinking" as opposed to linking to "external websites". Logos uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free are assumed to satisfy all 10 of the WP:NFCCP, which I believe includes verification of the logo's copyright status, right? I'm not sure if the same can be automatically said for links to external websites, can it? Files used in Wikipedia article's are essentially just "wikilinks", right? It seems that using such files in articles poses no possible problems regarding WP:COPYLINK which might not be the case with an external link.

In addition, if a national federation has a stand-alone article and its logo is being used as the primary means of identification for that federation in said article, then I believe it is assumed that the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is satisfied. In some cases, the logo itself may even be the subject of sourced discussion later on within the article further justifying its use. I'm not so sure the same can be said for team articles where the logos are almost always "decorative" and typically not mentioned at all within the article itself. Moreover, there are three elements to the NFCC rationale so "minimizing legal exposure" is only one of the things that needs to be considered. I'm not totally sure how using a single non-free image in multiple "child entity" articles is a "judicious use of non-free content" or "support[s] Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media".

Finally, this is not an attempt to be snide, but in the "File:Bhutan FA.png" NFCR discussion linked to above Fenix down actually seemed to agree that such logos should not be used in team articles and they themselves removed such images from the articles in question. It's perfectly OK for people to change their minds, of course, but [10] and [11] and [12] seem to suggest that there was at least some agreement with UUI#17 at that particular time, which was after No. 17 had been added to the UUI and had been specifically cited in the aforementioned NFCR discussion. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion was here [13] basing on expansion of the concept of UUI#14 (that we don't repeat branding for annual events that lack logos specific to that event). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

National anthems, a special case of fair use

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#National_anthems.2C_a_special_case_of_fair_use to ask if anyone knew of any legal precedence for the note at Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry that "National anthems are generally considered to be a special case of fair use." Based on this, people are evidently copying the lyrics of national anthems and national songs into Wikipedia articles even where those anthems/songs are or are likely under copyright. Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources advises included the lyrics of national anthems that are out of copyright, but does not mention those that are.

User:RP88 kindly put some time into researching to see if there is a codified "special case of fair use" here and (as his report at that linked discussion indicates) found none, but did further research into the use of national anthems and feels there's no market competition here. User:Graeme Bartlett opined that the lyrics should be included even if non-free, but that the copyright status should be clear in the articles.

I'm bringing it here because I believe we need consensus on the matter to guide content contributors and the volunteers who work at WP:SCV. While we do not permit the inclusion of complete or extensive quotation of song lyrics on Wikipedia as a general rule where the songs are in copyright, should we make an exception for national anthems? If so, should this exception be noted here? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No real knowledge on the matter but why do we need all the lyrics in the article anyhow, they should be just linked to externally or better in something like wikisource. No reason why small sections of lyrics cant be included for commentary as per normal practice but I cant see why national anthems are different to any other lyrics. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument that repeating the lyrics of a national anthem that remains in copyright in within fair use is valid in general. It should be noted that non-free does not cover text (we only mention it because it comes up far too much), but what fair use is allowed is a question on the CC BY-SA. Creative Commons suggests that as long as it is recognized fair use, the work can be included as long as it is marked as not being covered by CC-BY. [14]. I would still beg the question from a simple encyclopedic standpoint if all the lyrics are necessary even if they have full "educational" value, and that its likely the case all such anthems have external sources that we can point to for someone that is looking for the full lyrics themselves. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, User:Masem, about NFC not covering text. Not only is it mentioned in the policy and guideline here, with specific guidance, but WP:C says, "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be an exception. True there's no market competition, but there're a lot of things that don't have market competition or where's there no financial loss to anyone if we use them, but we still don't, if they're not free.

The reader's assumption should be that anything on Wikipedia is free to re-use. We make exceptions for some images (and very very little beyond images, I think) when necessary to make an article top-drawer. Other than that... we don't want users to copy the lyrics of an anthem from here and (let's say) make a satirical version. Everything should be usable downstream unless it's absolutely unavoidable. And it's not, in this case: why include the whole lyric? We're not a lyric database. Use excerpts to illustrate the "poetic nature imagery" or "bloodthirsty chauvanism" (or whatever your source has to say) of the entity, just like any other work. Herostratus (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant by it not being covered in that we don't have the requirements for a rational/minimal use/etc. that we do for media files. It's included in NFC as it comes up a heck of a lot if text should be treated as non-free content (which has a rather specific meaning in Wiki-terms having derived from the original "fair use" policy). --MASEM (t) 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

One way to make the lyrics more distinct may be to upload it as a media file, eg a .pdf or an image. Then the FUR and license can be clearly displayed and the differently license from the rest of the text is obvious. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No there's no need to go that far. As long as it is blockquoted off appropriately, with a reference immediately by it, it should be "okay". Using a media file would impact accessibility issues without changing the fair use aspects of it. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Question on photography at a museum

This is specifically for MOMA that has this statement in their visitor guidelines: "Still photography for personal use is permitted in collection galleries only. No flash, tripods, or camera extension poles allowed. Videotaping is permitted in the lobby only. No photographs or videotapes may be reproduced, distributed, or sold without permission from the Museum." For purposes of NFC, and assuming that everything about the subject that is photographed is in the public domain and/or is uncopyrightable, beyond the fact it is set up in a display created by MOMA, does this make any personally-taken photo a non-free work since the museum is claiming rights on any taken within the museum (which arguably is not a public space)? --MASEM (t) 21:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Masem:. In the past, the expressed view by the not-a-lawyers here on WT:NFC has been that such a notice can (at most) only create an implied contract between the visitor and the museum, to which Wikimedia is not a party, and therefore not bound by any terms. There certainly isn't any copyright issue introduced (unless the visitor has specifically signed a formal transfer of copyright in writing), so there is nothing to have made the image non-free in the narrowest copyright sense of the term non-free.

I don't know whether that analysis is correct. It seems conceivable that a museum might go to court to try to seek an injunction against third-party reuse, perhaps claiming something like unjust enrichment off the back of a breach of contract. But I'm not sure how plausible that scenario is, or whether the museum could also seek damages. These are probably questions to run past a real lawyer. On the other hand WMF Legal might be unkeen to go too heavily on the record on the behalf of WMF (or might feel they were bound to have to make a very conservative answer), because no-one would want to put WMF in the position of appearing to encourage or induce a breach of contract (tortious interference).

Here are a couple of discussions on Commons from 2007: [15], [16], I'm not sure whether there has been further thought since. Jheald (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons policy codified at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography Jheald (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so technically okay by commons which of course we should adopt here. That works. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I find that a potentially harmful but useful answer. Within WP:GLAM we work co-operatively with museums to achieve our common aim of making knowledge accessible to everyone. Crashing around waving big sticks may liberate one or two images but to capture full archives one requires diplomacy. If a museum displays an unhelpful notice it is far better to approach the trustees and to get them to reword the notice and offer to organise an edit-a-thon- for them, museum staff are intensive Wikipedia users and once they have been assisted with doing a few edits make excellent Wikipedians with expert knowledge.

It is an issue that we should be revisiting given the changed public perception of Wikipedia and the changing demographic of Wikipedia editors-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For one-offs, which was the scenario I was more worried about here, I don't think that is as much of an issue, but I do agree that the language at Commons is not fair game to photograph every non-copyrighted exhibit at a museum that limits (not prohibits) photography and upload as PD. I agree that at the large scale, working with museums to assure free images of PD material is the right step. But one-off type things aren't the same scale. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Museum staff have a difficult time, as some artefacts are loaned on condition that they are not photographed and visiting shows are actually very prone to be copyrighted on the artistic effort in curation. All they can do is to get the legal bods to right up a cover-all statement which they can publish. It would be very helpful if we had our own template to offer them that they could use instead. CC-BY-SA is not quite enough, while we baulk at CC-BY-SA-NC. We need a purpose written CC-BY-SA +, with possibly a clause saying Low-Res publication is fine but Hi-Res becomes NC which I think reflects our principles and the musuems need for revenue when used by fat cats. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Except, as shown by the situation with the National Portrait Gallery in the UK, that the WMF does not require us to respect claims of copyright on otherwise slavish 2D reproductions of 2D works that are otherwise out of copyright and/or uncopyrightable under US law. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute.

I will agree that if the curation has artistic effort (for example a special display case with markings for an otherwise PD work) that that itself is copyright, and the Commons caution does not apply since the photograph contains copyrighted material. If this was the only way to get an image of the work in question, and photography wasn't expressly forbidden, then what would happen is that the image file would be non-free with two licenses. One reflecting the copyright of the museum on the display curation, and one reflecting the free license from the photographer. That way, once the copyright on the museum curation expires, we suddenly have a free image thanks to the photographer. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Rationale template at TFD

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot. All comments welcome. Posting here as this is more a NFC issue than a template issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Bokanowski

Is there any way to upload a non-free picture of Patrick Bokanowski, for example, this one, this one, this one this one this one, this one, or this one, without breaking Wikipedia rules? Thanks. 46.116.230.76 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that the person is still alive, we do not allow the use of non-free images of living persons unless the picture itself is the subject of significant sourced discussion per WP:NFCC#1. This does not appear to be the case here --MASEM (t) 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 46.116.230.76 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

image question

Do ya'll think File:PulpFictionTwist.jpg can go onto Uma Thurman (song)? As explained at Uma_Thurman_(song)#Composition Ms. Thurman's dance performance in Pulp Fiction was the genesis of the song title. NE Ent 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think so. It meets criteria #8 of WP:NFCI. - Mr X 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The image already exists in its own section at Pulp_Fiction#.22Vincent_Vega_and_Marsellus_Wallace.27s_Wife.22. A link from Uma Thurman (song) to that section is appropriate, per WP:NFC#UUI #6 (yes I know it says 'article', but the image is there on that article in its own section). That said, even its inclusion on the Pulp Fiction article is sketchy, as there is but a single reference to the scene done as part of a plot writeup rather than addressing the iconic nature of the scene other than with a ref. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- That said, at least for the Pulp Fiction page, the rational and location can be improved as in the "homage" section, there is significant sourced discussion of the dance scene which easily justifies the use of the image there. But I agree that it is unneccessary on the Uma Thurman song page, a link back to the PF article is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:db-author and non-free content

As seen at File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG (a WP:Permalink is here), I told DESiegel (DES), "I am the author. While others have reduced the size of the image per WP:Non-free, I don't see how that makes them authors in the same sense as me being the original uploader of the image. The image fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. Unlike other images in the Peyton Sawyer article, this one is used solely for decoration. Instead of seeing someone else delete it and possibly wrongly delete the other non-infobox images in the article, I decided to have this one deleted myself. So even if it shouldn't be speedy deleted because others have uploaded different versions of the image due to my WP:Non-free mistake (back when I was a less experience Wikipedia editor), this image should be deleted per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images."

Instead of deleting the image per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, DESiegel stated "there [was] no strong reason to accept [the] deletion request" and that he doesn't view the image as purely decorative. He has continued to argue against deleting the image even though I've been clear that I am no longer arguing for speedy deletion in this case, but rather deletion based on what Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images states. He has also declined my other speedy deletion tag because I used {{db-author}}; he asserts that I should not be using that template for these screenshot images. I told him that he is the first WP:Administrator to refuse such a matter, and that he can check my logs for all the screenshots I've had deleted via {{db-author}}. I'll also go ahead and alert editors at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more opinions on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that the image should not be deleted or can be considered a candidate for deletion, but CSD is the wrong venue to remove an image that immediately appears to have other valid rationale and the like (CSD is only for invalid rationals). I see FFD has been started, and that is a more appropriate venue for that discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for the reply. What do you mean by "immediately appears to have other valid rationale and the like"? And what do you think of using {{db-author}} for screenshots? The template states, "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page. See CSD G7." And as you can see with this edit, DESiegel stated "speedy declined, as a screen shot, db-author does not apply." But I've been clear that I've used {{db-author}} for screenshots time and time again, and it's worked every time except in these two cases. Other editors have also used the template in this way. Am I to believe that all the WP:Administrators who granted my screenshot deletion requests based on this template were wrong? Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also alerted editors watching Template talk:Db-meta to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General, "These apply to every type of page ... files, etc." That's pretty clear to me. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess the issue with db-author is that while only one person may be the largest contributor towards a file page, its usage (a unique factor for file, template, and category space) should also be considered. If I made an article and uploaded a non-free for that article, and that I was the only author on both article and file, I'd agree db-author is a reasonable CSD reason. But if the image had been used on the page and the page has had a number of active users since it was added, its hard to see db-author being a reasonable step, since by its includsion and subsequent edits by other users, its use is approved for inclusion. At that that point that is where either a talk page discussion to remove and then apply di-orphan, or an FFD, should be done. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, an administrator never has to accept a db-author deletion tag. If a page is in use by the project, even through there was only one author, an admin often should decline it, as an editor grants an irrevocable license to each and every edit.

Secondly, part of the reason (in my view) why we allow a db-author deletion at all is because the text or image is the creation of the single editor, who has sole copyright, although it has been licensed freely. But with a screenshot, the uploader isn't really the author at all. Under Feist, the uploader will in most cases have no copyright, not even a copyright on a derivative work. Therefore it seems to me that the justification for db-author speedy deletion does not hold in such cases. I don't know how others would view this, this is the first such case I am aware of (and i do quite a bit of Category:CSD patrol). Thirdly, Flyer22 suggested that I delete the image "based on what Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images states." But that is no longer a speedy deletion, so it is not a matter for a single admin, but rather for proper discussion and consensus. I accept that Flyer22 is acting in good faith, and that other admins have not raised this issue, I can only act as seems proper to me pending wider discussion. I was going to raise this at WT:CSD to seek other views. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the most straightforward way to proceed is to remove the image from the article(s) where you intended it to be used, and wait for it to be deleted as an unused nonfree image. If someone objects to its removal from an article, then its deletion would be controversial, so speedy wouldn't have been appropriate. On a broader scale, though, would db-author be appropriate for an article translated from an other-language wiki, of copied from appropriately licensed or PD text? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like a good approach for such cases. Not that db-author can't be used for images but it should be up to the admin if that really does apply; on the other hand, taking the orphaned image approach would be comparible to the PROD/AFD route. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the traction for this discussion has halted, I've alerted WP:Village pump (policy) to it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel (DES), since no one else has weighed in on this matter thus far, since WP:Administrators have been deleting images tagged with db-author for years, and since John of Reading stated above "From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General, 'These apply to every type of page ... files, etc.' That's pretty clear to me.", I see no WP:Consensus that db-author shouldn't be used for images. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made a nice suggestion above, and it's an aspect I've certainly known about for years, but I don't like it when the image alert comes to my talk page after I've removed an image. I don't feel that this matter -- getting an image deleted because you no longer have use for it and/or because it fails an image criterion -- should take days. That is, unless the image is likely to be contested (in the case that the original uploader is not the only uploader of the image who cares about the image or the image otherwise has clear support). I will use Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's suggestion at times, but I'm not going to completely discontinue using db-author for images.

Below is a Template:Collapsed copy of our discussion from File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG; I've copied it here since that discussion will most likely be deleted once that file is deleted, and only WP:Administrators will be able to view that discussion afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy of File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG discussion

DESiegel (DES), I don't see a strong reason for declining my request. I am the author. While others have reduced the size of the image per WP:Non-free, I don't see how that makes them authors in the same sense as me being the original uploader of the image. The image fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. Unlike other images in the Peyton Sawyer article, this one is used solely for decoration. Instead of seeing someone else delete it and possibly wrongly delete the other non-infobox images in the article, I decided to have this one deleted myself. So even if it shouldn't be speedy deleted because others have uploaded different versions of the image due to my WP:Non-free mistake (back when I was a less experience Wikipedia editor), this image should be deleted per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. Flyer22 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, If there is no strong reason to accept a deletion request, that is enough to decline it, "When in doubt, don't delete" applies particularly to speedy deletions because of the lack of discussion. Failing the WP:NFCC is not a valid speedy deletion reason. (Also, the image is already mentioned in Peyton Sawyer, and that could be expanded. It is not pure decoration IMO.) As to being the author, no Wikipedia editor is really the "author" of a screenshot, the true author in this case is the artist who created the drawing for the show. I think this is outside the bounds of a proper speedy deletion, and must be deleted, if at all, after a deletion discussion. DES ^(talk) 13:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: DES ^(talk) 13:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel (DES), there is a strong reason to delete the image, and that is per what I stated above. Furthermore, the only other person to author this image here at Wikipedia is this editor who is now indefinitely blocked (at least indefinitely blocked under that account). I added the image to this section of the Peyton Sawyer article; I assure you it is pure decoration. In other words, it is simply a visual to go along with plot summary in a plot summary section, when editors can easily visualize that moment (even if not 100% accurately), and it is absent creator commentary and critical commentary. So it indeed fails Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, which is exactly what editors would state if I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The wardrobe imagery I added to that article is assisted by creator commentary, and the wardrobe descriptions cannot be easily imagined without visual aid. Similar goes for the artwork imagery I added to the Artwork section of that article. The school shooting image has no such support, and I don't see a need for adding any commentary on the matter there; that topic has its own Wikipedia article; see With Tired Eyes, Tired Minds, Tired Souls, We Slept. Similarly, I have nominated File:One Tree Hill-Peyton is bleeding out.jpg, which is used in the With Tired Eyes, Tired Minds, Tired Souls, We Slept article, for speedy deletion. After seeing this, this, this and this image deletion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at the Brooke Davis article, I remembered that there is one image in the Peyton Sawyer article that I should remove. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 a screenshot is not a separate creative act, it will generally not have its own copyright as per the Feist decision in US law. Thus I doubt that {{db-author}} should ever apply to one. Your other arguments about NFCC would be apt at a deletion discussion, but are irrelevant to a speedy deletion. As to the other editor, a later block does not alter whatever rights s/he had in the reduced image, and so is also irrelevant. DES ^(talk) 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel (DES), I did not state that "a screenshot is [...] a separate creative act." I stated above, "So even if [this image] shouldn't be speedy deleted because others have uploaded different versions of the image due to my WP:Non-free mistake (back when I was a less experience Wikipedia editor), this image should be deleted per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images." I gave ample reason for why this image should be deleted, and you still won't do that. Instead, you are insisting that I needlessly go through a different channel to get this image deleted. You can delete this image per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; that is my point now. And an indefinitely blocked editor who seemingly only cared about the image to fix my WP:Non-free mistake? I agree to disagree on that as well. I will see about getting this image deleted via a different channel since you insist. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No I can't, or at least I shouldn't. Only pages clearly falling within one or more of the speedy deletion criteria are appropriate for speedy deletion, violation of the non-free image rules is not one of them. Other deletions need discussion. My point about the creative act was: that is what justifies a db-author tag and subsequent deletion. DES ^(talk) 14:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You keep talking about speedy deletion when I am no longer arguing for that. And as for declining my other speedy deletion tag because I used {{db-author}}, you are the first WP:Administrator to refuse such a matter. You can check my logs for all the screenshots I've had deleted via {{db-author}}. I'll ask about these matters at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated this image for a proper FFD discussion. I feel that it violates NFCC 8. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that Explicit spared the talk page. Thanks, Explicit. Flyer22 (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Banksy graffiti and fair use rationale

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1 I have attempted to copy back to wikipedia an image on commons (File:Banksy-ps.jpg). It is now at see File:Banksy-ps2.jpg with a new name. Can anyone help with the Template: Non-free graffiti which is used on commons but I can't find on wikipedia, and check that I am using the fair use rationale template properly?— Rod ^talk 08:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for drafts to allow non-free images

Continuining this discussion from my talk page I'd like to make a proposal for article drafts to allow non-free images.

Currently, they're not allowed because drafts aren't in the mainspace. Well, I think they're as fitting as articles-the image serves the exact same purpose, making it acceptable.
Drafts and their corresponding articles never coexist, making the image in question only used once.
I can't think of a reason why this shouldn't be the case.

- Hop on Bananas (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The key problem is that drafts can linger forever in draft space, thus keeping the image on a page that is normally not part of the encyclopedia, in violation of the Foundation's requirements that they only be used in association with encyclopedic content. There's nearly always a way to use free placeholders if one is developing an article and then moving the article and adding in the non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it legal to copyright a photo that I took myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPunger (talk • contribs) 12:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are free to copyright an image that you took, but be aware that we expect contributions made by users to be licensed under a free license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (which acknowledges and can attribute your copyright, but allows for free distribution and reuse). --MASEM (t) 15:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Should #10 of the WP:NFCI list of be rephrased to reflect the inevitability of image copyright expiration?

Criterion #10 of the WP:NFCI list currently states, Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. As the copyright of any image must eventually expire, the phrasing presents a condition which is always going to be met... eventually. I propose that we rephrase it so that it reads Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute prior to the expiration of copyright is not reasonably likely (italic text not to be italicized in final wording, of course). This matter has already been briefly discussed on the deletion discussion of the image file:Quentincrisp1.jpg available here, but has not been brought up yet as a formal proposed change of wording for NFCI #10. Please share your thoughts below. Thank you. KDS4444^Talk 06:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

prior to expiration of copyright is a very long time, I think the word you want is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

This wouldn't just apply to deceased persons, this applies universally. I would argue we need something of this language under "Meeting the no free equivalent criterion". We also do consider that if the copyright expiry is within a few months (like say end of this year as I type this), then it would be wrong to use a non-free and instead wait for that free version to become available in a few months. We just aren't going to ask people to wait for 6 months/1 year + for that. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I would go with something to the effect of "provided that a free content substitute is presently unlikely to be found." ViperSnake151 Talk 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I support updating the phrasing at WP:NFCI per nom. NFCI is a guideline and guidelines should explain policy. The guideline states that it lists a "non-exhaustive list of established examples", so it's implicitly applies universally (not only to images depicting deceased persons out of all images, and not only to images out of all files). The original wording at the relevant policy WP:NFCCP#1 is sufficient and should not be changed as it contains no obvious absurdity. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "[...] not reasonably likely in the short term"? LjL (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Better to leave well enough alone. That qualification is pretty much treated in practice as implicit, and attempts to make it explicit are likely to be treated as invitations to attempt to game the system. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Leave it alone. If messed with, users may claim that pictures should be kept because free replacements only can be created in a different part of the world when no one in that part of the world is editing the article in which the image is used. If it is an article about a famous person who regularly makes public appearances, users might state that pictures can't be created in the short term because it will take a whole week before his next public appearance. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seven days for deleting orphaned non-free revisions

First off, apologies if this has been discussed before, but I searched a bit for prior discussions and couldn't find any. What's the point of admins waiting seven days before deleting old revisions of non-free media as recommended by {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}? It seems unnecessary when this is done in the context of media reduction ({{Non-free reduce}}). — Earwig ^talk 08:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's a dispute about which version to use, it's better if people get some time to finish that dispute out, and it would be disruptive to make a revision unavailable before people have got a chance to sort out the problem. In most cases, it's obvious what to do and no one will dispute it, but I have occasionally seen edit wars where two editors revert back and forth several times. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The period also allows for cases where an article may have been hit by a vandal, and the image's use removed from it; the 7 days gives warning that something had changed and to restore the image. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two F5 processes: one for overwritten files, and one for files which are not used anywhere at all.

If a file isn't used anywhere at all, it is useful to wait for a week before deletion as it gives people some time to revert mistakes or vandalism.

The {{orphaned non-free revisions}} is for files which are in use but which have been overwritten for some reason. A vandal might overwrite a file, so it's a good idea to wait for a week so that people get some time to revert vandalism. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that (i.e. the second case) be obvious to the deleting admin? — Earwig ^talk 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of vandalism it is. Someone might overwrite a logo or a book cover with a fake logo or book cover, and the admin might not notice that it is a fake until the real one has been deleted as an old revision. Also, if there are multiple covers or posters, there might be a dispute about which one to use. I think that a delay is useful for sorting out problems. I don't think that we are in a hurry to delete the revisions anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

I'm posting here per a suggestion made at WP:FFD#File:Prince logo.svg to see if a consensus can be established regarding how to treat File:Prince logo.svg. The non-free usage of the image has been discussed a number of times at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 9#File:Prince logo.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 23#File:Prince logo.svg, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 53#File:Prince logo.svg. The copyright status of the image is not in dispute, only the extent to which it should be used on Wikipedia and how WP:NFCC should be applied.

The image has non-free use rationales for Prince (musician) and Love Symbol Album, but is being used more than once in each article: the non-free use rationale for "Love Symbol" album does say the image is being used at "two points in the article to denote the album". On the surface, such multiple uses do not appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#3a, but this might need to be clarified due to the special nature of the logo (it was Prince's official stage name for a number of years). Should it be treated as simply a non-free logo, or does it need to be given special consideration because it can be used in text as to refer to Prince during that period of his career.

The other issue is whether this image is acceptable for use in list articles such as Prince albums discography, etc. Normally, non-free content is not allowed in such articles per WP:NFLISTS, but again there is disagreement over this. Should this is treated as a "name" (i.e., the name of an album or the name of the artist) and not as a "symbol" and, therefore, be OK to use?

Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The three uses on Prince - one in the lede, one in the text (and then using "Prince" since, and a larger version of the image - all make sense. Similarly, its use twice on the album - once as the title, and once in lede before switching to "Love Symbol Album", all as necessary to explain the way that symbol comes into play. In the discography, one use seems appropriate under the same reasons (with any additional discussion of the album being listed as Love Symbol Album ). --MASEM (t) 02:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Should there be a separate nfur for each usage or is a single one OK to cover all usages? Also, in the discography article, the symbol will link to it's file page and not the album's stand-alone article. Should there be a wikilink provided for the album's stand-alone article as well? Finally, how should the nfur for the discography article be written to show that it complies with the NFCC? Sorry for all the questions. Just want to make sure everything's in order. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

One rationale for each page, but it should explicitly state the purpose of each use on that page (eg: for Prince's page something like "one use to identify the mark in the lede. one use to discuss the mark in prose as part of his musical career. One additional use to show a larger image of the mark at that point in the prose.") So if, say, someone added a 4th use, that needs to be documented in the rationale too. For the discography, I would present in the table as [[Love Symbol Album]] (image here) so that the symbol is associated with the name but avoids the linkage problem. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10c says one rationale for each use, not one for each page: "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". In the unlikely event that an image is permitted twice on the same page, the image would appear to need two FURs for that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that when we're talking multiple uses on the same page, each use should be documented to that use on that page. Remember, at the end of the day, we don't require templates, just that it is clear how each use is rationalized, and that's what I did suggest at the end of the day, as otherwise I can see lots of potential problems forcing the use of a template for the three valid reuses of the images at Prince, when it comes later to automatic checking. If a fourth use was later added, that would have to be documented and reviewed, obviously, or otherwise removed. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the press image policy

Now, this is a well-known policy that's caused a lot of image deletions and is mentioned in a well-used non-free image template, but I still think something should be done. Anyway, we're assuming that:

All press agencies sell their images, and only those images which are still copyright in the US and the source country:
That people never license these images to talk about the images themselves, only to talk about the events they depict:
That freely licensed images exist of every irreplaceable event with press images taken of it.

Needless to say, this is not the case. Since anyone could theoretically buy a press image for any purpose, we couldn't use it at all. Talking about the event may be the most common use, but - especially with well-known press images - it's not the only use.

We're also assuming that press and stock photo images, and only press and stock photo images, are sold. Talking about the event may be the original press agency's intent, but if the image is a very well-known image, it might as well be the other way around, if the image is more well-known than the event itself - and if not, it's well known enough for people to talk about it, including having a Wikipedia article. Which brings us back to use on WP. Anyway...

Anyway, by having any image that's sold anywhere on WP or Commons, we could be depriving the seller of commercial opportunities.

- Hop on Bananas (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have always wondered where WP:NFC#UUI §7 comes from as I haven't found an exact equivalent in a court ruling. In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., it says that "we [the court] hold that DK’s use of BGAs images is transformatively different from their original expressive purpose". The "original expressive purpose" of a newspaper photograph is not necessarily different to the "original expressive purpose" of a different photograph. For example, the "original expressive purpose" may in both cases be to illustrate texts about a person depicted on the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So no judge in any court ruling ever said "If X had used Y's image to talk about the image itself, it would be acceptable fair use. But they used it to talk about the event it depicts without licensing it from Y, and that's unacceptable as it's one less commercial opportunity for Y"? Cause that's basically what any WP user who's familiar with this policy but doesn't know any better would say. I'll read up on the case you linked. Also, as I mentioned, press and stock images are not the only sold images. We know that many sites, even to this day, watermark and copyfraud PD-Art images - in which case, by having images of those artworks on Commons, even from free sources, could be depriving the copyfrauders of commercial use of their images. (I'm not against having those images on Commons. However, since they're sold like press images and copyfrauded, they come into this). Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hop on Bananas: I haven't read too many court rulings about fair use. However, note that any statements you see on a website may be incorrect. In some cases, statements on websites are enforceable in some countries but not in other countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

In the case linked, the images in question were event posters used in a timeline. The court ruled that they were fair use.

Anyway, if the court has never ruled that use of press images without licensing them to talk about the image is FU but not to talk about the event, where did that policy come from? Arguably, this policy could only apply to images that the seller owns the copyright to for several reasons (like how only they could force a takedown) but we're singling out talking about the image for no reason and deciding that depriving commercial opportunities overrides irreplaceability except when talking about the image. I really don't agree with this policy. Hop on Bananas (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Most or all of the examples at WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI come from discussions on this talk page, I think. It would be useful to amend each point with a link to the discussion which resulted in the addition of that point.

Looking at wmf:Category:DMCA, I found a couple of take-down requests for fair use files on enwiki:

wmf:File:DMCA Talitha Getty.pdf - seems to have illustrated a biography
wmf:DMCA The Danish Girl - poster for a film article?
wmf:DMCA Chillerama - upload log mentions {{film cover fur}} and {{non-free poster}}
wmf:DMCA RIAA Kate Bush - apparently a non-free sound sample for Deeper Understanding, based on the upload log. Deleted as WP:F5, not as a DMCA takedown. Did the WMF decline the takedown request for some reason?
wmf:DMCA UFC - removed in Special:Diff/480794425 from the infobox in UFC 144. That article currently contains File:UFC144Poster.jpg which was uploaded after the takedown request, so the file might have been reposted after the takedown request, or it might be a different poster.
wmf:DMCA of DMCA LIPTAK - a takedown request for a takedown request, which the Wikimedia Foundation decided to decline.

wmf:File:DMCA Talitha Getty.pdf looks very similar to what we are discussing here, but I'm not able to tell if it is one of those files which fail WP:NFC#UUI §7 or not. As the file has been deleted, I can't check the file information page for any hints. One thing which is troubling me is that the Wikimedia Foundation appears to disagree with us on WP:NFCI §4 by taking down posters when requested to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be carefully evaluating takedown requests and has declined a couple of requests to take down public domain requests (for example wmf:DMCA Hachette Livre - a request to take down material created by a guy who died in 1885). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that under DMCA, if WMF is trying to maintain safe harbor, they have to remove first and let the users affect file a counterclaim. If the WMF fought these directly, they would lose safe harbor protections. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The way I understand it, WMF is free to decline whichever DMCA takedown requests it wants to decline, but by declining a takedown request, WMF becomes liable for any copyright violations in the material which wasn't taken down. The WMF has sometimes declined DMCA takedown requests for material where the WMF has decided that it is unlikely that the material is copyrighted. Apart from the books by the person who died in 1885, the WMF has also declined a takedown request for PD-USGov material once, and also for some material which the WMF decided was below the threshold of originality. There is also wmf:DMCA of DMCA LIPTAK, where the WMF declined taking down the text of a different takedown request, presumably because the WMF was so certain that the use of the takedown request on foundationwiki constitutes fair use. The WMF didn't decline these other takedown requests for fair use material, so my interpretation is that the WMF thought that the risk of keeping the material was too high (i.e. the WMF essentially questions whether it is valid fair use or not). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Give that all we have to go on directly from the WMF on fair use is the Resolution, and that the few times that they have been directly inquired about some matters and have generally been lax about it, this seems like a conflicting result. I can see them stepping in to defend works that are clearly in the public domain under US law (as they did for the UK National Portrait Gallery issue), but where the issue is not clear, I could take the lack of action (eg that is, agreeing to the request) to be the effect of simply leaving the matter to the Wikis to determine but first meeting the letter of the law. It would be good to get clarification on their side exactly how they view DMCA requests, but as noted this is going down a different topic. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can piece together about those DMCA cases, several copyright holders asked to take down fair use images - the obvious implication is that they would like no use without permission. This is excusable for most copyright holders, but inexcusable for the DMCA. But we're off topic now, since this is about press images. Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The way I understand this has come by: keeping in mind that this policy was once a "fair use policy" before the WMF's resolution, US fair use law has four aspects to consider if a use of a copyrighted work is non-infringing: transformation of the work - what type of work you are using it for and in what manner, the previous publication of a work and other factors regarding the origin of the original work, the amount of the work you are taking, and respect for commercial opportunities. In the fair use policy that NFC developed from, the restriction on press photos (eg: they cannot be used unless the photos themselves are a subject of discussion) was a manner to ensure that all four points were generally respected for all images (in that we'd never be impacting the commercial value of non-press photos), and that when a press photo was used, it would be used in a manner that further respected all four points. When NFCC came around with NFCC#2 to establish that, and NFCI#UUI #7 is just a clearer statement of that. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I've yet to see a reason why "deprives the copyright holder of commercial use" applies to talking about the event but not the image. Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway..

File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg: Used to illustrate the image itself and thus fits the current policy. (By Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press...fine).]]
File:Deweytruman12.jpg: Used to illustrate the event, so by the current policy it's unacceptable.
File:Ian Fleming, headshot.jpg: Used to illustrate the person depicted, which according to the current policy would be tantamount to using a magazine/newspaper cover to illustrate the person on it. - Hop on Bananas (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(Note: The above two posts were moved to make the thread easier to follow and the non-free content was linked to instead of displayed per WP:NFCC#9: No content was changed, just formatting fixes -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC))

Edit: Judging by the discussion about WP:NFCC#2 below, the first two images are acceptable (the first is talking about the image and the second is an example of an event with only press images). By the way, the third was deleted because of WP:CSD#I7 (invalid FU rationale). Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Side thought: documenting consensus for all NFCI/NFC#UUI items

Based on a similar process that was used at WP:ITN/R to document where consensus came from each list item, it might make sense to try to undergo some history digging and tag where each NFCI/NFC#UUI item developed its consensus. I don't expect it to be easy, nor should be an immediate task, but something that you happen to come across it, it would be good to add a footnote and the link to that point in the appropriate archives. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a really good idea and I am willing to help with that as best as I can. It could be also used as a good opportunity to revisit some of the WP:NFC#Unacceptable use and reassess them if necessary. The application of some of the UUI, such as No. 17, always seems to be disputed by someone. I've tried getting discussions going but I either seem to pick the wrong place like I did here or they get archived with only a few comment made like they did here. Even when discussed atWP:NFCR, some editors claim certain unaceptable uses have no real basis because they are made up Wikipedia rules and not copyright law. It seems that more than a few WikiProjects have created their own "guidelines" for images, some of which aren't exactly consistent with the NFC. If there was something like an RfC that could be pointed to show why a particular usage is considered unacceptable, then it might help dispell the notion that this is really just a few anti-image editors simply making up things on their own and making life hard for others. It might also make it easier to apply them more uniformly across the board. -- 23:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs)

Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

From a discussion on my talk page, there is question whether the use of non-free images of the deceased victims in crimes or those that have committed suicide such as Suicide of Tyler Clementi or Death of Freddie Grey is appropriate. It is important to note these are not bio pages - they are event pages for people that would have otherwise failed BLP1E. Note this would also apply to photographs for crimes of those that have been charged with doing the crime (eg the 6 officers' photo in the Freddie Grey article).

My argument is that if the victim's looks or photographs of the victims are not discussed, then these fail NFCC#8, as well as , when talking about victims, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Seeing the image does not help the reader understand the event (the topic of the article) better, I feel these should not be included. Do note that there can be cases where a photograph is the subject of discussion on these articles and where they would meet NFC such as at Death of Alan Kurdi (the photo of the body made the rounds on the Internet and drew attention) or Suicide of Amanda Todd (where the video image was what drew attention to the incident). If all we are doing is presenting the image of a person on an event article and the person would otherwise fail BLP1E, and no other reason is given to show the picture, it fails NFC. --MASEM (t) 06:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll handle this, Masem. --George Ho (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We editors have used many biographical photos of non-notable people whose deaths, suicides, and/or crimes are article topics, like suicide of Tyler Clementi and death of Freddie Gray. Those photos of involved non-notable persons have been used in case that photos depicting gruesome events, like a screenshot depicting a suicide or a screenshot of police incident, may be nonexistent. On the other hand, we have photos depicting events used as lead images, such as a screenshot of the shooting of unarmed man, a screenshot of a suicidal girl's self-made video, and the photo of a little boy found at a beach. The discussion should focus on both pre-death biographical photos and mugshots of involved individuals, which do not depict events, like body discoveries, police incidents, suicides, and suicidal messages, but are included as either lead or section images in certain articles. Shall we omit those biographical and/or mugshot photos from those articles or keep the photos in? Almost forgot, do they generally meet all criteria of WP:NFCC and comply with WP:NFC? (~~MOS:BIO~~ does not apply to certain events involving non-notable people.) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A general question, before we get into special cases, what WP is not, and all that: everything else aside, does the use of these images still meet all NFCC criteria? As Masem mentioned, #8 seems to be the grey line here, as typically non-free images used solely as illustration, without themselves being discussed, would fail #8. Whereas the use of the actual crime photo, as in the Clementi article, are themselves discussed and contextualize the prose of the article. Crow^Caw 14:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on the assumption that all other NFCC criteria are met, and the issue is strictly on NFCC#8; that people have verified to the best of their ability there are no free images of the persons, etc, and this question should only be seen in the light of the NFCC#8 aspect as well as the general principle of NFCC#3, minimum use of non-free in general. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added underlined question and statement. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an area which frequently sets off WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which go something like "If article A does/does not have a photo of the perp/victim, article B should/should not have one either. The problem is that otherstuffexists is not an argument that carries much weight. When fair use is involved, people will often say that a free image of the perp or victim might be found. In my experience, this rarely happens. It is hard to give absolute rules about whether an article should have a photo of the perp or victim, as it should be looked at on a case by case basis without dragging in the otherstuffexists argument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think MASEM has the NFCC#8 reasoning subtly reversed. The suggestion is that the article needs to discuss the image. NFCC#8 actually says the image needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, not that the article needs to address the image. The question is, does seeing the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject of the article? Seeing an image of someone immediately creates an impression of that person - a thousand things that just can't be put into words. It also affects how people consolidate the information. The information can mentally consolidate around a concrete person, rather than just abstract words. I know a lot about copyright, and one of the clearest facts about copyright is that Fair Use is a fuzzy gray blob with almost no solid rules until a judge rules on it. Another clear thing is that the educational public service mission of Wikipedia is about the strongest possible position from which to claim Fair Use. I think we can keep the images, but we can pass the question on to WMF legal if we need a serious opinion. Alsee (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

NFCC#8 has two parts: significantly increase the readers understanding (which, you give me any image, I can easily show that to be the case), and that omission would harm the reader's understanding. The only way that this last part can be readily met is if the image of the person is of significant discussion in the article, and because we avoid original research, it likely needs to be sourced. If you are just showing a picture of a non-notable person who's appearance has no mention in sources, the reader's understand is not harmed by not including it. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also keep in mind: I agree fully that under US Fair Use laws, we'd have no problem, but en.wiki is specifically more strict than US Fair Use to reduce and minimize the use of non-free as to encourage the development of a free content encyclopedia. It is the WMF's resolution that demands us to avoid frivolous uses of non-free that would otherwise meet fair use. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think in general most mugshots and such don't meet NFC criteria, for the reasons outlined about. In some situations, there might be commentary that warrants it—what picture the press use to present someone like Trayvon Martin, for instance, sometime gets major play and debate—but especially in articles where the subject is the crime itself justification must be presented, not assumed. @Alsee, Masem is right. The strict requirements for images come from the educational and free mission of the encyclopedia, not as an afterthought to normal fair use considerations. It's why they're so strict. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

David, there is already "Trayvon Martin" biography, and the suspect's mugshot is already used in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Speaking of a suspect, there is a separate bio about him. But we are discussing not just mugshots in general but other biographic photos in non-biographies as well. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to put another example which I remembered we had but couldn't place it is Death of Leelah Alcorn, we include the picture because that picture gained commentary and helped to bring attention. This is an allowable use because of that factor. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#2

Could someone possibly explain to me when a non-free file would fail WP:NFCC#2, or even explain the criterion's purpose? I am not clear when a file would fail this, especially when a file would fail WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8 at the minimum first. Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

One situation is WP:NFC#UUI §7. If someone uploads a picture of the kind mentioned there, then it is assumed that the picture often violates WP:NFCC#2. However, see #Regarding the press image policy above: when a user asked for a reference for WP:NFC#UUI §7, it turned out that no one was able to dig up a court ruling suggesting that WP:NFC#UUI §7 is a correct interpretation of the law. The UUI points have typically been added after discussions on this page, so you might be able to find something useful in the archives to this page, but there have been lots of discussions on this talk page, so the correct discussion might be hard to find. It is also assumed that files violate WP:NFCC#2 if you use too much of a copyrighted work, but this special case is also codified as WP:NFCC#3. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The way to look at it is that there NFCC#2 effectively covers #1 and #8 together, but #1 and #8 together encompass much more than what #2 covers. The reason we have NFCC#2 is that media houses like Gettys are or have been aggressive about seeking unlicensed uses of their photos (eg [17]), hence why we ask people to avoid their unless there is clearly allowance under NFCC #8 and #1, which makes our case for fair use defense much stronger if we are transforming the work and not just "using" it. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Media houses are not the only ones who send aggressive letters where they ask for money. See for example c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/10#Exif copyright messages not preserved in thumbnails where a Commons user sent an aggressive letter because a picture wasn't properly attributed when used on a different website. This doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright holder's claim is valid. If the situation is unclear, then it might be too scary for the copyright holder to sue, but it is much cheaper to just send an angry letter, and the person using the material might think that it is too scary not to pay, so the copyright holder will still get money from some of the claims. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  - It's not about how they go about it, but the fact that they have a stronger legal right to go about it, as the common point of all press and image house stuff is that these are commercial works, produced to be licensed. Any fair use of them immediately conflicts with one of the four fair use defense pillars, respect for commercial works. This doesn't mean they can't be used as fair use in any situation (we do have some in fact), but as one of the four defense pillars cannot ever be satisfied with this type of image, the other three must be stronger. For us at en.wiki, we have decided that unless the picture itself is the subject of discussion it is very difficult to make a fair use defense, and further is a potential harm to reusers that copy the content wholesale. It is the type of sticky issue that it is best we avoid as much as possible. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense - while an image of a book/video/album/whatever cover is no substitute for the product itself, press and stock images are the product. Since the only way to "respect commercial opportunities" is to not use these images at all, we needed a guideline for the use of these images. However, as we couldn't find even one court ruling regarding a press/stock image(s) and whether it's use was fair use or not, we had to make up a guesstimate. It's our current policy on press/stock images. (The discussion that spawned that policy probably has more information). The policy is that the only fair use of a press/stock image is talking about the image itself. Not the event depicted (for press images) as an example of the stock photographer's art style (for stock images) or the person depicted (for both). Note that many press images we now have do not follow this policy. I provided three press images on WP in the above section, only one of which follows the policy. Note that I don't have an example of "showing the stock photographer's art style" because (1) I just thought of that as I was typing this comment and (2) I have not found a single stock image used on WP under a fair use claim, never mind to talk about the image itself. In any case, the fact that correctly used press images are used to talk about the image itself does not make them any less stealable from WP. Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we use a press image, I would expect the majority of the time it is because the image itself is of discussion. However, I don't want to say that is the only allowance for press images, as I can see in a very well argued case that a press image out of several from an event that only happened once/can't be recreated ever again where the discussion of the visual impact of the event in general but of no specific image, we would allow that. As a hypothetical example, if the only images that were available of the events of the September 11 attacks were press-based images (and where I would hope it is clear that this would need visualization), I could easily see the argument for allowing their use. (Instead, we have a lot of free images). But as to a working example of this , I don't immediately know. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that stock images are mentioned in WP:FUI#Unacceptable use #7, but the only examples I've found are press images. Are there any actual stock images used on WP to talk about the image itself? Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of; outside of memes and comedy blogs, stock images as images on their own rarely get attention so I don't think we have any examples. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there were one that got enough coverage by reliable sources, I'd assume we could have an article on the image and use the image itself in it as FU. Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the possibility of that happening, but as you note, it basically would require that we can write an encyclopedic article about the image itself. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Philippine government works

So, this issue came up in Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_November_22#File:Flag_of_The_President_Of_The_Philippines_1948-1981.png about the status of Philippine government works. On Wikipedia, they are considered non-free files with the tag {{Non-free Philippines government}}. On Commons however they are considered as free images with a tag commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. According to the two discussions on Commons about this template, the Philippine law does disallow using Philippine government works for commercial gain but at the same time disawovs any copyright on them. The folks at Commons interpret this as meaning that the noncommercial rules are non-copyright restrictions and thus still allow the presence of these images. But Wikipedia does consider them non-free. Perhaps we should have identical rules on Commons and Wikipedia for them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Stefan2, Marchjuly, and Explicit:.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We probably should normalize to commons' take, as otherwise, if a person has a work from the Philippine gov't, they would just upload it to commons to get the free nature there than here with the non-free. As long as this has been clearly decided at commons that it is free, then we should too. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Found a previous enwiki discussion; this template is transcluded on 947 file pages, a number of them are of local governments it seems.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no real preference either way, but it would make things a bit easier to deal with if Commons and Wikipedia treated the images the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 13#.7B.7BPD-PhilippinesPubDoc.7D.7D and the Philippines' law. In my opinion, Wikipedia should not make any difference between unfree files on Wikipedia and unfree files on Commons, so if these files are 'unfree' according to Wikipedia, then NFCC restrictions on use should also apply to the files on Commons when used on Wikipedia. It would be nice if Wikipedia and Commons didn't disagree on whether the material is free or unfree.

To me, it is unclear if Sec. 176 of the Philippine copyright law also applies to works by subdivisions of the government, such as works by cities. {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply to works by subdivisions, but it is possible that things are different in the Philippines. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is no "unfree"/"non-free" images on Commons relative to US laws, since that's where the site is hosted. Commons itself might host a smaller subset of what would be treated as free images by en.wiki/US laws (eg we allow for PD-USonly, commons does not). As such, there should never be the case of a file that, on review, would be treated as free on commons and non-free on en.wiki. That said, based on the linked discussion, it does look like there is a difference of opinion on between Commons reads the Ph. law, and how en.wiki readers it, and really we should be normalized using the same definition since the servers for both are at the same location. This might be something to talk to Commons and get WMF legal council advice on, to figure out. I would agree that we at en.wiki with our NFC policy should assume the worst and stay to the non-free versions but I really think that there should not be difference between how they are treated between here and commons. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

^ "Ice Towers and Caves of Mount Erebus", photographs from the Mount Erebus Observatory

[1] "Ice Towers and Caves of Mount Erebus", photographs from the Mount Erebus Observatory

[1]