This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Near as I can tell, this phrase has no meaning at all the way it's used in the guideline. I propose we remove it. We can then replace it with some phrase that actually has some definition that we can provide within the guideline. Croctotheface ( talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why the term "critical" is used here at all, to be honest. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to evaluate, and that's really what "critical" refers to. As to "commentary", to me, the idea of writing a "commentary" is something that would be prohibited here by WP:NOR. If someone ever asked what I did to articles when I edit WP, I would never say I add "commentary". In fact, th user warning templates for violating WP:NPOV used to be (and may still be, I'm not sure) named "comment1, comment2, etc." Are we just defining "commentary" as "talking about"? If we are, then I don't see how EVERY Wikipedia article doesn't qualify, so long as it has ANY information whatsoever. Croctotheface ( talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
According to
section 107 of the
United States Copyright Act of 1976 :
The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
[1]
If an image is used for non-profit purposes, this factor is noted as relevant by the Act.
Tyrenius (
talk)
19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for the purposes of curiosity and education, I'd like to suggest the "Other Wikipedia projects" section be expanded with a list of wikis (specifically national ones, but maybe some topic-specific ones) that do not allow fair use so those researching the topic can see for themselves how the removal of fair use affects a wiki (good and bad). 23skidoo ( talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As we know, under current Wikipedia policy, the use of non-free images in discographies/galleries etc is unacceptable. What I suspect is, for most independent labels at least, they would much prefer to see those images remain/continue to be contributed. I'm wondering if we could make an effort to get blanket cc licences from labels that cover thumbnail images of all their products. We'd need some boilerplate for them to sign off on and to create a Wikipedia-friendly labels list/category? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I like the idea of educating/persuading labels to upload their thumbnails of their covers to a Commons gallery. It's an elegant solution. Bears exploration. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that it has been an unwritten rule that we should not put non free images in infoboxes? I removed this image, but I have been reverted. I would appreciate if people could clear up this issue. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gustav, As is clear from the above comments, it is not uncommon to use non-free images when the subject is no longer living. Hopefully a similar type of arrangement can ultimately be worked out on the Freddie Mercury site as well. At the moment, I recommend that we refrain from putting up any photos, including non-free images. Boab ( talk) 06:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Yukichigai, you say:
"It's advisable to use a free image in the infobox rather than a non-free image"
But do we actually have this written down somewhere? The (quite major) problem we have is that users often prefer non free images to the free images we have, and as we see with Boab above, insist on removing or replacing free images because they don't like the free images. Unless we have something written down about this as a guideline or policy we could face large numbers of free images being replaced with copyrighted images because users don't like the free ones? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles about magazines and books often have a non-free covers in the info box. Such as Gone with the Wind. If a non-free image is allowed in the article, there is no reason to keep it out of an info box. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it somehwat contradictory for this page to have both the "This is a Guideline and is not set in stone" AND "This is a policy and is set in stone" banners on the same page? I'm already having problems with folks confusing the two, and this sort of thing doesn't help much, especially with a topic as potentially contentious as this. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The above is from a
conversation that I have been having with Stifle on my User Talk page. Regarding
this image, it has been contended that a free example of this image can either be found or cobbled together (presumably as some odd sort of montage). the promotional image in question is the only ensemble image to be found, and it was significantly altered so as to be usable in Wikipedia.
Stifle contends that the image violates
WP:NFCC #1, and that a free equivalent is available somewhere. I would submit that the image is in fact not a violation of #1. No free equivalent is available. No other image depicting the cast ensemble is to be found. the image has been altered sufficiently so as to not threaten the copyright of the holder.Forgive me if this topic has come up before. i did take a cursory look through the archives without success.
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Could I get some input? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree we can use nonfree images to illistrate a fictional character where there's a clear obvious difference between "in-character" and "out-of-character" images. But it seems, a lot of images used in Heroes character articles would work equally well with a free photo of the person in "street" clothes. As an example, look at Image:Claire Bennet Season 2.jpg. We have a free image at Image:Hayden Panettiere 2007.jpg. Tell me, what encyclopedic value does the nonfree one have, the free does not? The show's creators plausably have a copyright to any image of somebody dressed "in-character", or doing something explicit to indicate they're "in-character"; but that's it. We aught to be able to do something like es:Claire Bennet, which uses a free image for the "character". -- Rob ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked by someone to look at Image:Masato kato.png which is being used in Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is currently undergoing a FAC. The image is of the developer for the game, taken from a magazine article. The developer is still alive, but 1) is not notable to have his own article and 2) (based on what I've been told) is not someone that you will likely be able to see as to take a picture of. I'm a little torn on this: by good faith, one can assume there is no likelihood of a free replacement if this person is not that visible so a non-free replacement seems ok, but then again, we do have a restriction in place in general, even if this is about the game the person developed and not the person himself.
Any suggestions here? Nix automatically or interpret being ok by #1 due to the unlikeliness of a non-free replacement? (Also, I would argue that there may be a failure of #8 here -- the picture of the developer doesn't help much to understand the article). -- MASEM 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos. Comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else familiar with policy visit this article? I believe the infobox images violate policy, but another editor disagrees. Thank you, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I requested that a photographer change the flickr license of one of his photos of William Styron, who is now dead. (The photographer has a flickr profile but is a professional and has published books of his work, etc. His are also the only photos on flickr of Styron.) I used the standard form letter that says NC isn't okay, but he switched the license to BY-SA-NC. How hard should I push? Do I ask again for a commercial release, or should we just be satisfied that there is at least one photo available this freely, and include it with a non-free rationale? (And then do we have to use low-resolution if our use is within the permission granted by the photographer?) I don't want to be a jerk when I'm dealing with someone who actually could be making money off this picture... By the way the portrait in question is http://flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/928648907/in/set-72157594292673645/ . Calliopejen1 ( talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at "Critical commentary", is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary" or "facts or commentary" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
...Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen several images from the Buddhist Channel used in various WP articles, but to my reading the site's copyright release is not free enough, because it says nothing about derivative works. [3] Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been engaged in a slow revert war with another user over use of multiple fair-use images in several articles. 1 2 3 4 I have tried to get clarification of WP:NC ( in the latter portions of this other discussion) to determine how to use fair-use images in these cases and remain within guidelines but there has not been any response from parties opposing use of fair-use images despite my entreatments for clarification. I am trying to gain input here on these related questions:
Please also refer to previous discussion of this in the archives and postings at Hammersoft's talk page. — AjaxSmack 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need to copy content from another talk page rather than provide a link? changed to link The quibbling over what is and what is not a discography is silly on the face of it. The articles you're insisting are not discographies are lists of albums. How in hell is that NOT a discography???? Several users have told you you're in the wrong, yet you insist on pushing these images back onto the discographies. This has been debated ad nauseum before, with the result being that fair use images are removed from discographies. That's why the guideline is written the way it is. I'm deeply sorry you disagree with the guideline, but your disagreement does not constitute a reason to ignore our policy. Enough of this. Album covers are not permitted in discographies. Period. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
the four pages that you listed should not have images. βcommand 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
of a user who feels that the usage of
this image
here violates Wikipedia:NFCC 8, 10c - namely, that of significance. I would point out that the article has a number of editors - out of a misguided attempt to "defend" the late subject - are determined not to let the image in under any circumstances, and this is but the latest in a series of attempts to keep it out.
As I see it, the image is of the subject, and its presence in the its own article (which discusses in detail the controversial nature of the image) as well as the article of the subject of the image is necessary to offer an encyclopedic view of both articles. The image is not decorative, and discusses both a significant (and cited) rumor regarding cross-dressing at the time of the subject's death (to whit, that ER docs found the deceased subject in female undergarments) and notes the controversy surrounding the painted image's display. I think it is significant, non-decorative and ultimately encyclopedic to include it. We have many instances where non-fair images (where there are no free substitutes) are used in multiple articles that concern the same or closely-related subjects.
I welcome some imput, as I feel I am the only one pointing out policy to a discussion page of true believers unwilling to recognize policy. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the copyrighted artwork in question has its own article, Mirth & Girth, which is linked from Harold Washington's article. Item 8 states that inclusion is required only if "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", since the majority of the critical commentary on the artwork is located in its own article, it is not decremental to remove it from Harold Washington's article. There is also no separate rationale for usage in H. W.'s article. Additionally, several other editors have expressed concerns over the image's undue weight in Washington's article. An RFC was conducted and several editors opposed inclusion of the image and supported a limited description of the artwork since it has its own article. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone remind me what the restrictions are on statues and other sculptures in public areas? Image:20071025 Harold Washington Cultural Center Statue.JPG is the picture in question. How does taking a picture of a statue infringe the copyright? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And to ask my Commons question over here, disregarding public domain (by gift or age) statues, is it possible to write to the copyright owner asking them to freely license their statue? Or a photograph of their statue? This may be similar to asking publicists to release a high-quality GFDL picture of whatever celebrity they manage, or is this different? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I sort of vaguely understand the general ideas and principles behind such a terribly implemented policy, but basically, WP:FU is the single most appropriate redirect in all of Wikispace. How bloody hard is it for a bot to realize that this picture of an ALBUM which has the template on it specifically saying it's an ALBUM cover is being used on an article for an ALBUM (as in, it's in Category:Albums)) and then add the appropriate fair-use rationale itself?
No offense meant or anything, that's just me venting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And, the problem in our case, is a lot of things that might have been tried in case law about copyright and fair use, none have come even close to what we need for our purposes. However, Carcharoth is right, Wikipedia has been a giant experiment when it comes to copyright law and many of the changes we are doing is because we are being asked to/demanded by the Board that runs us. However, if there are good things coming out of this, we have fine tuned our methods on getting free stuff and also more agencies and companies and persons are giving us photos to use, so the fair use crutch we relied on in the past can be set aside in the future, except for the very important cases (like iconic photographs and paintings). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that while Template:Non-free use rationale lists out a maximum resolution than a image should be, it's not listed here. Should we have a section regarding this? ( I had tagged an image with {{ non-free reduce}} and someone noted that there's no well-spelled out sections for this guidance) -- MASEM 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an image on flickr that is licensed under CC 2.0 Attribution No Derivatives that i would like to use in an article, however the vast vast majority of the image is useless. My question is simply does cropping an image, but maintaining full attribution, violate the no derivatives clause? Near as I can tell it probably does but would like clarification first before I write off the image as being too busy for the article. –– Lid( Talk) 08:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see:
Please comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a request for example of good fair-use rationale for an event poster. I'd like to do it right this time. -- soulscanner ( talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created the folowing page
Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (
talk)
14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot has started removing non-free images from the Portal: Anime and Manga that are specifically and carefully used only in our featured items. The images used are the ones from the article infoboxes or the primary image for lists, sized down to thumbnail size. Are non-free images completely unallowed in portals, even when the image is the infobox image of a featured article? I can see no non-free images for decorating a portal, but are they even excluded from the article highlights when the exact same thing is done for the front page (also a non-article space)? I found this Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals proposal from 2006-2007, but couldn't figure out if it was passed or what the current status is. So what's the deal? *confused* AnmaFinotera ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is made a self made 2D graphic reproduction of photographic image of a 3D seal in PD or is a copyright infringement? Iţm not sure how to tag the images. Or if necessary to mak the images for speedy deletion. Exemple here: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/masons/templars.html the file in commons is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Templar_Lion_and_Moon_Seal.png Or another example: The original files: http://www.ordotempli.org/knights_templar_seals.htm the self made copy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_Brother_Arnaude_de_Banyuls_Artistic.jpg CristianChirita ( talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an active FU discussion here: Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#February_18.2C_2008. If anyone knowledgable in fair use would like to weigh in, please do so. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Betacommand has posted a notice here, so please see Wikipedia:ANI#Next BCBot Phase for a notice about the next phase that Betacommand has proposed moving on to (I think the original four phase plan was proposed back in July 2007). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think these pages have been widely advertised, though they could be very useful:
They were created in September 2007 and are updated by BetacommandBot. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. If anyone is interested in continuing what I started there, please come over and help out! Carcharoth ( talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check the accuracy of my template for PD-Cuba before it goes live in mainspace? I've seen a jillion handwritten Cuban PD explanations so I figure this was needed. My bad Spanish was aided by Babelfish, and I did my best to convert what these copyright terms in Cuba mean for the United States in the light of the Berne Convention. (My understanding is that we insist things be PD in the US as well.) Check it out at User:Calliopejen1/PD-Cuba. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who watches this page but not Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline, I've started a discussion over there about the appropriateness of boilerplate rationale templates. — Bkell ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Number 8, Significance, seems bit extreme. I rarely think of a image that would meet the standard of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental". This pretty much excludes every use by my definition at least. Are the U.S. policies so strict on such Fair Use or are we just making our own judgement here. Morphh (talk) 0:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this image of an Ancient Roman coin in the public domain? The coin is 1800 years old, but as it is a 3D object photographed in 2D, does the photographer have a copyright on the image? An editor on the image talk page thinks that it is not copyrighted, but I'd like to double-check it. Bláthnaid 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about something. If we start requiring FUR for images that are protected under CFR laws like US federal insignia and logos, does that mean that soon we will have to put FURs on trademarked images that are not copyrighted and have no significant threshold of originality? Cause those two situations seem to be comparable to me. I'm not saying that is problematic, but I am slightly worried about mixing automated processes that deal with copyrighted images into Public Domain images that have additional legal restrictions. If we do this, might it not be wiser to keep those two groups bot readable separated ? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes here. Offering them up here for review. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the rationale on this page not adequate or something? I've removed a boilerplate message claiming there was none at all, but in the event there's some sort of concern not being articulated, I'd like somebody else to review and fix it if possible. I'd really like to stay retired from Wikipedia and not deal with this any further myself. I'm also adding the Fairusereview template in the event that's the proper way to get a look at it. FrozenPurpleCube ( talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems sorted; when I tagged it there was no rationale and no specific article mentioned. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not. There was no valid rationale. And, again, the burden is not on others to provide rationales. I did not even see the 'retired' notice; I merely appended the boilerplate message to your talk page because that's what the {{ di-no fair use rationale}} template advises. If you feel yourself retired, you are free to ignore messages. Jack Merridew 09:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to illustrate the article on Disney character J. Audubon Woodlore by uploading a screenshot of the man from a Disney cartoon to commons.wikimedia.org. Is that OK, and do I run a risk of having this screenshot later deleted by a zealot because it could "reasonably replaced by a free image"? Thanks. Maikel ( talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Until just recently {{ Non-free use rationale}} included language about low resolution which I found a bit unrealistic. Specifically, that fair-use images should be no larger than 0.1 megapixels (or 300px) in size. I'd like to discuss this and come to a consensus for a real recommendation as I believe that would help editors that are a) still uploading fair-use content and b)running bots which downsize fair-use content to comply with this policies language regarding minimal usage.
My personal belief is that "low resolution" should be (for 4:3 content) 640x480 or 800x600. For oddly shaped material (think movie posters which are often much taller than they are wide, and which also have smaller text than normal), still higher resolutions might be reasonable.
At any rate, I just wanted to get some discussion going. And actually, as I'm sure this isn't the first time it's been discussed, if anyone has any pointers to prior discussions, those might be helpful too. But I definitely think the 0.1 megapixel/300px guidance from that template were way too low. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Might it be appropriate to add a section on non free content who's copyright is owned by the Wikimedia foundation, at the moment most such images appear to violate policy as non-free content without a fair-use rationale. Is such a rationale actually needed seeing as Wikimedia cannot violate its own copyrights? Apologies if this issue is dealt with elsewhere. Guest9999 ( talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm hazy on where to find appropriate policy and guidelines for some aspects of non-free images, so sorry if this is answered somewhere/previously -- but, anyway, question is: what are the policies/guidelines about what constitutes an appropriate/acceptable source for a non-free image? Image:AustinPowers300px.jpg (and at least one of the uploader's other pictures) are sourced (accurately) to facebook. Is this kosher? -- EEMIV ( talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
For the background, please see:
Yamla has correctly pointed out that the template wording ("of the issue [...] in question") excludes this "general depiction of the magazine" use, but in practice that is what has been done on literally thousands of articles. Compare this with the other "cover" tags: {{ Non-free book cover}} says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" and {{ Non-free album cover}} says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". My question is why can't {{ Non-free magazine cover}} say "solely to illustrate the magazine series in question"? ie. An example from a series, rather than needing to be a specific use of a specific issue. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Non-free magazine cover, and if consensus is reached, we can copy this over there and make any changes needed. I've also asked Yamla to comment here. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is worth reading the Foundation's licensing policy. I believe that the proposed change contradicts the 3rd point, but obviously I do not speak for the Foundation. I think perhaps someone should actually contact the Foundation directly to clarify this point with regard to magazine covers (and also, probably, album covers). -- Yamla ( talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm going to contact them) -- Yamla ( talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
An interesting issue had arisen on the Freddie Mercury page regarding the image being used in the infobox. I would be interested in hearing any comments or ideas here. While I apologize about the length of this post, this is a very complicated situation.
Because Freddie Mercury died nearly twenty years ago, we do not have any free images that are of good educational value. Furthermore, although a free image is currently being used, many of our readers have come to our talk page in order to complain about it over the past year or so. Various users have referred to the current photo as everything from "disgusting" to "horrid." Due to these issues, several of our users (myself included) been trying to use various fair use justifications in order to replace it with something that looks decent.
Unfortunately, several very active users and administrators seem quite adamant about removing all of our non-free images, regardless of whether fair use rationales are added; I have yet to hear any kind of discussion from the individuals in question on the issue. On the contrary, images are removed and deleted without any explanation.
From what I can tell, many of the images that we have been adding are in full compliance with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. The key concept in NFCC #1 is educational “equivalence.” In other words, when two photos of equivalent educational value both exist, there is no doubt that the free image must be used in place of the non-free image. On the other hand, shades of gray begin to emerge when the free image in question is lacking in educational purpose. In these cases, NFCC #1 applies.
NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence," "rough equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." At the moment, the sole word being used is "equivalence." As it is currently written, there exists no reason for why an inferior free image must always be used over one would have some educational purpose.
In comparing many of our non-free images (click on the image above to see just one example) to the free image (on the right), there is no doubt that the two are not equivalent with regard to educational value. In the words of NFCC #1, the free image to the right does not serve “the same encyclopedic purpose” as the image above.
There are several reasons for why the free photograph to the right is generally lacking in educational value. Among other things, it is difficult to tell whether or not Freddie Mercury even has a moustache (discussed in the article) in this photo. The photo is so bad that the reader cannot even see his face. Due to the fact that ethnicity is an important aspect of the article, a photograph with decent resolution would be of much educational value. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how Freddie Mercury could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from fans for so long. The close-up photo above speaks a thousand words.
I want to point out here that I reduced the resolution of this uploaded image and that I cropped it in order to remove about 50% of the original area. A non-free rationale and a copyright tag have been added as well.
A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that non-free images are quite common in articles dealing with deceased subjects. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Notorious BIG, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. I argue that the current photo looks amateurish and unprofessional. I would be interested in any kind of discussion here, and I hope that we can ultimately solve this issue on our page. Boab ( talk) 07:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a great idea to contact a copyright holder. Unfortunatly, people do not respond to my requests. Many of these people probably do not have time to worry about things like Wikipedia.
Can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says that a non-free photo must always be used in place of one a fair-use photo? From what I can tell, the only relevant policy here is NFCC #1.
I am pleased to see that you both seem to agree with me that the fair-use photo above has more educational value than the free image that we are currently using (you just agreed that it is "nicer"). According to NFCC #1, the real issue here is whether the fair-use image could be replaced with another photograph that would have "the same educational purpose." Since the free image does not adequately show the moustache and since the reader cannot see his face here, the answer here is clearly "no." One final point is that NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." The sole words being used at the moment are "the same purpose" and "equivalent." Since we agree that they are not equivalent, NFCC #1 applies and the fair-use photo can be used. Boab ( talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi ZScout, Again, I was hoping that you could cite a policy from Wikipedia here saying that we must always use a free image in place of a fair-use image.
NFCC #1 says nothing about availability or whether we could conceivably make an inferior free image. On the contrary,
NFCC #1 talks about equivalence and whether the photos have "the same encyclopedic purpose."
Boab (
talk)
09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You say that the free image is of "acceptable" quality and that it is "equivalent" to the photo that I uploaded. What exactly do you mean by this? For instance, can you tell from the photo whether he had a moustache (mentioned in the article)? Can you tell anything about what his face looked like with regard to ethnicity? furthermore, if the photo is so very "adequate," then why have so many people come to the talk page in order to complain about it? Compare the two photos more carefully and give me an honest answer here (keep in mind that I could probably upload a larger photo that might be even better). As long as we agree that a fair-use photo would contain more useful information (i.e., the two are not "equivalent"), then NFCC #1 should apply here. Otherwise, you need to change the wording in NFCC #1 to "nearly equivalent," "roughly equivalent," or "approximately equivalent."
By the way, I recommend that people see a very interesting essay here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia. Although this is not official policy, it does indicate the fact that fair use rights are not in a very healthy state on Wikipedia. Boab ( talk) 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, because fair use rights are actually derived from basic principles of the 1st Amendment, this is a very crucial issue. Although I am actually a Republican (God forbid!), even I recognize that some of the attempts on Wikipedia to minimize fair use rights are moving a little too far to the right-wing end of the spectrum. This is actually the first time on Wikipedia that I have argued in favor of moving things more to the left! The next thing you know, I'll be voting for Obama! Boab ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If a band is inactive, does a free image that only shows some of the band members override a non-free image that shows the whole band? Spellcast ( talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm replacing the phrase "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in the image guideline examples per this discussion. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" or "commentary, such as description or analysis" in the image guideline examples? — AjaxSmack 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Previous discussions I've had with other editors have led me to believe that the format of the article, and not just the content, justifies use of such fair-use album covers or other similar media. There seems to be significant opinion that such images should only be used in an article about that album &c. and not in an article about a performer or a group of albums. To make this clear in the accepatable image use guidelines, I am proposing to add the bolded text to the first item of the list:
Please discuss. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago some here discovered that Time magazine had not renewed many of their early copyrights. I have added a section to the Time magazine talk page with all of the details. Talk:Time_(magazine)#Public_domain_issues I have been working on the Time magazine covers that have a Fair Use problem and changing the copyright tag on public domain ones. See Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg and Image:1101251228 400.jpg
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Fair use image question -- NE2 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently found Image:Basketball110.png. It is a self-made image released under the GFDL, that is now on the Commons, of a users' screen name. The image, jokingly probably, claims that the screenname is trademarked by having a trademark logo, ™, written on it. Just wondering if this could be potentially be problematic.. — Save_Us † 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I question this sentence : "All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL."
Perhaps someone could point to the accuracy of using the word "cannot" as opposed to a more accurate wording (imho) of : "may have problems being licensed". Wjhonson ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There is excessive non-free media and images on this page (as I'm sure there are on other related articles like this). How does an album cover like Image:AliceinChainsDirt.jpg, the cover of Alice in Chains' album Dirt qualify as fair use here? Despite the rationale written on the image description page, which states "It adds significantly to the article because it illustrates the best-selling album by one of the most significant and popular bands in the movement being discussed in the relevant section of the article", there is no text about the album whatsoever in the article. User:DCGeist felt that removing it was unnessecary stating "... it's there to illustrate a historically significant recording, as described in the accompanying text and in the image rationale" [9] but yet the article fails to have this supposed 'accompanying text'. In fact, this is the only sentence it mentions about Alice in Chains:
Other than that the image caption, that says:
Not only does the article not have critical commentary even on the band, the article itself fails to even mention the album. Wikipedia:Non-free content states a few things:
I believe the album cover does not meet any of these. Free images of the band Alice in Chains can be used to illustrate the section that says Acts labeled alternative metal included the Seattle grunge scene's Alice in Chains and groups drawing on multiple styles..., instead of a non-free album cover. The album covers do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, as required, as it is being used to illustrate a cover of a top-selling album and nothing more than that since no commentary on the album is provided. The album covers may have historical significance, but plastering them on articles as decoration without having any commentary on the album and very little on the band themselves is a violation and needs to be removed. — Save_Us † 09:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If I may, about image captions, they are part of the article as well. Of course the image should be mentioned in the main text of the article, but people reviewing the use of an image sometimes seem, inexplicably, to ignore what has been written in the image caption. This is, remember, the text that appears right next to the image on the article page. The description on the image page is something different again. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This TFD debate over a Template that I made which states that the NASA logos are non-free by Wikipedia guidelines even though they are in the public domain by law, due to additional restrictions and usage guidelines added by US law. Some of these restrictions include the restrictions on commercial use and modification, which not withstanding any other argument, makes it non-free and subjected to WP:NFCC rules, since non-commercial only images or images that we cannot make derivs of are not allowed. Or so it seems, according to an excellent comment by TheDJ. I kinda agree with him, although it may seem a bit weird: we kinda think that there should be some restrictions here on items such as logos that are technically in the Public Domain or free, but contain legal restrictions on their usage, such as in this NASA case, or on other trademarked or restricted stuff.
Sure, you did say on the Insignia template that "These restrictions are independent of the copyright status." That's why me and TheDJ are proposing a "second" tier of these kind of images, the "restricted" branch. As quoted by TheDJ in response to my saying that the NASA logo restrictions made it non-free:
::I reiterate that I consider mixing the processes for copyrighted materials and not copyrighted materials a bad idea. If you want to introduce a separate tagging system for these kinds of restrictions, then that is fine by me, but we should not replace a PD-USGov-NASA copyright tag with "usage restricted tag that makes vague statements about the copyright status". -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll even lay-out the action plan.
- Propose a policy that requires usage rationales for copyright free images that still have other legal restrictions.
- Rename all templates in Category:Restriction tags with "non-free"-prefixes (though I personally would prefer "restricted"-prefixes for those.)
- Make sure none of those templates say a single thing about copyright
- Create a new template for usage rationales of restricted images. One that categorizes into a different "non-free" sub-category than the fair use images do.
- Put {{ non-free-NASA}} AND {{ PD-USGov-NASA}} AND usage rationales on those NASA logos.
- Fire up BetacommandBot to start tagging all images with restriction templates as needing cleanup within "to be defined arbitrary # of days"
- I think that is the only appropriate way to go about this. As a matter of fact, I would even support you, because I too find the current situation quite annoying and stupid. But I just want to see a good separation between non-free images due to copyright and non-free images due to secondary legal limitations. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what do you think? ViperSnake151 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So, if an image/media file/whatever is released under a Creative Commons license with the Non-commercial clause, but its use would be covered by Fair use, can it still be used on Wikipedia, under Fair-use? Drewcifer ( talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ALF, the animal rights terrorists, and other direct action groups, routinely put out media as "public domain" so that it is widely disseminated. The problem is that these organizations often don't own the copyright to what they are releasing. They will re-use journalist images, re-publish articles about themselves from the media, take screenshots from news footage, etc, and release it as "theirs" because it is about them. A lot of this is ending up on Wikipedia with the claimed public domain license. This stuff comes from people who set fires, bombs, and commit burglaries. They don't have much respect for intellectual property. Are these images acceptable to Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
This language is slippery : "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
I'm sure we're all aware that "reasonably can" is a problematic phrase. We cannot agree on what would be reasonable. I would suggest that this language instead be altered to "Copyrighted images for which a free-image is at hand are not suitable for Wikipedia". This would allow fair-use images to live, until such time as a replacement is found. Instead of being deleted merely because a free image might someday be found (which is the way some are currently interpreting "reasonble"). Wjhonson ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a limit to the number of fair use images that can be used in one article? Either a specific maximum or a guideline on how many it is reasonable to use? I am concerned about Touch My Body which has five fair use screenshots to illustrate a short description of the music video. This seems excessive to me, but this article is subject to edit warring by Carey fans and I'd like to be able to point to a specific guideline that shows this is excessive - or leave it be if no such guideline exists. Thanks, Gwernol 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the only official portion of this article is the top part that outlines the actual non-free content policy. The rest of the article involves large number of examples that may or may not be relevant when compared to other cases. Furthermore, the wording used in the unofficial sections is not always consistent with the actual policy.
In order to simply the non-free content policy and make to it easier for people to understand, we should remove everything that is not official. Perhaps a second page could be created that would show some specific examples and cases. Girl80 ( talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when has a magazine cover not been valid under fair use? It does not seem to be covered in this article and probably should be. The specific example that brings me here is the deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Isinbayeva2004.jpg with the rationale of CSD 17. It was included in the article Track & Field News to illustrate the cover of the magazine. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a question based on this: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Below of futher examples of images that, if non-free, may not satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."
What does "discography" mean in that context? Album covers for album articles are covered under fair use, and it would follow that covers to singles would be allowed in articles about the single. But what's the policy if the article about the single is merged to the album? Can the image go with it? Also, the WP:MUSIC guideline advises that albums can be merged with their artist's article; if that's done, what's the policy then? There is also some discussion of combining album articles into discographies, where each album would have a section (and I would assume a separate infobox), but not a complete article to itself. Technically, that would be a discography, but if it's the only coverage we have of an album and the section is specifically about the album, it would seem to meet the significance test; the content would be identical, only the structure would be different. Can this be clarified in the policy? Thanks. —Torc. ( Talk.) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word does not conform to the actual policy. Girl80 ( talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have recently seen tv-station articles with own sections about their old logos. Example. My intuitive reaction to such section is that it fails criteria 3 and 8 to include all the logos, since there are no actual commentary. Anyone else that has a thought on this? Rettetast ( talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear some third opinions. Are some or all of the images contained in this article not justifiable, from a fair-use standpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2008
I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which ( Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that OCA rights apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy.
So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, Bazzargh ( talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a fair use issue, and I thought I'd better get the advice of editors more experienced in this area.
This image is in the collection of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) According to the description of this image at the LAC website, the painting dates to 1978 (the same year the artist appears to have died), and the copyright is held by the artist's estate. It will not be in the public domain until at least 2028.
The uploader is claiming both that the image is public domain as the artist died more than 50 years ago (not the case), and (as a back-up I suppose) fair use as per {{Non-free 2D art}}. However, the image is not being used for critical comment of the artist or the work, but is instead being used in three articles to illustrate the 1939 dedication of Canada's national war memorial by the King and Queen, the Monarchy in Canada and the Crown and Canada's armed forces.
Moreover, we do have a public domain photograph of the King and Queen at the 1939 war memorial dedication on the Commons ( Image:RoyalVisitNationalWarMemorial.jpg), which is the same subject as the image in question, so there is a free equivalent.
Am I missing something? Obviously the fair use grounds claimed by the uploader are not accurate, but is there another fair use basis that would be acceptable here? I don't want to see it deleted unless necessary. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I get an assist at Body Worlds? Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged all the images with {{ db-copyvio}} and they were apparently speedily deleted. However, Tigriscuniculus ( talk · contribs), the same uploader, has now reuploaded the same images (more or less, afaict) licensing them: {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} and {{ PD-self}}. I'm still fairly certain these're copyvios, is the next step to speedy tag the images again and warn the user?
I realize belatedly that this isn't the most pertinent place to discuss these, but I've stayed on since I've gotten more apropos and timely responses here than at WT:CV. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word is not consistent with the actual policy. Girl80 ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this template and the process concerning it confusing. I've used it a couple times to dispute the fair use rationale of an image. What I don't understand is this: the template says "remove it if you've addressed this issue". If one person removes it, but another disagrees that the matter is properly resolved, how do the two resolve the dispute? Is there a place for discussion? Are users allowed to remove the tag if the original tagger still feels an admin should review the fair use? Any help would be really great, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a string of logos on the US Patent and Trademark Office search page. They're all expired trademarks (canceled circa 1999), they all belong to the same company (Prevue Networks, Inc.), and they're all non-replaceable. (I would like to upload them for use on the TV Guide Network and Sneak Prevue pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.)
They're VERY low-resolution.
Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do?
70.176.127.235 ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any difference in the acceptable use of an album cover that has been scanned and uploaded by a user as opposed to one that was copied and uploaded from a website? Grk1011 ( talk) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFCpolicy}}
Euuuw, there were significant problems in the wording. I've massaged them; the only one I think needs checking is the third one, where I've expressed what I think people intended the meaning to be. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The change that I have a problem with is this "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." -> "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media."
This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media. -- Ned Scott 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll resist the urge to treat Scott with reciprocal rudeness. To take his points in turn:
I still intend to reinstate the improved wording in the next day or so, given that there's still no clear, logical argument against it. I'm not used to having to fight tooth and nail to make simple improvements to wording. This situation smacks of ownership, methinks; I'd much rather work with Ned than against him. Tony (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To return to the substantive issue here, the matter is not merely a copy-editing one. Ned Scott is correct: the proposed change in wording does alter the sense of the sentence. "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose" makes clear that the use of media is necessary for a quality encyclopedia. (This is, on a logical level, a debatable point, but the debate does seem to have been resolved in the statement's favor: To produce a quality online encyclopedia in the twenty-first century, media is essential.) Reading the proposed substitute sentence—"To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media"—it is easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is not necessary for a quality encyclopedia. The shift in meaning is neither "slight" nor "inconsequential," as Tony has argued; it is material and significant.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony's response: Thank you for explaining what Scott was totally incapable of putting into words. I do concede that its reasonable to discuss the third point, although I still see no good reasons against adopting my suggested new wording.
There are three problems with the existing wording of the third point:
1. It undermines the entire NFC policy:
"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." (My emphasis)
2. The binary structure of the sentence—the comma is the boundary—shifts the meaning onto creating a quality encyclopedia (much broader in scope than the goals of this policy page), with the use of media as a subsequent modification of that goal. My wording overcame this, I believe, by using "through" with neither comma nor dependent phrase to make the statement simpler and more direct.
3. The implication that media (non-free content?) are necessary for quality; many superb articles do not have non-linguistic media, and I don't think it's the job of this page to assert that non-linguistic media are essential to achieve quality. Geist is concerned that it may be "easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is [sic] not necessary for a quality encyclopedia; in the context of improving the quality, I hardly think this will feature in readers' minds; but to encourage them to think the opposite—that images and sound bites are an essential part of achieving quality, is just as undesirable, and possibly harmful to the compromise that this page seeks to strike.
These three reasons underlie my rewording of the third point. I see no disadvantage in its implication that quality can (and should where possible) be enhanced through the judicious use of media. You may quibble with the use of "judicious" ... please do so if apppropriate. I have a slight issue with the various use of "non-free content" and "media" in points 2 and 3. The grammar needs to be fixed at the end of my new point 1.
Before you leap to slap me down again, and in the case of Scott to claim certain rights for being a "good Wikipedian", please remember that I completely overhauled the wording of the policy in only 10 months ago, before which it was in a disorganised, poorly formatted, incomprehensible mess—go back and see for yourselves. Much of the organisation, formatting and wording in the 10 points is my work, although others—including Scott—have made significant improvements to it. Tony (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Are non free images allowed in the articles that are represented on portals? Portal:R&B and Soul Music What is the advise in this regard. The image is for the self same article that the fair use clause was written. What is the protocol? SriMesh | talk 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Should this image Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it? Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion and straw poll at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)#Image_argument as to whether a non-free image is warranted in the article itself. As the input was only requested at the relevant WikiProject, I thought those frequently here would have pertinent input to provide. I have done so and am not soliciting support in one fashion or another, but think that those most involved in the policy under discussion would have more background and information than specifically the fans involved. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
How exactly is this defined? To me it seems that thousands of the most commonly used types of non-free images fail this criteria. For example, how does being able to see the logo of a company contribute to the understanding of that company (unless the logo itself has achieved some special, documented significance such as
Image:London2012Logo clear.png), how does seeing the cover of a book increase the readers understanding of a book (again unless the cover itself has some significance) - do you really have a greater understanding of
The World According to Garp after seeing
Image:According garp.jpg? The same applies to alum cover - although prehaps more of them have achieved noted status (suc as
Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg). Images such as these definately improve the look and layout of an article, they are informative in showing the logo,cover,etc. but do they really increase understanding?
Guest9999 (
talk)
18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
To those who might object, I'd say (1) let's remember that in practice this criterion has to be combined with the effect of the nine others—don't read it as a stand-alone; and (2) it could be argued that the removal of very few NFC files on WP would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic, and (3) the rationales of the policy, particularly the third one, are expressed in very positive terms, and should be reflected by positive language wherever possible in the policy. To talk of detriment to readers' understanding comes too close to the paternalistic. We provide a service, yes? Tony (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
All of those supports, and no opposes. I'm removing the clause in question later today. Tony (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted this as an audibly obvious hoax. Turns out this is The Doors, just without Jimbo. This 7" b-side has been out of print for over 25 years, and Internet Archive lists this as " public domain". Is this possible? How would I find out? I reported this to archive.org as a hoax because I find it hard to imagine WEA letting copyright lapse on potential collector bait. Now I doubt myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see many featured articles with album covers in them even though those articles are not specifically about the albums but rather the artist or even the music genre instead. Someone's been telling me that this is a violation of wiki policy over at my talk page here. Can anyone help me clear this up? I believe the use of a single album cover on the folk metal page qualifies under fair use since that's the very first album of the genre and it's discussed at relative length in a passage where quotes from Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com are provided concerning the album in question. If this is a violation, and all the other use of album covers on those featured articles are also violations, then I will certainly be more than willing to remove the album cover from the folk metal article. As it is now, I do not see why I have to do so when so many articles have gotten away at being featured articles while using album covers when they are not about the album in question. -- Bardin ( talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A core value of Wikipedia is to promote the creation of new free content.
But en-Wikipedia has never been a free-content-only project.
Where non-free content (i) is legal, (ii) is not in competition with the creation of any free content, and (iii) would add value to an article, then it's hard to see any useful purpose served by excluding it. Jheald ( talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What you're advocating is the increase in the use of fair use images. There's been massive efforts underway to reduce the use of fair use images. More than 100,000 fair use images have been removed from the project in the last year, and overall usage is dramatically down as well. This is a good thing. Fighting for more fair use usage is a thoroughly losing battle. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can an album cover be used on a song article? There is one album cover I've seen that's used on three pages, including the artist's main article and a song article. What's Wikipedia's position on this? HelenWatt ( talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As the person who posted the original query, I'd like to say that I'm really not interested in what wikipedia policy should be but just what wikipedia policy is. I've seen nothing here or anywhere else that indicates that my use of an album cover on the folk metal article is contrary to wikipedia policy so I'll just leave it there as it is. If wiki policy change in the future and fair use images become forbidden, then I will remove the album cover.-- Bardin ( talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason the policy is worded as it is, prohibiting non-free content when a free equivalent could be created, is that we want to encourage the creation of free content.
There is a fundamental reason why we should prefer free content over non-free content: It's the third of the five pillars that describe the fundamental goals of Wikipedia.
Also, Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which says that anyone can use it for any purpose; non-free images are in contradiction of this license.
Per Iran and copyright issues, it states that Iranian copyright is pretty much void inside the United States. Since when it comes to non-free content, we always use the rules of the country the Wikipedia site is hosted in, which is the United States. I know that unfortunately, this wouldn't be free enough for the Commons (since in most cases, it has to be free in the US and in the country of origin), but locally, would this be allowed as free content or would this be subject to WP:NFCC? ViperSnake151 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Near as I can tell, this phrase has no meaning at all the way it's used in the guideline. I propose we remove it. We can then replace it with some phrase that actually has some definition that we can provide within the guideline. Croctotheface ( talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why the term "critical" is used here at all, to be honest. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to evaluate, and that's really what "critical" refers to. As to "commentary", to me, the idea of writing a "commentary" is something that would be prohibited here by WP:NOR. If someone ever asked what I did to articles when I edit WP, I would never say I add "commentary". In fact, th user warning templates for violating WP:NPOV used to be (and may still be, I'm not sure) named "comment1, comment2, etc." Are we just defining "commentary" as "talking about"? If we are, then I don't see how EVERY Wikipedia article doesn't qualify, so long as it has ANY information whatsoever. Croctotheface ( talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
According to
section 107 of the
United States Copyright Act of 1976 :
The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
[1]
If an image is used for non-profit purposes, this factor is noted as relevant by the Act.
Tyrenius (
talk)
19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for the purposes of curiosity and education, I'd like to suggest the "Other Wikipedia projects" section be expanded with a list of wikis (specifically national ones, but maybe some topic-specific ones) that do not allow fair use so those researching the topic can see for themselves how the removal of fair use affects a wiki (good and bad). 23skidoo ( talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As we know, under current Wikipedia policy, the use of non-free images in discographies/galleries etc is unacceptable. What I suspect is, for most independent labels at least, they would much prefer to see those images remain/continue to be contributed. I'm wondering if we could make an effort to get blanket cc licences from labels that cover thumbnail images of all their products. We'd need some boilerplate for them to sign off on and to create a Wikipedia-friendly labels list/category? Wwwhatsup ( talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I like the idea of educating/persuading labels to upload their thumbnails of their covers to a Commons gallery. It's an elegant solution. Bears exploration. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that it has been an unwritten rule that we should not put non free images in infoboxes? I removed this image, but I have been reverted. I would appreciate if people could clear up this issue. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gustav, As is clear from the above comments, it is not uncommon to use non-free images when the subject is no longer living. Hopefully a similar type of arrangement can ultimately be worked out on the Freddie Mercury site as well. At the moment, I recommend that we refrain from putting up any photos, including non-free images. Boab ( talk) 06:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Yukichigai, you say:
"It's advisable to use a free image in the infobox rather than a non-free image"
But do we actually have this written down somewhere? The (quite major) problem we have is that users often prefer non free images to the free images we have, and as we see with Boab above, insist on removing or replacing free images because they don't like the free images. Unless we have something written down about this as a guideline or policy we could face large numbers of free images being replaced with copyrighted images because users don't like the free ones? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles about magazines and books often have a non-free covers in the info box. Such as Gone with the Wind. If a non-free image is allowed in the article, there is no reason to keep it out of an info box. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 04:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it somehwat contradictory for this page to have both the "This is a Guideline and is not set in stone" AND "This is a policy and is set in stone" banners on the same page? I'm already having problems with folks confusing the two, and this sort of thing doesn't help much, especially with a topic as potentially contentious as this. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The above is from a
conversation that I have been having with Stifle on my User Talk page. Regarding
this image, it has been contended that a free example of this image can either be found or cobbled together (presumably as some odd sort of montage). the promotional image in question is the only ensemble image to be found, and it was significantly altered so as to be usable in Wikipedia.
Stifle contends that the image violates
WP:NFCC #1, and that a free equivalent is available somewhere. I would submit that the image is in fact not a violation of #1. No free equivalent is available. No other image depicting the cast ensemble is to be found. the image has been altered sufficiently so as to not threaten the copyright of the holder.Forgive me if this topic has come up before. i did take a cursory look through the archives without success.
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Could I get some input? -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree we can use nonfree images to illistrate a fictional character where there's a clear obvious difference between "in-character" and "out-of-character" images. But it seems, a lot of images used in Heroes character articles would work equally well with a free photo of the person in "street" clothes. As an example, look at Image:Claire Bennet Season 2.jpg. We have a free image at Image:Hayden Panettiere 2007.jpg. Tell me, what encyclopedic value does the nonfree one have, the free does not? The show's creators plausably have a copyright to any image of somebody dressed "in-character", or doing something explicit to indicate they're "in-character"; but that's it. We aught to be able to do something like es:Claire Bennet, which uses a free image for the "character". -- Rob ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked by someone to look at Image:Masato kato.png which is being used in Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is currently undergoing a FAC. The image is of the developer for the game, taken from a magazine article. The developer is still alive, but 1) is not notable to have his own article and 2) (based on what I've been told) is not someone that you will likely be able to see as to take a picture of. I'm a little torn on this: by good faith, one can assume there is no likelihood of a free replacement if this person is not that visible so a non-free replacement seems ok, but then again, we do have a restriction in place in general, even if this is about the game the person developed and not the person himself.
Any suggestions here? Nix automatically or interpret being ok by #1 due to the unlikeliness of a non-free replacement? (Also, I would argue that there may be a failure of #8 here -- the picture of the developer doesn't help much to understand the article). -- MASEM 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos. Comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else familiar with policy visit this article? I believe the infobox images violate policy, but another editor disagrees. Thank you, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I requested that a photographer change the flickr license of one of his photos of William Styron, who is now dead. (The photographer has a flickr profile but is a professional and has published books of his work, etc. His are also the only photos on flickr of Styron.) I used the standard form letter that says NC isn't okay, but he switched the license to BY-SA-NC. How hard should I push? Do I ask again for a commercial release, or should we just be satisfied that there is at least one photo available this freely, and include it with a non-free rationale? (And then do we have to use low-resolution if our use is within the permission granted by the photographer?) I don't want to be a jerk when I'm dealing with someone who actually could be making money off this picture... By the way the portrait in question is http://flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/928648907/in/set-72157594292673645/ . Calliopejen1 ( talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at "Critical commentary", is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary" or "facts or commentary" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
...Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen several images from the Buddhist Channel used in various WP articles, but to my reading the site's copyright release is not free enough, because it says nothing about derivative works. [3] Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been engaged in a slow revert war with another user over use of multiple fair-use images in several articles. 1 2 3 4 I have tried to get clarification of WP:NC ( in the latter portions of this other discussion) to determine how to use fair-use images in these cases and remain within guidelines but there has not been any response from parties opposing use of fair-use images despite my entreatments for clarification. I am trying to gain input here on these related questions:
Please also refer to previous discussion of this in the archives and postings at Hammersoft's talk page. — AjaxSmack 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need to copy content from another talk page rather than provide a link? changed to link The quibbling over what is and what is not a discography is silly on the face of it. The articles you're insisting are not discographies are lists of albums. How in hell is that NOT a discography???? Several users have told you you're in the wrong, yet you insist on pushing these images back onto the discographies. This has been debated ad nauseum before, with the result being that fair use images are removed from discographies. That's why the guideline is written the way it is. I'm deeply sorry you disagree with the guideline, but your disagreement does not constitute a reason to ignore our policy. Enough of this. Album covers are not permitted in discographies. Period. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
the four pages that you listed should not have images. βcommand 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
of a user who feels that the usage of
this image
here violates Wikipedia:NFCC 8, 10c - namely, that of significance. I would point out that the article has a number of editors - out of a misguided attempt to "defend" the late subject - are determined not to let the image in under any circumstances, and this is but the latest in a series of attempts to keep it out.
As I see it, the image is of the subject, and its presence in the its own article (which discusses in detail the controversial nature of the image) as well as the article of the subject of the image is necessary to offer an encyclopedic view of both articles. The image is not decorative, and discusses both a significant (and cited) rumor regarding cross-dressing at the time of the subject's death (to whit, that ER docs found the deceased subject in female undergarments) and notes the controversy surrounding the painted image's display. I think it is significant, non-decorative and ultimately encyclopedic to include it. We have many instances where non-fair images (where there are no free substitutes) are used in multiple articles that concern the same or closely-related subjects.
I welcome some imput, as I feel I am the only one pointing out policy to a discussion page of true believers unwilling to recognize policy. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the copyrighted artwork in question has its own article, Mirth & Girth, which is linked from Harold Washington's article. Item 8 states that inclusion is required only if "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", since the majority of the critical commentary on the artwork is located in its own article, it is not decremental to remove it from Harold Washington's article. There is also no separate rationale for usage in H. W.'s article. Additionally, several other editors have expressed concerns over the image's undue weight in Washington's article. An RFC was conducted and several editors opposed inclusion of the image and supported a limited description of the artwork since it has its own article. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone remind me what the restrictions are on statues and other sculptures in public areas? Image:20071025 Harold Washington Cultural Center Statue.JPG is the picture in question. How does taking a picture of a statue infringe the copyright? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And to ask my Commons question over here, disregarding public domain (by gift or age) statues, is it possible to write to the copyright owner asking them to freely license their statue? Or a photograph of their statue? This may be similar to asking publicists to release a high-quality GFDL picture of whatever celebrity they manage, or is this different? Carcharoth ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I sort of vaguely understand the general ideas and principles behind such a terribly implemented policy, but basically, WP:FU is the single most appropriate redirect in all of Wikispace. How bloody hard is it for a bot to realize that this picture of an ALBUM which has the template on it specifically saying it's an ALBUM cover is being used on an article for an ALBUM (as in, it's in Category:Albums)) and then add the appropriate fair-use rationale itself?
No offense meant or anything, that's just me venting. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And, the problem in our case, is a lot of things that might have been tried in case law about copyright and fair use, none have come even close to what we need for our purposes. However, Carcharoth is right, Wikipedia has been a giant experiment when it comes to copyright law and many of the changes we are doing is because we are being asked to/demanded by the Board that runs us. However, if there are good things coming out of this, we have fine tuned our methods on getting free stuff and also more agencies and companies and persons are giving us photos to use, so the fair use crutch we relied on in the past can be set aside in the future, except for the very important cases (like iconic photographs and paintings). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that while Template:Non-free use rationale lists out a maximum resolution than a image should be, it's not listed here. Should we have a section regarding this? ( I had tagged an image with {{ non-free reduce}} and someone noted that there's no well-spelled out sections for this guidance) -- MASEM 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an image on flickr that is licensed under CC 2.0 Attribution No Derivatives that i would like to use in an article, however the vast vast majority of the image is useless. My question is simply does cropping an image, but maintaining full attribution, violate the no derivatives clause? Near as I can tell it probably does but would like clarification first before I write off the image as being too busy for the article. –– Lid( Talk) 08:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Protein_Data_Bank. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see:
Please comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a request for example of good fair-use rationale for an event poster. I'd like to do it right this time. -- soulscanner ( talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created the folowing page
Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (
talk)
14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot has started removing non-free images from the Portal: Anime and Manga that are specifically and carefully used only in our featured items. The images used are the ones from the article infoboxes or the primary image for lists, sized down to thumbnail size. Are non-free images completely unallowed in portals, even when the image is the infobox image of a featured article? I can see no non-free images for decorating a portal, but are they even excluded from the article highlights when the exact same thing is done for the front page (also a non-article space)? I found this Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals proposal from 2006-2007, but couldn't figure out if it was passed or what the current status is. So what's the deal? *confused* AnmaFinotera ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is made a self made 2D graphic reproduction of photographic image of a 3D seal in PD or is a copyright infringement? Iţm not sure how to tag the images. Or if necessary to mak the images for speedy deletion. Exemple here: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/masons/templars.html the file in commons is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Templar_Lion_and_Moon_Seal.png Or another example: The original files: http://www.ordotempli.org/knights_templar_seals.htm the self made copy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_Brother_Arnaude_de_Banyuls_Artistic.jpg CristianChirita ( talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an active FU discussion here: Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#February_18.2C_2008. If anyone knowledgable in fair use would like to weigh in, please do so. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Betacommand has posted a notice here, so please see Wikipedia:ANI#Next BCBot Phase for a notice about the next phase that Betacommand has proposed moving on to (I think the original four phase plan was proposed back in July 2007). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think these pages have been widely advertised, though they could be very useful:
They were created in September 2007 and are updated by BetacommandBot. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. If anyone is interested in continuing what I started there, please come over and help out! Carcharoth ( talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check the accuracy of my template for PD-Cuba before it goes live in mainspace? I've seen a jillion handwritten Cuban PD explanations so I figure this was needed. My bad Spanish was aided by Babelfish, and I did my best to convert what these copyright terms in Cuba mean for the United States in the light of the Berne Convention. (My understanding is that we insist things be PD in the US as well.) Check it out at User:Calliopejen1/PD-Cuba. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who watches this page but not Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline, I've started a discussion over there about the appropriateness of boilerplate rationale templates. — Bkell ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Number 8, Significance, seems bit extreme. I rarely think of a image that would meet the standard of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental". This pretty much excludes every use by my definition at least. Are the U.S. policies so strict on such Fair Use or are we just making our own judgement here. Morphh (talk) 0:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this image of an Ancient Roman coin in the public domain? The coin is 1800 years old, but as it is a 3D object photographed in 2D, does the photographer have a copyright on the image? An editor on the image talk page thinks that it is not copyrighted, but I'd like to double-check it. Bláthnaid 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about something. If we start requiring FUR for images that are protected under CFR laws like US federal insignia and logos, does that mean that soon we will have to put FURs on trademarked images that are not copyrighted and have no significant threshold of originality? Cause those two situations seem to be comparable to me. I'm not saying that is problematic, but I am slightly worried about mixing automated processes that deal with copyrighted images into Public Domain images that have additional legal restrictions. If we do this, might it not be wiser to keep those two groups bot readable separated ? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes here. Offering them up here for review. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the rationale on this page not adequate or something? I've removed a boilerplate message claiming there was none at all, but in the event there's some sort of concern not being articulated, I'd like somebody else to review and fix it if possible. I'd really like to stay retired from Wikipedia and not deal with this any further myself. I'm also adding the Fairusereview template in the event that's the proper way to get a look at it. FrozenPurpleCube ( talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems sorted; when I tagged it there was no rationale and no specific article mentioned. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not. There was no valid rationale. And, again, the burden is not on others to provide rationales. I did not even see the 'retired' notice; I merely appended the boilerplate message to your talk page because that's what the {{ di-no fair use rationale}} template advises. If you feel yourself retired, you are free to ignore messages. Jack Merridew 09:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to illustrate the article on Disney character J. Audubon Woodlore by uploading a screenshot of the man from a Disney cartoon to commons.wikimedia.org. Is that OK, and do I run a risk of having this screenshot later deleted by a zealot because it could "reasonably replaced by a free image"? Thanks. Maikel ( talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Until just recently {{ Non-free use rationale}} included language about low resolution which I found a bit unrealistic. Specifically, that fair-use images should be no larger than 0.1 megapixels (or 300px) in size. I'd like to discuss this and come to a consensus for a real recommendation as I believe that would help editors that are a) still uploading fair-use content and b)running bots which downsize fair-use content to comply with this policies language regarding minimal usage.
My personal belief is that "low resolution" should be (for 4:3 content) 640x480 or 800x600. For oddly shaped material (think movie posters which are often much taller than they are wide, and which also have smaller text than normal), still higher resolutions might be reasonable.
At any rate, I just wanted to get some discussion going. And actually, as I'm sure this isn't the first time it's been discussed, if anyone has any pointers to prior discussions, those might be helpful too. But I definitely think the 0.1 megapixel/300px guidance from that template were way too low. — Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Might it be appropriate to add a section on non free content who's copyright is owned by the Wikimedia foundation, at the moment most such images appear to violate policy as non-free content without a fair-use rationale. Is such a rationale actually needed seeing as Wikimedia cannot violate its own copyrights? Apologies if this issue is dealt with elsewhere. Guest9999 ( talk) 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm hazy on where to find appropriate policy and guidelines for some aspects of non-free images, so sorry if this is answered somewhere/previously -- but, anyway, question is: what are the policies/guidelines about what constitutes an appropriate/acceptable source for a non-free image? Image:AustinPowers300px.jpg (and at least one of the uploader's other pictures) are sourced (accurately) to facebook. Is this kosher? -- EEMIV ( talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
For the background, please see:
Yamla has correctly pointed out that the template wording ("of the issue [...] in question") excludes this "general depiction of the magazine" use, but in practice that is what has been done on literally thousands of articles. Compare this with the other "cover" tags: {{ Non-free book cover}} says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" and {{ Non-free album cover}} says "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". My question is why can't {{ Non-free magazine cover}} say "solely to illustrate the magazine series in question"? ie. An example from a series, rather than needing to be a specific use of a specific issue. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Non-free magazine cover, and if consensus is reached, we can copy this over there and make any changes needed. I've also asked Yamla to comment here. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is worth reading the Foundation's licensing policy. I believe that the proposed change contradicts the 3rd point, but obviously I do not speak for the Foundation. I think perhaps someone should actually contact the Foundation directly to clarify this point with regard to magazine covers (and also, probably, album covers). -- Yamla ( talk) 16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm going to contact them) -- Yamla ( talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
An interesting issue had arisen on the Freddie Mercury page regarding the image being used in the infobox. I would be interested in hearing any comments or ideas here. While I apologize about the length of this post, this is a very complicated situation.
Because Freddie Mercury died nearly twenty years ago, we do not have any free images that are of good educational value. Furthermore, although a free image is currently being used, many of our readers have come to our talk page in order to complain about it over the past year or so. Various users have referred to the current photo as everything from "disgusting" to "horrid." Due to these issues, several of our users (myself included) been trying to use various fair use justifications in order to replace it with something that looks decent.
Unfortunately, several very active users and administrators seem quite adamant about removing all of our non-free images, regardless of whether fair use rationales are added; I have yet to hear any kind of discussion from the individuals in question on the issue. On the contrary, images are removed and deleted without any explanation.
From what I can tell, many of the images that we have been adding are in full compliance with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. The key concept in NFCC #1 is educational “equivalence.” In other words, when two photos of equivalent educational value both exist, there is no doubt that the free image must be used in place of the non-free image. On the other hand, shades of gray begin to emerge when the free image in question is lacking in educational purpose. In these cases, NFCC #1 applies.
NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence," "rough equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." At the moment, the sole word being used is "equivalence." As it is currently written, there exists no reason for why an inferior free image must always be used over one would have some educational purpose.
In comparing many of our non-free images (click on the image above to see just one example) to the free image (on the right), there is no doubt that the two are not equivalent with regard to educational value. In the words of NFCC #1, the free image to the right does not serve “the same encyclopedic purpose” as the image above.
There are several reasons for why the free photograph to the right is generally lacking in educational value. Among other things, it is difficult to tell whether or not Freddie Mercury even has a moustache (discussed in the article) in this photo. The photo is so bad that the reader cannot even see his face. Due to the fact that ethnicity is an important aspect of the article, a photograph with decent resolution would be of much educational value. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how Freddie Mercury could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from fans for so long. The close-up photo above speaks a thousand words.
I want to point out here that I reduced the resolution of this uploaded image and that I cropped it in order to remove about 50% of the original area. A non-free rationale and a copyright tag have been added as well.
A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that non-free images are quite common in articles dealing with deceased subjects. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Notorious BIG, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. I argue that the current photo looks amateurish and unprofessional. I would be interested in any kind of discussion here, and I hope that we can ultimately solve this issue on our page. Boab ( talk) 07:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a great idea to contact a copyright holder. Unfortunatly, people do not respond to my requests. Many of these people probably do not have time to worry about things like Wikipedia.
Can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says that a non-free photo must always be used in place of one a fair-use photo? From what I can tell, the only relevant policy here is NFCC #1.
I am pleased to see that you both seem to agree with me that the fair-use photo above has more educational value than the free image that we are currently using (you just agreed that it is "nicer"). According to NFCC #1, the real issue here is whether the fair-use image could be replaced with another photograph that would have "the same educational purpose." Since the free image does not adequately show the moustache and since the reader cannot see his face here, the answer here is clearly "no." One final point is that NFCC #1 is not about "near equivalence" or "approximate equivalence." The sole words being used at the moment are "the same purpose" and "equivalent." Since we agree that they are not equivalent, NFCC #1 applies and the fair-use photo can be used. Boab ( talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi ZScout, Again, I was hoping that you could cite a policy from Wikipedia here saying that we must always use a free image in place of a fair-use image.
NFCC #1 says nothing about availability or whether we could conceivably make an inferior free image. On the contrary,
NFCC #1 talks about equivalence and whether the photos have "the same encyclopedic purpose."
Boab (
talk)
09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You say that the free image is of "acceptable" quality and that it is "equivalent" to the photo that I uploaded. What exactly do you mean by this? For instance, can you tell from the photo whether he had a moustache (mentioned in the article)? Can you tell anything about what his face looked like with regard to ethnicity? furthermore, if the photo is so very "adequate," then why have so many people come to the talk page in order to complain about it? Compare the two photos more carefully and give me an honest answer here (keep in mind that I could probably upload a larger photo that might be even better). As long as we agree that a fair-use photo would contain more useful information (i.e., the two are not "equivalent"), then NFCC #1 should apply here. Otherwise, you need to change the wording in NFCC #1 to "nearly equivalent," "roughly equivalent," or "approximately equivalent."
By the way, I recommend that people see a very interesting essay here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia. Although this is not official policy, it does indicate the fact that fair use rights are not in a very healthy state on Wikipedia. Boab ( talk) 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, because fair use rights are actually derived from basic principles of the 1st Amendment, this is a very crucial issue. Although I am actually a Republican (God forbid!), even I recognize that some of the attempts on Wikipedia to minimize fair use rights are moving a little too far to the right-wing end of the spectrum. This is actually the first time on Wikipedia that I have argued in favor of moving things more to the left! The next thing you know, I'll be voting for Obama! Boab ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If a band is inactive, does a free image that only shows some of the band members override a non-free image that shows the whole band? Spellcast ( talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm replacing the phrase "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" in the image guideline examples per this discussion. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary or criticism" or "commentary, such as description or analysis" in the image guideline examples? — AjaxSmack 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Previous discussions I've had with other editors have led me to believe that the format of the article, and not just the content, justifies use of such fair-use album covers or other similar media. There seems to be significant opinion that such images should only be used in an article about that album &c. and not in an article about a performer or a group of albums. To make this clear in the accepatable image use guidelines, I am proposing to add the bolded text to the first item of the list:
Please discuss. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago some here discovered that Time magazine had not renewed many of their early copyrights. I have added a section to the Time magazine talk page with all of the details. Talk:Time_(magazine)#Public_domain_issues I have been working on the Time magazine covers that have a Fair Use problem and changing the copyright tag on public domain ones. See Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg and Image:1101251228 400.jpg
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Fair use image question -- NE2 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently found Image:Basketball110.png. It is a self-made image released under the GFDL, that is now on the Commons, of a users' screen name. The image, jokingly probably, claims that the screenname is trademarked by having a trademark logo, ™, written on it. Just wondering if this could be potentially be problematic.. — Save_Us † 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I question this sentence : "All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL."
Perhaps someone could point to the accuracy of using the word "cannot" as opposed to a more accurate wording (imho) of : "may have problems being licensed". Wjhonson ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There is excessive non-free media and images on this page (as I'm sure there are on other related articles like this). How does an album cover like Image:AliceinChainsDirt.jpg, the cover of Alice in Chains' album Dirt qualify as fair use here? Despite the rationale written on the image description page, which states "It adds significantly to the article because it illustrates the best-selling album by one of the most significant and popular bands in the movement being discussed in the relevant section of the article", there is no text about the album whatsoever in the article. User:DCGeist felt that removing it was unnessecary stating "... it's there to illustrate a historically significant recording, as described in the accompanying text and in the image rationale" [9] but yet the article fails to have this supposed 'accompanying text'. In fact, this is the only sentence it mentions about Alice in Chains:
Other than that the image caption, that says:
Not only does the article not have critical commentary even on the band, the article itself fails to even mention the album. Wikipedia:Non-free content states a few things:
I believe the album cover does not meet any of these. Free images of the band Alice in Chains can be used to illustrate the section that says Acts labeled alternative metal included the Seattle grunge scene's Alice in Chains and groups drawing on multiple styles..., instead of a non-free album cover. The album covers do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, as required, as it is being used to illustrate a cover of a top-selling album and nothing more than that since no commentary on the album is provided. The album covers may have historical significance, but plastering them on articles as decoration without having any commentary on the album and very little on the band themselves is a violation and needs to be removed. — Save_Us † 09:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If I may, about image captions, they are part of the article as well. Of course the image should be mentioned in the main text of the article, but people reviewing the use of an image sometimes seem, inexplicably, to ignore what has been written in the image caption. This is, remember, the text that appears right next to the image on the article page. The description on the image page is something different again. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This TFD debate over a Template that I made which states that the NASA logos are non-free by Wikipedia guidelines even though they are in the public domain by law, due to additional restrictions and usage guidelines added by US law. Some of these restrictions include the restrictions on commercial use and modification, which not withstanding any other argument, makes it non-free and subjected to WP:NFCC rules, since non-commercial only images or images that we cannot make derivs of are not allowed. Or so it seems, according to an excellent comment by TheDJ. I kinda agree with him, although it may seem a bit weird: we kinda think that there should be some restrictions here on items such as logos that are technically in the Public Domain or free, but contain legal restrictions on their usage, such as in this NASA case, or on other trademarked or restricted stuff.
Sure, you did say on the Insignia template that "These restrictions are independent of the copyright status." That's why me and TheDJ are proposing a "second" tier of these kind of images, the "restricted" branch. As quoted by TheDJ in response to my saying that the NASA logo restrictions made it non-free:
::I reiterate that I consider mixing the processes for copyrighted materials and not copyrighted materials a bad idea. If you want to introduce a separate tagging system for these kinds of restrictions, then that is fine by me, but we should not replace a PD-USGov-NASA copyright tag with "usage restricted tag that makes vague statements about the copyright status". -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll even lay-out the action plan.
- Propose a policy that requires usage rationales for copyright free images that still have other legal restrictions.
- Rename all templates in Category:Restriction tags with "non-free"-prefixes (though I personally would prefer "restricted"-prefixes for those.)
- Make sure none of those templates say a single thing about copyright
- Create a new template for usage rationales of restricted images. One that categorizes into a different "non-free" sub-category than the fair use images do.
- Put {{ non-free-NASA}} AND {{ PD-USGov-NASA}} AND usage rationales on those NASA logos.
- Fire up BetacommandBot to start tagging all images with restriction templates as needing cleanup within "to be defined arbitrary # of days"
- I think that is the only appropriate way to go about this. As a matter of fact, I would even support you, because I too find the current situation quite annoying and stupid. But I just want to see a good separation between non-free images due to copyright and non-free images due to secondary legal limitations. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what do you think? ViperSnake151 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So, if an image/media file/whatever is released under a Creative Commons license with the Non-commercial clause, but its use would be covered by Fair use, can it still be used on Wikipedia, under Fair-use? Drewcifer ( talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ALF, the animal rights terrorists, and other direct action groups, routinely put out media as "public domain" so that it is widely disseminated. The problem is that these organizations often don't own the copyright to what they are releasing. They will re-use journalist images, re-publish articles about themselves from the media, take screenshots from news footage, etc, and release it as "theirs" because it is about them. A lot of this is ending up on Wikipedia with the claimed public domain license. This stuff comes from people who set fires, bombs, and commit burglaries. They don't have much respect for intellectual property. Are these images acceptable to Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
This language is slippery : "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
I'm sure we're all aware that "reasonably can" is a problematic phrase. We cannot agree on what would be reasonable. I would suggest that this language instead be altered to "Copyrighted images for which a free-image is at hand are not suitable for Wikipedia". This would allow fair-use images to live, until such time as a replacement is found. Instead of being deleted merely because a free image might someday be found (which is the way some are currently interpreting "reasonble"). Wjhonson ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a limit to the number of fair use images that can be used in one article? Either a specific maximum or a guideline on how many it is reasonable to use? I am concerned about Touch My Body which has five fair use screenshots to illustrate a short description of the music video. This seems excessive to me, but this article is subject to edit warring by Carey fans and I'd like to be able to point to a specific guideline that shows this is excessive - or leave it be if no such guideline exists. Thanks, Gwernol 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the only official portion of this article is the top part that outlines the actual non-free content policy. The rest of the article involves large number of examples that may or may not be relevant when compared to other cases. Furthermore, the wording used in the unofficial sections is not always consistent with the actual policy.
In order to simply the non-free content policy and make to it easier for people to understand, we should remove everything that is not official. Perhaps a second page could be created that would show some specific examples and cases. Girl80 ( talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when has a magazine cover not been valid under fair use? It does not seem to be covered in this article and probably should be. The specific example that brings me here is the deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Isinbayeva2004.jpg with the rationale of CSD 17. It was included in the article Track & Field News to illustrate the cover of the magazine. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a question based on this: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Below of futher examples of images that, if non-free, may not satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."
What does "discography" mean in that context? Album covers for album articles are covered under fair use, and it would follow that covers to singles would be allowed in articles about the single. But what's the policy if the article about the single is merged to the album? Can the image go with it? Also, the WP:MUSIC guideline advises that albums can be merged with their artist's article; if that's done, what's the policy then? There is also some discussion of combining album articles into discographies, where each album would have a section (and I would assume a separate infobox), but not a complete article to itself. Technically, that would be a discography, but if it's the only coverage we have of an album and the section is specifically about the album, it would seem to meet the significance test; the content would be identical, only the structure would be different. Can this be clarified in the policy? Thanks. —Torc. ( Talk.) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word does not conform to the actual policy. Girl80 ( talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have recently seen tv-station articles with own sections about their old logos. Example. My intuitive reaction to such section is that it fails criteria 3 and 8 to include all the logos, since there are no actual commentary. Anyone else that has a thought on this? Rettetast ( talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear some third opinions. Are some or all of the images contained in this article not justifiable, from a fair-use standpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2008
I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which ( Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that OCA rights apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy.
So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, Bazzargh ( talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a fair use issue, and I thought I'd better get the advice of editors more experienced in this area.
This image is in the collection of the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) According to the description of this image at the LAC website, the painting dates to 1978 (the same year the artist appears to have died), and the copyright is held by the artist's estate. It will not be in the public domain until at least 2028.
The uploader is claiming both that the image is public domain as the artist died more than 50 years ago (not the case), and (as a back-up I suppose) fair use as per {{Non-free 2D art}}. However, the image is not being used for critical comment of the artist or the work, but is instead being used in three articles to illustrate the 1939 dedication of Canada's national war memorial by the King and Queen, the Monarchy in Canada and the Crown and Canada's armed forces.
Moreover, we do have a public domain photograph of the King and Queen at the 1939 war memorial dedication on the Commons ( Image:RoyalVisitNationalWarMemorial.jpg), which is the same subject as the image in question, so there is a free equivalent.
Am I missing something? Obviously the fair use grounds claimed by the uploader are not accurate, but is there another fair use basis that would be acceptable here? I don't want to see it deleted unless necessary. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I get an assist at Body Worlds? Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged all the images with {{ db-copyvio}} and they were apparently speedily deleted. However, Tigriscuniculus ( talk · contribs), the same uploader, has now reuploaded the same images (more or less, afaict) licensing them: {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} and {{ PD-self}}. I'm still fairly certain these're copyvios, is the next step to speedy tag the images again and warn the user?
I realize belatedly that this isn't the most pertinent place to discuss these, but I've stayed on since I've gotten more apropos and timely responses here than at WT:CV. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word is not consistent with the actual policy. Girl80 ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this template and the process concerning it confusing. I've used it a couple times to dispute the fair use rationale of an image. What I don't understand is this: the template says "remove it if you've addressed this issue". If one person removes it, but another disagrees that the matter is properly resolved, how do the two resolve the dispute? Is there a place for discussion? Are users allowed to remove the tag if the original tagger still feels an admin should review the fair use? Any help would be really great, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a string of logos on the US Patent and Trademark Office search page. They're all expired trademarks (canceled circa 1999), they all belong to the same company (Prevue Networks, Inc.), and they're all non-replaceable. (I would like to upload them for use on the TV Guide Network and Sneak Prevue pages as logos with commentary. I do have an account for this.)
They're VERY low-resolution.
Would it count as "expired copyright", "non-free", "non-replaceable", and/or "public domain because of US government"? What would I have to do?
70.176.127.235 ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any difference in the acceptable use of an album cover that has been scanned and uploaded by a user as opposed to one that was copied and uploaded from a website? Grk1011 ( talk) 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ RFCpolicy}}
Euuuw, there were significant problems in the wording. I've massaged them; the only one I think needs checking is the third one, where I've expressed what I think people intended the meaning to be. Here's the diff. Tony (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The change that I have a problem with is this "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." -> "To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media."
This might seem minor to some, but "enhances the quality" gives the impression that the content itself is of sufficient quality without the non-free media. -- Ned Scott 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll resist the urge to treat Scott with reciprocal rudeness. To take his points in turn:
I still intend to reinstate the improved wording in the next day or so, given that there's still no clear, logical argument against it. I'm not used to having to fight tooth and nail to make simple improvements to wording. This situation smacks of ownership, methinks; I'd much rather work with Ned than against him. Tony (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To return to the substantive issue here, the matter is not merely a copy-editing one. Ned Scott is correct: the proposed change in wording does alter the sense of the sentence. "To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose" makes clear that the use of media is necessary for a quality encyclopedia. (This is, on a logical level, a debatable point, but the debate does seem to have been resolved in the statement's favor: To produce a quality online encyclopedia in the twenty-first century, media is essential.) Reading the proposed substitute sentence—"To enhance the quality of the encyclopedia through the judicious use of media"—it is easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is not necessary for a quality encyclopedia. The shift in meaning is neither "slight" nor "inconsequential," as Tony has argued; it is material and significant.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony's response: Thank you for explaining what Scott was totally incapable of putting into words. I do concede that its reasonable to discuss the third point, although I still see no good reasons against adopting my suggested new wording.
There are three problems with the existing wording of the third point:
1. It undermines the entire NFC policy:
"To produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." (My emphasis)
2. The binary structure of the sentence—the comma is the boundary—shifts the meaning onto creating a quality encyclopedia (much broader in scope than the goals of this policy page), with the use of media as a subsequent modification of that goal. My wording overcame this, I believe, by using "through" with neither comma nor dependent phrase to make the statement simpler and more direct.
3. The implication that media (non-free content?) are necessary for quality; many superb articles do not have non-linguistic media, and I don't think it's the job of this page to assert that non-linguistic media are essential to achieve quality. Geist is concerned that it may be "easy for the average Wikipedian to infer that media is [sic] not necessary for a quality encyclopedia; in the context of improving the quality, I hardly think this will feature in readers' minds; but to encourage them to think the opposite—that images and sound bites are an essential part of achieving quality, is just as undesirable, and possibly harmful to the compromise that this page seeks to strike.
These three reasons underlie my rewording of the third point. I see no disadvantage in its implication that quality can (and should where possible) be enhanced through the judicious use of media. You may quibble with the use of "judicious" ... please do so if apppropriate. I have a slight issue with the various use of "non-free content" and "media" in points 2 and 3. The grammar needs to be fixed at the end of my new point 1.
Before you leap to slap me down again, and in the case of Scott to claim certain rights for being a "good Wikipedian", please remember that I completely overhauled the wording of the policy in only 10 months ago, before which it was in a disorganised, poorly formatted, incomprehensible mess—go back and see for yourselves. Much of the organisation, formatting and wording in the 10 points is my work, although others—including Scott—have made significant improvements to it. Tony (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Are non free images allowed in the articles that are represented on portals? Portal:R&B and Soul Music What is the advise in this regard. The image is for the self same article that the fair use clause was written. What is the protocol? SriMesh | talk 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Should this image Image:Stamp4EUFam.jpg, used in Stamp 4, more appropriately be a candidate for fair-use because the uploader clearly does not have the right to assert a PD on it? Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion and straw poll at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)#Image_argument as to whether a non-free image is warranted in the article itself. As the input was only requested at the relevant WikiProject, I thought those frequently here would have pertinent input to provide. I have done so and am not soliciting support in one fashion or another, but think that those most involved in the policy under discussion would have more background and information than specifically the fans involved. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
How exactly is this defined? To me it seems that thousands of the most commonly used types of non-free images fail this criteria. For example, how does being able to see the logo of a company contribute to the understanding of that company (unless the logo itself has achieved some special, documented significance such as
Image:London2012Logo clear.png), how does seeing the cover of a book increase the readers understanding of a book (again unless the cover itself has some significance) - do you really have a greater understanding of
The World According to Garp after seeing
Image:According garp.jpg? The same applies to alum cover - although prehaps more of them have achieved noted status (suc as
Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg). Images such as these definately improve the look and layout of an article, they are informative in showing the logo,cover,etc. but do they really increase understanding?
Guest9999 (
talk)
18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
To those who might object, I'd say (1) let's remember that in practice this criterion has to be combined with the effect of the nine others—don't read it as a stand-alone; and (2) it could be argued that the removal of very few NFC files on WP would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic, and (3) the rationales of the policy, particularly the third one, are expressed in very positive terms, and should be reflected by positive language wherever possible in the policy. To talk of detriment to readers' understanding comes too close to the paternalistic. We provide a service, yes? Tony (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
All of those supports, and no opposes. I'm removing the clause in question later today. Tony (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted this as an audibly obvious hoax. Turns out this is The Doors, just without Jimbo. This 7" b-side has been out of print for over 25 years, and Internet Archive lists this as " public domain". Is this possible? How would I find out? I reported this to archive.org as a hoax because I find it hard to imagine WEA letting copyright lapse on potential collector bait. Now I doubt myself. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see many featured articles with album covers in them even though those articles are not specifically about the albums but rather the artist or even the music genre instead. Someone's been telling me that this is a violation of wiki policy over at my talk page here. Can anyone help me clear this up? I believe the use of a single album cover on the folk metal page qualifies under fair use since that's the very first album of the genre and it's discussed at relative length in a passage where quotes from Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com are provided concerning the album in question. If this is a violation, and all the other use of album covers on those featured articles are also violations, then I will certainly be more than willing to remove the album cover from the folk metal article. As it is now, I do not see why I have to do so when so many articles have gotten away at being featured articles while using album covers when they are not about the album in question. -- Bardin ( talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A core value of Wikipedia is to promote the creation of new free content.
But en-Wikipedia has never been a free-content-only project.
Where non-free content (i) is legal, (ii) is not in competition with the creation of any free content, and (iii) would add value to an article, then it's hard to see any useful purpose served by excluding it. Jheald ( talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What you're advocating is the increase in the use of fair use images. There's been massive efforts underway to reduce the use of fair use images. More than 100,000 fair use images have been removed from the project in the last year, and overall usage is dramatically down as well. This is a good thing. Fighting for more fair use usage is a thoroughly losing battle. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Can an album cover be used on a song article? There is one album cover I've seen that's used on three pages, including the artist's main article and a song article. What's Wikipedia's position on this? HelenWatt ( talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As the person who posted the original query, I'd like to say that I'm really not interested in what wikipedia policy should be but just what wikipedia policy is. I've seen nothing here or anywhere else that indicates that my use of an album cover on the folk metal article is contrary to wikipedia policy so I'll just leave it there as it is. If wiki policy change in the future and fair use images become forbidden, then I will remove the album cover.-- Bardin ( talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason the policy is worded as it is, prohibiting non-free content when a free equivalent could be created, is that we want to encourage the creation of free content.
There is a fundamental reason why we should prefer free content over non-free content: It's the third of the five pillars that describe the fundamental goals of Wikipedia.
Also, Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which says that anyone can use it for any purpose; non-free images are in contradiction of this license.
Per Iran and copyright issues, it states that Iranian copyright is pretty much void inside the United States. Since when it comes to non-free content, we always use the rules of the country the Wikipedia site is hosted in, which is the United States. I know that unfortunately, this wouldn't be free enough for the Commons (since in most cases, it has to be free in the US and in the country of origin), but locally, would this be allowed as free content or would this be subject to WP:NFCC? ViperSnake151 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)