 | 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus determined only one poster is acceptable per policy. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Posters are used. Shall there be just one poster? If so, either teaser or final poster? George Ho (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Given that there is a already a non-free image in the infobox and there is no critical commentary about either poster in the article, I think it would be appropriate to remove both posters from the article. —RP88 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
How about this one? thumb|right|Of course, it is copyrighted, but it shows all of the characters! Yeah, it won't work. Just choose between the release poster or a fair use image with all of the characters (The most professional available) .LogoSubcheck (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are you working for Cartoon Network, or for whom do you work? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Only one poster should be used per WP:NFCC#3a. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Critical commentary for the poster is as unneeded just as critical commentary on the logo is unneeded. All we need to do is choose one or the other. The logo is unneeded because the official poster shows the main cast and the logo alongside it. SO we use the poster instead of the logo.Lucia Black (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I did propose that promo ad be part of the infobox as a replacement of either logo or title caption/card. However, those at WT:TV opposed and favor a mere logo or title card as the top, minimal identifier of a television show. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think its eligible for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. if it deemed necessary, we can make it so that posters be acceptable in infoboxes for WP:TV. Several other media outlets such as films, anime, and other variants allow posters. why shouldn't tv series? It'll be a disservice to Steven Universe to use the logo over the poster because the poster reveals more information than the logo itself.Lucia Black (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- I did propose that promo ad be part of the infobox as a replacement of either logo or title caption/card. However, those at WT:TV opposed and favor a mere logo or title card as the top, minimal identifier of a television show. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is file violates WP:NFCC#10c in 3 articles and will be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This violates WP:NFCC#10c in various articles. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to know the original source of this photo. The annotation below the photo at this site reads Eliot Kamenitz/The Times-Picayune, which might be the first publication containing the photo, so it might be possible to find it in the Times-Picayune online archives. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove from all articles except Action Comics, Action Comics 1, Publication history of Superman & American Comic Books. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cant see justification for usage on 10 articles, especially since it has its own article Werieth (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is an image (very iconic) that has reasonable re-uses, but the number used is far too many. It is reasonable okay on:
- Action Comics as the first issue for infobox use (Standard for comic series to use #1 for that)
- Action Comics 1 for cover ID.
- American Comic Books as it is a historically significant comic.
- In the case of Superman and Publication history of Superman, the image should only be used in one of this articles, but not both. Arguably, History, since that's what is being shown.
- It is absolutely not appropriate on;
- National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, given that one non-free is an image that shows both characters at the same time.
- Joe Shuster as the non-free ID image (Which is appropriate) also shows the cover.
- Origin of Superman, as this article covers the character's fictional story (compared to History of Superman, covering the media relating to the character) , the image does nothing to help this.
- Canadian comics , there's no need to show a cover a work to point out this.
- Comic book, as there's likely free images of older books to show was a comic is. Even if AC#1 is the world's most famous comic.
- --MASEM (t) 22:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whoa, I can't believe Masem is still here and doing this. It's been soooo long. But yes. Since it's already uploaded, world-known and better than finding individual images to illustrate the exact same thing, there's no logical reason to remove it from articles where it's serving a purpose. I think this NFCC stuff is just garbage only <10 regularly editing Wikipedians care about. I could see the argument against plastering articles with pictures because of aesthetics, but whining over a single .jpg being used in multiple articles? Who would even notice or care? Certainly no average reader or corporation such as DC. Idgi. - 24.181.226.38 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's the Foundation's mission to promote free content and minimize non-free. There are clearly some uses of AC#1 that can't be replaced with free content (eg the first 3 cases), but there's other cases where its use can be replaced (which includes plain text). That's the mission, and what our policy reflects. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whoa, I can't believe Masem is still here and doing this. It's been soooo long. But yes. Since it's already uploaded, world-known and better than finding individual images to illustrate the exact same thing, there's no logical reason to remove it from articles where it's serving a purpose. I think this NFCC stuff is just garbage only <10 regularly editing Wikipedians care about. I could see the argument against plastering articles with pictures because of aesthetics, but whining over a single .jpg being used in multiple articles? Who would even notice or care? Certainly no average reader or corporation such as DC. Idgi. - 24.181.226.38 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doesn't seem to follow non-free content use in list article guideline, image is not needed for full understanding. Tagged since Nov. 10, should have been deleted Nov. 17. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doesn't seem to follow non-free content use in list article guideline, image is not needed for full understanding. Tagged since Nov. 10, should have been deleted Nov. 17. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doesn't seem to follow non-free content use in list article guideline, image is not needed for full understanding. Tagged since Nov. 10, should have been deleted Nov. 17. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural closure. Please re-open it when the FFD is closed, and the file is "kept". By the way, watch an episode, and find a more substantially sourced screenshot. Beerest 2, please comment at WP:FFD; thank you. --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I nominated this for deletion. Some people say it should be kept, but I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8. You guys probably know better than I do. What's the status? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Taylor Trescott: Oh ho ho. Nominating a Dr Who image for deletion. Those people are extremely defensive of images and insist that even the most useless be kept. This image look to me like a guy holding something. There is no source discussion so it should be an easy delete. However "this image is important" says the fans. Not really because if you don't know Dr Who you won't know why this is a special image. I don't know X-Files, but I can tell why there need to be an image in Deep Throat (The X-Files episode) because some guy said something about the effects and the reader will understand more by see them. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 00:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image appears to violate WP:NFCC#3b: unreasonably detailed SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's not an SVG, it's a PNG, though still too large. Just tag it with {{non-free reduce}} to put it into that maintenance category. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the time-frame that this has been open and no counter arguments Ill close this as no contest. Werieth (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really don't see a need for this to be displayed on XXX Award pages Werieth (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed - the only page that logo is appropriate on (per how we allow logos) is the Mague League Lacrosse organization page itself. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, except I think you mean only displayed on Major League Lacrosse. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image is uncopyrightable in Germany but that it pushes beyond TOO for US law. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. This file is marked as non-free, but is it? Isn't it {{PD-logo}}?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Given the artwork for that image I would say its easily copyrightable. Yes the overall image of an eye may be generic, but the artwork pushes it beyond TOO. Werieth (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is easily copyrightable. Compare with the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany regarding File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. Given that I believe German copyright law might be stricter than United States copyright law and that a US court would be more likely to decide in favor of public domain than a German court I would say this could be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or perhaps even {{PD-ineligible}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is any doubt that this is uncopyrightable in Germany, but Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. Various court rulings indicate that US law only cares about the threshold of originality of the United States. See for example the cases Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (where copyright protection was rejected to images copyrighted in the source country) and Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. (where copyright was granted to toys ineligible for copyright in the source country). See also Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention which seems to suggest that the same thing applies throughout all Berne Convention countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is ineligible for copyright protection in both countries. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This logo is the Wii Karaoke U by Joysound. Is this logo eligible enough for copyright protection in either U.S. or Japan? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- It could be argued that the font used for "Karaoke" and "Joysound" is a standard font even if the negative space is used for art elements. It would probably qualify as uncopyrightable in the US but I'm not sure in Japan. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that this isn't copyrightable in Japan based on the Cup Noodle example under Commons:COM:TOO#Japan. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't agree with the determinations we've made on cases like these, where combining two uncopyrightable elements is often considered per se not copyrightable. I mean, Feist itself talks about how low the threshold of originality is in the US. But, I could be wrong. Should've taken international art law this semester instead of patents. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#1. In the future, please tag CSD#F7 for replaceable images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
free image: File:Ming clam shell WG061294R.jpg Shizhao (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus holds that image fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles and will therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The file violates WP:NFCC#10c in various articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Remove from Manchester Withington and Dundee per 8 and 10c, keep in Ernest Simon. Note that the image will probably become PD-art in 2022 (95 years after publication per the Hirtle chart). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image is beyond TOO and therefore is copyrightable. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this logo copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly yes. (The elements making the mountain are copyrightable). --MASEM (t) 07:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is for United Kingdom to decide, but this is an American work. I see shapes that form a mountain, and the background is blank. And the pac-man drawing is easy to draw with lines scribbly enough to make a mountain. And the mountain forms look thunder-ish. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- While the stars, lettering, and black circular backdrop are all elements failing TOO, the white shape used to form the mountain and the black shapes used to form the crags/rockfaces are far from the concept of "simple geometry" that TOO considers, and would be considered original. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is for United Kingdom to decide, but this is an American work. I see shapes that form a mountain, and the background is blank. And the pac-man drawing is easy to draw with lines scribbly enough to make a mountain. And the mountain forms look thunder-ish. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is two covers is too many and have therefore been replaced by the earliest edition cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I doubt we need two book covers. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, second cover unnecessary to demonstrate the title change. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I found the first edition cover (well, earliest one), so I replaced two covers. --George Ho (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there is context enough to support the use of the non-free files. It should be noted, however, that rarely is a gallery-like approach appropriate. Further context could and should be added from the FC's website. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is a gallery of non-free files justified? I dont think it is. Werieth (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- A gallery might perhaps be justified if and only if there is sufficient properly sourced commentary specifically referring to each of the crests. I am not sure whether that is currently the case, so some of the image uses in the gallery might be in violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Arguably, the text in the 2 paragraphs above it attempt to provide context to show the why's of how the emblem changed; I can't say if every varation is sourced but several are so this seems like a rare case where the gallery-like approach works, given that the primary concern with galleries in general, the lack of context, is not an issue on this image. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hemingway likes tomato soup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.47.97 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
On the club's official site there is a page which describes and shows the evolution of the crest, so if there is any doubt the Wikipedia entry could reference this. The one crest missing from that page is the centenary crest, but this is of historical interest so there should not be a problem (if anyone is seriously concerned they could always ask the club itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.127.245 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Image was already previously removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC in Amanda Lear. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image of previous actress fails WP:NFCC#3a in this article. As a soap character with little visual difference in appearance of the character and the actress, the image could be replaced by a free image of the actress and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. In an extension of this discussion, the image would also not be appropriate use of a non-free image in the actress' article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#3a: multiple character images in the infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, only one is needed (likely the current actress playing the role); free imagery of the other actresses can be use for alternate portrayals. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not as convinced on this. Strictly speaking, yes, the most needed image would be the person currently portraying the character, but at least in this case, Ordway has only been playing the character since April 16 of this year. But then again James Bond. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox soap character allows for two extra images to be added into the infobox since soaps do re-cast a lot of roles, and it allows to show more notable and/or recognized portrayers within the role. And in the case of Abby, Melissa Ordway has only been portraying the role for less than a year, while Emme Rylan portrayed the role for about three years. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just because the infobox supports mulitple images doesn't mean its appropriate. Particularly with soap operas where very little makeup is used, we can use free images of actors to represent older versions of characters. There are exceptions, yes, but they'd be few and far between. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good point. There's nothing really characteristic about the costume or makeup of this character, unlike James Bond or certain professional wrestling personas, so why should we need a character image for more than one actor? In fact, why do we even need a character image of Ordway? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Strongest possible Oppose:″ why do we even need a character image of Ordway″, let me ask you a better question; what kind of question is that? We need a image for readers to visualise the character, all soaps characters pages have plus we do not even have a free-image of Ordway. Also, if you look up on Google Abby Newman, here what you find [1], mostly images and porfolios of Rylan meaning she is very notable to the role that means we need the picture of her. Ordway is now the portrayer meaning readers need to see the who is the character. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good point. There's nothing really characteristic about the costume or makeup of this character, unlike James Bond or certain professional wrestling personas, so why should we need a character image for more than one actor? In fact, why do we even need a character image of Ordway? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just because the infobox supports mulitple images doesn't mean its appropriate. Particularly with soap operas where very little makeup is used, we can use free images of actors to represent older versions of characters. There are exceptions, yes, but they'd be few and far between. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox soap character allows for two extra images to be added into the infobox since soaps do re-cast a lot of roles, and it allows to show more notable and/or recognized portrayers within the role. And in the case of Abby, Melissa Ordway has only been portraying the role for less than a year, while Emme Rylan portrayed the role for about three years. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#3a says ″Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.″, Ordway and Rylan images' do not share the equivalent significant information two different people portraying a character and one is more notable than the other but both very important. In my opinion, this is a waste of time. But, we can't base it on our opinions which I do understand. Which I don't understand is this ″Unless the character has a ton of makeup″, what does makeup have to do with this? Just curious. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- For soaps, where nearly universally there is very little difference between how the character appears on the show and how they appear in real life, the non-free can be replaced by the free image to give the reader an idea of what the character looks like. Note that we do typically allow for one non-free character image in an article about that character, but if the character has had past actors playing them, their visual looks have to be the subject of discussion to justify the non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PD-textlogo RJaguar3 | u | t 03:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- In the US definitely a PD-textlogo, but it might be a problem in other countries. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the text of the Love Boat is not copyrightable but the blue curly-board is. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the stand-alone logo of The Love Boat copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: First, as a reminder for all involved in working with non-free content, per WP:NFCCE: “it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created.” Second, it should be noted that this long-winded discussion has primarily been about the application of WP:NFCC#8 in dealing with the contextual significance of the use of the image within the article. Through out the discussion both sides have discussed the images of the badges as a type of identification and should be treated like logos. The key points of those discussing removal hold that the images are not necessary to the understanding of the accompanying text and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. This discussion includes pointing out that the use of non-free logos when there is not critical commentary about the specific image is allowed for identification per WP:NFCI but that WP:Logos#Placement shows that two logos for the pieces of the same group should not be included in the same article. By this assessment the only identification image should be an identification image of the 36 Signal Regiment.
The other side of the discussion holds that the images, as a form of a logo of an organization, are allowed by WP:LOGO as logos provide valuable information about the organization. This interpretation converges that the images would pass WP:NFCC#8 along with all other points of WP:NFCC and therefore this use is allowable.
It should be reminded that WP:NFCC is policy whereas WP:NFC & WP:LOGO are both guidelines to interpreting policy. The discussion holds, on both sides, that the WP:NFCC policy is left broad as to allow for interpretation by consensus. In this verbose discussion, both sides have meritorious arguments. The consensus of this discussion is this image and other badges should be removed from the article as although there is broader use allowed for non-free logos, these images do not meet the guidelines of WP:Logos#Placement and could be replaced by one logo of the over all 36 Signal Regiment. The consensus holds that there is no critical commentary or contextual significance of the individual badges.
As a reminder this closure is being performed by a non-admin, albeit uninvolved, experienced closer. If any uninvolved administrator finds fault with my closing procedure used, they should contact me, and I will immediately reverse my closure and allow for an appropriate closure. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No reference to this badge in the article text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just looking it seems the 723 communication as a group is actually being discussed in an entire section as are two other groups with their badges as well. First, I do not see any issue with contextual significance, which is the criteria in question. It makes no mention of any requirement that the badge be discussed in the article or section as the image is being used as to identify the select group it represents and wore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I accept that there are cases where the use of a non-free image for identification is acceptable, such as corporate logos at the top of the article about that company. I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article. Therefore, all the badges in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada)#Histories and crests of the old units should be removed. I do not question that those uses might be appropriate under fair use, but I don't see how they satisfy NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- "I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article.". Its Criteria 8. Contextual significance. The image may be used as it passes that threshold of context to the subject and is being used to represent the group as it was designed to do. It would significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to an understanding of the topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree that a removal of this image from the article would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. There is absolutely no reference in the article to the image of this badge. The use is just for identification, which is usually only appropriate at the top of articles about the specific entity in question. Thus this use is a blatant violation of NFCC#8 and should be removed. The reader gains nothing through the presence of this image other than "Mhm, that squadron had a badge and it looked like this." Not having that short Aha moment wouldn't harm a readers understanding at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of policy should be backed with a link to such policy. There is none. It is not a blatant anything or this would be speedy deleted. Deletion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Using a non free image to identify a subject is allowed. There is no guideline that it be the user box only. It is used as a visual means of identification. That is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uhm, no Toshio. Stating that it can be used in the infobox is not a limitation to use only in the infobox. You overlook the full view of our policy on logos.
The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.
- Furthermore, sections should be regarded in the same manner as an encyclopedic article if a full article has not been created and use of portraits to identify subjects is common on Wikipedia and does not violate image use or non free content guidelines. However we do need to clean-up and fix issues on that page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- "We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use."
- I understand the distinction, not how that relates to some perceived need to minimize non free use. There is a Wikipedia criteria for minimal use but that is in relationship to a subject not the project overall, which seems to be the point you are making. I know of no such need to minimize use of non free content unless it does not actually pass our policies or is a violation of copyright. The reason Wikipedia may use non free content is precisely because of fair use.
- "NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that".
- What you are suggesting here is not accurate. You are stating that if a non free image can be removed and the subject still understood than it is a failure of NFCC#8. No. The actual criteria is: "'Contextual 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". What that is saying is, if the addition of the non free image will significantly increase an understanding of the topic it may be used. It isn't about any understanding. Its about THAT understanding. So if the image is added because it does in fact add a significant understanding of the subject (in this case, a visual identification of a company and/or infantry type logo for this particular government agency or branch of the Department of National Defense within the country of Canada) then deleting the image would decrease that visual understanding.
- "The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that."
- I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that we should be concerned project wide to an overall, overuse of non free content, but that is not part of the deletion discussion to say it is too many for Wikipedia for the individual argument. You have told me what you believe NFCC#8 means but I have challenged that interpretation. I am not attempting to upset or agitate anyone to make a point here. Unfortunately, in this discussion, you are taking the extreme when you say that by losing the logo identifying the squadron, that you lose nothing. That is simply not accurate, any more than removing the logo from any article that represents a company or team loses nothing. It may or may not be in one's view, but it passes criteria as a team or corporate logo for identification and I see no actual guideline or policy limiting the non free image to the info box only.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what I told you about NFCC#8 is the test used for many years now - we have to minimize non-free content in this way as its use is supposed to be exception and far less than fair use allowance would let us use (That's why its important that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project). If we can drop a logo and still understand the topic, it fails NFCC#8. We do make the case that if the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association as how it is meeting NFCC#8. But any other use requires explicit meeting of NFCC#8, meaning that contextual significance of the image of the logo has to be shown. Just displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP, and will fail here. This is a standard case where the images would otherwise be deleted without question, and no one has made a case that seeing the images is necessary to meet both parts of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know that this has been dealt with properly if this is standard, but I would argue it really isn't. Could you provide a link to the policy or guideline which states that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project? I continue to state the obvious: your interpretation of a failure of NFCC#8 is incorrect as the policy is written. I also wish you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that you refer to with "[I]f the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association" as well as "displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP." I am unfamiliar with these.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- First point, NFC rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", as well as from the Foundation's resolution "Such EDPs must be minimal. So NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work. Second point, NFCC#8 has two clear points (spearted by the comma in that). Let's put it another way. If you never knew that those logos existed and you read that article, is your understanding of the topic harmed? I'm sure it's not as as enhanced if the logos were there ("Oh, how nice, there's a logo"), but you certainly having lost anything. And if the logos were key to understanding the topic, there would likely be sourced discussion about the logos towards that purpose. That's NFCC#8 applied across the board. I will note that while NFCI#2 does allow for logos, this is assuming all other NFCC parts are met, and we're still failing NFCC#8 here. I point to the footnote of NFCI#1 where we do allow non-free images to be used in infoboxes without any other commentary about the image , and while that is written towards cover art, it is implicitly applied to logos as well. I will point out per WP:LOGO: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." --MASEM (t) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary Break
As a free encyclopedia and an open source, freely edited project, our goal is freely licensed content. As free as possible. Public Domain is preferred but we are allowed to use images with various licenses as well. When using an image in any article for any reason, we should always use the freely licensed alternative when one is available, however if an image has significance to the subject and can be demonstrated, it may be used per our non free content criteria.
The Rationale section at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is basically a disclaimer/explanation/mission statement. It is not, for example, part of the policy or criteria. Also, it is not a part of the individual discussion or reasoning for an image itself.
Rationale
- To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.
- How we do this, is to encourage the use of content with a free license (public domain - no restrictions) or, at least, CC 3.0 attribution license which is the license for use of Wikipedia's content, requiring attribution of the author or photographer.
- To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.
- This portion explains that, to keep Wikipedia from possible legal issues, we limit the amount of non-free content. We do this in a stricter manner than US Fair Use case law (as there does not appear to be any actual Fair Use laws) as well as copyright law. How we limit the amount of non free content is set forth in the criteria and policies. Some ways we do this is to limit where non free content can be placed as far as article space only, no use is sandboxes, essays, talk pages etc.
- To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.
- This is stating that we actively strive to only use what is needed per consensus using the policies and guidelines. (let me save this and continue before I crash)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When you say "NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work", what you are missing is that each article may not be of a single subject. Non Free Content Criteria is aimed at the subject and assumes an article, but in no ways limits it to a full article use. So, while the use of multiple Non Free images is not ideal, it is not a violation of policy or guidelines. In this situation each image identifies a separate entity and subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(Give me a little while more before responding to get the rest in)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Full non free image use criteria check
(some bolding for emphasis and separation of text for individual clarity with bolded comments and numbers have been replaced with bullet points)
- No free equivalent.
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (no free image available and cannot be created)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(This portion does not apply as it cannot be transformed or replaced) Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.
(This portion is not criteria, but a gauge for editors when uploading. It is not separated into A, B, C because it is not a part of the requirements, but suggestions on how to determine such. While the "test" is in two parts, a yes to one or the other is not an automatic exclusion. "Probably" is not absolute here, which is why it is not a required portion of the criteria)(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
- Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
- Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
- (This section does not require that the full work not be used. only that it only be used is a portion will suffice. A portion of this image would be confusing and would not suffice) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
- Minimal usage.
- Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
- Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
- Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
- One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
- Contextual 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. (As I stated above, the context is that this is the symbol of this entity, squadron or team. The visual identifier does increase the readers understanding of the group by showing the image that is its official seal or logo. Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone)
- Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
- Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
- Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
- A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
- The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.[1] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.
I am off for a while, so I leave this discussion with that. Ultimately, this is up to the closing admin to decide if any consensus has been formed from the strength of the arguments made and whether or not no consensus would mean the image would stay or not etc.. Thanks for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Arguably all your points are correctly take except NFCC#8. The way NFCC#8 is read is not how you describe it, at least towards the second part: "Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone." There is a lot of NFCC that are removed from articles (I point you to our FFD logs) where if this was the reading of NFCC#8, we'd be keeping tons of images, because of course removing the image will be detrimental since you can't replace the visual representation with text easily for all of these. But that's not the metric. We are looking for discussion about the image - the whole contextual significance part. Again, take the example if we never had those images in the article, and consider the text that is presently there. My understanding of the topic has not changed one iota without those images because the images are not discussed at all in the current text. Because my understanding has not been harmed with the absence of the image, NFCC#8 fails. This is the baseline test used across the board, logos are not exempt from this.
- Now, I will stress again that consensus has determined that when we're talking about the top-of-the-page infobox about an entity, published work, or similar work, where a single identify image would be used in the infobox or at the very top of the page to represent that entity, then the test for NFCC#8 significance is different in that as long as the topic has merited its own stand-alone article - reading that there is likely going to be a good deal of text about the entity or work, that the contextual significance is there due to the implicit aspects of identification, branding, and market associated with the topic when it itself is discussed at length (read: the footnote of NFCI#1). This is the only time that one can present a non-free image without discussing the image itself to meet NFCC#8. In the case of these images, the specific divisions do not have notability on their own and thus there is no implicit allowance for a logo without discussion about the logo image in order to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Masem trying to push his deliberate misunderstanding of policy again. The requirement to pass NFCC #8 is not and never has been (about from a few weeks about six years ago) whether the image is being discussed in the text.
- The requirement is whether it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic -- something significant that would be lost if the image was not there.
- The issue for the community to decide is whether or not the understanding the image provides is something significant, in the context of the topic of this article -- is it somthing highly relevant, or is it merely tangential?
- That's what the arguments need to address. I have to say I think people trying to establish these images are more than tangential have got quite a challenge on their hands. But there is no policy requirement that they absolutely have to be discussed in the text. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't forget the second part, whether omission of the image harms understanding of the topic. This is why generally (considering IAR) if the image or concept it shows is not discussed in any form in the text, omitting it is not affecting the reader's understanding of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't forget it. See 15:59 above "something significant that would be lost if the image was not there."
- Omitting an image affects the understanding you would have with the image -- that's what can be lost by omitting the image. Policy is quite clear, intentionally referring to understanding about the topic, not understanding about the text. This has been gone through so many times, why do you insist on flogging this dead horse? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- NFC policy is not to protect the inclusion of non-free images, it is to be able to make the exception for their inclusion. I've looked, and that's clear throughout the early stages of NFC's development (pre2008). (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 is a good example) that it is able when the exception is made to allow non-frees, and why NFCC#8 is written as it is - "significance" and "omission" are equally weighted tests. The only "protection" that applies to NFC is how we are encapsulating fair use law within the requirements of NFC to help protect the Foundation. Mind you, I am aware that there are editors that would want to be overly aggressive in removal of non-frees where they are appropriately being used and in that sense we have to make sure NFC is being treated fairly both ways (for inclusion and for removal); but we should not be calling NFC as a means of "protecting" the inclusion of non-free images. The Foundation asks us to treat these as exceptional as part of their free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- (And to add, I see you were a part of these discussions then in 2007-ish, but in reading them now, I'm not seeing where you're getting this interpretation from in term of "protecting" non-free use, as well as the omission factor. All the discussion there seems to emphasis on discussion of the image in the text, or in limited cases what has become NFCI#1 + #2. It's consistent with how I'm arguing this.) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- NFC cuts both ways. It's there to protect appropriate content, as well as to remove inappropriate content.
- Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24#New_Criterion_8 is a useful reference, showing some of the alternative wordings that were rejected. The point is that it is useful to think about what is gained by adding the image, what is lost by taking it away. "That understanding" it seems to me plainly means the augmented understanding of the topic with the image, that has just been the focus of the previous part of the sentence. It's hard to logically construe the phrase in any other way. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.
- But getting back to this case 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) and the three logos at the bottom, if we applied what was the consideration in at least 2007 - whether there is significant discussion about these entities in the article that would allow for an image for identification. That's a fair question for consensus to decide on - in other words, I wouldn't dismiss the images just because they are logos used in an article but not about the entity of the article, but whether there was enough discussion about the entities in question that necessitated the logo (of course, barring any on-point discussion specifically about the logos themselves). In this case, I'd argue that these don't provide that - the three sections in that last para are likely pulling information from primary sources (there's a few sources listed but the details in the article text aren't fully backed by these - but I'm not questioning validity here), and thus fails the significance test; that is, there is not enough present in these sections that necessitates the need to visually connect the topic to its logo. (Or reiterating points from the 2007 discussion, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it needs a visual identifier). But that is a point of discussion, as long as it is understood that the reason to keep the images is not just because they illustrate those groups, but because consensus has decided that there's enough discussion of those groups that illustrating their logo would be appropriate under NFCC#8. And I would argue that this is a border-line case here - if there was just a bit more sourcing and text to help place the groups into a broader context instead of just much of the internal aspects, I probably wouldn't be complaining about the logos there. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.
- It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Just got back from vacation. I see the discussion has continued. I will read through more thoroughly but did glance some mention of the archives and consensus discussions of the past and the fair use policy of 2007 (the year I began editing actually). I am going to run through these archives and if I think this merits further eyes, this may have to go be for the village pump. I know all of us as editors like to believe we understand the policies and guidelines, but here we clearly have issue with some of the definitions to be used and whether or not the wording can be construed in any particular manner. Having taken part in a number of fair use image discussions myself, I will attempt to check on some of the consensus results pertaining to images, logos as well as text to see how things have been handles in those discussions and if they have any bearing on this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
OK, what does the Foundation have to say about the subject. It was brought up earlier and when doing a search for NFCC#8 discussions I fell on the foundations policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Resolution
Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"
(Lists resolutions 1 through 6. Of interest to this discussion in particular is the specific wording in resolution #3, which reads (bolding for emphasis):
3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
I do not believe I am stretching an interpretation of that to say that our Exemption Doctrine Policy SHOULD allow identifying protected works such as logos. Am I wrong here? Now, there is a good deal of reading and the debate goes back a good deal of time but I can surely quicken the research by attempting to work backwards as the 2008 debate I came upon obviously may not been settled to that extent, however...another important aspect of this discussion is also showing a change in wording that I think needs to be addressed as to whether that is where the policy has been somewhat confused here when discussing NFCC#8.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion was also interesting and I can't help but be slightly confused with Masem's take on the NFCC#8 discussion and when it was nailed down and why. I would also just say that I think I would have to side with one of the actual editors involved with that consensus than one who was interpreting it, let alone one who's interpretation I saw as being very different from an actual reading of the discussion. First, the specific wording was nailed down on July 22, 2007 and was edited into the EDP as having consensus from the talk page [2]. What was not nailed down and was removed later was the line "Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."
- Remember that some parts of what the Foundation's resolution is is guidance, not requirements. If we were to interpret the Resolution, the bolded section as you highlighted, exactly, then the German wiki would run afoul as they don't allow any non-frees, when the argument you're making is that they are required to for, in this case, identifying works. Instead, the statement says that one way that they would agree that non-free exceptions could be made would be for identifying logos - whether the project chose to allow it, and to what degree, is up to the project. So we can be stricter than the Foundation in that respect. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry Masem, but you are incorrect. "should" has specific context. I am sure you have been in policy discussions were the difference between "Should" and "Could" have been picked apart. "Should" is guidance to attempt to allow it and "could" is only suggesting it as an option...period, with no strength behind it other than a suggestion. Also, I am sure you understand that individual Wikipedias cannot override their country of origins laws themselves where their servers may be located. English Wikipedia observes US law as our servers are in the US. In theory sure..we can be stricter however, that is not the case here. Our policy on logos spells out their exception for use and the policy itself does not state a limitation to info boxes and as I asked, how does that effect articles with no info box?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, if what you say is true, then the German wikipedia is violating the Foundation's "requirement". Heck, even commons would be do by that logic. It's not, you're completely misreading the statement. And remember, this is what the Foundation said, nothing on en.wiki can change that. The "should" is implying that if a wikiproject opts to include non-free, then the exceptions it allows "should" be of these "high value" media, which includes identifying images. We aren't required to allow identifying images, just that this is an example that that Foundation believes merits exception for use if a project determines that to be the case. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry Masem, but you are incorrect. "should" has specific context. I am sure you have been in policy discussions were the difference between "Should" and "Could" have been picked apart. "Should" is guidance to attempt to allow it and "could" is only suggesting it as an option...period, with no strength behind it other than a suggestion. Also, I am sure you understand that individual Wikipedias cannot override their country of origins laws themselves where their servers may be located. English Wikipedia observes US law as our servers are in the US. In theory sure..we can be stricter however, that is not the case here. Our policy on logos spells out their exception for use and the policy itself does not state a limitation to info boxes and as I asked, how does that effect articles with no info box?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Before we get to deep in arguments I haven't stated, lets remember that there isn't a violation of the Foundation's resolution for another country to remain within their laws and I hope you understand that the foundation itself is asking that we consider these particular things mentioned when determining our standards. That is the discussion and debate. Not what Germany does.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong, you made a statement that says we have to allow logos because the Foundation says so. That is absolutely not what the Resolution says. It uses the example of logo for identification as one possible reasonable allowance if the project chose to include it. Nothing strong that requires us to allow logos, as you stated. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Before we get to deep in arguments I haven't stated, lets remember that there isn't a violation of the Foundation's resolution for another country to remain within their laws and I hope you understand that the foundation itself is asking that we consider these particular things mentioned when determining our standards. That is the discussion and debate. Not what Germany does.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I find nothing in any of our non free content policy or criteria that limits the use of non-free-images to article info boxes only and prohibits them from section use to identify the subjects of individual sections. In fact, from my understanding a section can grow substantially to develop into its own article and then have the use of such images in an info box...if an info box is used. Since info boxes are not required could there really be such a guideline limitation? If so, is this realistic?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- You need to look at the talk pages, not just the main page changes, around 2007 (Archive 24 I think it was, but see the discussion about). NFCC#8's wording was written in considering allowing top-of-page infobox identification or when the topic was of significant discussion in the body of a larger article to allow identifying images (cover art and logos were combined in this discussion). It wasn't written in any more explicit because it was presumed at the time that was obvious.
- Realistic, there has to be some line to separate out just dumping logos into article just because you can force them into infoboxes, and actually having the logo serve a visually important function in contextual significance. The top of page of which the cover art/logo represents has been unstated as unquestionably allowable because it makes sense - if you have a stand-alone article on a topic, meeting notability guidelines, there will be plenty of discussion about that topic, and thus the identifying image fits. Any other use where the image isn't itself the subject of discussion will likely fail NFCC#8, though that's not immediate. If we're talking about a logo of an entity in the context of a larger article, we have to determine if there's sufficient discussion about that entity to merit the logo. Just because an entity is talked about and it possesses a logo doesn't mean the user needs to see the logo to understand that part of the topic.
- Much of this is unstated, but it was apparently because most editors recognized that identifying works were only appropriate at the top of the article. Even the ALBUM project, when it comes to album covers and alternate covers, has guidance to limit the number of alternative art covers used. So we never needed to be more explicit about what cases identifying images could be used. The most recent change in this direction may have been the addition of the footnote on NFCI#1 after we had an RFC to affirm that the use still made sense, and you can see by the RFC's listed - at least applied to cover art - that top-of-page identification use was the only clear matter. Logos would not get an exception from the same. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, could you link to that discussion please. I know I ran across an RFC last night while researching this. I am truly reading all of these discussions and there are many, including the lengthy discussion of July 2007 where the specific context, reasoning and wording for our policy were hammered out, a very detailed discussion on a proposed change to NFCC#8 in 2008 and at least one other possible RFC that I saw that had not yet been closed and no consensus formed from what I saw. Let us continue to work through this if possible, but I respectfully reject any interpretation that relies on "unwritten rules". This policy has withstood debate since its inception. Even Wikipedia:Verifiability can't say that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP policies - including NFC - are based on descriptive measures of what is done in practice (and not prescriptive, putting out rules that don't meet practice), so there are effectively unwritten rules; identification images have long been of this nature. The RFCs in question are listed in the footnote for NFCI#1 (there's three of them). --MASEM (t) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are no unwritten rules that apply in this discussion as you are really discussing unspecified considerations that in truth have little relevance if no argument can be advanced using a specific policy or guideline as the reasoning for the decision. That is just basic. And the point is not as much to get you to change your view, but to simply defend mine and others positions over the last 6 years in regards to the use of non-free logos to identify the group or organization that it has context to. This applies to the article in general and there is no policy or guideline that prohibits it....in fact the actual template for logos has specific instruction for use in the article or a section.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cart before horse; our policies follow practice including unwritten statements (or those that may be long-term patterns in XFDs and other areas that simply haven't been well documented) I will continue to point to removal of logos through FFD as justification to remove these. Further, just because we have a template doesn't necessary mean its use automatically makes the images right; there's already a new question about these "free pass rationale" templates if they have a valid use or not.
- Ignoring cases where the logo itself is the subject of discussion, there's clearly a range of allowable uses of a logo alongside text discussing the entity it represents: we have no problem when we have a standalone article on the entity for using the logo at the infobox. On the other end, just because we namedrop an entity doesn't allow us to use the logo. There's some point where using the logo alongside such text but without discussion of the logo becomes reasonable, below that where it would not be appropriate. That line typically has been when the entity has sourced discussion about it, as if it could have a standalone article if one so chose. This is not an absolute line and its one determined by consensus, but I can't write that down because it's been a defacto point for FFD in the last several years. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's another analogy referring to a horse that may fit here but it doesn't have to do with a cart, but a stick...(a little humor).
- With regard to our policies following practice, that is not entirely correct as that assumes that we just make decisions based on what "we" have done in the past. The entire basis of changing consensus relies entirely on the fact that a consensus can change, for whatever reason. "If" the current consensus is what needs changing....as I said, I don't believe there is a consensus for a number of your points. You claim there is a consensus that the use of non-free logos is limited to info boxes. Yet still have not explained how such a requirement is possible when info boxes themselves are a matter of consensus as content and not every article will have an info box. While you continue to use the wording in one section of the policy that refers to info boxes, you do not explain how such an exacting and precision use of the overall policy isn't inappropriate. Your explanation to the Foundations very position and guidance seems to be dismissed with comparisons to other Wikipedia. I can't speak for other Wikipedia but, in the English Wikipedia, we are actually trying to comply with the wishes of the foundation that funds our volunteer work and gives us something to donate to. Whether that is images, text, research or copy editing, it takes work to do these tasks and we have extensive written guidance. In an open discussion we speak of all our written "rules" and we might consider unspecified considerations as they come up, but we don't say there are unwritten rules that dictate our actions to interpret what almost all our guidelines state to be an excepted use of non-free logos to identify the subject in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not dismissing the Foundation's resolution - in fact, I fully stand behind it. I have been pointing out that their resolution does not require use to include logos for non-free exceptions, and instead only says that this is a reasonably type of allowance for it. (It is important to remember that the Resolution was written after our NFCC policy was mostly in place and basically a response to it to standardize the en.wiki approach across all its projects. I am not excluding logo use in articles that don't have infoboxes; it's completely reasonable that if an article doesn't employ an infobox that a single lead logo image used for identification is acceptable for the same purpose. You notice this isn't spelled out exactly and this is exactly the type of unwritten consensus and practice that we have throughout the project. Most people involved in image maintenance recognize this and thus why we never have had to spell it out exactly, because its common sense. That's an example of why policy and guidelines are all descriptive and not prescriptive - we can only change when consensus changes, and as these practices have gone out for years, there's no need to change. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are no unwritten rules that apply in this discussion as you are really discussing unspecified considerations that in truth have little relevance if no argument can be advanced using a specific policy or guideline as the reasoning for the decision. That is just basic. And the point is not as much to get you to change your view, but to simply defend mine and others positions over the last 6 years in regards to the use of non-free logos to identify the group or organization that it has context to. This applies to the article in general and there is no policy or guideline that prohibits it....in fact the actual template for logos has specific instruction for use in the article or a section.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP policies - including NFC - are based on descriptive measures of what is done in practice (and not prescriptive, putting out rules that don't meet practice), so there are effectively unwritten rules; identification images have long been of this nature. The RFCs in question are listed in the footnote for NFCI#1 (there's three of them). --MASEM (t) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, could you link to that discussion please. I know I ran across an RFC last night while researching this. I am truly reading all of these discussions and there are many, including the lengthy discussion of July 2007 where the specific context, reasoning and wording for our policy were hammered out, a very detailed discussion on a proposed change to NFCC#8 in 2008 and at least one other possible RFC that I saw that had not yet been closed and no consensus formed from what I saw. Let us continue to work through this if possible, but I respectfully reject any interpretation that relies on "unwritten rules". This policy has withstood debate since its inception. Even Wikipedia:Verifiability can't say that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not arguing that anything is required. It isn't important to remember when the resolution was written in regards to when the NFCC policy was put in place. Look, I really believe you are working with a false assumption. I feel you are confusing that something may not be spelled out directly as having an "unwritten consensus". Masem, you could use that excuse to argue either direction, but the truth is, we have enough guidelines that do spell out directly other uses that allow the end result to be, using non free images in sections as identification of the subject, without comment about the image itself. You have to demonstrate some guideline or policy which supports your position and I have to say...saying there is unwritten consensus is just a weak argument. It really is. I have demonstrated that the actual full guideline, including the lead (which is a summary of the entire policy) does permit this use, that the NFCC policy does not exclude it (in this case) and that there is sufficient contextual significance to use the image as identification of the subject as that is the purpose of the logo. There is no "common" sense here. Non Free guidelines must comply with US Fair Use law for a reason. For the proper use of non free content. We make up our own guidelines in a manner stricter than US law to comply with a minimal use as well as other considerations and the community has spent countless hours discussing the issues in great detail. The resulting guidelines and policies, as well as a change in the upload process, adding more detailed instructions for use, making it more difficult for non free content to be misused, along with our templates with full use instructions, are all that result. Unwritten consensus? We don't use such on Wikipedia. It isn't a consensus if it isn't discussed. Is there a culture of acceptance to such things. Yes. Is that right? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is extremely easy to upload and use non-free content that fails to met our policy because some of the policy requires human review (NFCC#1, #3, #8), so until someone recognizes the problem, non-free can be misused. Even now, there's question whether the non-free logo rationale template is really appropriate since it takes the work out of thinking about why one needs to use non-free within WP. And again, I stress: our policies and guidelines are meant to be descriptive of practice so if practice and consensus change but the policy/guideline isn't updated to match, that doesn't change the fact that practice/consensus works that way. Ergo WP does indeed work on "unwritten rules" particularly if no one feels the need to update the policy/guideline to reflect the process better. In the case of logos, its been well established in practice that the only real acceptable place is when the logo is being used to identify, as an infobox image or top-of-page on an infobox-less article, the topic the article is about. (WP:LOGO even supports this: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria")). There is some limited allowances for using logo without commentary if there is another entity discussed in depth in the article in question, but most other times, just because an entity that has a logo is mentioned in an article, using its logo to identify it fails the requirement of being contextually significant (in other words, the overall topic is normally understood without seeing the logo of the subsidiary entity). Again, stressing: for any image, not just logos, a non-free picture to illustrate a topic but without discussion of a picture - unless it is the identifying image for the page topic - nearly always fails NFCC#8 - this is how this has been interpreted for years, and the policy and guidelines all point to that, even if you don't believe it explicitly says that. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not arguing that anything is required. It isn't important to remember when the resolution was written in regards to when the NFCC policy was put in place. Look, I really believe you are working with a false assumption. I feel you are confusing that something may not be spelled out directly as having an "unwritten consensus". Masem, you could use that excuse to argue either direction, but the truth is, we have enough guidelines that do spell out directly other uses that allow the end result to be, using non free images in sections as identification of the subject, without comment about the image itself. You have to demonstrate some guideline or policy which supports your position and I have to say...saying there is unwritten consensus is just a weak argument. It really is. I have demonstrated that the actual full guideline, including the lead (which is a summary of the entire policy) does permit this use, that the NFCC policy does not exclude it (in this case) and that there is sufficient contextual significance to use the image as identification of the subject as that is the purpose of the logo. There is no "common" sense here. Non Free guidelines must comply with US Fair Use law for a reason. For the proper use of non free content. We make up our own guidelines in a manner stricter than US law to comply with a minimal use as well as other considerations and the community has spent countless hours discussing the issues in great detail. The resulting guidelines and policies, as well as a change in the upload process, adding more detailed instructions for use, making it more difficult for non free content to be misused, along with our templates with full use instructions, are all that result. Unwritten consensus? We don't use such on Wikipedia. It isn't a consensus if it isn't discussed. Is there a culture of acceptance to such things. Yes. Is that right? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, since an info box is not really a part of an article structure it cannot be assumed to be a part of the article in terms of any requirement. That being said, articles and sections are pretty much considered the same in regards to many guidelines and policies as a section may well be long enough for its on article. Images are used in section space as they would in any part of the body of the article. An image being used to represent the subject would be placed in the lead section. That is the separation in an article, not the info box. But some articles are not long enough to have a TOC and don't have a separated lead. How would you handle that? It is very much like a section of an article. But what is most important is that there no guideline that states that the image cannot be used in a section and the lead summary of the WP"Logos it states the content guideline as:
Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. There are three main concerns with logo use. First, they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria. Second, logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns. Third, there are editorial issues about adhering to a neutral point of view and selecting an appropriate logo and representation. The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.
Nothing in the criteria says anything about placement in the info box only, and the information in the body of the article is to allow use in info boxes, not to limit them to that. Portraits are not restricted to the info box. They may be used in sections. Non free content may be used in sections. There really is absolutely no reason non free logos cannot be used in sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- A problem with non-free images identifying an organization is that their purpose is just that: identification. Non-free images used for identification tend to violate WP:NFCC#8, because the omission of such an image doesn't make an article incomprehensible. As such, a non-free logo should not be used in a Wikipedia article at all, except if it is used in the context of critical commentary, which would be incomprehensible if the logo were omitted. The current consensus that it is acceptable to use non-free logos without critical commentary for identification of the entity the logo represents at the top of that entities article. There is no consensus AFAIK that it is acceptable to use non-free logos for identification of each single entity an article discusses and as such non-free logos cannot be used for identification purposes in sections. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg to hopefully get an experienced closer on board for this discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kept, but restricted - The locus of this dispute has been over whether or not the image meets NFCC 2 and NFCC 8 (respect for commercial opportunities and contextual significance, respectively). Future Perfect at Sunrise's solution (restricting it to the article on the salute) is the most closely in line with policy, and, after giving appropriate weight to the various keep and delete arguments (more weight if you were talking policy, much less weight if you were just being inflammatory), seems to be the answer that the most people would be able to live with. I realize that this is not a conventional close, but I feel that it's backed by a reading of the comments. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We seem to have a dispute between two editors, User:Werieth and myself as to the appropriate usage of this iconic photo. I call it an iconic photo, User:BD2412 just today assigned the Category:Subjects of iconic photographs to the central figures in the photo. I hope, if you are unfamiliar, you can see the attached articles, particularly 1968 Olympics Black Power salute to see the significance of the event. Within 5 hours of the importance of this photo being so assigned, Werieth removed the photo of it from Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres, the event where this photo took place. When I reverted it, rather than stopping to address the dispute, the user continued to remove it from Doug Roby, the then USOC Chairman who issued the punishment for the protest--probably the most significant thing this man did in his life and removed the claim of fair use from the photo itself.
As best I can determine, this photo was taken in 1968. Copyright is negotiated by the Associated Press. Our low resolution copy of the photo, acquired from another online encyclopedia, is the first thing to show up in google. To my knowledge, AP has never protested. Its been on Wikipedia for almost exactly 9 years, I would think the absence of a claim against due diligence would not hold water. If ever we have a case for fair use, for the place and individuals involved with this photo could be made, this would be it. I think a reasonable argument could be made to add it to Harry Edwards (sociologist), which links to the article Werieth removed the photo, as well. And this goes on to the overall look of Wikipedia. For us NOT to properly cover such material would be censorship and is borderline racist. Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- As it happens, I am an intellectual property attorney. There is no reasonable objection to this photo being fair use for 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, as it is the photo depicting this notable event. Frankly, there is no court that would find this to be anything but a fair use for a fairly broad range of related articles, given the age and historically wide redistribution of this image, and Wikipedia's non-profit educational mission. bd2412 T 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes fair use law would allow us to use it, however Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far far more strict. Acceptable usage needs to be viewed in that perspective. I am not disputing the usage on 4 primary articles (Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Peter Norman, 1968 Olympics Black Power salute) However because we have an existing article on the image usage outside of them cannot be justified by wikipedia policy. Werieth (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is absolutely appropriate at 1968 Olympics Black Power salute but utterly not appropriate at Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres; that latter article is just about the summary of the event, and the photo does not aid the reader's understanding there. (You do link to the Black Power salute in the lead, so the importance of that event - and the picture - are accessible there). We use a stronger requirement than fair use, which the photo would likely fall under on the Men's 200 Meter event page, but fails the minimum use of non-free of our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Trackinfo Please remove your comment calling me a racist. That is a personal attack. I am not censoring anything. Feel free to add notes and a link to 1968 Olympics Black Power salute wherever relevant. The usage of the file however must be restricted. Werieth (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did not call you a racist. It would be racist on the part of Wikipedia to censor remove this important part of history of the struggle. It would be equivalent with Wikipedia ignoring the Greensboro sit-ins, Selma to Montgomery marches or not showing File:Wallace at University of Alabama edit2.jpg. You may not be part of it, but there are factions out there who wish to rewrite this part of history with racist malice a forethought. Each little chip at removing an element of the truth helps their goals, whether you do it deliberately or not. Trackinfo (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You called me a borderline racist. I am not attempting to hide or suppress any facts. I am just trying to ensure our media usage is in compliance with policy. Keep in mind each one of the topics you referenced has its own article, guess what so does 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. I am not removing anything from that article, I am just attempting to follow our m:Mission to keep usage of non-free media to a minimum. Please note I am not referring to the file as fair use for a good reason, wikipedia policy in regards to copyrighted material (Non-free media) which includes fair use material, among others, is about 100 times more strict than that. Werieth (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You do know what censoring is, yes? Removing one use of a picture is nowhere close to censoring. We'd have to remove every mention of that topic, including the article itself, to get to that. Werieth's removal is simply to reduce non-free where it is not needed given that it is used much more appropriately elsewhere, and you are running the lines of no personal attacks by grossly mistating the situation. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did not make any accusation of any individual editor being racist. I did not issue any sort of personal attack. To quote myself "For us NOT to properly cover such material" is in reference to Wikipedia in general. I clarified, our failure to properly cover the facts of the struggle plays into the agenda of racists who wish to rewrite that story. If there is any misinterpretation that this is directed at any individual, I apologize. Trackinfo (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You do know what censoring is, yes? Removing one use of a picture is nowhere close to censoring. We'd have to remove every mention of that topic, including the article itself, to get to that. Werieth's removal is simply to reduce non-free where it is not needed given that it is used much more appropriately elsewhere, and you are running the lines of no personal attacks by grossly mistating the situation. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- You called me a borderline racist. I am not attempting to hide or suppress any facts. I am just trying to ensure our media usage is in compliance with policy. Keep in mind each one of the topics you referenced has its own article, guess what so does 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. I am not removing anything from that article, I am just attempting to follow our m:Mission to keep usage of non-free media to a minimum. Please note I am not referring to the file as fair use for a good reason, wikipedia policy in regards to copyrighted material (Non-free media) which includes fair use material, among others, is about 100 times more strict than that. Werieth (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did not call you a racist. It would be racist on the part of Wikipedia to censor remove this important part of history of the struggle. It would be equivalent with Wikipedia ignoring the Greensboro sit-ins, Selma to Montgomery marches or not showing File:Wallace at University of Alabama edit2.jpg. You may not be part of it, but there are factions out there who wish to rewrite this part of history with racist malice a forethought. Each little chip at removing an element of the truth helps their goals, whether you do it deliberately or not. Trackinfo (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Removed from all but the main 1968 Olympics Black Power salute article. This was additionally being used in as many as three biography articles, where it was used in lieu of a portrait in the infobox. In that function it was obviously replaceable with other images, and the point about the salute doesn't need to be visually repeated beyond its main statement in the dedicated article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree. The image represents the single most noted moment in the lives of its subjects, and this event is discussed in each article. Is there another image capable of conveying this moment? As for the image being replaceable, the question then arises, what free images of these subjects are available? I realize this is not a point that we usually dwell on, but we face fewer potential entanglements in reusing the same image for related purposes than in making fair use claims to multiple images. Perhaps these three articles could each instead use a version of this image cropped to the particular athlete. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the three athletes are still alive, a free image could be taken, and thus a non-free is not allowed to be used. (We don't require that a free image currently be available, just that one can be made). --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also disagree. The issue is not filling the void of an image of the athletes. THE SALUTE, the act that is still the most notable event in their lives (over and above winning Olympic medals, setting world records, NFL careers etc) is irreplaceable. I can probably come up with my own pictures I can clear of the individuals, I certainly have pictures of the statue created from the iconic photo at San Jose State University. Those are a grossly poor substitute for the actuality. This issue is under discussion, with only a handful of participants so far (likely ever). I think Future Perfect jumped the gun on taking action before a consensus is reached. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- We have an article on that salute that is linked from all involve athletes, which the user can link to to learn more. Also, no you can't make a free image from that statue - artwork in a fixed medium in the US does not have freedom of panorama, meaning that photographs of such art are derivative works and retain the copyright of the artist. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also disagree. The issue is not filling the void of an image of the athletes. THE SALUTE, the act that is still the most notable event in their lives (over and above winning Olympic medals, setting world records, NFL careers etc) is irreplaceable. I can probably come up with my own pictures I can clear of the individuals, I certainly have pictures of the statue created from the iconic photo at San Jose State University. Those are a grossly poor substitute for the actuality. This issue is under discussion, with only a handful of participants so far (likely ever). I think Future Perfect jumped the gun on taking action before a consensus is reached. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the three athletes are still alive, a free image could be taken, and thus a non-free is not allowed to be used. (We don't require that a free image currently be available, just that one can be made). --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree. The image represents the single most noted moment in the lives of its subjects, and this event is discussed in each article. Is there another image capable of conveying this moment? As for the image being replaceable, the question then arises, what free images of these subjects are available? I realize this is not a point that we usually dwell on, but we face fewer potential entanglements in reusing the same image for related purposes than in making fair use claims to multiple images. Perhaps these three articles could each instead use a version of this image cropped to the particular athlete. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Above, someone wrote that the photo was taken by the Associated Press. Per WP:NFC#UUI §7, we need significant discussion about the photo in order to keep it, which normally means that the photo only can be used in an article about the photo itself. The article 1968 Olympics Black Power salute only discusses the subject of the photo, not the photo itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Trackinfo (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing user talk pages. Werieth (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I notified other editors who have been specifically involved with the file in question. Proper notification. Exactly what Werieth failed to do when initiating this attack on the image. My contributions are publicly visible. Look at the text of what I wrote to those involved: "A file you have been previously involved with is under discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg" Furthermore, there should be a notice on each page the image has been removed. If nobody else posts such a notice, next time I have time to edit, I'll search for the appropriate template. What I told Werieth to do back on October 11. It is not in broader interests of wikipedia as a worldwide information source to keep these backroom discussions limited to the very few who know they exist. Trackinfo (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose removal from the bios. It is the thing those athletes are most known for and is an irreplaceable iconic moment in history. This passes NFCC 8 by a Kentucky mile and makes the rest of the NFCC its whimpering little bitch. Keeping it out of the currently undeveloped article on the competition itself I get, but not these bios.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no prohibition on using non-free images of living persons, we just don't use them when the image itself lacks significance. All non-free images are subject to the same criteria for inclusion in an article and can be used in more than one article even if both articles are linked. Such use of non-free images happens all the time. The moment captured in that photo is discussed in-depth in all of their bios and it is clearly not an image you can simply replace with some recent image of them as old people speaking at some conference.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two things: first, it is an obvious consequence of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use) that a single image should not be used in more articles than necessary. Where we have a central article dealing specifically with this particular aspect of their bios, we don't normally also include the same image in the more general parent articles without good cause. Second, there is one aspect that has not yet been sufficiently discussed here: what exactly is "iconic" here, the historical moment or this particular photograph of it? That's not the same thing. Of course the historical moment is important, but there are multiple different photographs of it, obviously similar but taken by different people from different angles, and I don't see that this particular photograph has any privileged role in being significantly "more iconic" in memorizing the event than the others. In this respect it's not like "Tank Man" or "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" or the like, which are truly unique photographic representations. It's also not being used as to support commentary on the photographer's creative work as such, which is normally the standard exception for commercial agency photos. Given the fact that it's a commercial AP photo, the bar for using it must be particularly high, so we'd need to have a particularly good argument why we need to use this particular photo and not any of the others that exist, some of which might have less commercial interest attached to them. What about screenshots from television coverage of the event, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Splitting hairs, if there is a decent free image depicting the iconic event as it happened then provide it by all means and we can settle this, but if all you have are other non-free images then it is a moot point. The photo captures a moment and that moment has been discussed in some detail by reliable sources and is discussed to significant extent in the bios of all of these individuals. You cannot recreate that moment and without a free replacement for the image no argument against using a non-free image will actually touch NFCC. Minimal use does not in any way require limiting how many articles an image is used in as each article should have a case-specific rationale for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are mixing up WP:NFCC#2 with WP:NFCC#1. WP:NFCC#2 has nothing to do with whether something is replaceable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- NFCC#2 does not effect usage of this image, even if there is one that is even more compliant with that specific criteria. Any non-free usage meeting NFCC#2 would be fine if it meets all the other criteria. He is not presenting an argument that it does not meet NFCC#2, only that other images might be even more suitable under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#2 is not satisfied because the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §7, as mentioned above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC
- That is only if they are used outside the noted exceptions and NFCI#8 easily covers this image.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFC#UUI §7 is only satisfied in the article Associated Press photo of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, and that article doesn't exist yet. The other articles contain zero critical discussion about the photo, and the photo therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 and WP:NFCC#2 in those articles. See also {{db-f7}} (which the photo currently satisfies). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself and ignoring what I said is not a way to discuss things. That argument only applies outside the noted exceptions. Said exceptions include one saying "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance" and this image would be covered under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- If WP:NFC#UUI §7 isn't satisfied, then WP:NFCC isn't satisfied, even if one or more point under WP:NFCI might be satisfied, as the use isn't valid fair use under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, no, failing that criteria does not mean it would be invalid fair use nor does any image failing the NFCC inherently mean it is invalid fair use. Meeting the NFCI means it is acceptable under the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, no, that is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NFCC. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFCI, then it is usually acceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually unacceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under both sections, then it depends on which is the strongest criterion. WP:NFC#UUI §7 is one of the strongest criteria as it is based on the limits for fair use under United States law. WP:NFC#UUI §1 is almost as strong, although exceptions tend to be made if a person is in prison for the rest of his life. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- NFCI#8 would trump it any time, because educating about important moments in history is more important than some technical quibbling.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, no, that is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NFCC. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFCI, then it is usually acceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually unacceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under both sections, then it depends on which is the strongest criterion. WP:NFC#UUI §7 is one of the strongest criteria as it is based on the limits for fair use under United States law. WP:NFC#UUI §1 is almost as strong, although exceptions tend to be made if a person is in prison for the rest of his life. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, no, failing that criteria does not mean it would be invalid fair use nor does any image failing the NFCC inherently mean it is invalid fair use. Meeting the NFCI means it is acceptable under the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- If WP:NFC#UUI §7 isn't satisfied, then WP:NFCC isn't satisfied, even if one or more point under WP:NFCI might be satisfied, as the use isn't valid fair use under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself and ignoring what I said is not a way to discuss things. That argument only applies outside the noted exceptions. Said exceptions include one saying "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance" and this image would be covered under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFC#UUI §7 is only satisfied in the article Associated Press photo of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, and that article doesn't exist yet. The other articles contain zero critical discussion about the photo, and the photo therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 and WP:NFCC#2 in those articles. See also {{db-f7}} (which the photo currently satisfies). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is only if they are used outside the noted exceptions and NFCI#8 easily covers this image.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#2 is not satisfied because the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §7, as mentioned above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC
- NFCC#2 does not effect usage of this image, even if there is one that is even more compliant with that specific criteria. Any non-free usage meeting NFCC#2 would be fine if it meets all the other criteria. He is not presenting an argument that it does not meet NFCC#2, only that other images might be even more suitable under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are mixing up WP:NFCC#2 with WP:NFCC#1. WP:NFCC#2 has nothing to do with whether something is replaceable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Splitting hairs, if there is a decent free image depicting the iconic event as it happened then provide it by all means and we can settle this, but if all you have are other non-free images then it is a moot point. The photo captures a moment and that moment has been discussed in some detail by reliable sources and is discussed to significant extent in the bios of all of these individuals. You cannot recreate that moment and without a free replacement for the image no argument against using a non-free image will actually touch NFCC. Minimal use does not in any way require limiting how many articles an image is used in as each article should have a case-specific rationale for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Foundation requires use to not use non-free images of living persons save in rare cases, generally when the person's appearance is the subject of critical discussion. This is not such a case. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Are you serious? We are talking about a very blatant case of the person's appearance being the subject of critical discussion. Non-free images of living people are not acceptable merely for visual identification of the individuals, but that is not what we are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, we are not talking about how he looks, which is where visual aid would be helpful. We're talking a documented event that they happened to participate in, and that doesn't need the visual aid on the bio page to understand per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- What they participated in was a visual statement, so, yes we are talking about how he looks. It may not have discussed their fashion sense or whether they dolled up their hair all nice and snazzy, but their appearance of protest is very much the subject of critical discussion and you can not do it justice by merely putting it into words.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- That fails NFCC#8. A statement like "He is noted for his participation in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics", with link, with respect of a bio, is clearly understandable without the use of visual aid - the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed by its removal and thus NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- If an album cover is discussed in an article about an artist do we remove the image of it from the article since there will be a link to an article on the album? We do not, so your argument is the only thing failing here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, yes we do. Album covers are only allowed in articles about that album (NFCI#1), or unless the album art is described in a critical manner about the subject. Artist articles are not allowed to use album art without significant commentary. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Read my comment again, please.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did and its still the case that that we would almost never put an album cover (a work typically done by someone else other than the musical artist) on an article about the musical artist to represent the musical artist's work just because it happens to be the musical artist's most notable/recognized work, though of course we would certainly link to that. But I also believe we're talking apples and oranges. Album covers are typical abstract art and difficult to explain in text. Here is a photo that is fully describable in text (at least, on Carlos' page) and only represents one aspect of the whole 1968 Olympics statement. This might be their claim to fame, the event being important, but there's nothing suggesting the image itself is so iconic and not replaceable by text on the bio page to be needed. (This is similarly why we don't regularly use album art on musical artist pages). --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, you clearly did not read my comment very hard, so I am not even gonna bother talking to you anymore. Good day to you sir.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did and its still the case that that we would almost never put an album cover (a work typically done by someone else other than the musical artist) on an article about the musical artist to represent the musical artist's work just because it happens to be the musical artist's most notable/recognized work, though of course we would certainly link to that. But I also believe we're talking apples and oranges. Album covers are typical abstract art and difficult to explain in text. Here is a photo that is fully describable in text (at least, on Carlos' page) and only represents one aspect of the whole 1968 Olympics statement. This might be their claim to fame, the event being important, but there's nothing suggesting the image itself is so iconic and not replaceable by text on the bio page to be needed. (This is similarly why we don't regularly use album art on musical artist pages). --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Read my comment again, please.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, yes we do. Album covers are only allowed in articles about that album (NFCI#1), or unless the album art is described in a critical manner about the subject. Artist articles are not allowed to use album art without significant commentary. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- If an album cover is discussed in an article about an artist do we remove the image of it from the article since there will be a link to an article on the album? We do not, so your argument is the only thing failing here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- That fails NFCC#8. A statement like "He is noted for his participation in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics", with link, with respect of a bio, is clearly understandable without the use of visual aid - the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed by its removal and thus NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- What they participated in was a visual statement, so, yes we are talking about how he looks. It may not have discussed their fashion sense or whether they dolled up their hair all nice and snazzy, but their appearance of protest is very much the subject of critical discussion and you can not do it justice by merely putting it into words.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, we are not talking about how he looks, which is where visual aid would be helpful. We're talking a documented event that they happened to participate in, and that doesn't need the visual aid on the bio page to understand per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Are you serious? We are talking about a very blatant case of the person's appearance being the subject of critical discussion. Non-free images of living people are not acceptable merely for visual identification of the individuals, but that is not what we are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two things: first, it is an obvious consequence of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use) that a single image should not be used in more articles than necessary. Where we have a central article dealing specifically with this particular aspect of their bios, we don't normally also include the same image in the more general parent articles without good cause. Second, there is one aspect that has not yet been sufficiently discussed here: what exactly is "iconic" here, the historical moment or this particular photograph of it? That's not the same thing. Of course the historical moment is important, but there are multiple different photographs of it, obviously similar but taken by different people from different angles, and I don't see that this particular photograph has any privileged role in being significantly "more iconic" in memorizing the event than the others. In this respect it's not like "Tank Man" or "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" or the like, which are truly unique photographic representations. It's also not being used as to support commentary on the photographer's creative work as such, which is normally the standard exception for commercial agency photos. Given the fact that it's a commercial AP photo, the bar for using it must be particularly high, so we'd need to have a particularly good argument why we need to use this particular photo and not any of the others that exist, some of which might have less commercial interest attached to them. What about screenshots from television coverage of the event, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete or delete policy UUI #7; burden is upon the uploader 5 years ago to anticipate the raising the bar to include kissing the AP's ass. we have higher standards here than any university on the planet. or burden is upon the policy proposer to change the policy to meet the consensus here.
- Trackinfo is correct, there is a systemic bias here: this is a community of privilege. we prefer ideological purity over history or fairness. who cares what the outcome means to information bias about minority communities? we prefer text over image. we prefer blindness over viewing the truth. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we do have a higher bar, to create a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can use and redistribute, as opposed to academic standards that merely look to keep things within fair use. You're free to start a new online encyclopedia that doesn't have this restriction, but we're bound by the Foundation to minimize the amount of non-free we use. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- fair use is allowed; this is not a "free-content encyclopedia"; don't blame the foundation, they have nothing to do with your dilemma: either delete this image, or delete UUI#7. the forks have already begun, there's nothing ordained that this encyclopedia should retain it pre-eminence; it could very easliy become myspace, as all the reasonable editors go elsewhere. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, you see that icon on the top left of the page, the one that says "Wikipeida: The Free Encyclopedia"? The Foundation's mission is free content (free as in absence of copyright limitations, not cost). Yes, there are forks being created, that's one of the things we actually allow for, but WP itself will remain a work aimed at free content. (And remember, the UUI criteria are not irrefutable allowances, they are just generally acceptable cases, as long as all other NFCC are met) --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- LOL - policy by icon: if it's so free, how come the foundation is in a trademark flamewar? face facts, you keep pulling back the football, and redefining the "free" mission, depending on whose content you want to delete. you still have a policy, that you choose not to enforce in this case; therefore, it does not exist. let the uploads of "fair use" AP material continue. stop the hypocricy - do not import policy from commons, that does not have a consensus here. Duckduckgo (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Foundation has set a free content goal across all projects, including en.wiki, which allows for limited use of non-free media. Note that no one has said this image can't be used at all; we are only saying that the only reasonable place (and specifically, perfectly in line with policy) for the use of this image is on the event that it depicts, the demonstration at the Olympics. It is not appropriate nor necessary on the biographies. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- LOL - policy by icon: if it's so free, how come the foundation is in a trademark flamewar? face facts, you keep pulling back the football, and redefining the "free" mission, depending on whose content you want to delete. you still have a policy, that you choose not to enforce in this case; therefore, it does not exist. let the uploads of "fair use" AP material continue. stop the hypocricy - do not import policy from commons, that does not have a consensus here. Duckduckgo (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, you see that icon on the top left of the page, the one that says "Wikipeida: The Free Encyclopedia"? The Foundation's mission is free content (free as in absence of copyright limitations, not cost). Yes, there are forks being created, that's one of the things we actually allow for, but WP itself will remain a work aimed at free content. (And remember, the UUI criteria are not irrefutable allowances, they are just generally acceptable cases, as long as all other NFCC are met) --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- fair use is allowed; this is not a "free-content encyclopedia"; don't blame the foundation, they have nothing to do with your dilemma: either delete this image, or delete UUI#7. the forks have already begun, there's nothing ordained that this encyclopedia should retain it pre-eminence; it could very easliy become myspace, as all the reasonable editors go elsewhere. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we do have a higher bar, to create a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can use and redistribute, as opposed to academic standards that merely look to keep things within fair use. You're free to start a new online encyclopedia that doesn't have this restriction, but we're bound by the Foundation to minimize the amount of non-free we use. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rationales given on image page seem reasonable and so far I have seen no reason for concern. If AP wants to sue Wikipedia let them have a go so it can set a more clear precedent. Ellomate (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. This is an iconic image that clearly qualifies for fair use on articles related to the 1968 Olympics. As for the bios, I don't see anyone actually linking to a living persons issue in the fair use guidelines. The relevant text seems to be Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2. Clearly this image has encyclopedic value beyond what one would get recreating this image. Interpreting this as a "no fair use images in BLPs" policy is a simplistic misunderstanding of the guideline.--Bkwillwm (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- No one questions the use at the 1968 Olympic page, it will stay there. As for the issue of living persons , the Foundation themselves set this, per m:Resolution:Licensing policy. ("An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.") --MASEM (t) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- someone questions its use at the 1968 Olympic page: "The image should not be used." [3]. one questions why you would link to a meta table article which merely lists what each language is doing; perhaps you meant the foundation page [4]. one questions whether you agree that minimize fair use means zero. if not, then prove it by enforcing the policy with those who espouse this. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone in this discussion saying the image can't be used at the page about the demonstration at the Olympics; that's clearly the appropriate page for its use. Yes, I mislinked to the resolution, but you found the right page, but that doesn't matter. For purposes of non-free, "minimal use" can include zero. An article that can be understood with only text and free images doesn't need a non-free image, hence minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the notice on the top of the page. Having read the comments, it looks like your policy is against the needs of the public to learn, which sure doesn't sound like what I thought you were doing. AP isn't doing a thing to protect the copyright on something the surely realize is bigger than them. So its just your what? Paranoia? What major news agency is going to publicly sue wikipedia? Can you imagine the publicity? You people are hurting yourself. You ought to fix that.
- I don't see anyone in this discussion saying the image can't be used at the page about the demonstration at the Olympics; that's clearly the appropriate page for its use. Yes, I mislinked to the resolution, but you found the right page, but that doesn't matter. For purposes of non-free, "minimal use" can include zero. An article that can be understood with only text and free images doesn't need a non-free image, hence minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- someone questions its use at the 1968 Olympic page: "The image should not be used." [3]. one questions why you would link to a meta table article which merely lists what each language is doing; perhaps you meant the foundation page [4]. one questions whether you agree that minimize fair use means zero. if not, then prove it by enforcing the policy with those who espouse this. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- No one questions the use at the 1968 Olympic page, it will stay there. As for the issue of living persons , the Foundation themselves set this, per m:Resolution:Licensing policy. ("An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.") --MASEM (t) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Carlos-Smith.jpg){kind=link}
The photographer of the photo was identified today by another editor as John Dominis. John is recovering at home from emergency bypass surgery, but I have reached out to a representative requesting his comment. Trackinfo (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free images fail WP:NFCC#8 and sometimes also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's three; of those: the Andrex advertizing picture is absolutely not needed (in fact, even on the Andrex page, it is an improperly used nonfree image since there's no discussion about the animal outside of ID'ing it), and I would argue the same for the Family Guy one, since there's an article on the character (and definitely notable after last week's episode). The Life cover, I'd consider to some extent to be reasonable, but looking around, there seems to be enough notability for a separate article on that dog, and that is where that cover would be more appropriate to use. So yes, all current NFC fail (per NFLISTS), but there's places two of them can be used instead. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. —Chris!c/t 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tagged for CSD:F7 (it's a Gettys image so unless the photo itself is the subject of discussion (it's not) it's completely invalid) --MASEM (t) 22:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- ^ A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale.