Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Fair use images in "list of characters in..." or "Characters of..." articles

Preface: I'll try to keep this short, but if you're not prepared to read the material below in full, you're not prepared to comment. This is a complex subject. I wish there was a way to greatly simplify this, but no one has yet come up with a means to do so. Please, the best service you can provide to this discussion is to carefully read and understand the various aspects written below before commenting, not just bring your pre-suppositions to this discussion, as it will hopelessly fracture the discussion. Thank you.

---

Short history: The Foundation's passage of the resolution in March of 2007 regarding the use of copyrighted works spawned a large effort to reduce the amount and usage of fair use imagery on this project. This ran into massive resistance, some of which was covered in May. That particular debate centered on the use of fair use screenshots for depicting each episode. This later expanded to cover the use of fair use images in discographies and the use of fair use imagery to depict characters without critical commentary on the image. In a related dispute, fair use images used to depict living persons have subsequently been deprecated as well. Despite the resistance, the push continued due to the resolution of the Foundation.

---

Commentary: The disputes over the application of this policy never end. I would like there to be a touchstone to refer to when debates happen. There is considerable grey area on this subject due mostly to massive disagreement between fair use inclusionists and exclusionists. The grey area needs to be eliminated to stop these never ending debates. A sampling of the debates that have occurred just here on this discussion page, much less a large array of other pages: May 2007,June,August,September, plus the debate above. It never ends, but for the sanity of everyone involved needs to be concluded once and for all.

---

Policy:
Working your way through the policy to understand this issue is complex. A full understanding of it relies on a complete understanding not just of the wording of the policy, but also of the history of it and how it evolved, along with a substantial understanding of the various debates that have occurred and the resulting applications of policy that remained in effect. This is so complex it prevents all but a handful of editors from truly understanding the issue. This is not to say they are some 'elite' that must be followed, but editors that do understand regularly come under fire from those that do not. The endless explanations never substantially fix the extant problem as very few people are willing (whether form lack of time, intellect or desire) to become one of the few that truly understand it. I don't blame the people who don't understand it. Wikipedia does a terrible, terrible job of simplifying this matter into bit sized bits that can be understood by the common editor.

Here, in long form, is what the policy is that dictates the use of fair use images on this type of article. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, but it's nigh on impossible to do so.

• WP:NFCC #3(a) states that images must be used minimally, and if one image can replace multiple images then one image should be used. This descends from the Foundation's resolution point #3 where they state that fair use must be minimal. Having 12 individual character images rather than a single image depicting most of those characters is not acceptable under #3(a).
• Point #5 in the policy notes that the image must be encyclopedic. This is so vague that whenever this is referred to it has the flight characteristics of a plumbum anatidae, and the resulting dispute the cacaphony of a flock. But, in essence, the purpose of an encyclopedia is education. It isn't necessary to illustrate independent sub topics within a topic in order to convey educational meaning. You do not need to show an image of every species of duck in order to have an encyclopedic article on ducks. If you're making a birding guide, then yes; an image of every species would be appropriate for identification purposes. But, Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Since we're not, having an image of every character is counter to our purpose here.
• Point #8 speaks to significance of the image. This was deliberately made more abstract within the last few months to more appropriately place examples in the guideline. The lack of examples specifically in the policy has been fodder for arguments on applicability of the policy. Nevertheless, the guidelines do apply. Most examples of the application of this portion of the policy are covered at WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images. That list is not exhaustive. It is important here to note WP:NFC#Rationale "limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances" should not be interpreted as saying where such circumstances are not specifically stated we have a free hand to use as much fair use as we like. The default case on Wikipedia is that fair use is not allowed. Special circumstances are exceptions to that, not to be treated as free for all territories when such circumstances have not been specifically cited. This is one of myriad ways in which dispute occurs on this subject. Interpretation of this policy is often highly subjective, but considerably less so when it is understood what our default case is here. The Foundation's resolution clearly shows the default case; "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License"
• Point #10(c) discusses the need of rationales for each use of an image. This has been massively debated as a result of the efforts of BetacommandBot to tag images which do not meet this requirement. At first pass, this point might not seem to apply to this debate, but it does. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline notes that a rationale must provide the purpose of the use, but this guideline does not state what purposes are acceptable. This is an important hurdle for images to clear; it's not enough to have a purpose being here. There must be an acceptable purpose. Acceptable purposes are listed at WP:NFC#Acceptable_images. In this particular case, the appropriate section is "Film and television screen shots", which states the requirement for critical commentary. Illustration of the subject alone is not enough; there must be critical commentary of the particular image and how it is significant to the subject at hand. How does this image relate to the article text? Is the image discussed itself and if so is it possible that text could replace the image without significantly hampering the user's understanding? It isn't enough to merely show what a particular character looks like and discuss that character's appearance, but it could be enough to discuss that character's appearance in a particularly important scene relative to, say, the character's development over time.

In summary, since we're not a guidebook, pure illustrative purposes do not constitute an encyclopedic intent, are not supported by requirements of minimal fair use, and fail supporting rationale requirements.

---

Common defenses:

• Some users have attempted to create montages of their own, using fair use images to do so.
  Rebuttal: This has been handled as unacceptable, because the quantity of copyrighted work being used remains the same.
• Some users have attempted to say that lists of characters where there is substantial (subjective) discussion on the character is not a list, but an article on the characters, thus the policy doesn't apply.
  Rebuttal: The policy still applies, due to the requirement of minimal fair use whether it's a list or not.
• Disputes frequently occur that there is no consensus on the talk page of the disputed article to remove the images, so the policy doesn't apply until there is consensus on that article to remove the images.
  Rebuttal: Policies exist by consensus; you do not need consensus to apply a policy. To do so would hopelessly hinder the ability of the project to manage itself, as each application of policy would have to be debated.
• A given situation is not specifically mentioned either in policy or the Foundation's resolution, so no case can be made that it applies to X article type or X situation.
  Rebuttal: Specific examples in the policy have intentionally been removed, and pushed into the guidelines where they are more appropriate to help users understand application of the policy. See, for example, WP:NFCC #8 before this was done [1] versus the current #8 example. Regardless of the presence or not of specific examples, abstract policies can and do apply.
• Fair use images should be included, at least, for major characters. That would be minimal use.
  Rebuttal: Who decides who the major characters are? It's entirely subjective, and provides only a vague metric.
• Fair use images up to <x> number of images should be allowed.
  Rebuttal <x> number is arbitrary, and could easily result in overuse, such as 10 images for 11 characters, or oppositely, 10 images for 130 characters. Even if you did it like one image per ten characters, it is still arbitrary and ignores fair use law.
• The images are allowable under fair use law.
  Rebuttal: Maybe, but Wikimedia policy is deliberately more restrictive than fair use law. Also, we're not lawyers. Having random editors decide fair use law acceptability questions is problematic.
• The subject of the image is being discussed, so that's critical commentary.
  Rebuttal: If the image itself is not discussed it's not critical commentary. It's just illustration. See also [2].

---

Touchstone: From multiple discussions, policy, resolution and etc. as supported above this is the current position held by those few who understand all of this (as called before 'fair use exclusionists) and routinely denied by those who do not understand (as called before 'fair use inclusionists'):

• In any "List of characters..." or "Characters of..." type article or subsection of a larger subject article, the use of non-free media per character is not accepted when the media is used for illustrative purposes only. An example of inappropriate use: [3].
• It is appropriate to have a non-free image of a character in an article specifically about that character rather than on a list of characters. An example of an acceptable use: [4]
• It is not enough to illustrate and discuss the appearance of the subject. For critical commentary to be cleared, the image's plot/historical/setting importance must be discussed in the article. In such cases, the use of a limited number of montage images showing multiple characters might be acceptable. It is frequently the case that this is limited to one image of this type per article. An example: [5].
• Montages can not be created from multiple images being merged into one by an editor as this does not effect the quantity of copyrighted work being used. The montage must come from the copyright holder themselves, such as Image:FFIX characters.jpg in Characters of Final Fantasy IX.

---

In conclusion: I am not asking for consensus to form to support this touchstone. That does not mean I am a bull in a china shop and all of you can go to hell if you disagree :) I have gone to great lengths to show how the policy applies, citing examples, rebutting the defenses, and supporting the Foundation's resolution. If you want to contest this touchstone, in the very least come up with a rational rebuttal based on policy and guideline (as I have) and at least find some admins who support your position. Also, this is not a poll, but a statement of the status quo in so far as a large group of administrators have agreed, in general, that this is the case both in writing and in action. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the above content below this point

• Sorry, but what is the question? This just seems like your views on the policy, what can I say ? Of course you can't have montages of fair-use images, it is illegal to modify copyrighted work and republish it in a modified form. Is this your question ? As far as simply sticking them next to each other, in an image editing software, this may not be illegal but it's pretty obvious it's against policy.

However if someone can find an image showing all the characters together, then that would be the ideal image for illustrating a list. You must understand that the limitation of fair-use images in lists is for one not policy, but the result of a discussion from a while back, and also it is there to stop people introducing 20 images in one article. The basis of thought is that if each character is not notable enough to have an individual article then fair-use images of each one are not indispensable to the understanding of the article. However the list in itself is notable (or if it's not then delete it), so it would only be logical to have one picture showing a large number of characters if such an image already exists.

But I don't understand what your question is and unfortunately of the few people who read all the way through your post, many may not understand either, so apologies if this is not the answer you were expecting. Also in my opinion it seems unlikely this is your main account, if this is the case please understand that I find it rather rude of you to not use your main identity when asking something. Jackaranga (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking a question. I'm attempting to create a touchstone point, something to refer to, to prevent the unending arguments that occur on this point. We seem to largely, though not entirely, agree on the essence of what I have posted above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jackaranga asked if you're a sockpuppet. Your account has been here for a year so I'm not sure where that suspicion comes from, but if this is your main account would you mind confirming that?

The above is a reasonable stab at a summary but not everything there is consensus and a few are minority viewpoints. Specifically, one need not always discuss the image itself; in many cases the commentary may be about the subject of the image. This varies by type of copyrighted work. If the image is a logo, one need only discuss the company. If the image is a character, one must discuss the character, not the particular image. In the case of birds, it is our encyclopedic period to describe every significant species of bird, but we would use non-free images. Wikipedia is in very many ways a guidebook, but that whole point is a matter of style and editorial policies, and notability, not non-free images. If it's notable enough for an article, it's notable enough for a picture. Decorativeness is not a useful concept, and is entirely subsumed anyeay in criterion #8, significance. The term is based on an out-of-context concept from some copyright cases. It's too often misunderstood. Galleries are not decorative at all. Their problem is significance and amount of non-free content. "Illustrative" use is perfectly fine - that's not really a concept here either. Where it comes into play is that one does not include a non-free photo of a living celebrity simply to show what it looks like. On the other hand, one does include a non-free artistic work precisely to show what it looks like. The 10(c) requirement is entirely procedural; it does not impose any higher standard for inclusion.

Agreed that montages don't help. Actually, they're worse because they're derivative works. If 2-3 related subjects are discussed in an article it's fair to have 2-3 non-free images if they meet all the other criteria - it's not a list. That begs the question why it's not in 2-3 separate articles though. If it's more like 8 or 10 or 20 in one article, it becomes a list, particularly if it's in a gallery type form. Consensus is a subtle issue. We've decided by longstanding consensus that non-free images cannot be used in galleries, for example, and put that in the guideline - so no further consensus need be shown to remove an individual image. On the other hand, someone arguing for their own particular interpretation or application of the policy or guideline does need to show consensus. Simply saying that your actions have a basis in policy does not eliminate the need to act by consensus. Someone else might read and follow the same policy and think it does not apply.

I agree with the other 85% of the analysis. Despite the "say no to fair use" banner on your talk page, which is a little provocative, your points are pretty mainstream and I don't see that any of your recent image removals are problematic.

Back to the character lists. We've decided to simply ban images in lists and galleries, based on concerns over significance and over-use of non-free images. That prohibition is expressed as an example. End of story there. If a character is notable enough to have its own article, that article can be illustrated with a representation of the character. But several characters listed in a single article don't merit one image per character. That's a judgment call and there's no rock solid logical reason, just a policy decision to draw the line somewhere. I think it's useful to summarize as you do to explain to people unfamiliar with the subject why we made that decision. But the decision is made. No need to go back and justify it each time. Just ask people to touch the touchstone.

-- Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand

I do not understand WP:NFCC#10c, can somebody explain it to me, and its there an article that I can use as an example.Angel,Isaac (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. The image Image:04c.jpg is non-free, but it contains a fair-use rationale for the only article it's in. If it were used in two different articles, it would need two rationales. To add a rationale, use Template:Non-free use rationale. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "critical commentary"?

This really confuses me. What does it mean for us to use an image "in the context of critical commentary"? If an article engaged in critical commentary the way I understand it, it would violate WP:OR. I have to assume that this is not what the guideline means by "critical commentary", so I would very much appreciate if somebody could explain how the guideline uses this term. Croctotheface (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I've seen it expressed, it is meant to be the article discussing the image. If you just have the article discussing the subject, but not the image, it is critical commentary but not on the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to define "critical commentary" as discussion. So why do we use the phrase "critical commentary" rather than "discussion"? Croctotheface (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• To note an example I gave above, this image is used within the context of critical commentary on Jane Fonda specifically regarding her activities in Vietnam, and the article discusses the image in particular. If instead that image were used in replacement of this image, which is used to illustrate Jane Fonda, it would not be acceptable as the image would be used for illustration purposes only, even though the critical commentary is on Jane Fonda. The commentary needs to be tied to the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Critical commentary" vs. "discussion"; this is because "critical commentary" is a term used within legal circles surrounding fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so for our purposes, there is no factual distinction between "critical commentary" and "discussion", and we only use that language because of intellectual property law? Croctotheface (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think so. I'm just going with what's normally been the case with stuff I've seen. I'm not a legal expert. Basically, if there's no discussion of the image itself, there's no critical commentary of the image. There might be critical commentary of the subject of the image, but not the image itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critical commentary" is a misnomer. To the extent it is used in legal circles (even judicial opinions) it's usually sloppy wording. It is a conjunction of two separate categories of allowable fair use, criticism or commentary, from the US copyright laws. As far as I can tell it is not meant to imply a special kind of, or limitation on, the type of commentary that qualifies. We don't do criticism here on Wikipedia in either main sense of the word - we don't critique things and we don't complain about them. So to avoid confusion I often advocate for dropping the "critical" part and simply saying "commentary." Discussion is a slightly weaker concept because that implies a mere mention of a thing. For it to be commentary it has to be about the thing. To illustrate, "Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century is many people's favorite Warner Brothers Cartoon" is a discussion of DDITTFOHC but it is not in a strong sense commentary about DDITTFOHC. I don't think a picture would be necessary to illustrate that comment. However, "In DDITTFOHC, Chuck Jones created a spoof of the popular Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and Flash Gordon science fiction serials of the 1930s, casting the brash, egomaniacal Daffy Duck as the hero of the story" is commentary on DDITTFOHC." It is not, however, commentary on any specific image. I think commentary on the style, appearance, or context of the character is probably enough to qualify for non-free image use, not just commentary on the specific frame or scene. It's debatable whether commentary on things other than the visual appearance of the character or the scene would warrant a picture of the character in anything but the character article. Just my opinion, of course. Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "critical commentary" language is not at all helpful. However, I think that we also need to acknowledge that the plain language use of "commentary", not just "criticism", also denotes content that would fail WP:OR. The assertion that Duck Dodgers is a reference to Buck Rogers must be factual and sourced, not merely the commentary of one or several editors. Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be concerned about allowing a fair use image just by way of commenting on the visual appearance. If we allowed that, then situations like this can easily evolve. People will 'get around' the fair use restrictions here by adding bare minimums of commentary on the visual appearance, and we're right back to square one; hundreds of thousands of fair use images all over the place. I think it's a good compromise to allow a fair use image where a character appears in a particularly significant scene that's relevant to the commentary in the article. But, to just have an image of the character in no particular scene with just some comment on what the character looks like...well, we might as well give up and let Wikipedia be free as in gratis, rather than free as in libre. But, to do that, we'd have to announce to the Foundation that we're going to ignore the m:mission from now on. I don't think they'd be happy about that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this before your latest reply and didn't get it in because of edit conflicts. Some of it is now redundant with what you've already said, but I'll post it anyway. Hammersoft, I appreciate your desire to work through this with me. Considering that, if I understand your position, you want to eliminate fair use images wherever possible, If I were you, I would run a much stronger argument here. I'd say that in almost every instance where we claim there is "critical commentary" about an image, what we are doing is markedly different from critical commentary. Therefore, we should remove most such non-free images because the rationale for using them is not strong enough. However, if we accept that "discussion" is sufficient to constitute "critical commentary", then I think that many of the images on character pages need not go away. Since it seems that your "needs to comment on the image" standard is not accepted consensus here, then so long as the article contains a discussion of the character, we satisfy that standard and can use an image of the character being discussed. Croctotheface (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll repeat again that this is not a consensus issue. It's already policy. What I'm doing is attempting to clarify it for this particular case. And discussion about the object of the image isn't enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, my reading of the comments of at least two other users on this page is that, yes, "commentary" on the subject of the image IS enough. Wikidemo: "Specifically, one need not always discuss the image itself; in many cases the commentary may be about the subject of the image." Yamla: "I do not like this proposal. What is the legal basis for having to discuss the specific image itself?" Croctotheface (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• We're carving out two different cases here; if an article appears about the character an image is ok. Thus, in that case commentary of the subject is enough. But in the case of a page with many characters, it's fair use overuse and decorative use. That's why the compromise. Different rule for different circumstances. If we don't have this compromise, then we must allow album covers back onto discographies, episode screenshots back onto episode lists, and more. Alternatively, the only other solution is to remove fair use entirely, even in character, album, and episode specific articles. I'm clarifying the middle ground. I'm seeing no compromise from anyone else. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, with respect, that's a different argument. I thought we were discussing the "image itself" standard that you advocate. Are you saying that we define "critical commentary" in two different ways in different cases? That doesn't seem helpful. How could the same exact content be critical commentary in the case of a page about one subject but cease to be commentary if it's on a page about several? Croctotheface (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said in the above section. Why is the subject of the article the centerpiece of the rationale? --Melty girl (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't have just commentary, because that is absurdly broad. Virtually anything could be claimed as "commentary". Critical commentary is, for good or ill, what is written in the legal precedents that have been cited over time, and if we want to broaden the scope from that we'd have to involve Mike Godwin. In the end, I'm afraid, there is no answer that will satisfy everybody. Fans of various popular culture genres are never going to be happy unless every paragraph has a picture, especially when discussing subjects they really wish the community would allow whole articles on rather than lists, while the free-content advocates, who are a not-insignificant group, would be happier if we had no unfree content at all, and a fair number of poeple would be more than happy to see the fancruft excised altogether. So accepting "critical commentary" more or less at face value, allowing images in moderation but not for decoration, would seem to be the happy medium. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critical commentary", again, is a TERRIBLE standard for use here. By definition, any content that is "critical commentary" fails WP:OR. If we can only use certain images if what the encyclopedia is doing is "critical commentary", then I don't think we can use those images at all. Croctotheface (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. We can recap what published critics have said about the shows, films, actors and characters. --Melty girl (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But then what WE are doing is not "critical commentary", it's reporting on critical commentaries made by others. Croctotheface (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure we are. As an encyclopedia, we're presenting a compendium of critical commentary. The term "critical commentary" doesn't specify who writes it, just that it's present. What's your basis for saying that we would have to be the original authors of said commentary? We paraphrase and quote. Our whole project is compiling the summarizing the commentary of others! --Melty girl (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Two replies. First, the purpose of fair use is to help people who seek to be creative. If I have something creative I want to do, but it requires some kind of use of copyrighted material, fair use is designed to allow me to express myself that way. Here, we are not seeking to create novel commentary; our goal is to create an encyclopedia. The fact that we can say, "Such and such commentator says X" does not mean that we are engaging in critical commentary. It just means that we're reporting relevant facts, and some of them involve a commentary made by another person. "Critical commentary" fair use is designed to protect people who critically comment on things. We don't critically comment on things; it goes against our mission. Second, I don't think many "critical commentary" fair use images are particularly tied to critical commentary on this encyclopedia. Just as a practical matter, I can't imagine that quoting what some video game critic says about Half-Life 2 automatically means that we can use whatever image of the game we want so long as we quote someone who at some point made some kind of comment having to do with some aspect of the game. Croctotheface (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary (as a legal term of art) doesn't mean criticism, it means serious discussion. This encyclopedia is about articles that seriously discuss their topics. If the use of a fair-use image is to significantly add to the quality of that serious discussion, without prejudicing its original usage, then this is a legitimate transformative use. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so when we say, "critical commentary", we are defining that as "serious discussion". That's a helpful definition, even though it is a bit confusing from a plain language perspective. Croctotheface (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) One significant purpose of fair use is commentary. Another is news reportage. A third is education. That is exactly what we are doing as an encyclopedia. Mostly commentary. Criticism is a fourth purpose of fair use, parody a fifth, comparative advertising a sixth. We shouldn't redefine legal words to mean something unique here. "Critical" is not a helpful modifier for "commentary" and "critical commentary" is, in common legal usage, the exact same as "criticism or commentary." If we want to have a higher standard here we ought to say specifically what we mean. We have agreed by a solid consensus that images used on lists, galleries, tables, and discographies is not allowed. That applies to characters just as it applies to paintings, book covers, album covers, and logos. Explaining why we agreed that is an academic exercise but the core, common argument that everyone agreed to is that the images did not add much on an individual basis to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of an article, yet at the same time they greatly expanded the amount of non-free images used. We seem to be veering into another subject. There are a few cases, not many, where an image of a character could reasonably be used in a discussion about something other than the image itself. For example, if the character appears on a DVD cover, book cover, or film poster, that cover may be legitimately used in an article about the DVD, book, or film. In an article about a master illustrator who drew the character one could use the character as an illustration of his work (thought that would generally involve specific commentary on the work itself). Whatever standard we require, be it commentary, "critical" commentary, commentary about the image, etc., people can always game the system by adding unnecessary text to the article. That's when the stylistic / editorial discretion comes in. If the text is worth including in the article then it justifies the image. If the text isn't useful, both the text and the image should go. There isn't any widespread gaming of the system on this point as far as I know. You'll find that if you come from the outside and start messing with articles you will get resistance, but if a person genuinely interested in an article deletes unnecessary text and images that go with it, there's usually no controversy at all.Wikidemo (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From your reply, I don't know what "commentary" is. How is it that what we do is commentary if WP:OR forbids adding commentary? Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked a little and I cannot see any cases that define commentary, criticism, or "critical commentary." There are probably some out there but for the most part they just accept the common English usage. WP:NOR seems to be using the word "commentary" in a different sense to mean opinion or editorial expression. Rather than trying to divine what our existing language means, or redefine words to suit our purpose, if it's unclear to people I think it's better to spell it out. Otherwise, we might all agree on something here, today, but someone will come by a month from now and have the same question (and maybe a different answer). For example, we can require that commentary be about a given subject, or made in a certain way, or substantive, etc.Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that "commentary", in its plain English definition, is more in line with what WP:OR prohibits than what you assert we're doing all the time. Could you just help me here by providing this plain English definition rather than just saying that we use it? Because I still don't get it. Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is over here. No, really. One of the beauties of language is that words are vessels of meaning, with somewhat malleable content. A rule that specifies things too precisely would be too rigid to work across the wide variety of applications we have (articles about paintings, cartoons, politicians, scientific concepts, cities, religions, historical events, etc.). By hitching a ride in a common English word the rule adapts to the context it finds itself in. I like the first dictionary.com definition, "a series of comments, explanations, or annotations: a commentary on the Bible; news followed by a commentary." Perhaps the objection refers to the second definition, which is more OR-ish, "an explanatory essay or treatise: a commentary on a play; Blackstone's commentaries on law." Either sort of commentary would fit the bill for being transformative under that prong of the fair use test, but we only do the first on Wikipedia (annotating an image with comments). Essays and treatises would be somewhere between opinion and original research, however objective we try to be....Anyway, given that we're starting from fair use (we can't go below that standard), it makes some sense to start with the legal language and then be as explicit as we can about how we're raising the bar. Starting with a completely new terminology, or redefining legal words to suit our purpose, are both asking for confusion. Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Wikidemo here. The discussion on what constitutes critical commentary is a tangential meta discussion. It's quite interesting. I think it's perhaps worthy of its own consideration with respect to how it globally applies to all of fair use policy here. But, I think perhaps it's a separate issue, in so far as this proposed amendment is concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because this discussion is about a different part of the guideline and has little or nothing to do with the changes you've been discussing elsewhere on this page. My purpose in this discussion is not to explore this topic in a theoretical perspective; it's to make the guideline say something meaningful. As it stands, the guideline tells me that certain types of images are only fair use if they are "for critical commentary", but I have no idea what it means for an image to be used for critical commentary. I've gotten several different answers here about how we're defining this term. I've heard that "critical commentary" is basically just a synonym for "discussion". I've heard that it's a shorthand way of saying "serious discussion". I've heard that the addition of "critical" is unnecessary and also that Wikipedia is "mostly commentary". I've heard that I should use the "common English usage". Of everything I've heard, I'm not really sure what part of it (if anything) is correct, but I'm positive that we have no idea how we're supposed to interpret this guideline when it talks about "critical commentary". We need to figure this out if this guideline is to mean anything. Croctotheface (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think all of those comments are pretty much true and amount to the same underlying principle. Most people who think about the issue long enough on Wikipedia come to more or less the same conclusion (subject to turning the dial up or down sometimes on just how much we want to avoid non-free images) it's just that we're using the words differently. People who think the word "commentary" is loose think we need to add "critical" to say we mean it has to be serious. Others like me think that's inherent in the word "commentary" so "critical" is superfluous. Others think that "commentary" implies an essay-like original thought, so that it's a bad word. But I think all of us could look at an article and in most cases come to the same conclusion on whether the article is saying something about the picture and vice-versa. The issue that prompted all of this, pictures accompanying lists of fictional characters, happens to be one of those cases that isn't so clearcut. Though probably legal, we think it's unnecessary to include these images because the payoff in terms of a better encyclopedia isn't worth the burden in terms of having so many more non-free images that bring copyright concerns for us and anyone who would use the articles downstream. Hence, to avoid long discussions like this one every time the issue comes up we have a firm rule embodied in the guideline example: no images in galleries, lists, discographies, etc. That example would seem to cover the case of character lists but some people don't make the connection, so there's a new proposal to make an explicit example for characters. (as always, just my opinion) Wikidemo (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to resolve this, but you're just not answering the question. There is still no definition of commentary here, except that you now seem to be defining it as "what's acceptable fair use", which is just circular logic. For me at least, this isn't about "characters in" articles anymore, it's about making sense of this guideline. What is "critical commentary"? The whole "acceptable images" section of this guideline depends on us knowing and understanding this phrase that it uses six or seven times. How do we define "critical commentary"? Croctotheface (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I pointed to a series of dictionary definitions of "commentary" and said which one is the most appropriate. I don't think critical commentary means anything specifically but commentary sure does. Wikidemo (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition you said you liked, "a series of comments, explanations, or annotations", strikes me as something that applies to every article here that has some kind of prose content. It would seem appropriate, then, to say something along those lines rather than have the guideline make these references to "critical commentary" without defining it. If every article, basically, qualifies as a commentary, then we should probably just say that because commentary is an acceptable guideline for fair use, and every article (or just about every one) here engages in commentary, then the guideline should assert that we are legally clear to use fair use images on just about every article. Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the legal fair use doctrine, and Wikipedia non-free use, require far more than that there be prose on a page where an image is used. Under the law, it is one of four balancing factors is the degree to which the image use is transformative. Transformative uses include criticism, commentary, scholarship, etc. It is a matter of degree, not a threshold. For this to weigh at all the image has to be used for purpose of commentary, not simply on a page where commentary is present. Plus, this is just one of four factors to balance. On Wikipedia we incorporate those three factors as well, a total of ten criteria for non-free image use. For one we impose the criterion of significance (NFCC#8), that an image must add significantly to the reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the article. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of commentary ("a series of comments, explanations, or annotations") would include basically every encyclopedia article here, including stubs. What does it mean for an image to be used "for purpose of commentary"? I'm asking this because it's the guideline that needs help, not me. Right now, I don't think editors who are curious about whether a fair use image is OK will be able to look here for guidance. I don't see how someone reading an entry like "Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary" will have any idea whether it's OK for them to add an image of a poster or not. Perhaps we should just delete all references to "critical commentary" from the "acceptable images" section. As you point out, we have ten criteria that are meant to form the test of whether it is appropriate to add a fair use image. The references to "critical commentary" are both redundant and confusing in light of that. Croctotheface (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most articles here contain commentary. But, again, that is not the test. The copyright code uses the word "purpose" as follows: the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. It's awfully metaphysical to question what it means for an image to be used for a purpose, but I would say it means the image has to be reasonably calculated to achieve the result, in this case commentary. That is basically the same our significance test. It can't be there just because it looks good, or it's interesting or informative to look at, or it supports a thesis. I agree that we should remove "critical commentary", but that should be replaced with "commentary." However, some people are attached to the word "critical" because they think it implies a higher standard of seriousness. In any event, the use of "commentary" in nearly all of the positive examples does support the notion that the image has to support the statements made in the text. If you take that out we have few or positive examples, which I don't think is the intent. Perhaps the guideline should include a note on what we mean by commentary, and indicate that this goes back to the question of significance. I don't think this has to be too hard for an editor, although fair use / non-free use is an inherently complex subject.Wikidemo (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(removing indents) I think we're starting to get someplace here. I'm not saying that the ten points in the "policy" section are worded perfectly or that I agree with every decision made in applying them, but I think that someone who reads it should get a pretty good idea of how and why we want to use fair use images. The "acceptable images" section, on the other hand, has these references to "critical commentary" that, as I've tried to demonstrate here, serve no positive function. I'm asking for the guideline to do one of two things: either remove that term from the section or define it in the section. Croctotheface (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And, OK, I think we have a definition here: an image must "support the statements made in the text" for it to qualify as a "commentary" use. I guess the remaining ambiguity there would concern what does or does not qualify as support for our purposes. If there is a statement that Person A is human, would a picture of him serve the purpose of commentary because it illustrates that he is indeed a human being? Would the same go for any adjective? I guess my issue here is that when I think of something being used for "commentary" the way the law refers to it, I really do think of some sort of original analysis, not just an organized collection of facts, which is what we endeavor to do here. If we accept that any factual explanation is "commentary", then an image that illustrates a single fact would be used for the purpose of commentary. I'm also confused about why you say that "informative to look at" does not serve to support commentary, if it's defined as a series of explanations. If the goal is to explain (and thereby provide information), then something that is informative certainly furthers that goal. Croctotheface (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(reasoning through things here, not trying to make pronouncements of what the guideline should say)....My comment about something being informative to look at, and your example of illustrating (or perhaps proving) with a picture that Person A is human, get to a similar point. It has to do with the connection of the commentary to the text. To me, a requirement that an image be used for purposes of commentary means that it has to actually support and expand on what is said in the text. Merely proving with a picture that the text is true is not adding any commentary value. We use citations to establish verifiability, not pictures (and a claim that someone is human generally needs no source). Using a picture to show things that are not covered in the text is also not supporting commentary. It is appropriating the picture as content which, as informative as that may be, is neither a fair use of copyright nor is it a good stylistic approach for a text-based encyclopedia. If you think of commentary as some kind of chain between the sources, and the understanding we give the reader, the picture ought to be a necessary link in that chain, for which words alone do not suffice. The crux is that in addition to the use being significant in its explanatory value (and all the other criterial like replaceability), the nature of the use has to be that it is a necessary part of the explanation of the subject.Wikidemo (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you mean by being used for the purpose of commentary, then I don't see how we can use the definition of commentary that you have suggested for us. Could you give me an example of an image that necessarily adds to the text's commentary, as opposed to merely reinforcing it? Croctotheface (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, coach. You are certainly putting me through the mental paces today. Take a look at some of these photos. One cannot understand the event in question without the accompanying photograph. So, for example, with the image used in Phan Thị Kim Phúc. The words establish the context but one simply cannot gain an encyclopedic understanding of the subject in question, or our modern world, without seeing that image. To say only that she "was the subject of a famous photo from the Vietnam war...at about age nine running naked on the street after being severely burned on her back by a napalm attack" sets the context, but without the photo one does not understand. The photo is used in the service of the commentary on why she has become one of the world's iconic people. Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing this to be difficult, but I think that you're rejecting a more sensible definition of commentary and you're rejecting a more workable understanding of what it means to add to the definition of "commentary" that you prefer. In the first instance, I think that the best understanding of "commentary" in the fair use law sense is not "exposition of facts about a topic" but rather "somebody's personal analysis about a topic". In the second case, if you want to accept the first definition of commentary, then I don't see how it's a workable standard to say that the image "must be a link in the commentary chain". It's easy to see if the image supports and enhances what the text says, so if that were the test, it would be workable. The standard you advocate seems very subjective to me. I suppose that cases where the text actually refers to "a famous photo" are straightforward and objective: you can't understand what it means to be the subject of a famous photo without seeing the famous photo. OK, I'm clear on that. However, any case that goes beyond that, I feel like drawing the line between "a necessary link in the commentary chain" and "merely enhancing or reinforcing what's in the text" is entirely subjective. For instance, the guideline tells us that software screenshots should only be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see why any of the screenshots at Half Life 2, which has FA status, are necessary links in the commentary chain, without which I can't fully understand what the article is saying. The same goes for the Pulitzer photos you linked to--I can't understand the Kosovo refugee situation without seeing a baby being passed through a barbed wire fence? I somehow doubt that my understanding will necessarily be incomplete if I haven't seen that photo. Would it illustrate and enhance my understanding? Yes, but you've asserted that that's not the test. Croctotheface (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a tough one. First, if the "commentary" prong of fair use is taken to imply editorial essaying, I think we have a broad problem on Wikipedia because we are not doing that kind of commentary, nor are we doing criticism, nor are we parodying or anything else that fits one of the transformative uses of copyrighted images. There is an educational purpose but we have avoided claiming that because we are more for reference than education. So the broadest category of ad-hoc non-free use cases (ad-hoc meaning case by case, not the routine identification ones like logos to identify companies or album covers on album articles, but the ones to explain the point) would simply not fit in any fair use category. We are not editorializing about the world here on Wikipedia; we are merely repeating what others have said about it. I agree, BTW, that the baby image is not necessary to understand Kosovo. Nor is the nepalm girl image needed to understand Vietnam. They are necessary only to understand the specific incident in question, and the public reaction to the incident and image that came to symbolize it. If one could reuse current events images too broadly there would be no copyright for photojournalists. Their application is much more limited. What do you think the outcome is? By removing "critical commentary" do you mean to suggest that the sort of use we engage in here is not sufficient? Wikidemo (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the WP lawyers be weighing in on this, instead of the rest of us conjecturing? Perhaps a few of us are copyright lawyers, but if not, I am wary of radical reworkings of WP legal policies such as removing "critical commentary" that would impact thousands of articles. --Melty girl (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, Mike Godwin is a new Facebook friend, but so far he has abstained from jumping in here. I'm a copyright lawyer as well. I think this has evolved into a useful, if not immediately applicable, high-level discussion. I would not recommend changing things lightly, nor would I want to gut the policy page without a long discussion. But Croctotheface has raised a rather interesting point certainly worth some serious attention. Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious concern that we might be in trouble as far as the "commentary" justification goes. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be wrong, but if someone asked me to describe the work I did on Wikipedia or the kind of content we have here, I would not use the word "commentary". It could be that the legal definition is different, and Melty is certainly correct that the project should call on somebody who is capable of giving legal advice and who would be in the position of defending us should someone sue for infringement. I guess my main issue, for now, is more with the second point I raised. For now, let's assume that your definition of "commentary" is spot on. I think that we need to do more than just assert that an image must be "necessary to understand" for it to qualify as being used for a commentary purpose. I think that it's kind of hard to say that an image is necessary to understand even the specific event it depicts. That brings us back to the "image as image" issue, which you had earlier said did not need to be the standard, but now it seems that you're coming more to that point. I think that my Half-Life 2 point is a good one--this guideline says that the screenshots there must be used "for critical commentary", but I don't see what the commentary purpose is there, at least based on how I've come to understand the guideline after discussing it with you. Croctotheface (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another view

A friend of mine on Wikipedia mentioned this debate to me, and as a reader of Wikipedia rather than an editor, let me just say that I don't see a problem with non-free content (images, etc.) in lists and articles, or at least the examples given so far. Think of it this way: what would comparable articles on pre-1923 topics look like? They'd probably have lots of appropriate images. If the topic is something where everything is copyrighted (like with most modern media properties), then fair use means that you can still use those same images from the article as it would appear not under copyright. Now, if you want to reduce the prevalence of such things, then fine, but getting rid of all of them seems excessive, especially when "educational article" seems a pretty bulletproof rationale for using them (their use in things like advertising is allowed!), with pretty much any article being "critical commentary." Just my two cents. Chromatical (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Could someone either clarify or update the text so that it contains something about using non-free content in infoboxes? The argument that is currently being used is that "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" so non-free images should not be used in infoboxes. While I understand the argument, it would be much clearer if it was simply stated in the article: "non-free content is never allowed in infoboxes because ...". –panda (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• They're not allowed in templates that are infoboxes. That's because unfree images aren't permitted on templates. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To be sure I'm clear on this... That means non-free images can be "in" info boxes, but not transcluded from templates. In other words, it would be ok to put this on the Terry Fator page:

{{Infobox musical artist | Name = Terry Fator | Img = TerryFator.jpg}}

That would not put the image in template namespace, it would only be seen in the main namespace. The distinction being that the image is used by the template, but not in the template. – jaksmata 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Spot on! There's a number of templates that have been modified to allow the image as a flag in the calling of the template to get around the issue of not having fair use images on templates. It's a great solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NFCC#10c deletions (over 1000 in half an hour)

Recently, this deletion popped up on my watchlist when a bot removed the image from the article. My view is that this sort of deletion (lacking an article link) is a waste of time - it is quicker to fix the rationale than to delete. I've looked at the deleted revision, and all that was needed was to add "Signs (journal)" to the article parameter in the rationale template. I've asked the deleting admin if they would mind if I undeleted and fixed this? I also took the liberty of looking through the deleting admin's logs for 15 December, and I noticed a large number of other NFCC#10c deletions (1163 images deleted under NFCC#10c between 15:10 and 15:43 - over 1000 images in just over half an hour). I noted this and said I'd ask for help in fixing these images. What do people here think of the deletions and the best way to fix them, bearing in mind that those undeleting would have to check for other problems as well. More generally, I'm concerned that the deleting admin (User:Maxim) might not have had time to review all the images before deleting them. I've commented at WT:NFCC and ANI before (I can provide links if you like) about how speedy bot-like clearing of image CSD tag backlogs just leaves more work for those clearing up afterwards. On the other hand, providing a clear deletion summary like Maxim did, is extremely helpful when people (like me) decide to do (or consider doing) the thankless task of adding such links to satisfy NFCC#10c, and then re-adding the image to the page in question. Note that Maxim deleted other images on the 15 December under I4 (lacking sources) between 20:06 and 20:16 (a couple of hundred images) - that requires more work to fix, so I'm not so concerned about that, but the rate of deletion may still have been too high to allow proper review of whether sources are present. Was this the right way to clear a backlog? If not, what is the right way to handle this sort of thing? Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a few points. I've been looking through the list linked above (the 1163 images) and it is really the images that were using a rationale template that I'm interested in. ie. NFCC#10c is too broad and should be split up. Currently it encompasses both images with rationales (but lacking a link) and those without any rationale whatsoever (normally just a nonfree copyright tag). It seems most of the images Maxim deleted were the latter (requiring a full rationale to be written), and not just the former (requiring only a single link to be added to the rationale fix them). The one that cropped up on my watchlist was an example of the former. I'll propose a modification of 10c below. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful question. I guess I would disagree with you that "speedy bot-like clearing of image CSD tag backlogs just leaves more work for those clearing up afterwards". The image had already been tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Look at it this way: there are thousands of images which don't have adequate rationales. For each of these, the work required is to fix the rationale, and there is often other work required too. Occasionally, the image could not have an adequate rationale one or all of the articles it's used in, so it should be deleted. In other cases, the rationale should be added or fixed, and any other problems (e.g. sourcing) should be fixed as well. People who want to fix these could go through Category:Disputed non-free images and fix them, removing the di tag. Or you could wait until after they are deleted, and then undelete and fix them. By deleting the images, Maxim is basically acknowledging that the rationale problem is a valid problem, and that no one has seen fit to fix it for 7 days.

So what are the alternatives? Solution one: Maxim could go through and fix them all himself before deleting. But he's not required to. I could, or you could, or anon IPs could, but none of us did, so we can't fault Maxim for that. Solution two: We could leave non-free images around indefinitely without a complete rationale, assuming that someone will fix it eventually. Obviously we can't do that, due to the Wikimedia licensing resolution on the matter. Solution three: we could give images a set amount of time after being tagged di, during which anyone could fix them, and after which they are deleted. Which is what we do. 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the solution is, I'd like clear deletion log summaries so that people can go back and fix rationales if possible. One problem with starting from a deletion log is that it can be difficult to track down which article the image was used in in the first place. One way to fix that is to get the deletion log summary to explicitly say which articles the images are being used in. This is kind of like a corollary of NFCC#10c. If we delete an image because it doesn't name the articles it is being used in, the deletion log should, at a minimum, state which articles the image was being used in at the time of deletion. I could scan the list and fix up the "logo" images, if they all have "logo" in their titles, but still, finding the article it was in is difficult. Also, have a look at the wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision#Editorial process: fait accompli, in paticular the bit that says: "It is inappropriate to repeat the change over a wide range of pages in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." There is an argument that spurts of thousands of images being tagged by bot exhausts the ability of people to contest the change, but that is only if you take a wide view of fixing images (as I do), as opposed to requiring the individual editors and uploaders to fix their images. There are certain types of images I'd be very happy to help fix (logo, book covers, historical image), but the deletion tags are indiscriminate and there seems to be no will among the image taggers to generate useful worklists rather than the mixed bag that appears in the image CSD categories. Does that make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing requires Maxim to fix the images instead of deleting them, true, but that's no argument. Nothing requires anybody to do anything on Wikipedia. We do try to be productive, I hope, and when you're deleting that much content that quickly I hope the standard is to make Wikipedia better rather than to simply avoid doing anything against policy.

This person is deleting about 15,000 images per month[6]. I would ask for clarification. This user claimed in October that he/she inspects each one carefully before deleting[7], but I don't see how anybody could be careful when deleting 20 or more images per minute. If they're using a bot that has to stop because bots with administrative privileges are not allowed. There are a few other causes for concern, e.g. the inaccurate edit summary to say that images need a "link" back to where they are used (they don't need a link per 10(c); they just need to say where). Some images were deleted for lack of a statement of source, which is notoriously hard to get right without looking carefully.

Nevertheless, the user is following process. The error and complaint rate seems to be relatively low judging from my spot check and guesswork about 20 of the deletions, and the relative lack of complaints on the user's talk page compared to other people who have done mass deletions. I also note that all of the images being deleted were uploaded relatively recently, some time in late 2007. For older images deletion is more problematic because until recently the policy was poorly understood or enforced, many were uploaded before the policy required the back-link, and the original uploader is often long gone so there's nobody to mind the deletion advanced warning notices. With these newer images, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who upload a lot of images without figuring out what the rules are. Ideally they would be tagged and deleted nearly immediately so that after one or two mistakes a user gets the message. The longer the lag is before images are policed, the more a person has a chance to upload deficient images before they are shown the right way.

Regarding the point that it is better to fix than delete, I wholeheartedly agree. If people would devote a fraction of the effort to program bots to fix images that they devote to deleting images we could clear up most of the backlog very quickly. A bot could have fixed them all as fast or faster than deleting them. In nearly all cases the only thing missing is a backlink, which can be inferred from the image's links to articles. What we need is someone who can program bots who is more interested in saving than deleting images. However, many people apparently don't think so, and it's proven impossible to stop them. There was that project we had all approved to change the data requirements so we could fix image descriptions instead of deleting them, but things fell apart from lack of support. I gave up after seeing a number of people breaking ranks and deleting images anyway, and no will to keep them in line. I'm resigned to the conclusion that there are just some people who think the way to improve the project is to delete a bunch of stuff. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that I don't really want to spend a couple of hours deleting 10 images and fixing 5, and then find that a team of bot-like editors somewhere have cleared the entire backlog of 1000s of images in half-an-hour. That kind of annoys me, and I hope others can understand that. ie. Bot-like clearing of image CSDs has a chilling effect on bringing in editors and admins who genuinely want to specialise on image rescue work. Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxim uses a modded portion of Twinkle that I also use. Combined with reviewing the images manually first and fast multi-tabbing second, you can easily delete 100+ images per minute. Just to clarify, he doesn't run any bots on his admin account. east.718 at 17:45, December 17, 2007

I'm sorry, but are you claiming that you can appropriately review whether an image should be kept or deleted in six tenths of a second? What factors do you manage to balance up and evaluate in that time? Jheald (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Just like me, he manually reviews all the images first, queues up the ones that need to be deleted, and then wipes them out in a single batch using a semi-automated tool. east.718 at 18:15, December 17, 2007

I suggest adding something to the log (or a link from the log to a user subpage) explaining this. It also doesn't tell us how long was spent reviewing the images. Also, if you review 1000+ images over 6 hours or so, and then delete the unwanted ones at the end of that period, how do you check whether someone has made any edits to fix the problems since you reviewed the first image 6 hours ago? Does Twinkle check to see if any edits have been made to the page since a certain time? It would be even more annoying if I fixed an image at 15:00, only to have an editor using a modded version of Twinkle come by and delete it at 18:00 based on a review carried out at 13:00. I fully appreciate the sense in using automated tools to speed up assessment and clearing of backlogs, but there are limits to this. I would respectfully suggest that doing a batch of 1000 images in half-an-hour oversteps the limit. Why not do ten batches of 100 images every half hour? I used tabbed browsing to a similar effect, but have only ever done 30-50 in one go, and even then I pause for about 20 seconds between batches of ten to avoid overloading things. Where is this best discussed? WP:TWINKLE? WP:BOT? Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in piling onto suspicions about an editor who clears out backlog and has an extremely high success rate. I don't want to wallow in accusations about the priorities of unnamed programmers. I do, however, want to try to work to make the system better. So is this sort of thing helpful? User:Quadell/Non-free logos needing rationales is the first 1000 non-free logos without rationales, including what articles they are used in. If you're interested in fixing these, this should help. If not, someone will probably tag them with di eventually, and they'll probably get deleted.

About the idea of using a bot, I'm not comfortable with having a bot write fair-use rationales. If an image is only used in one article, and if the image description page includes {{non-free use rationale}} with a specified "purpose" but unspecified "article", then I'd be fine with a bot putting the article name into the template. But a bot can never accurately fill in the "purpose" for a given use, and often the same image will have different "purposes" for each article (e.g. Image:Cheicon.jpg). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's what I was talking about, having a bot edit or create templates so as to add the article name to the rationale in the simple one use / one rationale situations. That covers most (perhaps 80%?) of the images being deleted for failure to specify the article. If people are concerned about accuracy we could even force a manual check whereby it inserts an "x" or some code in front of the article name so each one doesn't get enabled until someone actually looks at it and verifies that the rationale is intended for that article. Or else program some awb-like thing to insert the names manually, one at a time, as people peruse the images. If that were available to me I would pitch in and fix a hundred or more images a night rather than two or three. You can't add a rationale by bot but an awb assist could still speed things up greatly by, say, paging through the logos without rationales one after another and loading everything up on the screen so one can start typing (or alternately, leave a notation that it is a bad image). Wikidemo (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What metrics do you use to measure success rates? Remember, these images were only deleted 2 days ago. You can't measure these as a success until at least a month has passed without complaints. I see at least eight have already been restored or re-uploaded and fixed. Out of 1000+ that's currently a high success rate, but let's wait and see for the others. "I'm not comfortable with having a bot write fair-use rationales" - absolutely, and if you re-read the above, you will see that is not what has been suggested. About using a bot to clear Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, there has been opposition to that idea in the past, primarily from Betacommand. If you would be in favour of it, that would help a lot. User:Quadell/Non-free logos needing rationales is indeed very helpful. Now, is the same possible for historical images? Category:Non-free historic images exists, but before I start work on that, I'd want to know what needs doing to avoid future changes invalidating whatever work I do. Or more prosaically, what needs doing to meet current standards. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I want is the intersection of Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink with various CSD image categories. What I want to do is simply add in the article backlink for the ones that a bot has tagged for deletion. Simple fix. Simple list to generate. Theoretically. That way, I can be sure that when backlogs are "cleared", they aren't clearing out the easily fixable ones that can be fixed faster than the time taken to delete them. So, any offers to generate that intersection? Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB can (I think) slurp categories and generate intersections. Jheald (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. It takes some time for my bot to search through and list what articles a given image is used in and what other templates are included on the page. It would be quicker to just spit out a list of links to articles. Is it worth it to list the article links as well? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Does my bots latest activity (Special:Contributions/polbot) seem about right? :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. :-) Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images lacking article backlink

A quick update on numbers and templates. Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink only includes images that use template:Non-free use rationale and omitted the article name. Some do have a valid article name or link, they just didn't put it in the "Article" field, probably because they adopted the template before that field was added. But many or most are truly deficient. It's a kind gesture to do these first because we know by their using the template that these people were at least trying to do the right thing when uploading. I have been keeping a count ever since the field was added (at Template talk:Non-free use rationale#The count). In the 2 1/2 months since the field was added the number of missing links has declined from 33,000 to 22,000, while the number of correctly linked use rationales has climbed to 35,000. What we don't know is how many of the 11,000 reduction in unlinked rationales were from people fixing an image versus the images getting deleted. We also don't know how many of the 35,000 are brand new images, newly fixed templates, or templates newly added to existing images.

The big missing piece in this view is the images that don't use the template. Only 57,000 out of a total of 350,000 non-free images use this template. Of the other 290,000 or so there were perhaps 140,000 that did not have a single article backlink as of last June (when Betacommand made his original estimate). Some of those are deleted and some fixed, but we probably still have 100,000+ images with a use rationale that is not linked to an article. There are plenty of other ways to find them - this category is just one way to find 22,000 of them.

Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the next few days, expect to see that number decline dramatically. :-) As for images with no rationale, it may be easier to work on one group at a time -- that's what User:Quadell/Non-free logos needing rationales (for example) could be used for. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, check out User:Quadell/Report on backlinks for image with a rationale tag, without an article specified, and that are used in multiple articles. Some of these need to have valid rationales created for each use; others need to be removed from articles in which they are not valid. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image restorations and fixing - use of admin tools

By the way, should I wait for the deleting admin to respond before undeleting and fixing Image:SIGNScover.jpg? I take it that the admins that clear out 1000s of images don't want queries about all of them, despite the deletion log saying "please don't hesitate to contact me at my talkpage if you have any queries". Anyway, I had contacted the admin, but no response yet. That's another thing. I'd be happy to restore and fix images without rationales and images lacking backlinks, but having to contact the deleting admin every time would seem a bit bureaucratic. Before I got the tools to delete and undelete, I had asked admins to restore so I could fix images, and they seemed happy to do so. So what is the right etiquette here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care if an admin restores and fixes 'em. I could drop a note in the summary, if I have room, though, next time. --Maxim_(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if, instead of tagging images on a seven day notice we could go ahead and tag all the images, and then issue a "drop dead date" for all of them. That's just wishful thinking but it could help people on all sides of this effort organize and categorize things better. Wikidemo (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who the deleting admin is, but if you have everything needed to fix the image Carcharoth, I will undelete it for you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can do the undeletion myself, and it would be a good way to learn how the tools work. I have also previewed the version before deletion and checked that everything else is OK as far as I can tell. Of course, the deleting admin may have spotted other problems and not mentioned them in the deletion summary - if that's the case, I have to hope I don't miss those unstated problems (I would hope I would be able to spot most image problems, being fairly experienced in this area now). What I'm asking is what is the etiquette involved in an admin undeleting an image another admin deleted. How much review is needed? More or less than the amount of review that took place before deletion? (one bot tag and one admin review before deletion versus one admin review before undeletion). If you do a lot of image rescue work, as I intend to do (rationales, sources, copyright tags), is it OK to undelete and fix images. Ideally the rescue work would be done in the tagged period before deletion, but that is not always possible, and I fully expect to see automated editors and bots whizzing past me in the fast lane. :-) So, if I'm working on lots of images, should I notify the deleting admin every time or not, or trust them to notice any undeletions and ask me if they have a problem? I realise that for blocks and article undeletions it is almost always required to talk to the deleting admin, but when you have large volumes of images being deleted at bot-like speed, slowing any undeletion and fixing process seems overly-bureaucratic. Does the "only undeleting to fix" and "fairly experienced with images" count for anything? Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<INSERT POV HERE>From where I stand I have no problems with an admin un-deleting an image that was deleted for rationale/source/copyright issues, as long as the restoring admin fully addresses and fixes the issue at hand, if the restoring admin does not fix, then there is a problem. But if the image was deleted for other reasons then the restoring admin should descuss it before restoring </END POV>. β^_command 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on what Maxim and Betacommand have said, I'll undelete the Signs (journal) cover image tonight, and in future I'll undelete other images I think can be fixed. It will only be a small amount compared to the amount being deleted, and my logs will be available for checking as always. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Split 10c into two criteria

Currently 10c encompasses two related but distinct requirements:

"The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use."

(1) The name of each article; and (2) A separate fair-use rationale. The problem here is that when images are deleted under 10c, the deletion logs don't show which reason is being given for the deletion. I propose splitting this into two criteria: (i) image lacks a rationale or rationales; (ii) image has a rationale or rationales but something is wrong with them (either only has one rationale for lots of uses, or the rationale lacks a name/link). The point being that images deleted under (i) need more work to fix them than images deleted under (ii). Typically, images with (ii)-related problems can be fixed quickly by adding a link (after checking a few things) or adding the image to Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, or removing images from the articles the image shouldn't be used in. Both these fixes are preferable to deletion. Would this be a workable extension to the NFCC criteria? Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree. But to be clear, I don't think that WP:NFCC should change its wording. But I do see the utility in having two separate tags, which organize images into two separated categories: those that have no rationale, and those that have insufficient rationales. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So what is the best way to get such a change implemented? Who does most of the image tagging, and are they amenable to making such changes? Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've made a proposal and I agree with it. To be clear, we can call the new split-out section 10(d) sections 10(c)(i) and 10(c)(ii)....or else make a change at WP:CSD (I6 and I7 currently both cover 10(c)). If enough people agree we have consensus and we can edit one or both policy pages. You could be bold and just do it, but likely somebody would just revert and ask where the consensus is. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we are going to wait for a consensus to form here. :-) Would you have time to draft something? My legalese brain isn't functioning today. Oh, and to be clearer, I'm referring more to the tags that BetacommandBot (and others) use, and the deletion log summaries. Those are what really need changing, though whether that is before or after the wording of the guideline changes, doesn't really matter. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To put that another way. Currently tags land on user talk pages and article talk pages, with a generic 10c warning. It would be good if the messages could be more specific. This holds for other criteria as well. Rather than pointing at a criteria (which may be a long laundry list of possible problems) and saying, "well, the image fails one or more of these criteria, please try and work out which one it is, good luck, I'm off to tag more images", it would be better if the tags said "this, specifically, is what is wrong", and "this is how the bot figured out what was wrong", followed by the usual links to policies and guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My legal brain got trashed at a jazz concert last night but here goes:

Old version:

(c) The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

New version:

(c) for each article in which the item is used:

(i) a separate non-free use rationale presented in clear, plain language, relevant to each use, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline; and

(ii) the name of the article (a link is recommended as well).

Drafting Notes: In addition to splitting the sentence into two subsections I've taken the liberty of changing "fair use rationale" to "non-free use rationale", as per our decision several months ago to change terminology. I also fixed a technical glitch in this requirement. Currently we require a list of article names, and also a list of use rationales, but we don't require the article names to be matched with the rationales. This proposal associates each article name with a rationale. This doesn't automatically fix the lack of clarity in tagging, and I don't think people would want to specify required tagging verbiage at the policy or guideline level. Instead, after this is implemented ask nicely if people will please cite whether they are tagging and deleting under 10(c)(i) or 10(c)(ii) instead of just citing 10(c). Better yet, you can design new templates for them to apply and my guess is that Betacommand and others would be more than happy to use a new well-designed image tagging template. Wikidemo (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like we have three votes of support in principle, from the above. Wikidemo (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  (c) should read "for each article in which fair use is claimed for the item:". (ii) should add "(a link is recommended but not required)" (given what I've seen people complain at BCB about). I support the split otherwise for purposes of helping those with difficulty in figuring out images. --MASEM 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, Quadell didn't want any change to the NFCC wording. And I'm about to quibble here over the difference between (i) and (ii). Really, they are not separate requirements, but (ii) is more a missing bit of (i). Step back and look at NFCC#10, and you will see that a, b, and c, cover source, copyright tag and rationale. The distinction here is more between incomplete and complete additions of source, copyright tags and rationales. NFCC quite rightly requires that the sources and copyright tags and rationales be complete. What I want to see is the image taggers distinguish between images where nothing is there, and images where someone has attempted to add something but left it incomplete (or later changes added further requirements). Image:Speak Of The Devil - Front Cover.jpg is another example. The revision of the image page just before deletion says quite clearly: "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME". I'm thinking of restoring this, and the other one I mentioned, Image:SIGNScover.jpg, to show what I'm talking about. It shows how care is needed, as Signs (journal) is perfectly fine (cover of a journal), but Speak of the Devil (book) looks like a bit of vanity press - no point restoring that image if the article will eventually get deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately changed the "fair use is claimed" reference in 10(c) because it duplicates the preamble to the whole list of criteria: " Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" and 10(c)(i) "a separate non-free use rationale" (for each article). No need to say it twice, calling it "fair use" one place and "non-free use" another - that makes it confusing without adding anything. We can certainly say "but not required" but doesn't "recommended" imply that? Going forward we ought to require a link to eliminate bot errors (that's why the "NEEDS ARTICLE NAME" warning is there in the template, so it gets done right the first time) but that's another story. One thing at a time. Wikidemo (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing NFCC policy is difficulty, and I don't think it's necessary in this case. Just have two templates with two categories. Simple enough, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. You could design new templates and ask the bots and deleters to use them, even with the policy as is. But one of the changes is definitely an improvement, specifying that an article name should be associated with each use rationale. It would seem obvious but a lot of images don't do that. Wikidemo (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing NFCC policy? It's not a change of policy. It is a change of wording. And that's not difficult judging by the ease with which "(a link to the articles is recommended as well)" was put in there. Where was that discussed? That looks much more like something that should be in the guidelines bit, not the policy bit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as the page isn't protected it's quite easy to edit the policy. Whether the edit sticks, and how upset people get, is quite a different question.  :) Wikidemo (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My take on 10c is pretty simple, every use of a NFC image requires a rationale. to make a valid rationale you need to state for what page the rationale is (along with why you need that image in that page). (IE name of the article). without the article there is no valid rationale. β^_command 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this a technical question then. For the purposes of helping people fix incomplete rationales are you able to (and willing) to have your bot distinguish between incomplete rationales and missing rationales? Or, even simpler, can your bot distinguish between missing rationales and incomplete rationales. If, as I suspect from past discussions, your bot is finding invalid or missing rationales by: (a) finding images without an article name or backlink; and (b) tagging under 10c; then the answer is that you can't distinguish the two. What I think you can do is split off a subsection of what your bot finds and label them as images that meet the following criteria: (a) they lack an article name or backlink; and (b) they are using one of the rationale templates. It is these ones that are likely most easily fixed by human checking and adding of an "article=" parameter to the template. I know Quadell is already fixing these as we speak (though I told him you might disagree with that), but do you see the points I'm making? You are looking for a missing name or link, but are unable to identify how bad the problem is (missing or incomplete). Would you be able to identify those images where it looks like an attempt at writing a rationale has been written? That would avoid chucking out those images along with the ones with no rationale. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(As above, I'm right now adding articles to rationales that don't include article names. I should be done in the next couple of days. Once that's done, the only articles with a rationale tag with no article name should be those that are in multiple articles, which I'll list at User:Quadell/Report on backlinks.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American, and do not live in the USA, why can't I follow my own local laws?

Fair use rational is an american construct. block americans from viewing pics that aren't legal there. let the rest of the world have a wikipedia without six million pounds of legal dead weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.1.99 (talk • contribs)

In that case we might as well prevent all Non-free images then, In Germany, and France there is no such thing as fair use and they are not allowed to use non-free content. Would you rather go to the French or German model? β^_command 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but once again: That there would be no fair use in German law is misleading. A lot of the images that require FURs on Wikipedia are free without any kind of rationale under German law. Just saying this because the constant "German law is even stricter" argument annoys me. Malc82 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The main servers are physically located in US. Regardless of what may be displayed, and to whom, their contents still have to be legal in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Think you are getting things mixed up:

• Fair-use is particular to America, for example on the French wikipedia, there are no fair-use images, with the exception of logos, which means there are no album, book, dvd, film covers allowed whatsoever. Screenshots, of games, copyrighted software, films, are also not allowed. Also photography of public domain works of art attracts copyright, even for sculptures. So you can't complain really, the American system is very lenient. Also FUR are not required by law even in the USA, only wikipedia requires them, Malc82. And German law is actually stricter if you look at the German wikipedia, you will be hard pressed to find any album covers, screenshots etc. So unless you live in North Korea, or Bhutan or something American law is probably going to be one of the freer ones. Especially including all the PD and panorama rights etc. Jackaranga (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair usage policy in regards to templates

Are we allowed to use non-free content in templates such as this?

A vector version of this image is also available, and should be used in place of this raster image whenever possible. For more information about vector graphics, see the articles on vector and raster graphics. There is also information about MediaWiki's support of SVG images.

[[Image:Canonical logo.svg|100px]]

If this usage is unacceptable, then what should be done about this template? Jecowa (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See Criteria #9 : Non-free images can only be used in the main article namespace, not templates, and must be removed from the template. --MASEM 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here isn't that it's in a template. This is a notice placed on the image description page to tell people to use the SVG version, with a small thumbnail of that version. That really isn't a problematic situation I'd worry about, since the png version of the image is likely to be deleted soon anyways, since there's no need to have two versions of a non-free image (and has been in this specific example). Think of it simply as a transition note. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues if a fair use image is used in a temporary message such as that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the guideline

In the section above regarding fair use images in character lists, little discussion has taken place after two days. Subsequent to this, I'd like to propose a change to the guidelines, specifically in section 2.6, "Unacceptable images". I'd like to add the following line:

13. Fair use images of characters for illustration purposes only on anything other than a specific article about that character. If used beyond that scope, there must be critical commentary regarding the image itself, beyond the base appearance of the character. Group shots created by the copyright holder of characters may be acceptable.

This proposed change is inline with policy WP:NFCC #3a "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice" and "As few non-free content uses as possible" and #8 significance, as well as Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it is a screenshot of a t.v. show, it's already not permitted to use it for illustration purposes. The license states it must be used for critical commentary. See Template:Non-free television screenshot. You seem to be aware of this and indeed cover it in the wording above, so I support the suggested change. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. But, there's been considerable debate regarding this, and I wanted to get something codified in the guideline to cover this particular case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think that is good. I imagine that the article on the artist or creator of the character may use such an image, but the second sentence seems to cover that. 1 != 2 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not like this proposal. What is the legal basis for having to discuss the specific image itself? This could send articles on torturous tangents trying to have even one image. Why isn't critical commentary on the performance/character enough to justify illustrating any article with an image that shows the character? This policy seems either designed to turn non-character articles into treatises on specific images (which can come and go and should serve the text, rather than the other way around), or it's a strategy to eliminate all images of fictional characters in articles not specifically on the characters, which seems irrational. I've seen articles about fictional characters that contain no critical commentary, yet the image of the character is there and is not disputed; meanwhile, in article about an actor that contains critical commentary on a performance, the related character image is disputed. This seems illogical to me. What is the logical/legal basis for making the subject of the article the center of the rationale? Shouldn't the rationale be centered on the presence of critical commentary and the lack of a free alternative to illustrate that critical commentary, no matter the primary subject of the article? This proposal seems more based on current winds blowing on Wiki rather than on legal logic, and in the case of this type of policy, the law is what matters. Can we get the copyright lawyers to weigh in? I think this proposal is oddly narrow and illogical. --Melty girl (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I believe the wording is simply serving to explain existing policy, at least when it comes to t.v. screenshots. And remember, copyright and fair-use law is not the primary concern here. Wikipedia's policies on fair-use images is significantly more restrictive. We already do not permit the use of fair-use images solely to depict living people, for example. Nor do we allow television screenshots unless they are being used to provide critical commentary. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying is important: the presence of critical commentary in any article should be able to be illustrated under our fair use rules. Why does the subject of the article come into it? If an article on an actor has critical commentary on a performance, why does it matter that the article is about the performer rather than the fictional character? If the critical commentary is there, then it's there. Isn't the actor article more real-world and the fictional character article more in-universe anyway? Top-quality articles about actors will treat them primarily as artists not celebrities, and critical commentary is just as key as it is for discussing a show or film. --Melty girl (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The critical commentary part comes in when you are discussing a particular image. If an image is used for illustration only, there's a weak claim of fair use (at best) as the work is not transformative in any way. This is an important distinction. If instead the article is discussing the content of the image directly (for example; see section Jane_Fonda#.22Hanoi_Jane.22 and the related non-free image), then the fair use claim is legally considerably stronger. If you're just using it to illustrate Jane, then its very weak. That's part of the reason the policy and guideline is written the way it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The legal basis is that we are not licensed to use these images, and that we use the fair use doctrine to justify their use. It is not solely legal concerns but the goal of our project to provide free content. 1 != 2 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd hate to have to discuss a specific frame of an episode of Yesterday's Enterprise just to be able to illustrate Michael Dorn with an image of Worf to talk about the general impact of his career on that role, type-casting in Star Trek and how it influenced him, et cetera - seems like needless bureaucracy anyhow. WilyD 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying above: it's torturous and tangential. And perhaps more designed to eliminate images than logically apply FU. --Melty girl (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's intended to codify an area of exceptional debate, where policy is pretty obviously clear and opponents largely note a lack of specific wording preventing it. This closes that gap. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this. This doesn't answer my question as to why the subject of an article is the center of this proposal, taking precedence over the presence (or lack of) of critical commentary. --Melty girl (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• This proposed amendment does not prevent someone from using a screenshot to depict a particular character on that character's article. The distinction here being that if a character is significant enough to warrant their own article, an image is warranted. If they are not significant, no need for the image. This descends from WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this amendment. You have not responded to my specific arguments as to why I oppose it. You have not given a justification for why an actor article, as long as critical commentary of a role is present, must not have an image of the performance in question. And you have not explained how a character article with no critical commentary, but only in-universe writing can merit an image. --Melty girl (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I did respond. Could you clarify what you're asking please? As to the last sentence, the accepted norm is that character articles can have a single image for illustration. That's common practice right now. I'm just trying to clarify common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Try again. Please address the second to last question for actor articles. And then answer it for TV shows and films. --Melty girl (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Object. If there is externally sourced commentary about aspects of the appearance of the character, which is relevant to include in the article, then it is also reasonable to include an image of the character so that the statements can be properly interpreted. Such an image would be appropriate, and would be legally appropriate, per fair use.

Beyond that, I think there is still some flexibility. Nobody is suggesting we allow a gallery. But so long as the non-free images are not preventing free images from being sourced, I don't see any reason to be more restrictive than the law permits. I think there are cases when it is legitimately fair use to include images to communicate the look and feel of a show, even when there is not slavish Lord Privy Seal 1:1 discussion of them. An example could be images of 2 or 3 or 4 key characters in context on a cast page. Similarly, small images of the different looks an actor has taken on (or perhaps hasn't) in his most key roles. (Not the main picture of the actor in his infobox). Such limited use of screengrabs, for the purpose of making a well-balanced extensive article more informative and more educational, not competing with the original purpose of the image, are transformative, and are acceptable fair use. So why shouldn't we use them? Jheald (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• With respect, you're objecting to something that is allowed by the proposed amendment. The proposal doesn't prevent the use of character images if the image itself is the subject of critical commentary. Further, the look and feel of a show can be conveyed by a group character image. You do not need 51 fair use images (example) to convey that information. If small images convey differing looks, then again critical commentary allows for that. Illustration alone though is not sufficient. So, it seems you're agreeing with the proposal so long as critical commentary of the image is permitted (which it is, within minimal usage guidelines...having 51 characters and 51 commentaries of their appearance would not qualify). To help clarify, I added "base" to the amendment. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Illustration is sufficient, actually. What is not sufficient is simple decorative use. But if you are illustrating a point made in the article text, and in so doing allowing the point to be more completely understood, that is perfectly legitimate. It is not required for the text to have to reference the image explicitly. And as I said above, nobody is suggesting we allow a gallery, so your example of 51 fair use images is completely irrelevant -- we already have policy to stop that. Jheald (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• We require critical commentary. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images regarding Film and television screen shots. As for the 51 images, it is a perfect example of what I speak. It is ...an article...some say list...some say article...with a series of sub-stubs. I've attempted to remove the images and have been reverted. The proposed amendment is designed to codify this case. Are you suggesting a different case where it would be allowable? Can you show examples? We might be talking of different things. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• What policy says is "for critical commentary". What it does not say is "for critical commentary of the image". So: the image must significantly enhance the critical commentary provided by the page as a whole.

As for an example, think about a page for a show which has a logo for the show, a "team shot" of the good guys; and an individual shot of their principal antagonist. IMO that is entirely appropriate. But your guideline would forbid it. Jheald (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it would. Images for illustration only are not permitted by this guideline even before this amendment. Perhaps you should propose an amendment to allow them? This amendment doesn't expand on that; it just codifies it to a specific example. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The word "illustration" doesn't appear in the guideline, and your proposal isn't helpful. Images like the one I've just cited are legal. So why are you on a self-appointed crusade to try to delete them? Don't you have useful things to do, like articles to write? Jheald (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Would you mind reducing the rhetoric please? Helping the project achieve it's m:mission is helpful. There are many ways to help the project; writing articles is but one. As to your objection, you will note that Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images says "critical commentary" with regards to Film and television screen shots. Illustration alone is not sufficient. Illustration alone is sufficient for stamps and logos, but we're not discussing stamps and logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're not helping this project achieve its mission. You're not contributing free encyclopedic content, and with this nonsense you're tying down editors who otherwise would be. That makes you a liability on an ego excursion, not a helper.

As for the example, the article is a better critical commentary with the image. That's the point. The bottom line is that it is legal. It is not edging out a free alternative that might be added instead. So there is absolutely no benefit in deleting it. Jheald (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll ignore future comments from you regarding me being a liability to the project as you are way off base. Please, there is no reason to be attacking the messenger here. Critical commentary has to be about the image, not just illustration. We seem to be talking past each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, seriously, if you don't think you're being a liability, what good is it that you think you are doing? What possible good is served by deleting the image I've given as an example? Jheald (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I mentioned, I'm not going to engage you further on whether I am a liability or not. Please address the issues, and stop attacking the messenger. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• All right, we'll leave you out of it. But the issue remains: What possible good is served by deleting the image I've given as an example? Jheald (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• (partial de-indent) The first two images you gives as examples (show logo, cast image) would be fine. The third wouldn't be; if the character is significant enough to have an article on them, an image is warranted on that article. Else, it's rather difficult to make a case that the character is so important there must be an image on the main article for them. It doesn't follow. Again, this goes back to transformative nature of the work. If all you're doing it displaying it, you could just as well replicate a bunch of NCAA logos and claim fair use since displaying them is transformative. It isn't. What I am proposing above is really just a clarification of the current status as expressed in the guideline. It is also a compromise position. Our policies and guidelines actually forbid even the display of an image for illustration purposes alone on the character articles. I'm not suggesting we stop that. I'm offering a compromise here, but getting none in return. Instead, you're suggesting that situations like this are acceptable. They aren't, and it hasn't been acceptable for quite some time now. The proposal I've made is nothing new; it's simply to codify what is already common practice, to reduce arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• As User:Wikidemo says up above, not everything you believe is consensus, and some of what you assert is a minority viewpoint. Specifically,

• "One need not always discuss the image itself; in many cases the commentary may be about the subject of the image... If the image is a character, one must discuss the character, not the particular image."
• ""Illustrative" use is perfectly fine - that's not really a concept here either." The relevant criterion is significance.

Beyond that, I do think you're playing bait-and-switch with your justification. You assert that I'm suggesting that situations like this are acceptable. That's not correct. I've said twice already I don't think such usage is acceptable.

Furthermore, we already have policy on the point: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable".

The question is not whether your clause would deal with that case; the question is just how much other collateral damage it would cause, and whether that is either necessary or desirable.

So, to go back to the example I have in mind, the iconic series baddie who appeared in 28 of the 52 stories (though not the last one), and became one of the most memorable things about the show. Her photo in the article satisfies both of the criteria of Wikidemo I've quoted above. So, what good do you think is served by removing it? Jheald (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are people that contend that articles like List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are not "lists" and thus the section you note does not apply. The proposed amendment serves to close that gap of understanding with already accepted norms. To be clear, and without intending to fan feathers into the air, this really isn't a consensus based issue. We didn't remove screenshots from episode lists with consensus; in fact there was very heavy acrimony against the removal. We also didn't have much consensus to remove album covers from discographies. But, those removals happened too. The key component here that must be focused on is that the Foundation has issued a Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. the intent is very clear; focus on our m:mission and keep fair use to an absolute minimum. They are not going to cite every specific case that their resolution applies; that's outside their scope. But, the resolution stands and overrides any consensus against it. That's why the other two closely related areas I noted, discographies and episode lists, had their images removed despite huge quarrels over the removal. Please understand; I'm not attempting to ignore your voice, but the policy isn't really up for discussion per se. I'm mainly looking for the best wording to use to add to the guideline to help reduce acrimony, to head off the massive debates that occurred in the other areas. The norm is to remove these images, and a number of editors have been doing this stuff for quite some time now [8][9] for examples. There's lots of editors who are doing this work. I'm just trying to codify something to reduce the arguments. I'm not applying my own interpretation of policy at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Durin back from the dead! Excellent!!

Or maybe you're not - I'm not sure old Durin would have been honest enough to admit that the discography and episode list removals didn't have consensus. But you do seem to be channelling his old arguments nevertheless.

The thing poor Durin could never grasp was that arguments based on his interpretation of the Foundation resolution were just that: arguments based on his interpretation, rather than arguments based on the resolution itself.

If you read his wikisuicide note, it's rather sad: his gods never came down from their heaven to confirm his wikireligion and smite his enemies, and in the end he seems to have become rather bitter. But then, I don't think his gods ever did actually subscribe to the wikireligion as he saw it. Looking at the Foundation resolution, the two things that strike me are (1) a concern that the content must be legal; and (2) a concern not to encourage the addition of new free content, and not to allow anything that might supplant free content. I don't think the Foundation were trying to kick off a religious jihad to purge as much non-free content as possible; rather, I think their language just reflects the third consideration factor for U.S. fair use: notably that the secondary user should only copy as much as is necessary for his or her intended use.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about these cast lists, and I am not defending them. But you must recognise that your proposed text would also impact a lot of other articles. In drafting your clause you need to be mindful of the effect on them, too.

Which is why I come back, again, to that image of the iconic series baddie in the series main article. The point of Wikipedia is to create as good an encyclopedia as we can, and to generate as much free content as we can. This image is legal; and it conveys information that wouldn't be conveyed in any other way in the article. So, let me put the question to you once more, what good do you think is served by removing it? Jheald (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think where we disagree is that you want free as in gratis, and I want free as in libre. Would you say that is accurate? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I want to see as much good, freely reusable content added to the site as possible. Now, back to the image I'm asking about. That's not supplanting free content, because no free substitute is available. So, what good do you think is served by removing it? Jheald (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there's our fundamental difference. You seem to want free as in gratis. The problem is, this project in its entirety is intended as a free as in libre resource. Gratis and libre are mutually exclusive. Our policies are written to support libre, not gratis. Free as in libre means people are free to do anything they like with it, even commercial purposes. Free as in gratis places heavy restrictions on usage. We could discuss a thousand images if you like, but it's rather pointless as it would only serve to highlight this fundamental difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "as much freely-reusable (i.e. libre) content as possible" don't you understand? This is a project which aims to create as much free (libre) content as possible. But it is not, and never has been, a free-content-only project. Why should it be? What possible benefit would that serve? This image is not standing in the way of free (libre) content, because no free (libre) substitute is available. And having it adds to the reader's understanding of the subject. So, what good do you think is served by removing it? Jheald (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• (de-indent) I don't think we have any common ground to speak on. Your vision of Wikipedia and the Foundation's view are diametrically opposed. I agree with their vision. I'm sorry you don't. But, given that we disagree, it's kinda like talking two languages that have no common ancestral language. We lack the means to communicate. What you want and what the Foundation wants can't be reconciled. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I dispute that. What you agree with is your own vision. You've produced no evidence to support that it's what the Foundation's wants. (And as Durin noted, he didn't find he was getting an ounce of support for this notion from the Foundation either). Rather, it's what you want -- for reasons which are still unclear to me, because, despite having been specifically asked nine separate times now, what practical good would be served by removing an image like the one I have cited, you haven't put up a single reason. The goal of Wikipedia is to generate as much freely-reusable (i.e. libre) content as possible; and, without compromising that goal, to create as good an encyclopedia as possible. So for a tenth time: this image is not standing in the way of free (libre) content, because no free (libre) substitute is available. And having it adds to the reader's understanding of the subject. So, what good do you think is served by removing it? Jheald (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• A diff that is highly relevant, from Wikimedia's then lawyer Brad Patrick: [10]. This speaks to the difference between gratis and libre. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That diff is talking about images on portal pages, and making the point, that unlike an article page, on a portal page it should be easily possible to substitute free images instead of non-free images, without loss of benefit to the user. In contrast, as Wikidemo notes below, on article pages we do allow non-free content - if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, if no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. That's the position. Your proposal seeks to be more restrictive than that. But so far you have declined to set out any practical good that you think would be served by adopting your further restrictions. Jheald (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. The Foundation has asked us to produce a policy by which fair use is generally discouraged but that allows some fair use with a suitable rationale. We have done so. It's called WP:NFCC (or in a more limited way WP:NFC) In this world, an encyclopedic understanding of reality cannot ignore copyrighted content. We use it when necessary. The American legal system, as pro-copyright as it is, recognizes that sometimes you have to reproduce copyrighted material in order to describe the state of the world. We know that too, as does the Board. We simply don't use it when it's not necessary. Wikidemo (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you disagree with the mission of Wikipedia? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would I disagree with the mission of Wikipedia? Saying that fair use content is allowed here subject to certain limitations is an obvious point that nobody reasonably disagrees with. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would change "screenshot" to include other non-free image media that would be appropriate. Eg Characters of Final Fantasy XII has a promotional picture (but not a screenshot) in it's proper function, while this revision of the same for Final Fantasy VIII shows an invalid use of such promotional images, further noting that the current version of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII does include a promotional cast picture that's not a screenshot. --MASEM 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's an excellent point. I've changed "screenshots" to "fair use images" (bolding to highlight the change for others). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should simply say "images of characters" or simply "characters", and perhaps include a wikilink to make clear the sense we use the word "character". The preamble to the section already adds the qualification that it is a non-free image. I think the rest could be shorter and clearer, something like "used without critical commentary to illustrate articles about subjects other than the character." Then you could say the rest directly: Individual character images to illustrate articles or lists about a group or family of characters are considered inappropriate, but group images may be be appropriate for such articles, if created by the copyright holder. Wikidemo (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Version 2

(resectioning to highlight) With Wikidemo's recommendations:

13. Images of characters used without critical commentary regarding the image on anything other than a specific article about that character. Group images may be appropriate for such articles, if created by the copyright holder.

That's shorter, and still addresses the points. Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• It has some merit. The use of images for decorative purposes in lists of characters has, I hope, had its day, it is legally and ethically questionable. A single image of the cast of characters would be rather easier to defend. How often are such images available? Guy (Help!) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Guy. Too often non-free images are simply used to make articles and lists look pretty and fail to take account that this is supposed to be a free project and that we have no right to steal the work of other people for such trivial reasons. If we are to use non-free content it has to contribute significantly to the commentry or article that it is related too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Object. If this is intended to be about lists of characters then it should say so. But at the moment, per the discussion above, it catches far too many other types of articles, where single-character images may be entirely appropriate. A second, more minor point: group screengrabs should be as acceptable as group publicity shots, and this should be indicated. (Some projects, in fact, see screengrabs as more acceptable, because then there can be no questions about unknown proprietary image licensing terms). Jheald (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too broad. Few seem to be willing to address the fact that critical commentary also exists on good actor and film/TV show articles, and those may be properly illustrated by images of fictional characters. If this rule is only meant to be about character lists, then make it specifically about that. Also, images are there to serve the critical commentary in the text, to illustrate something in the text; the image should augment the critical commentary and provide visual context to what's written, and not vice versa. The article is not about the image, the image is about something in the article. --Melty girl (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

People, this isn't a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, opposing and saying why isn't voting. People oppose and object in a consensus process. --Melty girl (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me. What I mean is we should be discussing how to improve the language to a point where we can agree on it, not simply oppose it. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I also oppose this on the grounds that "critical commentary" is not a helpful phrase, as the section below attests. The basis for excluding images from "characters" articles seems not to be some sort of "critical commentary" test, but rather the idea that including them fails both the "minimal usage" standard we articulate and the "significance" standard. At some point, I may be prepared to argue against this application of the standards, but for the purpose of this guideline, if there is to be a section that specifically references these articles, it should be accurate about the reasoning. Croctotheface (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "critical commentary" language is common throughout the guideline and indeed part of precedent in fair use law. I'm sorry you don't agree with that language, and I do understand your reservations on that count. But, it's probably not the best way of going about enhancing this. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean, do YOU know what we mean when we say an image is used "for critical commentary"? If you gave me, say, three different cases, I think I could come up with five different definitions of "commentary" that would allow or disallow each different permutation of those three cases. It's just not helpful or comprehensible language at this point. If you want to have a line to this effect, use the part of the guideline that the principle actually relies on. Croctotheface (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Version 3

(Responding to suggestions from prior section)

13. Images of fictional elements (including characters, locations, items, etc.) used in lists and articles effectively containing multiple short articles without discussion regarding the image beyond slavish commentary on the appearance of each character. Group images may be appropriate for such articles, if created by the copyright holder.

This is perhaps a bit more convoluted. Suggestions welcome on cleaning it up. Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the word "character" and replacing it with "fictional elements (including characters, locations, items, etc.)" Lists of characters are most common but this would also apply to, say, "List of Businesses in Springfield". (assuming that the article otherwise meets WP:FICT). --MASEM 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• So modified. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that needs more thought. For say items in (Insert name of tv sf show here), it is surely legitimate to show what some of the props actually looked like - something that significantly increases readers' understanding. A blanket ban would be a change to current policy, and is not appropriate. Jheald (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• So suggest different language :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need a new clause at all. IMO, policy is already set out by what is already on the page. The more difficulties created by attempts at this new clause, the more appropriate judicious and balanced seems to me the text we already have. Jheald (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is there are people objecting to the removals saying that policy/guideline doesn't explicitly state this case. As previously mentioned, that's the genesis of this proposal. By not including this in the guideline, a zillion arguments will not be avoided. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this version because of its tone. "Slavish commentary" strikes me as needlessly negative about article content. There's no need to denigrate content that is otherwise appropriate for the encyclopedia. Also, I think the first part is a sentence fragment. Croctotheface (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Open to suggestions on fixing the fragment. On the "slavish commentary", I'm trying to get around people taking an article of 50 characters, seeing this guideline, and thinking "Oh, ok, if I just make some commentary about the character's appearance, I'm in the clear" when in reality they aren't. The point of course isn't to lawyerize our way around the guidelines to get in unfree content. The point is to reduce the overuse of content within the framework of "how can we best present this article while using as little unfree content as possible". Suggestions welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole basis for saying that we don't want to use nonfree pictures in articles on characters/elements of fiction is not so much that it's unlawful but rather that we've made the editorial decision that using such images would add a great deal of nonfree content for a small benefit. The whole idea that "critical commentary" usage should be an exception seems kind of silly to me, as the idea behind having fair use anywhere else in the encyclopedia, at least based on the discussion I've been having elsewhere on this talk page, is that there is some sort of "commentary" purpose behind it. I have trouble seeing the how the screenthots at Half-Life 2 are used for commentary, which they necessarily must be if they're to satisfy this guideline, but the screenshots used at, say, List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas do not fall under the "commentary" exception. Basically, I think that if we are to ban fair use images in "characters" articles, the rationale can't be that they're not being used for commentary. The rationale has to be that DESPITE their use for a commentary purpose, we are choosing not to use them for other reasons. Croctotheface (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• There can be reasons why on a "List of..." type article where fair use could conceivably allowed. We're trying to disallow a particular case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused by what this means, especially in light of the fact that what you've proposed here does not assert that anything is disallowed because the first half of it is a fragment that lacks a verb. What case are you trying to disallow? It seems that you're trying to disallow much more than one conceivable case of "characters" images. Croctotheface (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• You know guys, I'm getting disillusioned here. I don't think there's much disagreement that having dozens of fair use images on an article is in line with our mission and policies. I've noted that I'm trying to head off a huge number of arguments, and trying to come up with verbiage to add to the guideline to do precisely that, inline with our mission and policies. At every turn, I'm being shot down in one form or another. It's confusing. It's not needed. It's already in policy. It's using language that's not understood. It's a sentence fragment. To this latest; look at [[11]]. Those are sentence fragments too. I'm *this* close to giving up with the lot of you, and going on a rampage to remove the images from all the list and characters articles since you all seem to think policy already allows it (it does) and the guideline doesn't need to be modified (wrong, but what the heck...let's have lots of arguments!). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you had meant to add that to the "unacceptable images" section rather than to a more general list of guidelines. That's likely my mistake for not following this since the beginning, and you're correct that you need not have a sentence if you want to add to that section. However, I don't think that the "unacceptable images" list is the place for saying what you want to say, since that deals with types of images, i.e. screenshots, maps, or album covers, not with the way they are used. In this case we're dealing with images that are considered acceptable in some contexts (for instance, an article solely dedicated to a fictional character) but not in others (on an article with entries for several fictional characters). I've been very clear about what I think the guideline needs to say to this effect, so if you want to give up on amending it, it won't be for lack of clarity from me. My understanding is that the status quo says we should not have images on those articles because doing so would put us on the wrong side of the "minimal usage" and "significance" standards articulated at this guideline. My contention is that if you want to make an exception for "commentary" or "critical commentary", then you most likely need to scrap this prohibition in general because my reading of the way the term "commentary" is used with respect to this guideline would create a massive contradiction. At the risk of repeating myself, this guideline asserts that software screenshots must be used "for critical commentary". Therefore, there must be "critical commentary" involved wherever screenshots are used, or else we are not allowed to use them. It is nonsensical to say that we can't use such screenshots in "list of characters" articles unless they are used for commentary because, as I understand this guideline, we can't use them ANYWHERE unless they are used for commentary. Croctotheface (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tell you what. When this edit (hich even includes removing an image for a horse of all things, that appeared ONCE) is reverted, you argue with the supporters of fair use images on why the revert is not acceptable. :/ Just watch...it will erupt. -Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note that this was already done and reverted/re-reverted multiple times back in October, with result that the images were pushed back on in violation of policy. This one devolved into this dispute; this rationale, essentially saying Alkivar and Betacommand would have to give a convincing argument on the talk page of that article as to how the images failed. This is a case point; we need this clarification to avoid silly, stupid disputes like this. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to allow the guideline to be amended, or anything of the sort, just saying that, first, you want to put the amendment in the wrong place and, second, that your language doesn't really clarify things. To the first point, if you want to put your new text in the "unacceptable images" section, then you want to classify, basically, a type of article as an "unacceptable image". The unacceptable/acceptable images sections seek to delineate what types of images are acceptable and unacceptable, not the situations where they are acceptable or unacceptable. To the second point, I feel like I've articulated my concerns clearly: some of them go to this guideline as it exists being vague, and some of them go to your amendment citing the wrong kind of language for what I think you mean to say. At the root, I still don't really know what "critical commentary" is supposed to do for us--you haven't answered my questions about why it makes sense to have a commentary exception for software screenshots on "list of characters" pages when, as I understand it, commentary must necessarily be present to use software screenshots anywhere. Croctotheface (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just about every time I make a proposal, you shoot it down. As expected, an argument on List of animals in The Simpsons has ensued (more like erupted), and the article is now protected. As I noted, people insist it's not against policy or guideline because this usage is not explicitly stated in either. And guess what? That's exactly what happened here. How many bazillion times do we have to fight these ridiculous arguments before this guideline is amended to exclude this usage? How many? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just not addressing my concerns here. I've done my best to make my issues with what you've proposed very clear. Your "discussion of the image" standard, near as I can tell, is NOT the basis of excluding the images you're talking about. The basis, as I've said like three times now, is the belief that the image subjects lack "significance" and that excluding the images goes along with our principle of "minimal usage". What you wanted to say and where you wanted to put it poses several problems. If you can't provide a coherent response that explains why my concerns are not valid, then you should accept them and change what you want such that my concerns are addressed. Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out that I am not coherent. Since you apparently are coherent, then please be so kind as to come up with a guildeline addition that addresses the concerns raised. I'm sure you're up to the task. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to toss a brainstorming piece here. In the above List of Simpsons animals, BetaCommmand suggests that the only creature that needs an image is Blinky (the 6-eyed fish), a stand I agree with. Compared to say, Stampy the Elephant who is simply an elephant (and thus should be obvious what it looks like without an image), it can be difficult to describe how Blinky is a 6-eyed fish, and a picture here helps tremendously.

So maybe language like (again, being prefaced by the "Unacceptable Images"):

"Multiple images of singular fictional elements (such as characters, items, locations, etc.) in lists and articles effectively containing multiple short articles which can be easily replaced with descriptive language in the body of the article or with a grouped image provided by the content copyright holder."

Doubt it's perfect, but hope that helps. --MASEM 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as the standard, but I don't think Hammersoft will be. Croctotheface (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign, Part II

Having contributed more to this article's text, I am preparing it for a potential FAC. Adding the text is fun, but the photos drive me freakin' crazy. I found some images on the Library of Congress website that would be perfect for the article, but I don't understand what I can use and what I can't. Your assistance with interpreting the rights, and what tags for any photos I would be able to use would be very appreciated. They are as follows:

• Bull Connor (temp link) cph.3c28478 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
• Protesters outside a municipal building (temp link) cph.3c10972 (working link) Photo by Bruce Davidson, Magnum.
• Protesters kneeling on a sidewalk (temp link) cph.3c21286 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
• Downtown Birmingham, May 7 (temp link) cph.3c22637 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
• Ushers turn away Negroes at 6th St Church (temp link) cph.3c35500 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
• Martin Luther King being arrested (temp link) cph.3c20213 (working link) NYWTS Collection (United Press International)
• Arrest near Kelly Ingram Park (temp link) cph.3b27497 (working link) Photo by Bruce Davidson, Magnum.
  • Additional restriction: DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM MAGNUM PHOTOS.
• Sixteenth Street Baptist Church (working photo link) al0966 (working link) Historic American Buildings Survey

- updated temp links with working links and rights restrictions information. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As well, most of these are small photos. Could I get them to 250 px or so in the article? Thank you once more. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best discussed at Talk:Birmingham campaign. Will comment over there. Will briefly note here that we do have Template:LOC-image (and an equivalent on Commons), but the individual details need to be checked for each photograph. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating the above links with working links (original poster needs to confirm). Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Coming back here for advice. The majority are covered by this New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection page (in this case they are all from United Press International). I think this means we can only use the photos under fair use (the photos are mainly newspaper photos, and all from 1963). The question we should try and answer is "how many can be used". I can see individual arguments justifying the use of each one, but can they collectively all be used on the single article Birmingham campaign (which probably needs a more specific name)? Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Previous discussion was here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• My advice would be to avoid the Magnum ones, and only use the United Press International ones where they really help the article. I'd say the Bull Conner one (you can talk about what he is reading out) and the ones of protestors kneeling on the street (very powerful image). The NYWTS ones can be further annotated with which newspaper they are from. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A further update. The Library of Congress have a helpful page on United Press International images. UPI are still in existence (but declining - see the article at United Press International). The relevant bit here is that their archives got sold off to Corbis. "CORBIS bought the pre-1991 UPI images that were physically housed in UPI's archives in New York City.". We are talking 1963 here, so "any copyright held by UPI to the pre-1991 UPI images that were physically housed in UPI's archives in New York City would now be owned by CORBIS if that copyright is still current." The question is whether the copyright is still current. The Library of Congress attempt to start to answer this with the following:

    "In an attempt to determine if UPI registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office. Additionally, researchers should be advised that determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply."

    Anyone want to interpret that in terms of Wikipedia's NFC policy and criteria? Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To summarise the above, the pictures are all B&W historic images from 1963, showing things related to, or part of, the struggle and campaigns for civil rights in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. The proximate source is the Library of Congress, which holds archives of such images. The original sources fall into three categories:

• (1) Bruce Davidson, Magnum Photos
• (2) United Press International via 'New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection', original UPI archives now with Corbis.
• (3) Historic American Buildings Survey.

The last one is easy. It is indeed work by the US government (in this case the National Park Service). Our article says: "The permanent collection of HABS/HAER/HALS is housed at the Library of Congress. As a branch of the U.S. Federal Government, its created works are in the public domain." - so I'll upload that one now for Moni3's article. The others, I'll let others comment on. I think I've unearthed enough information for something definitive to be said. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Update, quoting what I said over at the talk page:

"The short answer is that because Wikipedia tries to be as free as possible, it is not a case of getting permissions. The photos have to be completely released, and most newspaper photographers will not do that, so you have to wait for them to fall into the public domain, which takes a long time. There are exceptions, like those news agency photos that were donated to the Library of Congress (such as the Gaston motel explosion one). But most Library of Congress newspaper pictures aren't like that. The only way you will be able to use the photos above (apart from the HABS one, which is free) is under fair use. Yes, {{non-free historic image}} is the right tag to use, but it's not a case of finding lots of pictures and putting that tag on them. They have to be truly irreplaceable and essential to the article. The best way to decide that is to pick the most important one for the article, the most iconic, the most powerful imagery, the one that there is no free equivalent for. In other words, the ones that you can justify the most. What helps in cases like this is to find as many free images as you can find (I've found two more in the LOC archives), and to then see whether the article still needs any more photos. You should, in any case, link to the photos with descriptions, even if you can't use the actual photos themselves."

Does that sound about right? The only thing I'm still uncertain about is whether the uncertainty over whether the UPI copyrights were renewed means we can use them or not? Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report Library of Congress images

See commons:Template:PD-USNWR. A very useful template. If people come across Library of Congress images by these photographers being used under non-free use (note the date restriction, as U.S. News & World Report is still in existence - this only applies to the 1952-1986 period covered by the collection donated to the LOC archives), please convert to some equivalent to this tag, or transfer to Commons. There was one at Birmingham campaign being used under a PD-USGov tag (not correct). I found the original, cropped it, uploaded to Commons, and replaced it in the article. Old image: Image:Gaston motel 1963.jpg. New image: Image:04293v cropped.JPG. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion advice

Regarding the above (Old image: Image:Gaston motel 1963.jpg. New image: Image:04293v cropped.JPG), could someone advise on what is the right way to handle the old image? I suspect it can be deleted. If so, can I just delete it straightaway as some form of speedy, or should I tag it so someone else can review the proposed deletion? If it can be deleted straightway, could it be left for me to do? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You could have crushed the old one, it would have been better in my opinion, as the border is 100% unnecessary. Jackaranga (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I'll double-check at CSD. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Old images still in violation

Hello, I was just wondering if anyone knew how come there are fair-use images uploaded 2 years ago that still have no rationale, and were never tagged by a bot ? Is it just luck ? Seems funny that in so long nobody would have noticed them, when sometimes I see bots tagging an image for lacking rationale in the same minute it was uploaded. Jackaranga (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason is, 2 years ago images didn't really need fair use rationales. Or they did, but the uploading form didn't say that in red letters. These are ones we're working on slowly, since many times the uploader is gone by now. But for new images, presumably the uploader is still around -- and besides, new uploaders have fewer excuses, since the requirement to include a rationale is explicit and loud. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In August I was asked not to tag old images. I said that I would skip them, at least for a while. BCBot is only tagging images uploaded after Jan 1, 2007. But on Jan 1, 2008 BCBot will no longer skip old images. (this is by previous agreement). β^_command 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are the lists and categories of old images enabling people to focus clean-up efforts on those images? Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive got a crude list on my toolserver page. β^_command 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm clicking the words "toolserver page", but nothing's happenning. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you know, with the help of Google I took only a few second to find your toolsever page. Buggered if I know which of those lists it is though. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

that would be old_images.txt <NOTE IT IS A LARGE FILE ~3.4MB> (I use a very basic logical naming scheme). β^_command 00:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Don't know how I missed that. I guess I didn't scroll down to the bottom. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the file, it is still 1+MB. β^_command 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I cant upload it right now. But it is 68897 images. these are images that BCBot has at one time or another has recorded a problems with, but where uploaded prior to 1/1/2007, this list is not current, images on this list might have been deleted or might have been fixed since BCBot came across it. β^_command 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol the admins are going to have a fair deal of work to do on January the 7th if you tag all 60,000. Jackaranga (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Luckily, at 6 edits per minute, it would take 7 days just to tag that many images (for a bot working around the clock). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That is if BCBot edited at 6 EPM. BCBot edits using the maxlag parameter and only edits if the lag is less than 5 seconds. That allows the bot to tag the 60k in under a day :) . β^_command 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Beta, for holding off per our understanding, and I'm sorry I couldn't get enough energy, support, and agreement together to organize the teams to fix the images. If you tag 60,000 images in one day on a seven-day notice you might cause a wiki-riot, but I won't be among the riotors. I gave it a shot. It would be better to tag 60,000 images in one day and give people 67 days to fix them than it would be to tag 1,000 images per day and give people seven days to fix them. Either way it clears up 60,000 images by mid-March. Wikidemo (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put all these problem images into a list like User:Quadell/Report on backlinks, divided by image type (album cover, book cover, etc)? The amounts would be huge, but maybe if people could quantify the scope of the problem we would be more urgent about fixing it. It would also help in finding the legacy images before they are tagged for deletion. When old images (which are probably OK apart from the missing rationale) are mixed in with new images (which often need to be deleted for failing other parts of WP:NFCC) in CAT:SPEEDY it is difficult to find them to fix them. Bláthnaid 13:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if the wikipedia brain trust simply deletes EVERY image, thus starting over on a clean slate, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that once, as well. I still think categorising images would be good. There are a fair amount of archival historical images out there that it would be a waste of time to delete and reupload. If there was a quick way of scanning through large categories and tagging the historical ones, I'd be more than happy to work for a couple of months on those. Is there a tool and category that I could use to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Beats me. But a good starting place would be the type of license used. PD-1923 would be excluded, for example. Someone could "cheat" on that, of course, but I would think a robot could zap every illustration labeled as "fair use" in some way or another. And if someone thinks I'm being sarcastic about this, that's only partially true. I have had any number of arguments with other editors due to the mercurial nature of the fair use concepts. The simple solution, which would save everyone lots of time, is to either (1) allow all of them or (2) allow none of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

What's wrong with using fair use stuff like promotional photos for celebrities, etc? Doesn't this qualify as fair use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.193.36 (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably does qualify for fair use (meaning it is legal in the United States), and moreover, most of this stuff is or would have the permission of the copyright holder (i.e. a copyright license). However, Wikipedia is about more than just having the best articles on the web that are legal to display and available for people to read. One of its other primary missions is to generate free content, meaning articles that anybody in the world can reprint, re-use, modify, or do anything they want with, without having to answer to anyone over copyright concerns. The thought is, we are providing an alternative to all the commercial content sources out there in the world. Nearly everybody who releases publicity photos reserves some rights so they keep control over the image they are promoting. For instance, they require that the photos not be altered, or that they only be used in certain specific contexts. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. If we had too many photos like that it would case a great concern over just how reusable the content is. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The only practical solution to that issue is to ban ALL non-free illustrations. That would save a lot of time and trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cropping photos from public domain photos

Could people here have a look at Image:04298u cropped.jpg and see if it all looks OK? It is a crop of a photo from a public domain photo, but as the original photographer is not known, I uploaded it as {{non-free historic image}} instead of uploading it at Commons. Does this seem reasonable, and is the documentation all in order? Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While it may be unlikely we'd find a free photo for this event, I don't think there should be too much of a problem finding a fair use photo where we can give credit to the original photographer. There's quite a good chance this photo itself originally came from some newspaper or other.--Pharos (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded Image:04298u cropped.jpg with improved contrast that looks much better. Hope you guys prefer it. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: the documentation is all in order, but I'm not sure we can make a legitimate fair use claim here when we're not attributing it to the author (our ignorance isn't a good excuse, really).--Pharos (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find an alternative, please replace it. Attribution to the original photographer in the case of historical images has never been a strong point in the NFCC. See point 9 at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images (though I did rewrite that into its current form several months ago when last debating historical images): "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.". The point here is that the fair-use claim isn't diluted by not knowing who took the photograph. As an aside, the use of the photograph in that protest march was almost certainly fair-use in itself (and a classic example of fair-use use at that - who would sue them for using the photo on that march?). My point here is that they didn't attribute the source of the photograph, and enforcing Wikipedia's requirement for attribution in this case seems, well, overly bureaucratic. In other words, it is not about fair-use, but about attribution. Incidentally, I made a tweak to the "press agency" bit (number 6 in the 'unacceptable images' bit). See here. My point is that some press agency archive photos get donated into the public domain, and people should be more aware of this. My tweak there is to make people more aware of such examples, and to avoid a "press agency = bad" attitude (which is mostly justified, to be fair). Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-active

The advice given on this page is that unacceptable images include those of groups that are still active. Well, what about a copy of a crest of a public municipal council, that was abolished? Any advice on licencing that? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever organ of government was originally responsible for establishing (and disestablishing) the municipal council has probably inherited their intellectual properties, along with their office equipment etc..--Pharos (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good examples of non-free use

Do we have a list somewhere of good examples of non-free use of images (the same question applies to video clips and sound clips as well)? I see we have Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable images, but maybe we could start a subpage with actual real examples of such use? With exemplary and well-sourced article commentary and well-written non-free use rationales. One example that I'd like to add to such a list is Birmingham campaign#Images of the day. That depends of course on whether such use is a good example! I've been mostly talking to myself in the section above: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Birmingham campaign, Part II, but that section in the article is the end result of that monologue (see also Talk:Birmingham campaign#Images for article). Does the course of the discussion there strike the right balance between searching for free images and non-free use of iconic images? Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More USNWR and HABS photos

For the record, the work I did on the above resulted in the following pictures. This is a good example of how working on non-free images can also involve finding and uploading free images as well):

• Image:04298u cropped.jpg (non-free) - 16th Street Baptist Church bombing)
• Image:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg - (non-free) (Birmingham campaign)
• Image:Birmingham campaign dogs.jpg - (non-free) (Birmingham campaign)
• Image:321037pv cropped.JPG - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church bombing, Birmingham campaign, 16th Street Baptist Church)
• Image:04293v cropped.JPG - (PD-USNWR) (Birmingham campaign)
• Image:03194v cropped.jpg - (PD-USNWR) (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Birmingham campaign)
• Image:04298v cropped.JPG - (PD-USNWR) (Congress of Racial Equality, 16th Street Baptist Church bombing)
• Image:321049pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church - museum display)
• Image:321050pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (Birmingham Civil Rights Institute - museum display)
• Image:321045pv cropped.jpg - (PD HABS) (16th Street Baptist Church - stained glass window)

I'm a little bit uneasy about the interior shot of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute by a HABS photographer. I'm not convinced that the permission HABS were granted to take the photos extends to making the images PD, given the museum display and statue. The museum in the church basement, I'm less worried about, as there is no statue there. The stained glass window is an interesting example as well. What do people think? Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of images with incompete rationales vs fixing rationales

Following on from the now archived proposal to split 10c into two criteria, I would like to make clearer in deletion guidelines for admins (and undeletion guidelines) that images with incomplete rationales and those with no rationale at all, should be treated differently. The crucial point being that while bots (such as BetacommandBot) can detect images lacking backlinks, they can't tell whether this is due to the absence of a rationale, or an incomplete rationale. Only humans can do this, and the human stage of the process is the deleting admin. The examples here come from the previously discussed large batch of deletions (manual checking of 1163 images followed by half-hour TWINKLE deletion). It is a series of 'Randall and Hopkirk are deceased' images, which are probably overused and not needed in the articles they are in, but those are NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 concerns. The point here is that the images clearly had rationales, and were only missing the article name. The images are the ones with "randall" in the image name, listed here (due to the rapid speed of deletions, it was not possible to link to just the ones in question - these are all the deletions made in a single minute). Here are three examples: [12], [13], and [14]. In each case, a rationale clearly exists. it is also equally clear that there is overuse of the screenshots across the episode articles (I'd say one per episode if that). My point is that here we have had a delete-undelete cycle, but no resolution of the underlying issues. What would be better is a group nomination of the Randall and Hopkirk images at IfD, with a view to restricting to little or zero the amount of screenshots used in these articles. That would be a more efficient way then clearing out these images with a pseudo-10c reasoning. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear-cut case of incorrect deletion reason

Can I have a sanity check here? I found a problem with Image:Rapp cutout.jpg (previously deleted and recently reuploaded). When I look at the version that was deleted, I see that it was linked. And looking at the history, I see that Betacommandbot tagged it, someone else fixed it, and then the image got deleted anyway. This seems to be clear-cut case of an image being tagged, repaired, tag not removed, and an admin deleting it for the wrong reason without checking things properly. Or am I missing something here? Obvioulsly, the images shouldn't be used in the Minor characters in Monkey Island article, but the way to deal with that is to remove them from the article and tag them as examples of overuse/orphaned images, not to delete for an incorrect reason. Otherwise we might as well do away with the deletion log altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

10c reasons in deletion logs

Would it be workable to have the policies ask admins to provide more reasoning for 10c deletions in the log summaries? Instead of a generic "10c" reason, why not ask deleting admins to state why the rationale is invalid. For example:

• (1) No rationale present
• (2) Rationale does not mention article
• (3) Disagree with rationale

The first case is a clear-cut case of deletion. The second case is a clear-cut case for repair. The third case is subjective, and should probably go to an IfD discussion instead (it will often involve other NFCC). This is what I was heading towards (though I didn't realise it at the time) with my "split 10c" proposal. What is needed is not to split the criteria, but to have deleting admins provide a clear reason. An incidental side-benefit of this is that this will demonstrate that they have assessed the image properly. How can this be worked into the guidelines and spread as best practice? Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above, I'm hoping that those that do fast batch deletions after manual reviews will agree that at the same time as manually reviewing the images they can automate the addition of a reason why the rationale is invalid. That would address practically all my concerns about batch reviews and fast deletions. East.217 described it this way: "[he] manually reviews all the images first, queues up the ones that need to be deleted, and then wipes them out in a single batch using a semi-automated tool" - would inserting one of the three reasons I provide above be a good addition to this process? Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I already do this. east.718 at 23:59, December 25, 2007

SVG Logos

I have encountered someone who has been systematically converting fair use logos to SVG files.

I would like to confirm that this is violation of WP:NFCC 3(b), i.e. the provision that fair use images should be limited in extent / low quality. An SVG file is intrinsically scalable, and hence not limited in size. It has long been my understanding that we are not allowed to use SVG to represent non-free images for exactly that reason and that such logos should be replaced by JPG/PNG/GIF files of appropriate size. Dragons flight (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was first told it was a no-go, but once more and more people started to know about Vector graphics and about the websites that host them, it seemed no one had a problem with them before. I think a clarification can be good. However, what we can do with the SVG files is to save them, export them to PNG and use those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that there is a Category:Vector_images_of_trademarks with ~720 SVG Logos and corresponding template {{SVG-Logo}} that was kept at TFD. Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, fair-use should be "as is". No alterations such as cropping or colouring, as fair use doesn't allow for modification of the images. SVG conversion would fall under that. More generally, I may be wrong about this "no modification" thing, but I'd like it if that could be confirmed as well. Can you clean and enhance fair-use images, or not? My view is that once you start modifying fair-use images, you are going down a slippery road. At some point, the image is different from the original. Changing file format from tif to jpg might seem reasonable, and reducing the image size is required. Conversion to SVG, as DF points out, introduces scalability concerns. Of course, there is nothing to stop people taking the logo and converting it to SVG themselves, but we certainly shouldn't be doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

With logos, typically any alterations in SVG translation would be to ensure the proper reproduction of the image. That is, if you have a 300 x 200 JPG that you're trying to convert, obviously there are going to be artifacts and other quality problems to overcome in generating an SVG. However, I would think that "modification" refers to the content of the logo rather than the to the original file. In other words, alterations that are made in order to faithfully preserve the representation provided by the copyright holder don't seem to violate that criterion. Dylan (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, many of the files come from an EPS file that is already vectorized ({{Brands of the World SVG}} and corresponding Category:Brands of the World), so that modification doesn't even take place for some. Dylan (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person whom you reference as having been converting raster images to SVG, but I thought I'd add my opinion anyway, which is that this does not violate 3(b). (Preface: I'm not an expert here, but the following is how I understand policy and these file types to work, which I believe is accurate.) SVG files don't offer any higher resolution (cf. Image resolution), in that they don't offer additional detail or information that a JPG would miss. (The difference is a logo like Image:Abc-logo.jpg, which has photographic information that could be rendered at a higher resolution in violation of NFCC. Something like Image:CBSeye.svg, however, doesn't add anything more than an equivalent raster image.) SVGs simply provide the same information in a scalable format, which is both more efficient (using the example of the image that sparked this debate, Image:University of California, Berkeley athletic logo.svg is 12 KB; Image:Cal-athletic-logo.gif was 16 KB and choppy) and much clearer, which to me represents a more faithful reproduction of a copyrighted logo. As such, I should think SVG is not only acceptable but preferable. Dylan (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3b doesn't apply to logos. In the case of logos, trademark owners would rather have a faithful reproduction than a sloppy one that would tend to tarnish their mark. Moreover, when you convert something to SVG you are not adding detail. Wikidemo (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Says who? I'm a trademark holder in real-life, and I'd beg to disagree. If Wikipedia included my mark, I'd rather it had a reduced scale version than one that could be co-opted for merchandising and other applications at very high resolution. Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A faithful reproduction would be using the one they use (or a scaled version thereof). Creating and distributing scalable versions is not in the spirit of our fair use policy, in my opinion. Your "Cal" logo, for example, would look good on t-shirts and other merchandise, whereas the GIF would not. Hence, as a practical matter, your SVG is suitable at higher resolution, which is something we are expected to avoid with fair use. Dragons flight (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Says me. I own trademarks too. None of the reasons why we urge low quality copies apply to logos. The quality of reproduction does not make it harder or easier to steal a trademark, nor does it change the magnitude of the harm - I can make my own SVG or find an image elsewhere if I want to pass off bootleg Cal merchandise. It wouldn't affect the fair use balancing test either because it doesn't affect the transformative nature of the reproduction. The effort is minimal compared to the magnitude of passing off merchandise. That's a completely different situation than with photos, paintings, audio, video, and most other copyrighted material. Wikidemo (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary/appropriate for Wikipedia to make it easier to violate copright/trademark rights (which is what unnecessarily upgrading raster images to SVG does). In my opinion, all the arguments about low quality should apply to logos as well. Again, I am of the opinion that this is not in the spirit of our fair use policies. Dragons flight (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. It's no easier, and no more rights are violated or content copied, with an SVG than a jpeg or gif version of a logo. In the meanwhile it can make a reasonable difference in the quality of presentation for our readers. That's been common practice here for quite a while, by the way, and encouraged by the logo guideline. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is easier / better quality in many professional/semi-professional contexts to use an SVG than say a 400px width raster logo, to suggest otherwise is at best disingenuous. As for it being common practice, I don't really think that's true even if some people have succeeded in changing the Logo guideline. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that you seem to be taking for granted that your opinion is the correct one and that some minority cabal has hijacked the direction of policy (some people have succeeded in changing the Logo guideline). As Wikidemo points out, this has been in place for some time (at least nine months based on the category and template creation dates), and your objections have already been hashed out in several forums, all with the result of continuing this practice. I don't want to argue from "This is what we've already agreed upon" because obviously consensus can change, but I certainly don't think you should imply a priori that a perversion of policy has taken place and that the majority of contributing users have been thwarted. The various discussions on the subject and their outcomes seem to indicate otherwise. Dylan (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A faithful reproduction would be using the one they use -- I feel that you're confusing the file with the image. Copying the 100 × 100 thumbnail image of a logo at the top of some company's web page is what you mean by the one they use. Yes, that is the file they use, at least in that particular instance. But that 100 × 100 file was generated probably from a scalable image, or at least from an idealized image that exists in their archives and their imagination. The SVGs we use accurately represent that conceptualized diagram; not using the (or one) specific file they make available is hardly a disservice to their original intent. The choice to use a 100 × 100 was likely a decision borne out of the constraints of web design, not out of what they intend for distribution. Dylan (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I Disagree (with SVG is bad). SVG Images give much clearer picture to the image in question, and they can contain the exact same detail that a JPG format can, but more sizeable. For example, there IS a difference between a SVG logo that is NATIVELY small and misses many details than a huge JPG that has way more detail. SVGs are also much better in the way of accessibility, as text size can be changed, and it is based on XML and has smaller file sizes. It also allows (some) people to see how a product's logo is constructed by removing certain layers, which could be used to describe the image even further. As for "fair use", I think less detailed SVG would help all articles concerned. I honestly think, in my opinion, that many companies don't care enough about their logo being in a better format, and those that do can put some tag on the image they don't like. It also allows a much better rendering in articles, no matter the size. I think you shouldn't be attacking the whole idea of scaleable logos, just the detail contained in these formats. Adammw (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, going from EPS to SVG requires no touching up of the image at all. Just need to export paths into an SVG like format. I done several times, at least once for a logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Faithful reproduction of logos is more important than ending up with pixellated thumbnails that distort and misrepresent the logo. We don't have any control over what people do with the files, and using SVG is a service for our readers to allow accurate presentation of logos at various sizes. People may misuse such files, but they should know better. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And we known that people misused or never credit our images at all, even with the free stuff. So, I agree with Carcharoth, we should use the vector images for logos. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image abuse

I'd be interested in some knowledgable people's opinions over at Talk:Punk rock. We have a situation there where the user who owns the article (a separate issue which has recently been discussed at WP:AN/I) has chosen various non-free images to adorn the article with. We have album covers, a copyrighted poster, etc. I am not really getting through to him that this is not an appropriate use of non-free images; as he pointed out I am currently in a minority, and these images are no more arbitrary than anything else on Wikipedia! Naurally this is not quite how I see it, and I have suggested a number of free images which I think would be more appropriate. Anyway, I'd be grateful if anyone can find time to take a look and consider commenting. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of the word "abuse"

On the article's Talk page, you dispense advice about not personalizing the debate. Here you accuse me of owning the article. That's not a very impressive demonstration of intellectual honesty, John.

You have also misrepresented my position. I have not claimed that the five fair use images in question "are no more arbitrary than anything else on Wikipedia." (I have argued that you have misused the word "arbitrary," just as you have misused the word "decoration" in the debate and "abuse" in your header to this thread.) I have argued that their choice is not arbitrary at all and that it meets policy. I have been specific in describing the significance of each image, and the significance of each is supported by the sources cited in the article. Though you have suggested in a general fashion that images from a gallery of seventeen free punk-related images you have created on the Talk page be used "instead of" the fair use images in question, when I have asked you to specify what you would use instead of what, you have never answered. I will ask again here, absolutely explicitly: You have provided seventeen free images which you say "would be more appropriate."

• Which would you use as the keynote image in the lead Characteristics section, instead of the cover of the Ramones' self-titled debut album? Can you explain how its use would help readers understand the topic to a degree comparable to the current image, or even nearly comparable?
• Which would you use to illustrate the historical subsection Early history/The UK, instead of the poster for the Sex Pistols' "Anarchy in the U.K." single? Can you explain how its use would help readers understand the topic to a degree comparable to the current image, or even nearly comparable?
• Which would you use to illustrate the historical subsection The second wave/The UK, instead of the cover of Wire's debut album, Pink Flag? Can you explain how its use would help readers understand the topic to a degree comparable to the current image, or even nearly comparable?
• Which would you use to illustrate the historical/genre subsection Post-punk, instead of the image of Joy Division? Can you explain how its use would help readers understand the topic to a degree comparable to the current image, or even nearly comparable?
• Which would you use to illustrate the historical/genre subsection Oi!, instead of the cover of the Strength Thru Oi! compilation album? Can you explain how its use would help readers understand the topic to a degree comparable to the current image, or even nearly comparable?

—23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)DCGeist (talk)

Not every section needs an image, free or non-free. Secondly, unless it is for identification purposes, you really need commentary on the images and what is encyclopedic about them. See Birmingham campaign#Images of the day for a good example. The more you find about people talking about the images, rather than the people in the images, then the stronger your case will be for keeping the images in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an entirely valid point, Carcharoth: Not every section needs an image, free or non-free. Before anyone assumes from earlier passages in this discussion that images have just been gathered up, willy-nilly, to "decorate" or "adorn" the article, let me point out this fact--over a dozen sections/subsections of the article have no image. That's over a dozen as in thirteen: Garage rock and mod, Origin of the term punk, Early history/Australia, Early history/Other U.S. cities, The second wave/North America, The second wave/Australia, The second wave/Rest of the world, Punk transforms, New wave, Hardcore, Pop punk, Other fusions and directions, and Emo—no images.

I believe all the images presently in the article, free and fair use, have been selected judiciously because they significantly help the reader better understand the article topic. Though the specific significance of each image is not directly addressed in the article, the significance of visual aesthetics to punk is underscored throughout, the illustrative point and effect of each image is clear (at least clear to most of those who have weighed in so far), and the importance of each image is, in fact, verifiable via our cited sources. The importance of the first Ramones album and the "Anarchy" single to the article topic is so great, and so vastly documented, that anyone conversant with the topic should understand that the existing critical commentary on the items more than fully satisfies policy. More than enough has been written about the actual visual content of the "Anarchy" poster, the Pink Flag cover, and the Strength Thru Oi! cover to justify such discussion in the article, if the consensus is that the article would thereby benefit—I believe the brief existing commentary backed by their verifiable significance, again, is fully in line with policy. As for the Joy Division image, this is the one I have devoted most of my efforts to finding a suitable free replacement for. I believe it is vital to illustrate the relevant Post-punk section to indicate the aesthetic connection and transformation from punk to post-punk. For the moment, we have an image of--as our cited sources indicate--one of the most important post-punk bands, with roots at the heart of the British first wave. If we can find an historically appropriate free image that helps the reader to understand the aesthetic shift, even if it is of a band not quite as important or is of not quite equivalent quality, I would happily support the substitution.—DCGeist (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

One option for some of the sections might be to see if there is enough material for a few more daughter article. Having three images in the punk rock article and two heading up daughter articles, might be more acceptable. One of the problems here is the broad scope of the article - it covers a lot of years and a lot of activity. I looked at the article that passed FAR and FARC in January 2007, and the current article seems a bit larger, both in pure size and number of references (64Kb vs 111Kb and 112 refs vs 211 refs). The "Article size" warning is appearing when I hit edit on the current article. This is a perennial problem with broad topic articles like this. It might even be better to have a series of articles on the history of punk rock. If that is done, then the overuse of fair-use concerns might be addressed as a side-effect. You might still want the parent article to have all the same images, but a balance is needed to, if possible, distribute the non-free images around the series of articles. Think of it like you are having to pay for each use and so need to minimise the number of times you use an image. Not a good analogy, but possibly a workable one. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You've articulated something I've been thinking about the last couple of weeks. The article has gotten quite long, and it might best serve our readers to create a daughter history article or two so we can condense the main. However, I'm not sure in practical terms that would do much about the five fair use images we currently have: We would still want the Ramones and "Anarchy" images, and condensing history wouldn't affect the genre subsecs with the Joy Division and Strength Thru Oi! images. Only the Pink Flag image might be affected. Note also, if we create dedicated history articles for the early history of punk, they will be covering a historical period that is (a) still fully under copyright regime, (b) prior to most Wikipedians' and other voluntary efforts to create substantive free image resources, and (c) of a topical nature such that other sources of free imagery, such as the U.S. government, are not likely to be applicable. What exactly is the current thinking about how to properly illustrate articles of such historical and topical nature at the professional standard of presentation we aspire to?—DCGeist (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that sometimes it is not possible to illustrate to a professional standard of presentation if by professional standard you mean "the pictures that could be paid for". You obviously can't use 100 pictures in there. One picture is clearly acceptable if it is a crucial part of the article. How far you then go before things are unacceptable is not clear. Two? Three? Four? Five? At some point, the pictures become decoration and distract from, rather than help, the words. The rule of thumb is to write the article first, and then step back and think what pictures are needed as part of the article. Unless it is an article about images (eg. an article about a photograph or an artwork), then the images are usually subsidiary to the text. The even shorter answer is that a professional non-free encyclopedia has a wider choice of image to use, and that Wikipedia, because it is a free encyclopedia, has less choice. It's tough, but that's the bottom line, and fair-use is an exception to the rule, not a way to justify excessive fair-use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as an example, an article on Punk rock imagery might be able to justify 5 fair-use pictures, but I doubt the punk rock article could. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It could justify even more. Back in January, the article passed FAR with eight fair use images. While personal opinion on what constitutes the "right" number is just that, personal opinion, the community record demonstrates that five constitutes a minimal number in this historical/topical context. Of course, the use of each image must still individually meet current policy, as these do.—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you ask on WP:FAC how carefully they scrutinise fair-use. Whenever this issue has been raised, they've always asked for more people with knowledge of image policies to help out at WP:FAC. Unless the FAR or FAC explicitly debated and approved the fair-use, silence on the issue is not consent. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that every image had been individually vetted at that time. My point is this: The article was reviewed and affirmed as an example of Wikipedia's best work when it contained eight fair use images. Despite a significant expansion in the length of the text since that time, the number of fair use images has actually been reduced by almost 40 percent. I suggest that the record demonstrates that the editors who are engaged with maintaining and improving the article are mindful and respectful of Wikipedia's policies on non-free content and have succeeded in bringing the level of fair use images down to what constitutes a minimal number given the nature of this particular topic.—DCGeist (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not use free images? Surely, Commons has images related to punk rock? I'm really not sure why any nonfree images would be required here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Many free images are used in the article. As explained in detail both above and in the article's Talk page, some fair use images are necessary because the article covers a considerable amount of history which is in a period that is both (a) recent enough that it is still under copyright regime and (b) old enough that free images which can satisfactorily be substituted are not available.—DCGeist (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the Commons do not have any, which I find it hard to believe, there is always Flickr. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with Flickr! There are many false free "releases" on the Commons, and there are many, many more on Flickr. I was recently tricked by one supposedly free image from the Commons that was originally picked up from Flickr. The entire "release" history turns out to have been falsified. This is a significant and growing problem; one that, unlike careful and proper application of fair use, puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Please research carefully any images that trace back to Flickr whenever there is any hint of a doubt.—DCGeist (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I still believe Flickr still might be a good choice if the Commons becomes fruitless. Also, there is a page where you can request pictures to be made. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And you're certainly right that it's a resource worth checking out. You've inspired me to go through it now to see if there might be something historically appropriate for our article's Post-punk section. And thanks for letting me know there's a request page. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, requesting pictures in this case would involve requesting old pictures that people may have taken at concerts and suchlike many years ago, and releasing them under a free license. Current pictures cannot adequately illustrate the history of a topic. I still think that there should be a separate History of punk rock article, so it is clearer that this is a problem with historical images. DCGeist is right to point out that there is a period when imagery was becoming widespread and entering the public consciousness, but where the images in question are still in copyright, and the current "free content movement" hadn't yet started. I would say this ranges from the 1960s to the late 1990s. Articles covering this period will, on Wikipedia, have less illustrations than other encyclopedias. However, there will be some images that rose above the others and achieved truly iconic status. Some of the Elvis and Monroe pictures, for example. Those images will have been talked about and discussed ad nauseum, and there would be enough for an article on the actual images themselves. If similar images exist for punk rock, I suggest DCGeist find and use them. I'd be happy to help write rationales for them (as I did for the Birmingham campaign images), provided the editors of the article come up with the material showing that the images are notable in and of themselves. Note that this is an argument to justify extensive use of fair-use. A single picture used for identification on an article about a group that is no longer active and for which no alternatives exist (pictures after retirement don't work) is a different matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Longer time for deletion and better notification of non-free content.

Hi. I am quite angry with many images I have uploaded, to find out that they did not have the right "template" and were deleted. I think longer times between notification and deletion is needed. 48 hours is NOT enough time for someone to not only notice, but to find, change and fix what ever is wrong with it. I think it should be extended, or at least for registered users extended, as I (personally) do not have enough time to change it. More importantly, however, I think "notification" needs to be improved. Most, if not all, of my images that have been deleted, I had NO IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION what-so-ever. The notification was a user talk message. I suggest that it be compulsory to email the user who uploaded the image, and wait for CONFIMATION THAT THE USER HAS READ THE MESSAGE!
This may not be the best way, and I am open to new ideas, but I seriously think Wikipedia's policy needs to be changed to include better notification, and it needs to be done SOON! Adammw (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to upload images, it is your responsibility to be sure that the licensing tags are correct. You can always re-upload the images from your local copy if necessary. An indefinite delay awaiting receipt of notification won't work because then we end up with potentially infringing material up until someone responds, possibly indefinitely. I understand your point, but please realize that we have a substantial number of copyvio images carelessly uploaded every day which someone has to clean up. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A longer time may not really be necessary but certainly better notification is needed. I have noticed the deletion of several images that could have had their fair-use rationale fixed relatively easily. However I don't notice those images until someone happens to make a change to the page in which it is used but only if that page is on my watchlist. If I see a notification that the image on a watched page is about to be deleted I might be able to fix it rather than discover it is already gone by the time I notice. Besides which, I most likely don't even know if the image was good for the article or even worth fixing by the time it is deleted. Often times, especially with older images, the original unloader is long gone so notifying that editor is a useless exercise while a notice placed on the talk page of the article in which an image is used would seem like a great advance in dealing with disputed non-free content. I would be happy to try and fix such images if I knew of their potential deletion. ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, yes I should have done the tags right the in the first place, but it's still really hard knowing what's right and what isn't. At the very least, I need some way of "un-deleting" images and fixing their tags, as I don't have any local copies anymore. Also, so this stuff doesn't happen to people that are even stupider than me, couldn't there be some automated process where a non-free bot checks your tags before you upload the actual thing? I think i was wrong with the longer time, but Wikipedia's notification seriously needs some work. Adammw (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the images you've contributed that have been deleted. The deletions look sound. The images weren't in use anywhere and so no fair use rationale would apply. These deletions were performed weeks ago. I'm not sure I understand your point. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason the images weren't in use anywhere is because there are bots that go round removing links to deleted pictures. This sometimes makes it very hard to find out where a picture had been in use. Let me have a look and see what I can find out. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Some of them were genuine orphans, so that was OK. Some of the recent uploads are much better, with full rationales. Some of the earlier uploads still need rationales added. Specifially: Image:PaRapperTheRapperScreenshots.jpg (probably violates WP:NFCC#8 anyway, unless a screenshot is needed for identification), Image:StGeorgesRdMel.jpg (will hopefully get replaced by a better picture one day), Image:25-01-07 1256.jpg (not needed, as we have Image:August 2006 Flinders Street Station.jpg, though it would be nice to have a shot from the side showing the top of the station tower against the sky, rather than the skyscraper in the background), Image:Ultrastar1.png needs a fair-use rationale, Image:Now Spring 2006 Cover.jpg (fair-use rationale needs upgrading - the article is clearly not educational) - there are several other album covers as well where you should put {{album cover fur}} on them. That will meet WP:NFCC#10c, but there are still problems with the articles themselves, as they are just album content lists - no commentary of any encyclopedic value. But then the same can be said of many album articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why this frustrates people. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Email_notification may be a solution that could be used here, but to be honest. Most people would hate it I think.... Perhaps this can be integrated in the signup process, so that you can select if you want messages on your talk page to be delivered by mail. Its not a terribly bad idea, but someone needs to go and actually make it happen I guess. Also, it has a tad of a spam risk attached to it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki is already fully capable of sending e-mail notification whenever a user's talk page have been edited, other projects, for example Commons let you set this in the preferences menu, but the option is not eneabled here for reasons unknown (I would guess for spam concerns, but as I understnad you only get one notice saying that the page have changed since your last visit, so even if soeone edit it a thousand times overnight you still only get the one mail). --Sherool (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above email notification is not likely to be very useful unless the original uploader is around and active and while some replies are to specific images and specific editors, I still feel that notifications placed on the talk page of articles in which images are to be deleted would be a great benefit and might certainly improve the chances of some rationales being fixed before deletion takes place. Does no one else see this as a useful and more beneficial way to go? That way you are not filling up email boxes with mail that may get no result. I am pretty sure the bot that marks the images for deletion could check the usage and drop a notification into each article where it is used. FFTN ww2censor (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that Betacommandbot does leave a notice on the article talk page using an image it tags. I also think it would be great to be able to watch all image pages in use by an article whenever that article is watched. Maybe this could be done via a userscript. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Betacommandbot tag the articles in which images are being used that have been tagged as having fair-use rationales problems. AFAIK the bot only tags the image page and the uploading editor's page. I have not read through Betacommandbot archives to see if this is something the bot can do. ww2censor (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BCBot does leave article talk page notices see this for examples. β^_command 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds cool. I had never actually seen it on any of the talk pages I watch where images were deleted. Perhaps those deletions were done manually by editors in which case it may be advisable to have such manual potential deletions also leave an article talk page notification. Where would we make that suggestion? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While Betacommandbot does tag the article pages for potential deletion images, I notice that some editors, such as Remember the dot and Save Us 229, who manually tag images, do not leave any notification on the article talk page, though "Remember the dot" occasionally tags the actual image in the article page like this one. It appears that many older images are now being tagged for deletion and because many of the uploading editors are no longer active, it should at the very least be a guideline to place a notification on the article talk page where such images are being used. Where would we promote that idea? Here or elsewhere? ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a very sound idea to require notifications of impending deletion on the talk pages of articles that use the images about to be deleted, not just on the talk pages of the images themselves. Good idea, Ww2censor. --Melty girl (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Betacommandbot in my experience hits all the appropriate spots, i.e. talk page of the image itself, talk page of the relevant article(s), and talk page of the user who uploaded the image. We can't ask for much more than that but, by the same token, we shouldn't settle for less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Di-replaceable fair use-notice

Any idea's to make this template a lot smaller? With auto script I quess I use this template a lot but it really seems too large. Especially since I am not that fond of templating user talk pages in the first place. Perhaps replace it with the {{Replaceable short}} tag if that gives enough information? Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art

This language under acceptable uses:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)

is being construed more narrowly than need be, in the case of album covers.

In the specific case of Bruce Springsteen, it is being used to conclude that a low res shot of the "Born to Run" album cover may only be used on the Born to Run album page, but not in the portion of the Springsteen article covering the Born to Run Tour. I don't think Fair Use law really does require that result.

I do not disagree that the current policy is Album Page Only. A wiser editor knew this to be the policy and deleted the image from the Springsteen page. I reverted the deletion, in ignorance. A second editor politely showed me the Album Page Only policy.

But I think this policy is overly restrictive. What do others think? David in DC (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In many ways fair use law is irrelevant to this page. This page is, on purpose, more restrictive than the legal term fair use for the reason that we are a free content encyclopedia. Fair use is being used, but limited. Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think that an album cover could be used elsewhere, but the farther away from the album page you get, the more important the "use only for critical commentary" becomes. For instance, you can't use a cover of Born to Run, and say, "when Springsteen was touring in support of this album..." The illustration would be providing no useful information. But in a section for the band Yes, talking about their distinctive album covers, it would be nearly pointless to talk about them without showing at least one. -Freekee (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But you also have to think of non-free content in another manner, every use of it reduces the goal of wikipedia. the goal is to create a free encyclopedia. when ever you use non-free content you defeat the purpose of wikipedia. Yes there are good reasons to have non-free content, BUT the question when using non-free content should be: Why Must We Include THIS Image? and if you cannot come up with a good solid reason dont upload/or use the image. β^_command 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Must We Include THIS Image? That's a good question. I've seen many instances of good, illustrative pictures being deleted in favor of free pictures that don't do a very good job of illustrating the subject. One argument is that free pictures increase the distributability of the encyclopedia. Another argument is that good pictures increase the distributability of the encyclopedia. I prefer the latter because I am personally drawn to this project because I want to help inform the world, and on top of it care little about distributability. But the former is the one that the Wikimedia Foundation has put their money behind. What does this all mean? That I would love to use your question to decide whether to include non-free content, but it doesn't help me to make a better encyclopedia. It only helps me to follow the rules if I keep the rules in mind when I answer it. -Freekee (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I understand the policy better now. Happy New Year. David in DC (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

10a says to give the source and copyright holder. For album/single covers, I'm assuming the record label's the copyright holder. Do you have to give the name of the label or is it ok to just say "copyright held by record label"? I tend to work a lot with covers, so I just want to make sure I'm doing this right. Spellcast (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Copyright by record label" is probably sufficient to at least prevent most people listing it for speedy deletion, but going for just the bare minimum is never a good idea. To be "safe" always provide as much and as accurate source and copyright information as possible during the upload, even if it's not an absolute requirement. That way even if source requirements become more strict in the future you can be pretty sure you won't have to go back and revisit all your uploads to avoid having them deleted a few years down the road. I'd say that's worth spending the few extra seconds it takes to name the actual copyright holder for each upload. --Sherool (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Album cover in different context

I uploaded Image:Shlomo-Artzi-Moon.jpg. It is a cover of a very popular Israeli album from 1992. It's interesting not just because it's a popular album, but also because it has the Pioneer plaque on it. Is it OK to put the image on the artist about the singer and about the Pioneer plaque? I think that both uses would constitute fair critical commentary of that item, as the guidelines say. However, i remember reading somewhere that fair use images can only be used on one article, although i can't find that now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the inclution of the plaque have any particular significance? The artist's article doesn't mention it and I don't see how the album's use of the plaque is of any significance to the plaque itself? Semi interesting trivia in an article about the album maybe, but scertainly nothing to warrant the use of the image in the pioneer article. It's a well known image that turns up in a lot of places, we can't very well go on and list all of them and the album doesn't seem to be anyting special. In fact the article would be no worse off if that entire "Other aperances" section was removed IMHO, so it can hardly be said to be critical commentary. --Sherool (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the age-old Wikipedia policy discussion - should "trivia" and "in pop culture" sections appear in articles or not. My opinion about it is somewhere in the middle, but i'm not asking about it.

I'm asking about the copyright rules. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of living actors

A number of pages on actors have fair use images of them while portraying the character, such as Alan Rickman. Is that okay, given the fact that, in principle we don't use non-free images of living people? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

that is not ok. β^_command 13:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is an iconic image (unlikely). It may be OK in an article on the character or film, especially if there is significant difference in appearance. Worf and Michael Dorn is the classic example here. Maybe G'Kar as well (must remember to undelete that image) - anyone remember what Narns look like? Anyway, I hope this more detailed reply was more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Question Time

Here's a question. An image is tagged for lack of a Fair Use Rationale. I add an acceptable Fair Use Rationale, satisfying all the relevant policies and guidelines. Am I able to remove the tag? Or, does the reviewing admin remove it after 7 days, when he/she would otherwise have deleted the image/Removed the image from articles? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You may remove it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the discussion on this issue, I wanted to make sure. Thanks for the quick response! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with 10c

I have a bit of a problem interpreting part c of rule #10. Can anybody tell what exactly I am supposed to do in part c and if there any article that can give a clear example of rule 10c.Angel,Isaac (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you should review Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline which describes what should be in a fair-use rationale that is required by #10c. If you aren't should exactly what to include, I recommend using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template that outlines fields that need to be filled in as to meet the #10c requirement. --MASEM 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're still lost, there are some examples and links both on the template and the guideline page. Also, you might just rummage through some articles with kind of "non-free" images you're working with (e.g. a music album for album covers, a deceased celebrity for promo photos, a company for logos), and see how they handle it. Click on the image and you get to the image page. Edit the image and you'll (probably) see an indication of whether it's free or non-free, and if it's non-free it should have all the information there, either as a template or in free-form text. I'm not saying to copy it, and there's no guarantee all the existing images are okay, but that can give you an idea what other people have done for 10(c) use rationales.Wikidemo (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New project - Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Please see Wikipedia:Task of the Day and consider helping out and helping to develop the project. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot phases

Given the recent activity, people might like to reread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, where Betacommand laid out plans for dealing with non-free images and making them compliant. Betacommand replied to me, on his talk page, that this is a bit out of date now. Hopefully he can come up with an updated version, or maybe we can collaboratively come up with a new plan to cover the next three months (see discussion above). Really, the long-term planning discussions here need to be separated out from the individual discussions, or the individual discussions should be moved to the various help desks and places (Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) - have I missed any out? Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated "unacceptable use" examples

Betacommand added more detail to the "unacceptable images" section of the guideline, and I clarified the language to try to preserve the existing statement about lists. The new section, basically, says that prohibition against non-free images applies to a list in any form, including articles with multiple prose subsections. That's important because without that language it's not obvious to everyone that these are considered a list. Also, it puts in writing something that has emerged as a de facto application of the guideline, namely that non-free images showing a group of things on the list (e.g. a group photo type of thing) may be appropriate, as may be two or three images (betacommand had said two, but I thought we should be deliberately a little vague) useful), but they have to be otherwise appropriate under the guidelines. I think we're really just writing down what we already do in practice so we don't keep having to explain it over and over again, and occasionally see disputes out in article space - see the discussion above about manga character list articles. It does draw a line through what is sort of a mushy undecided area, but I think we are drawing that line straight down the middle of current consensus and not shifting it.

The change was quickly reverted as "legalese", which I simply don't think is a valid objection to an attempt to describe existing policy. Image use policy is complicated and it is on a legal subject. There's only so much you can dumb it down. If anyone actually objects to what the proposed guideline actually does we should hear it out. But if one simply objects to the wording, the best thing to do is try to improve it. Keeping things unwritten because they are too complicated to write down doesn't make much sense to me. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• If we're deliberately vague about the number, it'll be abused. I don't think "two" is particularly more useful than "three" but at least it's a line in the sand. No line in the sand, you can forget implementing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hear you on that! But what I really think it should be a matter of appropriateness rather than a line in the sand. Some people abuse freedom but not everybody. Anyway, 2 seems awfully restrictive but 3 seems arbitrary. "Two or three" seems like a good compromise all the way around, a line in the sand if you will at three, coupled with a hint that the point is not to use three in every case but to apply some judgment. So it's only a little ambiguity. The highest anyone could abuse that is with three images, which is a lot more strict than we have now. I don't have a strong feeling about any of this but I'm sure some people will. Wikidemo (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • How about "Preferably none, but possibly 1, 2, or 3 if justified"? Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Good idea. That or something like it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of derivative works

I think (based on the resolution of the lists and images) we do want to include a section on what derivative use of non-free images are and provide some additional guidelines.

Expanding on a comment earlier, users are free to create derivative works of one or more images, but when this is done, the image page should include the following:

• Users are encouraged to use separate images, with the assistance of {{imageframe}}, to create montages from single images without creating derivative works, if possible.
• The copyright of any derivative work belongs to the copyright holder(s) of the original source material, regardless of what modifications have been done by the user.
• Derivative works include screen captures, scans, and photographs of 2D/3D arts.
• If mixed licensing is used to make up the image (defined by WP:ITC) each appropriate copyright license should be added to the image. A screenshot of an episode that parodies something that is pulled from Commons and both edited to be side by side should contain both copyright licenses. Identification of which part of the image applies to which license should be provided.
• Appropriate source statements are required for all images used in the derivative work. These should be spelled out: not just simply "Character images are from XYZ", but "Character images of Alice, Bob, and Charlie are from XYZ" in case someone uploaded a re-edited work, further justification is needed.
• For purposes of "minimal fair use", any derivative non-free image counts as the number of non-free images used in the derivative work. Providing a user-created montage of 10 non-free character images is equivalent to including 10 separate non-free character images.

Some of these are obvious, but they should be spelled out just so users don't try to game the system. --MASEM 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure we want to allow montages? Since they do count as separate non-free images, and few articles allow more than a few to a handful, the number of cases where that would even apply is small. Anyway, I don't see the harm in discussing the processing of non-free images by cropping, format change, scanning, photographing copyrighted works, etc. There's not always a derivative copyright created but sometimes there is. It's kind of complicated, and this particular guideline is already quite long. Could it be in a separate help page or attached to some other guideline page? Wikidemo (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are examples where if you want to put two images side by side for comparison, it seems reasonable. Again, the number of times it would be used should be rare but can be useful, it still prevents "here's 1 image of 50 characters" abuse, and as long as we request that each component image be tracked as we do individual images in the fair use and licensing, we're sticking to the non-free policies we want. --MASEM 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more examples

• Fighting Fantasy - interesting use of a gallery to show the styles of the books
• G. I. Joe Classic Collection - someone misunderstanding what is and is not freely photographable

--Enjoy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Might we need a {{excess fair use}} tag? --MASEM 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

we have one. β^_command 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have that already? Obviously, as neither Betacommand nor me know the name, we need to redirect the above name to whatever it is called! Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{non-free}} (its in FRENDLY) β^_command 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What's FRENDLY? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRIENDLY. β^_command 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably should add language to the doc for that to include this "images in lists" concept (as I would bet that at least one person will remove it immediately saying that that template instructions said nothing about this area). I'll take a stab at it. Oops, I see the second reasoning (in parens) takes care of this by addressing #3a. --MASEM 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Failure of WP:NFC on character lists

Previously (see archives) we could not come to any agreement on how to modify this guideline to prevent people from using character images for depiction purposes alone on "List of..." type articles. As a direct result, there's nothing to point to for reference, and yet again (for the five bazillionth time) an argument has broken out over a basic removal. See List of characters in Tenjho Tenge which currently has 30 fair use character images, most characters of which have their own articles making the use redundant and wholly unnecessary. If I'd had something specific to point to, this argument (see edit history and talk page) would not have happened. Why oh why oh why oh why do we have to waste billions of electrons arguing this over and over and over again when it's a basic concept, easy to understand, and easy to implement...yet we can't agree on wording here so that we can move ahead more easily with this obvious move? I'm begging for help here. I am sick to death of the ad nauseum arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

remove and point to WP:NFC under unacceptable images The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance β^_command 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• If I do, I'll be accused, yet again, of revert warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I get home and to my main account, Ill clear that list up and keep it clean. Ive done it with other list of.. pages. Also please note inforcing NFC policy is exempt from 3RR. β^_command 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec with Betacommand) Don't despair. You've found an island of non-free inclusionists. I'm happy to take a look and if warranted back you up on this one. I'm known around here as an inclusionist so I hope people respect that when I say an image isn't right, it's really not right. In the long run, I'm game if you are to yet again consider adding an example that covers lists of characters (which would logically relate to lists of other things like artistic works, products, companies, etc). There are clear bounds on both sides where we do have consensus but there is an open issue as to how many if any images may be included to accompany sub-sections that are not true lists, and under what circumstances. Wikidemo (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• And yet another example of an argument because the fair use inclusionists think there's nothing in policy or guideline stating the use is improper. In this case, we've got a revert war and now a protected page. See List of Metalocalypse characters and Talk:List_of_Metalocalypse_characters#With_regards_to_the_last_edit_by_Betacommand.... This needs to end. We can't keep having these arguments over and over again just because we can't get a line added to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images covering this wrongful usage. How many more arguments do we have to endure? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It might help if you address Wikidemo's point above, which I agree with: "there is an open issue as to how many if any images may be included to accompany sub-sections that are not true lists, and under what circumstances". There are genuine cases for use of non-free images in subsections. Any wording added to the "unacceptable" section will have to address this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That is a can of worms that is impossible to achieve consensus on. So we're to have these unending arguments across the entire project because we can't achieve consensus on that point? The arguments are exceptionally tiring to all involved, including those who want the images kept. This needs to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• And here's another hive of fair use abuse. More than 180 images scattered across 17 list of characters articles in the SG-1/Stargate series. See for yourself; Template:Stargate Atlantis Recurring, Template:Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1 (bottom lines on both). Anyone want to make a bet there won't be any arguments about removing those images? No? No takers? How about 100-1 odds? Still no takers? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I have been merging dozens of nonnotable picured SG stubs (mainly characters and technology) in the past two weeks because of the now stricter WP:FICT, and still have about 20 articles to go. Taking a look at all the images is obviously of little concern to me at the moment. Give it two or three more weeks, and the issue will largely have resolved itself in this case, without any outside pressure. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• And yet another hive: Look at the last 9 links in the 'characters' section of Template:Harrypotter. Huge number of fair use images scattered across those various character lists. Even Minor Harry Potter characters has nine such images. As if we need another example, I'll remove the images from there. Watch what happens [15]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea of wording for "Unacceptable uses" that addresses some of the above points:

Multiple non-free images used in articles or sub-sections of articles that are primarily enumerations of a group of related items to the article's topic (including, but not limited to lists of characters, important objects, or locations), regardless if the enumeration is presented as prose, a list, or a table. A single image that captures multiple elements of the enumeration as provided by the copyright holder is acceptable. Barring that, at most two non-free images that provided unique (not present anywhere else on Wikipedia) representation of the elements being enumerated are permitted.

Why I suggest the last part: say I'm doing a list of characters in Pixar's Cars (Probably a bad example, since I know group shots exist, but for purposes of discussion...) By providing a picture of Lightning McQueen and Mater as to allow the reader to understand the character/art style used in the movie, I can reasonably expect that when I say "Sally is a Porsche" or "Dr. Hudson is a Hudson Hornet", the reader can approximate what those characters look like from the representative examples. However, this assumes that there are no other pictures of the "Cars" characters anywhere else on WP, but more than likely the main movie page will have the poster and at least one screenshot that shows this - thus their use here would be unnecessary. --MASEM 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• In general, I agree with you and your intent. Playing not so much devil's advocate, but noting the opposition to this stance: The opposers will say that we must have an image of each character else we have no way of understanding which character that is. Read the second paragraph of this diff for an example of this argument. What you are going for is encyclopedic content. Opposers will disagree with that, and go for Wikipedia as a guide content. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since it is already standard procedure and established interpertation of policy I went ahead and added it. β^_command 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Good move, and agreed. At least we have something to point to. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You may be moving slightly too fast. People will rightly object if you change a policy that quickly (though I agree with the change) and then go around lots of pages citing your own change to justify your removals. Let the change bed in for a few weeks, try a few test cases, and then expand operations. you will achieve your end result quicker with less drama. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, to give BC and Hammersoft credit, they have been doing this a lot in the past, and using the Darin essay as an starting point. This is just code-ify the issue. --MASEM 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly I see that argument happening a lot. But to describe what every character looks like so that the reader may be able to identify them is making this into a guide, and thus failing WP:NOT - the list or whatever should be about the importance of those elements to the article in question; only very rarely does the visual appearance come into play (Blinky the 6-eyed fish from The Simpsons). That's not to say we can't provide an example of artistic representation of the characters is encyclopedic (in the same fashion we provide audio clips for music), which is why a group shot, or barring that, one or two images, is appropriate. That's the argument I'd use against that. --MASEM 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to head off one dispute. What about Wikipedia editors creating composite images of several characters? I assume that this is what "as provided by the copyright holder" is designed to head off? Have a look at the gallery at Padmé Amidala#Costumes. Part of the reason that that is arranged as a gallery is that four pictures can't easily be arranged within that section. In my view, a composite picture made by a Wikipedian, and annotated carefully to allow the text to refer to the four different pictures, would solve this problem. Then you would be left with a single non-free image, and a single non-free use rationale (the copyright information and rationales for the separate non-free images could be subsumed into one document). The one problem might be size of the images. The composite image would have to be very large to maintain visibility of the costume design elements. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This was discussed previously, and such a user-created montage of non-free images is 4 different non-free image (in that it is a derivative work of 4 different images). If we take out the copyright holder part, someone will justify it to take 50-odd character images to make into a single image and say its one non-free image, which is not correct. In the case of the of the example you get, however, this isn't an enumeration, so the requirements/limitations change. --MASEM 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that montages for character lists aren't helpful. But I think montages can be helpful. Just because we don't yet have a helpful example, doesn't mean someone won't come up with one. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Sure, and I think we should add a footnote to the extent of what I provided that such in select cases can be used. I would even argue that we should add a "user-modified non-free media" section to this page to describe the concepts of derivative works, that the user that creates the derivative work does not magically own the copyright, that montages that incorporate such works need to provide separate copyright license and source for each image used, and so forth. But using user-created montages in lists as specifically outlined has to be a really really special case, otherwise it's getting around the issue of minimal images as possible. --MASEM 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah we run into that a lot as well. "I modified it! It's mine!" is a common error. Even gets to the absurd; "I took the screenshot! It's my work! It's mine to do with as I please!". --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Good example of a montage provided by the copyright holder can be seen at Image:Simpsons cast.png. Can we note this somewhere as a good example to point people towards, noting that this sort of thing needs to have been done by the copyright holder, not us. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)