Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

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 [1][2] 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: [3]. 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 [[4]]. 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)

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)

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)

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: [5], [6], and [7]. 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)