Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

[edit] Most pre 1978 magazine advertisements are public domain.

Because a typical advertisement runs in several magazines, they are not included in the magazine copyright. Each ad needs its own copyright notice. See this 1974 ad for KOOL cigarettes, copyright Brown & Williamson Tobacco The tobacco companies often placed copyright notices in their ads.

This is from the Copyright Notice Circular 3. Page 3, Contributions to Collective Works. (In copyright speak a magazine or journal is known as a "collective work".)

A single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of the ownership of copyright in the individual contributions and whether they have been published previously.

A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.

Here is the law. U.S. Code title 17 chapter 4

Works published before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or the material was in the public domain. Advertisements relying on the copyright notice of the magazine are treated as a notice with the wrong name.

As a practical mater, an advertisement with a famous copyrighted photograph might result in a challenge. This would be unlikely for a typical advertisement with an in-house photograph of the product with a utilitarian description and price. See this circular saw ad.

Here is a 1985 federal court case that affirms that advertisements require an explicit copyright notice. 759 F2d 493 Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times Here are a few other cases.

Here is an interesting page, the calculator advertisement is public domain but the magazine subscription advertisement has a valid copyright because it is by the magazine publisher. Popular Mechanics ad.

Any real copyright experts have comments. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what qualifies as a "real copyright expert" here, but it looks like you've done a good job of showing all the various sides. I would imagine that any ads by the publisher in their own publications would be covered by the copyright to that publication regardless of whether it was for subscriptions or other titles or whatever. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A search of the Internet Archive for "Public Domain Rule 5 advertisement" shows that they post advertisements that do not have an explicit copyright notice. [1] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article about Duke University's efforts in obtaining copyright permission for "7,000 advertisements printed primarily in U.S. newspapers and magazines between 1911 and 1955". With student labor they tracked down the owners of the ads. In the article's conclusion, they state this may not have been necessary.

"An alternative to the process we followed in searching out the companies would have been to check with the Copyright Office to see if any of the ads had been registered when first created. The copyright law of 1909, under which the ads in the project originally fell, required that a notice of copyright be affixed to each copy (or forfeit copyright), and that the item be registered with the Register of Copyrights (noncompliance possibly causing a fine or the voiding of copyright). (8) Every magazine and newspaper in which the ads were printed most likely carried a copyright notice; this notice, however, fails to cover the advertisements not originating from the magazine or newspaper itself."

Lynn Pritcher (February 2000), "Seeking Copyright Permissions for a Digital Age", D-Lib Magazine [2]

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But is all this enough to cover us over trademark issues? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For many of the products and companies, the trademarks have expired. These advertisements are over 30 years old. After a several years of non-use, a trademark may be considered abandoned. For example: File:MITS Calculator 1200 Series 1973.jpg. Go to the US Trademark search [3] and look for serial number 72423353. You will see that the trademark used in the ad has expired.

In many advertisements, the registered trademarks only occupy a small portion of the ad. We don't restrict images that happen to have a trademark visible. See Nikon D80

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does this policy really help the encyclopedia?

This policy seems to mainly effect images. Articles have far far fewer images than they would under a fair usage policy. We aren't including promotion pictures of famous people which are quite often the best quality photographs of them. We aren't including promotion materials on albums. We are stripping out key scenes from television show and movies. I'd like to just open a general discussion. Does it make sense to maybe substantially weaken this to free preferred and go back to the kind of liberal image policy from 2006? jbolden1517^Talk 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help the encyclopedia at all. Having less images does not make it more "free" in any way. People make excuses saying "it's to comply with the law", but even the law is WAY less restrictive than wikipedia, they also say "it's to prevent lawsuits", but that is not a problem if for example an image is copyrighted, since the image can be easily removed in minutes (seconds!): avoiding lawsuits. They also say "it's the spirit of wikipedia to be FREE (as in freedom)", but like I said, having less images does not make it more "free", it only makes it worse and more poor (and I dare to say this policy makes it LESS free). There is also the excuse that "we want the content to be distributed on DVDs and other countries", that can be easily solved by having all "non-free" images tagged, I bet it's pretty easy to make a script to create a wikipedia version without them (for the DVD). In the end, all arguments are very weak for such a restrictive policy (ironically, in the name of "freedom"....) SF007 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discouraging the use of non-free content promotes the creation and use of free content, as well as pointing us in the right direction ethically. Would we really be in a position to call ourselves free and promote free content if we were happy for non-free content to be strewn about the encyclopedia as anyone saw fit? J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that wikipedia in not only "Discouraging the use of non-free content", the problem is that what people call "non-free content" (a term I find biased) is in practice almost being censored by many editors, and even "bots" automatically default to delete images if they don't have the "proper tags". Regarding "pointing us in the right direction ethically"... what is unethical about the Firefox or Ubuntu logo? (wikipedia considers that "non-free"), "ethical issues" depend from person to person and I find that argument is very weak: a "non-free image" is not unethical "per se".You say "if we were happy for non-free content to be strewn about the encyclopedia as anyone saw fit", but NO ONE is saying to upload ALL copyrighted material without ANY rules, we only want to have the freedom to upload and use stuff that is allowed by the law, without having the images being removed/deleted/reduced in the name of "rules" or "ethical issues" that I think are very weak (like explained above) (to be honest, your talk looks similar to one from a religious people saying to do stuff "in the name of religion"). SF007 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation has set restrictions on non-free content that are purposely more restrictive than what US law would allow in order to both maintain the free content mission and to make sure WP complies with US law. Any issues with this needs to be addressed to the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The constant bickering over tags is necessary so that non-free content can be machine read, so that, for instance, it could be filtered out by a reuser who wanted to remove all NFC from their distribution (say, on DVDs). There is nothing unethical about the images themselves, but what I said was that if we are splashing content we do not consider "free" whereever we wish, we are in no position to start demanding free content, which is something we do want to be doing. In any case, keeping our content stricter than the law keeps us doubly safe- now, if someone breaks policy, it can be dealt with. If those who just cross the line are breaking the law, we leave ourselves wide open to legal problems. (I'm also slightly alarmed by your comparison of ethics to religion, but I'll let it pass since it doesn't really matter to our conversation. Most of ethics is based on reason, most of religion is based on faith. Unless you're Locke, there's a biiiiiiiig difference.) J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this policy is helpful, and, no, we shouldn't change it even if that were up to a vote, which it isn't. That ship sailed a long time ago. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read the policy documents again, while contributing to the debate above. I would say that the interpretation of the policy far stricter than the policy. Once any bot or editor has with good faith or otherwise decided to target an image- reason is ignored. I maintain, using the example above that if a Wikiproject supports an image as being fair use as described in the Wikipolicy then it should be mandatory that deletionists back off.

• It the example above-Talk:List of windmills in Warwickshire#Packwood Windmill photo. an image is deemed unsuitable ( even though it is proposed by an editor with 20000 edits, who has started 320 articles), it is opposed by editors who have made no contribution to that academic field, using byzantine flawed logic. While it is displayed, this image is identified and dated PD-Old. So what was the point of the deletionista intervention.It did not breach policy- just the deletionista's interpretation of policy- which was wrong. The policy is clear that precedents should not be used to decide whether the image is fair use or not. Examples of fair use are given- but the 'deletionistas' use them as an exclusive check list. Wrong. Guidance notes are confused with policy.
• Further, the deletionista have now deleted it. Explain to me what policy says that PD-Old images- should be deleted. Possibly, this editor should have his deletion rights revoked. This vandalism. Further, we need to do a general roll back of all images this editor has touched.
• It is time to refer this matter back to the council so more constructive guidance can be given, and a fair use deletion policy that is written in a way that helps in the construction of an encyclopedia. In the mean time I propose that the archiving bot is turned off- so this discussion remains visible. In the past this hasw been discussed, a concensus for change reached. All has gone quite, the bot archives the discussion and the deletionista carry on as if nothing has been said.(POV)
• To summarise: Refer to council: revise the policy guidance notes: initiate a peer reviewed deletion procedure: roll back deletions for the last 12 month, and reassess against new policy guidelines.
• --ClemRutter (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, the above example is an exception. 99% of copyright issues are based on editors simply inserting clearly copyrighted images everywhere, thus causing huge amounts of work for admins and other copyright-aware editors to have to remove them, often causing ridiculous wastes of everyone's time. In the case of images such as these 99%, the only problem with the Foundation policy is that it's not restrictive enough. Black Kite 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair- I always WP:AGF and attempt to be fair. Please read my post again. I do not criticise the policy- but its interpretation. I work in the 1% area of wikipedia. I am not using one of my images as an example, but one of a respected editor whose talk page I keep on my watchlist. I have wasted 30 mins of my time looking at the case above- and I expect that the deletionista would do a basic edit check on the editor who proposed this image, and then follow the discussion he initiated. In 99% of cases, deletion is fine but it is not constructive to WP to have this vandalism, where the deletionista have no experience in the field who respond to every argument with the same mantra. Look at the responses, they are patronising a valuable editor. (I do resent my valuable time being wasted- especially when it is so onerous to upload, geotag and fill out the 10 point template in the first place.They demonstrate clearly the point I made above.)

So, how can be proceed so the deletionistas do their valuable work, on 99% of the copyrighted junk, but accept the wisdom and expertise of established editors. I proposed that council should have a look at the damage the interpretations of their sensible policies are doing to WP. But, here is an alternative suggestion (though it is not my intention to make up procedures on the hoof).

• Images are tagged as liable to deletion.
• Any editor, can attach a FU hang-on tag. The image will be removed from the deletion list, and placed on a discussion pending list, and the deletion tag removed, to silence the bots. (maybe- any experienced editor with 200, 500+ edits)
• The image will be forwarded for discussion to any Wikiprojects named. They or an editor should approach an administrator who will approve the image, tag it as accepted with reason.
• The deletionista will see that the image has changed status. If this does not happen within 3 months, then it will be automatically deleted. While on the pending list if the deletionista can identify an actual copyvio, then it will be speedy deleted in the normal way.

That still does not address the problem of the guidelines. They must be rewritten to distinguish between policy, and supporting interpretive guidelines. Care must be taken with ANDs and ORs. Care must be taken to use an independent editor who is not suffering emotional scars. I suggest you get someone, who's first language is not English to look at them as it will produce clearer copy. We also need a easy roll back procedure (there may be one) for exceptions.

--ClemRutter (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• ClemRutter, not only is your message incredibly abusive (I am not an illogical person, at all) but you're wrong- the image was deleted at the request of the uploader, because he had moved it to Wikimedia Commons. Had it not been determined to be free (and having another free image is definitely a good thing) then it would have been deleted, as it clearly did not aid our encyclopedia to the extent that we should use it without permission. And, we do have a peer reviewed deletion process. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the policy and the way it is enforced. 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Full apologies- for not knowing about the request for deletion. But this illustrates, another point about communication. Look at this page- no feedback. I canẗ accept you interpretation of the policy in this case- I posted my comments on the talk page. As the post above illustrates I am proposing a solution where we separate the 99% of junk- from the valid but unusual. I object to the way arguments here are lost to the archives. I am sure it is not your intention to spend so much time repeating the mantra- I am sure that you would be far happier zapping the junk uploaded by the Fools and Bairns. In this one percent, the system is broken: so can we work together WP:AGF in fixing it.

(quick response to avoid an other edit conflict)--ClemRutter (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think some people here are waaaaay too strict about image size... for example, movie posters and album covers. I swear, one of these days they'll have to be smaller than the thumbnails! --Stormwatch (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is it time to explicitly address SVG images?

It seems there are two points of view with regard to SVG format non-free images: One holds that they are "infinite" resolution and therefore can never pass WP:NFCC#3b, while the other takes the view that it depends on whether the SVG contains only enough detail to render at a "low-resolution" pixel size. In the discussions I've seen with a large number of participants, the latter view seems to "win" in most cases: See [1], [2], and [3] for example.

I propose adding the following to this page as section 2.5, to reflect what seems to be the consensus in the above mentioned discussions.

Non-free images in vector formats

Either of these SVG images could be scaled to any reasonable size without loss of quality, but only the image on the right reveals more detail by doing so.

Raster images, such as PNG, are constructed based on a grid where each grid position holds a single color. Vector images, such as SVG, are constructed using lines, curves, geometric shapes, and text. One advantage of vector images is that they can be rendered at any reasonable pixel size without the edge artifacts present when scaling raster images; when evaluating non-free images for compliance with criterion 3b, some incorrectly conclude that this means vector images' resolution is "infinite" (rather than simply not applicable) and therefore vector images can never pass. The appropriate factor when considering vector images is "level of detail": If a vector image does not contain detail beyond that required to render at an appropriately low pixel size, the image is low-resolution/fidelity.

Some logos and other very simple images (but not quite simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}) can be perfectly reproduced by a low-resolution/fidelity SVG. As programs are available to scale such simple raster images without appreciable loss of quality, the claim that a raster version is less likely to be usable for deliberate copyright infringement is also not convincing.

Note, however, that converting non-free raster images into a vector format is not normally recommended, as the result is still non-free. We have many free images needing conversion in Category:Images that should be in SVG format.

It may be a little verbose (in particular, the first 2.5 sentences are only there to briefly introduce the situation for those unfamiliar with it), feel free to tweak it if necessary. Anomie⚔ 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to ask/determine "how many non-free SVG images do we have" before making a statement. One could argue (at an extreme!!) that if you can take an image with creative elements and make into an SVG, you've passed the threshold of originality, because the creative element is something that can't be converted into simple code - in this case, the vector image. While an extreme consideration I do ask - is there really that much non-free images out there that use SVG?

Lets assume that it's a problem. I would then say that we should not host non-free SVGs due to the infinite resolution problem (thus never meeting fair use law or the foundation's requirement) but that SVGs should be converted to a raster image of an appropriate size. I would have common sense allowance for some SVG where the infinite resolution is critical to the image, but for the life of me, I can't think of a case where that would occur. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I always get a headache when I think about the copyright implications of SVG images. Having said that, I've no objections to Anomie's text: it seems to be a sensible interpretation of our NFC policy. I would put it as a separate section "Guidelines for SVG images" rather than try to integrate it with the rest of the NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a non-trivial number of non-free logos that are SVG. In some cases, converted directly from a PDF or other document distributed by the company itself. Dragons flight (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though we have this criteria, many publicity departments have policies for the use of their organisation's logo. These people may supply the logo for use in Wikipedia to ensure accurate representation. We may as well honour their request, but when rendering the bitmap, we have it set to a small size. I support the plan that we don't copy every little detail where we are generating an SVG file from a non free raster image. Creating the sVG was probably an original work, but converting back to the visible image will be back in the non free situation, so at this point the point 3b of the policy should be applied, by not rendering the image at a large size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you shoot out and do this make sure you're engaging the SVG project guys. And while I think the technical desciption is a useful thing, if its about providing a rule or guidance any new section should be expressed as just that and be very easy to interpret and apply for the layman. Wiggy! (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do, I'm not familiar with all the different places (both image-related and copyright-related) this could be advertised. But I do suggest waiting on a full-comminuty WP:VP/Template:Cent/WP:RFC/etc advertisement (if any is necessary) until people familiar with the issue have had a chance to comment and clean up the proposal. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to come up often enough that I kept being reminded that I intended to make this proposal for some time now, and I don't often check NFCC-related pages (i.e. I probably won't notice it unless it ends up on WP:VP, or if I'm bored and look to read any interesting drama on WP:AN). The "infinite resolution" problem does not exist, the concept of "pixel resolution" is simply not applicable to vector images. Or does an image of a standard 5-pointed star really have the "same" resolution as a very detailed map of world coastlines and country boundaries, just because either can theoretically be rendered at 100000000px without jaggies on the diagonal lines or curves? Anomie⚔ 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a pet peeve of mine, I'd prefer stronger language discouraging user-created SVGs of non-free logos. I've encountered a number of editors either doing it on their one volition, or making requests at the graphics lab to turn raster non-free logos into SVG format. The problem with this is a conversion almost always is not 100% identical. I've seen cases where users have used the wrong font, or used poor kerning, or the wrong color, or many other errors. While some of this stuff may seem minor to some people, we are talking about corporate branding, something these companies often spend a lot of money on. It is disrespectful to then take their logos and make these amateurish, hackish conversions by hand (and as I am typing this, I realized I am guilty of doing this for a pd-text trademark logo, but I guess that is besides the point). As non-free images need to be used minimally, and at smaller resolutions, there is little benefit within the guidelines one would get from converting a PNG to SVG for a non-free logo. I cannot think of any instance where it is appropriate, actually. So I would like to suggest strongly that if we are to add a mention to non-free SVG, we state that they must (or strongly encouraged) to originate from the company (via an official PDF letter head, or an EPS or SVG file from a press kit, or something along those lines), and not originate by some volunteer attempting to trace a JPG. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points, but IMO that's more related to WP:LOGOS than WP:NFCC. Especially since it applies equally well to {{PD-textlogo}} logos, and for that matter to user-created PNG or JPG versions as well. If you make a proposal along those lines at WT:LOGOS, let me know. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful now. My experience has been that NFCC is regarded as overarching and therefore the logo (and any other) guideline needs to fit neatly inside it. Otherwise things are just being set up for (another) fractious run through the place by an anti-image editor with a narrow view of the world and little sympathy for other editors whether they be well-intentioned or not. The whole thing has to hang together as a piece or it won't work. Wiggy! (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something, please enlighten me. Andrew's proposal in a nutshell seems to be "Logo images must be an accurate, high-quality representation of the logo, including correct fonts, kerning, and coloration" (which I completely support, it just seems more appropriate for WP:LOGOS; in fact, WP:LOGOS#Logo choice already mentions it in passing), with some extra advice on where to obtain quality images, some opinion on whether SVGs are useful for logos (IMO overlooking the fact that a print version of the article would do better with a higher DPI rendering), and some proposed instruction creep. I can't see how any of that relates to WP:NFCC or to the proposal at hand, or how lacking it in this proposal sets things up for a fractious run of any sort. Anomie⚔ 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not let this die; please suggest places this should be advertised for "expert" attention (i.e. Wikipedians who actually deal with SVG images). Or just advertise it. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Workaround solution: FU images in userspace

Case: I'm putting together a long article in user space, it may take weeks. I plan to use some FU images (artwork); assume that they all comply with NFCC if it were main article space. But it's not; FU are illegal in userspace. Oh well, I can wait with uploads and fix the text - except for graphic layout. Which is important for an article on arts - not just placement and proportions, but also correct succession of images and change in their tonality.

Is there a workaround solution? Placeholders can only help with basic placement (although finging an image of the right proportions can be a PITA). NVO (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate the need for non-free images in userspace drafts, but, sadly, "drafts" often end around sitting in the userspace for months without being touched, can never reach a level suitable for the mainspace or sit there as a form of spam/abuse/original research/POV fork, which the authors consider ok as it is not in the mainspace. For this reason, allowing non-free images in drafts is not really possible. Also, we have bots to remove non-free images from the userspace, (or should have- where the hell are they?) and they cannot differentiate between these more legitimate uses and others. The best bet would be to move the article to the mainspace, tag it with {{underconstruction}}, and just finish the job right at the end. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just link to the images? If you place a colon before the word "File" or "Image", the image won't be displayed but the rest of the format will still be there (box, caption etc). Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if the images are not used anywhere else, they may still wind up deleted as orphaned fair use if you take too long over it. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the images are linked, they shouldn't be picked up by the bots: that's not a 100% guarantee (they would still be in technical breach of the NFCC), but it should be enough to allow article development. Physchim62 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if you put in the colon if just makes a regular inline link, thumb|right|like this. A real workaround might be to upload a freely-licensed placeholder of the same dimensions, and upload the real non-free image when moving the article to article space. And if necessary, use a bit of user javascript to change the placeholders to reference copies on your local computer if you really need to see the non-free versions. Or you could just install MediaWiki on your own computer, Special:Import whatever you need from enwiki, and do it all there ;) Anomie⚔ 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not like article space isn't full of incomplete articles... --NE2 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You nailed it! Per NFCC, the stub in main space may accept just one image, perhaps a portrait of the artist, as there are no critical commentaries on the paintings. Compilling these commentaries in a properly referenced, comprehensive article takes time. And there comes the question of graphic balance: Picasso's Blue Period vs. Picasso's Rose Period on one screen. NVO (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Then upload them as you start commenting on them... there's no reason to do this in userspace. --NE2 07:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reason: putting together an artists' bio based on a single definitive book can be done quite quiclky - a couple of weekends and it seems ready... It's the critical commentaries that need multiple sources and different viewpoints - they take far more time. I'd argue that this is exactly what needs to be done privately, in user space: don't release articles based on a single, biased source. Compile all relevant POVs before it's public. NVO (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Try {{under construction}}. --NE2 09:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely would, hope the bot notices it too :)) NVO (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: Try {{under construction}} in article space. --NE2 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To propose a possible midpoint solution - it's not easy but its something: We create a template for an image to say "this image is being used in an article in userspace - if the userspace article remains unchanged for 7 days and this image otherwise remains an orphan, or the image is not used in mainspace after three months after this template is added, this image will be deleted", then have a bot patrol on that. This also would include cases of articles that get userified through AFD or other means with existing images that may be deleted. This gives editors time to work on userification and avoids gaming the system (making one small change every 5 days to retain an image indefinitely). If the userification of the article takes that long, then retaining images is not helpful.

We also should (if not already) provide a number of placeholder images of the typical aspect ratios found in NFC: square (1x1), 4x3, 16x9, 16x10 as well as the vertical orientations for things like book and movie covers. This allows people to placeholder these in their user-space article to figure out the best arrangement. The image should obviously look like a placeholder (and possibly come out and say that) so when the user moves the article to mainspace they can remind themselves to now upload the media. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just do it all in regular article space. There's no need to have it on the user page to get it into some approximation of a final version. We don't need a workaround for nonfree content on user pages because there's no reason to do it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

With userification becoming a more popular option as a result of AFD, this is not really an across-the-board true statement. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Download the images to your own computer and upload them when the article is ready for main space. I also see no need for this. Although placeholders with aspect ratio's might be handy for some users. Garion96 (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Userification wouldn't require the nonfree images to be there. The bots can yank them out. Add the images back when it goes live again. Problem solved. I don't see why people think that graphics make a huge difference when editing a sample. The content is all text, the images aren't a big deal and can be added whenever. No workaround needed as there's no problem there in the first place.DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the only thing I can see being a problem with this approach to images (and unfortunately, I've not the greatest grasp of how NFC, the GFDL and other applicable issues interrelate here). Say User:LongGone has updated a key NFC image for an article with strong rationale, and there's no question that the image belongs in the article; User:LongGone eventually disappears from editing. Some time later, the article itself is on the verge of deletion due to lack of notability, and User:WantsToHelp has made the claim that userification is better than deletion to fix it up. Now, the question becomes: if User:WantsToHelp downloads the image and saves the rationale knowing that it will take him much longer than 7 days to fix it and that the image will likely be deleted in the meantime, such that when the article is ready to go, he can upload the image and copy over the same rationale, has this marginalized LongGone's contribution in anyway - either from being the one that provided the image or the rationale? (Obviously WantsToHelp could create new rationale from scratch, but the image is still in question). Yes, maybe the timeframe is short enough that the old image page is still in the database and hasn't been purged out and it can be restored but this isn't always an option. I'd personally rather see image pages retained as long as possible with their history instead of deletion and re-uploading, and it may be that the GFDL demands this. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned images get deleted after 7 days, all article deletion discussions last seven days. So there is a period of 7 to 14 days to "save" the article and keep the image which is more than enough. And no, the GFDL does not demand this, neither does the Creative Commons BY-SA license. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the preferred approach in such a case would be to simply undelete the original image instead of re-uploading it and worrying about preserving attribution for the writer of the rationale and what not. As long as the only reason the image was deleted was that it was orphanded I don't think any admins would be difficult about undeleting such images if you can show they will be put back in use. --Sherool (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"no need to have it on the user page" - perhaps, but WP:NPOV and WP:RS strongly discourage release of one-sided, biased material, and basic common sense also says: hold it until it's more or less ready for release. An honest bare stub is far more acceptable than a long but inadequately sourced, biased text. NVO (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with images. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If a biography on visual arts is considered comprehensive without a single piece of artwork, then you're right. To me, it still looks like Blind men and an elephant. NVO (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Than there is a real simple solution. Add the artwork only when the article is moved into main space, having of course all the non-free rationales etc etc. Garion96 (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If we have a problem with images getting deleted/rationales wanting to be kept or whatever, just contact an admin in this category (such as myself) and the original image and rationale (along with GFDL required history) can be restored. No big deal. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Buildings again

This probably has been ground to death... please point me to relevant archive if there is one.

Photographs of non-free buildings are not acceptable. Architects' drawings of same buildings are acceptable as Paintings and other works of visual art.... Do you see logic here or what did I miss? NVO (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following this line of thought. Why would you think drawings would be acceptable? Still can have someone take a photo just as in the photo situation. Being drawings doesn't make their copyright any less valid. DreamGuy (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, so I'm asking where the logic is. Drawings are acceptable because the guideline says so. Photographs are not because no matter who takes them their subject is not free. In both cases the subject is not free, but a photograph taken by yours truly a week ago is unacceptable and a drawing made by an artist ninety years ago is OK provided that NFCC is met. Go figure. NVO (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me rephrase the question: if photographs are not allowed, then perhaps architectural drawings should be banned too? NVO (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Architectural drawings may be useful in a section discussing the planning- I'm not sure. Certainly, some blanket "these drawings are ok" rule does not/should not exist. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the rationale for banning FU photographs of the buildings, anyway? I understand that living people have legal concerns, but why buildings are treated differently from graphic art or statues - simply because there's more money involved? NVO (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? These strange blanket statements seems to have nothing to do with the NFC policy as I understand it. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images: "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet ...": "7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."
2. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2: "Unacceptable use": "12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing"... NVO (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict. The #7 specifies that the images in question must be used for critical commentary. If the drawing of a building is sufficiently significant that you can write a sourced paragraph discussing the image itself, then yes, you can use it. If not, you can't. #12 says you can't use a non-free picture of an existing building simply to show what the building looks like. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So... where's the logic? Shouldn't artwork have more "copyright weight" over photograph taken by user? NVO (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And what makes photographs of destroyed but "copyrighted" buildings different from photographs of existing buildings? NVO (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Map-territory relation: a picture of a building is not a building. If you're using a picture of a building to show what the picture of the building looks like, you fall under #7. If you're using a picture of a building to show what the building looks like, you fall under #12.

The reason for distinguishing between standing and destroyed buildings is that anybody with a camera can take a picture of a standing building, while only someone with a camera and a time machine can take a picture of one that no longer exists. The purpose of #12 is to indicate that a picture of a standing building is presumed to fail WP:NFCC #1 unless proven otherwise, while a picture of a building that no longer exists needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We've always considered pictures of sculptures and other 3D artwork to be derivative works. Buildings are no exception, although they are a popular target for them. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless it was user-created and there is no freedom of panorama (Hello France!) ViperSnake151  Talk  03:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The "buildings still standing" clause, like the "people still living" part, is correct for the most part. It applies because they are assumed replaceable in most cases, but there are exceptions- this looks like it may be one for buildings; for people, we have recluses, those in prison and so on. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free photos of standing buildings are not fair use by our standards because they are replaceable by taking a photo. The drawings of the buildings shouldn't be used with a fair use license/tag either because the photo can still replace it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, read up- this is not always the case, as in some jurisdictions, any image of the building counts as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, see Commons:Freedom of panorama for when photos of buildings are automatically under copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Any photo of a "copyrighted" building taken by you or me is non-free, that's the point. Commons are stuck in a deadlock: their own COM:FOP rules reject such images, some deletion requests are ruled delete, others keep or no-consensus keep. Hell, commons cannot even decide on what is a "copyrighted" building (after some ten years in construction biz I can tell you lots, just believe these aren't simple cases - that's why quotation marks across "copyright"). I presumed a FU upload on en-wikipedia could be more legitimate than a bogus-free-licence upload to commons, but, no, buildings are specifically banned here. NVO (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons defines "free" differently than we do, and our guideline does not say that buildings can be copyrighted, only that non-free images of standing buildings are presumed replacable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Our guidelines only restrict the term "fair use"; they don't affect the fact that US law doesn't recognize commons:freedom of panorama restrictions, even if they would be subject to copyright law in the home country. Berne doesn't make something inherantly uncopyrightable under a country's laws subject to copyright if would be subject to copyright in the home country. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The fact we define free in a different way from Commons does not mean that we can use non-free images as free. What matters is what counts as free under US law and what doesn't. I'm no lawyer, so I have no great personal opinion on the issue. Do you feel that these self-made images of copyrighted buildings in countries with no FOP are free in the US? J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If released by the photographer as "free", yes. I'm not sure that FOP even applies; that's a matter for that country's laws, but I'd accept an ruling from Wikimedia legal to the contrary. I would say that our current policies and guidelines mean that only the photographer need release the image for it to be "free". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think thsis may actually be one of the rare cases where contacting Mike Godwin is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Note that current Wikipedia:Non-free_content#In_general says "Any materials that were published in other nations, and which are copyrighted under the laws of that nation, should be considered to be copyrighted in the United States under the URAA." Doesn't say enforced but still copyrighted. Whatever it means. NVO (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll contact Mike. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm probably wrong about the US application of the copyright law of the country where the picture was taken (for buildings near an international border, probably more appropriate than the law of the country where the building is located) would cause the copyright on the image not to belong solely to the photographer. Still, if the copyright belonged solely to the photographer under the law when and where the picture was taken, then only the photographer need release it to the public domain for it to be free, under the current (April 03, 2009) interpretation of the URAA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

←You need to separate clearly three things: buildings, architectural plans, and photos of buildings.

1. Buildings: Foreign buildings may be considered copyrighted in the U.S. as per the URAA and as per 17 USC. 17 USC only knows a copyright for buildings completed after December 1, 1990, see 17 USC 102(a)(8) and its Amendment history. Since we don't have buildings here, this is largely irrelevant here.
2. Architecural plans: Don't know off-hand, would need to look it up. Basically copyrightable.
3. Photos of buildings: are in the U.S. exempt from a possible copyright on the building itself as per 17 USC 120(a), if the building is in a public place or is ordinarily visible from such a place. Hence, for the large majority of building photos, you only need to consider the photographer's copyright on the photo itself, even if the photo shows a foreign building that is copyrighted in the foreign country. (Exceptions may concern images taken not on and from a public place, but for instance on private property, or interior shots. I don't know what kinds of interiors would qualify as public places according to U.S. law.) Things are copyrighted in the U.S. under U.S. law, not under some foreign law, and contrary to the Commons the English Wikipedia regards only U.S. law. So even if a foreign country does not have "freedom of panorama", the U.S. does (for buildings only!), and thus photos of buildings are generally fine here if licensed freely by the photographer or PD.

HTH, Lupo 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where should I post this?

There is a discussion going on at Talk:MissingNo.#File:Missingno-ny.png about a non-free image and whether or not its use is justified in the relevant article. There seems to be no consensus either way; is there a relevant noticeboard or anything (or just this talk page) where we can get some wider input from people more familiar with NFCC? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here seems the best option. Media copyright questions is mostly newbies and "is this PD or not?", copyright cleanup is mostly text. Here and files for deletion (if the removal would orphan the image) are the best places. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite what my highly respected colleague has said, there is a noticeboard for just this sort of thing: WP:NFCR. Sorry J. :P-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! No worries, J, we all get lost on this maze of a website from time to time :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How on Earth have I missed that for so long?! That's going straight onto my watchlist... J Milburn (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat under-used, most non-free images go in the speedy deletion que and if disputed tend get escelated to files for reletion instead. Personaly I think there are too many places dealing with image copyright issues as it is, it should be consolidated more so all eyes are in one place istead of spread across multiple venues (at least Wikipedia:Copyright problems have stopped dealing with files now). Personaly I think Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files should be merged into Wikipedia:File copyright problems or some such, ocationaly a file that turns out to be incorectly labeled as free may still be usable under the non-free criteria instead of beeing outright deleted, and once in a while a disputed non-free tagged image turns out to actualy be public domain upon closer investegation (lack of copyright notice or renewal for US material of a scertain age for example), I think it could be usefull if users that specialise in both free and non-free images where all in the same place (not to mention it would be easier on new users if all types of copyright / license policy disputes where handeled in one place)... Just an idle thought, anyone think it would be worth launching such a proposal? --Sherool (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems a bad idea. The majority of discussions at PUI are completely uncontroversial, and get very few replies. PUI rarely has anything at all to do with non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting all fair use

Why won't the english wikipedia delete all fair use images? This wiki is probably the only one of the big ones which still uses it. Look at the german wiki, french wiki, italian wiki, spanish wiki. They don't have any fair use images. This is the FREE encyclopedia, everything must be freely reproducible and copyrighted under CC or GFDL. BoromirFaramir (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Free Encyclopedia" means free to edit, not that everything on it is free. DreamGuy (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it means that it can be distributed freely as an encyclopedia, which even nonfree images and text (quotations) can be if they satisfy our criteria. --NE2 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, NE2, that "free" refers to "free content" (the sub-heading of the Main page even links to the meaning) but you are not correct that content which includes non-free images etc. can be freely distributed - that it is only true in certain legal jurisdictions. One of the reasons that the NFCC are stricter than US fair use is to facilitate greater re-use outside the US but even so, not all our content is freely distributable worldwide; even some of our featured articles are inadequately re-distributable (which has always seemed odd to me). CIreland (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a very significant percentage of our Featured Articles are unredistributable in many countries (in the form they appear on en.wiki) because they contain copyright violations. Black Kite 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is not a copyright violation, and it's a poisonous misuse of language to suggest it is. Jheald (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that what is "fair use" in the US is often a copyright violation when the article is re-published elsewhere. That wouldn't be a problem if Wikipedia sought only to be an online enyclopaedia - but Wikipedia has always had wider (and loftier) goals. CIreland (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that a fair number of images that are Public Domain in the U.S. (eg unrenewed copyrights, unclaimed copyrights pre 1978, textlogos, {{PD-art}}, etc) would also be impermissible outside the USA. Fortunately the Foundation has decreed WP isn't going to restrict itself to the lowest common denominator when it comes to copyright law. Jheald (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct and it's a major pain in the neck (I speak as someone who does re-use WP content) - although it's a much smaller problem for re-users than the fair-use issue, it also tends to be more complicated for the re-user. I think we need to move away from the US-based image classifications since "PD in the US" etc. is irrelevant for most people - the only reliably free images are those with a declared free-license (i.e. the creator specifies "This is PD" or "This is CC-BY" etc.) CIreland (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald and the Wikimedia foundation that Wikipedia isn't going to restrict itself to the lowest common denominator. How about restricting Wikipedia to the censorship, copyright, and Fair use laws of Ukraine, Russia, Iran or North Korea? I personally have helped a Russian activist group transfer their Russian-language website from servers in the Ukraine to a large international web hosting company. This was after they were shut down on a Russian server, and then subsequently shut down on a Ukrainian server. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? It's an absolutely correct use of language. "Fair use" is indeed a copyright violation if it is re-published in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of "fair-use" - and that is a lot of countries. Black Kite 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Italian and Chinese are other major wikis that do allow non-free images under certain situations. Dragons flight (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is impossible to create a reasonably complete world encyclopedia without using copyrighted images under fair use. A policy on fair use has been decided by the Wikimedia Foundation for en-wiki, which allows some essential images to be used whilst encouraging creation of new free images when possible. I don't agree with all aspects of this policy (and I strongly disagree with the way some admins enforce it) but I believe that it is basically a good compromise. Sv1xv (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that the European language wikis reflect the very narrow limitations on fair use under current EU law. Following criticism by eg the UK Government Gowers report, those limitations are now under review: the EU Commission has held an initial consultation (green paper, index of responses), and there is a good case this may come to the legislature in the next few years. See eg interesting responses by Google, CCIA, Duke law school, Wikimedia Hungary, and even the Irish Copyright Licensing Authority in some respects, and contrast with the compacency and apathy being put forward as a bloc by publishers eg Faber and Faber.

Influential IP academic groups such as the Max Planck institute in Munich are suggesting that the entire basis and structure of the current EU Infosoc directive was founded on a misunderstanding of international copyright law vis-a-vis fair use and similar limitations on copyright, and should be repudiated. [4].

If this does come back to the EU Parliament, I hope that the advantages and example of en-wiki being able to use fair use legally, justly and well, in a way which is forbidden to fr.wiki, de.wiki, es.wiki etc, will be one of the strongest, most visible and most understandable arguments to MEPs as to why all Europe should be allowed American-style freedom of appropriate fair use. Jheald (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that would be the ideal - however, the fact is that the difficulty of ensuring appropriate use of fair-use images on en.wiki - you only have to look at the archives of this talkpage - means that we are currently a shining example of why they shouldn't allow fair-use. If we are to allow fair use at en.wiki, our policies regarding it need to be (a) stricter (b) more difficult to misinterpret, and (c) enforced - at the moment we have very, very, few admins patrolling this area, for a number of reasons. Black Kite 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is very difficult to change the culture after years of allowing great amounts of non-free content. I personally think that having non-free images is more trouble than it is worth, and it makes our free-content mission much more difficult to explain. But I don't have the energy to even attempt to change the policy. In support of wikiveganism, Kusma (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Widely-available, free, illustrated WP:NPOV info is needed now more than ever. English wikipedia can lead the way in allowing Fair Use images. The Library of Congress (LOC) is leading the way too. It is an archive that has many Fair Use images online. See the related discussion that mentions those LOC images here:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Possible solution. 120-pixel-wide Fair-Use photos in articles about the deceased --Timeshifter (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that widely-available, free, illustrated WP:NPOV info is needed. That is why the English Wikipedia needs to lead the way and promote free content by discouraging any non-free content, no matter what Fair Use laws allow us to do. Our mission is differenmt from the LOCs, and so it is not surprising that we can choose different ways to achieve our goals. Kusma (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not now. Maybe, never. I would support the idea if the Big Dump (the commons) had working and fair practices of enforcing their own rules. Don't even hope of it - it's too big to be manageable. If one day FUs are banned from en-wiki then many of these images will migrate to Commons (with the help of brave admins and bot operators - two such moves just showed up on my watchlist). This will make things actually worse for the Foundation (not to mention the editors. NVO (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this is an issue - I recently tagged five absolutely obvious copyright violations at Commons that were being used here - one even still had the copyright notice on it. Black Kite 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • On top of that, Commons is very slow at getting things deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sports team logo in sub-articles and "rivalry" articles

I see a lot of sports team logos used outside articles about the teams, i.e. Yankees–Mets rivalry, 1960 NFL Expansion Draft, History of the New York Giants, and I can't imagine these uses meet WP:NFCC. These logos don't identify the article subjects, nor are the logos themselves subject of critical commentary. It seems they fail NFCC #3 and #8. Am I correct? And if so, could the policy be reworded to make this clearer? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, they don't. We have been here before, however - if you have problems sleeping and would like to read the result of a number of editors sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I can't hear you", you could read this. Alternatively, you could follow policy and remove the images, then watch someone revert you with some bizarre non-sequitur edit-summary that claims they don't think policy applies to them. It's a funny place, Wikipedia. Black Kite 20:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's one opinion. The real discussion to read if you have a few spare hours is this one. You know, the one that involved dozens of experienced editors on both sides and generated no consensus on whether this type of usage was allowed? In a nutshell, one question is whether NFCC #3 ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information") is meant to apply to a single article or to the encyclopedia as a whole. It's hard to justify that the inclusion of logos on New York Yankees and New York Mets convey any information to the reader of Yankees-Mets rivalry, as there's no reason to assume that reader would venture to the other article. NFCC #8 doesn't apply here any more than it applies to every other logo on Wikipedia: the argument being that logos assist in identification. Frankly, I'm not in the mood to have this argument again but the issue is not as cut and dried as Black Kite seems to be indicating. Oren0 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we need to look at how the old wording of #3a, which did imply "both in an article and across WP as a whole"; the only reason this was changes is that the editors at the time felt it was redundant advice - they still agreed with it, but thought that logically it would make sense that minimum use applies to all levels of the encyclopedia, not just the article level. Now, I'm not disagreeing that consensus can change, but given that there doesn't seem to be any change on disallowing duplication of images in discographies or episode lists (among other reasons) as well as for BLPs (or bios in general), that sports teams logos gain nothing special to be different from that. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but you're going about it the wrong way, I think. Your approach seems to be, "Hey, this is the way things have been - what's the harm?", when the question with every single instance of fair use should be, "Is this really, really, really, I mean, really necessary? And would removing this image cause catastrophic harm?" Which is to say, the onus should always be on presenting a valid argument why it needs to be there, rather than on the editor arguing for removal. And your examples don't hold any water - the Yankees and Mets logos identify the article subjects in their respective article, but don't do that in the rivalry article. And, I like what's done in Mets–Phillies rivalry - that image is a whole lot more illustrative than a couple of copyvio logos (which is what fair use is - you violate copyvio for the good of humanity/knowledge). Mosmof (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them a few times, and I would implore others to do the same. People will fight about it, naturally, but they haven't really got a leg to stand on with the "year" type articles, and rarely have one in the rivalry articles. There's not really any need to discuss this any more- they can be removed, and, if they are necessary, such necessity can be judged on a case-by-case basis. For instance, I removed this image from an awful lot of articles- it met with some opposition, but eventually it was resolved. There was also some debate about various images in Arkansas Razorbacks Football, but, hopefully, that is now being resolved. Please, just remove them. Twinkle/AWB can be useful to mass remove images used in many infoboxes. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

People reading your comment should beware that use of Twinkle/ARB to establish "facts on the ground" when a discussion has or is failing to come to a satisfactory conclusion tends to be strongly frowned on by the likes of ArbCom, and may open someone following your advice to the risk of quite serious sanctions. (Compare the fate of people bot-delinking dates in the recent ArbCom datelinks case). So, caveat lector. Jheald (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell? ArbCom smacked most of the parties involved with a minimum of a 3 or 6 month topic ban. The instigators got permanent topic bans and some length of a ban from editing, period.

The nub was that the delinkers were using automated processes to enforce their view of policy and guidelines in lieu of, and to a degree in the face of, consensus and discussion. To advocate for mass, automated or semi-automated image removals where there is, or can be show, a strong lack of consensus. is skirting the same path.

- J Greb (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that this isn't a straight up content dispute. Even if I was going to pretend that there was "no consensus", which is what those wishing to include the logos like to shout about, that would show that the images should be removed. There has to be consensus for non-free content to be included- if there is not, it should be removed. If you want to take this to ArbCom, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that date formats weren't policy. This is, and it's such a fundamental part of the concept of Wikipedia that removing image violations is even immune from WP:3RR. The chances of anyone following J Milburn's advice being sanctioned are precisely zero. Black Kite 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the question seemed to be "Why is this (the datelinking ArbCom) relavent?" And that seemed to be the crux of Jheald's point.

Beyond that...

1. There seems to have been multiple discussions with varying degrees of consensus as to how proper it is to use team logos, period. There hasn't really been an iron-clad "no use" or "only in the team's article" consensus.
2. I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this: I don't see some of the uses outside of the team articles as fundamentally wrong, but I do think they verge on the redundant. If the logo is identifiable to the reader, then the team name should be as well. Without that iron-clad consensus, I'm more than willing to be cautions about removing the images.
3. As long as any aspect of the use of these logos are under review or unresolved, erring against "We'll remove 'em while you guys talk. We're sure your morals will catch up." positions is a good thing.

- J Greb (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at this the wrong way. It isn't a matter of being "cautions about removing the images"- it's a matter of there being no consensus that the images should be used. If there is not consensus for their use, they should be removed. They can easily be added back once someone provides a decent justification for them. I concede that such justification may well be forthcoming in some cases, but I think we can all agree that, in the majority of cases, they are not required. As Black Kite says, this is a core policy, so if there's a chance that we have content that doesn't meet with it, it should be removed. It isn't like the date delinking in that we can sit around with inconsistencies while the issue is worked out- for a start, we're not Wikipedia, the date-delinked encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"added back once someone provides a decent justification for them." is mildly loaded. What is and isn't justification, let a lone "decent", is subjective. Looking back up this thread it seems that at least some are of the mind that using the logo to identify part of the subject matter of the article is sufficient, decent justification. From there perspective, to have some thing they see ass valid removed continually as "not having a good enough" justification without the threshold being clearly defined is as frustrating, if not more so, that watching an article become a gallery of NFC.

That, at least to me, beggers asking - "Is there a consensus to use the logos in this way?", "Is there a consensus to not use the logos in this way?", or "Is the no consensus on this use?". And the last one brings up a royal pip - If there is no consensus, do we default to the state of the article at the time the issue was raised, or the state after that point. And IIUC, the normal result is to go back to just before the immediate, recent, contentious edit.

- J Greb (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And this is why we keep going round in circles on this issue - it doesn't matter if a group of interested editors think that it's ok to use the logos in this way, because the policy says it isn't, and policy trumps local consensus. If there was a site-wide consensus to change the policy - leaving out the fact that this would mean the Foundation having to change its policy - then that would be different. Until then, the articles should default to the material not being included - "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created" (direct quote from WP:NFCC) Black Kite 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

J Greb, just to echo what Black Kite is saying- even if we pretend there's "no consensus", that means that there is no consensus for the logos to be used. If there is no consensus for a non-free image to be used, as the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include it, it should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the burden of proof lies on one side is not the same as saying that no consensus implies removal. In a criminal trial in the USA, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, yet "no consensus" (AKA a hung jury) does not result in an acquittal. The policy makes no judgment as to what the default state of non-free content is when editors cannot reach consensus. Oren0 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok first of all this is not a criminal trial. Wikipedia is the free ensyclopedia, the default state is to host only free content (see item #1 of the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy). Non-free content is allowed only as limited exemptions, so logicaly if there is no consensus that something qualify for an excemption per our policy, it should not be used / removed from use, untill a consensus to grant the excemption emerge. --Sherool (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-policy arguments used to justify logo removal

The following are arguments I'm seeing used in this section and elsewhere to justify Wikiveganism. The problem is that I can't find anywhere that these arguments are written other than on talk pages by those advocating the mass removal of content. I'm curious if people can point me to the policies making these claims, which might help us find some common ground.

1. "The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include content. Therefore, if there is no consensus as to the validity of a fair use rationale, the default position is to exclude the material." - What is this notion based on? Yes, it's true that those wishing to include material must provide a fair use rationale. But that's not the same as saying that they must convince a majority of users that the rationale is valid. Again, in a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden to prove guilt but that doesn't mean that a hung jury (i.e. no consensus) imples acquittal.
2. "An image must be discussed in an article in order to meet NFCC#8." The policy doesn't say this and I don't see why it implies it either. Images, specifically logos, aid in recognition. An image of a subject in an article may help a reader identify the subject in a way text can't. There are many people who might recognize the logo of the New York Yankees but might not know the team by name. Therefore, the reader's understanding of an article principally about the Yankees, such as Yankees-Mets rivalry, may be significantly enriched by the inclusion of the logo, even if the logo is not explicitly discussed.
3. "This image doesn't need to appear in article X, because it appears in article Y and X links to Y. Therefore it's not minimal per NFCC#3a." This argument has always baffled me. How can an image in an entirely different article possibly "convey equivalent significant information" as if it were on the article the user is reading right now? There is no reason to assume that the reader of article X has/will read article Y.
4. "Logos can only be used in the most general article about their subjects." This is not stated anywhere in WP:LOGO. While people may reach this conclusion, individual uses must be discussed in their own regard and the fact that an article is not the most general to which the logo applies (e.g. USC Trojans football versus USC Trojans) doesn't automatically mean the logo can't go there.
5. "X number of uses of a given image can't possibly be 'minimal'". Consider the total number of non-free images on Wikipedia. Even if we were to remove the cases where meeting NFCC was at all questionable, we'd still be left with tens of thousands of non-free images. How can tens of thousands of images still be minimal? Because each use is viewed on its own merits. I've asked this many times and still never gotten an answer: why are 10 different non-free images each used on one article any more minimal than one non-free image used on ten articles? Shouldn't each case be decided based solely on its individual merits on that page?

I look forward to hearing the response to these and whether people believe these points are actually policy/practice. Oren0 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have missed the purpose behind the creation of the NFC/NFCC rules. They are there to exclude all but a limit range of content, not to provide a list of non-free content that can be included or a set of defaults as to what is ok. As such those seeking to include such content must show a really good reason as to why it should be here - the default state of Wikipedia is that we have no non-free content and only allow it under a very restrictive set of circumstances. The arguments I've seen for the proliferation of logos are mostly very poor.- Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What you say is generally true, however the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy explicitly calls out logos as acceptable and WP:LOGO explicitly call out the value logos provide for identification. The consensus around the encyclopedia has always been that non-free logos are acceptable to identify their subjects. Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Logos are acceptable on pages about the entity that that logo represents, and it may be that multiple entities across an organization use the same logo (as the case for most college athletics programs). The problem is that that is the only acceptable use of logos (99% of the time) is on pages about that entity. The individual year articles or the various rivalry articles are not entities, their subject is on a year's specific performance, or the rivalry itself. Unless the logo is specifically tied to that year or rivalry (for example, centennial celebration logo or the like), there's no entity for the logo to represent, and thus is invalid. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The foundation licensing policy mentions logos, but under the scope of an "exemption doctrine policy", which is Wikipedia:Non-free content for this project. And that policy does not permit widespread usage of each logo instance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does NFCC say this? All NFCC says is "minimal", which is a subjective term. All I'm trying to get at is that the opinion displayed by some that certain logo uses are objectively wrong and any argument to the contrary is akin to "changing policy" is a wrong argument. Adding a logo to a sports rivalry does not require a policy change; it only requires local consensus that such use fits NFCC. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#8 Significance also says this. I think very few will deny the logo is significant to the entity it represents, but it is not significant to other topics related to that entity. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimal may be subjective but I have a hard time seeing how anyone can consider "every article that mention the subject" to be within any kind of reasonable definition of "minimal". Be that as it may we quite clearly does not have a consensus that such use fits the NFCC (unless by "local consensus" you mean to imply that only people who regularly edit such aricles are entitled to an opinion), so by your own logic such use should not be allowed. --Sherool (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we do have such a consensus or that we should plaster logos anywhere. I'm just saying that including the same logo on USC Trojans, USC Trojans football, and even 2008 USC Trojans football team does not require a policy change (as has been claimed by people here) but rather only a local consensus. Furthermore, there is no consensus that this use is unacceptable either (see this RfC) and I don't believe the argument that in "no consensus" cases the material must be removed (see point #1 in this section). Oren0 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override policy, but that's not to say there's no place for a chance at consensus to find how a policy applies to something. The policy is still NFC, with the key parts that we are trying to minimize NFC use and that NFC must be significant to the article it is in. One question that remains strictly a matter of policy interpretation (which cannot be overriden by local consensus) is how "minimum" is meant to be applied, and I defer back to the way the statement used to read and only changed because editors here thought it was redundant to say that minimal applies to both within an article and across WP. The question where there can be consensus obtained - regardless of minimal use - is whether there is significance in using the logo on pages that are not directly about the entity the logo represents and this is likely a matter of perspective with the sports. There is no question on WP throughout that using a logo on a page about the entity it represents is perfectly fine but we don't willy-nilly use the logo on topics related to, but are not directly about, that entity - we can use a logo on the business' page but we cannot use it on pages about their products. (Again, this hints that "minimum use" is meant to be considered WP-wide). So the question becomes, are season and rivalry articles entities that can be represented by a logo? I personally feel that an article like 2008 USC Trojans football team is not an entity with a logo, but simply the summary of how the USC Trojans football did in 2008; the arguments I've seen put forth from the other direction suggest that others feel that because of turnover, etc., each year is a new entity. Given the fact that no other professional sport where performance is broken by year (Int's football/soccer, America football, basketball, and baseball) seems to consider it a new "team" but only a "season", I'd say that the way the college football seasons are being handled is out of place, or even if the project wants to consider them as a new "team" each year, for consistency across WP they are still season articles, and thus are not entities that get logos. --MASEM (t) 11:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Critical commentaries

Could we include in this page some examples of what constitutes a "critical commentary"? I'm trying to figure out whether an image I want to upload would qualify for fair use, and can't work it out, largely because I'm not sure what a critical commentary would look like in this context. The image is of a book cover (from 1923); I'd like to use it in an article about the book's author, in a paragraph about the consequences of this book's publication for the author's reputation, but I don't know whether the context qualifies it for fair use. An example or two of a "critical commentary" would be extremely useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like that would not meet our criteria- critical commentary, in that case, would be sourced discussion of what the cover looked like/how the cover was significant. In most cases, what the cover of a book looks like is not going to be frightfully important. Why do you feel that the cover would add to the article? If you're just thinking that it would look nice, it probably does not meet our guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The book's called Simon Called Peter, and, with such a Biblical title and with a a former missionary for an author, it caused a huge stir by being surprisingly erotic. (A judge said it was "particularly objectionable because written by a clergyman.") The book cover prominently features a picture of a coy-looking flapper girl posing beside a bottle of champagne, which quite nicely illustrates the disconnect between the book's title and its contents. But, I don't have a source that makes the point, and I don't know whether the implicit contrast would be enough. What do you think?

Also, broadly speaking, does this mean that "critical commentary" means "sourced critical commentary of the image itself"? I'd still quite like to make that clearer on the policy page. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Without a source discussing the appearance, I'd say it best not to include it- though, if a source was to come up, it may well be worth including. The cover would, however, be fine in an article about the book. That said, it's possible some covers of books by the subject are free and so may be used anyway- see Template:PD-US and/or Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. The cover in question may be PD- see Template:PD-Pre1978 and Template:PD-US-not renewed, but verifying that would require some research. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're right. I believe it was a UK publication, and eight months too late for PD-US, but I'll do some sleuthing and see if the 1978 rule applies. Thanks for your help. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit unnecessarily narrowed the scope of policy. Does anybody really needs discussions of the image in case of a movie still? Perhaps: the role of photography director and stage designer, depth of image field, black/white contrast etc. Technical issues. Can we still use the still to discuss the subject of an image - actor's play, interaction between characters, real events behind the screenplay? Can we still use File:Picasso-suzanne bloch.jpg in Picasso's Blue Period for a commentary on this period (not on Portrait of Suzanne Bloch)? I agree that the critical commentary clause is routinely abused (and no, I am no saint either) but narrowing the scope won't help the issue. NVO (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point. Please find some other words instead of discussion. Main article space has no place for discussions. Present the viewpoints, don't actually argue over them. NVO (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's fine, I'll self-revert. I still clearly don't understand what the policy means. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the simplest way is to follow common sense and substance over form ? As the old man said, I know it when I see it, it does not need very detailed (or strict) prescriptions. NVO (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but as a novice I don't know it when I see it - I genuinely didn't understand what "critical commentary" meant here. The term sounds as though it has a particular technical usage, and it sounds as though it's remote enough from standard speech to require definition. And fine, it's nebulous, but I don't know how to go from novice to someone with a "feel" for this, other than by asking about specific cases. So a question: Is there a more suitable forum than this for questions like mine? Where is a user supposed to get input on whether a particular use case satisfies the "critical commentary" requirement? (I guess "by analogy" is one way, but it's hard, as a complete novice to the question of copyright, to understand which analogies are fair.) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Before someone more knowledgeable appears with a working how-to... Try Madman Muntz algorythm! The guy simply clipped off parts off his TVs, one by one, until it smoked. The real Q, however, is not "Can it live without this pic?". It's "Do I need to remove text after I removed this pic?" If, indeed, removal of a pic makes a chunk of text redundant - bingo, you've found the critical commentary :) ! NVO (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: so, to invert it, you should only include fair-use images if the article includes text that's incomprehensible without it? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

much too strict--rather,whether the contents of an article cannot be expressed fully and adequately without the picture. For critical commentary, if there is significant commentary about a picture, it is always necessary to show a picture. Where this is omitted in other works, its because they assume the intended audience is already completely familiar with the picture.--or they are not discussing it adequately. The cases where it is not needed is if the picture is only alluided to or mentioned incidentally. DGG (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG's definition seems very sound. J Milburn (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)