Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 14 September 2012

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

	Fair use (inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

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, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 1 section is present.

NFCI #8 question

Despite having been here for years, I haven't done much work that requires close parsing of the NFCI, and I'd like opinions on NFCI #8.

Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.

I'm particularly interested in the potential for using one of the variations of this image. That specific hand-lettered sign, held by Jeanne Manford, is frequently mentioned as part of the series events that led to the creation of PFLAG (see: ), the physical sign is now part of a collection at the New York Public Library , which considers the sign signficant enough to feature it on the the front page of their AIDS/HIV collections page. On one hand, I suppose it's possible that the sign itself could be rephotographed, but the context of the sign, the founder of PFLAG, and the 1972 parade seems to me to be an irreproducible combination in terms of documenting a particular moment in history. I've attempted to email PFLAG, but I don't know if I'll get an answer.

Anyway, *I* believe this is a fair argument for NFCI #8, usage to be limited to Jeanne Manford (and possibly PFLAG), but I am so not a copyright expert. Thoughts? Help? --j⚛e decker 17:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is a fair argument. You will find people here that believe we shouldn't have any fair use images at all (see the Misplaced Pages:Veganism parable) but in so far as we do display fair use images, this seems to have a fine claim to be one of them. --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, most appreciated! --j⚛e decker 18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a fair likelihood you should be able to use that picture - I agree with the reasoning that the context of the demonstration with the sign is not replaceable with just a free image of the sign (though I would encourage that if you can to get that free image anyway). But I do have two questions.

First, I would think this would be better on the PFLAG page than on Manford's page, simply because, as I'm reading it, that demonstration (and the event leading to it) created the foundation of PFLAG, ergo it is an historic element of the organization. (For Manford's page, it would be better to try to find a free image of her, assuming she's still alive.)

Second, do we know the source of that image? The one problem factor here is if it a press image - we tend to try to avoid their use due to the commercialization aspects, but do make exceptions. It would help to know where that photo came from. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a credit for that image--it's reproduced in a number of places, but nothing I've been able to find specifically credits it. I am still looking. My email to PFLAG included that question, and I figured I'd give them a few days to respond before I took did anything more here.

Manford is still alive (or was last year from the sources I've been reading, and I'm fairly certain there'd be an obit if she wasn't), I have not yet succeeded at finding a free image of her, but I continue to look.

Thanks, I really appreciate your thoughts! --j⚛e decker 18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: It also occurred to me to write the manuscript dept. of the New York Public Library. They use a crop of that image on their own collections site, and I suspect they hold either an original photograph or (if it is a press clipping) the original to that, in either case they might be able to clarify. Cheers, --j⚛e decker 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say that even if it is a press image, I'm confident that the image meets all other aspects of NFCC for use on the PFLAG page (not on Manford's page even though she was primarily responsible for it), but yes, tracking down the source would be good. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

eBay and auction sites as image sources

Two questions here, one on sourcing and one on commercial sites viz-a-viz NFCC. Both questions concern File:Melford Stevenson portrait.jpg.

• The image source there is an eBay page. It is in German, so I can't be 100% sure, but it seems to be an outlet for an antiquarian site that sells vintage prints. Are such eBay pages and auction sites reliable sources for images? Normally, it might be questionable, but in this case the provenance of the image in question is known, as the image is the same as that used in the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article for the subject, and the ODNB say the image is from the National Portrait Gallery, who say that it was originally from the Elliott & Fry studio. It is the NPG images here. The NPG have a vintage print and a half-plate negative, both purchased in 1996. My question is whether the eBay image would be a different copy of the same Elliott & Fry original (I'm not clear how many copies of the Elliott & Fry original would have been made), and what is best to cite as the image source?
• My second question is whether, if the NFCC rationale is valid, it is best to use the NPG image (not online, so not possible), the ODNB image (probably not), or the eBay image (the one actually used), and what difference it makes (e.g. if the NPG image were available). They are all commercial sites in some sense. Do the NFCC considerations vary in each case? And does it matter if all the copies are all from the same original (e.g. different vintage prints prepared from the same half-plate negative) or not?

I did look in the archives for questions about use of images from eBay and auction sites, but found nothing much (my instinct was that such use is dodgy, but I'm now no longer sure of that), so am asking here in the hope that some discussion can help clarify things. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's an interesting and valid question. As the uploader, I obviously thought it made no difference whih source I used as the actual image was the same and the licensing was fair-use in any case, so I used the better of the two avaialble ones. Should I have used the ONDB one? The site says you are prohibited from downloading it or using it, so I respeccted that, but clearly they don't own the copyright to it either. I would be very interested to have some more opinions on this. --John (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another problem with Ebay auctions is that the auction page is removed a few months after the auction has ended, leaving us with no source at all. This page hasn't been archived by the Internet Archive. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Hypothetically, if someone bought a vintage print that was for sale, and then scanned it and uploaded the scan, that would be OK. There is no requirement that image sources have to be online. Merely that the source is considered reliable enough that the provenance of the image is unlikely to be questioned. It is better to use professionally curated and collated sources such as archives and library collections, rather than individual collections of old images, but sometimes cross-referencing the two is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To answer John's question above, you are absolutely correct that the ODNB don't own the copyright to the image - that is why they tell people not to download or use it: they don't have the right to allow anyone to do that, as it is not their image. They are using it under an agreement with the National Portrait Gallery, with whom the ODNB work closely. This is explicitly stated on their website: "The Oxford DNB was created in association with the British Academy. Images researched in partnership with the National Portrait Gallery, London." Indeed, the NPG are one of four institutions where the ODNB provide outward 'deep' links (the others being the ANB - American National Biography, NRA - National Register of Archives, and RHS - Royal Historical Society). The 'Help' section in the ODNB makes clear the close links with the NPG: "NPG records complement and augment Oxford DNB likeness records and frequently provide illustrations of Oxford DNB subjects." So the ODNB image is nothing more or less than a direct reuse of the NPG image. The history of the 'eBay' image is more interesting, I'll go into that below. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we assume the ebay photo and other sources are all "slavish reproductions" of the original work, then these scans have no new copyrights associated with them; the only copyright is still to the original photographer (Elliott & Fry). As long as we have strong assurance that these are all the same "image" (barring the slight differences from scanning and the like), then it makes sense to use the version that has the most permanence being the ODNB version - they cannot claim a new copyright on the image despite what their legalese says; the copyright owner is still E&F studios. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is quite the full story. I've looked into this a bit further and I'll post here what I found. The key point appears to be the history of, and the disposition of, the assets of the Elliott & Fry studio, but I'll go into more detail on that below. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more today, and what I found was the following:

• (i) File in question: File:Melford Stevenson portrait.jpg
• (ii) Image source. That link works better than the one currently on the image page (which has an anchor tag). The relevant bit is 'Beschreibung' (Description). That tells us (in German) that it is a press photo:

  "Original Press Photo, British Judge Melford Stevenson, 1970. At the back, stamped text and press agency stamp. Size: approx H 16, W 12 cm x 7 cm. Silver gelatin. Condition: good with signs of use (see scan). The copy of reislaeufer-photos is only on the scan and not on the original photograph offered here. Original photography of the time, not a reproduction or copy."

• (iii) If you then look at the eBay scan of the stamped text on the back of the photo, this reveals that the press photo was sent out by "Camera Press (Bassano) London". Camera Press still exist today: http://www.camerapress.com/ This photo/press agency was founded in 1947 and has an archive of 12 million photos. The bit about Bassano makes sense (the original photo was Elliot and Fry), as Elliot and Fry incorporated with the Bassano Studios in 1965, see details in the Alexander Bassano article.
• (iv) Looking at the NPG records of their Stevenson portraits, this refers to a vintage print and a half-plate negative "purchased in 1996". This is almost certainly what is referred to here. Under 'Bassano Collection' there is the following:

  "On closure of studio in 1974 in Dover Street majority of negatives donated to NPG together with 3 sitter books. Other parts of collection dispersed of which 3,500 plus negatives acquired at auction by theatre historian John Culme. These negatives were generously donated to NPG in 1996. Also in 1996 remaining stock of important pre 1900 negatives and copyrights and 2,000 vintage press prints purchased by NPG including earlier amalgamated stock of Vandyk and Elliott and Fry."

  Although the dates don't properly match up, if you Google "purchased 1996" and "National Portrait Gallery", you can see the sort of stock and photographs that was purchased by the NPG that year and which ones are marked "Elliot & Fry".

To to sum up, it seems that the original sitting for the portrait photograph was done by Stevenson in 1959 for Elliot and Fry, which a few years later (in around 1963 to 1965) became part of Bassano Studios. At some point (presumably October 1970 from the date) a press photograph, prepared from either the original half-plate negative or one of the original prints, was sent to Germany by Camera Press (who correctly credited the Bassano Studios). It appears to be this print which has ended up on eBay, and it is the scan of this print that was downloaded from eBay and uploaded to Misplaced Pages for use in the Stevenson article. The original Elliot and Fry half-plate negative and one of the vintage prints ended up at the NPG after a purchase they made in 1996. What the exact history of the half-plate negative was between 1959 and 1996 is not totally clear (see 'parts of collection dispersed' and 'earlier amalgamated stock' above, which could cover a multitude of things), but the above gives some indication. Whether Camera Press still have any claim on the press photo they sent out in 1970, I have no idea. Certainly the Elliot and Fry copyright would now seem to reside with the National Portrait Gallery. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is now also a similar discussion at Commons:COM:VPC#Ebay as a source of publication information about Ebay as source for public domain images. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. The question here is one of copyright, as this is clearly not a public domain photograph. I've added details of the image history to the image page. My view now, is that the person who scanned the 42-year-old print and offered it for sale on eBay quite likely didn't have the right to do that. It would have been sent out by Camera Press in 1970 for use as a press photo, not for onward sale or re-use 40 years later. It should have been returned or destroyed at the time, and any subsequent uses would need to be cleared by the distributor and/or the original copyright holders. Whether fair-use provisions can over-ride all that, I don't know. I'm going to ask others to comment here on that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We generally do not allow use of press photos unless they themselves (the photos) are historically significant, due to respect for commercial opportunities; this doesn't appear to be the case since it just a person. I would probably say that the photo cannot be used for this article. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression that the general avoidance of press photos under the NFCC was in cases of living people and recent press photos, not ones sent out as press photos over 40 years ago and where the subject died 25 years ago. There are many pictures that are marked "historical" under the non-free content guidelines that would (when originally taken) have been or potentially have been press photos. At what point does a "press photo" become an historical image? Wait long enough and it becomes public domain anyway, rendering fair use arguments meaningless. The 'commercial opportunities' bit is strange, as all photos that are of reasonable quality and held by a press photo agency or stock photography agency will have some commercial value (this is the whole point of copyright, to allow time to exploit the sometimes small value of something). The case of archives, museums and galleries is less clear - some sell images (both copyrighted and public domain ones) to help make their collections commercially viable, but most also have longer-term, more altruistic aims. If Camera Press and/or the National Portrait Gallery are currently selling this image, I agree that this photo probably can't be used. In any normal situation, I'd suggest contacting Camera Press and/or the National Portrait Gallery, but that doesn't seem to be what happens on Misplaced Pages (somewhat understandable given the history between Wikimedia and the NPG), but I wonder what Camera Press would say if the eBay site (reislaeufer-photos) and the Misplaced Pages use of the eBay image was pointed out to them? Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The commercial opportunity is realized if there is a single agency with the exclusive rights to publish that photo for profit; any reuse without payment is immediately a potential strike with respect to fair US fair use. That doesn't invalid such uses but we therefore require stronger requirements for their inclusion. More recent photos and particularly those of currently living people have a good chance for free replacement so that's an immediately non-allowance there. For older photos we have to show some type of transformative aspect to the photo as to outweigh the commercial opportunity factor. This is typically met when the photo itself is the subject of sourced discussion in secondary sources (ala Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), but also when there is at least some sourced discussion that photo aids in the reader's comprehension of the article and would harm their understanding if absent. In the case of this image, the image doesn't appear to have any discussion about it, so we have to turn to how critical it is for the reader to see the person, and this would likely be "no", therefore the image cannot be used. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this: "if there is a single agency with the exclusive rights to publish that photo for profit" (though I'm unsure why you say 'single' and 'exclusive', it is not uncommon for other agencies or distributors to act as agents on behalf of the copyright holder, that is potentially what Camera Press were doing in 1970 on behalf of Bassano Studios, though that is at present just speculation on my part). But what I don't get is why you then move from that statement to then talking about fair use. Surely the first step would be to establish if an agency does have exclusive rights to publish that photograph for profit. Everything else should be put on hold until that point is established. My view is that this photograph likely does fall into that category, and the uploader should have taken steps to ascertain this before uploading (but I don't fault the uploader for not being aware of the history of the image, nor of the sensibilities of the commercial uses aspect of NFCC, these are both subtle points that most users are not aware of). I originally said on the article talk page that the eBay images (there was one on an Italian eBay page as well) shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole, and that remains my view. What I struggle with is how inconsistently the commercial aspects bits of NFCC are enforced. Why are movie screenshots and book covers less commercially valuable than a 53-year-old studio portrait of a High Court judge? Actually, having said that, I can see why this portrait of a judge has more commercial value than the examples I gave (any print encyclopedia would have a pay to use such an image), so I agree that the image should not be used, and should be nominated for deletion. I've forgotten where that takes place now. Would this be a standard WP:IFD nomination? Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A photo is a single commercial work. Reproduction of the photo is basically 100% of the original work (even considering resizing). One of US Fair Use law aspects is how much of the original work is used, and with such images, that's 100%. Screenshots of films and TV shows and the like are a single frame from a much larger work, so even though the works are sold for profit, a single screenshot is not going to have anywhere close to the same commercial value. That's also why audio and video clips are specifically limited in length.

FFD would be an appropriate place to nominate the image for deletion. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So, what is our current community instinct on images of dead people that still appear to be in copyright? ISTR long-standing guidance that high-value portrait images by the likes of e.g. Yousuf Karsh must not be used simply to illustrate the individual (with a let-out only if the subject is so extraordinarily associated with the image that their biography would be simply not complete without the image being discussed).

On the other hand, we do (appropriately, I suspect) have a fair number of biographical images from photographers or sources that do not have the same kind of high-value iconic currency. For example, I would imagine a screenshot from one of their films might be appropriate for an actor (that is, if no image from a free-in-the-U.S. trailer exists); or a screengrab from an interview for a documentary (e.g. perhaps for a screenwriter, if it seems unlikely that a free image would be found; or perhaps a not very high resolution file image from an old newspaper (e.g. for a politician), especially rather than a considered composed portrait image.

What's are thinking here? Are those touchstones more or less on track? Does that still leave quite a broad no-man's-land in the middle (e.g. what about an image of a recently deceased author or illustrator from their own website? Or for a widely circulated publicity image for a mid 20th century celebrity?)

Masem's given some thoughts above, which seem to me to be basically pretty sensible. But I wonder if wider ratification and ratification would be useful, rather than now just dropping this onto FFD? Would an essay page discussing this be useful, perhaps with a broader RfC to make sure that the community also think that this is the page we're on? Should we be approaching WP's legal team for advice, as to whether this matches with what they think is a reasonable interpretation of where we should be? Or should we even avoid looking too closely at this, and just trust the community to blunder through reasonably defensibly on a case-by-case basis at FFD, in a way that hasn't been run past the legal team, rather than getting ourselves too far down into discussion of too narrow cases and too prescriptive theorising which might (i) be over-creep (ii) be too theoretically angels-on-a-pinhead removed from the practical realities of real images (iii) even be used as citeable evidence against us and the Foundation, if we got it wrong?

Just some thoughts, as the topic and its discussion struck me... Jheald (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Derivatives of 3D public art in the US (again)

• Discussion currently occurring at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Statues, Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Album covers in artist articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Hello- opinions would be useful at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2. There is a disagreement about whether the existence of critical commentary on an album in the article about the artist automatically justifies the use of the album cover. (See Noleander's image review and my responses at the bottom of the page.) While this is just one article, it could potentially set a precedent for FAC, so the discussion is an important one. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great if the WP community could clarify this issue. I've only done a modest amount of editing, but I've encountered this issue at least 3 times in my career - and it occupies a lot of time unnecessarily. The issue is:

Should the WP:NFCI guideline #1 be amended to suggest that non-free album/book covers should be used only in the article dedicated to the album/book; and they should not be used in the biographical article about the author/band unless (a) there is no article dedicated to the album/book; or (b) the album/book were especially significant in the author/band's career?

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. But as Milburn says above, we should clarify it one way or another so that future editors don't spend time re-hashing it. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can make the clarification in a footnote in that there's enough possible exceptions that putting that language into the body of the guideline could be gamed. Eg: "This is typically allowed on stand-alone articles on the work itself, or in sections of related media where the work is discussed in detail. Re-use of covers on the author's, artist's, or creator's page when such pages already exist are typically not allowed unless they meet all 10 points of NFCC, such as if the cover is an iconic image for the creator." --MASEM (t) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, neither of your exceptions are sensible. You couldn't justify slapping album covers into an article just because no other article exists; they won't magically meet NFCC#8 just because there's no other article. So that's "a" out of the window. "b" is just as flawed- just because a particular work is significant, that does not mean that the cover is significant. The work and the cover are not the same thing- I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp. It's hypothetically possible that a not-so-significant work could have a highly significant cover; the archetypal example, Virgin Killer is probably not such a significant album for Scorpions, but the controversy its cover brought is highly significant. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation with album covers is not particularly complex; I think you're needlessly complicating it. A non-free cover, like any other image, may only be used if it meets the NFCC, including NFCC#8- it must add significantly to the article. There is a general consensus that an album cover adds significantly to the article about the album. This does not extend to other related articles. However, an album cover could reasonably be used elsewhere, like any non-free image, if its use adds significantly to the article in question for some specific reason; perhaps the article discusses the artistry of the cover, perhaps it discusses a controversy around the cover, perhaps the cover is cited as evidence of something and showing the cover can help present the issue neutrally. The significance of the thing the cover represents/whether that thing has an article has no bearing on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

NFCI #1 say "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." which means it can be used in other articles if they discuss the album, not the album's cover. If that is the case in an article about the musician/band, and if the album cover meets NFCC #8 (contributes greatly to the article) then it could be used in the article, true? --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Forget the NFCI. They're not important. If an album cover meets the NFCC, including NFCC#8, then yes, it can be used. We don't need an RfC to establish that. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

NFCC #8 reads "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The purpose of this RfC is to ask how that applies to book/album covers in biographical articles. NFCI #1 is already an attempt by the community to make that assessment, but #1 is apparently a bit incomplete. User Masem has suggested that only "iconic" books/albums may have their non-free covers included in biographical articles. What sort of evidence do we need from sources to establish iconic? Does "Dark Side of the Moon" meet the test for the Pink Floyd article? Would "The Wall" meet the test? Which album covers would fail the test? The purpose of the RfC is to see if that "iconic" rule is the consensus of the WP community. If it is the consensus, then the rule should be documented somewhere: either in NFCI #1, or in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to establish general rules where general rules are not appropriate. If an image adds significantly to an article, it can stay. The best way to demonstrate the significance of an album cover is to add sourced discussion about that cover to the article in question, rather than making vague claims about a cover being "iconic". Anyone can call something iconic. If it genuinely is iconic, we're going to have sources discussing it, and we're going to have discussion of it in the article. In such a case, adding a non-free image is going to be uncontroversial. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a are the two critical ones. The single use of the cover art in the article about the album, from a relatively recent past RFC, meets these in that it is a single use (meets NFCC#3a) and the album cover carries, at minimum, implicit branding and marketing information, thus meeting NFCC#8; in some cases, album art is discussed in detail in the album article which strengthens the rational, but just having a notable album has been determined sufficient enough. This is the basis of why NFCI#1 exists, and to be clear, NFCI is not the full extent of allowable images, just ones that, when used as stated, are generally always considered okay as long as the remaining NFCC criteria are met.

So when we turn to the second use of the album cover at a page not about the album, the previous community allowance no longer applies, because we're no longer in an article about the album so the implicit "branding and marketing" rational goes away. NFCC#3a is not well met with the second image, so NFCC#8 has to be addressed -does the album image add to the article and the reader's comprehension not harmed by its omission? In the current issue of the Pink Floyd band article permlink, most of the covers are just there alongside some development information about the album (eg such as in the case of "Wish You Were Here"). Per NFCC#8, I could remove that cover, and the article still is 100% comprehendable because there's zero discussion about the cover art; the art is only used there as a visual guide but not attached to the text in anyway. So those types of uses would be impossible to justify under NFCC#8. That's why the Dark Side cover has potential - the prism image is iconic symbol, and it can be discussed in that fashion while talking about the band. Omitting that image while taking about how that cover has become iconic would harm the reader's understanding, so NFCC#8 is met. Since this would be only its second proper use that is well-justified by NFCC#8, then NFCC#3a is met, and the image is acceptable there.

The only problem in the above analysis is that it is simply not as cut and dried as that. We default to not including album art in any other location besides an article dedicated to the album baring a few exceptions as, in general, the direct association of the album art is to the album, not the artist. When the association happens to go to the band/artist as well, then it makes sense to use there, but to give hard and firm rules to judge that association is impossible. But again, the default is we don't allow that second use, so when it is met, it is usually in exceptional places. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. We already do this all over the project in countless articles, with album covers and sound samples in artist' articles. That train left the station years ago. Fighting it now is a bunch of empty arm thrashing. While there might be some lofty notion of NFCC #8, in practice that isn't how we operate anymore. Allow the images. In the extremely unlikely event we receive a cease and desist letter from the artist, remove them then. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would argue that the community has generally avoided the use of album covers in band articles in general (there's cases like this of course, but that's why "in general". The sound sample acceptance is different, however, and comparable to a few examples of a visual artist's work, because as to discuss the importance and critical nature of the band or artist, these are essential elements - it might help show the progression of a band's musical styling over time, or demonstrate the type of sound they are specifically known for. In all such cases, we expect that secondary critical sounds specifically identify which sound clips (or in the case of the visual artist, which works) are paramount about the band and thus use those. Album covers are 99% of the time a curiosity and rarely have direction connection to understanding the band through its history. Ergo they fail NFCC#8 nearly all the time. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The assertion "album covers are 99% of the time a curiosity and rarely have direction connection to understanding the band through its history" seems to be a judgement call. I daresay that many readers would take the opposite view: from the 60s to 80s, album covers were often a key aspect of the band's identity. I'm not saying your view is not legitimate: just that it is a value judgement, not a black-and-white WP policy. The outcome of that judgement call is what this RfC is all about: what objective criteria can we use to determine if an album cover is important to understanding a band's history? --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said 99% - there are exceptions, Dark Side of the Moon, or Rush's 2112 backcover, being examples. I think it is more the case that when you see a recognizable album cover, you don't make the connection immediately to the band, but to the album and then to the band - but this is me trying to read inside people's heads. But clearly, its fair to recognize that you will make connections to the album when you see its cover. But within the framework of NFCC, we don't just use the argument "for visual recognition" as an acceptable rationale, because for a reader that is not familiar with the album art, and is reading about the band's history, the album art does not help in any way (assuming the art is not discussed in depth) and fails NFCC#8. That's why I do support using Dark Side's cover art on the Pink Floyd album, because you can discuss the art in connection to the band as an iconic representation of them to a reader that's never seen that cover before, and same with Rush's 2112 Starman. But take something like "Wish You Were Here", which any PF fan immediately would recognize, but it doesn't have the same level of association with the band directly as the Dark Side prism image. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Allow the images. The artists aren't complaining, the deletionists are. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a requirement of the WMF to be proactive to remove unneeded and inappropriate uses of non-free media. And remember, we're not deleting these images, as they have one completely acceptable use on the page about the albums. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Allow the unsourced libel. The subjects aren't complaining, the deletionists are." Pull the other one. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's policies, you don't have to be involved with the site. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • How does breach of copyright constitute libel? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's the label "deletionists" which absolutely does not apply in this situation. (Further, arguing a breech of copyright is a slippery slope - I would say with high confidence that our use of album covers in band articles is well within US fair use law. But we're talking about the more restrictive non-free content policy to maintain WP's free content mission.) --MASEM (t) 20:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Martin, I think it's quite clear that I have not said that. As far as I can remember, I have not even made reference to "breach of copyright" in this discussion. You're putting words into my mouth, which is not something I take kindly to. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I had no intentions of putting words into anyone's mouth. You have certainly not said that. I was simply asking for clarification. It was my personal assumption that the underlying problem being discussed here was one of copyright. But I wonder, could you possibly please expand on how libel is relevant here? Thanks. And sorry for libelling you. Perhaps we can avoid callng our respective lawyers just yet?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
              • I don't believe that you have libelled me (if that's a word). Sorry, let's take a step back for a second. My comment with the imagined quote was merely intended to show how ridiculous North's argument was- it was said with my tongue some way into my cheek, but I think the sentiment is clear. I was meaning to imply that, if his argument made sense, then so would this imaginary one against removing libellous content. We know that the imagined argument is nonsense, so we should recognise North's as nonsense too. As for the question of copyright- I'm not a lawyer, and I've not really got any interest in pretending to be one. However, we're not trying to decipher legal text in this discussion. Instead, we're trying to judge the use of certain images against our non-free content criteria, which may or may not resemble US law- I gather they're somewhat stricter but, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
                • It certainly is a word. But in the US it's usually only got a single letter l ! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Masem, if the WMF requirements were as you state, then we would not have nearly half a million non-free images on this site. We would not have articles with non-free images all over them like this, this and this. The WMF set out an ideal years upon years upon years ago, and then promptly abandoned it. They haven't cared in a long, long time. I see no reason why we should. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Until we have bots that can, 100% with no false positives, make the distinction on appropriate non-free use, the task falls to how fast that human volunteers can handle it. The metric to use is to consider what happens at when many human eyes are reviewing an article to judge image use (eg: at FAC), which upholds NFCC appropriately. Pages that use images that fail NFCC can easily be buried and not found for years, because we are otherwise human volunteers. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Which proves the point; if supposed "violations" can exist for years, then there is no violation. A unenforced law is no law. The WMF doesn't enforce it, the local project doesn't enforce it, why should individual editors care? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • WP has no laws. NFC is a strong WMF-backed policy, but it is not an absolute, and cannot be enforced automatically. There are 4 million pages and 450,000 NFC. With the inability to do this manually, we can only work at the rate of human volunteers. NFC is still enforced, when such violations are discovered, despite your denial. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • NFC is a weak, largely unpoliced policy. The proof is all over the project. You are focused on rebutting based on the idea that automatic solutions can't work. Forgive me, but that is the wrong focus. Automation is just one tool of many to solve the overarching problem. I'm not interested in throwing out the entire toolbox because the hammer doesn't look like a good solution for everything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
              • No, it's not the point that automatic solutions can't work, but that the only solutions that do work are human volunteer based because of how much subjectivity there is built into NFC. We can't force people to police it, much less be aware of NFC when they become an editor, so management is at the rate of how much time human volunteers put towards it. Which, yes, is likely slower than the amount of NFC (both proper and improperly used) being added or re-used on the project. Which means there will be improper use of NFC all over the place but its stuff that we have no easy means to discover and automatically tag as a problem because an automated tool can't do that. The people maintaining BLP have the same problem. The people that try to maintain copyvio issues have the same problem. Just because there are cases that go against current policy doesn't mean current policy is null and void, it just means we haven't gotten to discovering them all yet. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• I would tend to agree with User:North8000. Surely there is also quite a difference between an abstract or "logo name" cover and one which clearly shows a group photo of the band members? And there is more likelihood of there being an article for the band itself than one for each of their albums. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album, with the exception of cases where a standalone article on the album also exists. We've had the ludicrous situation in the past where editors have argued that an album cover is fine in a standalone article, but if that same content is merged into the artist's article (with the same infobox and content) then using the album cover in that section would be unacceptable. How we organize content, i.e. combining or splitting articles, should have no bearing on whether these images are deemed acceptable. As long as the article in question contains substantial content about the album (e.g. not just a heading and a couple of sentences as an excuse to put a picture in the article), the requirement is met in my view. The general objective of avoiding duplication of content should mean that few, if any, albums will be discussed in such depth in more than one article. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album". If you believe that, then you believe that the non-free content criteria should be changed- the mere fact that an album is discussed does not mean that the use of the cover would add significantly to the article in question. That is currently required by the non-free content criteria. It's fine that you believe that, but at least make clear what you are claiming. Further, your position is clearly inconsistent. "They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album, with the exception of cases where a standalone article on the album also exists. ...... How we organize content, i.e. combining or splitting articles, should have no bearing on whether these images are deemed acceptable." Did you actually read back what you just wrote? What you're saying would be funny if I wasn't terrified that a lot of people think in the same way as you... J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A section about an album is the same as an article about an album as far as the NFCC are concerned. If you actually read what I wrote I did not suggest that the section would merely need to discuss the album. If we do have a section that is about an album and covers it in some depth as well as a standalone article that does the same about the same album, then yes, the requirement would be met in both, but we would normally aim to summarize the content of the article in the section rather than duplicate it. Is that clear enough? --Michig (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you're implicitly making the claim that, if an article discusses an album to some requisite level (what that level is is not clear) then, necessarily, the album cover would add significantly to that article, and so meet NFCC#8. I cannot see why you believe that this is true; this is the key question, and, aside from your weird inconsistency, is the challenge I am offering to you. Let me give you an example; one of my own articles, Faryl Smith, discusses, at a considerable length, two of her albums (ignore the fact that there exist separate articles on the albums if you believe that this magically makes a difference). Would adding the respective covers to this article significantly improve it? No, of course not. The album covers are of next to no significance whatsoever; they're just shots of her on a white background. The album is important, and so is discussed at length. The cover is not, and so is not, and does not need to be shown. Can you really not see what I am saying? Or do you believe that I am wrong not to include those album covers in this article? J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you may be wrong. As far as vinyl albums are (were) concerned, the album cover, however "bland" it might look is, for me personally, an essential and undeniable part of the product, or the "whole work". But this is wholly subjective, I guess, not wikipedia policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I have been clear enough, however you choose to interpret it. --Michig (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm interpretting wrong, please correct me. I hope I'm interpretting wrong, because the position I'm seeing (where covers are added to articles no matter how insignificant they are) is borderline ludicrous, and makes a mockery of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Pink Floyd might be a good example to consider here. The article obviously doesn't need to use an album cover as the main image. But is it justifiable for an image of the appropriate cover to be used in each of the sub-sections? At the moment some are and some aren't. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification - There are currently 5 albums covers being used at Pink Floyd, not one in each sub-section. Also, what I think is getting missed here is that the artistic contibution of their covers is notable enough to justify inclusion in the artist page. Their cover art is needed to fully convey the artistic nature of their work. The covers are groundbreaking and influential and Thorgerson's involvement with the group for nearly 30 years is an important aspect of their history. ~ GabeMc 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite so. Personally, I'd be happy to see a cover image for every album mentioned - even the mundane covers (if there were any, e.g. Relics) It might even be seen as more consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Gabe, that's fine, and, if you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to write a convincing rationale, tying the particular image to the text of the article and explaining what the use of the cover is intended to portray, and how it does that. I'm of course not in principle opposed to the use of album covers on artist articles, I'd just like to see it minimised to those cases where the covers are genuinely adding something to the article. I should hope that that's not a controversial view; that's merely what's required by the NFCC. (Martin's view, on the other hand, falls well, well away from the requirements of the NFCC...) J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it's just "my view". Maybe I just want wikipedia to look more like many other, less stringent, group bio websites. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question Also, how does this relate to sound files? I.e. why can I use a sound file from each album but not the album cover? ~ GabeMc 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is good evidence of how this "discussion" is making things more complicated than they need to be. A sound file can be used when it meets the NFCC- most importantly, they can be used when they add significantly to reader comprehension of the article. If there is extensive discussion of a particular song, or of the musical style of a particular artist, then this discussion may sometimes be aided by illustration, through the use of a sound file. It's not as complicated as some people are trying to make out. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Also surprised we have moved to sound files. But it is beyond my (admittedly, limited ) comprehension how "add significantly to reader comprehension" could be judged in anything other than a completely subjectively way in this context. How could (is) this be judged objectively? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Our metric for sound files in musician/band pages is nearly always the presence of secondary, critical sources that specifically mention the music piece and its importance to the band. This is typically more than an album refuse saying "This song is a good song". Usually it is a critical history of the band to show its progression. Again, it's not 100% requirement - there may be other reasons to include, or there may be reasons to exclude even with this information. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you meant album review. But I'd love to see some examples - at the soundfile page? or in the article as part of a quoted review? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Martin; we have to use our judgement, yes, but that doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all. As a comparison, film critics have to use their judgement when reviewing a film- there's no set list of what makes a good film. That doesn't mean that any answer's as good as any other and we should all just give up because it's "100% subjective". J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Arh, now, film clips... now they really would be a good idea! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
            • We do allow short clips of videos as well, but the thing with audio and video clips is that we are primarily a text-based, static page service. 100% (excluding the blind) can see our text and images, but less than 100% can hear the audio (excluding the deaf) or see a video, due to limited computer capacity, mobile devices, or whatnot. This is not a reason to disallow them but we expect more selectivity in their use for both non-free and free due to this. With images, we're more selective due to NFCC and not so much accessibility. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this is an interesting point when juxtaposed with the sound file issue. For example, anyone can access any album cover online, for free, but one cannot download 10% of a song for free. Why would we be more stringent with a good being sold (music) than a virtually unsellable one (album covers)? ~ GabeMc 23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Album covers aren't unusable. Go to any college dorm, and it will only a few rooms to find a large poster of an album cover expanded to full scale. Cover art is a singular piece of artwork, and has potential value. Most don't, but there's a number that do. To that end, we can't cut down to only 10% of the image to make it usable, but we can enforce low resolution, typically 300x300 - enough to recognize it on screen, but of no commercial value. I am pretty sure that when you use album data bases (include Amazon, Google, and iTunes) the max size you can legitimately get the cover art is at 300x300 (after doing a spot check myself), so that's pretty much considered to be the fair use level across the board. There's no other steps we can do to back off a possible commercial reuse per fair use law. For sound files, there is two things we can do to back off on commercial reuse - the quality/resolution factor, and the amount of the sample. (These also apply to video). --MASEM (t) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:NFCC#7 and WP:FUR#2 are clear that a single non-free file may be used more than in one instance. This is applied equally; irrespective of perceived potential for monetary gain. J Milburn has iterated the distinctions rather well. I agree that the matter was resolved ahead of this RfC; whereas I see this discussion as more clarifying than necessarily deciding. IMO 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • NFCC#3a must be considered too. No one is arguing that the same piece of NFC can be used in separate articles, but once you go beyond that first use, each must show appropriate rationales to overcome the fact that #3a is being treaded on. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the sentiment, though: For (a), we should require at least some sourced commentary dedicated to the album in the artist's article; and for (b), agree with Milburn, only if the cover itself is significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Question - It looks like there is agreement that album/book covers can sometimes be used in the article about the artist/musician. But one thing that is not yet clear is how to apply the NFCC #8 in that situation. (NFCC #8 is "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). For example, say band B had album A which was a very major landmark in the band's history, but the cover art on A was not especially notable. Would NFCC #8 permit the album cover in the article on the band? Some editors stated above that the album cover would not be permitted in this circumstance because removing the cover art does not impact the reader; but other editors implied that the art could be included because it helps the reader visualize the album and hence better comprehend the article's text about the album. Personally, I have no opinion one way or another, but whatever the community consensus is, it should be documented in a guideline. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We do not use non-free images as "visual reminders", because those reminders only help those that actually have seen the work before which is generally assured to be a minority of the total WP readership. This is explicitly a point made when we agreed to remove images from discograhpies, episode lists , and other table-like presentations; while there will be some where an image does serve as a reminder, most readers will not have that ability, and ergo NFCC#8 (among others) is not met. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine. But then why does the community permit bland album covers in all articles that are devoted to albums? Removing bland, non-noteworthy album covers would not impact the reader's understanding of the article, true? --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize the community consensus:

NFCC #8 is applied rather loosely to articles devoted to the album/book, and generally a cover can always be included in such articles (provided the other NFCC criteria are met, of course). For other articles (such as articles about the author/musician; or lists) NFCC #8 is applied strictly, and the cover can only be included if (1) the article/list contains critical commentary on the book/album; and (2) the cover itself is essential for understanding the article/list (e.g. the cover art was very famous, etc).

If that is the community consensus, that makes sense. But then NFCI #1 is puzzling. It says "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". It appears that #3 is intended to exclude the cover from lists & discographies. But #1 is misleading when applied to articles about the author/musician, because #3 gives editors the impression that the cover can be included in an author/musician article if that article critically analyzes the book/album. But that is not sufficient: the cover art itself must also be key to the author/musician's history. Wouldn't NFCI #3 be more useful to editors if it made it clear that " context of critical commentary of that item" alone is not sufficient? --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The words "the covers" should probably be changed into "a cover". If multiple cover images are added to an article about a product, the extra images tend to get deleted at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I changed "the covers" to "a cover". Do you think the text in the quote-box above is an accurate summary of the community consensus on album covers? What do you think of improving NFCI #1 to be clearer? --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear on the cover art on articles about the work itself, the community has asserted from an RFC I started a few years ago that it does pass NFCC#8 because it implicitly relates to branding and marketing of the work it is the cover of. (I don't fully agree with that but I abide by that). I quote from {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}: "The entire cover: because the image is cover art, a form of product packaging, the entire image is needed to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image." That rationale only qualifies it on the article on the work. That rationale would not work on the musician's page, for example. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that is great information. What do you think of including that guidance within NFCI (either in #1 or elsewhere) to help editors that are working with cover art? --Noleander (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As I suggested at the start, I recommend a footnote to explain this one is pretty much only accepted if the cover art is used on the page dedicated to the album or work, but nowhere else; it doesn't mean it can't be used anywhere else, but the implicit reasons for inclusion (branding and marketing) aren't going to apply in any other context. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it could go in a footnote. What do you think about clarifying NFCI #1 in another way: Right now NFCI #1 suggests that the cover could go into any article with "critical commentary" on the album/book; NFCI #1 could mislead editors that are not familiar with talk page discussions like this one. Could we add words to emphasize that NFCC #8 must also be satisfied, and that the "critical commentary" alone is not sufficent? --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The list prior to NFCI asserts that all NFCC criteria still must be met, even if the NFCI is met; the NFCI are supposed to be list of cases where from past history the use as described is likely not to cause issues once the file has all the appropriate NFCC elements in it and abides by it. The factors of critical commentary means that the cover art can't be used in trivial situations (eg discographies). In the present case of the band articles, this is where the confusion comes it, because certainly just name-dropping the album in a band article doesn't appropriate use of the cover art, but there are clearly cases where cover art can be used when the artwork itself is fundamental to the band's nature. It's very difficult to summarize the NFCC arguments here (namely NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a), and hense leave it as a footnote to explain that the nominal use of NFCI#1 is for stand-alone articles, and not when, in addition to the standalone article on the album, the album is critically discussed elsewhere, but there may be other good NFCC reasons to include it there. It is a lot of handwaving and non-affirmation for those trying to find that, but its better than nothing to explain its nominal use. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Allright, so you're good with putting text into a new footnote for NFCI #1 that (1) explains that a cover is generally acceptable in album/book articles even when NFCC #8 is not met because of the marketing/branding role of the cover ; and (2) clarifies that the NFCI#1 "critical commentary" does not override NFCC #8, but rather augments it; therefore in articles other than the dedicated book/album articles NFCC #8 must still be applied to a cover. Does that sound good? --Noleander (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: can you clarify your comment: "the nominal use of NFCI#1 is for stand-alone articles "? NFCI#1 looks to me like it's primary target is lists & discographies. Doesn't that marketing/branding issue you mentioned sort of make NFCI#1 moot for the dedicated book/album articles? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First, NFCI#1 still requires NFCC#8 to be met. As I explained above, when an album cover is used on a stand-alone page about the album, NFCC#8 is met based on the argument that the image as used in an infobox there implicitly represents the branding and marketing of the work in addition to identifying the work, thus helping the reader to comprehend the article and would harm their understanding if it was absent. (And of course, this is a case specifically outlined by the Foundation in their resolution). Stand-alone articles on albums are those that are notable (requiring secondary sources) and thus are expected to have critical commentary about the album, thus meeting NFCI#1. That implicit argument does not exist anywhere else that the cover art is used, so a explicit NFCC#8-fitting rationale is needed. But one also must consider NFCC#3a on minimal use and while we do allow repeated image use, we expect a strong rationale based on good critical commentary to be used to counter that.

I'm reading that you're interpreting the NFCI as exceptions to NFCC which they are not. They are cases that the rationale factor for NFCC#8 is likely not going to be challenged as long as the image is used as listed out in NFCI. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To help me better understand these issues, I'd like to read that RfC from a few years ago which established that covers are okay in stand-alone articles based on their marketing/branding role. Was that discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_40#With_all_the_changing_concensus...? --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Masem: You write "the NFCI ... are cases that the rationale factor for NFCC#8 is likely not going to be challenged ... "; and indeed the guideline states near the top of the NFCI text: "the following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Misplaced Pages." But under those terms, NFCI#1 is not accurate: the vast majority of covers inserted in a non-stand-alone article are not acceptable even if they fully comply with NFCI#1. For example, if a band article includes a critical commentary about an album with a bland, non-notable cover, that situation satisfies NFCI#1 but would be successfully challenged, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is what is being said several times already. NFCI#1 has, unstated, applied only to the case for the article about the album; you started this because that unstated understanding now is lacking clarity and we're looking to see how to clarify it. The RFC in question is Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/Cover art RfC, which you notice that the closing admin pointed out that album art in an article on the album is acceptable w/o any explicit discussion of the album art. Given that people are reading NFCI#1 without knowing of this unstated understanding, we're talking about how to add that in to be clear that NFCI#1 primarily applies to album pages. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've read that RfC and it indeed covers much of the same ground as this RfC. The closing portion of that RfC says that a footnote will be added to NFCI#1 explaining the history/background, but I guess that was never done. Let's try to move on to specific wording for this NFCI#1 footnote. I think the following points are candidates to be mentioned (erring on the side of too many rather than too few):

1. A non-free cover requires that all NFCC criteria must be met, including NFCC#8
2. For stand-alone articles devoted to an album/book/etc, NFCC#8 is deemed to be met for the associated cover provided that the article contains critical commentary of that the book/album. This is because NFCC#8 is satisfied due to the marketing/branding role the cover plays. The cover may not be used for identification without critical commentary.
3. For stand-alone articles devoted to an album/book/etc, it is not required that the article discuss the cover art.
4. For articles that are not devoted to an album/book/etc, such as lists, discographies, or articles about the author or musician, critical commentary on the item is not sufficient, and the inclusion of the cover must expressly meet NFCC #8. Generally, this means that the cover artwork must be iconic, or especially noteworthy, or have played a key role in the history of the author/musician. The status of the cover must be supported by reliable sources.
5. Refer to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/Cover art RfC for additional background information.

Do those points sound correct? I'm not suggeting that the all above points are appropriate text for the footnote, merely that they are the underlying policies/practices that could be covered in the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The points appear correct, but I will remind that the section this is going to fall under is "acceptable uses", is not meant to be fully inclusive, and already under "must meet NFCC". I would have the text boil down to saying this is generally applied to cover art on the article that is exclusively about that published work, and all other uses, including, for example, cover art on the artist/writer/musician/group pages should be judged through NFCC, and point to that above RFC. Not that exact wording, but the shorter and less prescriptive, the better. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree it should not be too verbose. On the other hand, we're talking about a footnote within a guideline ... we shouldn't scrimp on words that could help rookie editors understand the situation. How about:

This acceptable use applies only to articles that are devoted to the item, including articles about albums, books, etc. This acceptable use does not apply to other articles, such as lists or articles about the artist, writer, musician, or group. Such articles must meet the non-free criteria, and critical commentary of the item, alone, in such articles typically does not satisfy the "contextual significance" criterion. Refer to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/Cover art RfC for additional background information.

for the footnote text? I suspect that you may not think the "... critical commentary of the item, alone, in such articles typically does not satisfy ..." text is essential, but it seems like it would help a lot of editors in the future. If that sentence is objectionable, can you think of an acceptable way to phrase it that would help future editors? --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Second footnote

That older RfC (from January 2011) in its closing section, identifies three tasks to be done:

1. The creation of a footnote summarizing that RfC's decision;
2. The creation of a footnote summarizing the history of NFCI#1; and
3. "Define specific cases where NFCI#1 is clearly ok .... For example, NFCI#1 could list out things like "book covers, theaterical movie posters, video game covers, tv show title cards".

As far as I can tell, none of these three tasks were implemented. The discussion above, after a long and winding road, has nearly arrived at a footnote for item (1). But items (2) and (3) still need to be done. Item (3), I suppose, could also go in a footnote. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding task #2 (History), here is some text to consider for possible use, most of which is copied from the older RfC:

In 2005, there was discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page and at the Non-free WikiProject to try to identify cases where images would clearly fall into US Fair Use law, thus making their use on Misplaced Pages unquestionably legal. For cover art, Wales and the editors used the case Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley which affirmed the use of cover images in articles discussing the work as falling within US Fair Use. The fundamental ten-point criteria were used as a basis by the Wikimedia Foundation to establish their Licensing policy for all Wikimedia projects, using the en.wiki's version of NFCC as an example of an Exception Doctrine Policy. Since 2006, neither the above section of WP:NFCI nor WP:NFCC have seen significant change outside of wording and clarification.

In late 2010 a dispute arose about NFCI#1, which covers the use of non-free images of cover art for albums, singles, movies, TV shows, video games, books, and other works, where the cover image is simply displayed in the infobox of the article for the work in question, and no other significance to the cover is provided. There was no dispute over the acceptability in articles where the cover art is discussed in some detail within the body of the article (eg, Abbey Road). Note that NFCI#1 only applies to articles devoted to the work in question, and not to other articles such as lists or articles about a author or musician. The dispute arose from what was seen as a conflict between minimizing non-free use and an established guideline for cover images. Some felt that WP:NFCI#1 cannot co-exist with WP:NFCC#8 - if the cover is being presented without specific discussion of the cover, it is decorative and fails the policy WP:NFCC#8; thus WP:NFCI#1 should be removed. Others felt that covers provide necessary identification information like branding and labeling that are implicitly necessary and significant to the article even without any commentary of the cover, and thus there is no conflict between these two statements.

An RfC was conducted in January 2011, and the outcome of the RfC was that non-free covers could be used in articles devoted to the item associated with the cover art, even if the article did not discuss the cover art. Thus, NFCI#1 was retained.

That is a bit on the verbose side, but it is a start. The first paragraph could probably be deleted without much loss of information to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a footnote to satisfy task #2:

In late 2010 a dispute arose about NFCI#1, which covers the use of non-free images of cover art for albums, singles, movies, TV shows, video games, books, and other works, where the cover image is simply displayed in the infobox of the article for the work in question, and no other significance to the cover is provided. There was no dispute over the acceptability in articles where the cover art is discussed in some detail within the body of the article (eg, Abbey Road). Note that NFCI#1 only applies to articles devoted to the work in question, and not to other articles such as lists or articles about a author or musician. Some felt that if a cover is being presented without specific discussion of the cover, it is decorative and fails the policy WP:NFCC#8; thus WP:NFCI#1 should be eliminated. Others felt that a cover provides branding, identification, and labeling information that is essential to the article even without any commentary of the cover, and thus NFCI#1 did not conflict with NFCC#8. An RfC was conducted in January 2011, and the outcome of the RfC was that non-free covers could be used in articles devoted to the item associated with the cover art, even if the article did not discuss the cover, because NFCC#8 is satisifed by the branding, labeling, or marketing information that the cover provides. Thus, NFCI#1 was retained.

Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the history, per se. Links to the past discussions are good references to include as "See: (link)", but be aware that NFCI#1 never changed as from that discussion RFC. You want to keep this short and simple:

This acceptable use is inferred to be for cases of cover art on standalone, notable articles exclusively covering that work. While the published work may also be critically described in other locations, such as on the band's page for an album, the reuse of the cover art is generally discouraged but can be used if the art is significant there. See:(past discussions)

This says what we have said is unstated by assumed by NFCI#1, doesn't disallow the reuse but puts it as iffy (forcing strong discussions on good rationales for it). The wording can be improved, but the message is there. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Approaching this as an outsider, with little knowledge of NFCC or NFCI history and nuances, I would suggest tweaking the wording to something like the following to help rookie editors:

This acceptable use applies to the use of cover art within articles exclusively devoted to the work associated with the cover. When the work is critically described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician, this acceptable use does not apply, and the NFCC criteria (particularly NFCC#8 "contextual significance") typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. See 2011 RfC on NFCI#1 for more information.

Also: Is there any objection to adding the words "In standalone articles ..." to the text of NFCI#1 (rather than that clarification only appearing in the footnote)? I ask because many editors reading NFCI will not bother to click on the footnote, so perhaps those key words could be inserted into NFCI#1. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is where we start getting into tricky territory that its better to remain silent on unless we get a clearer consensus. There are cases of a non-musical work (film, tv show, video game) where there is also a released soundtrack that just barely meets notability guidelines and could have its own article, but editor decisions have considered leaving the soundtrack within the body of the non-musical work article. (eg: Armageddon (1998 film), Music of Portal 2). In association with that soundtrack, in most cases we do allow the cover art there to also be used. But there are cases where the album art is highly or exactly the same as the cover art of the main work, at which point inclusion of that second cover is pointless since the branding/marketing is already there. The problem is to try to spell this out in any short detail is near impossible, and it is better to detail with the cases that are fringe as they come up in light of the normal 10-point NFCC instead of trying to modify the careful wording of NFCI to force the case to work. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it is better to leave the text of NFCI#1 alone. Any concerns about the wording of the most recent proposal (above) of the footnote text? Footnotes are not as binding as the text itself, so we can perhaps be more helpful in the footnote, even if we cannot describe every contingency. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not quite, but I see what's missing. We need to explain that NFCI#1 is based on the fact that the cover art on the article on the published work at minimum implicitly carries marketing, branding, and identification information from the publisher that is important to have visually there on that article per NFCC#8 (as argued in the RFC) - hence why this allowance is easily met for the base case. Any other use needs to still meet NFCC#8, but there's no implicit argument and editors must explicitly give one. How to say that cleanly, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

This acceptable use applies to the use of cover art within articles exclusively devoted to the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. This acceptable use does not apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. See the 2011 RfC on NFCI#1 for more information.

--Noleander (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really work in cases where we start with a standalone article about an album (when use of the image is considered ok), but that content is then merged into the artist article (e.g. because both albums are short enough for this to make sense) with the same content as a section devoted to the album (when by the above it is no longer considered ok). Or the opposite situation, where because an artist has only released one or two albums, they are covered in sections in the artist article devoted to the individual albums (not ok), but when these are split into separate articles with the same content - now ok. Doesn't make sense, and just encourages people to creates stubby album articles so that cover art can be included. I think replacing 'articles' with 'articles or sections' would solve this, and this is the point I made above. Mimimizing use of these images would be achieved by only having the image in a section devoted to the album in cases where there wasn't also a standalone article about the album, which I also suggested above. Feel free to misinterpret if you wish. --Michig (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My impression from the older RfC and from the discussion above is that the community consensus is standalone articles only, not "articles or sections". Can you point to some discussion or RfC where the "or sections" was discussed & approved? The Pink Floyd FAC also rejected the "or sections" approach. Maybe we could just use "articles" for now in the footnote (we are so close to finalizing it :-) and start a separate discussion dedicated to deciding if "or sections" is appropriate. Does that sound okay? --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC for exemption

While policy is clear that appropriate articles are the favored location for non-free files, WP:NFCC#9 places this "subject to exemptions". I believe Portals that include a snippet of an FA article should be exempted to allow a depiction of the main infobox file provided they append an additional rationale at the files location; for the duration of its display. A category for interested Portals should be included in Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content criteria exemptions if this is not an affront to propriety and there is consensus to allow this. I extend hopes that it can be accomplished. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The exceptions are only made for purposes of non-free maintenance. Portals are not that. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Portals are really an extension of the mainspace. Just because it's called "portal" doesn't make it not part of the encyclopedia as put forth before our readers. Further, the NFCC #8 policy is, at best, loosely enforced now. "Violations" (they aren't really violations anymore) have been exploding for months with no end in sight. An unenforced policy is no policy at all. Why should some portals be allowed to do this and not others? Either enforce the policy or modify policy to reflect reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As Misplaced Pages:Portal#What are portals? says, portals serve a similar function like the main page. If they can be displayed at the main page, I see no reason why not to display them there as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Last time I looked, they couldn't be displayed on the main page either. Has that changed? If not, oppose, basically per the reverse of Toshio's argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Appears you are correct and looking at Authentic Science Fiction and Misplaced Pages:Main Page history/2012 September 3 seems to support that. Silly me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • When I asked that question at WT:TFA#Images and fair use the answer indicated to me it was a choice opposed to a policy restriction. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Not really. Somebody told you, "we just don't", and that actually is the policy. Don't ask me where it's codified, but it's existed as well-known rule for a long while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The main page only includes images from transclusions. Pages such as Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/September 13, 2012 are not in the mainspace and aren't allowed to contain non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't doubt that's the more exact reason, but I also believe it is the case that we want to maintain the concept that we are a 💕 and thus purposely avoid non-free content for materials that appear on the front page (TFA, ITN, DYK). --MASEM (t) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If a page is placed in Category:Misplaced Pages non-free content criteria exemptions, it means that the page is exempt from all points at WP:NFCC, not only WP:NFCC#9. Among other things, this means that Category:All orphaned non-free use Misplaced Pages files is allowed to contain any non-free image (no concern about e.g. WP:NFCC#3a or WP:NFCC#8). If portal pages were to be placed in that category, they would in other words be allowed to use non-free content without restrictions. This is of course not acceptable.

It says that pages in the exemption category "are used to manage questionable non-free content" (meaning deletion categories and similar). A portal page is not meant for managing questionable non-free content. Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format (currently in the exemption category) is not used for managing questionable non-free content either, so I assume that the SVG category should be removed from the exemption category. On the other hand, the template {{db-f1}} is a typical example of a page where <includeonly>]</includeonly> would be acceptable. Currently, it is a violation of WP:NFCC#9 to use {{db-f1|filename}} for non-free files because the {{db-f1}} template displays an image on the file information page where you're using the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As Masem said, exceptions are allowed for (non-free) image maintenance, but that should be all. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Portals are like specialised main pages, and there is a strong, long-standing consensus that the main page should not feature non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I certainly respect the enlightening comments provided above by esteemed colleagues I fully respect. I am satisfied that the current practice is likely the best practice and sufficiently dissuaded from seeking a Portal exemption. I therefore withdraw this RfC and thank all who have given their time to comment. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Images from old newspapers

I want to put a picture of Lucy Hagenow on her biography page; she's been dead since 1933. The only image I have found of her anywhere is from 1925 articles in the Kingston (NY) Daily Freeman and New Castle (PA) Daily News; this was almost certainly an old wire service photograph; its source is not provided in any of the papers. Given Hagenow's age in 1933 and how old she appears to be in the photo, the photo in question is no doubt significantly older than 1925; my best guess is that it was taken prior to 1910. Also, given the quality of the image in question and the obscurity of the person, use of the image on Misplaced Pages would not hinder an ability of the author to pursue monetary gain from it.

Is this use allowable under Misplaced Pages guidelines? ChristinaDunigan (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For works first published in the 1920s, it is irrelevant to know when a photo was taken; the only thing which matters is the date of publication. Under United States copyright law, the copyright holder had to renew his copyright in the 27th or 28th year after publication (i.e. in 1952 or 1953 in your case), or else the photos entered the public domain on 1 January 1954. If the copyright was renewed, the photo enters the public domain on 1 January 2021.

I checked the copyright renewals for periodicals for 1952 and 1953 and can't find any renewal for either newspaper, so I would guess that anything you find in those newspapers from 1925 is in the public domain and thus fine to use. Unless anyone else finds a renewal, it should be fine to use the photo under the licence {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If the copyright was renewed, it might still be possible to use the photo under fair use, but press photos are sometimes a bit problematic due to WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI 7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment