Misplaced Pages

talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:33, 28 December 2009 editDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →Advice wanted on possible inclusion of album clover.: fix← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,580 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 71. (BOT) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Fair use}}
{{WikiProject Images and Media}}
}}
{{Policy-talk}} {{Policy-talk}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=360 |age=336
|index=no |index=no
|minkeepthreads=5
|minarchthreads=1
|minarchthreads=2
|minkeepthreads=1
|nogenerateindex=1 |nogenerateindex=1
|maxarchsize=256000 |maxarchsize=856000
|numberstart=39 |numberstart=71
|header={{Aan}}
}} }}
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria}}
{{WPFairUse}}
{{archives|index=/archive toc|search=yes|auto=short}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}} {{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions}}


== Photo from National Portrait Gallery ==
== "#Images" section unclear ==

Of the image examples given, only numbers 2 and 8 seem clear to me. Number 3, stamps and currency, states "for identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject". I know what it means, but I am not sure that it is as clear as it could be. Perhaps we could expand "not its subject" to read "not the subject illustrated on the stamp or currency" or something similar?

Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 use the phrase "critical commentary". Is this a ]? It appears to be used as if it were one but there is no Misplaced Pages article on the topic and no link to a policy or guideline to explain the term. This phrasing should be replaced by plain language, failing which a gloss should be provided. ] ] 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:The "its" in "not its subject" is readily clear to me - "stamp or currency" is the only noun "it" can apply too.
:"Critical commentary" is a term from US Fair Use law (though IIRC it doesn't appear exactly in that form), and thus where we have gotten that definition from. Unfortunately, US Fair Use law does not attempt to define this any further. We've tried to argue changes to that phrase before, but all of those presume the intent of what fair use means, which we are in no legal position to try to guess. We thus assume that critical commentary involves some discussion of the picture more than just "here is a picture" without any connection to the text or the like (eg NFCC#8). --] (]) 14:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::As recently as two months ago, following ], I made ] that this should be revised for clarity but there was no support for change. I encounter the problem when nominating stamps for deletion when working my way through the improper use of stamps but there are still a good number to be removed. Every now and then a heated discussion takes place that could be avoided if the usage was clearer. I don't think adding "not the subject illustrated on the stamp or currency" to #3 makes this clearer to me, but for uses other than in stamp articles I am still in favour of some additional detail, by adding a "critical commentary" phrase to clarify that where a stamp is used outside of a stamp article it cannot be used just for decoration and/or without commentary, as is sometimes the case, though some editors think adding some production/identification details is sufficient to justify fair-use. I would certainly have less resistance to deletions if this were more detailed. ] (]) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:::(ec) Note that for some of the categories of images, showing the image is considered to further the critical commentary on the subject of the article, rather than the specific image itself; eg: box art for a film or recording; and for some categories of images (though we generally don't allow stamps) this ''is'' acceptable. (Compare also '''' as cited in a discussion above). In such cases, a serious encyclopedia article generally qualifies as critical commentary. Note also that critical commentary does ''not'' necessarily imply discussion of a works artistic merits or demerits (ie ''artistic criticism''). Such artistic criticism counts as critical commentary; but the legal meaning of the term is wider - encompassing artistic criticism ''and'' serious commentary ] (]) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
::::We could ask a lawyer for input. -- ] (]) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

== How long of a video clip is permissible? ==

I am planning to upload a clip sequence outlined in some description by commentary for ] to replace the screen shot which does not as a still image adequately fill its intended role under fair-use due to the way in which commentary describes how absurd gags which often use references to other popular media and how the two main character's actions parallel each other. You can't really do something that complex with a couple screen shots.

The particular one I want to use is referenced by at least of the reviewers specifically. A bike chase scene which lasts in entirety 5:08. The series is 2x26 episode season plus 1 extra special episode. I don't plan to use the entire clip either (i was going to try and cut out some unnecessary footage), but don't know how much because the commentary goes into some depth about the gags.]]] 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
:At bare maximum, I would start with our audio guidelines: 10% of the length (of the episode in this case) or 30 seconds, which ever is smaller - in this case, 30 seconds would be your maximum length. --] (]) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
::Quality wise, what kind size should i use? I was probably going to go at max for 50% original size which would be 320x240.]]] 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
::34 seconds would be too long I guess even if it was the only item (other than cover) that was fair use?]]] 07:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
::::For a TV episode, I would say under a minute. The size you mentioned is fine. I just saw a court decision in Illinois that says an accidental taping of 3 minutes of a movie for a birthday party is not copyright infringement because of the little amount of the move was recorded (in this case, the movie was New Moon). So I think a minute should be fine for this education purpose. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:For reference on the quality, ] may be a good starting point, as it was used as part of the featured article ], thus presumably its technicaly reencoding and size match what we consider "Low resolution".
:Also, as a point, I know the bike scene that you're talking about (just rewatched it) and I've read the article, and I'm still finding it difficult to see where it would fit (that scene doesn't specific appear to be talked about). But, presuming there is info about it, my suggest: you have the Trueno joke, which follows them racing past a speeding train, which follows a cut of the three of them from behind; that's 20 seconds right there, and with the brief bit of audio (english dub) gives the parallelism idea that you're talking about. --] (]) 14:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
::Most, but not all. The other aspect is that the setup mirrors each of them, ie Tenma has an idea relating with Kurasama and Harima has an idea relating with Tenma which is exactly like her's, except the characters are replaced. They then both pursue their goal in the same manner. Without the setup, that important aspect is lost. As for commentary, it may have accidentally been removed through all the various updates. I'll have to check the various sources.]]] 22:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
:::True, but I should point out you adequetely described the "she gets an idea, he gets the same idea" concept quite well without any pictures; that's not to say that the sight gag aspects (again the 20 seconds I commented above) aren't replaceable by text, but some parts are. --] (]) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Maybe not with text. I mean i think it would be difficult to demonstrate via text how both of them have different ideas but come to the same parallel conclusions, so much so that they mirror each other without confusing most readers with long-winded and confusing passages.]]] 22:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

*My God, I absolutely hate the idea of fair use videos at all- is a video ''really'' needed? ] (]) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
**In short, yes due to the complexity of what I'm trying to describe and show, otherwise it would be too many screenshots that the article would get tagged for that. There is nothing wrong with fair-use video anymore than fair-use audio tracks as long as its limited. Just because your preference is against it, doesn't mean it there cannot exist a rational for it.]]] 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
***Go on then, surprise me. I have nothing against videos, I just fail to see a situation where one would truly be necessary... ] (]) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
****<s>Given</s> Added the commentary i'd like to add (still not sure where) to the article's talk page that would give the fair use rationale for the clip, ie it uses audio-video elements combining together on multiple levels. A screenshot cannot capture that.]]] 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

== "Iconic" cover art ==

Can the cover art of a single be added to a discography article if it is "iconic"? I'm asking because of this recent edit at . ] (]) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
:I've removed both covers from that article. It really is irritiating that covers slip in like that... I found the hidden note particularly annoying. ] (]) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Could do with some more eyes, have encountered some rather vocal resistance... ] (]) 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:this comes back to the idea I've suggested of "infobox images for identification" that happens with such articles that are list-like in nature (which this clearly is) but there's more than just listing out the album, instead being sections that likely could each be broken out to their own individual articles but for editorial decisions have been brought together as a single article (which this clearly is). If we accept that on individual articles we allow cover art even if the art is not specifically referenced, we are penalizing those editors that are seeking alternative means of presenting related content. I'm not saying we've agreed to this being true, but it is a loophole that cases like the above bring up when we (seemingly unquestionably) allow for "decorative" images in infoboxes on single articles. (Note, this is not to allow individual images on true discographies where there's no further discussion of the individual works on that page). --] (]) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

::It's important to recognize two things here:
::(1) The pertinent article content is clearly not of the sort that we mean by "discography".
::(2) While the image is not "iconic", as was incorrectly stated in the hidden text, that is irrelevant to this case. The image is illustrative of an item that is the subject of extensive critical commentary (the primary coverage of the item on Misplaced Pages), and its use is thus supported by both ] and the ]. As Masem suggests, our mission and our policy should not be read to restrict editors' freedom to develop various means of presenting related content. Whether the primary coverage of a music recording appears in the context of a stand-alone article or as a dedicated section in an article providing broader coverage is irrelevant to the proper and judicious illustration of the recording.—] (]) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
:::"''Extensive critical commentary''"? Where? I see a list of basic facts about release dates, performers and authors etc., but this ''extensive '''critical''' commentary'' I cannot find. ] (]) 10:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

::::IMO, the issue here is that the topic of this article is Music of Final Fantasy VIII, not those specific albums. If, in the future, those articles are ever created, then an album cover could be used to identify the topic of those new album specific article. However, images of album covers do not directly help identify the topic of "music". While this may be penalizing editors who want to present all albums on one article, and it may penalize albums that are not notable enough to have their own article, I still believe it is inline with our minimal non-free content policy. But as it stands, these images are not identifying the topic of the article, but instead simply decorating the page (who cares if they are in an infobox or identifying a section?) I think this situation relates to ] where the community felt DVD covers and screenshots were overuse of non-free content, and thus removed. At least I don't see the difference, except more nerd (:P) on the internet that like FF8 than Glen Campbell, so there is a vocal minority supporting keeping the FF8 content, when objectively, we should treat the subject matters equally, and apply the rules the same. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Just found ] and a past discussion, which seems even more closely related to FF8 music. One image was kept there. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::*Yes, a compromise that is unsustainable really. We already recently had an editor ignore it and try to . The problem here is there is nothing codified anywhere that this sort of treatment is preferred over no album covers at all in discographies, which is codified. --] (]) 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::*I strongly agree with the logic or lack thereof in this case... The only even remotely disputable policy relating to these images is Policy 8. This policy reads: "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." In this case three of the four album '''covers''' are directly discussed in the article and the presence of the images significantly increases readers' understanding of the discussion. Omitting the images is directly detrimental to understanding the discussion about the cover art style. Further along in the guidelines state the following is an acceptable use, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Again, these images meet the acceptable criteria. The only disputable fact is that these images could be considered part of a discography. However, in this situation that is not the case. The albums were all released by different methods (C&C was available only via website order, C&C: RA via retail, C&C: TS was bundled, etc.), the newer albums are not even by the same musician, and all the albums feature different styles of music. This does not qualify as a discography in my opinion, and I fail to see the rational behind classifying the albums as such. --] (]) 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

*I think the idea that this is simply an editorial decision misses the point. Articles such as the one being discussed here are not held to as high a standard as a stand alone article. Whereas a stand alone article might be permanently stub level even with some notoriety for the subject, in a list article it can seem as notable enough to warrant a cover. Further, the eyes that look at this article would have an exceptionally difficult time of determining what the metric really is for whether an album within a discography should be allowed to have its cover shown. There is no line in the sand. If you allow one cover, you migth as well allow all of them. It's the same principle. The general rule of thumb has been if an album or single is notable enough to have its own article, then it can have one and its cover can go there. Any other treatement of the album/single doesn't warrant a non-free image. --] (]) 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes, the rule of thumb is that an or album or single notable enough to have its own article is notable enough to be illustrated. In most cases, the application of that rule of thumb is unambiguous; in some cases, however, we need to apply specific thought to the matter. Take the present case, for instance.

:::What we have here is a group of four releases, two of which evidently ''are'' notable enough to have their own articles, given the amount of ]-standard coverage they have received externally, and the level of sourced critical commentary they have been accorded here. Logically, those two items are notable enough to be illustrated wherever their primary coverage appears on Misplaced Pages. That primary coverage ''could'', according to our standards, be in stand-alone articles. In most cases, it ''would''. But, ah...

:::The involved editors made a rational decision to create one article, encompassing those two related recordings—'']'' and "]"—as well as two less significant related ones, rather than, say, to create three articles: one for the notable album, one for the notable single, and a third covering all four recordings that would offer summary coverage of the two notable ones. Why should our policy be construed to mean that this rational decision concerning the most effective, efficient way to present encyclopedic information should result in the two notable recordings not being illustrated? And do those who have militated against the inclusion of the two images in the present article really believe that our readers and our policy will be better served if ''Final Fantasy VIII Original Soundtrack'' and "Eyes on Me" are accorded stand-alone articles and illustrated in those?—] (]) 05:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I have to agree with this above -- as long as we assert that we allow for cover art that is simply ''there'' doing little but decoration in the infoboxes of articles on a single notable work. I further assert that there's a reasonable line to be drawn here - that we can tell when a section of a list-like article could be spun out as opposed to when it is simply a data point to complete the list. It's going to be fuzzy, but better than no option at all that is counter to when we have separate articles.
::::''Unless'' of course we want to be more strict on the infobox image. Cover art that is not mentioned at all, is not used to support any aspect of the article (which could be something like art style, character identification, etc.) could be removed, and that would make it on par with removing images from list-like articles like the one in question. However, that's a larger barrier that I think we'd have a lot of trouble with enacting. --] (]) 06:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::*I will strenuously oppose inclusion of covers in ''N''ographies because of the indefensible position it creates. It is hard enough to police fair use overuse and mass decoration of articles. If we become more permissive of this sort of article containing images, we might as well give up. I sure as hell won't fight including all covers any more because I won't be able to argue a position that makes any sense any more. While the new policy might, in theory, seem clear in such a case, the reality and actual practice will be mass over population of fair use images in list articles. Masem, in theory, you're perhaps on to something. In practice, it's untenable. --] (]) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::I completely understand the concern, as the language, if not exactingly clear when this is permissible, would allow the case where an image adorns every element of a list. Which is why I think it is completely fair to bring ] or whatever we consider our requirements for a stand-alone article into play. Without working the specific wording:
::::::* Elements of a list that are non-notable should not have individual non-free pictures simply as decoration or means of identification (this does not prevent inclusion of images that are iconic and discussed in the text as required per NFCC#8
::::::* Elements of a list that are notable ''and'' have their own articles (and thus typically included as a brief summary of the main article and for completeness) should not have individual non-free pictures simply as decoration or means of identification, as it is expected that image to be on the separate article.
::::::* Elements of a list that are notable but do not have their own article and are fully covered in the list article may have a non-free image for identification, though editors should consider avoiding overuse of such images if many of the list elements are notable but grouped into the singular list. (eg, if a book series is covered in a list, and each cover has a similar layout and design, only one cover is needed).
::::::Yes, people will abuse this, and because WP:N gets involved, we'd have issues with disputes over that. But, its a necessary balance as long as we allow decorative non-free cover images in infoboxes throughout the rest of the work. And really, I think the test when this applies is a lot more bright-line than is being suggested, but its a matter of exacting the language for it. Note that I'm not against making ''that'' change, but that, to me, will likely be a lot more work to get through than to make better allowances for inspiried editors. --] (]) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure I could improve on that in any significant way. That maintains the spirit and intent of our policy, while bringing some logical consistency to an area of fair use that sorely needs it. The relationship between our image policy and our notability guideline is a fruitful area for bringing greater consistency to the interpretation and application of that eternally fraught notion, "significance". There's no way the language of our NFC content guideline can ''prevent'' abuse, but the clearer and more logical its principles, the less invitation there is for abuse and evasion and the more encouragement there is for thoughtful and effective variations in the arrangement of encyclopedic information.—] (]) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not sure we shouldn't look at this the other way&mdash;is the cover really needed for ''every'' album article, let alone mention of the album in a list? For some albums, i.e. ], we can certainly make a very good argument that yes, the cover is assuredly a part of what makes the album notable. But do we really need an album cover for every run of the mill album out there, where the album (rather than its cover) is the focus of coverage? Even if we are to use nonfree media in such articles, wouldn't a better choice be a short example of the music, since that's what's really notable about the vast majority of albums? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*I would ''love'' to look at it the other way. The amount of covers we have is simply staggering. There are 100492 album covers alone. More than 1/3rd of the non-free media we have on this site is in covers. But, the reality is there is no way in hell we'll ever get people to back off on the idea that we ''must'' have album covers for every album on the planet. Allowing album covers onto album specific articles is a compromise. Now, what we're discussing is ''another'' compromise, to allow album covers on articles where there is no album specific article. After that, we'll be talking yet ''another'' compromise to allowing all album covers in discographies again, because why not? We're already allowing album covers in discographies now (if we do as is being suggested here). No. I refuse. I won't accept the compromise. Absolutely not. No way, no how. We ''already'' compromised. --] (]) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::*What compromise exactly? The resistance to a logical set of principles as outlined by Masem will produce a logically foreseeable set of results. Let's take the present case of ], where that set of principles would lead to 1 article with 2 images. Deny that possibility, and we are likely to see the following:
:::::::::*(1) The two recordings currently covered in the article that meet our notability guidelines will receive their own articles, which will be illustrated according to our well-established practices. Score so far: 2 articles, each with 1 image for 2 images total.
:::::::::*(2) The two recordings that arguably do not meet our notability guidelines will ''also'' receive their own articles, which will be illustrated according to our well-established practices. Lengthy arguments and AfD processes will ensue. If the articles are eliminated, we will wind up with exactly as many fair use images as we would under a well-articulated set of principles, but some substantial amount of the community's energy will have been needlessly consumed. If the articles are ''not'' eliminated (and it's not exactly easy to eliminate stand-alone articles on commercially distributed and professionally reviewed recordings once they're created), our ultimate score will be: 4 articles, each with 1 image for 4 images total.
:::::::::*Again, are you absolutely sure that what Masem has proposed constitutes a "compromise"?—] (]) 16:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::*You're looking specifically at one article. I'm looking at the abstract change in policy. --] (]) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::*Well, first off, this wouldn't involve a change in policy, but a refinement of the content guideline. Second, there's nothing abstract about it—there are ''many'' articles that offer primary coverage of multiple copyrighted items that do not fall neatly into the definition of "discography" or similar summary list. ] is typical of an entire ''genre'' of articles—the unintended, undesirable consequence of entirely prohibiting fair use illustration in them will be to spawn a myriad of illustrated conventional articles: short, cluttery, but practically impossible to eliminate.—] (]) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::*To me, that's a trivial concern compared to the insane amount of non-free imagery this would spawn for inclusion. --] (]) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::: OK, let me get this straight. Hammersoft's main rationale for removing pictures from articles like this is his "rule of thumb" (an album or single notable enough to have its own article is notable enough to be illustrated). This rule is nowhere to be found in non-free content policy or guideline. In fact, it is against the ]. Still, some people try to persuade him to be a litte more relaxed about this, but he refuses to do so, because otherwise he - unrealistically - fears that all discographies on wikipedia will be densely populated by front cover pictures. And then, to top it off, when an album or single does follow his rule of thumb, he is still not satisfied and demands that the editor chops up his article into separate articles, otherwise he won't be able to defend his position anymore, which was already wrong in the first place. It's absurd. ] (]) 13:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (editor of the nixed Glen Campbell videos page)

== Fanart ==

Is fanart permitted? And who owns copyright on it? -- ] 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Short answer: No, fan art is not a good thing. Take a read of ]. ] (]) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

== Iwo Jima flag raising overused? ==

There are currently 8 article using the non-free iconic image ]. The famous image itself is discussed in some of these articles sometimes at length (like in ]), sometimes as an important side-subject (like in ]) and sometimes the picture itself is not discussed at all (like in ]).

Some of the article where it's used in have no fair use rationales (like ]), and there are some rationales for articles where it's not used in (like ]).

Since this image is one of the most mentioned as a perfectly valid cases of fair use in Misplaced Pages, I believe it should be good to have the file usage to comply with our policies (at least to prove it's possible for a file to comply with our policy).

Will someone volunteer? --] 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
: I think that usage is admissible in ] and ], and not in the others. Most certainly not in ]. ] (]) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

::Agree - on the page about the photo itself and the photographer, it is critical, but no where else (even those that were photographed, since the faces are indistinct). There is a free alternative there, that being any of the free images from ]. --] (]) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
*Sure, I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care. The image itself is the subject of an article. Therefore, the use of it should be restricted to ''that'' article, and any other use of it made as a reference with a link to that article. This is codified in guideline at ] #5. Off to blow things up. --] (]) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
*Ok, I hacked it down to two uses as suggested above, for the main article ] and for ]. I removed the offending fair use rationales as well. --] (]) 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
** Great work and good luck :) --] 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You have just violated the very specific exception in Unacceptable uses for iconic images. It specifically names that image. Are you really really sure you want to pick that fight, here and now? You're literally going against the specific exception example, specifically listed in the policy... ] (]) 00:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
*Absolutely. It's a bad example, and honestly should be stripped as an example. Why? Look at the very next entry in that unacceptable images list which says "if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image". In this case, since the image does have its own article, it creates a conflict in the guideline examples. So what do we look to then? The policy. Policy asks us to keep fair use usage to a minimal level. That trumps the conflict in the guideline, making it clear we should fall on the side of reducing use rather than expanding use, examples of exceptions not withstanding. And yes, I'm quite happy to defend this. I don't care about picking fights. I care about doing what is right. --] (]) 13:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

== RfC on requiring fixing fair use problems instead of tagging ==

An RfC has started titled "Change in policy requiring fixing fair use problems instead of tagging". Your input is welcome at ]. Thank you, --] (]) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

==Nonfree media use for broad subject categories such as ]==
I recently took another look at ]. I thought I'd done cleanup there, but apparently things found their way back in, so I'll see what the opinion is here. Currently, there are several nonfree media files (album covers/music tracks) in use in the article. I would imagine that for such broad subjects (punk rock, ], ]), it would be almost impossible for a nonfree media file to be irreplaceable. I'm quite certain that free images already exist in this area, and more could be easily created. I am almost as certain that CC-(BY and/or SA) or public domain licensed punk rock exists for the sound files (and in this case we could also use the whole track instead of a short snippet, if desired). Anyone else seeing something I'm missing? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
*More abstractly, this article is one of many that is always on of articles using excessive numbers of non-free media. It's a growing trend. I don't think you're missing anything, but it's basically impossible to enforce anymore. --] (]) 17:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::Well, it's certainly not impossible to enforce, we've enforced it many times. I think, though, especially in articles with such a broad subject area, "irreplaceable" would be very difficult to meet&mdash;it's certainly possible to get free images of punk rock, and I don't think it'd even be terribly hard to get free content sound files either. Just running some quick searches, I've already found CC-BY-SA punk music. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::That's perfectly fine for examples of recent punk. We could, for example, arguably replace the existing Sum 41 audio sample with a free sample of contemporary pop punk. But this is a largely historical article. Have you actually found significant examples of punk from the 1970s and 1980s that are free use?—] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::No idea, but that wouldn't particularly matter. We wouldn't need a media file for everything, only by way of some examples. Text descriptions are free content too. Regardless, the images are certainly replaceable. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Text descriptions of the length and detail necessary to even plausibly convey the sound and impact of particular songs are obviously not appropriate to a genre article. Audio samples are the appropriate means to convey such encyclopedic information. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "no idea". Have you or have you not actually found significant examples of punk from the 1970s and 1980s that are free use?—] (]) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:Way too many samples. Unless specific songs are documents as core examples of punk, most of those sound files could be replaced with garage bands with similar sounds under free content licenses (yes, difficult to get, but not impossible). I don't necessary see as much a problem with the images on that (the one apparent non-free, the Ramones cover, is sourced to exactly why it's important to punk rock). --] (]) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::The unique historical import of most, if not quite all, of the songs sampled is well-established and cited or readily citable. They're irreplaceable by samples of historically insignificant songs by historically insignificant garage bands.—] (]) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not doubting that many of the samples used are sourced. However, like the issue above with list articles, most of these songs have their own page, and thus we don't need to duplicate the sound file in the genre article, save for those that are considered the most influential or best representative of the work. But say in a genre that may be relatively new, where there are bands listed that represent it but no specific songs as examples, this is where a free sound sample would be better than a copyrighted one. --] (]) 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Masem's got it quite well. For the article on ], or ], or ], it may be true there's "no free alternative available", as there are no known free works from those particular bands. But for punk rock in general? There are certainly free alternatives available. At that point, it doesn't matter whether they're "as good" or what have you, as we always use free content over nonfree when a choice does exist. And that's before even getting to the images&mdash;certainly one cannot assert it's impossible to get free images of any number of punk bands, large and small? I certainly imagine we can do that instead of CD covers. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Again, in terms of the audio samples, that's perfectly fine for the sections of the article that deal with punk rock ''generically''. But not for the core of the article that deals with the ''historical development'' of punk rock and the ''significant details'' of that historical development. Those sections of the article don't concern the strawman of "punk rock in general". I believe, for instance, that there is no free content available to exemplify what was happening at CBGB's in the crucial, formative years of punk. I'd love it if there were...but there ain't. As for the images; For instance, It is well sourced that the cover of the Ramones' 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by ''Punk'' photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk. I'm not aware of any now-free image that had any such impact or anything historically comparable to it. Are you? If so, please provide it and source it forthwith, so we can improve the article with it.—] (]) 08:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::That might be a case for using it in the Ramones article, but ''all'' that's necessary for the punk rock article is that free images can illustrate the concept of punk rock. It doesn't have to be the absolute best thing for it, only adequate. We can do it adequately with free material. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, you're wrong. The article covers not only a ''concept'', but a ''cultural history''. Those are two different matters. Please educate yourself on the difference, so we can have an informed discussion.—] (]) 08:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Let's not be rude or snide, I've worked on this project quite some time as well. I could as easily say you don't understand what "💕" means, but that's why we're discussing the matter. The article covers a genre of music, nothing more or less. That's what punk rock is. If we can adequately (not exhaustively) illustrate that genre with use of all free media, we do so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::To say punk was (is) simply a "genre of music" just ain't true. Its cultural significance was (is) much wider than that. ] (]) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::No one's doubting the significance of the genre. However, for a given copyrighted sound sample, unless it is asserted as being a defining cornerstone of the genre or the like, or sourced to describe how its structure or sound or the like has specific elements of the genre as to be instructional, it is simply there to provide an example to the reader of what the genre sounds like, much like how people want to illustrate every element of a list article. Something that a garage band under a CC label can do just as easily to show that off, just as, here, there's a lot more free images of bands to help illustrate who they are. --] (]) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::The point I was responding to was specifically about some of the visual images. ] (]) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree there is way too much non-free stuff on this article. It is largely due to the intransigence of one particular editor who ] the article and is responsible for retaining much that is inessential. If we could find the courage to remove it, the article would actually look better too, as well as being more fitting for a 💕. Oh well. --] (]) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The distinction between the general concept of punk and the specific history of punk is a significant one, and there is unquestionably a place for iconic, highly influential or deeply exemplary fair use images and sound samples that illustrate and inform the latter (which also ''do'' illustrate and inform the former). For less central items, however, it is worth noting that the growth of the ] movement does mean that, however slowly, images with historically informative value are being brought into the free-use arena. Let's take the "Post-punk" section, for instance. While the image of PIL's ''Metal Box'' is highly informative, are these historically appropriate CC images of The Fall from 1984 so much less instructive?: ]/]. ] (]) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

== Legal sidebar at ] ==

I added the legal policy list sidebar to ] per ]; feel free to revert and discuss. I added it within the "noinclude" section so that it doesn't tranclude over here at ]. - Dank (]) 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

== Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable? ==
{{rfctag|policy}}
Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?

See, for example, the gallery at ]. Do images such as these invalidate fair use claims for photographs? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:One issue is that if a drawing is taken directly from a copyrighted photo, the photographer stills holds the copyright. See ]. So the drawings would have to be either drawn from life or made as a compilation of several photographs in order for there to be a clear license. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:For example, ] of ] appears to be a direct copy of the photograph at the bottom of . So far as U.S. copyright is concerned, if the photograph is copyrighted then the photographer would also have certain rights to the drawing derived from it. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:'''Unambiguous emphatic no''' - This could be used to "replace" any non-free image - a point which was clearly obvious, and discussed as the en.wp community and Foundation formatted their non-free image policies. It was specifically rejected. The current polices would make no sense if we allowed that sort of blanket replacement. Line drawings are at best a poor replacement from a user educational point of view, and particularly from the point of view of attracting the attention of readers. Lest we forget, we include images not to be pretty, but because images clarify articles, educate themselves, and most importantly the presence of images increases the amount of an article that a reader reads, and the amount of that information that they remember. Reducing images to line drawings is arguably a 50% reduction in value of those articles, to the readership, in terms of knowledge they usefully collect and retain. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - first and foremost. ] (]) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:'''No'''. Because drawing is a skill, we cannot confirm that it is possible to get an image of a person that is drawn well that best represents that person ''and'' that is tagged as a free license image. It is not the same type of guaranteed replacement as there is for pictures of living persons. --] (]) 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:I don't think the answer is quite as clear cut as other above do although I unwillingly reach the same conclusion on practical grounds. In principle I would welcome the replacement of non-free pictures with free sketches of acceptable quality. In practice this is a difficult area. I would like to understand the legal position more clearly. Obviously the cases Will Beback gives are not acceptable and those are derivative non-free works. But what about someone who can watch a TV show or video clip and then produce an acceptable sketch? Is that derivative? How many volunteers have this degree of skill? I don't think it's a practical proposal unfortunately. And even though I would dearly love to see non-free content reduced, I would much prefer to see accurately labelled and properly credited non-free materials used rather than supposedly free content whose status as a derivative work may be in doubt. ] ] 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::The drawing of Teilhard de Chardin is a blatant copyvio, and lacks any fair use claim to legitimise it. Amateur drawings such as these simply lower the quality of the project. Images are the first thing that strike the reader, and these ] of a person's appearance (i.e. of their character) are simply unacceptable, especially in a BLP. ''''']''''' 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::And here's another derivative image, i.e. copyvio: compare ] with . ''''']''''' 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Some of Rama's older drawings are based on single photographs and are thus (in my opinion) derivative works. I discussed this privately with Rama at one point - he said he recognized that there were issues and added: "My personal policy is that I am not the best judge of what constitutes a derivative work in such cases, so I do not defend these images if a request for deletion is made." But aside from problems with individual images I think free artworks like this are very useful and should be encouraged. ] (]) 01:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::But they are poor quality drawings which even distort photos when they are a direct copy of them. Here's another example: and . Compare, for example, the lips. ''''']''''' 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I already agreed with you on Rama's work. I'm not going to repeat myself. I cannot endorse the idea that any non-free image is replaceable ''now'' by a free content sketch, but neither can I accept the idea that no non-free image is ever replaceable by a sketch if one is available and of suitable quality. Line drawings are not necessarily a poor replacement as has been claimed. It seems to me that the NFCC references to free alternatives do not exclude replacement in a different medium. Any such replacement can only be considered case by case. No general rule is necessary. ] ] 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:Several problems are being created by a confused set of principles here.
:#Someone creates a drawing of a person based on a photograph of that person. The drawing is a ''derivative work'' and thus, should be considered under the same restrictions as the original work. Ultimately, a dead person for whom there are no existing freely availible photographs (from a copyright perspective) means that there can be no freely availible drawings of them, since any drawings would be essentially derivative of existing photos.
:#Someone creates a drawing of a person, where the person sits for the drawing live and in person, and THAT drawing is released under a compatible liscence. No other freely availible image exists. No brainer. The drawing is free, no photo is availible to serve the same purpose, the drawing should be allowed. This would only apply to live people
:#Someone creates a drawing of a person from a freely availible photograph of the person. There is no need to replace a freely availible photograph, so such decisions should be made for purely stylistic reasons; there is no copyright restriction on either picture.
:Assuming we are talking only about situation #1, then I see no justification for drawing a picture from a photo as somehow being a good idea. --]''''']''''' 02:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::2 is not a no-brainer if it is not a good drawing/painting. Quality is essential. Images like that of are an embarrassment and undermine wikipedia. An image by a recognised artist, or by a member of a recognised body such as the ] would carry weight, but wikipedia is not the place for amateur artists to display their efforts (complete with prominent signature). ''''']''''' 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I think your mis-interpreted what Jayron32 wrote, Tyrenius. Just because an image use is ''allowed'', that does not imply that the image ''must'' be used - the usual editorial considerations would still apply. ] (]) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::He said, "the drawing should be allowed" presumably for use in the article. If I have misunderstood and he did intend a judgement of quality to be made, then that's fine, but that's not how it appeared to me. ''''']''''' 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Allowed does not equal mandatory. Editorial considerations '''always''' trump everything in these situations. That is, all ''allowable'' additions to an article are not always ''mandatory'' additions to an article. There would be no ''policy'' hurdle to include a truly free drawing; but there may be very good stylistic reasons not to include one. It's why I used a word like "allowed" and not "mandated". Its always a bullshit arguement when someone claims "policy says I can write XXXX, so you cannot remove it." No, sometimes some bit of text or some picture or anything else actually degrades the quality of the article, regardless of whether or not it is "allowed". --]''''']''''' 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I suggest the word "considered" instead. ''''']''''' 09:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::'''No way''', the drawings from photographs good or bad become just as problematic as fair-use as any other original work would be except worse because it is also arguably a problematic copyright violation of the photographer's intellectual property, and the fair-use photograph original is preferable...] (]) 03:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This situation has come up a number of times before. In the first place, the artist who insists on placing their work in various articles is always terrible - even when, as on one ocassion, they turned out to be a professional who evidently made a good living at it. In the 2nd place the images were always copied from photos, & thus just created more problems, & in the 3rd place the various people above pointing out that a drawing or painting just isn't a substitute for a photo are correct. ] (]) 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all images can be replaced by drawings. For instance, ''Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima'' cannot be replaced by a drawing, and has to be a Fair Use image if it is to be displayed at all. In other cases, when the image desired for Misplaced Pages is not iconic and subject of critical discussion (to closely paraphrase the guidelines), we cannot claim Fair Use because drawings can be made in the fashion of courthouse drawings. An example of this that has not been questionned can be seen at ]. Because this is possible, portraits are intrinsecally replaceable and can never be claimed for Fair Use -- unless they are themselves the subject of the article instead of depicting the subject of the article. ] (]) 09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, I have put on a small casebook at . ] (]) 10:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::the use of the ] image has been disputed on the talk page, and, if you read above, also disputed in this thread. Bad amateur art is not an equivalent to a documentary photograph. ''''']''''' 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::: I concede the point about disputing the image, but my central argument is that the image is now featured on the article, and cited as example of properly used drawing.
::: I have problems with your last remark. It stems essentially from a personal judgement of value as to the quality of the drawing, and possibly from an overoptimistic assessment of the virtues of photography. It is quite possible to make terrible photographs that do not ressemble their subject.
::: For instance, and with all due respect towards the resective authors, we have two photographs of ], and , on which I would hardly recognise her at all without the caption (and I have been physically next to her), and which are quite unflatterring.
::: I see no existential difference between photography and drawing in the respect: both are very demanding, and require both technique and some luck to manage a good quality. That the Free material at our disposal does not satisfy our taste is not a reason to claim Fair Use, thereby disregarding virtually all rules of the guidelines. ] (]) 11:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:The Susan Boyle case is pretty much a red herring here - she is a living person and therefore we wouldn't have accepted a fair use image anyway! –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:Your language is careless about the difference between fair use and our non-free content criteria. There are many circumstances where a legal claim of fair use is possible even though a free content replacement of one form or another could be created or even when one already exists. ] (]) 10:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:: I do not understand. The very first item of the ] policy reads "''No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose''". ] (]) 10:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::As you might note, WP:Fair Use redirects to ]. We have tried to make explicit that our non-free content policies are different from (and stricter than) the legal standards for fair use. So referring to things simply as "Fair Use" on Misplaced Pages helps create confusion. ] (]) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: But Fair Use is a particular case of non-Free content; furthermore, as you noted, ] redirects to ], which I understand to mean that ] is relevant for issues on Fair Use.
:::: I have to say that it is the very first time that I hear it said that Fair Use could be invoked even as a Free alternative exists -- and I have heard lots of extraordinary things on the matter. ] (]) 11:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::The legal standards for ] make no explicit reference to the existence of alternatives at all. It is implicitly relevant to the consideration of the "nature of a work" by way of it's uniqueness, and to the commercial significance of the work, but yes one can legally claim fair use even directly in the face of free alternatives. The whole business of having no current or future possible replacement is a requirement that Misplaced Pages put in place not Congress. Back to the earlier point, we intentionally renamed ] to ] and reformed its content a long time ago because the name Fair Use was creating confusion. We don't want people thinking either that A) all fair use is allowed or B) that Misplaced Pages's criteria are equivalent to fair use, cause they aren't. In fact, as long as people follow NFC the legal definitions and issues surrounding fair use should be irrelevant. So, yes, we'd prefer that people refer to "non-free content criteria" rather than to "fair use", because the legal doctrine of fair use is only partly relevant, promotes confusion about what the criteria really are, and quite frankly many people don't really understand fair use is to begin with. ] (]) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Oh, I see. I had actually noticed the line "''Misplaced Pages's non-free use policy (...) is more restrictive than US law requires.''" and quoted it in my notes, but it had not occurred to me to underline the difference as you do. It is a sound habit and I will adopt it. ] (]) 12:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

*I have myself in the past defended the argument that a self-made drawing, based not on concrete copying of an existing non-free picture, but on extracting visual information from several available pictures and then freely synthesizing it into a new independent drawing, could be a viable "alternative" in the case of certain items, such as old ships (might also work for buildings, objects and the like). However, with portraits of people, this is objectively so difficult that it all but impossible, in practice if not in theory. Rama's examples just go to show both problems here: they are evidently copied directly from a concrete single source photograph, which makes them non-free derivative works; and even despite being directly copied, they are practically unrecognisable and therefore just don't fulfill their encyclopedic purpose in an acceptable manner. What would be necessary to make this idea work is this: look at several different photographs of an individual, understand their physiognomy so thoroughly that you can reproduce a portrait from memory, and then draw the person ''in a different way'' (e.g. at a different angle, in a different pose, with a different facial expression), while still remaining true enough to the original physiognomy to make the picture recognisable. Okay, a very, very, very skilled expert draftsman could conceivably do that, but it's so exceedingly difficult that I would say it goes beyond what is "reasonably" possible. (Note that the Susan Boyle painting could serve as a case in point, but it was made on the basis of video material that was plentifully available, which for many historical figures wouldn't be the case.) ] ] 12:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
: If you are refering to ], ], ] and ], you are incorrect in saying that "they are evidently copied directly from a concrete single source photograph". They were all made from a variety of photographs, at least three. ] (]) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
: In fact the majority of the images at were realised from several photographs. I assume that there are strong arguments to say that these are indeed Free material.
: I absolutely agree with the technical points made by ], but I do not think that the difficulty of the endeavour changes the nature of the task. The probability of having Free material of good quality in this fashion is most certainly low, but it is also non-zero, and should therefore not be dismissed. ] (]) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Honestly, we are really tripping over the "or could be created" clause in NFCC #1 (which I never thought was a very good idea to begin with). Yes, in principle, someone could draw a perfect likeness of a person without violating any existing copyright. But it is very hard to do. Similarly, in principle, I could create free images of the inside of the Titanic shipwreck by paying for my own expedition to the site. Or I could "create" free images of the Smurfs by buying the full rights to the Smurfs and releasing them into the public domain. There are lots of possible but implausible ways of creating free content. At some point, when looking at content where no alternative now exists, we really have to tailor our choices based on reasonable expectations about what we can expect to be created. ] (]) 13:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::I should clarify that "or could be created" isn't the whole issue since even after a potential free content replacement is presented (such as one on Rama's sketches), one still has to ensure that it reasonably serves the same encyclopedic purpose. ] (]) 14:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Agreed on the terms of the issue.
::: I believe that where the line falls is in fact clear: if an image is not reproductible for technical reasons, it is improper to claim a non-Free image (basically because it is then, in fact, merely very hard, and not impossible, to reproduce it); if it is not reproductible for legal reasons (typically copyright) reasons, them the non-Free material can be claimed.
::: In your example, the Smurfs would be a legitimate non-Free image, but the ''Titanic'' one would not.
::: I understand and respect the practical point of plausibility, but we should also be mindful of the other practical point that usage of non-Free material has a strong tendency to get out of hand; if we do anything to suggest that Fair Use can be claimed, under our policies and guidelines, simply to supplement a lack of illustration, or simply by invoking personal taste as "reasonably serves the same encyclopedic purpose", we will have voided the policy of its content, and many will understand it as "anything goes". ] (]) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::::What is clear is that you are the only one in this discussion supporting this very hard line on NFC. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Rama, are you saying that the only way I can include a picture of the Titanic on the seabed is if I hire the resources of ] to get me down to the ocean floor, and take my own pictures of the wreck? ] (]) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, you could try to buy the rights to one of ]'s existing images to free it, or you could build a ] rendered image (as at ]). ] <small>]</small> 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I thought afterwards that as with the Smurfs, one might buy the copyright. Or persuade one of the deep sea joyriders that's been down for a trip (and there have been a few of them) to release one of their photographs - Cameron doesn't have copyright on the ship itself. Never thought of a CGI render - that Swissair one is quite remarkable. The difficulty with the Titanic on the seabed would be rendering the damage and marine life, although one could synthesise that from multiple photos so I believe avoiding copyright issues. Personally, with the Titanic, I am of the opinion that the still shot of the bow that ] originally released is truly iconic, and one ought to be able to use it. But I accept that opinion on this varies quite a bit.] (]) 23:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

==Specific image question==
Hi. This question was listed at the copyright problems board, but since that board is for text only and isn't really so much of a discussion forum as a holding point until due time has passed for permission, I am courtesy-listing it here.
{{quotation|]: There's no disagreement about copyright as such on this one; the disagreement is about whether this falls under our non-free use policy. I brought the question to ]; the opinion I got back was that this would be a better forum for the question. - ] ] 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)}}
If you have feedback, please consider contributing it at that talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

== Article needs review ==

] has been tagged, off and on, with {{tl|non-free}} - one of the primary editors on that page continues to remove the tag. I think there are way too many images on the page, but wanted to get other opinions... (])<sup>(])</sup> 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

The present statement of the template is that magazine covers could be used in case of ''direct illustration of a point about the publication of the image''. Could some one explain exactly what "'''a point'''" and "'''the publication'''" mean, they're so vague. Can an image of a magazine cover with a celebrity on it be used for the article of that person, as he makes the magazine more appealing which raise up its '''publication''' at the same time? --] <small>]</small> 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:The "publication" is strictly the magazine of interest, and requires there be associated critical commentary about the magazine to go along with the image (eg its own article). We cannot use the cover of a magazine depicting a person in the article about that person, except in very exceptional cases where the cover of the magazine (see, ] for example, where the media created a bias on the case shown through the magazine covers). --] (]) 14:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

== Advice wanted on possible inclusion of album cover. ==

There is one recording available of '']''. In the article, the recording is mentioned in two places and the fact that it is in the ''Daily Telegraph'''s list of 100 recommended classical recordings is also mentioned. Is there enough material here to justify an inclusion of the album cover? If not, how much mroe would I have to include?--] (]) 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:You're thinking about this the wrong way. Would the album cover add to the article? If so, why? ] (]) 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello - I wrote the page ], which I think would benefit from having a photo. I asked about this before - thank you @] (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/September#c-Marchjuly-20240921104500-Blackballnz-20240921051800) but this is now archived, so I think I have to ask again. I've emailed the National Portrait Gallery about their photo of Mavis Wheeler, and their Rights & Images section has replied: "We (National Portrait Gallery) have no objection to low-resolution images being used on Misplaced Pages for non-commercial purposes." So, does this mean I can use it? I'd also like to use a portrait of Mavis by August John, but I suspect this would be too difficult. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
== Logos on individual game articles, again ==
:There's no free license we can use it under here. Misplaced Pages and Commons only accept CC licenses that include commercial use, which the NPG is specifically denying. You'd have to use it under terms of our ]. That said, there's a chance it's in the public domain, NPG's protestations not withstanding. It is not uncommon for entities in possession of such works to defend copyright even when it's very apparent the works are in the public domain. But, figuring out whether it's in the public domain or not is complicated by the fact that the author is not stipulated on the image description at . --] (]) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just going to add that the resolution of the image shouldn't matter regardless of its copyright status even when it comes to CC licenses as long as the image is essentially the same. The NPG might be claiming that digitalization of public domain images into high-res versions is sufficient to establish a new copyright for the better version, but I don't think this is supported by case law. I've also seen discussions on Commons regarding whether it would be acceptable to increase the resolution of a low-resolution images released under the type of CC licenses that Commons accepts, and almost all the comments implied that it should be OK. Even Googling whether such a thing is OK finds on the CC official website itself stating its OK; so, given that a PD image is by definition one that is not protected by copyright, the NPG trying to claim such a thing with respect to a PD image is probably going to be ignored by Commons. What the NPG might be banking on is that those wanting to reuse their images will enter into a separate or supplemental agreement with the NPG to only use the images in certain way at a certain resolution, but ] is also typically ignored by Commons. If, however, you willingly enter into such an agreement with the NPG but then violate its terms, the NPG might try to take action against you for that but not for a copyright violation (I think). Once again, you probably should ask about this at ] since that where the image should be hosted if it's PD. The only reasons I can think of for which Misplaced Pages would need to host this image are (1) it's non-free content, and (2) it's PD in the US but not in its country of first publication. -- ] (]) 07:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::+++ To your analysis re: the case law, mechanical reproductions (including digitized scans) of works in the public domain are automatically themselves in the public domain. The scan isn't transformative enough to make anything new. If the original photo is PD, so is the scan, unless NPG substantially edited or remixed the image, presumably not the case here. Love me a good museum and big love to other GLAM folks, but unfortunately the reality of working with living artists and artists' estates - who can sometimes make wildly inaccurate claims about their copyright ownership that museums generally respect in order to keep those third parties satisfied enough to make major loans of art and agree to reproductions - seems to have infected many museums' attitudes toward copyright in general, including in situations with clear-cut case law that favor free use of digitized PD material. --] (]) 14:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for all this. A similar question has been asked at the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0_acceptable_on_en.wikipedia_for_a_specific_image_on_a_specific_page?) and the answer seems to be that it can be used. ] (]) 01:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:@ ] (]) 15:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:]. NPG cannot claim copyright on 2D reproduction, even if high resolution, backed by WMF and a legal finding. --] (]) 13:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Non-free image acutally free ==
Every single article in ] has been decorated with the logo of the overall bowl game, resulting in overuse that, in a worst case, looks like ]. I know we've been around and around this before, but I thought that there was at least consensus that we shouldn't be using logos on articles which were about a single instance (a game) of a larger continuing tradition (an annual bowl game, and the proper place for the identifying logo). My token attempts to enforce this have all been reverted blindly and quickly, as per the usual. (])<sup>(])</sup> 19:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, it has been pointed out to me on Commons that ] is in the public domain as it was created over 70 years ago. Given this, would it be possible to undelete the larger version and mark for movement to Commons? ] (]) 05:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd be glad to run AWB to remove the images from the year articles in a day or so, as in the past, consensus has been to not include sports team logos in the individual season articles (or at least only use the free, text only equivalent in those instances). If there are any major concerns, I'd like to hear them out, but this seems pretty straight forward, non-free abuse, with similar past precedent supporting removal. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}. There already exists a version of the flag on Commons as ]; so, it's not clear why a jpeg version (that seems inferior in quality) is also needed; however, if the larger version of the local file is the same, then a request can be made at ] to restore it because it was deleted per ]. Given that the flag is pretty much nothing but the organization's logo on white background with its name written underneath, there's probably not much encyclopedic value gained from using both images in ] in my opinion, but that's something that probably needs to be sorted out on the article's talk page. -- ] (]) 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::The last time we went through this ] there was no such consensus regarding individual season articles. Opinion was split roughly 50/50 on the matter, with a slight majority disagreeing with removal. ] (]) 02:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I was thinking more ]. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) ::Ah thanks, didn't see that new upload. I suppose that might replace the jpeg entirely. ] (]) 08:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The logo belongs on the article about the game generally, but not on the article about individual games. The same is true regarding team logos and individual years. An attempt at a compromise was made with liberal interpretations of what counts as public domain, but non-free images should still be freely removed, and anyone adding them back warned and blocked. Just because some people like to shout about sports logos, doesn't mean we suddenly have an exception. ] (]) 12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


== ] == == Non-free 3D photos of non-free 2D cover art ==


There are two discussions taking place at MCQ (] and ]) that basically involve files which are non-free 3D photos taken of non-free 2D cover art which have been tagged for speedy deletion. I've commented quite a bit in the discussion about the bible image, but it might be nice for some other input on this since I could be completely wrong. Nobody has yet to comment in the other discussion, but it seems to essentially be about the same thing. -- ] (]) 04:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm tempted just to remove them all, but, no doubt, that would be "too heavy handed". Opinions welcome. ] (]) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


== CRW Flags ==
:Going through the article talk page would be a better start, rather than coming here without even a courtesy message to the article's regular editors.
:That said, I don't see a problem. The article is about the ]. Showing what those idents being discussed looked like is directly on-topic re the subject of the article, and adds directly to reader understanding of the topic - the requirement both in law and in policy. Also, our use here is directly transformative, per . So, very similarly to currency images on historical currency articles, it seems to me that the image use here is well chosen, judicious and entirely appropriate.
:Further discussion can be found at ]. ] (]) 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::There is exeedingly heavy use of non-free images, and the use of galleries. Alarm bell really should be ringing when we're having to use the gallery format for non-free content. I will leave a note on the talk page. ] (]) 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website {{url|www.crwflags.com}}, which appears to be getting its images from ]. If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like ] and ]) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at ], though that seems mainly due to ] than ]? -- ] (]) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== query about attribution of int:license ==


:CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Colleagues, The licence text says "The copyright holder of this file, X, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed...."


== Getty images open content ==
Does this mean that the copyright holder should be acknowledged explicitly as such "used by permission of X" in the caption in whichever article the file is used? Or is the sign at the Commons good enough? ] bills the singer, who just happens to be the copyright owner; but that's not the point, I think.


I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! ] (]) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Advice appreciated. ] ] 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:Tony, I don't think you are referring to ], but rather ], right? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC) :Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see ] ] (]) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, they merely have to be attributed in some way. We attribute on image pages, publishers may attribute in a list at the back of the book, at the bottom of the page, something like that. Creative Commons licenses, to the best of my knowledge, say nothing about ''how'' the copyright holder must be attributed. ] (]) 12:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC) :You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See ]. -- ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:44, 24 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-free content page.
Archives: 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, 74Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFair use (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconImages and Media (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media
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.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.
See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

Photo from National Portrait Gallery

Hello - I wrote the page Mavis Wheeler, which I think would benefit from having a photo. I asked about this before - thank you @Marchjuly (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2024/September#c-Marchjuly-20240921104500-Blackballnz-20240921051800) but this is now archived, so I think I have to ask again. I've emailed the National Portrait Gallery about their photo of Mavis Wheeler, and their Rights & Images section has replied: "We (National Portrait Gallery) have no objection to low-resolution images being used on Misplaced Pages for non-commercial purposes." So, does this mean I can use it? I'd also like to use a portrait of Mavis by August John, but I suspect this would be too difficult. Thanks in advance. Blackballnz (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no free license we can use it under here. Misplaced Pages and Commons only accept CC licenses that include commercial use, which the NPG is specifically denying. You'd have to use it under terms of our non-free content criteria policy. That said, there's a chance it's in the public domain, NPG's protestations not withstanding. It is not uncommon for entities in possession of such works to defend copyright even when it's very apparent the works are in the public domain. But, figuring out whether it's in the public domain or not is complicated by the fact that the author is not stipulated on the image description at . --Hammersoft (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Just going to add that the resolution of the image shouldn't matter regardless of its copyright status even when it comes to CC licenses as long as the image is essentially the same. The NPG might be claiming that digitalization of public domain images into high-res versions is sufficient to establish a new copyright for the better version, but I don't think this is supported by case law. I've also seen discussions on Commons regarding whether it would be acceptable to increase the resolution of a low-resolution images released under the type of CC licenses that Commons accepts, and almost all the comments implied that it should be OK. Even Googling whether such a thing is OK finds this on the CC official website itself stating its OK; so, given that a PD image is by definition one that is not protected by copyright, the NPG trying to claim such a thing with respect to a PD image is probably going to be ignored by Commons. What the NPG might be banking on is that those wanting to reuse their images will enter into a separate or supplemental agreement with the NPG to only use the images in certain way at a certain resolution, but this type of thing is also typically ignored by Commons. If, however, you willingly enter into such an agreement with the NPG but then violate its terms, the NPG might try to take action against you for that but not for a copyright violation (I think). Once again, you probably should ask about this at c:COM:VPC since that where the image should be hosted if it's PD. The only reasons I can think of for which Misplaced Pages would need to host this image are (1) it's non-free content, and (2) it's PD in the US but not in its country of first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
+++ To your analysis re: the case law, mechanical reproductions (including digitized scans) of works in the public domain are automatically themselves in the public domain. The scan isn't transformative enough to make anything new. If the original photo is PD, so is the scan, unless NPG substantially edited or remixed the image, presumably not the case here. Love me a good museum and big love to other GLAM folks, but unfortunately the reality of working with living artists and artists' estates - who can sometimes make wildly inaccurate claims about their copyright ownership that museums generally respect in order to keep those third parties satisfied enough to make major loans of art and agree to reproductions - seems to have infected many museums' attitudes toward copyright in general, including in situations with clear-cut case law that favor free use of digitized PD material. --19h00s (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all this. A similar question has been asked at the Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0_acceptable_on_en.wikipedia_for_a_specific_image_on_a_specific_page?) and the answer seems to be that it can be used. Blackballnz (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@ 139.218.73.237 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. NPG cannot claim copyright on 2D reproduction, even if high resolution, backed by WMF and a legal finding. --Masem (t) 13:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-free image acutally free

Hello, it has been pointed out to me on Commons that File:KoreanNationalYouthAssociation.jpeg is in the public domain as it was created over 70 years ago. Given this, would it be possible to undelete the larger version and mark for movement to Commons? CMD (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis. There already exists a version of the flag on Commons as File:Flag of the Korean National Youth Association.svg; so, it's not clear why a jpeg version (that seems inferior in quality) is also needed; however, if the larger version of the local file is the same, then a request can be made at WP:REFUND to restore it because it was deleted per WP:F5. Given that the flag is pretty much nothing but the organization's logo on white background with its name written underneath, there's probably not much encyclopedic value gained from using both images in Korean National Youth Association in my opinion, but that's something that probably needs to be sorted out on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah thanks, didn't see that new upload. I suppose that might replace the jpeg entirely. CMD (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-free 3D photos of non-free 2D cover art

There are two discussions taking place at MCQ (WP:MCQ#Revised New Jerusalem Bible image question and WP:MCQ#File:Bleach Box Set 1.png) that basically involve files which are non-free 3D photos taken of non-free 2D cover art which have been tagged for speedy deletion. I've commented quite a bit in the discussion about the bible image, but it might be nice for some other input on this since I could be completely wrong. Nobody has yet to comment in the other discussion, but it seems to essentially be about the same thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CRW Flags

Are there any source related issues for non-free logos, flags or other images sourced to the website www.crwflags.com, which appears to be getting its images from Flags of the World (website). If you search, crwflags.com, you find there are lots of articles (500+) that seem to be citing it as reliable source, but there are also lots of files (like File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png and File:Flag of Opp, Alabama.png) giving it a source for images being uploaded as non-free content. Some of the image like "File:Flag of Ashland, Alabama.png" are actually photos uploaded to the site, which means they might be derivative works with two copyrights to consider. Should it just be assumed that the images uploaded are accurate and just treat them as being published on the crwflags site, or should the site itself be treated as a problematic source like is done at c:COM:Bad sources#Flags of the World, though that seems mainly due to c:COM:FAIR than WP:RS/P#Flags of the World? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

CRW and FOTW are not reliable sources whatsoever. To me, this makes whether they are free or non-free irrelevant.Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Getty images open content

I was wondering if the Getty Open Content program images (https://www.getty.edu/projects/open-content-program/) qualify as public domain and can be used on wikipedia. I think they can, but the language around the website is a little confusing to me and I want to be sure. Thanks! Qqars (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are freely licensed images under CC0. see WP:PDI Masem (t) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You can upload any of those images to Commons. That is a common enough source of PD images that Commons has a template for identifying the source. See c:Template:Getty Center. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)