Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 30 June 2008

	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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Name space restriction

I would like to know what the justification is for this restriction. Why is it relevant what name space is used? How is it not instruction creep? The reason I ask this: is policy here to serve the editors or are the editors here to serve the policy? To me, this just seems like more bureaucratic policy for policy's sake, instead of furthering the goals of our project. Is it not our goal to create and maintain high-quality, encyclopedic articles? If so, this restriction should not be an impediment for editors who are trying to work on sandbox versions of articles (fully permitted by our policy). Part of this sandbox work involves proper templating, formatting, and testing of all wiki functions of the article before you publish it. In other words, to accurately do these tasks, the markup must be identical to what it would be in the main article name space. Adding a colon in front of Image doesn't allow one to do this. As such, is there a reason that does not violate WP:AGF which should override this need? Have we ever been approached by copyright holders about sandbox articles or templates? There has to be some better justification for this other then it makes bot work easier. If there is not a better justification, I see no reason why this restriction should remain in place and would call for a re-evaluation of the consensus that established it. Again, policy is here to facilitate the editors in furthering the goals of the project. It is my belief that this restriction does not live up to that standard. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, each non-free image increases the possibility of a copyright law litigation. The least defensible will be situation if we were accused in the situation that we upload copyrighted works of arts so the users could use them as ornaments. It will be dangerously close to stealing. We are encyclopedia first and everything that hinder (or put in jeopardy) the development of the article space should go away. The foundation has its right to force us to reduce the risk of legal troubles and so it does. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox articles are part of the development of main space, which is why this restriction makes no sense. There are ways of dealing with fair-use only existing for ornamentation, but that misses the point. If the editor is working on a sandbox article in good faith, why should policy hinder that development? Experienced editors like Giano do this all the time, carefully crafting the article in userspace for weeks before moving it to main article space. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As you seem to have guessed, the basic answer is that it is easier to make and enforce a global prohibition than address these issues on a case-by-case basis. The product of copyright paranoia and the "need" for a mechanical solution. I agree with you that the breadth of the prohibition is somewhat silly at times. Dragons flight (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Is it really so much trouble to comment out the image(s) during the articles "weeks in userspace"? Alternatively, if an article won't be in userspace long enough to be worth the effort commenting out a few images, why bother forking it at all? I suppose that at some the future it'll be possible to automate this requirement (i.e. simply suppress it at inclusion) for correctly tagged images, which will make life easier. But can you show where it has been a real harm today? ... Part of the reason for the strict requirements is simply that the policy is that these image are not to be used where they aren't fairly important. ... and things like sandboxes clearly don't qualify. If its turning into a huge hassle for someone then perhaps its time to get the software to address it automagically. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not hard to comment out an image when making an article in the sandbox. Shoot, the nowiki tag is even in our editing toolbar. Just highlight the image, press the nowiki button, press save and you are compliant with the NFCC requirements. User:Zscout370 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695's point, I assume, isn't that it is too hard to do, but rather that it is silly and sometimes inconvenient to do. If an image meets the legal standard for fair use when used in an article, then it will continue to do so when that article is copied into a user sandbox. As I say above, the NFCC namespace restriction we imposed upon ourselves is intended to make technical solutions for policing unfree content easier, and not because we have some compelling legal need to strip images out of articles when they are copied across the magical User: threshold. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll note though that it is hard to tell if an article is actively being worked on in the Userspace. I remember once I ran across a copy of the Discover Card article that an author had in his userspace, tagged as inprogress. Hadn't been edited in awhile and when I asked him about it, he remembered he had done the things he wanted to in the mainspace article and forgot to have the userspace copy (with non-free image) deleted. Also, it would be nearly impossible for a bot to figure out when an image is used as decorative use in say User:MBisanz/Header/Main and when its used in draft article User:MBisanz/Desk/Drafts. On the other hand, temporarily disabling images while in the draft form, and re-enabling when moved over, solves the problem. MBisanz 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragons flight has pretty much summed up my initial point. I would further add that part of sandbox work is the ongoing formatting and layout of the page, for which the actual image as it will appear in the article needs to be present. Remaining in preview mode is tedious and dangerous, since one wrong move and all your work might get erased. Changing from commented out to not commented out between saves gets tedious. This is a matter of sensibility and a matter of how best to facilitate our content producers. Now, to address MBisanz's point: again, what does it matter? First, not having a bot do it is also one of my goals. There is no reason that a bot should be doing automated reversions of good faith edits by editors seeking to improve or expand our project, none at all. I consider automatic reversions as a patent violation of both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Anyway, there just isn't an overwhelming need for a bot of this type and my proposal would obviate it. I would also remind bot operators that Misplaced Pages is not a project to create bots. Secondly, a sandbox article in user space with a valid, properly documented fairuse image is no more against the law than the same article in main article space. It doesn't matter if the page is one day old or two years old, as age isn't a criteria in the law, either. The name spaces are just arbitrary boundaries in a database which looks nothing like how we perceive Misplaced Pages. They are more like volumes in a multi-volume book. I would also like to adress what I see as a potential double standard. What about cited quotations from published copyrighted sources? Are they not considered fair use, too? Shouldn't they get removed from sandbox articles, too? I am not seeing the difference between image fairuse and text fairuse, you can't say you should remove one and not the other. To address the point on making image patrolling easy, I would gather that the same argument could be used for vandalism patrolling. I'd imagine we could get rid of ip editing because %80 (a guess) of ip edits are vandalism. That would certainly make vandalism patrolling easier. However, we have a policy called WP:AGF which means we give the editors the benefit of the doubt. We believe even if it is just a minor inconvenience to create an account, we still allow ip edits to foster potential contributions. Therefore, my proposal is quite simple. Let's give the editors the benefit of the doubt and allow fairuse images in user space for facilitating sandbox work. Evaluate them on a case by case basis, just as vandalism is handled. I don't think it is going to be a huge problem, so really, what is the big deal? It is clear from various postings at both AN and the helpdesk that editors would like to be able to do this. Just assume a little good faith, that's all I'm asking. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Historically, the overwhelming majority of the use of non-freely licensed images in userspace has been fully prohibited uses, not sandboxed pages. The same is most likely true today. AGF doesn't mean "assume complete understanding" or "assume wise actions". A lot of people, presumably the overwhelming majority, put images in bad places in full good faith, just as some people also believe that making a screen capture of a TV show grants them the copyright over the image ("I made it! It's mine!"). People make mistakes, people are sometimes uninformed, occasionally an important rule isn't intuitive to everyone... So the bots fix the errors rather than fixing the errors and blocking the users. :)

If there were a way to magically identify reasonable sandbox usage and differentiate it from other uses that wouldn't be instantly abused, then I might support allowing the images in those cases. ... but even with that we'd run into other issues: While limited good faith sandbox development is okay, creating long standing POV forks of articles is not no matter what namespace they are placed in. We've certainly seen cases of people using the high google rank of WP user space as a platform to launch POV article forks. ... So sandboxed development should be fairly limited, ... doesn't seem to make a ton of sense figuring out how to allow images there. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, we do many things that allow people to act stupidly, including ip editing which the overwhelming majority of use is to vandalize, so what is the difference here? A little extra work for image patrolling, so what? A bot doesn't have to do it, we are not here to facilitate bots, we are here to produce high-quality content. There is no fairuse disaster around the corner, all I am asking for is that good-faith attempts at contribution that are perfectly valid not be reverted. This restriction exists only to make facilitation of automated reverts possible, and I am saying that violates WP:AGF. Anything has the potential to be abused, but we should not deny it on that rationale alone. Allowing fair-use in user space poses no more of a threat then allowing it in article space. Your point about forks is irrelevant to the discussion. Even so, I would point out that our top FA contributors use sandboxes all the time, so I can't subscribe to the point that sandboxes are used to create many forks. The few instances that are can, again, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

People used to manually remove non-free images from user pages and it was utter hell. Not only could the human editors not keep up with the sheer volume of misguided new users eagerly decorating their userpages, but those who tried inevitably burned out because the removal was frequently taken as a personal attack. When the bots do the removal, it's impersonal. It sometimes can be frustrating, but it's frustrating because "the bot is dumb" not because "this guy is now my enemy!". The situation was miserable: Constant bloody arguments. Userpage editwarring. Users totally missing the free content mission of Misplaced Pages and pointing to dozens of examples of userpages filled with non-free decorations. So, we've basically been there before. It sucked. No one sane wants to do the work. The bots do a reasonable job of it... and you're not even citing a particular instance where this is a problem currently. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to cite an instance, this thread was started due to an instance of a editor attempting to do exactly what I outlined in good faith but got reverted by that idiotic bot. He subsequently complained to AN/I last week and it was requested in that thread that I take my objections to this clause here. Since the scope of the comments is limited to a few of the usual suspects, I've decided to seek broader discussion at the pump in the coming weeks. As for it being a hassle, well that is the sacrifice you will have to make. Far more time is wasted by allowing ip edits, but we do it to facilitate the handful of good edits we get. The risk posed by decorations is minimal to none. I just don't see the danger posed by decorations which may or may not result from removing this clause (the extent to which I think you exaggerate). I have been told that there are many people in disagreement with your interpretation of foundation policy but have been bullied into silence by the free-culture fanatics. Still, there is hope, as the free-culture fanatics were beaten back on Wikinews. In fact, I found Anthere's statement here to be quite illuminating on the subject. It seems that fair-use is not as antithetical to the foundation's goals as you would have us believe. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

non-copyrighted materials

It's one of those things that just keeps lingering around. Now that the copyrighted materials are mostly dealt with, I really feel we need to get this unclarity fixed. In my opinion there is a problem when there are legal restrictions to the usage of materials that are not copyrighted. I am talking mostly about trademarks and insignia here. In my opinion these do not pass #1 of the definition of cultural free works: "free usage", since most are only allowed in a certain context. These cases are also not properly dealt with in our Exemption Doctrine Policy, and as such I cannot help but feel that these images should be classified as "non-free" under the current rules and regulations. That this is not the case is an inconsistency and discrepancy that has annoyed me since the inception of the Foundation resolution. We need to get it fixed. I have moved {{trademark}} to {{non-free trademark}}, and I think we should discuss and get into place some actual proper definitions and guidelines. (And having it in the General Disclaimer doesn't exempt something from the NFC rules in my opinion.). Does it qualify as "non-free" ? Are they to be exempted by the EDP ? Do we need to have a "usage rationale" (NOT a "fair-use rationale, since this has nothing to do with copyright). Without an amendment to the Foundation policy, it is my opinion all these 3 answers require a YES. What does everyone else think? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I know Commons, from their hosting the H&R Block and IBM logos say "NO", so I'd like to see how they got to that conclusion, before we get to a different conclusion. MBisanz 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MBisanz, here is the deletion discussion: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:IBM_logo.svg

commons:Image:HR Block logo.png has not been subject to a deletion debate.

The IBM discussion happened before the Board resolution, but as I recall, free usage has always been part of the Wikimedia definition of free, yet it didn't even seem to come into the conversation at Commons. So that doesn't help much. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation with trademarks is like the situation with anti-Nazi laws in Germany (if we're going to call Mike in, we might as well invoke him), but we don't delete the image on swastika because of legal restrictions in Germany and France. Sceptre 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)We rely don't want to go down that path, most content on Misplaced Pages can get you in trouble if used in a scertain way in a scertain context in a scertain part of the world. Yes some content is more likely to cause problems than other, so maybe a warning to re-users is warranted in some cases, but we rely don't want to get all that stuff mixed into our already hard to understand image rules. When we say free use we are talking strictly about copyright related freedom and nothing else. There is just no way to guarantee any freedomsm beyond that. To give a few examples. The Swastica is a symbol that's been in used for thousands of years, it's clearly public domain, but try printing and selling t-shirts with the Swastica on it in Germany and you'll get in serious trouble with the law, does that mean the symbol is non-free? How about any image intended to depict the prohpet Mohammed? In some parts of the "Muslim world" printing such an image will get you prosecuted (if you are not lynched first), does that mean all such images should be considetred non-free? The list goes on and on, and trademarks and insignia use is just other examples of special case laws (usualy spesific to only one country, or in the case of trademark at least only the countries where the trademark is actualy registered) unrelated to copyright. Our use of such content obviously have to comply with US law, but beyond that we shouldn't rely worry too mcuh about it, otherwise people can argue that just about anyting is non-free because if used in a scertain way in the "wrong" country it may violate some law or other... --Sherool (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break cause this is big

A few months ago, me and TheDJ in a TFD had a slightly different idea: For stuff like trademark and insignia, we were going to make a 2nd branch of the non-free system, similar, but not exact, like "restricted-trademark". Restricted images would be subject to a stripped down version of WP:NFCC, which would only require:

1. A usage rationale (like, what its being used for and what its being used to represent, and where)
2. Only used in the main namespace
3. Attribution of the trademark holder if applicable (like you'd HAVE to say in the rationale "So and so is a registered trademark of so and so"
4. If the image is on Commons, an additional tag will be used added to the image page on EN saying something to the effect of "Due to restrictions on this image, it may only be used within the policies of WP:RC and WP:RCC (WP:restricted content and WP:restricted content criteria), then the rationale and all that.

This would also apply to logos lor stuff like the EPA, since we're hosted in the US, we have to abide by US law. This would also only apply to stuff that's usage restricted in the United States too, because we use US law. ViperSnake151 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well I'm reviewing the Free Culture Works definition of Permissible Restrictions, it says:

Attribution protects the integrity of an original work, and provides credit and recognition for authors. A license may therefore require attribution of the author or authors, provided such attribution does not impede normal use of the work. For example, it would not be acceptable for the license to require a significantly more cumbersome method of attribution when a modified version of the licensed text is distributed.

Now in order for one to "infringe" a trademark, our article on Trademark infringement says:

the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.

So if we take the GFDL to require attribution of the authors/source/etc, then it would be impossible for someone to reuse a trademark in a manner that would violate trademark law (relabeling a product under false pretenses) and still comply with GFDL. MBisanz 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting off-track, but please note that that's only one type of infringement. Most jurisdictions also recognise infringement in relation to similar goods or closely related services (in addition to infringement in relation to the same goods), and countries that have signed up to the TRIPS regime also give some extra protection to famous marks. --bainer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SWEET JESUS NO! No more forms. Really, thanks for asking. Your copyright paranoia is turning us into Vogons. No more forms, rationales, or other patent nonsense. Stop wikilawyering in order to create more wikiwork. Unless the lawyers tells us specifically we need to do something, please don't suggest it. You are helping nobody. Thank you! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little perspective here from a Commons regular. First of all, just about anything can be trademarked within a certain limited context. All it would take for an image to go from "free" to "non-free", would be for someone to trademark it. Indeed, I could go and trademark "Certain Limited Context" within some context, but no matter what happened, my previous sentence would never be trademark infringement. But there's another, more fundamental reason why you should not worry about trademarks: There is no way that you could ensure that users obey every non-copyright restriction. You can't take one of my photos and paint it on someone else's wall without their permission, or print it out, roll it up really tightly and smack someone in the head with it. We don't call all pictures "non-free" for that reason. Likewise, trademark law does not forbid doing anything that is not fundamentally immoral, i.e. mispresenting yourself or your product. Don't panic, guys. (FWIW, we don't worry about trademarks at all over at the Commons; this is an old, uninteresting discussion there.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is good to hear that I can upload any trademark with a free license to Commons, and tag it with commons:Template:Trademarked, and still be fairly sure that Commons will keep it, though not every project will be able to use it freely.

Lewis, is the old, uninteresting discussion archived somewhere? I would like to read it. It may shed some light on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Template:TardisIndexFile which I feel is encroaching on UK trademark law in articles on a UK topic.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No links handy, but it's a discussion that has been had quite a few times. Nothing about the template in question, that I see, would infringe trademark law. It's certainly not pretending to present Misplaced Pages as the BBC, which is what trademark law is all about. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This page on Commons has links to at least some of the trademark talk over there. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lewis, the concern expressed on the Doctor Who talk page (that I share) is that the image in the template might be construed to imply endorsement by the BBC of http://tardis.wikia.com/ (a commercial site), and may even be mistaken for an ad for a company competing with the BBC. Is this trademark paranoia, or are they really out to get us? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably paranoia. What matters is that they take care to not misrepresent themselves; I'd say the use of that image, in that context, does not commit trademark infringement. BUT WAT DO I NO LOL Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to worry about trademark, it's not the image that seems troubling. Rather it is the word "Tardis". Do you honestly believe the "Tardis Index File" has permission to use that mark? Nor would is seem to be a nominative use since the Tardis Index File is not in fact a file about the Tardis. Frankly, I think the bigger issue is that that wiki community has been a bit too clever in choosing a name. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't need such permission, if they're not misrepresenting themselves. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be less concerned with what they are doing and more concerned about what we are doing, the English WP has taken one of the BBC's trademark and used it to promote a commercial venture competing with the BBC Fasach Nua (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages or Wikia sell or promote products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services of the BBC? The answer is no; therefor there is no trademark infringment. — Edokter • Talk • 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes, Wikia supplies information and fan entertainment which directly competes with the BBC's Dr Who books, and website, for which Wikia derives an income through advertisements Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, maybe you have a point there, Fasach Nua. But, even if you do decide this is inappropriate, then just remove the image (I personally think that whole site is a lawsuit waiting to happen, but because of copyright, not trademark, issues; it may well be worth deprecating this template for that reason alone). You certainly do not need reams of new policy and red tape (as per ViperSnake151) to solve the problem; the whole idea of "fair use rationales" for trademarks is a horrible, horrible idea. Love, Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are issues about WP supplying access to copyrighted material by providing this link, but that is a sepeate issue. I think the issue of using uncopyrighted trademarks needs addressed at policy/guideline level, a case by case examination just results in us feeling in the dark, and I'm not convinced we would get it right. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are not similair; Misplaced Pages does not sell TV shows or books related to Doctor Who. Only then would there be infringment. Honestly guys... you are looking for for a solution to a non-existing problem; Logos are intended to be used for identification purposes, and that is how we used them, and that is the purpose for their exsistence. We, nor Wikia, do not market any Doctor Who related items or services, let alone compete with the BBC. This paranoia has to stop. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs of most of the 'paranoid' you'll see that most of them are people with a history of arguing against Misplaced Pages's requirements for free licensing .... basically, this trademark thing is being brought up as a straw man. "See nothing is free! Now let me put copies of The Matrix on my userpage!" (okay, .. an exaggeration). Next month, it will be some completely misguided and misinformed yelling about "personality rights", after that it will be another bizarre argument about the International Symbol of Access, after that we'll hear that CC-By isn't free because the non-binding 'human readable text' says "attribution in the manner you specify", and after that we'll be back to trademarks. This cycle of strawman arguments has gone on for years. Pay it no attention. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

(undent) The reason we do not usually worry about trademark restrictions on Misplaced Pages is that it's difficult for an encyclopedia to violate a trademark, as long as proper encyclopedic style is maintained. However, we do have the {{trademark}} template to warn us about the exceptions that prove that rule, to which cases like Template:TardisIndexFile may well belong. Here, the image is not used to illustrate an encyclopedia article, but merely as a navigational decoration, and furthermore it is being associated with an entity other that the trademark holder, one that — worse yet — may be in some ways in direct competition with the trademark holder. (The fact that the Tardis Index File may not be making a profit is mostly irrelevant; their competition may still be depriving the BBC of commercial revenua, particularly since they're offering their content for free.) (Also, I'd like to echo the point made by Collard above: It's not reasonable to consider trademarked content non-free, since, for all practical purposes, anyone can take any image, symbol or phrase and trademark it for some purpose.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

+1 right on the mark. I'd go further than saying difficult and say that "Outside of certain exceptional circumstances it is virtually impossible for Misplaced Pages articles to violate US trademark law". Extending your point further, the same unlikelihood of trademark violation also applies to most downstream re-users, except perhaps the most highly transformative ones. The mere fact that some reuser could somehow transform content from Misplaced Pages into a baby mulching machine does not mean that there is a problem with the freeness of our content due to the illegality of baby mulching. So as far as trademarks go, there is little to no issue for Misplaced Pages in terms of its own legal obligations or its free content mission. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Unless you're using a mark as a trademark (ie, you're using it in relation to some product, in order to indicate a connection between yourself and the product in the course of trade) you're not going to be infringing the trade mark owner's rights. Using a trademark to talk about the product that it is used on, or to talk about the trademark itself (which is what we use them for in the encyclopaedia) is not going to be use as a trademark.

We care about freedom with respect to copyright because it at least makes reuse possible. There may be other things out there which in fact restrict the ability of people to reuse the content. But the impact of other intellectual property rights (such as trademark rights) or other related rights (such as personality rights and/or rights in relation to passing off, as in this case, for example) is extremely context-specific, depending almost entirely on the precise nature of the use, and that we leave up to individual reusers to worry about. --bainer (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how the use in the TardisIndeFile template could possibly be infringing; I keep saying this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears: Misplaced Pages, nor Wikia, markets any products that the BBC produces. No TV series, no books, no action figures or props. And non-withstanding the IndexFile's use of the "logo" (note that the BBC only trademarked the two-dimensional image!), Misplaced Pages cannot be held responsible for third party infringments. — Edokter • Talk • 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Tardis index files produces a guide to all things Dr Who, the BBC produces a guide to all things Dr Who , the BBC derives an income from this service through sales, Wikia derives an income from this service via adverts. They are two organisations competing in the same marketplace for the same revenue. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC runs a website without ads, which does not sell items. Wikia also does not sell items either, so there is no revenue competition. Running adds on a host is seconadary income not covered by trademark law. — Edokter • Talk • 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that a web based Doctor Who encylopedia in no way compete with a print Doctor Who encylopedia? Could you give a reference for your claim that "Running adds on a host is seconadary income not covered by trademark law", thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks have been enforced successfully against competing fan resources. Highly derivative fan resources have also been found to be copyright infringements. These cases are all interesting, and there certainly might be some Wikia Wikis which could run into trouble in court someday. Their problem; not ours. This is really off-topic for EnWP's media licensing policy pages. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not "off-topic" this is about how WP uses other peoples trademarks, this is not about the index files Fasach Nua (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is my problem. There is a lot of confusion, and saying "lets not go down that path" is therefore a stupid suggestion. So we need to get some things clear:

1. Does the foundation resolution only apply to copyrighted materials ?
2. Does the definition of Free Cultural Works exclude trademarks and other non-copyright related (non-license might be better description) restrictions or are these "non-free" as well.
3. Should we categorize any restrictions? ( nudity for -16, violence, trademarks, insignia, flags, personality rights, freedom of panorama, etc).
4. Do we classify non-license restrictions as "non-free" or as "restricted" (the latter categorization I proposed earlier together with ViperSnake151) ?
5. Do we need usage rationales for certain types of these restrictions. (nudity and trademarks seem the most logical there).
6. Does this need to be defined in the EDP and/or blessed by the Foundation ?
7. Can we finally document these answers (because most of them have been asked many times before) ?

Perhaps a WP:Restricted materials page might be handy ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If they keep getting asked it can only be because people don't bother to read the answers that came before. :)

For example, "Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work." --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The mailing-list is not Misplaced Pages. I do not feel it is a communication form that the average Misplaced Pages user is supposed to be able to find let alone read. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Admin noticeboard Misplaced Pages? ... and you might want to get Item 6 on this page revised because a lot of people do still consider the mailing lists the official place, particularly for items with multi-project impact. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point of "the average Misplaced Pages user". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support the development of a WP:Restricted materials advice/guideline/policy page Fasach Nua (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets start it as a short essay. I don't think we will be able to contain the present forest fire there, but we can try. I came to this debate thinking that it would be quite easy and appropriate to ban trademarks from non-article namespace. But, I have been convinced through the current debate that there are only a few corner cases where Misplaced Pages itself goes into grey areas in such rules (TARDIS links and Scorpion album covers come to mind). So I think it will be of limited use, so I won't be able to put much time into such a task. Two things such an essay or draft guideline definitely should contain are: example of the apple photograph, and a brief quote from Kat's email:

(Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work.).

That quote answers numbers 1,2 and 6 of TheDJ's questions.

As regards naming the page, it is not the materials that are restricted (usually) but the usage of them.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many legal restrictions on reproduction other than copyright that we concern ourselves with, here and on Commons, such as personality rights, counterfeiting law, and trademarks. While it is true that there are legal restrictions on how such works are used, there are not copyright restrictions - it restricts the context in which the work is used, not the entity that uses it, and it would require a willful effort to remove the content from its original context (which we have ascertained to be valid) and to place it in a new one. Dcoetzee 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Such as a baby mulcher: It's illegal to use WP content as a component in a functioning baby mulcher because baby mulching is illegal. Likewise you can't use a registered mark to confuse the public, or (in limited circumstances) use images of a famous person to misleadingly imply that they endorse your product. In these cases it is the activity which is legally problematic, not the content. Sometimes Wikimedia projects remind people that some images are more likely than others to lend themselves to trouble-causing reuse, we do this not because there is any restriction on the image itself, but because it's easy for us to make these notes and the public we serve may find it helpful. The same mindset that causes people to think that a possible personality-rights law (or anti-baby mulching law) makes Misplaced Pages content non-free might also cause people to think "Free to use without restriction" means that it's okay to ignore non-copyright related restrictions. For these people the notices may be helpful. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We deal with copyright only because otherwise I can pretty much show anything is non free with enough effort.Genisock2 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I made this: Misplaced Pages:Restricted materials. Feel free to expand it as such. ViperSnake151 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3

This is a perennial proposal. As far as I'm concerned, adding any NFCC-like restrictions to trademarked materials is a non-starter. Trademarks simply are not an issue in the free content movement, and it would be misguided to make them so. The issue about content being free is that people can copy it all they want. One can copy trademarks indefinitely, so no problem there. Once you do copy material, whether trademarked or not, there are all kinds of other laws that prohibit what you can do with it: trademark, national security, trade secrets, harassment, defamation, etc. Moreover, nearly every word, phrase, slogan, color, shape, symbol, etc., is trademarked. The word "free", for example, is part of 9,014 trademarks (including applications and dead marks) in the US alone as per the USPTO. The shape of a circle is probably covered by just as many. That shouldn't mean we can't use the word "free" or cirlces does it? Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree... This is a serious case of instruction creep that is neither warranted or necessary. It will create more problems then it may solve, and I really believe there is no problem. — Edokter • Talk • 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I just think that it needs to be written down somewhere. Either in WP:Restricted materials or in WP:NFC, or wherever. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOSUMI (the aforementioned Misplaced Pages:Restricted materials) now covers this pretty well and can be more widely linked from non-free content policies where anyone might find it helpful. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As the discussion above indicates, there is no consensus to make this instruction creep a guidline. You know very well that to be promoted to guideline status, an essay must have broad consensus, even if it supposedly restates policies/guidelines. Thus I have reverted your tagging of it as a guideline to essay status. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar Debate on Wikinews

Folks might be interested in seeing a similar debate that just happened on Wikinews. In it, foundation member Anthere said there were no problems whatsoever with derivatives of such objects. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ? Fair use of text

This is probably frequently asked, but my Google skills did not fish it out of the archives:

Since the guideline deliberately says brief quotations of text without specifying a length, could you direct me to examples of articles that have wide consensus of application of this principle, so that I can gain some understanding to judge whether quotations I see are brief or extensive, and meet the NFCC? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that simple - that is, there's no magic word count. The extent to which a source can be quoted depends on factors like the amount of text dedicated to analyzing it, its relevance to the article, and the verbosity of the language in the original quote. A good rule of thumb is "if you can take something out with no loss of article quality, go ahead and do it." Dcoetzee 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've encountered the huge grey area of fair-use law. What constitutes "brief" in fair-use law is highly context-sensitive. There has been a case where a review quoting two sentences from a 250-page novel was ruled "too much" (those two sentences revealed the twist ending), and a case where quoting an entire work was ruled "fair use", because the original work was embedded in scholarly analysis ten times as long. Most of the time, "brief" falls somewhere between the two extremes. --Carnildo (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew there is no magic word count. Though I was quite surprised to read that for an audio narration, the magic word count is zero.

I take it you are talking about US federal court cases Carnildo. That range is quite startling, and it seems an abuse of copyright law to sue someone for a spoiler, but the judge thought differently! (I often work with editors in the UK, and they cannot upload fair use to Misplaced Pages, only fair dealing.) Are there examples of debates on Misplaced Pages (that of course never went to court) that I can refer to?

However from what Dcoetzee has said, though the quotes I am thinking of are wholly relevant to the article, we might need to beef up the text analyzing it to strengthen the case, and we will usually be OK with 2 sentences.

Are song lyrics treated any differently from prose?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To complicate matters, what about quotations from the Associated Press? Under the license fee scheme they've announced, they want payment for reuse of any quotation longer than four words. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing they're not in charge of fair use policy. :-) — xDanielx /_C\ 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell/Intro

We need one for this page. Discuss. ViperSnake151 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Album art for illustrating discographies is a valid fairuse

Sorry, but I removed those incorrect assertions. No free image will ever exist, thus it is useful. Section 8 does not apply, since album art is significant for the album entry. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect - album art in an article about the album is generally ok, but album art in a discography (eg: list of recordings/albums/discs) is not.. the same applies to images of most fictional characters in lists of characters, and screenshots in lists of episodes.. --Versageek 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take some more time and re-read the policy as you dont appear to understand what you removed, that did not prevent the usage of album covers in relation to the article about the album. it was in relation to mass usage of images that provide little if any significant additional meaning to an article in order to make it visually attractive. non-free content in discographies fail WP:NFCC. β 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Versageek - recommend reading back through the talk archives for the previous discussions. However, if conditions have somehow changed requiring a new consensus, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. Kelly 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will retract my statement, as I misunderstood the purpose of that example. I just saw some album art speedy'd today and was suspicious, the message pointed to that example. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 8 of Non-free content criteria

It seems to me that point 8 (regarding the significance of an image) is incredibly vague and open to interpretation on a massive scale. I have seen this numerous times within the Doctor Who wikiproject (Talk:Forest of the Dead and the Talk:The Stolen Earth immediately spring to mind, but there are many others), where users see fit to remove (often without discussion) infobox images on the basis that it doesn't significantly improve understanding of the episode. When would "some" increase in understanding become "significant"? I would imagine this problem arises across Misplaced Pages also. I would be in favour of this point being revised to make it more specific, or even removed altogether. U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it has to either represent the subject of the article, or if not that case, be critically discussed in the article. ViperSnake151 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A single image for identification realistically passes #8 on its own. WilyD 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :While I do not favor a removal of the criteria, as it was envisioned to prevent contributors from decorating articles like Christmas trees, I do think that a bit of firming up of the language could be exceptionally helpful. It is currently being interpreted in such a way that no articles of episodic content can reasonably expect to have an image in it, as a fairly dedicated cadre of editors routinely nominate any images from such fro removal - on basic principle. I have spoken to at least three of the nominators, who all intimate (or outright declare) that image placement in any episodic articles is decorative. Such a predisposition skews IfD discussions from a proper examination, where each image is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While many images in IfD do indeed fail numerous criteria, the continued presence in IfD of a group of editors interpreting (to my reckoning, incorrectly so) the vague language of NFC#8 prevents an honest evaluation of the image, outnumbering not just advocates of the image but the undecided as well. - Arcayne () 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ViperSnake, the problem I think that is being described is that interpretations arising out of the ambiguity of #8's wording. Without a better wording, my interpretation is as valid as yours. If there is a more solid definition, then interpretations tend to be more in line with one another. - Arcayne () 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles are all seperate works, with seperate authorship and all. Usage needs to be examined on an article by article basis. WilyD 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am against blanket removal of images and especially users who have created accounts specifically to do just this (Pushing a hidden agenda) such as User:CopyrightDrone and User:BKNFCC. Hmmm, but lets not get onto that here. I believe there was a huge discussion to change the wording of Criterion #8, but I'm not sure what happened about that. Nonetheless I feel it must be changed again. There used to more wording there, which was removed, rather suspiciously. It's too wide open to interpretation to the point where everything or nothing could be subject to it. Even I don't fully understand it! --.:Alex:. 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure we are really at the point where we need start waterboarding folk for having a substantially less moderate take on #8 than the rest of us do. We should avoid voicing conspiracy theories here, unless substantially backed up (and even then, there are other venues for such accusations). Let's propose a new wording and get some feedback and find a consensus for that alteration to NFC#8, which currently reads:

"8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."

Anyone want to take a crack at it before I do? My alteration would provide for beheadings and enforced watching of Olsen Twins movies for taking up an agenda. Please, someone stop me from doing this. :) - Arcayne () 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not...

"8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if it is to represent the subject of the article, or if not - is used for critical commentary of the non-free content itself that would significantly increase readers' understanding of it."

ViperSnake151 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It really needs to be limited to a single piece for identification. WilyD 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No. There are classes of image type for which "identification of the subject of the article" is a sufficient justification -- for example, album covers, and logos, and some other images -- which have been created expressly to facilitate that purpose. But screenshots do not fall into that category. A screenshot should only be used if does improve understanding.

Secondly, there is no limit to only one image. If having more than one image allows a significantly better understanding than just one image, then we should have more than one image.

Yes, it is not black-and-white; and it is context dependent. But that is the nature of fair use. My own personal opinion would be that at the moment we probably are now tending to use slightly too few fair use images in episodic articles, rather than too many. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. A single piece for identification, multiple pieces for explanation where required & supported. WilyD 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) "Significance" is such a beautyfull marketing word; "Washes significantly better then brand X". The term denotes binary importance, which is the crux of it's problem. I learned in physics and math that values are rounded up to the "most significant decimal"; the decimal is either siginificant, or it is not. Even the smallest part of a number is significant provided it falls within the range of the calculation. So this word is abused terribly here, just as it is abused in advertising. Saying that this and that image does not "significantly" increase the reader's understanding is like saying "she is significantly pregnant". The word means nothing in this context; an image either increases the reader's understanding, or it doesn't, so it is always "significant".

We need a better word, or better yet, just remove that atrocity from #8. — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "complimentary connection", as in connection to the subject or complimentary connection to the article text? - Arcayne () 19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to argue this point, because understanding is not a binary operation. There are degrees of understanding, and one non-free item might marginally improve understanding, whereas another might make the concept in the article crystal-clear. howcheng {chat} 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets not make a storm in a teacup. It seems to me that only one editor has been doing this, (and doing it a lot) in which case that person can be educated without negotiating a change to the policy (incidentaly at WP:NFCC not here). #8 has been around for several years, and deletionists have nearly always allowed one non-free image to identify a non-free cultural work. If I am wrong, and it has become a plague, then please correct me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's come to be interpreted more narrowly (i.e., allowing for less usage) since then -- I wouldn't call it a plague, but it certainly has caused a lot of reasonably-used images to be deleted. FWIW, I think the vagueness is problematic as well, and I don't think it's just a few of us who feel that way. — xDanielx /_C\ 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this criterion a few times and it's a very fine line to walk, which makes it difficult. The whole point of this is to eliminate unnecessary use of non-free content; to make it so that the article needs it. "Significant" is definitely a bugbear, but it's kind of a necessary evil. We can't allow non-free content where it would marginally increase the reader's understanding (that opens the door to rampant abuse) and we can't shut the door completely without a mass revolt on our hands. So yes, "significant" becomes a judgment call. I believe it's supposed to be narrowly interpreted, given the Foundation's resolution to use as little non-free content as possible. howcheng {chat} 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the vagueness issue is difficult to resolve, but I don't agree that such narrowness as we have now is necessary. The foundation policy mandates that our EDP must be grounded in fair use policy (and/or other copyright limitations) as they're applied in the US; it doesn't say that the EDP has to be excessively precautionary. EN-WP hasn't experienced any serious legal problems arising from NFC usage and we would have to change our NFC policy quite significantly for that to be a major a concern. (Accepting some minimal risks is entirely proper, considering EN-WP's grandiose social impact.) It also doesn't prescribe that our EDP must support the proliferation of freely-licensed media, and while all of us like the idea, it's only reasonable to say that its significance is subordinate. The amount of users who benefit from viewing our images is much greater than that of users who benefit from reproducing them, and even within the latter category, it's rare for reproducers to actually comply with free licenses when they're offered. — xDanielx /_C\ 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Precaution about copyright law is only one aspect of NFCC, and in my opinion the less important one. The key idea is that this is a free content project, and we should eschew nonfree content whenever feasible. We're not just trying to write another enyclopedia, we're writing a 💕. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The second ~half of my comment was intended to address that. — xDanielx /_C\ 05:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that the text of this criterion explicitly bestows to an article's author the editorial discretion to use images wherever they appear necessary. Often times this discretion is then overruled by editors who routinely patrol images for NFCC compliance. The widespread unfamiliarity of the finer points of NFCC present in the majority of content contributors coupled with the practical limitations of having a low number of administrators making and executing the final determination leads to constant debates and factionalism between editors. While the wording of the criterion is succinct, we definitely require a thorough guide to NFCC#8 precedents, perhaps a gallery that illustrates the difference between appropriate and inappropriate (i.e. decorative) use of copyrighted imagery. ˉˉ╦╩ 09:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

fair use review

There is currently a discussion of the possible removal of Misplaced Pages:fair use review. Please feel free to join the discussion at MFD/Wikipedia:Fair use review, or if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use, then please have a look at the backlog. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

MFD: WP:Fair use review

Anybody who is interested, please join the discussion at MFD/Wikipedia:Fair use review. In addition, if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use, then please have a look at the Misplaced Pages:Fair use review backlog. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this spamming. In particular, the statement "if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use" is highly problematic. The limitations on non-free media come predominately from Misplaced Pages policy and far less so from the law. (Generally the things which are probably illegal just get speedied). --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refer to my comment as spamming? I think the relevant guideline says "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki"; in this regard, I posted my request to only two or three places. If you consider my post to be spam, then please refer to the specific guideline, or if you prefer, we can take this to WP:3O; if you simply take issue with how I worded it, then that's fair enough. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Album covers of soundtracks in film articles

I have recently come across several film articles that contained a soundtrack section at the bottom with an extra CD image, e.g. , and the album cover is basically identical to the film poster. I know that album covers still have significant general support as infobox images, but I wonder whether my bold and widespread removal of album covers from such articles would be met with heavy resistance before I go ahead doing so (citing WP:NFC). – sgeureka 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article had extensive coverage of the soundtrack (and not merely a list of tracks as did your example) then I'd say the usage would be permissible to exactly the same extent as it is in a freestanding album article. The fact that we're talking about a section vs an article is a mere matter of organization, that section could someday be forked into its own article, and I see no reason to change what we allow simply because of how we've organized the page. It's the context thats significant. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that the majority of articles in Category:Film soundtracks do not justify a separate article at all, and I may (or may not) approach WP:ALBUM what they think of merging most of them back into the film articles. This will certainly affect how many soundtrack album cover images will be kept in the end, but as I said, I have not formalized any real plans yet. – sgeureka 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

if you cannot support the significance of the cover it should not be used. β 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tangential comments in WP:NFCC#1

Currently WP:NFCC#1 contains this text:

As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.

The question "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" has nothing to do with C#1; if anything it falls under C#8. C#1 explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free images, not the removal of non-free images without replacement. Digressive comments of this sort not only make the criterion's description unnecessarily lengthy, they create confusion by blurring the scope of each criterion.

Hence I made what I expected to be an obvious and uncontroversial correction, but it was reverted. Anyway, if you think the clause in question is appropriate for inclusion under C#1, please opine here.

— xDanielx /_C\ 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No free equivalent. covers more than just replacement images. if the subject can be covered with properly with the written word there is no need for a non-free image. thus it is replaceable with text. that is why that phrase is that way. β 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with xDanielx. Policy clause #1 (No free equivalent), as he says, explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free ones. This is incontestable given the title of the clause and its entire primary content preceding the parenthetical. As a matter of logic, science, and common sense, text can never be considered as "equivalent" to an image. The question of whether a (non-free) image contributes significantly to readers' understanding beyond what is conveyed via text is properly a consideration that falls under policy clause #8 (Significance). I support restoration of xDanielx's correction.—DCGeist (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if am image could be replaced with text it could also be replaced with a freely licensed image (of text). :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether an image can be replaced by text depends greatly on the role ("encyclopedic purpose" in NFCC#1) of the image in the article. The criterion is not that the free replacement is equivalent in every respect, only that it serves the same purpose as the non-free material, and fulfills that purpose equally well. This is distinct from criterion #8, which applies to non-free images that cannot be replaced by text serving the same purpose, but might still be inappropriate because they don't directly increase the reader's understanding of the topic (in other words, their purpose is only tangential to the article). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a test that it's virtually impossible for text to pass in practice. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing someone's face and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what that person looks like nearly as well as a photograph. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing a piece of music and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of demonstrating what it sounds like nearly as well as an audio clip. Again, it defies both logic and common sense to subsume the question of textual sufficiency under the No free equivalent criterion. If we aim the criterion squarely at the issue that it logically addresses—whether free media equivalents are available or may be created to substitute for non-free media—we may find that the improved clarity and focus will actually make the criterion more effective.—DCGeist (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yet there are times when it can be replaced with text. We don't need a fair use image of a baseball bat in order to complete an article. Virtually everyone knows what one looks like. Saying "baseball bat" in an article is an adequate replacement for a fair use image of a bat. Yes, I'm using an extreme case to highlight the point, but so are you. Nobody's claimed that text can replace what a particular performance sounds like. This wording is highly important. Removing it erodes the free nature of the encyclopedia. Non free material must overcome very significant hurdles to exist her. This is one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think his argument is that that hurdle is not significant. It's basically impossible for any image to not pass this criterion the way it's written. Croctotheface (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) As I see it, #1 has always been intent to mean a free equivalent media. I simply do not regard text as equivalent. #1 is now being abused a lot to have images deleted with the rationale that it could be replaced with words. Many times I aksed nominators to describe the image, which often yields in description that do not match the image at all, or simply being told "that's not my job". I support XDanielx's edit. — Edokter • Talk • 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Examples please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11 and down... — Edokter • Talk • 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually not the best example, but I can't find any others that quickly. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is difficult for me to evaluate those as the images are deleted and I can not view them. But, looking at least at the last two image discussions, it appears it's more to do with the images having little to do with the article, and being decorative. That's really not a NFCC #1 debate. I ran into a similar situation on Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) a while back. The that was on the article had nothing to do with it, except that the image was from the episode. Weak fair use claim at best. Now, the article has an image that directly relates to the narrative in the article. But, like I said, that's not a #1 debate, but a #8 debate. Can you cite specific #1 debates? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, that's the point -- C#8 is the pertinent criterion in cases of that sort. But when we publish statements like (to paraphrase) "If an image can be replaced with text, it fails C#1", it becomes both a C#8 issue and a C#1 issue. (That's not to say that they're mutually exclusive, but there's certainly overlap.) I don't think such statements extend C#1 in any useful way -- C#8 is more than adequate for dealing with images that can be replaced with text, and the conditions are essentially the same (albeit expressed with different rhetoric), so the extra comments just create overlap resulting in less clarity. — xDanielx /_C\ 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. #8 gets at all the cases, like Hammersoft's "baseball bat" example, that are genuinely "replaceable with text." Croctotheface (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Look, these are policy criteria--they shouldn't be grab bags for rhetoric and they shouldn't confuse matters between themselves. Addressing the problem here actually serves larger effort to bring more clarity and definition to the criteria. Each criteria is stronger the closer it gets to a bright-line test. Here, for the first criterion: Can your non-free image be replaced with a free image that serves the same encyclopedic purpose? If yes, it must be so replaced. If no, move on to the next criterion. All of these questions about whether an image really adds significantly to an article, or whether the relevant text alone does the job are--should be--really obviously matters that fall under criterion 8. Obviously, major work needs to be done to make the application of criterion 8 itself clearer and less subject to personal whims--let's make that next on the agenda. But let's clear this criterion up now.DocKino (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Hello, There is a running debate in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. At issue is if the use of non-free images is appropriate for "major characters" that don't have their own page. One user maintains that doing so in this case violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. We were unable to come to a resolution on the talk page, and that user suggested I bring the issue here. I'm unsure where 3a comes into play, but my understanding of his arguments for 1 and 8 is that these images don't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I believe that most would agree that having an image (if one exists) of any given character, no matter if a game, movie or TV show, adds significant understanding by providing exactly what the character looks like. And as nearly every "good" article about a fictional or real person includes their image (if one exists) it seems this is generally accepted. I'm seeking some guidance from the community on this issue, and welcome others involved to comment... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This goes exactly to what we've been discussing in the thread above.

There is--there should be--absolutely no #1 question at all. As the images in question involve copyrighted video game characters, they are clearly irreplaceable by free images. No #1 issue. Move on to the next criterion.

Is there a #3a issue? Well yes, there might be. If there is an image that shows more than one of these major characters, #3a tells us that image must be used instead of separate images for each of the characters--the structure of the article might have to be adjusted to accommodate the requirements of #3a in this case.

Finally, #8. As usual, the toughest nut. Clearly, the images you describe do "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." There's really no rational argument otherwise. If there's a dispute, it can only be about whether the topic itself or the type of article (sort of list-y) is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of non-free images. On the "topic itself", the answer seems to be clear: there are lots of video game articles, and most of them have non-free images. The community view is clearly that the topic is significant enough. (And, of course, #8 does not in fact address the significance of topics themselves.) As for the type of article, that's a closer call. This one seems to me to have a lot of textual description and so--certainly for the major characters--doesn't feel at all like the sort of list article that non-free images have been being weeded out of. All in all, the usage you describe--limited to just the major characters--does pass muster under the guideline: Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles.DocKino (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Irreplaceable" doesn't mean "irreplaceable by another image", it means "irreplaceable" by anything, including not being necessary at all - remember, WP:NFCC#1 says "before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself ... Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?"
• How do the images significantly increase the reader's understanding? What does a random image of (for example) Officer Tenpenny tell me that text couldn't?
• "There a lots of video games articles, and most of them have non-free images". Yes you are correct - video game articles are generally amongst the worst for violation of non-free image policies.
• Apart from failing the policy, I'd argue the article doesn't even pass the guidelines

• "Screenshots from software products (should be) for critical commentary"
• "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images."

• This summed it up quite well, I think - " If a character is not significant enough to have their own article, their status within the universe of the depicted series is minor, and it becomes exceptionally hard to justify violating our core m:Mission by having a fair use image for such a minor character." Black Kite 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus for that last point. I remember the discussion well. Many users including myself were opposed to that, and only a very small group of users such as yourself were in favour of such a thing compared to the larger majority who were not. Again, that point brings us to the "No images in lists" argument, notability and significance does not work that way. --.:Alex:. 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I said it was a good summing-up, not a consensus. In the end, the point is that Misplaced Pages is a 💕. That core mission is not helped by plastering copyright abuses all over articles when they're not required per WP:NFCC (which is a policy). If it can be proved, for each image, that it passes each criterion of NFCC, then that image can be used. This is quite easy for some images in some articles, and impossible for others. It also depends on the article they're being used in (WP:NFCC#8 applies here). What we can't do is say that having vast swathes of non-free images in articles such as this is improving the encylopedia, because according to the Mission Statement it's not - it's degrading it. Yes, there are a lot of articles that are problematic - including some Good and Featured articles. That doesn't mean that we can't chip away at the problems where we find them. (Incidentally, if I were the regular editors of this article, I'd be worrying about the fact that it's full of original research and doesn't have a single third pary reference rather than the NF image issue). Black Kite 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds to me as if there isn't anything resembling consensus on this issue, and I intend on restoring those images unless there is significant objection from some other corner. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't; it'll save me the revert. Black Kite 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll restore the images if he/she doesn't. I tire of you and the rest of the boo-hoo brigade whining about degrading the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter is most only care about Misplaced Pages for this site and not for some idiot to be able to reuse the content. If they want to reuse, they are welcome to remove the fair use before doing so. Toodles! --Dragon695 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That many images definitely fail #3a and #8, and #1 to an extent. As VC is set in a realistic world, the characters are all human, so it is possible to simply describe the bulk of their appearance in text; one or two group shots are otherwise ok. Remember, the "reader" is not necessary ever going to play the video game, so the question we have to ask, is it work the effort of allowing for non-free content if the material is not extending their understanding of the topic in a manner that text can do? Clearly not the case here. --MASEM 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK lots of issues here.

• First of all, you did notice that a single image added to the article was reverted also right? Does that too violate these guidelines in your opinion. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Further, I believe that at most there was one for each major character (6 total?) Is that too many? Where is the limit?
• Your argument would seem to indicate that no video game should have non-free content for character images if those characters are human. I assume that would expand to movies and the like (the "reader" isn't necessarily ever going to see the movie either). As most game and movie articles do have such images, that obviously isn't consensus. So could you clarify what you mean?
• If you can find a group image that would work for this article, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't see how 3a applies here.
• Can you explain the difference in the use of images in Pauline Fowler (a featured article chosen more-or-less at random) and here? I'm not seeing that the images add more there than here.

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)