Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Fair use images in lists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have archived the (long) discussion page since it's been dead for quite some time. As discussions seem to go in rounds and rounds and lead nowhere I have decided to be bold and finalize the debates. Two times editors voted, and it seems we have a pretty good consensus, so let's try one more time. Renata 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived poll on the above topics. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section. No further edits should be made to this section.

This poll was carried out from October to December 2006. The proposal failed.

The use of fair use images on lists and lists within articles should be limited to a bare minimum (or as per WP:FUC #3: as little as possible). Each individual episode / character / album / DVD / etc. cannot have a dedicated image.
Scope
  • The proposal primarily is targeted at List of ... episodes. However it will be also applicable to other lists such as List of ... characters, List of ... albums, Discography of ..., etc.
  • If successful, it could also apply to other lists, e.g. List of Google products (no images as of Oct. 27) or List of Cornell University people
Definitions
  • Lists - a page in Wikipedia namespace that would be brought to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and not to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.
  • Lists within articles - a section (usually separated by ==Heading==) in a Wikipedia article (not a list as defined above) that has a table or bullets points listing something. Lists within articles usually lack prose.
  • Bare minimum - the less the better. The goal should be none. The following numbers (just examples) are provided so that everyone is "on the same page" and understands how much can be the "maximum" and realizes the general guideline of "as little as possible":
    • The number of fair use images should not exceed 1-2 per 2nd level heading (==Heading==)
    • The total number of fair use images should not exceed 5 per article
    • If the total number of fair use images exceed 5, the editor need to be prepared to have a good argument and rationale why he or she must use more images
    • The total number of fair use images cannot exceed 10 per article

Summary[edit]

This is summary of various arguments on archived talk page.

In favor of proposal[edit]

  1. Use of fair use images fail WP:FUC in these respects:
    1. Number 3: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. → Lists display dozens and hundreds of fair use images.
    2. Number 8: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. → almost all agree that images mainly serve decorative function;
  2. They also fail {{Tv-screenshot}} description:
    1. For identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents → List identify, but do not critically comment the programs.
  3. Wikipedia's fair use requirements are higher than just the law. In other words, these are all fair use images, but are they fair use images that are acceptable on Wikipedia.
  4. Episodes in lists are already identified by the following: title, number, and short description. Images are not necessary.
  5. A casual user will have a hard time recognizing an episode by seeing one frame out of 67,500 frames (45 minutes * 60 seconds * 25 frames per second). DVD covers do not illustrate a particular episode/character and therefore don't serve identification function.
  6. Some images might have, besides being a decoration, other functions (e.g. identification or commentary), but such function is secondary and is not enough to justify multiple fair use images.
  7. As per Jimbo's key speech at Wikimania (August, 2006) Wikipedia should not use fair use images when it does not absolutely have to.
    1. Lists are perfectly useful without images (e.g. List of All in the Family episodes)
  8. Free, redistributable content is great and the more we rely on U.S. "fair use" provision, the more problematic redistribution outside the U.S. becomes.
  9. Such images are against the Wikipedia’s goal to be the free and not the pretty encyclopedia.

Against the proposal[edit]

  1. Fair use images comply with U.S. copyright law which states four factors to consider:
    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes → Wikipedia is both non-profit and educational
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work → screenshot can be interpreted as "promotional"
    3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole → Wikiepdia displays one screenshot out of thousands
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work → one screenshot has no effects on sales of DVD's
  2. Owners of a TV series have not complained about the images used in a list.
  3. Images contribute significantly to the quality and visual appeal of lists.
  4. Screenshots are carefully chosen to depict the most defining moments of the show and therefore help to identify the episode and better understand its plot summary.
  5. TV shows are visual and no amount of text can replace that.
  6. Both "encyclopedic" and "decoration" are very subjective terms.
  7. Images assist the user in finding the information they want more quickly.
  8. Many lists, including featured lists, currently use fair use images.
  9. Most if not all images comply with the current fair use criteria, are tagged with relevant templates and provide a rationale on their description page.

Support[edit]

Sign your comments.
  1. Strongly. Renata 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Partially. I can't back arbitrary numbers, but the dedicated page idea I will fully support, the duplication of the images is probably not necessary. Jay32183 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Ok, what I said before didn't really make sense. I can accept the principle, and I'm mostly tired of arguing about it. Jay32183 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I have to switch to neutral on this issue. After rereading the proposal I don't like it, but something needs to be done to stop all the arguing. Jay32183 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This has been needed for a long time. Andrew Levine 06:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Sign your comments.
  1. I completely and totally oppose. Blanket policy like this has about a snowball's chance in hell of getting support. When we say "use as little as possible" we mean use only what the article needs, and you cannot generically assign a number to that. Fair use images in lists do not fail number 3, as this proposal suggests, by numbers alone. Even if I were against fair-use images in lists I would not support this proposal for those reasons. Again, I stand beside images being used in some lists of episodes when those screenshots are able to provide unique episode identification. I'd repeat all the reasons why I support fair use images in lists, but I don't think this proposal will get anywhere with it's current wording. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numbers are examples, only! What I wanted to achieve is no further discussions as per old talk: "as little as possible is one screenshot per episode." And the thing wrong with your "some lists of episodes when those screenshots are able to provide unique episode identification" is that it's so hard to determine what's unique... Renata 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We all agree on using a limited number, but part of the debate is what that means. Since you've changed the wording while I was typing my response, the proposal doesn't seem to propose much of anything other than a ban on one image per episode. (which I also disagree with for the same reasons I disagree with an exact number limit) -- Ned Scott 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Still not palatable. Each ... cannot not have a dedicated image. Sorry, no dice. For an episode list, the minimum is one per episode since each episode is individually copyrighted and the copyright status of one (or an image there from) does not affect the copyright status of another. Specifying a non-relative limit for articles that are relative doesn't make sense. Cburnett 03:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. My reasoning is in comments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Wikipedia shouldn't be allowing any nonfree images in any articles at all under any circumstances. "Fair-use" is just a euphemism for "stolen". —Angr 07:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that US law condones theft? Please read up US copyright law before issuing sweeping pronouncements like that. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose general efforts to gut any use of fair use defenses for use of unfree images on wikipedia. john k 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Against the proposal and CBurnett. - Peregrinefisher 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Per “Against the proposal section” above, particularly point number five. To be even more particular, I find the idea that “List of characters…” type articles can’t have a picture for each character, quite frankly, absurd.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Given how unlikely it is that any uploader would actually be willing to defend this usage, we shouldn't be setting an example that encourages people to waste time fiddling around with them. Also sets a bad example for trivial usage of unfree material. Jkelly 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I really wish Wikipedia would realize that its information is that of an encyclopedia but its appearance is that of a newspaper/magazine article. The FAIR USE images are there to appeal to the overall appearance of the ARTICLES. If anything, most the time these images help to promote the show or whatever. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That should not be your argument. Using unfree images only to make the page look nicer is definitely not allowed. That's why the other opposers have been talking about the necessity of visualizing the topic rather than making the page look nice. Jay32183 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When does an image ever "only make the page look nicer"? Any picture that actually pertains to the topic is involved in providing information as well as making the article look nicer. On a list of albums, for instance, using images of the album cover is informative in that it shows what the album covers of the band look like, and can also help to show, for instance, a progression. And if the images are all at the individual page, anyway, there's no additional fair use problem from having them on the list article, as far as I understand fair use law (which is, I will admit, not terribly far - but can you say much more?) john k 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I am most disturbed by the assertion "almost all agree that images mainly serve decorative function". In a University affiliation list, images of famous people are placed next to the person's entry, which consists not only of the person's name, but also a sort of mini-bio of that person's educational background and professional teaching and research in relation to the university, as applicable. The purpose of the image is not primarily to decorate the page. It is [1] to find the famous people in the (usually long) list, and [2] to identify those people, many of whom are more easily recognized from the person's picture than from the person's name (a still larger number are more easily recognized from a combination of the person's picture and the person's name). That is not decoration, and I don't understand how editors here can keep saying it is. Those who would like to see a reasonable proposal for limiting fair use images in lists should recognize this important function of images and stop claiming they are purely - or mainly - for decoration. -DoctorW 04:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only true if the image cannot be replaced by a free image. The argument arose with the episode guides because those images never have a free alternative. Living people usually have a free alternative, especially if they are famous. Jay32183 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. john k 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the image can be replaced by a free one then it violates FUC#1 and the results of this discussion will have no effect on this. In this discussion FUC#'s 3, 6, and 8 are the only ones that could matter. See WP:FUC, Wikipedia policy is stricter than the law. Also the free alternative does not have to currently exist if it is reasonably obtainable, meaning a picture could be taken and released freely. Jay32183 21:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per points two and five in Against the proposal. I don't really think program owner would mind, it can't harm him in any way and it is very important to the layout and the encyclopedia in general. Michaelas10 (T|C) 11:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Episode screenshots have a place in Wikipedia in accordance with reasoning in opposition of the proposal above. Also, I believe episode screenshots, when used properly, still hold up to most of the arguments in favor of this proposal. Proper usage of a screenshot occurs under the condition that every episode screenshot appears no more than twice on all of Wikipedia (once beside it's entry on the episode list page, and once on the article dedicated to that episode). Any other instances of the screenshot is outside the definition of fair-use. On top of this, I have seen too much abuse from administrators who will enforce their opinion on non-fair-use despite any agreements made by discussions such as these (eg. remove images, lock the pages, etc.). I believe admins who violate the consensus reached here and/or re-open the issue (this is perhaps the third time!) should be subject to de-adminship. I would implore an admin to volunteer handling complaints about admin abuse and reverting such "power trip" edits of this nature.--Will2k 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per bare minimum policy. Borderline sickening that someone is THAT anti-image. I have no problems with fair use image, it's clear that most people don't, so why not let lists have images so long as they help the article. --Wizardman 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - At the very least this proposal is woefully inadequate in dealing with "exceptions to the rule" and so forth, and attempts to lump a huge and broad category of Wikipedia articles into one small, narrowly written rule. Additionally the suggestion that "Each... cannot have its own dedicated image" is, to be blunt, complete and utter crap. While debate will continue on (in perpetuity) over the use in things like episode lists, identification of discreet objects, characters, or other entities in a list would be drastically impeded by an artificial restriction on the use of identifying photographs or images. In short, this is a horrible proposal and would have a drastic, negative effect on Wikipedia were it to be accepted. -- Y|yukichigai 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

  • In a nutshell: this is the same as WP:FUC #3, just clarified for lists. Renata 03:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speed read the entire discussion and tried to pick out most prominent arguments. If you have more - please add, just keep brief. Renata 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, numbers are arbitrary, but seem to be "common sense" of "as little as possible." I wanted to provide a more concrete guideline to avoid "a bare minimum is one screenshot per episode" arguments. Also numbers are only an example to make sure everyone gets the same idea on the proposal. Renata 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't get behind this because of the arbitrary numbers. But the no dedicated page thing is probably a good idea. Being prepared to defend a "large" number is also something I would expect. Jay32183 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I put the numbers to make clear that's example only. Renata 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think it would be fair to add that if a dedicated page could be reasonably created, otherwise we'll have people refusing to make episode pages so they can use images in the episode guide. Jay32183 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dedicated page? Huh? I wrote about dedicated image (i.e. one image per episode). Renata 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I got confused. Jay32183 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasons for my weak oppose: This guideline is not strictly required by FUC#3 in my opinion, and it isn't required by U.S. copyright law. Take Characters from The Office (US), for example. Certainly, each image would be acceptable on an individual character's page. There's no legal difference between having all those pics on separate pages, or having them on one page, and I can't see a logical or ethical difference either. Certainly the Characters from The Office (US) article is improved by having such images. If this were to pass, the list would not have images, but would have links to individual articles which did have images, and I don't see how that is more in line with FUC#3 or U.S. copyright law. (Category:fair use images is an auto-generated page that contains hundreds of fair use images, and it's not a problem. It wouldn't be covered by this proposal, but I'm using the example to illustrate that there's nothing wrong per se with having many fair use images in one place.) Consider also List of motifs on banknotes, or List of Olympic logos, both of which would have to have text descriptions under this proposal. Provinces of the Philippines (a featured list) could not use the coats of arms. Most of the book covers on The Oz books and portraits at List of Presidents of Portugal (both featured lists) would have to be removed. Etc, etc. I think this proposal is a good-faith attempt to solve the real problem of FUC#3 violations in lists, but it would also prevent what I see as valid fair uses. – Quadell (talk) (random) 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps the oppose (this is too strong) and oppose (this isn't strong enough) should be split out. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Opposition is opposition. Should we also split out support (this is exactly right) and support (this is better than nothing)? —Angr 08:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to agree with Angr on this. As long as people are making there reasons clear rather than simply saying support or oppose, it shouldn't really matter, and certain things can be dealt with. We obviously have too diverse a group to cater to everyone though. Jay32183 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of people opposing because they think it is too "light". What do you propose? Ban images from lists completely? That is not going to fly any time soon. Since this proposal is doomed, then what's the outcome? The lists will be flooded with excesive fair use images for months to come. I just have to repeat someone's thoughts on WP:FU talk page... no definite answers and issues requiring attention are dragged forever. Renata 21:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This poll is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section below.

Move to dismiss[edit]

Okay this page has (yet again) become inactive, There is an immense amount of opposition to the changes proposed, I move to dismiss this proposal and archive it; furthermore as consensus has proven so far fair use images in lists are acceptable and they do pass the FUC so I also move to reinstate the screen captures on List of Lost episodes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. - Peregrinefisher 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has indeed been shot down, but unfortunately the general concerns about screen shots in LOEs has not been settled. Keep in mind I am in favor of including them, but if we wish to include them then it's up to us to convince others to do the same. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ned. It might be helpful to include guidelines about how to use the images "right", such as how to write fair use rationales. That way the argument that we do it "wrong" doesn't hold as much water. Jay32183 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The particular, specific wording that Renata3 proposed back in the end of October has certainly been rejected. But that replaced much previous discussion, which I thought might have eventually got somewhere. What I suggested several times was that where there is little or no text accompanying the images, which is the case for most of the lists, the images either be removed or the text expanded so that it refers to the image and does so for the purpose of making critical commentary on the episode. I even tried giving an example at Talk:List of Lost episodes with respect to the episode Orientation.
I think the best course of action would be to continue discussion along that path, which is likely to produce a result that will satisfy everyone, improving the quality of the lists while allaying concerns about the gratuitous use of images. The alternatives would, I think, be less pleasant. --bainer (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an opinion on the recently promoted List of The Sopranos episodes? It has much meatier summaries than most of the lists. That could help us out a lot if it's an example of what you're talking about. Jay32183 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could settle this. Maybe we could switch the argument to how much text is required for an image. I know WP doesn't like hard number minimums, but if we could decide how much text is required per screenshot, it would give us an easy way to decide delete/keep. - Peregrinefisher 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we could express it as a format with an example rather than say a number, it would probably be ok. Jay32183 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, absolutely dismiss it. Cburnett 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maging Sino Ka Man and List of Maging Sino Ka Man episodes[edit]

Currently these articles have loads of FU images. Can somebody tell me on how to minimize/remove them? --Howard the Duck 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to use fair use within a list, the images on List of Maging Sino Ka Man episodes have fair use rationales and so there would be no reason to remove them. Maging Sino Ka Man also looks fine. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, there's too many of them (criteria #3), making me wonder if they're fairly used. (I actually realize this is the wrong page to ask this but WT:FU is taking forever to load.) --Howard the Duck 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see an artificial limit? "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." - One per episode is as little as possible; One per character is as little as possible; Two or more images of the same character/episode (unless it is really needed) would be excessive and a violation of the FUC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been brought up several times before, we've never reached consensus or a reasonable compromise, in terms of FUC#3. I don't see any flaw in Matthew's interpretation, and I agree with him. Jay32183 19:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, another editor told me to get rid of all of them. I see this is a contentious issue, and I won't proceed until there's an agreement here. Although this TV series is aired five times a week, so having a screenshot on every episode seems to be too much. I'd rather have one screenshot per week or even one screenshot on one major story arc. --Howard the Duck 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That editor didn't use FUC#3 as his argument, which is what your question was about. You probably want to consider the way the images are being used in the list, and if they are actually serving that purpose. If one image per episode is not the best way to present the information then perhaps you should reduce the number. Jay32183 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in this very debate (fair use in lists) many times: FUC#3 does not apply because each individual episode is individually copyrighted. This means the copyrights are not linked and you cannot aggregate the number of images used. The minimum is one per copyrighted work not article. If we can just start linking works together then I hereby bind everything to Romeo and Juliet and declare everything public domain. See, it doesn't work like that. Episode 101 of a TV show is no more bound or linked to episode 102 or The Brady Bunch. It just doesn't make sense! Cburnett 03:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Fair_use_images_in_lists&oldid=1137428324"