This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Usage of Non-free wikipedia logo not compliant with current EDP?
For some preceding discussion see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Q_.26_A
In this I and Remember the dot, concluded that due to the EDP (being this FU policy), and the wikipedia and wikicommons logo's not being freely licensed, the logo is currently not properly in use in en.wikipedia by for instance these templates: Template:Interwikitmp-grp, Template:Commons, Template:InterWiki, Template:Meta, Template:Wikibooks, and Template:Wikiversity
This is not fair use of the logo, because it's only used as a visual cue to a link, which can just as well be illustrated with words (our current FU policy). This CANNOT be the intention of the foundation's new EDP, ergo this situation needs fixing. What do YOU think? (being person of the year and all!!) P.S., The foundation stating "it would be fine to use this image in derivatives of this encyclopedia", does not make the logo free, and would therefore still make it violate our current FU policy. Ergo, this EDP needs to specifically decide on this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The ideal situation is in fact a GFDL/GPL/CC logo with them retaining the trademark, not copyright, but this image is not used in any article space content. Print the page, the logo isnt printed, neither are those templates you mention supposed to be distributed, their for internal use and guide for editing. Free images are encouraged in articles because the articles are meant to be distributed, and non-free disallowed in userspace because that breaks fair use. The image discussed at the pump is intended to be used in article space, and your arguments a non-sequiter. -Mask20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So we CAN use company logo's in userboxes, per our current FU policy ? I don't get it. An exemption of the foundation does not make an image exempt from our own en.wikipedia policy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No , company logos are not allowed. I don't see any contradiction here- and I do think that "the foundation won't sue itself" is a valid defense. Nevertheless, I think it would be a better idea for wikimedia to release the logos in some sort of free use license, or else remove those images from the templates. Borisblue20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A gray area indeed, but I suspect that this is less "Would Wikipedia sue itself" and more "can one violate their own copyright?". As long as the logos are being used for operational tasks of Wikimedia projects, and are not being used as article content or for needless tasks, then it's probably just seen as Wikipedia using it's own stuff, instead of someone else using it. That would be my guess. -- Ned Scott21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
<== tab reset
I would like to point out here that the WMF is explicitly using the logos as a fundraising revenue source, and their current "business model" is to keep these logos proprietary. Yes, you can license their use (and some have), but that is a commercial license and not the GFDL. I think it is a bit hypocritical here in a certain sense that here we are expecting other people to donate their images under terms compatable with the GFDL, but the WMF isn't willing to make the same sacrifice. But it does make sense in terms of trying to find some means of paying for the not too tiny server farm that runs the Wikimedia projects.
Basically, I wouldn't hold my breath trying to get the WMF to change their policy here without it being a huge consideration that is talked up on nearly every single mailing list, talk page, IRC channel, Planet Wikimedia, and more. Or perhaps for the next WMF elections you can run to take a spot on the board using this as a major platform issue. But it won't get changed right away.
For myself, I would give the same consideration to WMF logos as you would any other corporate logos. You shouldn't treat them any different... either in their permissiveness in terms of being used in user boxes or the use in articles. Suggesting that the WMF is not going to sue (while perhaps true), as a matter of policy should not be used as an excuse... at least until the WMF does change their policy.
I'll also note that while Jimbo does have some significant pull in terms of the affairs of the WMF, he is no longer the main person calling the shots. You would be far better off trying to get Anthere's (Florence) opinion instead, as she is the current chair. --Robert Horning21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia logos, when used in the interwiki links are not part of the encyclopaedia, but part of the site's navigation - in the same way the logo in the top left is. We just don't currently have a method for putting the outside the content area (like interwiki links are). This limitation in our software forces us to host the images on Commons. Using the image in userbox templates and elsewhere seems unnecessary. ed g2s • talk21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia is using it for operational tasks, 2) It's not article content. I suspect as long as those two points are met then there is no issue, there is no conflict. Maybe we need to have this actually written down to avoid confusion, but no copyright is being violated. I'm not sure if userboxes can be lumped into "operational tasks" or not, but as Ed pointed out, the navigational uses definitely are. -- Ned Scott21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think at the very least, it should be noted and described somewhere properly, and (at least a link to) it should be part of the EDP. What exactly IS allowed, and what is not. Because fact remains. It's not a free image. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two issues. 1) Whether using the logos is consistent with this Wikipedia's internal policies, and 2) Whether we have the permission of the copyright holder (i.e. the WMF) to use them in this way. Changing our policies would only go half way unless the WMF actually gets around to adopting a logo usage policy (which people have been asking about for some 2+ years). Frankly, if the WMF continues to avoid their responsibility towards these logos, I think the "Geni" solution may well be the only way to go and simply treat them as the same as any other unfree media and delete all non-fair use occurences. Dragons flight23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. As long as the foundation doesn't clearly define a policy on the usage of their logo, I see no reason why we should not uphold it to the same standards that non-free (free-use, non-free-edit) images are being treated with. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A little common sense can go a long way. Using the Commons logo in the template that points to Commons is obviously an acceptable use, as Ed pointed out, it's not article content, and only in the article code because of technical reasons. To just wipe them out is a reaction to copyright paranoia. No offense, but I can't help but feel this is somehow retaliation to the disabled ISA image discussion. "If we can't have the ISA image, we'll take the Wikimedia images". The Foundation and others are well aware of these kinds of usage, and likely have more important matters to attend to than give their OK on every little thing. It's like seeing that one chair you've been meaning to put WD-40 on so it stops squeaking, but out of all the things you have to do during the day that's the last thing you want to worry about. It's a situation of minor importance, partially because it's obvious why we are able to use such images in such a way, when it directly relates to the operation of Wikimedia projects. Common sense. -- Ned Scott00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Using the Commons logo in that way obviously ought to be an acceptable use, but as the WMF has persistently declined to give either general or specific permission for the logo to be used anywhere, right now there are no approved uses of the logo except for the ones that occur in the upper left hand corner of the interface. Saying that we should just keep doing what we have been doing unless they tell us to stop, is a point of view that would never be accepted with any other copyrighted work, and hence represents a double standard. For the record, I've been complaining about the unfree nature of Wikimedia logos since long before the ISA issue. They've had a draft logo and trademark policy for over 18 months without choosing to adopt or act on it. Common sense or not, I don't think we should indefinitely tolerate the WMF unwillingness to deal constructively with their own intellectual property. Dragons flight00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Or we could not be assholes and not have internal fights with the Foundation. We're all supposed to be working together, not holding things hostage because they didn't get around to one specific thing or another. It's pretty damn obvious we're allowed to use the logos in this way (userboxes, however, is probably a gray area, but not the nav templates), and just because they haven't spelled it out specifically doesn't mean we should go making a point. The Foundation has a lot of stuff to deal with, and they also have to be very careful with wording whenever they do make a change to Foundation policy, so lets cut them some freaking slack. Lets not be stupid here. -- Ned Scott00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not an empty issue. People copy Wikipedia content, including pages with nav boxes to Commons and the like. The lack of any usage guidelines puts those reusers at risk of lawsuit for violating the Foundation's copyright. Will they sue? I have no idea, but Anthere (the WMF director) has said categorically that the logos will never be licensed under the GFDL. Frankly, I worry that the Foundation's position is "We don't ever want to make these even the least bit free, but as long as we stall and ignore the issue we can avoid having to deal with the backlash of keeping them unfree". If we are committed to free content, then certainly we should keep unlicensed/non-fair use images out of the article space, and that includes nav boxes. Dragons flight 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. In this context, I'd actually be more tolerant of putting them in userboxes and on Wikipedia space pages. Dragons flight00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We have reuse policy and instructions that cover all of that, and it's not our fault if some reuser wishes to ignore those and just copy everything verbatim. I have no problem with the logos not being free-use. Logos are different than photos and drawings, and we wouldn't be gaining anything significant from having them under the GFDL. Photos and drawings are useful downstream, but logos.. not so much. Even if the images had GFDL, the Foundation still holds the trademarks on them, which means people wouldn't be able to really use them for whatever they wanted. Since they're not article content, and not really valuable outside of Wikimedia identification/ navigation.. what's the big deal? I'd rather they withheld the rights to those logos, because in this situation it helps Wikipedia more than it hurts to protect the images. That being said, just because they're protecting the images from a full GFDL doesn't mean we can't use them for Wikimedia operational tasks, such as cross-project navigation. -- Ned Scott01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Kindly point to the reuser instructions regarding stripping all Wikimedia logos? Personally, I'd much prefer that the project be such that when someone downloads a copy of the article space and associated files, templates, etc. that there is nothing they have to do or worry about aside from installing it. Having a sensible logo use policy could accomplish that. Alternative removing the logos from nav boxes and relying on text or free images (same as all other nave boxes) could also contribute to that. I'd much prefer the former, but after several years of waiting, I'm prepared to settle for the latter. Dragons flight01:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew about that, I was looking for the part that says: "Oh yeah, and don't use Wikimedia's logos because they aren't free." Dragons flight01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we reading the same page? It's saying that it's up to the reuser to verify the licensing status of images. The licensing sections of the image description pages clearly identify the Foundation images as not being free, which the reuser is told to check. -- Ned Scott02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The section is mostly "be careful about fair use", a little about "public domain may differ in your jurisdiction", and few other comments like "some images may be mislabelled". I don't see anything even addressing the fact that some content could be willfully unfree, and I don't think reusers of the "free content encyclopedia" would necessarily guess that such things exists. Besides which you seem to suggest that mirrors should check every tag on every image, which clearly is not going to happen in the vast majority of cases. Dragons flight02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Um.. fair use images are not free and are usually not labeled on the article side, which would require the reuser to check each image to see if it's free-use, fair use, or other. Ironically, the very argument you've made above is one of the arguments people make for eliminating all non-free images from Wikipedia. Like what's already been said, the nav templates are included because of technical limitation. From a legal standpoint we're not responsible if a re-user doesn't check the image description page, even if most of them don't do it. -- Ned Scott02:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Pages like Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and m:Logo, while not specific on the topic, do seem to encourage Wikis to use logos and even self-regulate elements about them. From m:Logo: "Don't change the logo on a project without a discussion with (at a minimum) the affected communities and the board." The fact that a discussion can be used to make modifications seems to indicate that we are allowed to manage the logos to some extent, provided they follow the Foundation's policies. Speculation on my part, but it does give one something to think about. -- Ned Scott00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Both our use of the copyrighted Wikimedia logos and the use of the ISA present similar restrictions to downstream users. In fact, use of the Wikimedia logos is even more unfree because it requires permission while the ISA does not. Just like the Wikimedia logos, the ISA has value because of its restrictions. The Wikimedia logos have value because they may only be used to identify specific Wikimedia projects. The ISA has value because it may only be used to indicate handicapped accessibility. The ISA is like the logo of handicapped accessibility.
Please, tell me what downstream users stand to lose if we include the ISA. Give me specific examples. It's not just about it the principle of free as in freedom content. If it's OK to use an image that requires permission on template, a userbox no less, then we ought to be able to use the ISA in articles and article templates. —Remember the dot(talk)02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
They're completely different, as the Wikimedia logos in said templates are not considered article content. Like I said before: 1) Wikipedia is using it for operational tasks, 2) It's not article content. -- Ned Scott02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So, to clarify, you're saying that use of the Wikimedia logos is not an issue to downstream users because downstream users are just going to throw that content away? And you agree that the Wikimedia foundation has a good reason for restricting the use of their logos? —Remember the dot(talk)03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not article content, and obviously they have a good reason to restrict their logos. Free use pictures and drawings and stuff have value, free use logos for specific websites and organizations do not have the same value. Trying to equivocate the two is absurd. Seriously, try learning a little bit about the topic before running your mouth off and wasting our time. -- Ned Scott03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So you agree with me that there are good reasons to keep some images unfree, and that making some images free does not add to their value. Now tell me why you think the ISA's license is unreasonable, why its value is diminished by being unfree. —Remember the dot(talk)04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the ISA not releasing their images under GFDL, since it's so easy to make an acceptable equivalent that is under the GFDL. The ISA also has good reason to restrict the use of their images. So.. No, I do not think that way. -- Ned Scott00:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The ISA's value is not diminished by its restrictions. In fact, its restrictions are what gives it its value as an international symbol for wheelchair access. You agree with me that these are reasonable restrictions. So, what problems are you trying to avoid by opposing the use of the symbol on Wikipedia? Please name me specific (hypothetical) instances where our use of the symbol would cause a problem. —Remember the dot(talk)15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you consider problems, but there's no point in using an image that has copyright restrictions when we can easily create something of equal value that is completely free. That's the entire point of Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-fair use like a lot of editors are, but this is not a situation were we need to use a copyrighted image. You guys come in here and make ridiculous claims with nothing at all to back them up, like it being... offensive? WTF? Or that the icon would be better than plain text (If you can't speak English then how the hell are you navigating to articles and even knowing what they are about in the first place?).. The request is absurd, but people's judgement are clouded because they think it's some kind of moral issue. Your hearts are in the right place, but you guys haven't got a clue about these kinds of things. You don't have a good reason to change WP:FU in the first place. -- Ned Scott19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the ISA, being an internationally recognized symbol, is superior to any free alternative. So why should we use an inferior symbol (or text) when there is no harm done in using the superior symbol? Please don't give me a generic "why we use free content" lecture. I want to know what harm this specific image would cause. —Remember the dot(talk)20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But it's not superior.. especially not to text, when a good amount of people might not understand what the icon alone means. You can't just declare this without anything to back yourself up, you've been doing that the whole time. You'll have to do better than "better 'cause I said so". Nothing significant will be gained by using the ISA images (unless you'd like to prove otherwise?). The generic "why we use free content" is more than enough reason to not use the ISA image needlessly, so please stop undermining our core values on Wikipedia. Why don't you take a moment and think about if you are actually helping anything, or just trying argue. You've failed to show how using the icons over text or an alternative image is insufficient, and you continue to make illogical arguments. Undermining our policy is harmful, making bullshit loop holes because people think "it's the right thing to do" is misguided and ignorant, rejecting a perfectly good free image because it's not blue and exactly like another image is downright insane. You're intentions are misguided, and now you're fueled by the desire to debate instead of actually considering the words of your fellow Wikipedians. -- Ned Scott21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(Indent resets)
please stop undermining our core values on Wikipedia -- Is one of those "core values" the creation of new, non-standand, non-international symbols to replace existing standardized international symbols? Because, my understanding is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a libre utopian social movement. An encyclopedia describes the world, it doesn't create it; you don't see the folks at Britannica introducing new symbols to the world. It's this libre proselytizing that I find so off-putting. I think it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to describe the world, but can we try to avoid changing it to conform with a decidedly non-mainstream copyright philosophy? It's simply contrary to Wikipedia's primary mission -- Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, not a social movement. And rejecting a perfectly good free image because it's not blue and exactly like another image is downright insane is nothing of the sort. Asking the Wikipedia community to accept a non-standard, non-International symbol for disabled access makes as much sense as me trying to get my own stop sign design to become the new international standard. Jenolenspeak it!00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There's one of those straw-man arguments again. Whenever we are discussing the encyclopedic topic of handicapped access, then we can use the image. Using it to note handicapped access, but not discussing the topic, is different. Using an alternative symbol is not changing the world, and I've pointed out already that many people, companies, and organizations, have used alternative icons (for whatever reason) without any incident. The idea that only one symbol may represent something is completely absurd. This has nothing to do with making a social movement, why would you try to make that argument? Don't act stupid and pretend you don't understand what I'm talking about. Lets both agree to not twist each other's words when we know darn well what we actually mean.
Again, all of this could be avoided by simply using text, which is better than any icons, as it literally explains what is being noted (I have met people who misunderstood the ISA image's meaning). Using icons is simply a stylistic thing, and the fact that it's internationally recognized isn't a concern for the English language Wikipedia (If you can't read the English text that notes the handicapped access, then how do you expect that same reader to even know which train station/ Disneyland article they are at or where those things are located?) If you want to use an icon, make a different icon, there's no harm in using a different one, but using text would solve all these problems and more. The option you don't have is to use the ISA image.
If Wikipedia used mostly visuals over text, like a map or a physical sign, that would be different. It would make sense in that case to use an icon over text. But Wikipedia is primarily a text based site, so people are not likely to even be able to navigate it without knowing the language that Wikipedia is using. The methods for marking handicapped access on a map or restroom do not have the same requirements on Wikipedia.
I must apologies for my argumentative tone in these discussions. I get the feeling that because of my own confrontational behavior I have clouded my own words. Please, forgive this fault of mine and consider my words. -- Ned Scott01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Symbols work better than text on Template:Infobox Disney ride. That's why there's a row of symbols at the bottom of that template. Hovering over one of these images gives a text description in case the reader didn't understand it. The ISA is what people are going to see when they go to Disneyland, to a handicapped accessible metro station, etc. It makes perfect sense to want to keep the encyclopedia as true to reality as possible.
We are trying to use free content whenever free content of equal or superior quality is available or could be created. I'm not trying to undermine Wikipedia's core values. It's just that no free alternatives are or could be of equal quality to the ISA, because the ISA is an internationally recognized symbol. Not all English-speaking Wikipedians live in the United States, but everybody can recognize the ISA regardless of their nationality. It's not that we're trying to cater to non-English-speakers; we're not.
As far as not having anything to back up my claim that the ISA is superior, I would refer you to the poll where 21 other users supported permitting the ISA. Based on this, I would say that many users would rather use of the ISA than a non-standard symbol or plain text.
Incidentally, the reason why we don't use the real FastPass logo on that template is because it's All Rights Reserved and we want to minimize the danger of getting sued. I don't think Disney has a "single rider available" logo or symbol, so was probably created so that we would have something that fit into the template nicely.
That poll, which several opposers decided not to participate in (myself included), does not tell us anything more than what that poll was set up to do. That is not evidence to show that the ISA image is more recognizable to disabled people, or that there would be any significant confusion, or any of those things. A good number of the people in that poll thought that not using the ISA image would be offensive... just showing how uninformed and detached said users are from the real situation.
I've made a lot of templates and infoboxes and nav boxes, and there's no reason we can't make text work in the Disney template (we can even make it look good). We've got an image that has copyright restrictions, people want an exception and change to WP:FU without knowing if there even is a real need for the change, without exploring other options, without evidence, without even consulting a single disabled person (we have a whole cat of them for Wikipedians, I pointed it out before). And all you have to say is "what harm?". No one will die from such use, no puppies will go hungry, so don't play the "harm" card. I've seen people ask "what harm" on AfDs for articles on fictional dogs that poop rainbows. The attitude alone being taken by some Wikipedians tells us we shouldn't be making an exception to this. You guys haven't even tried other alternatives except for a single alternative icon. -- Ned Scott05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a number of issues that keep coming up, but "what harm" seems to be the question that can't be answered. Probably because it does no harm, while helping disabled people. I can give you reasons why articles on puppies who poop rainbows (actually, that sounds notable) harm WP. Where's the reasoning on why doing all that we can to mark disabled access as such is harmful? - Peregrine Fisher06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
But we don't have to use the ISA image to mark disabled access. Using the ISA image conflicts with WP:FU, and would require alteration. My above response was trying to point out that no one has been able to prove an actual need for the alteration, besides speculation. Do you honestly not see the harm in opening up WP:FU to alteration without good cause? Speculation and good intentions doesn't cut it. You guys don't know what you're talking about, you're not actually helping disabled people, and no one even seems willing to find out if their concerns hold any water. Read what I just said right above your comment: people want an exception and change to WP:FU without knowing if there even is a real need for the change, without exploring other options, without evidence, without even consulting a single disabled person.
I am not closed to the idea, and in all reality no one gives a fuck, but if we make exceptions because people are lazy then that will be harmful, because people will want more exceptions with only mer speculations. That, more than anything, has pissed me off in all of this. You guys don't know what you're talking about, and you're not even trying to know what you're talking about. -- Ned Scott07:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
PF, I normally respect you, but what the fuck? I just told you, don't play stupid. If this is all you can say to the concerns I brought up then it's pretty clear why the ISA image will not prompt any change in WP:FU. -- Ned Scott06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I was a bit on edge. If I haven't been clear already, then hopefully my response below will show you what I'm talking about. -- Ned Scott06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is why we ought to be able to use the ISA:
Being an internationally recognized symbol, it is superior to any alternative.
This is the symbol that people are going to see in the real world.
Opponents of this change have failed to come up with an alternative of equal or greater quality. The symbol has been proposed, and the text "Wheelchair accessible". However, neither of these options, nor any free replacement, could be of equal or greater quality to the ISA because any free replacement would not be a widely accepted international symbol.
We do not need to be concerned about the image being less accessible to blind people than text because we specify alternate text for those who can't see the image. For the ordinary user, the image would be better.
Using the ISA would not undermine our goal or creating free content or cause harm to downstream users.
The ISA is practically free as in freedom, with only a few reasonable restrictions. These restrictions protect the ISA's value as a universal symbol for handicapped accessibility. Commercial and noncommercial use are permitted. Derivative works also appear to be tolerated, so long as the derivatives are also used for illustrating handicapped access: [1][2][3][4][5]
If you disagree with my reasoning, please prove me wrong. Make a symbol of equal quality to the ISA, or tell me what downstream users would lose if we included the ISA. —Remember the dot(talk)22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You've failed to show a need for this image. No where does it say that the alternative has to be the best possible option, but only that it is at an acceptable level. You seem to make the absurd statement that text is not equal.. without any proof, and with common sense and real world usage saying you're wrong. If this is being used for encyclopedic information then it needs to be more than just an icon. For one, handicapped access (and the ISA image) is used for more than wheelchair access. So you slap the label on some train-station, but don't explain what handicapped accommodations there are? Or how about citing a source for such information?
"Opponents of this change have failed to come up with an alternative of equal or greater quality". You don't seem to understand how this works, the ball is in your court, it is up to you to convince us that this change is necessary. I'm trying to assume good faith, but more and more it just seems like you guys are being lazy about this whole thing. Again, have you even asked a single disabled person about this issue? Is any of this any more than your unfounded speculations?
There is no issue of confusion. Tons of information in life is represented by multiple means, and it's absurd to think that only one is acceptable. As it is now, there will be no change, and you will not be able to use the ISA image. -- Ned Scott06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear on something, the "harm" does not come from using the ISA image directly. We all know there is no harm in just that. My concern is with the rationale in this situation, and the required changes it would make for WP:FU (or is that WP:NFC now..). If we can change NFC with this kind of speculation.. then yeah, that will be harmful. The need isn't there for many reasons, but if it were then I would not have a problem with using the ISA image and making a change to NFC. And yes, I honestly do think that in most of the situations we can use text as a better, more informative, option, regardless of the copyright status of the image. -- Ned Scott06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I and many others believe that the worth added to the encyclopedia by using the ISA outweighs the concerns. We are not trying to create a text-only encyclopedia. If there's any confusion about what the image signifies, hover your mouse over it and you will see text such as "This attraction is wheelchair accessible."
Right now, I'm not talking about making a general change to our EDP. I'm talking about making a specific exception. In this specific instance, after over 100 kilobytes of fierce discussion, even you agree that there would be no harm by using the ISA.
In the case of other images, we are typically going to face more restrictive licensing issues that my arguments would not apply for. For example, an extremely good photograph that is free to use but not to modify could be replaced by a free version and so we should not use it. For All Rights Reserved images, we would face legal concerns if we wanted to use them in a template. Of course we should use free content as much as possible, but we shouldn't take that to an extreme. We prefer free content, but in this case the image improves the encyclopedia and no free equivilent could be created. It's not like a photograph, where someone could just go out, make a high-quality professional picture of something and release it under a free license. We can't just create another internationally recognized symbol so easily. —Remember the dot(talk)17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"I and many others believe that the worth added to the encyclopedia by using the ISA outweighs the concerns." this is what you haven't shown. What worth is it adding? Is that worth not just better, but necessary. Are you saying that the concern, that you guys have made very little effort to back up your claims, is outweighed by good-intent? What about the concern that the image isn't descriptive, and tells the reader less by not telling them what handicapped services are being discussed (even if the image was free, that concern alone would justify using more than an icon)? I don't think Wikipedia would be "harmed" (sued), or anything like that, but that is clearly not the only factor in our image policy. Our policy is specifically more strict than the law requires, in favor of our free content goals.
If comes down to this, we don't need to make an internationally recognized symbol. MOST things we note in Wikipedia we note with a title or some form of text. The reasons an ISA image is good need not apply to our use. We are not a map, a restroom, or a bus. People who are here can read English, if they can't then we can make the appropriate language fork of that article. The image does not improve Wikipedia for those reasons. If I put a big red racing stripe on the side of the Wikipedia servers, thinking it would make them go faster, and that it wouldn't "harm" anything, that does not mean it actually helped anything. Just because it helps in some situations does not mean it helps in all situations. -- Ned Scott20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you can hover your mouse over the image to see the text description "This attraction is wheelchair accessible." We are not a text-only encyclopedia and we use images where they are helpful to illustrate concepts. Perhaps it would be more clear if we placed the image off to the left, and had the full text description on the right.
Also, you are once again confusing "international" with "multilingual". We are not catering to non-English speakers. English speakers across the world can recognize the ISA.
Finally, the definition of "necessary" is subjective. Do we really need to use a copyrighted logo on Template:Commons? Doesn't it present an additional hassle to downstream users who have to strip that logo out? I think it's safe to say that the majority of users appreciate having that image there, so they can instantly identify what the link is for. The same thing goes for the ISA. —Remember the dot(talk)20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You said "...we use images where they are helpful to illustrate concepts...", I'm afraid that's inaccurate. We use free images where they are helpful to illustrate concepts, and we use unfree images when it's strictly necessary. Remember_the_dot, you won't get to use an unfree image by asking the reasons why we shouldn't use it. We need for strong reasons for using unfree material, and not for not using it. I understand the reasons you say this image would improve the articles, but I don't think they are unough to justify the use of an unfree image (let alone to justify a policy change). --Abu badali(talk)01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"English speakers across the world" can identify text just as much as the icon, if not more so. And no, we don't need a copyrighted logo in Template:Commons, but we're not stupid and we know that kind of use is allowed for the operation of Wikipedia and the template is not considered article content. But if it really were an issue, and they had to remove the logo from the template, I wouldn't care. I would think it would be stupid, but whatever. Common sense will take you a long way.
And I'd like to point out that many of the supporters of the ISA image don't think that the image is needed in templates for Disneyland rides, but rather for articles about train-stations and places that provide such services (you could still have it in a Disneyland article, but infobox inclusion is hardly important).
The ISA image is but one of many possible ways to say "handicapped accessible". The idea that nothing else can fulfill such a role (or even in that being "better" is significant) is absurd. -- Ned Scott01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Now you are being absurd Ned :D Basically you just said there's no reason for airports to use logo's in their terminals, they can just as easily use text. You cannot seriously state that text is better at communicating information then some well defined logo's. That's just not true. countless studies in "effective communication" have shown this. They have also shown btw. that logo's are "overused" in some cases, but that's besides the point, since we are talking about the best recognized of all these logo's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
DJ, WTF? Why would an airport have GFDL policy? If we didn't have a GFDL policy then OF COURSE we would use the image. And yes, I can make the argument that text can be better, because we're not labeling a bathroom, we're talking about a subject. We can elaborate and say what exactly the handicapped accommodation is. The two situations are not the same. -- Ned Scott21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, when I say "better" I mean that it would be better than the image alone. Whatever image we end up using, I would hope we would have both text and icon when appropriate. -- Ned Scott21:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Ned and Abu, since you asked for it - here is, once again, the case FOR using the ISA - which, it should be pointed out, developed what I would describe as an overwhelming consensus of support -- 26 straw poll votes in favor to one against - at the Village Pump.
Reasons to Use the ISA on Wikipedia:
Using it to designate handicapped accessible objects does not violate its copyright.
The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility.[6] The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. It's copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it.
Its meaning is clear precisely because of its licensing terms.
Stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offense.
It is non-replaceable, except by Image:Wheelchair.svg or words such as "wheelchair accessible." These are not internationally recognized symbols.
You can profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.
It is universally recognized by design and common usage over many years.
Its use would be disability friendly.
The Wikimedia foundation does sometimes allow exceptions with an EDP, which currently is WP:FU. FU doesn't speak to this issue.
It would not be used in userspace.
It is easily recognized by non-english speakers.
Using Image:Wheelchair.svg may not be legal, as it may be a derivative work of the ISA.
It is unlikely to be made free because its copyright restriction prohibits its use to designate objects that are not handicapped accessible. Making it free would remove this restriction. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol.
Ned - your plea above for "common sense" has been heard! Of COURSE Wikipedia should use the ISA to indicate facilities that are accessable to the disabled. I'm glad you're finally coming around on this very simple, very silly issue. Jenolenspeak it!11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you even understand the discussion? Points 1-3 don't even apply to the discussion, as the concern is, and never has been, about what the US considers legal. "Stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offense." Already debunked this one, offensiveness is not an issue, AT ALL. We do not require an internationally recognized symbol to express handicapped access, and you've failed to show otherwise. It's not "disability friendly", and it's ignorant of you to come to such unfounded conclusions (do you even know any disabled people?). Non-English speakers are not a concern in this discussion, at all. So other than your unfounded and absurd speculations, you have nothing that even comes close to showing a need for the ISA image.
I think it's unusual that your argument for using the image indicates that the image is unfree and can be replaced by the words "wheelchair accessible". That means the argument to use the image is that it fails the first criterion for using non-free content. Proving yourself wrong by your own argument isn't a good way to advance your position. Jay3218321:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In case that wasn't entirely clear, that was not MY case for using the ISA; that was the community's case, made at the Village Pump. As for Ned's continued middle finger waving at 26 of his fellow editors who, for a variety of reasons, felt the image was okay to use on Wikipedia, I can only ask that perhaps Ned's anger and "that poll doesn't count for shit"-iness could perhaps be moderated slightly in light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors would prefer to use the ISA where it is called for... and it's not even close. I mean, Ned, seriously -- just because YOU don't agree with the results of an informal straw poll is certainly no reason to act disrespectfully toward the 26 editors who supported using the ISA? (I know the one person who was against it could have used your support...) If this is not indicative of a clear community consensus in favor of modifying the EDP to include this international symbol, then we should just go ahead and junk the idea that "consensus rules!" on Wikipedia, because clearly, the community thinks it's Wikipedia's policies which need a minor tweak.
As for the "need" to use the ISA, try this -- every place you go today, every parking lot you visit, every ramp at every restaurant, every door on every room at a government building, etc. -- I want you to imagine, in your mind, replacing that simple, classic, easily-understood logo that you'll see dozens of times with the English language text "DISABLED ACCESS." For one day, just do it -- count the number of times you see the ISA, and image a big chunk of text there, instead. IN THE REAL WORLD, we've all agreed that the ISA is BETTER suited for this job - the job of indicated disabled access - than text. And, not coincidentally, the ISA is better suited to do it as an image on Wikipedia, with alternate text indicating its meaning - regardless of your distinctly minority interpretation and perhaps overly vigorous defense of libre principles. Jenolenspeak it!01:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the key to the discussion that makes everything else meaningless. "Is the image free?" is the first question. The answer is no, there are restrictions on the use of the logo, that is it can only be used without permission if indicating that something is handicapped accessible. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that is not a free license. Now we have a series of questions to ask ourselves before using non-free content. Question #1: Is there a free method that serves the same purpose as using the non-free content? Yes there is. The words "wheelchair accessible" give the exact same information to the readers of Wikipedia that the image would. The answers to the rest of the questions are moot, because we already know the image cannot be used on Wikipedia. Your opinion on the matter does not matter, nor do the opinions of those at the village pump. The image objectively fails the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia in this particular use. Therefore the image cannot be used in this method. Jay3218301:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, the "REAL WORLD" is a different situation than an online encyclopedia. This is a major point you continue to not understand. The considerations you make for signs and maps and other such things is not always going to be the same considerations needed for something like Wikipedia. Also, "better" is not always going to give significant results. A computer with a 500 GB hard drive is better than a computer with a 400 GB hard drive, but if you only need to download a 10 GB file then you won't be gaining anything in getting the 500 GB model. Much the same can be said about this situation.
Do not make the absurd accusation that I am rejecting the views of 26 editors. I look at ALL the comments about this situation, not just those sectioned off in a poll. That is why the poll counts for shit, because the poll isn't counting everyone. Even if I disagree with their logic, I still consider their point of view and their arguments. It's not a vote, one does not have to participate in it to show support for something. A poll does not replace discussion, and it never will. Also, we are not a democracy. Regardless of numbers, you continue to fail at showing an actual need for this image, or even that it helps anyone, disabled or not.
You're blindly charging in, not even knowing what you are really fighting for. My issue is less with the image and more with how willy-nilly and seemingly lazy people are being about this issue. To think that WP:FU could be changed by speculation, without rational logic or having someone with at least some insight into the situation, is batshit insane. No one even seems willing to make the effort. You want to make a change to WP:FU based on speculation to make an insignificant improvement, that is what I take issue with. -- Ned Scott02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, the "REAL WORLD" is a different situation than an online encyclopedia -- Except for the part where the online encyclopedia is supposed to describe and analyze the real world, I'm totally with you here. Also, "better" is not always going to give significant results. This is not an English-language sentence I understand. A computer with a 500 GB hard drive is better than a computer with a 400 GB hard drive, but if you only need to download a 10 GB file then you won't be gaining anything in getting the 500 GB model. Uh, math was never my strongest subject, but even assuming I accept the logically questionable premise that a 500 GB computer is "better" than a 400 GB one (I would suggest that logically, we can only say that a 500 GB computer has 100 more GB available than a 400 GB one...), you see no utility in the fact that after downloading your hypothetical 10 GB file, you have 490 GB remaining on the "better" computer, versus 390 GB on the other? And if 500 is "better" than 400, then 490 sure as heck is better than 390...
This is getting so far off track, though, I think it's entirely appropriate to bring it all down to a nutshell summary. I believe, wholeheartedly, that the copyright restrictions, such as they are, that have been placed on the International Symbol of Access are so minute, and so meaningless, that we should have no concerns - legally, morally, or otherwise - about incorporating appropriate useage of the symbol to our current policy. I believe this view is shared by the vast majority of Wikipedia editors and administrators. And I further believe there are no good reasons for standing in the way of using this symbol appropriately (to indicate disabled access), and plenty of bad reasons for insisting that Wikipedia use a non-standard, non-International symbol in its place. And I would further suggest that continuing to insist that Wikipedia not use the standardized, International symbol for disabled access actually could be perceived as an act that is inherently hostile toward the disabled community.
As for Jay's simple "test," I would only suggest that he should perhaps be a bit more willing to entertain the idea that Wikipedia policies and standards are, of course, subject to modification - and that's what we're talking about here, modifying the arcane and complex rules of Wikipedia to permit a common-sense and broadly supported useage of a standardized International symbol. Note: The world will not end if we use the ISA to indicate disabled accessability, and while that is not a convincing argument in favor of its inclusion, one would hope that instead of using simplistic "yes/no" tests, a modicum of critical thinking could be brought to bear on what should be a fairly simple issue.
I'm fascinated - fascinated, I tell you - by the reaction of some in this community to quote rules, regulations, and libre philosophy, as though it's a GOOD thing that Wikipedia could end up using a non-standard, non-International symbol in a case like this. It's an attitude that's worn almost like a badge of honor --- "Yeah, that stupid ISA is under copyright, and we're better than that, so who needs it?" I simply fail to understand why editors wouldn't be trying to do whatever they can to help make Wikipedia more relevant, more accurate, and more germane to ... uh-oh, here's that phrase again... the real world. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But what's the motivation here? Is it really a sense that you're serving a greater good? That in order for the libre ideal to remain untainted, the ISA, due to the copyright buried in its DNA, must go? Or is it something else? I mean, copyrighted material is allowed on the English language Wikipedia, so why must the line be drawn here, on a really quite harmless standardized symbol? This'll make an interesting paper some day... hopefully, not as part of an article where a disabled advocacy group is ripping Wikipedia a new one for its failure to conform to international standards, but hey, that wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia risked public condemnation for taking an unpopular stand. Or would it? Jenolenspeak it!08:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen; you equally need to understand that this is a high risk change to wikipedia, and that we our under FOUNDATION decree upon the EDP form. We cannot change the EDP, we can only change our Fair Use policy. Now I personally feel that this is a fine and proper fair use of the image (and that a court would agree based on the fact that the image is licensed as free for use), it's just that atm our Fair use policy doesn't allow usage so widely troughout the encyclopedia for a single thing. I think this case shows why in some cases our fair use policy is too narrow and that it needs to change. Ned clearly is scared that it will result in all kinds of images getting "special treatment", which is a fair concern. Both of you cannot get your way and that seems to stir up some emotion. However that will only result in this discussion going on endlessly. I suggest we take a different approach. Because no one who actually really matters still seems to read the Village Pump (judging from the WP:ATT fiasco), I vote we draft a mail to the en.wikipedia mailinglist and see what this results in. The sides are following as far as I can see:
ISA image should be allowed
irreplaceable image ( licensed under a "derivatives are not allowed" license)
supporters question the health and scope of the non-free content policy if this image is not usable in wikipedia. (some even the change of Free Encyclopedia to Free-content Encyclopedia.)
no ISA image
replaceable image
replacable with text
not Free
Questions needing answers
as an encyclopedia should we want to use this image ?
is it better at communicating information about "disability access" on disney rides and metrostations ?
do the EDP decree and the Fair Use policy block this usage
is this a wanted effect of the EDP decree, do we let the "banning of bad uploads" prevent the usage of internationally recognized, standardized and used icons ?
do we have other cases of internationally recognized standards in wikipedia with similiar problems ?
I listed reasons to use the ISA above...perhaps you could incorporate part of that list into yours. We could use a page in someone's userspace to work out a list of arguments for and arguments against. —Remember the dot(talk)15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, my computer example was to point out that having an extra 100 GB won't matter if you don't need it. The "improvement" makes no difference in the task of downloading the 10 GB file. Let me put it another way, lets say you have to pull a box that weighs 5lbs and you have two ropes, one that is rated to hold 10lbs and one that is rated to hold 20lbs. Neither is "better" for the situation because they both suffice.
"And I would further suggest that continuing to insist that Wikipedia not use the standardized, International symbol for disabled access actually could be perceived as an act that is inherently hostile toward the disabled community." I'm sorry, but thinking that way is plain ignorant. You haven't a clue about this, and I would be shocked to find a disabled person who thinks that way (I've lived with one all my life, by the way).
Again, I repeat from my last message: "You're blindly charging in, not even knowing what you are really fighting for. My issue is less with the image and more with how willy-nilly and seemingly lazy people are being about this issue. To think that WP:FU could be changed by speculation, without rational logic or having someone with at least some insight into the situation, is batshit insane. No one even seems willing to make the effort. You want to make a change to WP:FU based on speculation to make an insignificant improvement, that is what I take issue with."
I take issue with the fact that you seem to have decided that an "insignificant improvement" is not worthy for considering our policies. You might see it as insignificant to the encyclopedia as a whole, but I think a lot of potential users would disagree. Also, what he and I dispute is that both ropes are of the same quality. In your opinion text may suffice, as an encyclopedia text may suffice, but i still think that the logo is the better communicative form, and a google scholar search seems to agree with me that visual communication can be far more effective then textual communication. This is not a picture of a living person, it's a logo that has about as much communicative value as the glyph a, and that makes it worthy of taking another look at our policy. The fact that "no one seems willing to make an effort" is not true, at least 4 out of the 20 people who said they support inclusion of this image in the encyclopedia are making an actual effort to discuss the case, for wikipedia terms, I find that a hell of a lot. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Making an effort in a discussion, where people are simply repeating themselves, doesn't advance a position. It's still all speculation, and nothing more than that has been presented. Give more than speculation and you might have something. -- Ned Scott01:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
←Sorry, I don't read the village pump, but I don't honestly understand what the issue is. Of course we shouldn't use a non-free image in an infobox. We don't use non-free images in non-article namespace. This is a long-time very standard consensus policy. Are people saying we should make a special exception just for a handicap sign in some random disney infobox? I see people have scoffed at explanations related to stating that this is a free content encyclopedia, but maybe it bears repeating. People don't need to make a case against using non-free content, people have to make a case for using it. And sure, this image would be fair use in International Symbol of Access, but it's not fair use randomly when it's not actually even the subject of discussion. A poll at the village pump really doesn't undermine the Foundation resolution, or longstanding policy. - cohesion01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use is not an issue because the image's license allows us to use the image on a template. The foundation's resolution leaves the decision up to us. The non-free content policy was not written with cases like this in mind. And I have made a case for using it:
Why we ought to use the ISA
Being an internationally recognized symbol, it is superior to any alternative.
This is the symbol that people are going to see in the real world.
No free replacement, such as or the text "Wheelchair accessible", could be of equal or greater quality to the ISA because any free replacement would not be a widely accepted international symbol.
We do not need to be concerned about the image being less accessible to blind people than text because we can either specify alternate text or put text below the image or off to the side for those who can't see the image. For the ordinary user, the image would be better.
Using the ISA would not undermine our goal or creating free content or cause harm to downstream users.
The ISA is practically free as in freedom, with only a few reasonable restrictions. These restrictions protect the ISA's value as a universal symbol for handicapped accessibility. Commercial and noncommercial use are permitted. Derivative works also appear to be tolerated, so long as the derivatives are also used for illustrating handicapped access: [12][13][14][15][16]
"Being an internationally recognized symbol, it is superior to any alternative." Blanket statements like that don't actually work. As a visual aid in the real world this can be true for some situations. Visual icons are great, and are really helpful when you are looking for something in the real world (which has lots of surface area to look at, lots of other signs and things). Looking at a computer screen or a printed Wikipedia article is different, and the value the icon brings is not as great. Would you actually like to explain why being recognized by the ISA is any different from being easily recognized in many nations? You seem to make the argument that only this image can do the job, which couldn't be more wrong. I bet more people use the play arrow in their CD or MP3 players than disabled people that use the rest room, but that doesn't make that arrow a requirement for noting a play button (I've often seen buttons that only say play and have no icon, no confusion there). Now if a play button were a "place" that you had to look for while going down a street, the value might increase for the icon.
Another thing, the ISA image is non-free content. No matter what happens, if we use the image or not, it will always be non-free content. You can even make an image and tell everyone that they can all use the image, and even tell Wikipedia that they specifically can use the image, but if it's not under a free-content license it will be deleted. If you upload an image with a Wikipedia-only tag on it, that image can be speedy deleted. That's how strict they are about trying to use free-content. -- Ned Scott06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a somewhat different issue related to the logos. Currently, there are a large number of wikipedia screenshots with the logos shown. There is a specific template for these Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. These screenshots are uploaded for a variety of reasons. One of them us to show problems contributos have encountered, or simply to show previous versions of the Main Page and the like or sometimes for no real reason at all. Some of these are therefore vital to editors, others much less so. Since these are obviously not free content due the to presence of the logos, how should we handle them? Should we require fair use rationale? Should we just continue the way we are now in allowing any image even if said images don't really serve much purpose? (After all, even the commons seems to allow such images) Should we require fair use rationale or some other 'needed for wikipedia' rationale (so that we don't stop images which are needed to show bugs etc). Someone tried to get discussion on this once, but nothing happened. Should we try again? Nil Einne11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Going thru Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia, there are a number of mistagged images that need to be cleaned up. Also, I noticed contributors sometimes use wikipedia to show off webbrowers e.g. Image:Epiphanywebbrowser.png or even monitors Image:DSCN0585.JPG. While this might sound nice in theory, I question whether it is a good idea in practice as it effectively complicates the copyright situation of the images more then is necessary. Especially if for example, it's a screenshot of free software, then surely this isn't wise? Nil Einne11:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the Foundation is waiting for a replacement for Brad Patrick before setting more logo guidelines, but I would like to see them allow use for all operational tasks of Wikipedia. Kind of like a reverse fair use, where you couldn't use them in article content (unless under fair use), but you could use them for how-to's, bug discussions, even labeling different things. That's what we do now, but right now it's just assumed and not actually stated. -- Ned Scott05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Assorted comments on why this is a bad idea
Of course we shouldn't use a non-free image in an infobox. We don't use non-free images in non-article namespace. This is a long-time very standard consensus policy. Are people saying we should make a special exception just for a handicap sign in some random disney infobox? I see people have scoffed at explanations related to stating that this is a free content encyclopedia, but maybe it bears repeating. People don't need to make a case against using non-free content, people have to make a case for using it. And sure, this image would be fair use in International Symbol of Access, but it's not fair use randomly when it's not actually even the subject of discussion. A poll at the village pump really doesn't undermine the Foundation resolution, or longstanding policy. - cohesion 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe rather firmly that the problem is the ICTA, not Wikipedia. If they wish to encourage us to use the symbol, they have the choice of licensing it using one of the free licenses we accept. They retain copyright of the ISA to retain control, a strategy that is fundamentally at odds with the core values of our project. I don't believe that I could judge a poll fairly given my views. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify something: we do not use non-free licenses ... EVER. This is Foundation-level policy. They are simply forbidden, completely. No matter how reasonable you think they are. Any argument that goes along the lines of, "but the license say we can use it for ..." should be completely ignored. It is an unfree license (per the Foundation's definition) and as such of no interest to us whatsoever.
All that is left to consider is whether it is covered by our EDP. For "identifying the protected work" on the ISA page it is. As a replacement for the free and adequate text (WP:FUC#1), "disabled access available" or a footnote, it isn't. ed g2s • talk 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
‘In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not the [artist]’s purpose’[11]; ‘Especially, [the licence] must not specify any usage restrictions’[12]; ‘All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License,’ ‘as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition’[13]. And that’s why we don’t use ‘usable free of charge for limited purposes’ material. —xyzzyn 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the key to the discussion that makes everything else meaningless. "Is the image free?" is the first question. The answer is no, there are restrictions on the use of the logo, that is it can only be used without permission if indicating that something is handicapped accessible. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that is not a free license. Now we have a series of questions to ask ourselves before using non-free content. Question #1: Is there a free method that serves the same purpose as using the non-free content? Yes there is. The words "wheelchair accessible" give the exact same information to the readers of Wikipedia that the image would. The answers to the rest of the questions are moot, because we already know the image cannot be used on Wikipedia. Your opinion on the matter does not matter, nor do the opinions of those at the village pump. The image objectively fails the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia in this particular use. Therefore the image cannot be used in this method. Jay32183 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You said "...we use images where they are helpful to illustrate concepts...", I'm afraid that's inaccurate. We use free images where they are helpful to illustrate concepts, and we use unfree images when it's strictly necessary. Remember_the_dot, you won't get to use an unfree image by asking the reasons why we shouldn't use it. We need for strong reasons for using unfree material, and not for not using it. I understand the reasons you say this image would improve the articles, but I don't think they are unough to justify the use of an unfree image (let alone to justify a policy change). --Abu badali (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am one of these vocal users, who opposed the creation of any such exception then and oppose it now. This is replaceable fair use, plainly put. Free alternatives, such as text ("wheelchair accessible") or user-created graphics, such as that created by NE2, are available. While the icon's fair use is and should be allowed in the article which is specifically about it, use anywhere else while free alternatives are available is a decorative and replaceable purpose. We've never allowed copyrighted and non-free licensed images to be used in such situations, and we shouldn't start now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While those who wish to use the image don't see any "harm" in using the image, and have their hearts in the right place, the change it would require is needless. The absurd claim has been brought forth that only the ISA can do "the job" because it is internationally recognized, regardless of the fact that we don't require something internationally recognized, we only require text. Icons are nice, but are not even close to being required. There is no need for using only the ISA image, and those supporting its use (in things like infoboxes for Disneyland rides) have failed to show a real need and have only come up with blind speculation. A large change is being asked for a very minor convenience factor.
Wikipedia doesn't even allow Wikipedia-only licenses, why would we allow something like this? This isn't about what is legally open to us, or what the copyright holder allows, the simple matter is the image is under a non-free license.
I've lived with a disabled person my entire life, and I find the attitude and logic behind the pro-ISA image to be well intended, but ignorant. Originally some of them even suggested that not using the ISA image would even be offensive. Just because people think it's for a good cause should not make this situation any different from others we face. This is a misguided effort based on speculation and nothing more.
I'd like to ask the arbitration comity to reject this case, or in the very least make it clear that such a change is inappropriate for this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I should also note there is even a unicode character for the ISA image, "♿" (normally requires an additional font, such as the free DejaVu fonts). Yet another alternative that makes a policy change needless. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's be honest here. All of this resistance to the symbol's use is driven by Mr. Wales' back-room deals, which involves generating income by selling Wikipedia's content to be used by (commercial) third parties without their having to worry about their "downstream" use of WP images, is that correct? Most editors don't know about this but I assume the editors in favor of exclusion know about it all too well. Well, I for one cannot be bothered to worry about such corporate re-users; I have the best encyclopedia possible to build. Excluding this symbol serves no purpose except to assist these corporate reusers (who would likely have no problem reusing this particular symbol anyway). Badagnani07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, I was unaware of that motivation and yet do not approve of the exception. Hey, maybe I'm an exception to your wild conspiracy theory! --Iamunknown07:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose it's better if such editors can be convinced to "get with the program" without actually knowing what the real motivations for this inane controversy are. What I mention (i.e. that the paramount reason for purging fair use photos from English WP articles is essentially to make things as easy as possible for third-party corporate, for-profit "downstream reusers") has been discussed extensively on discussion pages and is thus a secret hidden in plain view. Badagnani07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I do know that Wikipedia has downstream users. I guess I don't see it as the motivation to lessen the amount of non-free content we maintain. I actually quite like that we have downstream users! The whole free content and copyleft movement is, IMO, pretty cool. :) --Iamunknown07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Billions of hours of free labor on the part of innumerable editors go into creating a "free" encyclopedia that in fact a few at the top will collect payment for. But a certain number of editors must be convinced to clear the way for the third-party for-profit corporate reusers (I've already provided a link just above for such a "profit sharing arrangement"--at least the one we know about), by eliminating fair use photos--even non-controversial logos like the handicapped symbol and photos of products put online for the express purpose of promoting said product. These editors, of course, will not share in the profits either or ask many questions about this side of things, as the purity of their task is the most important thing. Each of us has his/her own motivations in this endeavor: some about eventual financial gain, others about purity of principle, and still others about building the best encyclopedia possible. These motivations are not always compatible but all should be up front at all times in order that contributors may make decisions that are 100% (not 70%, 80%, or even 90%) informed. Badagnani08:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If you take issue with that, Badagnani, then you take issue with the whole Free content movement which, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is part of. I don't take issue with that; I like it, actually. You may find that wikis with more restrictive licenses than the GFDL suit your contributions better; I hope you stay, though. --Iamunknown08:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Two Types?
Wait a minute - I have often heard an editor tell me there are only two types of images on Wikipedia - free, or unfree. It's so sad the Foundations' own logo must toil among the unwashed unfree. We can design a new logo for wheelchair accessability, but we can't come up with a free logo for the free encyclopedia? Priorities, people! Jenolenspeak it!05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That is actually a good idea. However, since "Wikipedia" is a trademark, you would not be able to name it in the free logo. -- ReyBrujo06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
With Image:019.jpg the fair use rationale is blatantly insufficient as it does not explain why this particular image is being used in the particular article. It just makes the attempt to say "it aides in critical commentary" without specific detail. Originally, the image had no fair use rationale and Antedote added "Rationale: reduced-quality still discussed in critical commentary" as the fair use rationale, after I had tagged the image with {{no rationale}}. When I added the disputed tag, Antedote reviewed his/her own fair use rationale and said the image was fine, without addressing my concern that the fair use rationale was unspecified in anyway. At this point I don't know what to do, but the image should be deleted or made specific. Any thoughts? Jay3218301:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Every day, thousands of images are uploaded with incorrect or incomplete licensing information, or that don't meet Wikipedia's image use policy for one reason or another. There are around 10000 images in the various backlogs and at any given time, Category:Non-commercial use only images for speedy deletion has around 50 or so images. On top of all of this, there are over 110 thousand orphaned images and, other than a brief time when a bot was clearing out orphaned non-free images, that number has been steadily increasing.
One of the biggest complaints that I have found when I delete images is that many well-meaning users do not understand our image use policy. I noticed several days ago a page called Wikipedia:Fromowner that makes it very simple for a user to upload an image that he or she created. When they click on the link from Wikipedia:Fromowner, they are taken to a custom upload page [17] with very simple instructions for uploading a file.
I would like to propose that we expand on this concept. We can have as many custom upload pages as we would like. Each page can then give full instructions that are relevant to the user's situation. A page dealing with
I have created a prototype at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext. At the bottom is the current upload instruction page we use at Special:Upload. But at the top is a box that invites the user to click on one or more links that will take them to a content-specific form. Each content-specific form gives specific instructions for what the user is trying to upload. The goal here is that a well-meaning user will have instructions geared towards their need, as opposed to being presented with a large number of boxes.
I have no attachment to the particular pages displayed or the exact text on them. If you think there should be a special form for a different content type, that's fine. If you think that having a page for "some website" uploads is to beansy, that's fine too. This is a proof of concept - not something I'm planning on taking live tomorrow.
Please have a look at User:BigDT/upload/Uploadtext and the related pages and give your thoughts on User talk:BigDT/upload. I think that it is important that we do something to stem the tide of ever-increasing image backlogs and helping a novice user understand what kinds of things to upload is an important step.
I agree we probably should do something about our upload page. Also, the french wikipedia has done a lot of work in this direction also, even more than commons. Commons is currently thinking about modeling their's after this one, and have an example up now, commons:User:Kjetil r/Upload. I think both the commons-style, and the french-style are substantial improvements to the english upload page. Anything to remove the form from the first page, and have people actually read the instructions would be great. - cohesion22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This is critical to combat the problems with all the uploads atm. I think. The new "french"-style seems really an improvement for uploading files. I wholeheartedly support such changes for en.wikipedia and I don't think anyone won't support it for that matter. Let's just do it and throw it at the Village Pump !! --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, that's fantastic. Not to bag on your effort BigDT, but people have been thinking about this for a long time now. howcheng {chat}00:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people on commons think that the french one is a little too busy, so you might get that response here as well, personally I don't think it's too bad. It is a lot of text, but no single user would really be reading it all. - cohesion02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
but people have been thinking about this for a long time now.
That's often the problem around here. Too much thinking and not enough doing. ;-) It can always be tweaked after it's put up. — Omegatron03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this would be an improvement. Additionaly we should consider redirecting the "upload file" link from the toolbox to point to a page without a upload form and force people to choose a specialized upload page from there instead. Just to make it a little harder to mentaly block out the "anoying text" and skip straight to the upload form. --Sherool(talk)09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"leaving in the "unlicensed" text because that is how we treat non-freely licensed works, which is why they are only permitted if we have a fair use claim"
Any original content is automatically copyrighted by its creator, who then licenses its use in certain circumstances. If that license doesn't include the freedoms that we specify, it is "non-free". The word "unlicensed" makes no sense in this context.
I still think the sentence about "such content be considered fair use under US law" should be included after the introduction to fair use in the paragraph which is currently after it. In other words, the intro should say something like this:
Wikimedia Foundation says only free content is permitted, as defined on their page.
They also allow an Exemption Doctrine Policy for other non-free, but legally usable content, which is decided by each project individually. This is that document.
Since it's difficult to portray certain things without using non-free content, this thing called fair use exists in most country's laws.
our EDP allows non-free content under the restrictions described on this page, which includes a stipulation that it be considered fair use in the US. — Omegatron18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"that is be considered fair use" was the crux of Kelly's complaint.. It sounds like we are redefining "fair use". What I was going for with "unlicensed" is that if a work is only available under a non-acceptable license we treat it exactly as we treat any piece of unlicensed content. I'm not too stuck on the current wording but I do think it is informative to say that if something isn't freely licensed we regard it as totally unlicensed. Is this making more sense now? --Gmaxwell18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed it because it sounded like we were defining fair use. It previously said "are permitted under this exception policy only if they can be considered fair use under this policy". But fair use isn't a Wikipedia policy; it's a US legal doctrine. So I reworded it to "a major requirement of this policy is that use of non-free content on Wikipedia be considered fair use under US law". In other words, "this policy sets requirements for the type of content that can be used on Wikipedia. One of those requirements is that it be fair use under US law".
I'm happy with the current wording; just explaining my edit.
if a work is only available under a non-acceptable license we treat it exactly as we treat any piece of unlicensed content
I think what you mean to say is "if a work is only available under a non-acceptable license, or is unlicensed, we treat it the same way". I don't see what "unlicensed" would cover that "non-free" doesn't, anyway. Unlicensed content is by definition not freely licensed. In other words, unlicensed content is a subset of non-free content, as is content under unacceptable licenses. We need to be careful with our wording and not accidentally redefine legal terms for our own purposes. — Omegatron00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "unlicensed" wording is potentially confusing, but I think Gmaxwell's wording regarding the requirements for what is allowed under the EDP to be more accurate, as we do need to make it clear that our own policies are more restrictive than fair use is, just that it is required for something to meet those restrictions that it also be considered "fair use" in the US. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
editing the policy
I wanted to improve the wording of the policy (without substantive changes to the meaning); the box says that we're free to edit it; but the edit box is a big white blank under the infobox stuff. Odd. Tony01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you've changed the meaning either. I guess we'll see what others think. "Popular" refers to all the non-English language Wikipedias listed here: meta:Fair use (under the section heading "Prohibited"). --Iamunknown02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So I've edited the status at that page to: "Allowed in narrowly defined circumstances", to better reflect the situation. It was simply "allowed". On "Popular", here, I think this can be expressed more clearly. Tony03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Here, there's a problem I've pointed out before: "Images that were uploaded before 13 July 2006 may not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given seven days to comply with this policy. The image will then be deleted without further warning if corrective action has not been taken." Conflict between the ambiguous "may" and "will be given seven days". I suggest that "may" be changed to "will"; if not, the subsequent wording needs to be softened. Tony03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
... Is this a English dialect issue? "You may not do X" is not ambiguous, it means that you are not allowed to do X. "Will" is inappropriate because we are describing to editors how they should act, not how they should expect others to act. --Gmaxwell05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "variety of English" issue: "may" is unclear in standard English, in this context. That's why legal documents eschew it in favour of "shall" or "will", where certainty is intended. "You may not do X" is clear, but "Images ... may not be deleted" is not, I'm afraid. Nothing wrong with "will"; why do you take issue with "will" there, but not with its occurrence in "will be given seven days"? "may" will not do here, so is "must" acceptable to you? Your latest edit, again, is an improvement over what I did. Tony05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Further queries
I'm sorry to nitpick, but I think we owe it to WPians to express this policy as simply as possible; even then, it will be quite complex enough (I assume that the policy should be readily understandable by the general WPian editor). Now seems like a good time to raise issues of language and content that I find confusing or fuzzy. Feedback requested for these issues:
Item 1
"For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference." Should this be followed by ", in favour of substantially or wholly quoting the article directly."? Is that what it's implying?
"Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." This passage is very difficult to follow: it twists and turns and folds back on itself several times ("though", "however", "However"); the use of uncertainty-words will confuse some readers ("can" and "could"). So tracing a map is out, but it's OK to redraw it? Photos and sound clips can't, by analogy, be "traced" (is that what "in this way" means?). I'm confused.
Item 3
"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). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." This item appears to deal with two quite different issues: (1) amount and (2) resolution. On that count, it's disorganised, since the "amount" is fractured into the first and the last sentences. Should this be two items?
Item 5
"The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements." Can someone explain what "encyclopedic" means in this context? Should "general Wikipedia content requirements" be a piped link? Perhaps Items 5 and 6 could be merged?
I wonder whether there should be a short, qualitative title for each item. I'd be inclined to bold that and unbold the must, must, must, must, must. We know it's a mandatory policy.
I support your changes. These are clearly passages that are very confusing, and even more so for the non-native speaker. The intend of Item 5 is "wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal photogallery". To put it to extremes. :) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Some things are complex, copyright is one of them. I am in favor as being as simple as possible... but no simpler. The comments above are not concrete enough for me to comment on them. If you'd like to make changes, make a copy of the page in your userspace and edit away at it... I'll be glad to point out any problems with the changes. I think the problem you will have is that it will be very hard to make it simpler without permitting more (which I and some others won't accept) or permitting less (which some people, possibly including me, won't accept).--Gmaxwell21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Then, to start, would you mind recasting the examples in Item 1 so that they're comprehensible? At the moment, they confuse, and I feel that no example is better than a confusing one. In principle, do you agree that amount and resolution should be treated in separate items? Can you explain "encyclopedic" in Item 5. I address these concrete questions to you because you say you have very firm ideas about the level of detail (no more, no less, etc), so therefore, by implication, you have a clear idea about the intended meanings as currently expressed. These are three issues in which your input would be valuable initially. Tony23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Crown copyright
I'm wondering about all the stuff that's now under crown copyright license in wikipedia. Aren't those almost the same style of license as the ISA case ? Are these marked as "fair use" cases in wikipedia atm ? If that is the case, then I actually object to that strongly. It might be "fair use"-wikipedia, but from a perspective of the law, it's just the "licensed" use, and fair use doesn't even come into play. Also, per my interpretation of the EDP directive, those images are now also forbidden, because whatever we call it in wikipedia, it's just not a "fair use" case. Stuff like this needs sorting out people. The longer we wait with that, the more difficult and more work it will be to do it in retrospect. The wikipedia-fair use vs. USA law fair use needs far better clarification within the guideline and within the image cat'ing. We cannot say an item is fair use, if the license is more permitting then Fair Use. It's should be cat'ed as a "non-free content exception" or something. I don't care what it's called, but we need a stricter seperation of "true license" and the wikipedia "FUR". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Basically everything not free content enough for wikipedia was fair use. Which then now is non-free content. That is one of the reasons for the name change, fair use is not Wikipedia fair use. Garion96(talk)15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If an image has a non-free license, such as CC-NC/ND or crown copyright, there is no harm in mentioning that on the image talk page, however the availability of an image under such licenses is completely unrelated to our decision to use it - something which also should be made clear. ed g2s • talk19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. If we get sued over something it's important to know the official license under which an image was licensed. It's just as important as the original copyright holder. Proving Fair Use is always more dificult then any other license. Regardless whether or not we let it pass under our "non-free content" policy as a "fair use", the true legal status of the image has just as much meaning within wikipedia, when it comes to legal debates (the latter being the reason for our policies). We need to think from the perspective of the image, just as much as we are thinking from the perspective of the wikipedia policies. And when you break it down, a "free use/no edit" licensing of an image, will be the one that wins us the case, regardless of whether or not we claim fair use. The judge won't care about our "restricted" policies, it only cares about the copyright and the license and only then will look at a possible FUR. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I got to wondering when I came across this Image:Virginia massacre.jpg. It's claimed as fair use as a unique historic event. But it my understanding that with media images anyway, we generally don't allow them unless they are iconic, even if they show a uniquely historic event. Because otherwise, we would be competing against the organisations who license these for a fee. Shouldn't the same be applied to this image? The person who took this may choose to profit off it. Nil Einne20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the news event just happened yesterday and the image is still being sold by the AP< we cannot host it, since it is cutting the commercial value of the image down. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is an example explaining that a work of art depicting some object or event is not usable in that object or event's article under a fair use claim unless the work of art itself is iconic. In other words, only if when you hear of an object or an event, the general population thinks of that specific (very famous) artwork, then it might be usable under such a rationale. —LactoseTIT03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
For example, Guernica is iconic for the war, and can illustrate the response, but if we're just using some random person's illustration of a battle to illustrate the battle, then we'd be infringing without fair use. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images of non-living (dead) persons
Sorry to ask this question so bluntly, but are fair use images of non-living (dead) persons allowed on Wikipedia? I have read the project page, and skimmed the above discussion page, but can not find the answer. Although it says that fair use images of living persons are generally not allowed, it does not specifically permit the opposite case.
I would appreciate it if someone who is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia fair use restrictions could please clarify this policy for me. I have written several biography articles about persons who are no longer living, and I would like to upload a single fair use photo for each article (mostly scanned from the jacket of books authored by the article's subject). Is this permitted? Thanks for your help. --Seattle Skier(See talk tierS)21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be permitted. Once the person is dead, there is no way that someone could go take a picture of them and release it under a free license. So, we are left with the photos that have already been taken, and those photos are unlikely to be released under a free license. —Remember the dot(talk)21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfree images of dead persons are tolerated as they are considered hard to replace by a free alternative. But in your question, you seem to refer to "fair use images" as it was something that exists. Remember, there is no such thing as a "fair use image". The are fair uses of an image. For instance, I don't see anything inherently "fair use" about photos from "jacket of books".
Thanks for your replies. By the way, I was not referring to the images themselves as inherently "fair use", but merely my intended use of them as fair use. Author photos from book jackets appear to be ideally suited for fair use because they easily meet non-free content criteria #2,3,4,5. And criteria #6-10 are very easy to meet in all my intended uses regardless of the photo source. --Seattle Skier(See talk tierS)00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We have had some success in getting people to release images under free licenses. I would not be so quick to assume that the mere fact that a person is deceased means we will not be able to get a free image. I plan to try to talk the Village of Rosemont into releasing a freely-licensed image of Donald Stephens for the article in the not-too-distant future, once the main media attention after his death has died down a bit. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A major edit of the 10 criteria
In view of the sole, positive response to my queries above concerning the way in which the criteria are expressed (see "editing the policy"), I can only assume that either (1) everyone thinks that the current policy wording is just fine, (2) no one can be bothered to participate in a drive to improve it, or (3) people are frightened of changing the text, for technical or sentimental reasons.
However, I have to say that the writing and formatting of the current version of the 10 criteria is nothing short of a disgrace. Given the importance of the policy to Wikipedia's legal position, wider mission, and identity, and the fact that the policy will not achieve its aims unless it is understood and implemented by a wide range of Wikipedians, it's urgent that the criteria be expressed in a clear, plain and organised fashion, so that non-specialists can be encouraged into the fold. It's all very well to sit in this room and answer queries or do the odd patrol out there, but those efforts, I believe, are being hampered by the current wording. Specifically, I find the following problems in the wording of the policy.
It's unclear in many places.
The location of the ideas is disorganised.
It's inconsistent in terminology, tone, level of detail, approach and formatting.
The tone is bossy (particularly the repeated use of the bolded "must", which I believe doesn't increase compliance).
The formatting doesn't help the non-expert to navigate through, and doesn't help anyone to quickly locate what they're looking for.
A particular problem is the inclusion of examples in Criteria 1 and 2 alone (in the case of 1, quite confusing and, I think, pointless). This muddies the waters right at the top for no apparent benefit, and bloats the size of the policy. Then we scroll down and see a rather good set of "Counterexamples" (although better just as "Examples", expanded, related directly to specific criteria by number at the end of each example, and moved up so that it's closer to the policy). There is no reason that the examples currently crowding out Criteria 1 and 2 should not be fixed and relocated under that section.
Thus, I propose that:
The examples be removed from the criteria, and when fixed, be part of an expanded "Examples" subsection.
Each criterion be given a short, bolded, inline heading.
Criteria 5 and 6 be merged, and Criterion 3 be split into two, covering "amount" and "resolution", respectively.
The mood be changed from the constant imperative ("must") to the indicative. This would match changes to the grammatical mood of all of the featured criteria (articles, lists, pictures) over the past year. Since this policy is framed as a set of policy rules, there can be no doubt that their application is mandatory. If that is not clear enough, the point should be made at the top, not all over the place.
The information about exemptions/exceptions, which doesn't quite belong in the criteria, be relocated underneath in a separate section, as for "Non-compliance".
Redundant, repetitive and inconsistent wording be fixed.
Thus, I propose that the current meanings be expressed in a user-friendly way. I intend to make these changes in two days' time, but propose not to touch the "Counterexamples" section at this stage. Here's a draft. Tony23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like an improvement to me, I would replace every NFC with "non-free content" though. It's going to be repetitive, better to be repetitive with the words rather than another acronym, especially as this will likely get quoted in templates etc. - cohesion00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony, thanks for your improvements, the proposed version is much nicer. I also thought that the current policy section was very unclear and disorganized. I agree with Cohesion's suggestion to replace NFC with the actual words each time. Also, in #1, I would change the word "Replaceability" to its negative "Non-replaceability" (or even better, just "No free equivalent"), since that is the criterion which must be met. Similarly rename #4 to "Low resolution". I would also keep some very brief counterexamples in the list, like a brief mention in item #2 regarding large photos. May we edit your draft version if we are so inclined?
If you are making a new "Examples" section, I propose that we include the issue of fair use photos of non-living (dead) persons. Despite carefully reading the current policy several times, I was unsure as to whether this is permitted (see my question above). This is an important issue for many biographical articles, and should be addressed directly on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Thanks. --Seattle Skier(See talk tierS)02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you; I'll implement these changes to the draft. Tony 08:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) PS Except that I'll wait to see whether others prefer "non-replaceability" or "No free equivalent". I also hesitate to reinstate the photos example. Why not shift it to the "Examples" section below? Tony08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've renamed "Counterexamples" --> "Examples of unacceptable use", to contrast neatly with the previous section ("Acceptable use"). I've made a brief reference to these sections in the lead, for the sake of overall cohesion. I think it's important to flag at the start that the Criteria are accompanied by examples of their application. In the draft, I've included an expanded version of "Examples of unacceptable use", and have replaced "Replaceability" with "No free equivalent" as suggested here; I've also spelt out NFC on all occasions, as per above. Tony 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) PS Seattle Skier, I note that the non-living persons issue is raised in the lead. Given this prominence, and the discussion above on this page, I think it's adequate to include an example underneath rather than in the Criteria themselves. Otherwise, the flood-gates will open. Tony22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you state that the "non-living persons issue is raised in the lead", but I don't find any mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia:Non-free content, even after repeated searches. Can you please quote the specific sentences that refer to this issue? I think it is not there.
There are 3 instances of the word "living" on that page, but zero of either the word "dead" or phrase "non-living". A statement that photographs of living persons are generally unacceptable under fair use is not the same as a statement (nor does it imply) that photographs of non-living persons are generally acceptable. --Seattle Skier(See talk tierS)00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some things that I believe should be addressed in your draft
No free equivalent - In "...that would generally serve the same purpose...." what do you mean by generally? It sounds like the free equivalent should serve as a substitute in the general case, and not only in the specific case the non-free material is being used. For instance: Does a free picture of Steven Spielberg "serve the same purpose" as an unfree picture of Stanley Kubrick? Depends! Generally not! But in the article Film director, probably!
Respect for marketing rights. - "...likely to have a negative effect on the marketing of the original" - This gives space for far too much speculation. The current wording is more broad and specific: "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". The key point here is "replace the original market role", that may or may not imply "a negative effect on the marketing". --Abu badali(talk)10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Minimal use - "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice" - I would add something to say that, if not necessary, not even one will be used. Also, the language seems to make sense for images and audio only. Add something to explain that quotations should include the minimum necessary from the original.
Resolution - "Low- rather than high-resolution non-free content is used" - This is image-only language. Make it cover audio (I don't believe it applies to text at all). Also, call it something else. "Low resolution" would still be image-centric. Try something like "No high-fidelity", I don't know... (out of ideas).
Significance - "Non-free content contributes significantly to an article..." - Minor change -> "contributes significantly to the article it's used in...""
Content - Call it something else, like "Content-specific requirements"
One-article minimum - seems ok.
Restrictions on location - "they are linked, not inlined, from talk pages" - replace by "images are linked, not inlined...", as this is image specific.
Previous publication - seems ok.
Information page - call it "Image description page".
Also, after reading the whose criteria, I don't believe I like the descriptive tone it got by removing the must word, but I'm still unsure.
And very importantly, do not scramble the criteria numbers as there are a lot of talk page discussions mentioning specific itens by number. When you split a criterion in 2, leave the original number as a deprecated entry and add itens 11 and 12 for the newly created criteria. This is already used for criteria for speedy deletion, for instance. --Abu badali(talk)10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Rejoinder to Abu. It's no longer a draft. What a pity you didn't debate these matters during the stated draft period, or comment in the "editing this policy" section above over the past week. Neverthess, thanks for your belated input. I'm writing detailed responses to you points now. Tony23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) I note that some of your points could equally have been made in relation to the previous version.
It's worth noting that Tony wrote the above just shy of 48 hours after posting his initial draft. Does any decision making process on enwiki happen that fast? --Gmaxwell01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) I don't mind removing "generally", but could we have advice from others? There were imponderables in the previous wording, too: for example, what did "adequately" give the same information mean? I guess I felt that in translating the previous intended meaning of "adequate" into better wording, "that would serve the same purpose" would have been too narrow (= exactly the same purpose?). PS When you say the key point here is that "replace the original market role" (previous) may or may not imply "a negative effect on the marketing" (current), I wonder how this can be true. Can you provide an example of this non-equivalence?
(2) "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media"—yes, I see now that the meaning has changed, and I'm sorry, I did say that wouldn't happen. I don't mind reinstating that phrase, but before that happens, can people ponder whether they really want such a restrictive wording? For non-free content on WP to "replace" the market role would be to overturn the original market, not just reduce it by a portion. I'd have thought that the intention of the policy was to prevent even partial threats that don't overwhelm the market for an item, rather than place copyright owners in the position of having to argue that WP has "replaced" the whole market for their item. That's why I used "have a negative effect on the marketing of the original". That resonates with the intention of US fair trade common law, doesn't it? Needs discussion.
(3) The first sentence ("As little non-free content as possible is used in an article.") is almost exactly as the previous version ("The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"). So you're suggesting something like this? "If non-free content is include at all in an article, as little as possible is used....". Would that satisfy your query? How do others feel? I'm happy with the wording as is, though. "As little as possible" seems to convey the correct gist. I think your suggestion about referring to linguistic quotations is excellent; the previous and current wordings made no explicit reference to a mode that is, by far, the most common category on WP (unless the unclear newspaper example counted as that?). But before adding it, can someone state whether the policy criteria concern only content for which a fair use argument is explicitly made? There are no tags or explicit FU arguments when you make a direct linguistic quotation in the body of an article, are there? Needs advice from other people. I'd like to include the suggestion if there's no objection.
(4) Good point. Audio uploaders have used "resolution", but perhaps a new heading "Resolution/fidelity", with the same addition in the body of the criterion, might suffice. My Encarta US dictionary supports your contention: "Resolution" = "the degree of detail visible in a photographic or television image"; "fidelity = "the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced : the 1949 recording provides reasonable fidelity. Will change now.
(5) I can't see the problem with "contibutes significantly to an article"—this could mean nothing else than the article the non-free content is used in.
(6) Yes; will change title now.
(8) Yes; will change now.
(10) Sure; but why not "Media description page" to cover non-visual content? Will change now. Tony23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
GMaxwell has gone in and modified without discussion here. Most of them are good, IMO, but I've posted these queries on his talk page:
"Can you justify your reversion to "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace." Please see my comments on the talk page about this wording. Does it really do justice to the intentions of WP to be cast so narrowly? How could a copyright owner ever argue the point?"
"To minimize the impact on the original work, as little non-free content as possible is used in an article." This is not well expressed. Impacting on the original work sounds as though the surface of an original painting might be tarnished by its use on WP. I think this needs to be reworded."
Here, GMaxwell has added the rationale for the criterion, within its wording; I think that rationale should be explained in the lead and exemplified underneath, and that the criteria should simply state the rules. That way, it's less daunting and better organised for us non-experts.
In addition, I suppose I can live with his reversion to the previous criterion in which "minimal use" is conflated with "low/high resolution", but I can't quite see why they couldn't have remained as separate criteria. Because of this conflation, there are now only nine criteria. I've not changed the two references to "10" criteria until this is resolved.
I hope we don't intend to impugn Gmaxwell for his edits. The policy has been stable for quite some time (in part because it was protected) and there has been relatively little discussion on how to change it. While I like some of your edits, I also must point out that it is not really Gmaxwell who is gone in and modified without discussion here, but you. Yes, I know that you brought it up, but in wiki-policy scope, two days on a single talk page is very little time. But on to the real stuff.
I saw your query on Gmaxwell's talk page, ...can you justify your reversion to "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace." I feel that I can; per Title 17 § 107 of the United States code "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, (...) is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (...) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." So whether we like it or not, we must be explicit about the fact that non-free content is not to be used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace.
I would also like to comment that I really think that the title should be "image description page" not "media description page"; that's what we call the page that starts with the prefix Image: on every other page on Wikipedia. --Iamunknown00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Perhaps I was frustrated at GMaxwell's previous silence (since he's the expert); and I didn't like his "WTF" edit summary. There's also mistrust between us from an issue a while ago. On the use of the word "replace", I take your point about its use in the code, and I can live with it here. But I put to you that the wording of the code is inoperable in practice (possibly an oversight), given the ambiguity of "replace" (wholly or partially? Will WPian uploaders take it the right way?). It allows uploaders of NFC here to argue that their item hasn't "replaced the original in the marketplace", because they're still selling 60% of what they did before we uploaded. I argue that the wording should be broadened by avoiding the use of "replaced". Tony00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not a particular use of unlicensed content is adversely affecting the potential market for or value of the exclusive copyright is a tricky subject, one that is (IMO) often overlooked and one that is particularly essential (as it is the law, not Wiki-policy). The best example I can give of one where we really should not (and usually do not) allow non-free content is for recent AP photos. Our use of them, in any context, does adversely affect the potential market of the Associated Press; that is, news-savvy folks can come here and read the latest news, replete with imagery, for free as opposed to going to an online news portal that pays to license the content, a newspaper that pays to get wire feed, etc. I have other opinions about what is strictly not fair use, but I hesitate to state them as examples as there currently exists no consensus. --Iamunknown00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If I were AP, I'd be annoyed at WP's usage. It's a conern. The current "replace", I believe, is a can of worms—cast in loose terms that could make copyright enforcement overly difficult. The other issue is that WP is stricter than US law in some ways WRT non-free content (see "Downstream use"). Nothing says that we must use "replace" just because it's in the legal code. Tony00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Replacement of the orignal work in the market place is by far the most important consideration in US law. It is impossible to overstate this aspect of the criteria and your revision omits it almost entirely. As far as I can tell "Respect for marketing rights" is a complete neologism. We need to be clear here. --Gmaxwell01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the substantial, non-approved, and non-consensus changes to the page until further discussions resolves the issues. --Gmaxwell01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to comment on the point raised that I didn't comment on Tony's draft: I was pleased when I saw that Tony went ahead and wrote a draft as I found it far more satisfactory than I expected, although not without flaws. Because Tony and I already had some back and forth I felt that jumping right in with objections (or changes to his user subpage) would be perceived as me simply blockading his honest efforts to improve the page. So instead of commenting myself, I asked User:Mindspillage to go take a look and respond since she is well versed in both US copyright law and our policies. She provided me with extensive feedback on the changes, but I see now that she didn't post any of it here. ... and I'm rather confused by that because I thought she had. So the reason I didn't comment is because I didn't believe that there was anything left unsaid. I was rather shocked to see the new version put live without addressing the issues that I thought were already raised here. I hope this explains my actions and I'm sorry for the delay and confusion. --Gmaxwell01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Watermarks / Annotations
Is there any policy or guideline about watermarked or otherwise annotated fair use images? It seems they should be disallowed, but I haven't been able to find any writing on the subject. I mean things like Image:Sellingben.jpg, a book cover with Amazon's "Search Inside!" stuck on it, or videogame screenshots with little watermarks from the gaming sites on them (sorry I don't have an example at hand, but I've seen these around)? Staecker17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using ones like those as they don't accurately represent the works we're discussing. --Gmaxwell18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Right- is there somewhere in the policy where this is or should be enumerated? Is this a speedy-deleteable offense (IMHO it should be since it's entirely objective and doesn't need to be argued)? Staecker18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Human readable non-free notices
In past discussions there has been widespread support for discrete but reader visible marks on non-free images. The remaining question is how to perform this is a sustainable way... editing the actual images is problematic. We might actually get support for this sometime soon, comments on the bugzilla entry are welcome. --Gmaxwell18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Gallery
I recently removed a gallery of fair use images on Shortbus. A frequent editor of the page contacted me to ask me why. None of the images are free. I wanted to justify my actions here first. One catch though -- the editor claims to be the director of the film (his contributions are mostly to the director's article, John Cameron Mitchell, and his films). If he's not the gallery, was I right to remove the gallery? If he is (and how should he prove it), can he give some sort of permission? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the director of the film Shortbus and I put some of our production stills as well as alternate posters etc, on the wiki shortbus page (the kinds of stills that movie distributors throw all over the place and wikipedia seems to have plenty of). other people put other stills on there. someone took down about 8 of them. I'm a bit confused at to what constitutes "a large gallery". what are the guidelines for this kind of image? how many of these images can i have on there, and what can i do to make sure they're not removed for licensing reason (i understand anyone can remove for other reasons). thanks! john cameron mitchell FELIXARD06:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We only allow non-free images to be used in an article if they're adding information in a way that would severely compromise the article if they had been removed. One or two images is generally sufficient to illustrate the look of a film. If you really want the images to be usable as simple decoration, then you need to release them under a free license, such as creative commons' attribution-sharealike or the GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use of images
Could someone who knows Fair Use well have at glance at User talk:Mablerose#Fair use? I'm not terribly au fait with the guidelines, but this image use - grabbing images from commercial websites then citing fair use - seems shaky to me. Tearlach11:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
it's ok to use a commercial site's digitizations of the paintings as any other image of them, the digitization doesn't produce a new copyright. However, as few as possible is ideal when dealing with copyrighted work like that, and the bigger problem is the copying of text verbatim that you warned him about. Blatant copyvios need to be deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Unclear what he wants
This image Image:A_Cape_Breton_Ghost_Story.jpg is tagged by orphanbot asking for some info that's unclear to me. I can easily enough figure out who owns the copyright, but it's unclear to me what he's asking by Who created this image? and Where does this image come from? - It's a screenshot of some movie for an article about that movie, anyhow. WilyD15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if this image is removed from the article, A Cape Breton Ghost Story, you would have no idea what movie this was from. Now, it is certainly true that the image name makes reference to this, but that's not sufficient. You have to state on the image description page what movie it is. You have also forgotten to add a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale for this image, justifying its use in that article. Additionally, it appears that you are using the image solely to illustrate the article rather than using the image to provide critical commentary. As such, the current use is in violation of the license. --Yamla15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, not that I want to invest a ton of time in an article that's probably created by someone associated with the movie anyhow, but I'm a little unclear on the critical commentary issue. This page says # 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. which I believe is the idea you're referring to. In this case the image definitely illustrated the subject of the article, and can't be replaced by a free image (which don't exist, and can't be created unless the movie is released under some suitable license). What am I missing? WilyD16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. We don't want these maps, as they can be easily replaced by someone editing the freely licensed maps we already have to convey the same information. Whether or not the jurisdiction that the media is from contains a fair use-like provision or not doesn't make any difference in terms of our non-free content policy. Jkelly23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the user may be referring to the Right to Information Act in India. IMO, the act does not release the rights of the government over images and data, it is only a means to disperse information to those wanting access to it. From what I know it is similar to the Freedom of Information act. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Photographs of Japanese people
Apparently there is a "right of likeness" act that forbids publishing free images from any Japanese individual unless the subject agrees to do so. The current discussion is being held at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg. Has anyone had experience with this kind of situation? Pretty disappointing for me at least, but now I understand why these free images were so hard to find. In this specific case, would people agree not to tag japanese artist images as replaceable because the condition is not the same as with an image from an American or Italian actor, in example? --- ReyBrujo00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
After some more thinking, I would suggest removing the Image:Replace this image1.svg from all articles about japanese artists, as it seems it is not possible to find free images. I would begin reverting all the changes done to them to prevent uploading these images because of copyright violation issues. -- ReyBrujo16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In many countries it is illegal to display nazi symbols, yet we still do. In Japan, their interpretation of moral rights pretty much prevents the creator of a work from authorizing the creation of unapproved derivatives, yet we still think Wikipedia is free content. I think your reaction is an overreaction.--Gmaxwell17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you mean that we should do something similar to those symbols, leaving it at Wikimedia Commons with a disclaimer that usage in Japan is considered a breach to the right of likeness? I was actually thinking about uploading it only in the English Wikipedia, however that may be seen as trying to prove a point by forcing the image to stay in Wikimedia servers... -- ReyBrujo17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, "may be a breach" would be more correct. I don't think we can play to the least common denominator in licensing. I would wait and see what the commons discussion comes up with, but I would strongly oppose deletion on the english wikipedia. - cohesion18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that we already have a template for personality rights which I have added to the image. If contributors feel this template is insufficient due to the apparent extremely strict personality rights in Japan, then any template for the Japanese situation should be based on this Nil Einne20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wholesale reversion to previous wording
GMaxwell has just entirely reverted the new version of the policy wording, claiming in the edit summary that "we obviously do not have consensus".
I believe that this is unjustified. Please provide evidence of any contributor who has claimed that there is no consensus for the new version, aside from refinements that have been requested.
If there's no evidence of objections, I think the new version should be reinstated, or at the very least another deadline established. Tony01:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony, see the discussion above. You can't just materially change an established policy in this manner and not expect to run into some challenges. I've provided an explanation [20], and I'm not sure why you ignored it in your response here. Some of your changes were material changes in the meaning of the policy, as evidence by the fact that my reversion to the longstanding approved text was reverted by omegatron back to your text. (Omegatron is a fine fellow, but he has a strong minority position against the restrictiveness of our policy). I believed that you and I could work out the fine details through a couple of edits... but when Omegatron stepped in to preserve some of your material departure from the longstanding policy, it was clear that working on the changes that would would turn into an outright editwar. --Gmaxwell01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what type of evidence you would like, Tony, but I would like to point out that there have only been four editors comment on your changes; that is hardly a consensus. I would also like to point out that, in the past, when fair use was being discussed, it occupied this page, the foundation-l mailing list, the wikien-l mailing list, and was simply everywhere. We really need to get further discussion if we are going to be serious about change. (Also I wouldn't take too much offense at being reverted, its all part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Now we discuss :-).) --Iamunknown01:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see your comments, GMaxwell. When and where do we get Mindspillage's feedback?
Then I presume that 10 days is long enough for another cycle? Please say so here if you believe that it's not. I've replaced the previous draft with the version that existed just before wholesale reversion, as a new draft. I intend to make the changes on 1 May, unless there's prior objection to that time frame.
Can I start by asking for consensus that the examples and, perhaps, the rationales for the criteria be treated in separate places, so that the actual rules can be expressed in as neat and uncluttered a fashion as possible? Tony01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on the last of my changes to your version? I think that most of your changes are quite good, and that most of the ones that aren't good are at least okay. I will probably suggest some other changes but I think we're making progress. I don't want to draw this out forever but it does need to last at least long enough so that most of the regulars have a chance to see it.--Gmaxwell01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell: do you mean [21]? I thought it was better to frame it as a compromise between two goals, without the additional layer of one being "primary" and the other "secondary". That is why I referred to "another central goal" rather than "a secondary goal". Is primary/secondary important here? Tony08:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As one of the people that did comment, I generally like the direction this is going also, but I didn't expect it to be so fast. What I like is the simplification of the rules, and the titling of them at the beginning rather than what appears to be randomly numbered paragraphs. I didn't look at it enough to be sure that there weren't subtle changes that could be interpreted in bad ways. Not that I think you would do that on purpose of course, but people like to interpret policy in all sorts of creative ways. I like 7ish days for things like this anyway. - cohesion02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I also like the direction this is going. But I think there is a fundamental flaw that should be addressed and since we are overhauling the text, now would be the time to address it: the policy never outright says "follow the fair use legal guidelines." This is peculiar because the legal guidelines are the only basis for having such a policy to begin with. It is odd to tell users they are legally responsible for their uploads and must defend their use in articles when the law—in full—is not apparent from the policy. Based on Tony's draft, I made User:Punctured Bicycle/NFCP, which shows what I have in mind. I believe something like this would have significant advantages:
Including the full fair use guidelines as part of the policy makes it easier to distinguish the two.
The incomplete, obscure, and sloppy method of incorporating the legal guidelines into the policy, as currently employed, is fixed. The guidelines are intended to be judged together; talking about them in isolation is meaningless and confusing. There's no point in discussing the preservation of commercial interests and using as little of the work as possible unless you also intend to discuss the purpose & character of the use and nature of the work.
The part about minimizing image resolutions finds a better, more natural place. In the current policy, it is mashed with the minimize use part, but minimizing size is different from minimizing use. For example, it is probably fair use for a sports website to use many small resolution team logos in a table; for Wikipedia, however, it might be frowned upon because—as part of our mission—we believe non-free content should be used sparingly.
The part about minimizing the amount used seems to leave out important considerations, which I've added.
PB, I see problems with your new Criterion 1 (legal guidelines). Some of the wording duplicates the meanings of existing criteria; there's a "for example" that I think should be elsewhere; WP's policy in some respects is tighter than the law referred to, isn't it? (Therefore, there's tension with the opening statement in 1). Tony23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see which criteria are duplicated in meaning; can you be more specific? The example probably belongs with the others to keep things clean but I find it difficult to express what is meant by nature of the work without the aid of an example. Criteria 2-9 would represent the part of policy that would be stricter than law (1, 3.5-10 represent this in the current policy). I don't know what you mean by tension from the opening statement, though I've altered it slightly. The draft is just a rough sketch of how the full fair use guidelines can be incorporated into our policy and the exact wording is open to change. Punctured Bicycle00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are my suggestions.
"Legal guidelines are followed. Non-free content is used only if the use is defendable under U.S. fair use guidelines, to be judged as a whole." WP's policy is narrower than US law in some respects; why introduce another layer (the legal code), when the subsequent criteria express WP's policy by themselves. Why introduce the possible meaning that WP's policy is the same as US law? Better to explain the basis in law above or below the criteria, not in them. The criteria should be as simple as possible.
"Purpose and character of use. The use is for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The use is of a non-commercial nature." Unsure why this needs to be said, especially within the criteria. Concern over "research" vs WP's "no original research" doctrine. The non-commercial nature of WP is covered elsewhere, isn't it?
"Nature of work. The work used is of a nature that is reasonably open to fair use. For example, compare the use of a reference work like a dictionary to the use of a newswire photograph of a recent trivial event." Concern over the vagueness of "reasonably", why this point needs to be made at all in addition to all of the other information on the page, and why the example can't be in the Examples sections.
"Extent of use. The amount taken from the original work, relative to its whole and to the article that uses it, is as low as possible. Low- rather than high-resolution content is used; short rather than long excerpts are used. The significance of what is taken, relative to the original and to the article that uses it, is also as low as possible." This is covered in two criteria: Resolution and Significance.
"Effect of use on value of work. The use does not infringe on the copyright holder's ability to exploit their original work. For instance, by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work. Courts indicate that this is the most important consideration." This is covered in the Commercial interest criterion. The third sentence might be located in accompanying text.
I can't overemphasise the need to keep the criteria themselves as focused and minimal as possible. People have great difficulty understanding the rules; they need to be stripped back to their essence here and supported by ancillary information in the lead and underneath. Don't you think? Tony08:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not introducing another layer. The legal code is already in there, or at least an attempt was made to put it there. When the policy says "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media", it is clearly engaging factor 4 of the law: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." When the policy says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible", it is clearly engaging factor 3 of the law: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." There are two factors, however, that the policy fails to engage: purpose and character of the use and nature of the work. My point is that if we are going to engage any of the legal factors, we should engage them all; and when we engage them, we should do so directly—explicitly naming the law as their origin, instead of pretending they are a creature of Wikipedia's own values. I'm not sure you noticed, but I deleted the Commercial Interest and Resolution sections, so they are not in fact covered elsewhere in my draft. Punctured Bicycle09:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that requiring uploaders to follow the fair use legal guidelines—in full—is absolutely essential to our policy. It is the first thing uploaders should understand and abide by; if it is too difficult for them, they have no business uploading content they don't own the rights to. We must remember that the law is the primary "policy" when dealing with content that is copyrighted and not ours; Wikipedia's additional restrictions are secondary. We should tell uploaders upfront: you're required to understand and follow the law when dealing with non-free content; you're legally responsible for your uploads. Punctured Bicycle09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm primarily seeking simplicity and clarity in the way the policy is communicated to uploaders. Your proposed new Criterion 1 is of a different format to the existing draft proposal—no headings, different numbering hierarchy. Do you think you can make it all uniform? Why disturb the Commercial and Resolution criteria if they're already there.
As for making explicit mention of the law ... why not do this in the lead? Some readers will be confused and/or daunted otherwise, which will lead to non-compliance. Tony10:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Because "follow the fair use legal guidelines" isn't ancillary information that belongs in the lead or underneath. It is essential and belongs in our policy. Policies prescribe what must be followed. There can be no debate that the fair use legal guidelines must be followed. Therefore, a rule that plainly states "follow the fair use legal guidelines" belongs in our policy. We may as well explain this rule by giving a sketch of what the legal guidelines are; hence, the four sub-points that correspond to each of the four fair use factors. I don't think I disturbed the Commercial and Resolution criteria, but rather moved them to their natural place: under the relevant points of the law they were born from. Maybe an illustration will help: User:Punctured Bicycle/NFCP flaws. Punctured Bicycle11:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would love to, but I need to spend a lot more time with the page before I can help out. It's one of the densest pages I've encountered here. I'm not complaining -- I know it's a complex area -- I just need to read it a few more times and see what's going on at IfD, etc. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks06:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed dense; copyright law in general in dense. I tend to learn new things every day (which is so cool!). --Iamunknown06:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So can we separate the "Minimal use" and "Resolution" issues into separate criteria again, as I had it? That would return us to 10 criteria. Tony08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
But they aren't separate criteria.... conceptually the use of "few excerpts" and "smallest excerpts" is all for the same goal, reducing the ability of our page to replace the covered work in the commercial marketplace and to increase the incentive to use free works when we can. --Gmaxwell04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your point, Gmaxwell. By "smallest excerpts", are you referring to the smaller amount of information contained in a low-resolution image/clip? If so, I think it's too much to expect readers to join up those dots. Treating these issues together, without explaining that, confuses readers. I certainly didn't see the connection. What is wrong with treating them in separate criteria? And by that logic, should the replaceability and commercial-interests criteria (1 and 2) be merged with each other and with quite a few other criteria, to drive home that much of the policy arises from those two concepts? That wouldn't serve ease of comprehension. Tony08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Change status to official policy
Because this is the official Exemption Doctrine Policy, I am proposing that we upgrade this page's status to official policy. It makes no sense that it should be called a guideline when it is regarded as policy upstream (the Foundation), however I am putting the proposal here so that it doesn't seem as if one person is deciding what's what around here. Harryboyles15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yea, the actual hard rules are in the transcluded page while the fluffy instructional stuff is here. If no one actually objects, we could make it policy.... but I don't think the foundation cares what we call it, so long as we're not actively permitting actions which are against the foundation policy. --Gmaxwell21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think consensus for revised wording of the criteria should be reached before doing that? There might be associated changes to the other text. Tony23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is better as a guideline. This gives us greater flexibility to use common sense when faced with uncommon situations. I would not support changing this to be policy at this time. Johntex\talk21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Omg, Matthew. Wikistalking? What's the matter? You're upset I supported the deletion of your article?--Kamikaze18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That type of innuendo will not get you anywhere. I actually looked at your user page during our exchange of messages. Today I again looked at your userpage (your sig. links to it) when you where discussing at the Star Trek TNG article. I left messages her to alert neutral third party editors. Matthew18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to violate out image standards, Matthew is doing a good job in checking up on your activity. There is nothing stalking about that, it's just what we have to do... Do you have any questions about our image policies that I could help you with? --Gmaxwell18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's just a common coincidence you (id est Matthew) seem to contest me so vigorously immediatly after I voted for deleting your article. I have nothing further to add.--Kamikaze18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion earlier about the excessive screenshots added to articles. For example, see List of Friends episodes. Do we really need a screenshot for every episode? What value does it add to the article? It looks to me as if random screenshots have been taken from each episode. Note that this is not about only Friends, but I have seen this in many other "list of episodes" articles. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree... But we're going to have a hard time making a change. I counted the number of users who uploaded >10 images used on a "List of episode" articles and found almost 70 accounts. A good dozen of the accounts were known socks of a single banned user, but there are still a lot of folks who are deeply invested in those pages. I don't believe that these are the worst abuses on enwiki, but even if I were the fairly large number of people who have contributed to these pages will make it difficult to achieve any change with our normal decision making processes. TV is very important to a large number of Americans, our mission and policies less so. --Gmaxwell18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Aksi great did not raise any concerns about "a problem"; only a concern that the screenshots add little value to the list. Do you think it is a valid concern? --Iamunknown22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Aksi used the word "excessive". That shows that Aksi is making a value judgement that there is a problem. If Aksi did not think there was a problem, then why phrase the question that way? For that matter, why ask the question at all?
Removing things that are posing no problem is itself a problem. The screenshots provide information for the reader to learn about the episodes. With no compelling reason to remove them, they should stay. Johntex\talk22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Because we are dealing with content that is non-free, we do not need a compelling reason to remove them; we need, per WP:NFCC#8 a compelling reason to include them. So, what do I learn from them? Well, in the third screenshot a woman is standing in front of a building holding a soda can. Excellent! Now, how is that encyclopedic? --Iamunknown22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The crusade for free content is irrelevant in this case because no free alternative can be created. No one can produce a free alternative to an image from a TV show. Johntex\talk22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No one could produce a free replacement for an episode of the show which was still the show and not something else. So obviously we should have people uploading videos of complete episodes... Right? :) --Gmaxwell22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And now it turns into ridiculous strawman arguments and slippery slopes. If the complaint is that a particular screenshot doesn't illustrate a particular episode well, raise that concern on the talk page. I'm sure someone is probably willing to find a screenshot that illustrates the episode better. I'm not sure what the real complaint is here other than the usual crusade to rid the site of all pesky screenshots. --Minderbinder22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a straw man argument at all... If "this couldn't be replaced" were our only criteria our behavior would be very different. Lots of things can't be replaced which we don't include. Though I wouldn't expect a person who once wrote "We're not a free encyclopedia and never have been." to argue otherwise... --Gmaxwell23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"this couldn't be replaced" isn't the only argument, it's one of many. The non-free policy is spelled out in detail, and using screenshots meets the criteria. And are you going to actually try and refute "We're not a free encyclopedia and never have been" or just whine about it? --Minderbinder17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That is an abslutely ridiculous argument, Minderbinder, and should never be considered in decision-making. We are here to create a free encylcopedic, whether you like it or not, and whether we are currently successfully creating one or not. If your goals are not to create a free encyclopedia, then I respectfully suggest that you consider leaving; if you are here to create a free encyclopedia, then please help us and be willing to participate within the context of and framework neceesary to create a free encyclopedia. Others may argue that fair use does not invalidate the GFDL or our mission to create a free encylcopedia, but I've never heard anyone suggest that we just scrap our mission, and give up and give in; instead, we should recognize in what regards we are not a free encylcopedia and work towards becoming a free encylcopedia. --Iamunknown18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are unsupported by the comments from TPTB, wikipedia policy, and wikipedia practice. "Free" is one goal of WP, but it's obviously not the highest one and not an absolute goal. Non-free content is allowed on wikipedia. Period. You don't disagree with that, do you? I'm not saying that I don't want wikipedia to be free, I'm saying that it isn't, and that as long as the people at the highest levels say non-free content is allowed (which they have) and as long as wikipedia contains non-free content (which it does), wikipedia isn't a free content encyclopedia. Sure, it's a kinda-mostly, kinda-as-much-as-we-can, free encyclopedia. But it's nonsensical to insist that it's a free encyclopedia when it contains non-free content and explicitly allows non-free content. When TPTB ban all non-free content, only then will it be a free encyclopedia. I note that you didn't actually defend the arguement that WP is free, you just spewed rhetoric and indignation. --Minderbinder18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Minderbinder, you got me spot on. Wikipedia is striving to be a free encyclopedia; whether or not it currently is a free encyclopedia to whatever degree is arguable at best. Unfortunately you never addressed my argument that your argument should never be considered in decision-making because, though Wikipedia is arguably not free, Wikipedia is indeed striving to be free. So, Minderbinder, should your argument be considered? Or should they not? --Iamunknown19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If wikipedia is striving to be free, it's never going to get there if the foundation allows non-free content. Their talk says "free" but their actions make it clear that free isn't their highest priorityj, and don't seem willing to make the sacrifice required to be a free encyclopedia. At this point, you seem to be agreeing with me, admitting that WP isn't a free encyclopedia - it just aspires to be one. As for "your argument should never be considered in decision-making", I'm not sure specifically what you mean shouldn't be considered. --Minderbinder19:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, I am sure you realize that sarcasm does not get us anywhere, so I will assume your question is a serious one and I will give it a serious answer. United States fair use law does not allow us to post an entire episode, but it can easily cover one screenshot per episode. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove content. Iamunknown, if you think the current screen shots on that article do not provide good context for the episode, perhaps you should upload some better ones? Johntex\talk22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
One screenshot... okay, but you're actually talking about pages with hundreds of images. The use of the words "one screenshot" are a sneaky way or reframing the argument in my view. Continuing my example I could simply restate your words: "United State fair use does not allow us to post an entire series, but it can easily cover one episode video per series". ... Of course it doesn't... And there is no mention of single screenshots per episode in USC Title 17 § 107, so simply asserting that it's okay isn't enough not for our policy and not for our discussion here. --Gmaxwell23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It is more than strong enough. If there was any serious legal issue with such usage, it would have been specifically prohibited by the Foundation's legal council long-ago. There is no actual legal danger here, some people just don't like fair use. Johntex\talk23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this, so I'm a bit hesitant to get involved, but isn't there supposed to be a fundamental difference between United States fair use law and what used to be called Wikipedia:Fair Use policy? I missed the discussion about moving the page to Wikipedia:Non-free content (though I think it was an excellent idea), but I imagine one reason was to prevent confusion between legal fair use (which may be about what one can "get away with") and Wikipedia Fair Use (which is about building a free encyclopaedia with and from content that can be reused by others for any purpose). ElinorD(talk)23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It is up to us to decide how closely the policy tracks with the law. This is especially true in a case like this where no free alternative is possible. Johntex\talk23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Johntex, by suggesting that there is a "crusade" for free content, it seems that you are unwilling to consider opinions about what non-free content should or should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Is that a fair assessment? --Iamunknown23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, we absolutely should be considering what non-free content should or should not be allowed on Wikipedia, and currently we are allowing too little. Johntex\talk14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We've looked for compromise with the anti images in lists "crusaders," and they haven't bitten. It's a loaded word, but apropo. - Peregrine Fisher04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that you have tried to compromise with those who argue that non-free images should be used less in lists than currently? That statement is much more accurate and clear, less inflammatory and a bit more civil than yours, and didn't necessarily require more effort to formulate. I would appreciate if on all sides of this debate we could merely stay calm and beat Godwin at his own game. --Iamunknown04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) - Cool down guys. I'm sorry my query caused a lot of distress to you, Johntex. I don't intend to remove the images from the article and my question was not a sneaky way of getting people to remove the images from the List of Friends ep article. I just thought of it and wondered if there has already been some discussion regarding this. I asked that because whenever I think of something, it has already been discussed lots of times by the community. I shouldn't have added the word "excessive". I meant a large number of images. Though I'm not fully convinced by your arguments, I do see that there are some people who really feel that those images do add value to the list. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha. See what I meant about things having been discussed many times before. :) Anyways, then there is no point having a separate thread here. If anyone cares, then this discussion could be moved to an appropriate page. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The permission for an image here - [22] - used to illustrate a featured article on the Main Page of Wikipedia, is everything I find questionable about the current permissions policy.
The summary: Someone who has created an account on Yahoo! claims to be the "author" of photos of a band, and, in obviously stilted English, gives "permission" for their reuse. Now, if we actually believe people who say they have the rights to permit use of images such as this, why don't we believe them all of the time? Say, users who have uploaded photos which they assert to be promotional photos? If the "Meut" standard ("Succes with youre encyclopedia and let me know when he is finished") is really all that is required, I think it's time for a re-examination of the motivations behind certain image deletions. Either we believe people who say they know the origin of photos when they upload them, or we demand "proof." Here, it seems like "proof" was not at all needed... Odd, isn't it?
Oh, and of course, we'd never consider actually getting permission from the artist in question, since I'm sure all photos distributed for promotion -- and used on thousands of websites, TV shows, magazines, etc. -- including the artists official site [23] and myspace site [24] -- are considered "not free enough" for Wikipedia. This remains, to me, a source of great frustration, as I believe Wikipedia has a moral, if not legal, obligation to the artists whose work it reuses. There would be no picture of The Waterboys for "Meut" to take, were it not for the Waterboys in the first place... It's this over-valuation of the user, as opposed to the creator, which should be troubling to all Wikipedians, who are, after all, creators themselves... Jenolenspeak it!06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Meut's English is significantly better than my Dutch, so that's the language we corresponded in. I suggest it lacks charity to disparage it, and to turn his donation of his work into an opportunity to question his honesty. Thanks, nevertheless, for reminding me that I need to forward those emails to permissions. Incidentally, Mike Scott, blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=71722921&blogID=214218509 praised the pictures; they were one of the things he actually liked in the article about his band. Jkelly07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We generaly believe people (unless there is reason not to) who say they created a photo, It's the release under a spesific free license that require some proof, since they are in effect binding legal "contracts". Someone taking "sure you can use the image" to mean that it has been irrevokably released under the GNU Free Documentation license version 1.2 with no diclaimers" or whatever is clearly not kosher and should be challenged. The problem is however that we have more images than anyone could comfortably review in a lifetime and all image "policing" is done by voulenteers with varrying degree of scrictnes and understanding of copyright issues. Clearly there are going to be lapses, there is just no way to just snap our finders and delete every single image that does not have sufficient proof of beeing free licensed. So just becuse something have not been deleted yet does not in any way mean it's somehow been sanctioned or given a seal of approcal. Most likely it's just a matter of no-one having gotten around to look at it yet, we do have 765,683 files (mostly images) floating around at the time of writing after all. So if one person where to check them all it would take him ~531 days to review every image provided he spent no more than 1 minute per image on average and never once stopped to sleep, eat or go to the toilet... Fortunately we have more than one person working on these things, but none do it 24/7 so it's no wonder the ocational image will slip though the cracks for a while... --Sherool(talk)07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Meut's English is significantly better than my Dutch, so that's the language we corresponded in. I suggest it lacks charity to disparage it, and to turn his donation of his work into an opportunity to question his honesty. Believe me, I'm not disparaging his English -- simply trying to raise the point: Just how comfortabled would YOU be making binding legal agreements in Dutch? Do you think you'd have a full understanding of what was going on, if you read the GFDL stuff in a foreign language? This is the only point I'm trying to make - The GFDL in English is confusing enough for English speakers; I would guess many of the people who GFDL things have no idea the rights they're giving up, which is fine, if a bit sneaky. It just seemed to me that both trusting someone when it comes to the authorship of the photos, as well as trusting that they have the ability to give away the rights they did seems to be a courtesy that would never, never be given equally toward other users/editors and the content they have contributed. I'm all for "proof" and "permissions" and "libre" ... but maybe we couuld just apply that uniformly, across the board? You know, 'cuz that would be fair?
We generaly believe people (unless there is reason not to) who say they created a photo... Do we "generally believe" people who say they've uploaded a legitimate promotional photo? And under this general belief, I would suggest that this photo, with its overwhelming RFU consensus of "keep", should be restored immediately.
it's no wonder the ocational image will slip though the cracks for a while... Yeah, all the way to the main page of Wikipedia. That's one heck of a crack! Jenolenspeak it!18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, the point is that while it's unlikely that someone will ever be mistaken about having taking a photo, it's extremely common to see editors being mistaken about some image being promotional material. For instance, I've seen even admins that believe that if a physical copy of picture is handled to you in a fan conference, you are welcome to distribute this image on the Internet. This is a big mistake. A good faith mistake, but still a mistake. --Abu badali(talk)21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If an editor says, "I took this photo", we believe him/her, but if they say, "This is a promotional image," we assume they don't know what they're talking about? What if the uploader is an admin? Or is it just easier to delete promotional photos by questioning their origin -- say, such as Image:Indiana_Jones_1.jpg, which is obviously promotional in nature? Uploaded by an admin, tagged properly, "fair used" properly... but, nominated for deletion. I know these types of photos are out of favor, but feel compelled to point out that any smidgen of common sense would indicate this photo is exactly what it claims to be, and is being used properly. However, due to Wikipedia's self-limited goals and valuation of libre content - yes, yes, I know, "free", ugh -- I'm sure someone can find a "good" reason to delete it. Jenolenspeak it!22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If by common sense you mean that I just learned a single method of determining whether or not a photograph is indeed a promotional photograph, then sure! all it takes is common sense. I don't, however, think that it does. It requires reading the terms of use of the website of the copyright holder; common sense, on the contrary, dictates that you ignore terms of use, privacy policies, etc. and just click through the menu to sign up (ever installed software, that's what I do all the time!). --Iamunknown00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm grasping the whole content of this thread, but may I ask where the promotional image you are vieing for come from, Jenolen? --Iamunknown19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why no logos on userpages?
If i put Opera logo (banner, button) onto my personal webpage, no one's gonna sue me. Instead, Opera Software ASA encourages such actions. Now, if i put the Opera logo (userbox) onto my Wikipedia userpage, someone will erase it sooner or later because of alledged "fair use breach". I don't understand. I'm only promoting Opera products. Isn't it a fair use??? Jancikotuc07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, this very well may be legal and meet U.S. fair use law. However, Wikipedia is stricter with its content since it allows reuse. As a result, we avoid using copyrighted media whenever possible. ShadowHalo08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's purely for decoration if the user says "I'm only promoting Opera products" (and adds that the publisher "encourages such actions"). In addition to (or instead of) decoration, it's advertising. I'm puzzled by the assumption that user pages are a place for advertising products. Why logos on userpages? -- Hoary09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that the Wikipedia policy seems strange when you first come across it. However, part of the philosophy of the free culture movement is that creative works can be not only used by others, but redistributed and even modified by them. Since we don't have the authority to allow others to modify and redistribute images, etc., where the original copyright holder has not released it under a free licence (even if s/he doesn't mind it appearing on Wikipedia), it doesn't really make sense for us to use it, except where there's a significant need and no free alternative. There couldn't really be a significant need to have a particular logo in your userspace. ElinorD(talk)09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you guys and gals, i'll respect this. No, i don't really need to have the logo on my userpage. To Hoary: Yes it is advertising. Whether with the logo or without it. It's as simple as that. To Zscout370: no it isn't a mere decoration. Jancikotuc18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that fair use cannot be forbidden. Hence, does {{Non-free logo}} fair use applies even if the copyright owner give permission to use it on Wikipedia only? This is a general question, but I am also interested on a particular case, which illustrates an article I am contributing to per WP:DONTBITE. The original contributor showed herself eager to cooperate with the article, after I proposed it for speedy deletion. Therefore, I consider this is not a case of blatant wiki-advertisement.
I remark this in comparison with the usual procedure of groundless hangon. Rjgodoy05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's a bit counter intuitive since nornaly once you have permission to use something you can forget about fair use factors and such. However since we don't allow ourselves to use material based on such permissions because material must be usable by others we have to fall back on fair use. So basicaly just treat it as if permission was not given. It's ok to say somewhere that permission was given to use on Wikipedia (just in case), but for all practical purposes it should be treated like any other non-free logo. --Sherool(talk)07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Only that images of living actors as themselves are replacable and thus not fair use, while images of actors in the fictional work are not replacable with a free alternative. (The only excemption might be for actors that dress up as the character in events with public access, but then photography and publicity rights would also be needed.)
Now, wheter there is a rationale for including the picture in the article has to be judged on the article content and the fair use rationale, based on our excemption doctrine. --GunnarRene20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A free image, not from the works in question, but used only to show what the character looks like.A free image of the actor as himself, this is more common than a free image of a character.See the top image Borat for an example of where a character image was replacable. Also note that the article shows copyrighted images from the works that Borat appears in - these images are not necessarily replacable by the top image, if the point is to show some aspect of Borat or his works that appears in the show. But if the goal only is to show what Borat looks like, then the top image has to be used instead of non-free images. Note, however, that not all characters are as easy to get a shot off as Borat - they only appear on recording stages where outside photography is strictly forbidden, or in other closed settings. --GunnarRene20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Most characters from TV shows and movies can be adequately illustrated with free images of the actor who portrays that character. Some might make an exception for characters on shows like those in the Star Trek series, where the actor has to wear heavy makeup to look like the character (thus, a free image of Patrick Stewart is sufficient to illustrate Jean-Luc Picard, but a free image of Michael Dorn is not sufficient to illustrate Worf). —Angr11:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Jean-Luc Picard appears in uniform, it is not replacable unless he also appears in uniform where free images may be taken of him. But for a head shot not showing the uniform, your analysis is spot on.
If we want to get the desired effect with free images, we can take an image of Stewart and Photoshop/Gimp a Star Trek uniform on him. But since the design of the uniforms in Star Trek also are subject to some IP rights, the image would not be entirely free and unacceptable for the commons - not to mention totally unencyclopedic as an editor-manipulated image. --GunnarRene11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Why should he have to be in uniform? The uniform isn't an integral part of the character. —Angr12:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't loose the point. Piccard and Worf are just examples. When Angr made a reference to Piccard, he was making a broader reference, to any character that is made by an actor with very little image modification. If the suit of Piccard is "an integral part of the character", that just means it wasn't the best example. Perón03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Character images on actors' pages?
Should it be considered fair-use for non-free images of characters to be used on their actors' pages? Assumedly the actors' pages link to these fictional characters, upon where this non-free media would also be displayed. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be admissable (as in the Sacha Baron Cohen article) as long the character image doesn't appear in the actor infobox, and appears with sufficient textual discussion of the actor's portrayal and appearance when playing the character. It would also have to be selected in terms of the most important characters that the actor played, with fair use rationale and criteria followed. Also, the less the character looks like the actor, then the better fair use rationale you have. Also see above about those characters who appear in public.
Try also to use the same image as in the article(s) on the work/character in question, to keep the proportion of reproduction down.--GunnarRene21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Borat
I should point out the "free" image of Borat is /far/ from free. Borat is a creative work and copyrighted. Somebody snapping it doesn't make the image free, as it's a derivative of the creative work. Matthew12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Implementing the improved wording of the policy criteria
Two weeks ago, I spent several hours writing a new version of the policy criteria, because I believe that the current wording and formatting is so poor that it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia and disadvantages the interests of the project WRT to the use of non-free content. My intention is to fix the language and formatting while, as far as possible, preserving the meaning of the existing criteria.
The key aspects are: the relocation of the examples to elsewhere on the policy page; the insertion of a bolded title for each criterion; the more logical ordering of the criteria; the merging of two criteria and the splitting of one criterion, for clarity's sake; and many micro-edits of the language to remove repetition and poor expression.
I flagged above a 10-day period to allow all of the major players here, and anyone else who's inclined, to view the draft and provide feedback. The goal is to achieve general consensus for the existing draft, or to modify it so that consensus can be achieved.
I remind contributors that the period ends on 1 May. Now is the time to peruse the draft and offer suggestions or criticisms here. If anyone objects to the timeframe, please state this soon.
Punctured Bicycle has agreed to postpone his proposals for substantive change until after the new version of the wording is implemented. Mindspillage apparently has written feedback, but it's nowhere to be found. Gmaxwell and I still haven't resolved whether "resolution" and "minimal use" should be treated separately or in a single criterion.
I look forward to your constructive input, and hope that we can work together to produce a wording that is acceptable to everyone. Please don't propose substantive changes. Tony09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This "could have a free alternative" crap is crap
I haven't been very active on Wikipedia in the past year. I've gotten burnt out, and I didn't like the direction things were going in. If you ask the people who worked on articles with me, they'll tell you I was good editor; I was. I, and I think most of the community I was involved with, considered myself a shoe-in for adminship, but was voted against three times on technicalities and not once on the quality of my contributions. This all combined helped me see that Wikipedia wasn't worth my time; since then, this decision has been confirmed by several extremely stupid policies that WP has implemented. I just wanted to take a little bit of time to comment on what I think is one of the most egregious of these.
Deleting fair-use images with legitimate and historical and recognized fair-use potential, including publicity photos which are distributed with the INTENTION that they'll be used in things like Wikipedia, is very, very unwise. I first became aware of this policy when one of my images was listed for deletion; a publicity photo of The Polyphonic Spree. It was listed on the grounds that while there currently was no better or even extant free replacement, it was possible that one could be created. I protested but the deletion went through. I'm prompted to write this because I looked up some actor and came to his page and saw "No free image available". This is nuts and is causing a serious degradation of Wikipedia's quality.
Could be that everyone using Wikipedia right now would get sucked into their computer screens and turned into little computer squirrels who run around desktop environments all day, and their souls would be eternally trapped. This is conceivable, but certainly not a conception Wikipedia should take seriously. Likewise, just because it's conceivable that someone could catch The Polyphonic Spree standing in the middle of the desert, precisely aligned, looking straight into someone's camera, dressed in their multi-colored performance robes, doesn't mean that it's realistic, and it doesn't mean the distributed image of this should be deleted. This is the image the SUBJECT WANTS to be used to portray itself; it is distributed expressly for that purpose. It is more than fair use, and deleting it makes WP much worse.
I'm all for free content. I'm a huge supporter of intellectual property reform, Creative Commons, The Free Software Foundation, and others. I hack open-source stuff all the time, and use Linux as much as possible. But this policy is the work of zealots; people who do not accept reality. To have good images, you have to include this fair-use provision. Yeah, it takes a lot of work to check things sometimes, and so on, but refusing to do it is simple laziness that makes WP suck, suck, suck.
There are implications in who can copy what, but I think those with the technical know-how to fork Wikipedia could also understand not to fork the images if they have concerns about the copyright status. It's easy to separate out the free images from the non-free images; one could just sift out all categorized fair-use content on go on their merry way. To delete images just because it's possible a free one might exist somehow, somewhere, is so crazy.
Please reconsider this. I know I didn't really include much of a real argument here, but I don't have the energy or time to. Just think about what you're doing and why it's making WP a lot worse, and if you really want that. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasoning is now that we're a top 10 web site, it's hoped that people (actors) will upload their own images. Fair use image were allowed so that we would grow, and I think the board of directors thinks were big enough now. Is this how other people see it? Did the board ever explain? - Peregrine Fisher18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So, it was only important to be good until Wikipedia got in the top ten, and once that happens, one of the primary resources people seek out when they look a person or a place or a band or a thing can be stripped out? It may be one of the top ten websites, but that does not mean people know how to use it, and it certainly doesn't mean that people are going to upload their own pictures (if they did, it'd just be their publicity photo/headshot anyway, licensed exactly the same way, or maybe, although it's a stretch, not only because they wouldn't do it, but also because these people probably don't own the copyright anyway, with explicit (instead of implied) permission for use on Wikipedia, which still isn't acceptable). I've met many people that tell me they use Wikipedia a lot and then are surprised to learn that anyone can edit it and that there's no formal quality control. Most of them want to stop using it, but the point is, being a top-ten website by absolutely no means means that copyright issues will vanish and that free images will magically appear, as Gmaxwell suggests below. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I just searched for all the names on List of Smallville guest stars, and flickr has an image for about 1 in 10. It felt nice uploading them (Ex. Richard Moll), but I think its a good indicator of what we're dealing with at wikipedia. We can illustrate maybe 1 in 10 actor pages. Pretty lame. - Peregrine Fisher20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How many article would we have if at the start of Wikipedia we just searched for what was already available? ... Have patience, good work takes time. We haven't even begun to tap into our public position yet, and Wikipedia itself was created without that benefit. Have you been to any public event with a famous person these days? There are cameras firing everywhere yet very few of those images show up on flickr. We receive thousands of viewers per second now. ... and we're constantly getting images that were claimed 'impossible to get' in the past. In any case, thanks for the free images you found on Flickr! --Gmaxwell20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When such images surface, please, please, please replace the fair-use images with them. Pre-emptive deletion, however, has only the effect of vastly damaging Wikipedia's usefulness. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The point of deleting the images is so that free ones will surface. Telling users that they can use a promotional picture if they don't look for a free image isn't very good incentive to find or create free content. ShadowHalo20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make for a good encyclopedia, either. Please please please stop deleting images without finding replacements. If they are so easy to replace, the people deleting them should be required to find replacements as they go. If not, then they aren't so easily replaceable, are they? The criteria for replaceability should be replacement.
Instead of deleting all of our content, we should be tagging the non-free images in such a way that people can see the tags from the article view. Then visitors will be encouraged to upload replacements they have taken, but can actually see what the article is talking about in the meantime, without following external links or doing a Google image search (if they happen to be viewing the article online, which isn't always true). — Omegatron21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] I didn't say that these images could be replaced immediately. However, leaving promotional pictures there without {{refu-c}} or deleting them means that people are unlikely to find or create anything that can replace the picture. ShadowHalo21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a good way to illustrate our encyc with free images, while having an illustrated encylcopedia. I just uploaded about 50 free images, but they aren't ones of my choosing. You can't find images for arbitrary actors. I get the feeling that flickr has maybe a few thousand free actor images at the most. No where near enough to illustrate all our pages. Even if everything goes well, I doubt we can ever illustrate more than half our actor pages with free images. What would be great is if we could allow FU until a free alternative exists. That would be impossible to police, though. If we allow FU, people will fill WP to the gills with FU images. If we don't allow it, people will delete all our FU images. No sort of fine tuning seems possible. People feel too strongly about it. Oh well. Maybe the foundation's master plan is to allow FU for a few years to grow WP; disallow FU for a few years to grow our free images; finally, allow FU again to fill in the gaps. That might work. - Peregrine Fisher23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We have no deadline, and it's more important that we find free-use-images. Keeping non-free images, as stated above, greatly reduces the motivation to find or create free alternatives. -- Ned Scott00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not finished. There was a time when there was no article at Calcium or Jupiter. There are articles there now because the community has created them. There was a time when we had no image of Britney Spears, but now we do. Now we have no image of Jon Favreau, but soon we may. We didn't get an article on Calcium, or Jupiter, or an image of a pop singer by stealing other people's work until we could get around to it ourselves, we got them because people took time and effort to locate them, take them, and in many cases re-license things under a free license so that they could be included. This project is to create a free encyclopedia, the freeness, and the encyclopedic nature of the project are inseparable. - cohesion03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mandatory screenshot resolution reduction
There are a few scattered conversations about this in the many archives of this page, but I think it needs to be addressed directly. Mandatory reduction of screenshot resolution is unwelcome and unnecessary.
Firstly, I understand the need for screenshot controls. I spent the last week cleaning up Category:Naruto images and there is still a great amount of work to be done, including many images which I want to reduce. It's the mandatory aspect that I'm taking issue with.
Secondly, the argument for reduction doesn't fully apply to screenshots in general. This argument is intended for still images which could theoretically replace the source material. A screenshot is already a reduction, a the original media which was an animation. A typical episode is around 35,000 frames, while a single screencap is just one; a 99.997% "reduction". (not to mention lack of audio)
Finally, broadcast resolutions are not (yet) massive at all, unlike other media with unbound resolution possibilities. An NTSC image (ex. Image:Ulquiorra mugshot.jpg as it was) has an average width and height of 560 pixels (640x480), a number very similar to the 550 width cap for article use. (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size). This is not a terribly unreasonable size.
I feel it should be up to the individual maintainers to decide if screenshots should be reduced from broadcast resolution. Reduction should be encouraged, but I can't see how it is legally necessary. When people ask for the reduction of a non-problematic screenshot (especially when they can easily find bigger concerns) I'm inclined to ignore them. However, that's a dangerous road to go down when dealing with template-flingers. :) –Gunslinger4722:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The same thing goes for screenshots of web sites and computer software. One screenshot of one web page or one window of an application is just a tiny part of the overall web site or program. I question the need to reduce the resolution when the image is already such a small part of the overall program or site. —Remember the dot(talk)00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Because we don't hold copyright to these images, we have to be very careful with non-free images. U.S. fair use laws take into consideration "the amount and substantiality of the portion". These images are not being displayed at 550px, nor should they ever be. The largest thumbnails in the user preferences are only 300px, and there's no need for us to be using images of a substantially larger size, so there's no reason for us to allow images of a significantly higher resolution. ShadowHalo00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A reduced version often does not adequately convey the same understanding of the material. Being able to read the menu options in software or a website increases the information transmitted but doesn't hurt the creator's copyright, since you'd still have to go there to follow them. Low resolution screenshots often simply convey too little information to serve their informative purpose, Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is a perfect example. When reduced, you can't see the focus effect that the screenshot is supposed to illustrate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What would your advice be if the source video was 320x240? Since reduction is currently mandatory, how far should it be reduced? I assume 319x239 wouldn't qualify?
Why don't we set an arbitrary cap instead? Something like 480p on video screenshots and 240p for simple animations? Reduction should still be encouraged in cases where full-views are unlikely, such as images used exclusively on episode articles and lists, or other exercises of excess. –Gunslinger4722:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
When dealing with non-free images, we shouldn't be encouraging users to look at decoratively large images. For example, what exactly in Image:Evergreen (South Park).png needs to be at a high resolution to be understood? Nothing, everything needed to discuss the article is there at a low resolution, and using a higher resolution screenshot is just an unnecessary liability. Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is being used to illustrate the use of a specific camera technique that requires high resolution to be discussed. I doubt that there are many, if any images in Category:Naruto images that do not fulfill their purpose at a low resolution. ShadowHalo23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What about the picture at the top of 3ds max? Should we reduce the resolution, rendering the buttons unreadable? Showing the text of a bunch of buttons in no way infringes on their ability to sell the software. Obviously a case-by-case distinction is necessary and no blanket mandatory rule will suffice. We've already got the general stipulation "use as little as necessary," and that should suffice as justification for cases where resolution is excessive. If it's unnecessary, reduce it, if it's necessary leave it, and determine that case by case. Screenshots don't need a special rule at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the text of the buttons is necessary for an encyclopedic article about the software. Why are they necessary? --Iamunknown23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I'm talking about television screenshots. If I remember correctly, there was a discussion about computer screenshots where there was consensus that these images should generally not be reduced since it renders text elements useless. ShadowHalo23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there are many or any such pictures in the Naruto category. I was inquiring on just how strictly mandatory this policy was, and was pointing out its uncertain language. How about this for a general guideline: "A cap of 320p for video screenshots unless specific justification can be given for increased resolution"? –Gunslinger4701:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] I'm hesitant to add anything so specific to the page, mainly because of WP:CREEP. It seems like that'd just give rise to people getting annoyed because a screenshot is 330px wide (OMG!!!), in which case reducing an image by 10px is just silly. It seems like we should just rely on common sense as to what is too big and needs to be reduced. (It's not like there's a lack of people here and at WP:MCQ to comment if there's ever a disagreement.) ShadowHalo01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, that's a great idea! And others could adopt it too! Why doesn't [pause while he racks his brain for a random example of something constrained by others' rules] the USA, for example, ignore all rules that hurt it? And why don't China, Iran, and North Korea do the same? Super! Let's salute spamming Canadian pill-pushers and other such folk for ignoring all rules. That's the true spirit of free enterprise! Well, gotta head off now with my chainsaw and dispose of the neighbors' trees: they're blocking my view. -- Hoary10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. 512x384 is another common resolution. That's a 20% reduction from NTSC. I'm going to be uploading at (and scaling down to) this resolution unless I'm told otherwise. –Gunslinger4719:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather see is use 240p, ... older television didn't have resolution which was effectively any higher than that... --Gmaxwell21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we credit CC-BY on the article page, or only on the image page?
Do we credit CC-BY on the article page, or only on the image page? I think I asked this before, but the answer wasn't definitive enough for me to remember. - Peregrine Fisher03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that, in some cases, we can credit in the article itself. However, most are happy with the credit in the image page, as users need to go to that page in order to check the high resolution version of the image. -- ReyBrujo03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So, legally, I can decide if I want to credit the photographer on the article, or just on the image page? Ex. Rob Morrow. I added an image which is CC-BY, with a caption of "Rob Morrow at the Governor's Ball after the 43rd Annual Emmy Awards." I'm not legally required to add a caption of "Rob Morrow at the Governor's Ball after the 43rd Annual Emmy Awards (photo by Alan Light)"? - Peregrine Fisher04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the "photo by" in many images (a search delivers a lot of results). However, that information is (I think) considered to be in the article, subject to the GFDL license, and therefore anyone should be able to remove it, which would violate the image attribution license. I remember asking Jimbo about that in his talk page, but that page moves pretty fast and never checked for his answer. Personally, I always demonstrate them with the image at Cristina Scabbia, and most agree with the way the credit is shown in the image page. If they don't agree with that, I tell them I can credit them in the article page, but inform them that the GFDL license would allow anyone to remove that from there. I finally explain them that we only show a thumbnail in the article, so whenever the reader wants to check the high resolution image, he must go to the image page which shows the credits, an explanation that usually convinces them. -- ReyBrujo04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Posting a note in Jimbo's page during holidays, that was something stupid :-) Well, someone else around here may give some ideas too. -- ReyBrujo06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well. On that Sasha Baron Cohen photo up there, the license/licensor says: "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page." So where on this page is that image's link to its CC license? This is a reuse, right? Jenolenspeak it!07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have the answer for this? This is a reuse of the Sasha Baron Cohen photo, RIGHT?? So where is its attribution? Jenolenspeak it!21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is licensed under CC-BY. The image page has a link to the original image and the name of the original photographer. That is enough to fulfill the CC-BY requirement. We are reusing the image, cropping it to focus on Sacha only. -- ReyBrujo21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so I'm perfectly clear on this, Rey - the use of the image on this page is NOT considered a "reuse or distribution", under the terms of CC-BY, correct? Jenolenspeak it!07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see what I recently wrote on the village pump about this subject. Our use in Wikipedia is redistribution, yes, and we credit in the reasonable manner normally used for our medium: on the image page. --Gmaxwell07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we just ignore the parts of the GFDL that are hard? Again, to make sure I'm being perfectly clear - GMax, Rey, and anyone else, jump in - it is considered "reasonable" and "normal" - words from Gmaxwell - to NOT comply with the pretty simple English language instruction, "for any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work." Because it's clear to all of us its use on this page is a "reuse," but it's certainly not clear to me what the license terms of the work are. Not without clicking to a different page; but why would I? I mean, I suppose I could "click through" the image, and find out its licensing terms, but its presence here, on Wikipedia, on a page often dedicated to image licensing issues, would surely seem to indicate that it's "libre" free. And it's not. Not only that, but if I see the image here, why shouldn't I "right click and save" it (PC user), and then feel comfortable reusing it in any way? There is no link to a license on THIS page, no credit, no way to know, by looking at it, that the image has additional use restrictions, or a creator...
This may help explain why I'm not the biggest fan of some GFDL licensing requirements, and some editors at times blind fealty to them. I mean, it says, clearly, in English, "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work," but GFDL super-fans think it's both "reasonable" and "normal" to ignore that simple request. Sigh. Jenolenspeak it!17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Two other things that struck me while reading the caption to the unfree Sasha Baron Cohen photo above: From the caption: "A free image of the actor as himself, this is more common than a free image of a character." Uh, well, the image isn't free, it has attribution requirements that aren't being met. And as for being "more common than a free image of a character," I would say this so misstates the existing orthodoxy when it comes to character images as to be nearly a flat-out lie. Reading that, you might think that "free" (ugh) images of characters exist in great numbers. But they don't. At all. At a level so close to "zero" as to be practically indistinguishable from zero. There are no free images of characters, such as Scooby-Doo, Captain Kirk, Darth Vader, Harry Potter, Pokemon, or thousands of other things that Wikipedia has decided are worthy of encyclopedia entries. So I'm not sure why this caption is written in a way that perpetuates the myth that free images are likely to be available, anytime soon, for the character Borat. Jenolenspeak it!01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A little game: Is it Free?
I took this Flickr image, and put it on commons here. Finally, I cropped it and added it to Christian Bale. The original is an image of Christian Bale projected onto a screen at a fan convention (WonderCon 2005). Does the fact that it's a photo of a screen affect the copyright? Is the uploader not allowed to give it away for some reason? - Peregrine Fisher06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My line of thought goes: If the image is of a screen projection, then it would be a creative work of the camera man. This, of course, is probably a work for hire and so the copyright holder is owned by the sponsoring corporation. So I think that that the image is non-free. --Iamunknown06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What Iamunknown said. It's just a derivative work and unfree, just like you can't play a movie, take a picture of it, and call it free. ShadowHalo21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
copyright generaly requires a fixed form. What is the fixed form for CCTV straight onto a screen?Geni18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
only if such a recording exists. It's rather compelx one that was last talked about in the context of Image:Kate Walsh Ted Global 2.JPG. I could see an argument that the phosphor technicaly count as a fixed form if only for a fraction of a second but I'm not sure how it would go. Untill I see a relivant bit of case law on way or the other I really can't be sure.Geni19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Mug Shots
Would someone please explain why Wikipedia doesn't allow the posting of mug shots provided by state governments? I see no sense in this policy. Nicmart01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's probably because they're copyrighted. One of our goals is to use free as in freedom material. If you get a statement that says a mug shot is released into the public domain (or that it is released under a free license), then it would be OK to use the shot.
You see, we're trying to make two sometimes contradictory goals work together: the goal of creating the best encyclopedia known to man, and the goal of making it free as in freedom. —Remember the dot(talk)01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully someone will take the initiative to take a picture of the person in question and release it under a free license. That's how we would get the two policies to work together in this case. —Remember the dot(talk)02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's entry for Mug shot: "The purpose of the mug shot is to allow law enforcement to have a photographic record of all arrested individuals to allow for identification by victims and investigators. These photographs are usually considered eligible for republication under fair use doctrines, though the copyrights typically belong to the jurisdictions responsible for taking the photographs." They are usually considered eligible for republication under fair use doctrines, so why doesn't Wikipedia permit their republication? Mug shots are easily and widely available. Wikipedia ought to have a clearly stated rationale for prohibiting their usage. Nicmart02:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does permit their republication. As non-free content, however, they may only be used when "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and the image description pages of these mug shots must contain:
"Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).
"An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content page.
"For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question."
I cannot fathom how, in the vast majority of cases, editors can know if a "free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." That seems to me to mean that no mug shot can be used for a living individual, since it is theoretically possible to take a photo of that person, if practically impossible. This is a "blanket rational for a whole class of imagery," but mug shots are a very distinctive class. They are important public documents of similar nature and value to police reports. Many states post them to their web sites so that the public might see them. They are, themselves, news. Why are mug shots "considered eligible for republication under fair use doctrines," but not eligible for use in Wikipedia entries? It may make sense to require an equivalent or newly created substitute for many fair use pics, but I don't think that applies to mug shots, which are of special value by their very nature; unique and without equivalent. A picture of a convicted felon walking down the street does not have the same importance as his mug shot. No other photo can "give the same information" as a mug shot. Nicmart03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia treats mug shots the same way it treats any other copyrighted image. It's replaceable when used to illustrate the person. In some cases, it is appropriate to use a mug shot to illustrate a section about a person's arrest (for example Tom DeLay's mug shot, which actually received some press coverage) and we can use these images under the policy. ShadowHalo03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyright laws apply differently when the person in a mug shot has gotten "some press coverage" than when when he hasn't? Do you propose that the window of usage for the fair use mug shot is one day? One month? One year? A lifetime? Where does the copyright law refer to the volume of news coverage in relation to fair use? The currently published mug shot of a child molestor has different copyright protection than one of a recently arrested politician? Prove it. Nicmart14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use is judged by use, if the image is just used for lack of a better image to show what someone looks like then it will not qualify for inclution in Wikipedia. If however the image is used to ilustrate a section about the arrest and resulting publicity and controversy it may qualify. Copyright status is the same but in order to invoke fair use you must demonstrate a need to use that particular image and that will varry from case to case. --Sherool(talk)14:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
But the mug shot of James Stacy that I posted was removed because, it was stated by the remover, mug shots are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. No exceptions. So, now we have some arguing that they are never permitted and you arguing that they are judged "case to case." Which is true and why? This continues to prove my point that nobody can state what the Wikipedia mug shot policy is. People simply have their own opinions. Wikipedia needs to publish a clear and law-based policy on posting mug shots. Nicmart16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They're not prohibited, just frowned on for NPOV reasons -- if the only photograph on an article is a mugshot, and the person's greatest accomplishments aren't crime, then it's giving undue weight to that part of their life. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I placed a current sex registry mug shot on the page for James Stacy, an actor who is best-know for his child molestation conviction. (It didn't prevent other pictures from being posted.) It was removed by someone who said that mug shots are prohibited, having nothing to do with NPOV. Now, having raised the issue here, I have elicited as many different opinions as the number of people who have responded. If mug shots are permitted then why can someone remove the one I placed? If there is no policy -- and about non-federal mug shots there is not -- then one is free to use them only to the extent that the most fastidious editor permits. If there is an editor who sees it his duty to remove all mug shots that he finds, then then they are effectively prohibited. Whether or not mug shots are permitted is not a trivial issue. Mug shots are, as I've said, important public documents. That there is no consensus about their usage in Wikipedia needs to be addressed. Nicmart13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Our fair use policy is vague, but it is vague for a good reason. It is impossible to come up with a blanket yes or no to your question because there are a lot of factors that come into play in determining fair use. Is the person living? Is he a recluse? Is he a highly public figure? What is the purpose of the image? It depends case to case.
That said, you'll have a hard time including any nonfree image of a living person. THe Foundation statment here specifically states that fair use is not valid for "almost all living notable individuals". Borisblue21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Screenshots redux
I know this may be beating a dead horse, but I'm terribly confused at receiving conflicting information from both sides of the debate here. I think it is about time that Wikipedia clarifies what its policy is in regards to screenshots in episode lists. It is ridiculous for admins to say it's never acceptable, as seems to be the trend lately, but for articles like List of South Park episodes to stand as "featured lists". There's a lot of discussion about fair use images and screenshots, but I can't seem to find anything directly on the point of screenshots in episode lists. We should set, once and for all, exactly what the policy is in regards to screenshots in episode list articles (and nothing else, because that will complicate things). JuJube07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy is pretty clear and rejects this usage for several reasons. For example, the use of non-free media should be minimal. I don't think you could possibly had added any more images to that article, ... so it would be a huge leap to say the use was minimal. If you go look at the other featured lists you find the only the ones with non-free images have an image for every item. For lists where there is no non-free media related problems the editors have chosen to illustrate sparsely. To me it appears that people promoting the use of non-free media on Wikipedia have selected these list articles as chunk of 'high ground' to support their position from... but it's not a good location because the use was never permitted by policy in the first place. --Gmaxwell08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Both of which have had fewer participants than the admin noticeboard has now had on the subject. Neither of which were really applicable in the first places. --Gmaxwell08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to ask why these lists are still featured. If I cannot get List of Kashimashi episodes up to FL status, then I will not stop until all the lists that are currently featured on Wikipedia that have excessive fair use are all stripped of their FL status per consistency and fairness for someone like me that has been trying to get a list with a low amount of screenshots yet there is still much debate about said screenshots.--十八08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We've featured articles with horrible inaccuracies too.. crap happens. Perfection takes time. :) Have patience. --Gmaxwell08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's only because I didn't vote in that FL. I've only become recently aware of this. JuJube09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't care about how you vote. The only point I made is that there's a difference between a featured article having an error because nobody checked a fact and a featured list having multiple fair use images which all the reviewers must have seen. ShadowHalo09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A fair distinction, except there is no evidence that the reviewers were aware of or even supported our copyright policy. That they are reviewing a page doesn't give them the power to override our policy on non-free media. --Gmaxwell09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, How about: "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. Use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements are normally regarded as decorative." I think that makes the case clear enough without writing a mile long rule which no one will be able to agree on... --Gmaxwell22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's great, but if this argument keeps coming up and there are relatively high-profile TV episode lists that still have thumbnail galleries, something isn't sufficiently clear. We could add, for example, to the #Examples of unacceptable use list "Thumbnail images for each episode in an article listing the episodes of a television series". That way, there is something specific to point to, not a roadmap with several dots to connect. --BigDT23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BigDT. As it stands, there is nothing that can be pointed to that people can't harp about incessantly or reinterpret to fit what they want to happen (ie. 2323623632 screenshots in episode lists for long series like South Park). JuJube23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Use in templates
Point 9's "They should never be used on templates" assumes that there are no templates which are only used on pages where fair use applies; this is not the case, for example in {{AVFC-infobox}}. I think that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater... Andy Mabbett23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not single use, and this policy is being used as grounds for the proposed deletion, hence my comment here. Reagrdless of that, my point applies generally. Andy Mabbett12:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the main reasons for not allowing unfree material on template is that we couldn't possibly write a sound rationale for every possible use of the template. --Abu badali(talk)15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't a single use template then the image definitely shouldn't be there. There's no specific need to have the club logo on any page but the main article. ed g2s • talk16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
recent copy-editing of criteria
After the 10-day period, as promulgated here twice, I posted the draft of improved wording and formatting yesterday. Abu badali has informed me that, overall, he likes the change, but suggests using a warning at the top explaining:
"Although the text of the criteria has been recently changed, no change in the policy is intended; any substantive changes that are identified should be settled to the original meaning." (My slight modification of his suggestion.)
Back-compatability of the numbering is an issue for him, but my view is that if the numbering is set in cement, forever, that would severely restricted our ability to update and modify the criteria. I still feel that the order and structure of the criteria is simpler, clearer and more logical as now. Tony21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the warning.
About the numbering, I really think it would be important to keep backwards compatibility, like it was done with WP:CSD#A6 and WP:CSD#A8. For instance, there are a lot of discussions about removing unfree images from user pages pointing to "item #9 on WP:FUC", but now it has been moved to item #8. --Abu badali(talk)12:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So how big a job is it to change the references to those numbers—at least the references that matter? Tony13:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Think about all references in talk pages. By changing the numbering, all old discussion become hard to understand. It was a good idea in WP:CSD, why not use it here? --Abu badali(talk)15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried a revision. I combined "Minimal use" and "Resolution/Fidelity" into 3a and 3b, re-ordered the criteria so they match their historic positions and indicated that criterion 6 is not merged into 5. It is an unpleasant hack; if someone else can figure something out, go for it. But I do think that we should maintain the historic order. --Iamunknown00:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I DO wish this had been done on the draft during the ten-day period. That's what it was for. I'm not happy with this re-ordering at all, and I think you should have raised it here beforehand.
If it must be done (it degrades the criteria, IMV), why has 6 got this italic explanation? Are there only nine criteria now???? Tony00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
PS 3 a and b is a good solution. I'll split 5 to get rid of that italic thing, which can't possibly remain. Hmmmph. Tony00:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I derived the italicized explanation from WP:CSD. You combined two of the former criteria and split one former criterion (see the old version for reference). What were criterion 5 and 6 are now criterion 5; what was criterion 3 is now criterion 3a and 3b. --Iamunknown00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you check my fix? I think it will satisfy everyone: back-compatibility achieved, with improved wording, in 5 and 6. Is it OK? Tony00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No current objections. I did like your 5-6 combination, but I can understand if the blank space in criterion 6 is undesirable. --Iamunknown00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fontanini Fair Use
When I first joined, I took photos of my Fontanininativity scenes and uploaded them to Commons, thinking that since I had taken the photos, I could release them under a free licence. Jkelly kindly deleted them without any rebukes, and pointed me to relevant pages on copyright issues, particularly concerning derivative works. He did, however, say that I could upload them here, and tag them with (what was then) the {{statue}} template. I did that, rewrote the Fontanini article completely, and then put it out of my mind.
Since then, I've read a lot of discussion about overuse of non-free images, and have seen a lot of the work that people put into cleaning up copyright issues. I looked at Fontanini again tonight, for the first time in months, and the first thought that struck me was, "do we really need two fair use images in such a short article?"
I wouldn't like to make the judgment myself, but I'd be grateful if someone experienced in our copyright policy could take a look at the article, and, if it's appropriate to do so, remove the second image and either delete it or tag it for deletion. It's not currently in any other article. Thanks. ElinorD(talk)22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell is erasing all images in every episode list!!!
I took the issue to WT:TV, and I don't thing Gmaxwell has any consensus, policy or guideline support to back him, but he is retiring every image per episode from the episode lists. He is saying there is a specific guideline "against images per episodes". I just found out he discussed the matter here and didn't get any kind of support. I think his recent actions are propostruous and shold be stopped and reverted.--T-man, the wise06:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's already happened and will apply to every episode list on Wikipedia. Not that I agree with it, mind you, but it doesn't seem there is anyway around it.--十八06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly opose it according to the criteria from this very article, WP:LOE and the result of the previous discussion here. However, as soon as I see a guideline written down in WP:LOE, you'll have my green light... Not that is matters, but believed or not, although I'm sure it sucks and there is no justification, I do benefit from the banning of such use of images (I oppose it because of my ethics, I can't give further explanations).--T-man, the wise06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but WP:LOE doesn't have supreme authority over our handling of non-free content in any case... it wouldn't really be the right place to make a decision.. eventually the WP:LOE pages will be updated to reflect this, but at this point there is no urgency since they do not contradict this either. --Gmaxwell06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree there. WP:LOE, as a WikiProject with guidelines, is under Wikipedia:Non-free content authority. However, it is the go-to page for people editing episode lists. The guideline comes before the task. Besides the "no images per episode in lists" policy isn't written down even here. It doesn't exist. It is written nowhere. You're going around everywhere quoting a policy that doesn't even exixt yet, and it can only be or not understood from the actual content of WP:NFC, and that bugs me a lot. Guidelines go first, then tasks, then the edits, we need an order. Other wise we're ging foward and back nowhere wasting time.
The reason it isn't written anywhere is because it doesn't make sense at all, those images are already used in a larger format in the respective episode article. Every episode article has at least one image. the use of that image agan in the LOE is very practical, and although there is no estaliched size, they're usually small and used for common sense-practical-navigational-information scanning-asociative purposes. People who create articles often forget most readers are not familiar with the topic. Most readers can't recognize an episode only from the title and the number, maybe from the season if it is a current show.--T-man, the wise07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
...which is why we have plot summaries. They are considerably more descriptive of an episode than a single frame, which someone may or may not recognise. They are also free. As for not having a written guideline on WP:LOE, feel free to write one to reflect the policy and inform interested editors, but it by no means necessary to enforce to policy. ed g2s • talk09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonfree image use isn't forbidden on lists of episodes, or any lists for that matter. Image use just needs to be "minimal" per this policy and the foundation resolution and used for critical commentary and discussion. I'm not sure that plot summaries are free content either, since they are based on the original work it seems that they are more likely a derivitive work permitted by fair use (assuming they aren't overly detailed, in which case they may cross over into copyright violation). I'm sure someone who is a lawyer could clear that up, or someone could find a source covering it. --Minderbinder13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"minimal"
Something to think about:
minimal
adj : the least possible; "needed to enforce minimal standards"; "her grades were minimal"; "minimum wage"; "a minimal charge for the service" (wordnet)
Addnedum: So, unless the foundation has a different definition... then one per episode would certainly meet "the least possible". Matthew13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, can we kill off this "one per episode = minimal" concept. The scope is "per article" not per frame, minute, episode, dvd-box set, series, etc. The policy says "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article." it does not say "As little non-free content as possible, from any one source, is used in an article".
Would it help to change the text to say "Absolute minimal use" to avoid this "Relative minimal use" interpretation? Colin°Talk14:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to say this Matthew, but after repeatedly seeing you say that same old canard over and over again, I've come to one sad conclusion: You don't know math. Here's a hint: there's another whole number less than one that is actually minimal. We're ignoring the negative numbers because they don't make sense in this context, of course. --Cyde Weys15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Minimal can mean either the lowest amount possible, or the lowest amount required. In this case, since the foundation said a small amount is permissible, they meant the second. If their intention was for "minimal" to mean zero, they would have said zero. --Minderbinder15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
At this rate and with all of the maximum amount of wikilawyering going on about this, I think they might just come out and say zero. In the mean time, I don't possibly see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that 250 non-free images on a single article is "minimal". --Cyde Weys15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You sure about that? I can point to at least 5 other Wikipedia's that have decided the foundation decree means no fair use whatsoever and allow only free content. -Mask?16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You said: "Wikipedia's that have decided the foundation decree means no fair use", not "other Wikipedia's [sic] that have disallowed fair use". Point in fact that page states nothing of them banning fair use because of the decree. Matthew17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the disclaimer is there because not all of them have updated their image policies after the board resolution. Most have, not all, and the ones that havent yet are likely to ban fair use. I highly suggest you subscribe to the Wikipedia-l and foundation-l mailing lists to get a better grip on the reality of the situation. -Mask?17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The other wikis haven't made that interpretation, they've decided on their own to be more restrictive then the foundation requires. Wikipedia hasn't made that decision, at least not yet. Are you honestly saying that even though they listed a number of cases where nonfree is allowed, they still meant none are allowed? --Minderbinder17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"it's clear that their intended meaning of "minimal" isn't zero" - Minimal means zero if the images aren't necessary. ed g2s • talk16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And whether a specific image is necessary in a specific case is something that can only be determined by consensus. The foundation and this policy certainly say that cases exist where nonfree content is necessary. --Minderbinder17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Could editors take a look at the use of nonfree images at the article Western painting? One of the galleries has upwards of 25 nonfree images. The potential issues are minimal use, galleries generally considered to be decorative, and whether the text provides sufficient critical commentary. The argument for keeping them all is that they illustrate schools or styles, although the text following the gallery is largely a list of names of artists and names of styles, and goes into very little critical detail. Opinions on this would be welcome. --Minderbinder18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion these images are needed to illustrate the varied and complex tendencies in 20th Century art. Currently this is an article being worked on. The text is currently being revised. There are images illustrating different tendencies in 20th century art that refer to separate movements and that also link to articles about those movements. Social realism, Regionalism, Abstract expressionism, Surrealism, Color field painting for examples have lengthy texts in separate linked pages. There are several tendencies within the general heading of neo-expressionism that are illustrated. For instance Philip Guston - who was an important influence on younger painters in the 1980s. And admittedly there is much work in the way of writing about 20th century painting that needs to be added. Modernist21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-free issues aside, the article has too many images to be useful, in my opinion. The article would flow much better with one or two examples of each type of painting. Users who wanted to see more paintings could follow the wikilinks to those articles. -- MisterHand21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that in the article we are covering a huge territory. We are illustrating works from the totality of achievement in Western painting from the cave paintings to the present. This isn't an article that can be written in a single day. And it isn't an instance where a single painting like The Mona Lisa can represent the Renaissance. We are attempting a long and in depth look at the subject of Western painting. As the 20th century is so close in time the conflicting and complicated directions of modern and postmodern art aren't as clear or as simple as it might be in centuries past. Hopefully this article in time will be a flagstone article on Wikipedia. Modernist21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the amount of "territory" something to be taken into consideration in terms of minimal use? The policy says "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article". --Minderbinder21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me like your scope is a bit too large for a general topic like "Western painting". Typically, in situations like this, you have a high level article which then would lead to more detailed articles about particular disciplines -- rather than trying to put all the material into one huge article. -- MisterHand22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
User:MisterHand - There are already smaller articles written about each sub topic in Western painting. That is what the images refer to. There are topics on Hudson River School or Rococo or Hard-edge painting or Lyrical Abstraction, or Minimal art etc. This article addresses that long history and ties these articles together. User:Minderbinder - Actually the text differs from history of painting, the origin of Western painting began with History of Painting, which is growing more and more complicated, with Indian painting, Chinese painting, Japanese painting, African painting, and Islamic painting also. The text in this article is slowly changing away from the other article as it gets richer. Modernist22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Write the text first. Then when the text justifies it, add the image. The text has to be on the page where the image is. Galleries are generally discouraged and virtually banned for non-free images. The image page, if non free, has to contain a specific rationale for each page where it is used. I think you will be able to justify these images in due course, but they should be integrated in the text and placed appropriately. Tyrenius23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Why have the gallery technology which looks great, and is useful - especially with illustrating visual art, if we can't use it. I've put some paintings into the text as an experiment. I think the gallery is a useful tool. Modernist00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To repeat (mostly) what I said on the talk page: The criterion from the WP:FREE policy is "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." These images are clearly illustrating the school of art discussed in the nearby text - how is this not the case? There is no requirement for detailed commentary on each image, which obviously would be impossible in an article like this. I think the captions throughout the article could do with being longer to reinforce the various points, but this article is just now undergoing massive expansion, and no doubt this will be got round to. I also don't know if Commons images have been looked for - perhaps some can be replaced by these, which would obviously be better. There are a lot of images, probably a few too many, but this is a flagship article, covering a huge subject. The size of most is very small, which is also relevant. I think they might also be broken up into smaller gallery groups among the text personally. I also agree the duplication with History of painting should be greatly reduced - this is being addressed. This article should obviously be the more detailed of the two. Johnbod00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Because many of these schools of art are not discussed or only have minimal discussion. There are two or three sentences about pop art, for example. Why then is it necessary to use four images to illustrate the movement? That's not mininmal at all.
Common sense tells us to use the images in this aricle in the gallery because it does conform to the guidelines in that they illustrate specific and important and separate directions and movements in 20th century art. This is a survey of a century of very complicated and varied directions in art. This is not a biography. I Added images as illustrations and text to 20th Century but I prefer the gallery. It is succinct and the text eventually will discuss and reflect upon every image in the gallery in depth. The complexity of high end 20th century painting is long and varied as demonstrated in the article. There are important 20th century movements not covered here even as long as the gallery is now. I prefer the gallery to the use of illustrations, partially because the illustrations are distracting, too many are needed, and partially because more ground is covered in the gallery. As User:Johnbod and others have suggested if there are redundancies in the gallery they can be trimmed. I think all the images are needed to illustrate the text, they each represent important movements. The four neo-expressionist images are four separate directions - Philip Guston is the bridge between Social Realism, Abstract expressionism, Pop Art, and Neo-expressionism, Susan Rothenberg's painting represents the classic move back to imagery in the 1970s, Eric Fischl's work introduces the psychological anxiety and drama of the 1980s with his edgy figurative paintings and Anselm Kiefer represents the culmination of Post-war German and European art from Joseph Beuys to Gerhard Richter that should be acknowledged. I will give careful thought to the guidelines but my interpretation of them is that these images as they are used in the gallery are perfectly within the boundaries of the guidelines. As far as Pop Art goes more sentences will be added. Modernist03:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If only we could just use common sense. But in this case it's not an option, instead we have to follow this policy. --Minderbinder21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect I interpret the policy - in a different way then your interpretation. These images are needed to illustrate specific artists, movements, timeframes, stylistic characteristics, and this is a Visual Arts article, pictures are necessary. Modernist22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Attention is still needed at both Western painting and History of painting, this may require admin enforcement as has happened at other articles where editors have reverted attempts to remove nonfree images used excessively and not as permitted by this policy. Could someone please take a look? --Minderbinder12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Now instead of one big gallery with 27 nonfree images, they are split into several smaller galleries in the same article with about the same number of nonfree images. Is that really a fix? --Minderbinder13:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
was probably created so that we would have something that fit into the template nicely.
has been proposed, and the text "Wheelchair accessible". However, neither of these options, nor any free replacement, could be of equal or greater quality to the ISA because any free replacement would not be a widely accepted international symbol.
![[2]](http://www.allerdale.gov.uk/images/disabledspace1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.petertan.com/images/disabled-dscn5738.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.directhygienesupplies.com/shopimages/products/thumbnails/IS409.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.pixl8.co.uk/filemanager/access_large.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
