Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

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

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74

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

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

For the purposes of clarification, I am proposing that one of these three actions be taken:

1. To WP:NFCI (the acceptable use for images section) add the following numbered point: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely"
   
2. To WP:NFC#UUI (the unacceptable use for images section), add the following numbered point: "Pictures of deceased persons, even if no free close substitute can likely ever be obtained. (This does not necessarily apply if the person's physical appearance was extraordinary and a proper subject for commentary in the article, or if other elements in the picture are a proper subject for commentary in the article.)"
   
3. Neither, no change.

The use of "close" was struck through on 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC), on the basis of general consensus that this is better. This does not materially affect the discussion to any great extent.

The !votes sought here are "support #1" or "support #2" or "support #3". There is no reason for an "oppose" !vote since #3 is no change (unless, I suppose, an editor wished to !vote along the lines of "oppose #3, either #1 or #2 would be OK" in the interests of resolving the matter). Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 is pretty much as I understand it the status quo, though we should perhaps flag that such photos should not have commercial value: it is NFCC #1 that is less sharp an issue for dead people, but that doesn't cut into NFCC #2 where such photos have particular commercial value due to their quality, rarity, or simply the fact that they are in somebody's commercial library and they are actively being marketed. Jheald (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the status quo, see here, which is being used (for example here) as a precedence case for deleting other such photos. If it should be the status quo then we should so state, or if not, then we should state that. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've long held that an image of the subject of the article itself should normally satisfy NFCC #8. Those closures look to be inappropriate. Jheald (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but in these two cases the images in question were not illustrating the subject of the article in which they were used. CIreland (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fair, given the article was called Casey Anthony trial at the time. But now the article has reverted to the more typical BLP1E title, Death of Caylee Anthony, I would have thought an image of the subject would be appropriate. Similarly for Murder of Jesse Dirkhising, which was the article title when its image was removed. Jheald (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hence the subject of the article was the death and/or trial not the victim. While there will often be a strong case for including a picture of a victim, we shouldn't assume that such would automatically pass NFCC#8 as we would for a biography. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find it hard to envisage a murder article where it wouldn't. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT Option 1, to clarify that this really is our policy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither 1 nor 2 in the present form. Version 1 is indeed close to present practice, but not quite: the legitimate interest in showing a likeness of a deceased article subject does not always override other prohibiting factors, most notably that of NFCC#2 in the case of commercial news agency pictures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1 with any appropriate tweaks to address FPAS's objections. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose #1 while the phrase "free close substitute" is in it. We don't need people saying "no, we should use the non-free image, as the free image is not a close substitute". J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose #1 per JMilburn, absolutely no need to put another phrase into NFCC that people can wikilawyer over. If the free version is completely worthless as a substitute it shouldn't be contentious anyway.. Black Kite (t) 12:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support #1 though I can live with a change to address NFCC#2 as needed. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1 on the basis that we are an encyclopedia, and all other rules are subservient to that. We must obey copyright legislation, but the encyclopedia is located in the US, where fair use would permit almost all such uses of images in an educational resource like ours. We must obey even the resolutions of the Board, but we are allowed to interpret them. and should interpret them in the way that we think best balances the need for freedom with the need for information. The wording of the title of an article is not the limitation on what the article is actually about, and I interpret "about" to mean, a substantial subject critical and central to the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; If we can tweak this to take NFCC#2 into account, and remove the word "close", I think you'd probably have very quick consensus here. Black Kite (t) 07:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1 per DGG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I support #3. I oppose #1 as written but would support if the word "close" were removed (in which case I would see #1 as merely a clarification of #3).—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm largely fine with that suggestion too. I do think that, for example, a free baby picture wouldn't cut it. But I'm not sure how close "close" is. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's the problem; it's too wikilawyerable. If we have a free image of someone aged 20, and a non-free image of them aged 60 (which is when they were murdered) then that's one thing. But even if we have a fairly poor image of a murder victim that is free, it should usually be preferred. Black Kite (t) 19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1, which is the status quo ante - the recent deletions of these images are a new and wholly inappropriate phenomenon. Remember the reason we require free images is to encourage the creation of more free images, which is patently impossible when the subject is deceased. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The word "close" should be removed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from RfC initiation: would it be OK to strikethrough the word "close" at this point? It's not usually OK to change proposals while in progress, but given the thrust of commentary here it might be OK I think? At any rate, removing "close" is fine with me and I think that that 1) the person closing the RfC should remove the word "close" and 2) everyone should assume that word "close" won't be in the final text (if it's accepted). (I was only trying to avoid situations where an editor would claim that a picture of person's house or whatever was a "substitute" for a portrait, but apparently this was not a good choice of words.) Herostratus (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be fine. Also mark the discussion showing at what point the strike occurred perhaps? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, I struck through the term at 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC). All comments above this point referred to the non-struckthrough version, all the ones below to the struckthrough version. I'll add a double line to emphasize this. Comments above to the effect "OK, but only if the word 'close' is removed" should be considered to have been addressed. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support #1. (Proposer, but hadn't expressed an opinion before now.) My reasons are twofold:
  • Lots of times it's good to avoid having specific rules, but in this case I think it's worthwhile to clarify this and avoid future contention, so I can't support #3. #1 seems to be general usual practice, and it's best when rules codify usual practice, if this can be supported.
  • To the question of whether a picture "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding". Humans are attuned to the human face above all other objects in the universe. This is true across all cultures and is seen in newborns. Rightly or wrongly, we believe that the merest variation in features and expression carries meaning. I suppose a lot of this is bogus when it comes to features (e.g. a receding chin supposedly indicating weak character etc.) but no so much when it comes to expression. The forward-thrust chin, the fey slight turning of the head, the grim-set jaw, the furrowed brow, the shy half-smile, the guileless grin. Setting and clothing also. We believe that these things may reveal something of the person, and there's something to that, I think. So yes I guess that pictures that show the person reasonably clearly do meet WP:NFCC#8.

As to WP:NFCC#2 (Non-free content not to usurp items with market value), note that "Acceptable use -- images" (where this text is proposed to be added) says "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criteria; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here". So I don't see this as an issue. If use of an item fails to meet WP:NFCC#2 it's out, period, and you never even get to this text. Appending "provided it does not fail the non-free content criteria regarding respect for commercial opportunities" (or just more broadly "provided it does not fail any criteria of the non-free content criteria" is perfectly acceptable to me, but redundant and inelegant. But if it'll get the proposition accepted, then fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose #1. This goes too far. The parallel examples in this section (#s 1-7) all deal with subjects under copyright (not simply images), where no free equivalents can exist (absent a release of copyright), and where general rules can be reliably stated. The Wikimedia Foundation's governing resolution makes special provision for use of nonfree content with regard to those subjects. Images of deceased persons involve rather different considerations, and case-by-case analysis retains its particular importance. It is not at all reasonable to presume that images of deceased persons will meet all of the necessary NFCC criteria (while it is reasonable to presume that for most of the examples currently listed); the experiences we've had with disputes over the uses of TV episode screenshots should serve as a caution against including overly broad classes of examples. Fundamentally, it's a very bad idea to change the examples in order to influence discussions of the application of NFCC policy. If the policy itself remains unchanged, no case is made for modifying the policy language, and no evidence is presented of widespread error in its application, then there's no reason for making such a change. If we we have to add the disclaimer proposed, that's a strong signal that the class of images is really not generally acceptable under NFV policy. (And yes, that means I don't think example #8 was well-selected.) Also oppose #2. which goes too far in the opposite direction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. But as a practical matter what you are saying, I think, is that arguments along the line of "In this photo, the person is just looking at the camera, fails #8, delete; while in this photo the grim-set jaw and clenched fists helps us see why the person was called "The Mussolini of Nebraska" and inspired fear, passes #8, keep" are functional. Right? In theory this would be great, we could all discuss the two photos and reach consensual agreement on content that one is in and out. But I dunno. I think in the best case this leads to a lot of time and effort on discussions that, at the end of the day, come down to subjective opinion. In the worst case it leads to an editor deciding that portraits don't pass #8 period and deleting them. Image-deletion discussions are not well attended, but even if they were, if an admin believes that portraits do not meet #8 discussion doesn't matter, he is required to delete them immediately regardless of any other considerations. And this apparently does happen. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1, Oppose #2, largely per DGG. The needs of the encyclopaedia should be paramount, as that is the most important aim of the project. Supporting and encouraging the creation of free images and other free media is a very important goal too, but it has to be secondary to the needs of the encyclopaedia. For living people the balance between free and non-free images is nearly right to prohibit non-free media in almost all circumstances (I think it needs relaxing very slightly in certain circumstances, but that's a different discussion). For deceased people the creation of free images is not possible, and so we don't need to put a great emphasis on encouraging it. As such we should use non-free media if no free media is know to exist that represents the subject within a reasonable timeperiod of their notability (e.g. if they're notable for something they did as a 60-year old a photo of them in their teens isn't representative (nor vice-versa). Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither 1 nor 2 in the present form. as per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise - and oppose 1 as per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 - I see this as a matter of prioritizing Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia first and a free content activism platform second. This project is popular because it is useful, because there is a universal demand for concise, objective coverage of a multitude of topics. In that respect, we as wiki contributors are akin to journalists, researchers, scholars. Our goal should be to consider and work toward the best way of conveying information. If there is no opportunity to create new free-content alternatives to identify biographical subjects, no amount of wishful thinking in the world will magically force copyright holders to release content under a free license. To discriminate best editorial practices on the basis of holding an important aspect of biographical coverage hostage in exchange for a free license does a disservice to the goal of neutral coverage. As a non-profit educational project we have privilege under US copyright law to claim fair use in certain circumstances. It is important to note that US copyright law also extends the very concept of copyright as a legal privilege meant both to promote prosperity and serve the public good.

I presume that there is little debate on the value of visual information in aiding human understanding, from the simplest neurocognitive basis of learning about people by recognizing and later referencing their physical likeness to the oldest established tenets of scholarship as evidenced by the very fact that drawings and/or photographs accompany historical records of every sort. Portraiture isn't mere window dressing, let's keep that clear. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 only. That's the status quo and it may help to state it explicitly. A couple things, though. The correct wording is "no free equivalent is available". That's equivalent, not substitute. So far we don't have any defined concept of what a substitute is. Second, the following phrase proposed below is empty verbiage: "provided that all non-free content criteria (including but not limited to respect for commercial opportunities) is met". That's basically true of all policy here and rule-drafting in general. A rule either overrides other rules or it doesn't. Restating after every rule that the other rules still apply is clutter, and hurts interpretation. If necessary we should say at the top of the section rather than in connection with each rule that these are merely examples of files that are usually found to meet certain criteria, not rule exceptions to say that the rest of NFC/NFCC doesn't apply. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're entirely correct regarding the empty verbiage, but several editors insisted that their support was contingent on inclusion of a clause to that effect, redundancy notwithstanding. It's too bad, but there's nothing to be done about it. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't oppose any rule on purely stylistic grounds, but maybe we could put the extra verbiage in a css class that appears on their browser but not ours?  :)
• Additional note: The word "picture" should be exchanged with "photograph" in the proposals. The whole argument about the significance of portraits is only valid for authentic portraits, i.e. typically photographs. There might be an occasional case of a portrait drawing/painting (e.g. by an early 20th artist, made of a contemporary subject), but those would be rare and special cases and don't need to be covered in our examples list. The misunderstanding we need to avoid is that there could be a license also for a non-free fictionalized portrait, e.g. a modern painter's or book illustrator's imagined portrait of a medieval figure. We often do see editors demanding the inclusion of such items, which are never legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the basic question is: do portraits and similar pictures fail NFCC#8, or not? (When no free substitute is likely possible.) In other words, does a portait "significantly increase readers' understanding" of a biographical article, or not?

In certain cases it probably does: Cyrano de Bergerac for instance (that is the reason for the "physical appearance was extraordinary" clause). Most certainly a photo of an architect that also shows a important destroyed building that is discussed in the article. Arguably a baseball player showing his characteristic stance, or a rock musician showing a characteristic style (Pete Townhshend windmilling for instance), or an inventor shown using his unique apparatus, and so on, providing that these are discussed in the article or reasonably could be (that is the reason for the "other elements in the picture" clause).

But if it's just a portrait or portrait-like picture? I don't know, but it seems like something that there ought to be general guidance on.

It's frustrating to me if editors are in favor of clarifying this but are opposed to the precise wording. @Fut.Perf.: well of course if the image fails other criteria beyond NFCC#8 it's not allowed. @J Milburn: The point of "close substitute" is to precisely to deny Wikilawyering arguments on the line of "It's reasonably likely that crowd shot with him in it might surface" or something. As it stands, NFCC#8 is open to endless contention (Wikilawyering if you will) over whether or not a portrait " "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding". It's not possible short of an overly-long exposition to detail every case of what or is not an acceptable substitute. Perhaps it should say "substitute" instead of "close substitute", but then you have "well, I have a free picture of his house, and since portraits are essentially decorative, that's a reasonable substitute" or whatever. And after all, this is just a change to the "Guideline examples" section which says "These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions".

The point raised re Jess Dirkhising was "Well, why haven't the pictures of Matthew Shepard and Larry Forbes King and so forth also been deleted"? and with no clear answer given I infer that the answer is "Well, we just haven't gotten to those yet".

One other thing -- I guess "Oppose #1" means "Support #3"; if editors support #2 they should make this clear. Supporting #3 is OK, to leave the answer to question unspecified (or, if you will, vague). The advantage of that is it allows greater leeway for persons to interpret NFCC#8 re portraits of dead people. The disadvantage of that is it allows greater leeway for persons to interpret NFCC#8re portraits of dead people.

I note that the Jess Dirkhising discussion was not heavily populated (this is typical for IFD discussion), and FWIW the sole !vote was "Keep" and the image was deleted anyway. So this leaves a lot of leeway for the closing admin to apply his personal opinion on whether or not portraits of dead people are OK or not, and thus these two conditions seem to appy:

• Some are in and some are out, depending basically on chance.
• And all are subject to endless discussion on a case-by-case basis even though all the cases are basically similar.

Neither of these is healthy, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple resolution here: On articles of a deceased notable person X, we allow a non-free image of that person if there is no reasonable free equivalent. If it is on any other article that is not solely about that person, then, no, the use of a non-free image is not immediately allowed, though there may be some justification. You're trying to argue the case for using an image of person X on any other article but X. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting two days later for an explanation as to why the non-free images of Shepard and King remain. Those two images are not free so why are they still here? User:SchuminWeb nominated the image of Jesse Dirkhising for deletion (it was deleted by User:Fastily without consensus) claiming the murder victim's image wasnt free. Yet Schumin has no issues with the non-free images of Shepard and King? It makes zero sense to me. It appears as a double standard. As long as the victim represents a special interest group their pictures remain. If not, they are deleted. That's how I see it. Otherwise the images would have been deleted long ago. Caden ^cool 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing yourself absolutely no favours whatsoever by suggesting that the images of King and Shepard remain because one was gay and one was black. There are hundreds of images of white heterosexual murder victims that haven't been deleted, as a quick trawl through Category:Murder victims would confirm. It would be far better to concentrate on why the Dirkhising one was deleted rather than why others weren't. Black Kite (t) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a point we can't and shouldn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to complain about why some images are deleted and some are kept. However, given what we would normally say, the image of King should be deleted because the article is about the shooting. The problem with the Shepard article is that the editors have made it a bio focusing on the victim rather than the crime; that article probably fails WP:BLP1E and should be renamed to be on the crime, thus nullifying the picture itself. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree about King. Not so much Shepard; that particular story has spread so much from the original murder that Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard had to be split out of the article, and there's the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, that I think it would probably be pointless to try to rename it back to the crime. Black Kite (t) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd agree to that point, but argue that the article still is approaching the crime which likely should be a separate article to keep the bio appropriate. (so yes, not a BLP1E issue). --MASEM (t) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The precise choice for name of an article is normally chosen not as much to indicate the subject, but to avoid BLP implications--or BLP-inspired technical notability limitations in the case of the deceased. An article tiled "Murder of X" is about X in every meaningful sense of the word, just as an split from a very large article about X titled "Death of X" would be DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it's rather important. Most of the time, we are using non-free images of deceased persons in the same vein as cover art - for identification without commentary of the image itself. On an article that is strictly about that person, this is putting it in context of discussion of the person itself. If the person is only discussed in context of a larger topic, and the image of that person is not discussed at all, that's failing NFCC#8. I can understand the empathic approach of having images of victims in articles about the crime, but I'm positive that past FFDs have always fallen in favor of removing non-frees of victims that are otherwise non-notable outside of being the victim. (Black Kite points out the Sheppard case above as an exception where the victim became notable after the crime due to the motive and impact). --MASEM (t) 14:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll say something; when flicking through our articles for examples today, there's a hell of a lot of non-notable biographies of murder victims out there - have a look at Category:British murder victims for a start. Being murdered doesn't make you notable. Black Kite (t) 19:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• George Francis (suspected mobster) .... arrrgh. Black Kite (t) 19:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whereas ironically Murder of Lesley Whittle is an easily notable case (it was utterly notorious), yet Whittle is a redirect to her murderer. Anyway, this is nothing to do with NFC, so I'll stop there. Black Kite (t) 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To an extent there is some NFC overlap here, but its more in the court of BLP/BLP1E. We don't want bios created on murder victims just so that we can have a non-free image of that person per NFCC/NFCI. I have a feeling that if we starting pushing this, people would try to go against BLP/BLP1E to make this happen. There are other reasons besides the NFC aspects, but that's just one point that's showing a larger problem. Still, to that end to the RFC above, this is why the NFCI as given is fine and no clarification is needed, because it's not here that is the problem. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If we have a "Murder of X" article, I would think in general an image of X is appropriate, since they are so central to the story, and (per what you've just written) this should usually be the substitute for a separate bio article on them (BLP1E minus the L). Jheald (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a very slippery slope that follows that if you say a non-free picture of X on "Murder of X" is appropriate even if X is only simply identified by name, age, and profession, and not given much other discussion, that we should have the same on multiple murders, or serial killer pages, or mass murder events (eg Columbine) for every victim. You can argue that this slope shouldn't go in that direction, but it can and will be argued it you make the allowance that is being asked for above. At somepoint, too, we have to worry about WP:NOTMEMORIAL; unless the person is more than just the victim, showing the photo of the victim without other discussion would seem to fall into line of trying to gain sympathy for victim, what NOTMEMORIAL cautions against. For most crimes, it is not the victims that are of encyclopedic manner beyond the facts that they were the victims; its the resolution of the trials and appeals and following changes in law enforcement or the like that result.
• I'm not dismissing that in some very select cases that the murder victim becomes a very recognizable figure even if we don't have a page specifically dedicated to that person. Matthew Sheppard is one such case and I'm sure there are others. But really, I think it's pretty obvious that if a victim X falls into the case of BLP1E and as such can only be discussed in a larger article about the crime, then using a non-free image of that person on that crime article simply isn't appropriate. (This does not nullify any free image use, of course) --MASEM (t) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I don't think that's obvious at all. If you were to try to remove the image of Meredith Kercher from Murder of Meredith Kercher you would run into a firestorm. In very many cases a sense of the victim's style and appearance very much helps anchor the crime and add to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly the type of case where we don't need the non-free image of the victim. The victim as a person is described all in about 3 sentences in the first section in the body, and certainly is not notable prior to the event, and this clearly falls into BLP1E territory for justify why there's no article about her. So as for the picture does it aid in any understanding of the event? Nope, once you've identified it as a young adult Caucasian female, that's sufficiently descriptive for the rest of the article which is highly detailed on the events of the crime and trial. Of course, I'm not going to be pointy and do anything about it, but its clear that the picture is not meeting NFCC#8 here. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We'd have to agree to disagree on that; I'm very dubious the community would agree with you. Jheald (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the notability criterion for murders / murder victims ? (And yes, I've looked at WP:CRIME). You say that there are a "hell of a lot" of non-notable bios; but there is (and long has been) a thriving interest in the true crime book-genre, which may cite very many of these. I see that you have now redirected George Francis (suspected mobster) to Brink's-MAT robbery, but if you're going to do that, shouldn't you transfer over some of the content too? What we've got as it stands now is a redirect to an article which doesn't even mention the subject of the redirect. Jheald (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely WP:NEVENT and WP:BLP1E are primary guidance. Eg, I know there are murders in my local area on a weekly basis, but I wouldn't consider most of them even notable for WP. Instead, cases that attract national attention (and moreso beyond tabloid-like coverage) even if they are a local event are the types that lend to notable crimes and/or victims. And for a victim to be notable, there needs to be significant change or influence in law or the like following said even that is directed tied to the victim; otherwise, again, it's just part of the crime. Redirects from victim names to crimes, are, of course, completely acceptable. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The significance of portraiture in increasing the reader's understanding is because this is how we process information. For instance, I've volunteered in teaching kids with cognitive disabilities where in one case we kept a photo-book around because a student had trouble recognizing names. This is an extreme example and I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia has any responsibility to cater to any conceivable cognitive disorder, just that it is pretty common knowledge that faces play a prominent role in learning. In this respect I don't see the reason for the rampant dismissal of the importance of visually identifying a biographical subject. While there are learning styles which place little importance in visual information, identifying photographs continue to have a tremendous inherent value as visual mnemonics. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is still open, but only for a few days, and there haven't been any comments for ten days, so before CluBot IIII tries to archive it again, let's see where we stand.

Even if the discussion was expired I couldn't close this since I commented, but if were closing this, and taking into account all of the discussions, I think it would be fair to say that proposed option #1 be amended to read something like:

Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free substitute is not reasonably likely, and provided that all non-free content criteria (including but not limited to respect for commercial opportunities) is met.

Several people expressed support for changing the wording along these lines, and I think it fair to say that adding the latter clause would not change the opinion of anyone who supported option #1 as previously written.

Support #1

12, depending on how one counts. One could remove User:Future Perfect at Sunrise from this count, but then one could add User:Caden, and there are a few others who are arguable. I tried to count the comments as fairly and accurately as possible.

These are: User:Jheald, User:Tillman, User:DGG, User:Beyond My Ken, User:Herostratus, User:Thryduulf. Also User:Hobit, User:Philosopher, noting that these two suggested (not required) the removal of the word "close", which has been done. Also User:Jclemens, provided the addition of the second clause, which has been done.

User:Black Kite commented "If we can tweak this to take NFCC#2 into account, and remove the word "close", I think you'd probably have very quick consensus here". Both of these have been done, and I think it's fair to say that "you'd probably have very quick consensus here" in context indicates support.

User:S Marshall. Supported #3 but his comment was: "I support #3. I oppose #1 as written but would support if the word "close" were removed (in which case I would see #1 as merely a clarification of #3)". Since the word "close" was removed I'm putting him in the support camp.

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, arguably. His comment was "Neither 1 nor 2 in the present form. Version 1 is indeed close to present practice, but not quite: the legitimate interest in showing a likeness of a deceased article subject does not always override other prohibiting factors, most notably that of NFCC#2 in the case of commercial news agency pictures". His comment "is indeed close to present practice" does not necessarily mean that he approves of present practice. As a practical matter, though, this comment looks to be supportive of #1 provided that the concerns he noted were addressed, which they have been.

Support #2

None.

Support #3

2. If one wanted to include User:CIreland and User:Masem, which in my opinion is probably not called for (see section "Other", below), then 4. They are User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User talk:Off2riorob. (User talk:Black Kite was opposed to the term "close substitute", which has been struck. Based on his later comments I put him in the "support" camp.)

Other

There were some others that I didn't include in the headcount, although of course their arguments were considered.

User:J Milburn was opposed to the term "close substitute", which has been struck (his comment was "Oppose #1 while the phrase 'free close substitute' is in it"). However, it's not entirely clear that striking the word "close" is sufficient to have moved him out of the "support #3", nor that since it was struck it's fair to keep him in that camp, so I didn't count him either way.

Based on User:Caden's comments (to the effect "why are some in, and some out?") and his comments elsewhere, I'm pretty sure that he is in the mind of supporting #1, but he didn't make this entirely clear so I didn't count him.

Since some of the example articles under consideration were of the type "Murder of Joe Smith", there was some discussion around this. This is a secondary issue, whether Joe Smith is "the topic" of an article entitle "Murder of Joe Smith". This could be clarified, but not here.

User:CIreland and User:Masem made comments indicating that they are concerned that #1 not apply to articles other than those consisting solely of a person's name (and title or similar words that are effectively part of the name, and disambiguation info as needed). (Others disagreed). But I didn't see a clear expression from them on the question at hand. It's possible that User:CIreland and User:Masem could be inferred to be in the mind of "Support #3, unless and until the meaning of "the topic" is clarified". However, they didn't !vote in the Comments section so this is not entirely clear, and I didn't think it fair to include them in the totals.

Headcount summary

12-0-2, depending on how one counts. Another person might count it as 10-0-4. 12-2 is a clear supermajority. So is 10-4, but not as strong.

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz presented the argument in favor of #3, which is basically that we should be conservative in making any exceptions to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is an important policy with legal ramifications. The Wikimedia Foundation's governing resolution makes special provision for use of nonfree content and portraits are not included under those provisions, so portraits should be discussed on a case-by-case basis and not given a blanket exemption.

The arguments in favor of #1 are basically:

• This is current accepted practice.
• Photos of persons increase "readers' understanding" of the person and so pass criteria #8.
• One of the points of the non-free-content restrictions is to encourage the creation of free content, which is basically a dead letter if the person is deceased.

Having commented, I'm not going to weigh these arguments and I'll leave that to the person closing the RfC. (Whether photos of persons increase "readers' understanding" is basically a subjective opinion and can't really be proven or disproven, but if there is consensus either way then this be considered "proven" or "disproven" as a practical matter, I would say.) Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammersoft removed the fair use rationale for the use of file:Kubica crash.jpg in 2007 Canadian Grand Prix, without placing any indication he had done so at the article talk page. I posted on his talk page about this, and his response was basically that it is not required to do this.

While the removal of the rationale may or may not have been correct or the best way of doing it, that isn't the issue. The file was used in that article, with what the editors there had every reason to believe was a valid rationale, for four years until that rationale was removed with no notice. With no rationale, the image was (correctly) subject to removal from the article at any time for not meeting the NFCC. In this specific case, there is a very strong case for using the picture, if a correct rationale is provided.

My thinking is that if, for any reason, a fair use rationale is edited or changed in such a way that its use on an article is no longer covered by a rationale, that a message should be posted to the talk page of the relevant article informing editors there of this. This need not be more than a template with a link to the image, an optional reason for editing/removing the rationale, a link to instructions about FURs and a link to a good place to discuss it if they want to.

I don't think this requirement would be unreasonable or unduly onerous on NFCC patrollers, and in the best interests of openness, encouraging complience with the NFCC and avoiding acrimony and drama down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale as here violates WP:NFCC Policy 10c. If you want to include the image in a number of articles, it is your responsibility to ensure the file has a separate rationale for each article where the file is used (see WP:NFCC#Enforcement). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not my point. Where there is a rationale for use in an article (whether that rationale is valid or not), and that rationale is removed or changed for any reason (rightly or wrongly), then a note should be placed on the talk page of the relevant article informing the users there that there is no longer a rationale for the use of that image in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) My removing the group rationale was correct, as borne out by prior discussion regarding blanket rationales. (2) The editors did not have every reason to believe it was a valid rationale, as the rationale explicitly violated WP:NFCC #10c which requires a separate, specific rationale for each use. (3) As I noted [1] at WP:NFCR, there isn't a case for using the picture at all, at least not as supported by secondary sources. (4) The requirement being requested would double the work load of an NFCC patroller removing group rationales. (6) There's been no acrimony in the dozens of group rationale removals I've done since February of this year until today, when you accused me [2] of being lazy. I assert the source of the acrimony isn't the group rationales, but your decision to become uncivil in approaching me about this issue. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The file was used in that article, with what the editors there had every reason to believe was a valid rationale, for four years until that rationale was removed with no notice." Had the editors of the article actually taken the time to familiarize themselves with WP:NFCC#Policy, they would have known the rationale was not valid and could have fixed it, but obviously that did not happen. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way; a related suggestion to add to NFCC policy (under enforcement) to say "A file may not be removed for failing NFCC unless there has been prior notice of the issue on the relevant article talk page for 7 days" failed this past July. See failed proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without having yet read that proposal, I have to say that surprises me. As for your other point, why should every editor of an article be intimately familiar with the NFCC requirements? I would expect the person uploading the image and anyone adding to the article to familiarise themselves enough to do their best at getting the rationale correct, but beyond that the way Wikipedia normally works in my long experience is that if someone finds a problem they either fix it themselves or, and/or post about it somewhere so that it can be fixed by someone who is able to.

I honestly don't understand why simple acts of communication seem to be so opposed by NFCC folk. I'm not speaking about anyone specifically here, but in almost all my dealings with NFCC enforcement I'm left with the distinct impression of an attitude of "Everybody should be intimately familiar with the entirety of all the rules, policies and guidelines relating to non-free content, and if you can't be bothered to learn this then why on earth should we bother talking to you at all?" I also get a sense of complete bafflement that anyone (other than possibly the uploaded, maybe) might want to know about potential problems with an image. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should every editor of an article be intimately familiar with the NFCC requirements?" Nobody says all editors of an article must be familiar with NFCC policy, but an editor adding a non-free file to an article has the responsibility to make sure the file is compliant with all of the criteria listed there as otherwise it is likely to result in the files removal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really in the uploader's court four years later. This obsession with only notifying the uploader, and holding the uploader "responsible," doesn't make sense beyond the initial moment when the image is first uploaded, nor is it consistent with WP:OWN. If your notification quota only allows for one notice per image, I think we'd be better off giving article talk page notices and not even bothering to notify the uploader in such stale cases. And an article's current editors are in the best position to understand the informational value of the image to the article and so either fix the NFUR if it can be, or find a replacement that can be compliant. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes they should, but NFCC is not the simplest thing about Wikipedia and historically the enforcement of it has got more stringent over time. So some invalid rationales have (and maybe still do) slip through the net and get used in articles in good faith. The problem can be easily rectified if only people know about it, so why not tell them about it? Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf; As noted in the failed proposal linked above, we had a bot that used to do notifications of missing rationales for articles where an image was used. The result was little activity to fix the problems. The notifications don't work. As to perceived attitudes of NFCC enforcers, I understand that perception. I really do. I don't hold that attitude, though it might come across that way. The simple fact is there are more than 420,000 non-free images on this project. There's more than a thousand added every week. There's more than 8,000 uses of non-free files for which there is no accompanying rationale. There's roughly 3,000 non-free files that are completely missing rationales. In contrast, the number of people who regularly do NFCC enforcement work can be counted on two hands. Yet, these people are routinely attacked and asked to do MORE work in order to conduct NFCC enforcement. You yourself did this; you attacked me as lazy, and insisted that out of common courtesy I should have posted notices in three different places [3] when I removed a group rationale. I think you can see the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have you process fewer images per day and give more complete notices. It's not a race, and you're not a Wikimedia employee with a supervisor breathing down your neck, so you can't use those numbers to justify your own voluntary choices. NFCC needs to be a collaborative environment just like the rest of Wikipedia, which means communication needs to be valued, not just some bottom line of how many images you can remove. As a boss of mine used to say at a real paying job I had, "you should never be in too much hurry to do the job right." postdlf (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to do so, as I've previously noted, if such was required by policy or guideline. Every proposal to date to have something like this has failed. "Doing the job right" is defined by policy and guideline here. I am doing the job right. I'm sorry your personal opinion of how I should be doing the job is not equivalent to that of policy and guideline. If you can generate a good enough argument to get policy and guideline changed to reflect your opinion, I'd be more than happy to abide by it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as some problems were fixed the notifications were worth it. If your using any sort of automated process, the notification should take all of a couple of seconds per image - not at all significant. It will also reduce the amount of time you have to spend in discussions like this. I suspect as well that more and better communication would make more people aware of the work you are doing and so encourage more people to help you. As Postdlf says above, there is no deadline, and no requirement for you to put yourselves under so much pressure - artificial time constraints are no excuse. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted, I'll be happy to provide (the ineffective, as proven by response to prior notices) the notices if policy and/or guideline were modified to require such. I do not use any automated process, nor should I be required to do so in order to do this work. I am a volunteer, just like you. I'm happy to spend the time in discussions like this, so that others can learn the NFCC issues and understand them. I feel this helps the project. I welcome such discussions, and don't consider them a waste of time. I don't feel myself under any particular pressure, nor did I suggest that I was. I highlighted the problem with NFCC enforcement, to counter your argument that NFCC patrollers should be doing even more work to 'help' (when it's been shown that such notices don't help) the project. So to summarize; you're asking me to double my work when removing group rationales, insisting I do something that we already know does not work, calling me lazy for not doing it, and still finding fault with me because I see no reason to do it. I think at this point the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf This "no deadline" argument is completely misplaced here. To be more precise, there should not be even one non-free file NOT compliant with NFCC Policy, as all files MUST be compliant. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be no files that do not comply. However I completely disagree that it's not worth taking the small extra bit of time to do things in a away that encourages civility and good communication. We're coming at this from completely different perspectives and I'm just not understanding your reasoning and it doesn't look like you're understanding why I'm taking the position I am. It's increasingly feeling like the entire NFCC system is broken in some key way if there is just so much work involved that simple things that are so much a part of other aspects of Wikipedia just cannot be done here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Encourages civility? Such as calling me lazy perhaps? I concur the entire NFCC system is broken. I could go one for a while about this. There are a dizzying array of factors to be concerned with in that regard. For example, the incredible disconnect between our being a free content resource juxtaposed with us being one of if not the largest repository of non-free content in the world. The mere fact that we permit non-free content means we will always be dancing around a line in the sand that moves every time the wind blows (read: someone comments about NFCC issues). There is no ready way of fixing that. I've said before on my userpage that I feel the only way to stop the never ending NFCC disputes is to permit non-free content up to the maximum level allowed by U.S. fair use law. Yes, the people opposed to non-free content would not be happy, but it would be a firm line in the sand with not much in the way of questionable content, especially since we have a liberal hand being an educational resource. Of course, this will never happen. Equally impossible is banning non-free content, as non-free content is culturally entrenched here (contrast the German wikipedia, among other languages too that do not allow non-free content at all). Proof of that is in the 420k+ non-free images we have here. So, the polar ends of the problem are impossible to attain. Therefore, what we're left with is the middle ground, which will always (and I do mean always) be contentious. It is what it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against group rationales, as there is no requirement for a separate handcrafted exercise in drafting prose for each image use. That old notion was never accepted, and more or less died several years ago. If an editor separately considers two image uses and the exact same description fits both, they can use the exact same description for both. That's dubious here, as it looks like this particular rationale is inadequate for both... What is important, though, is that any bots or automated tools dealing with images are going to get confused if you try to stuff two different articles in the same field of the template. So it's reasonable to insist on either one article per template, or else switch to a different template that doesn't mess up the system. There's no particular requirement to inform editors every time you alter their contributions - as pointed out above that's not in the spirit of WP:OWN and that's what watch lists are for. Hammersoft edited a single image that day so it isn't a big deal, but simply blanking informational content because you don't agree with the way it's organized isn't terribly helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#10c: The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. has been in place for years. It is policy. Ergo: group rationales are not allowed. Technically, we do allow a copy-and-paste duplication (save for article name) for repeated, near-equivalent uses, and tolerate to some extent cookie-cutter rationales for things like logos. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to reality for a minute. Here we have an attempt to create a rationale for two images that is both inadequately vague, and also in a form that is technically (but not as a matter of policy, as policy is not about syntactic technicalities) inadequate. The best response would be to fix the rationale for both if they can be fixed, as we are trying to improve an encyclopedia rather than to run around excising things based on technicalities. It's also an acceptable response to question or challenge both, if it looks like the rationale is questionable. Deleting one and keeping the other because they're not supposed to be in the same template is, again, unhelpful. But also again, it's just one image and that's not worth a lot of discussion. If this were a widespread problem or yet another salvo in a mass deletion campaign, that would be something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Hammersoft was in the right to delete. Just that he is correct that separate rationales are needed. I'm still trying to compose my thoughts on the larger issue which is not in alignment with what Hammersoft's actually doing. There needs to be a better way to handle NFCC#8 issues when they compound with other NFCC problems, since NFCC#8 is very objective. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikidemon; Thank you for characterizing my edits as running around excising things based on technicalities. It is approbation like this that makes my editing comfortable here. Further, implying that this is some effort on my part to launch "another salvo in a mass deletion campaign" you are exceptionally off base. As to your other points, improving the encyclopedia comes in many forms. Sometimes it's by deletion. Sometimes it's by addition. I removed the group rationale, leaving the only rationale in existence intact. I did not write a second rationale in part because I am not required to do so and in part because I do not feel that the non-free use is justified in any case where the image is used. I am not going to write a rationale to support the usage of something that I don't think should be used in the first place. That's ridiculous, and insisting I should have done so is flat wrong. I am aware the image is under review at WP:NFCR, and I did not remove it from any use while that discussion is pending, nor did I contest Sarek adding [4] a new rationale to justify one of the uses. I note that you take me to task for not fixing the problem when you think I should have, but you didn't take Sarek to task for not supplying the required-by-policy rationale for the third use, where there is still no rationale for the use. When do you plan on taking him to task for not complying with policy and not fixing the problem as you say I should have done? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, you do often come across as rather inflexible and didactic on NFCC enforcement. I put this down to 1) you having been involved in the area for so long and having seen every possible counter-argument and personal attack possible while doing it; and 2) you are completely right that no existing policy or guideline says you have to go fix things yourself. Also, your views on NFCC are rather more nuanced than they first appear, I've learned that over time. Myself, I nuke text copyvios all the time and yeah, the option is mentioned that I could also rewrite the material myself. Sometimes I do, but much more often I'm simply not familiar with the town the enthusiastic new editor has copied a blurb from the tourist website to flesh out an article - so I remove the material. But there is a valid point here about where best to place a notification to let other active editors of an article know there is a problem, which they can either fix or ignore. I personally do read the various (mostly bot) notificatios I see in articles on my watchlist, and almost always let them go as I can't really conjure up a FUR, i.e. it's probably not a justifiable use. The big problem I see is that when your (justifiable under policy, or even questionable) image use removals orphan an image, it starts the 7-day clock to that image disappearing altogether. If that image could have a valid FUR and it gets deleted, then that is a loss to the encyclopedia. So is there a middle way here? Twinkle seems to help RC patrollers double their edit count by placing warning templates onto user pages for every instance of detected vandalism. Could/would you use such a facility if it was extended to NF image removals? For instance, a tick box to generate an article talk page notice as well as user page notice? I'm not suggesting you switch over to automated tools (which I've never used in my wiki-life) and I'm not suggesting that I have the Twinkle code in hand to do this. But if you're not doing talk notices anyway (which I agree you are not strictly required to do), would you be willing to explore a technical solution to meet the objections half way? Franamax (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline appears to be outdated, and I'd like to modify it to reflect the current reality of non-free file sizes. It reads as follows now:

"Ideally, most common image uses can likely be represented in an image containing no more than 0.1 megapixels (obtained by multiplying the horizontal and vertical pixel count in an image). This allows, for example, images with 4:3 aspect ratios, to be show at 320 x 240 pixels, generally good for screenshots from television, movies, and video games, while allowing for the cover art for most published works to be shown at 250 x 400 pixels."

However in the past year, a slightly larger number has been used, both by DASHBot, the bot that handles non-free size reduction requests, and by file workers like me, who do the resizings manually either when we catch them during our other work, or when DASHBot goes down and the category starts to get into the quadruple digits. I propose the following change:

"Ideally, most common image uses can likely be represented in an image containing no more than 160,000 megapixels (obtained by multiplying the horizontal and vertical pixel count in an image). This allows, for example, images with 4:3 aspect ratios, to be show at 460 x 345 pixels, generally good for screenshots from television, movies, and video games, while allowing for the cover art for most published works to be shown at 300 x 480 pixels."

Yes, I realize that this seems like a rather drastic change, but

a) it really isn't, 160,000 pixels is still far too small to do anything with, especially since about 90% of the non-free files I've seen, including any that have ever been resized, have 72 or 96 DPI (meaing they're useless for printing).

b) DASHBot has been doing 160,000 pixels for a while. If we decide to enforce the lower number we'll have to resize somewhere around 41,000 files, probably by hand.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 14:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seeing that being a big problem, as long as this is not the type of thing that's going to be bumped up more and more over time. (I don't think this is of course). Preferably, I'd suggest a max size range around 0.1 to 0.16 MPs to keep the flavor of the original. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say leave it as is. The whole point is that the advice here is setting a rough ball-park target figure rather than a hard limit. The point that DashBot doesn't flag anything until that target is exceeded by at least 60% is entirely compatible with that.

Is there any evidence that screenshots are being routinely uploaded that are larger than 320 x 240, or cover art larger than 250 x 400, (or album covers larger than 300 x 300), with any suggestion that that lower resolution would be insufficient or inconvenient? I suspect these numbers do not need revision; but if they were to be revised, I would prefer that to be based on a sound argument of value, rather than just a number pulled out of the air.

But it seems to me the main point here is that it is a good thing that there is a buffer betweeen the size we state as a usually reasonable target, compared to the size at which a bot necessarily kicks in. Jheald (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jheald. The bot has to be conservative to avoid damaging those few images which do need a slightly higher resolution. The ballpark figures we have at the moment seem sufficient. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then add language that states explicitly that while 100,000 is preferred, 160,000 is acceptable and does not need to be resized? I say this because to me, this seems like common sense, but to other users, this is a point of contention (which is why I started this RfC in the first place). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of ballpark figures, the Bill Ripken baseball card has been an example of an allowed image in the Unacceptable use of images section for over 5 years.[5] It is 384 by 534 pixels. The image must be large enough to see the information that the "non-free use rationale" justifies. A bot resizing 500x500 images to 300x300 jpg images may just be creating unintelligible blurs. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't have bots going around to automatically resize images. If they are humanly tagged with a reduce tag, that's fine, but yea, we're not about to have a bot readily enforce it. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So as for "160,000 is acceptable and does not need to be resized": no, it's a case-by-case basis; the existing wording—"ideally", "likely"—is sufficient. Uniplex (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to change it to be slightly less rigid, but still keep the healthy buffer we currently have then perhaps adding the word "around" will be all we need - "Ideally, most common image uses can likely be represented in an image containing no more than around 0.1 megapixels". I do though prefer the size expression in pixels (as opposed to megapixels) in the original proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have an otherwise free picture with a non-free item in it. For example, two actors standing on either side of a movie poster. Is the pixel count on the whole image or just the poster? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. If the poster is incidental, the image is free under de minimis. If the poster is the focus, the image is copyrighted, and the pixel count is for the whole image. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't set an absolute limit, but a guideline for most cases (which a non-free element in a free picture is not). Basically the spirit of the rule is that the image must not be bigger than is required to see in reasonable quality the relevant parts of the image. The guideline is just saying that in most (but not all) cases 0.1 megapixels will be sufficiently large. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that today BAG approved Fbot 9 to tag images greater than 160k pixels for non-free reduce, which I'm pretty sure is counter to past approaches with NFC (DASHbot 9 is ok to reduce images that are tagged with non-free reduce but we have always were of the approach that only humans can really judge if an image is oversized). The above discussion initiated by Sven appears related to that bot approval, but as to the actual size and method, I'm concerned that we weren't informed on this page; I don't want to nullify the bot task, but the bounds and method it works by needs to jive with how we actually enforce #3a. I've started discussion at [6] for this. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should criterion 8 be reformulated to make it more objective? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the wording of WP:NFCC Policy 8 from

• Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

to

• Verifiable contextual significance Non-free content is used only if that content is directly referred to by text in that article. That text needs to be supported by citations.

Now I am aware that this formulation is somewhat 'weaker' than the current formulation, but it is also more objectively enforceable.

Rationale behind this change: The current formulation of 8 makes an enforcement based on that criterion impossible and I do not see the benefit of a policy (or part of a policy) which is mostly unenforceable due to broad room for interpretation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I agree with your intentions, we need to make it clear exactly what needs to be referenced. There are two valid uses of non-free media - where the non-free media itself is discussed in the article (as for example at Nick Ut); and where the subject the media depicts is discussed in the article (as for example at Phan Thi Kim Phuc). A change such as you propose needs to make it clear that in the first instance it is the photograph that needs to have referenced discussion, but in the second case it is the subject that needs the referenced discussion. I can't off the top of my head think of a good way to phrase this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a valid point.

• Verifiable contextual significance Non-free content is used only if at least one of the following conditions is met:

a. that content is directly referred to by text in that article and that text is supported by citations or

b. the article's topic is the specific content itself (such as an article about a notable photograph)

How is that? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to fly, as this immediately breaks the use of cover art (in whatever form) that is accepted, and that's just one case. I certainly can argue that on the guideline page (WP:NFC) that we can talk that outside of the NFCI cases, all non-free media must be supported by sourced text, but we cannot change NFCC#8 to focus on the aspects of text without breaking a lot of things. NFCC#8 has been long-running an accepted standard and really we have no reason to change it. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCI 1 says: "only in the context of critical commentary of that item"and further "not for identification without critical commentary". I do not see how that is in contradiction with this proposal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "item" in question is the published work, not the cover of the work. The most common use of cover art is to put it into the infobox and say nothing else about it. This use directly fails both of your suggested changes (it is never referred to by the text, and the article is about the work , not the art). I strongly discourage trying to change this because this will fracture the community on NFCC issues. The current wording is sufficient even if it is subjective because that at least gets people to think about why they are using images. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I figured that out myself while trying to formulate a 2nd reply. I am mistaken. Obviously per NFCI 1 you can discuss the item the cover art is taken from without actually discussing the cover art itself. This proposal would contradict with such a use. Thanks for pointing that out. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to work cover art and similar into a condition c if you want to go down that route (something like "a topic of the article is represented by the content (such as album cover art in an article about that album or a corporation's logo in an article about that corporation)". As for condition b, it's not quite there as in the example I gave the article Nick Ut is not about the photograph, but about the person. It is a section of the article that discusses the photograph (it's "a" topic of the article, not "the" topic of the article. Compare Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with cover art is that there is no real way to justify it under the current wording of the NFCC, but at the same time album are is indeed accepted by common practice. It's similar to the fact that we allow certain articles to exist even though they do not really follow the general notability guideline. This problem, that the policy is already out of sync with practice, is one of the things that makes it hard to improve, because any improvement would probably also be out of sync with practice, and thus subject to that criticism, but a change to bring NFCC in line with practice would be viewed as too liberal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 as currently written (not the proposed change) works just fine with the accepted use of cover art per NFCI#1. When we have an article on a published work, the consensus is that cover art helps the reader to associate that work with whatever marketing/publication imagery has been used in conjunction with that topic itself, ergo meeting NFCC#8 to that degree. That's why I'm strong against changing it, even trying to take the suggested wording and working in how to include cover art, because it's not necessary. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a system that works OK in practice, and consensus does say that cover art helps readers identify works, but that does not change the underlying fact that using cover art for identification fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. Instead we have a de facto (but unwritten in NFCC) consensus to ignore those requirements for cover images (e.g. this). The fact that this exception is not present in NFCC is the reason there is not just a simple template for the non-free use rationale for cover art, even though we know that in practice exactly the same rationale is valid for the primary cover art of any album or book. In other words the NFCC claim "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia" is directly at odds with the actual practice regarding cover art.

I am not trying to change any of this. I am just pointing out on reason why it is very difficult to make any changes to this policy, because attempts to change the wording either upset those who are in favor of the automatic pass for cover images, or upset those who wish that the cover images were not given an automatic pass. This has been the case for several years now, and there is no clear way to fix it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and agreed, though I see it more that we have come to understand how NFCC#1 and 8 are met with cover art even though it is non-verbal/not written down anywhere (mind you, I'm on the side of removing undiscussed/unconnected cover art but definitely don't want to tip the boat). On that specific point it might be worthwhile to have an essay or section somewhere to describe the cover art allowance in detail so that's understood to all how all NFCC points are taken. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just cover art but logos, insignias, pictures of performers, etc. This proposal would turn NFCC on its head by prohibiting just about any use for identification purposes, which is by far the most preponderant use of nonfree images in the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal  Good fences make good neighbors.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the existing wording goes to the heart of the matter. Typical uses (logos, covers, pictures of people) are things humans recognise from images and are therefore important to the understanding of the article (oh.. that album, that ship, that actress). The proposed wording would just raise arguments over whether an image of the cover is of the album (althoguh I don't recall anyone asking if the image of the skin and hair is of the person) or of the cover or indeed an electronic image that was made from the same file that was used to create the plates for the cover.. etc etc. There is no such thing as "objective", this just moves the target from "understanding" to "directly referenced", and is too weak,, even for my liberal tastes. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Oppose - WP needs to be insulated from legal threats, and our non-free-use criteria must be above reproach. Asking that the image "significantly increase understanding" is a valid and defendable threshold of importance. I concur that the proposed text is clearer and easier to validate than the original text; but the ten non-free-use criteria also serve the purpose of helping WP's attorneys fight battles ... and they need decent weapons. Also, per Rich Farmbrough. --Noleander (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just undeleted a non-free photograph used to identify a deceased person following an exam of three direct discussions that went *Keep & *Keep & *Keep & <<deleted>>, I'd like to toss in a request for greater clarity here. I've not been active, aside from some trivial uploads, for quite a while, so my restoration could well have been in error, but the *only* reason for deletion that I ran across at the final ifd was a vague reference to NFCC#I8. And if there is indeed a consensus no. 38 on talk:NFCC archive subparagraph whatever, then kindly state what exactly it is. The current wording does not. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the pic Anetode has restored is that of Anna Svidersky now appearing in the infobox, which looks entirely appropriate to me. Closing admin SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) has also indicated he would not now oppose reinstatement of a picture at Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. This should probably be taken in conjunction with the RfC on pictures of deceased persons at the top of the page. Jheald (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

am I allowed to upload a picture from a Jet magazine as fair use? It says "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue is) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it."; I want to use it in Otis Redding (it is sourced), so it would be ok? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)} [reply]

The question to ask is if there is enough sourced discussion about that specific picture to meet NFCC#8 to qualify for its use. It shows Otis (already pictured in the article), his body in rigor mortis in a airplane seat laid out on the floor in a morgue. Visually, there's nothing that cannot be described by text, and the section on his death does not go into much detail of this aspect. In other words, this would fail for significance in the article. (One can also note that being a death photo, there's probably some sensibilities to consider, so another reason to avoid it). --MASEM (t) 16:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify, I meant the other pic on page 59 ;P, where his body is rescued by the divers. I think I could use it as reference his body did not look that bad like some could think, but ok I think it is not very notable anyway. Just wanted to bring more pictures to the article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 16:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Apparently the Burger King talk page isn't the proper avenue since all I am getting in response to concerns of fair use images being used are a guideline, WP:LOGO, as a reasoning for inclusion and an essay, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as a reason to reinsert contested material.

My concern is articles like Burger King and similar restaurants use of logos. Obviously, we do permit the use of logos, and any other non-free content, when there is "no free equivalent" to using the logo. However, the problem is that we have an extensive category of free images on the Commons related to Burger King, such as old, generic logos and (more useful) some restaurants themselves. I tried to insert File:BK no. 5500, Colma.JPG (the image to the right) under the assumption that free images were more valued than non-free. Apparently I'm being accused to cherry-picking the policy by actually even suggesting that logos not be the best choice of a lead image. The entire process of determining and giving rationales to non-free images is "cherry-picking" in its very nature, though. If an image doesn't meet one criteria, then it is usually nominated for deletion, and considering this is criteria number one, I think it personally an important one. The discussion provided on Talk:Burger King resulted in the following reasons it should be kept:

• WP:LOGO - a guideline, which ironically says logos are permitted, but if non-free content is disputed, it is the responsibility of the editors who want to include it actually present a valid case
• "It has a rationale" - a rationale which says there is no free alternative, which is, 1) the very thing being contested and 2) in my personal opinion, would be a lie given the amount of content on the Commons
• "It's more professional" - a completely irrelevant point to non-free content
• "Buildings look different depending on location" - a fair complaint which can be discussed and fixed, however that doesn't justify a non-free image either.
• "Identification purposes" - see below

If you're skipping down to find the question, here it is. Some topics aren't so notable and a non-free image is warranted, fully, and I upload non-free images and logos for this purpose as well. However, we have an article that has significant commentary on the topic, Burger King, it certainly can not be confused with any other restaurant by visiting the Burger King article, and we have a Commons category full of free images that would more than suffice for the lead image related to the topic. How exactly can we claim there is "no free alternative", and more to the point, how does the logo make it fully more comprehensible that Burger King is not the article we are looking for? Does the image to the right, a free image, not fully make anyone understand that this is Burger King any less than the logo would? — Moe ε 03:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logo by itself is more capable of quickly and unequivocally identifying the subject in this case than a picture of a particular restaurant building. The style and type of building housing a Burger King will vary quite a bit from location to location, as you can see from the variety of images in the article, and it's likely that other fast food restaurants are also housed in similar buildings. The logo, however, is used by the company not only on every building sign, but also on every burger wrapper, bag, billboard, and television advertisement, and is of course not used by any other company. And I suppose that's the main reason why logos are preferred to identify a company to other images. There's a reason why companies use them: they are a more powerful visual identifier than mere unadorned words. Sometimes companies will treat their restaurants almost as logos ("trade dress" is the technical term) by making sure they all follow some common visual format (White Castle is probably one of the best examples of this), but Burger King does not.

Regardless, this is really one of those completely pointless non-free content fights, given that using a logo to identify a product or service is completely standardized across Wikipedia and about the least controversial use you can make of nonfree content, and the logo is arguably not even copyrightable given that it's basically some simple shapes and some text. Most important, your "free" restaurant photo actually contains the same nonfree logo, so really what would replacing the standalone logo accomplish? We treat your photo as free because we likely think the logo is "incidental" to photographing the building and so permitted on Commons as "de minimis" use of nonfree content, the same as a photo of Times Square can't help but contain some copyrighted billboards in the background. postdlf (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo includes a simple graphic that goes well beyond stylized text, which would be uncopyrightable. What is free in the commons image is the photograph, not every element in it. Similarly, if we copy, scan, or make an .svg out of a flat logo, the copy, scan, or .svg itself has no copyright but the logo that is pictured does. As a nonfree image, the logo is nonfree whether it is standing alone or embedded as it is here in an otherwise free image on commons. So using an exterior shot doesn't get around the copyright question. Our normal practice is to use a .svg company logo in the infobox of articles about a brand name company, fast food restaurant chains being no exception. If the storefront or architecture of the store is iconic, it might make some encyclopedic sense to include that photo as well at the discretion of the article editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that even though there is free imagery of what a BK restaurant would be, we would still include the non-free logo as the primary identifier of the company since that is the best recognized symbol (and their trademark) for them. --MASEM (t) 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The logo is simply more universal, both in recognition by readers already familiar with the franchise and as a starting point for readers unfamiliar with the franchise. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that one or more images of restaurants are also valid (and good) content, but I would not remove the logo. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, since enough of you feel it does meet NFCC, I won't remove it, even though I never got a proper reply to how no free equivalent exists when we have free images. I'm not debating that the restaurant image is more iconic, representative or otherwise than the logo, my concern lies solely in the definition of "no free equivalent" being treated as "not the best we can do". Specifically the policy saying Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Is the logo a better representative and more iconic? Yes. Is there no way to convey that it is Burger King without it? Hardly. Regards, — Moe ε 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the thinking is along the lines of that the logo is the best identifier for the company. Is the logo Free? No. Can it be replaced by a Free alternative? No. Is there a Free alternative that will identify the company just as well as the logo? No. Therefore the free use is allowed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo not being free and the logo not being replaceable, individually, is always going to be "no." It's precisely "Is there a free alternative that will identify the company just as well as the logo?" that I am contesting. I understand the points being brought, that restaurant buildings change and the logo is iconic and a better representative. However, it is my argument that a generic, free restaurant building can do a sufficient job of identifying and since that is the case, that would make the logo replaceable. It's almost like us using a photograph an editor took for an actor's profile over a copyrighted photo by famous photographer, to me. Is the famous photographer's image free? No. Would our image produce a better quality or be more iconic than the copyrighted one? No. Does our free image from one of our editors suffice? Yes, and that is why we don't have non-free images of living people, because we can take pictures of them and it would do just as good identifying them as a copyrighted one would. Obviously this is different, I'm replacing a logo with a building, however, I think the same principle of it being enough to suffice for being an identifier applies the same. — Moe ε 01:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refer to the current consensus for most cover art in the info box. Even in cases of being obviously replaceable art, the non-free version of covers is considered by consensus to be appropriate. Same would apply to logos, but only strictly on the page about the company itself. Now, for example if there was "List of menu items at Burger King" (putting the issue if that was appropriate or not), the logo would NOT be appropriate being non-free, but the photo of the restaurant would be. But not specifically on the company page. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to debate it further for the simple point this is more a contradiction to our own policy and the spirit of a free content encyclopedia to keep replaceable non-free images, rather than a violation of fair use itself. Regards, — Moe ε 01:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, there is a ongoing discussion regarding the use of bots in WP:NFCC#3b enforcement at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Fbot_9. In a nutshell, a bot is being used to flag oversized non-free media files for size reduction. There is however, some disagreement on the maximum size of non-free images (without violating WP:NFCC#3b, and thereby requiring a size reduction) and the method of determining what files should be exempt from WP:NFCC#3b. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been involved in a discussion over a single image that prompts the following responses that need to be reflected in this document:

• Our top priority is to operate morally under human rights / international law / generally "Don't be Evil"
• Our second priority is operate in accordance with US law.
• Our third priority is to meet the information needs of the world as best we can, to the fullest extent of the law.

In addition, there are some "distant' priorities we need to consider.

• Our fourth priority is to try to promote free-license content OVER fair-use content. This is a secondary priority.
• Our fifth an final priority is to delete informative images that are LEGALLY in use

I do not values reflected in the policy or how it's being applied to specific cases. Judging from my very limited experience, it seems like The Wikimedia's goals are backwards-- first delete any fair use images on site, and only if they can be absolutely proven to be legal and informative are they to be even be considered.

There is a huge gulf between what we can legally use and how NFCC is being applied. NFCC shows little understanding of the law, it imagines that the laws are the publishing industry's wet dream of what they wish the laws were.

Right now, Wikipedia wants to be the best info source on the world. Unfortunately, some people also want to delete all fair use content, using whatever justifications necessary, legality of it be damned. These goals are not compatible.

Before you come to us and beg for even more money to promote free knowledge, look in the mirror and see if the application guideline, when disputed, is helping the create a better encyclopedia or whether it's just helping to pursue an agenda or make a few people feel important.

The basic idea-- if it's against the law, don't use it-- simple. You guys have made something very complex, very gameable, very far from the law, and even further from making a good information source. I won't argue over the wording, I'm just saying, I can see from how it's being used taht this page has a problem. Correct it, put the encyclopedia FIRST-- or at least stop spamming with banners where you pretend to put Free Knowledge first only to delete that knowledge at the slightest possible schizoiphrenic-grade justification for copyright deletion. Randomcommenter (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't do the encyclopedia any good if it gets sued because it was publishing copyrighted pictures. The WP Fair use policy is a good balance: it permits reduced resolution photos of historical events, provided that no free alternative exists. The image you are referring already has a thoughtful discussion happening here, which is a Good Thing, when you think about it (if such discussions were prohibited, now that would be something to complain about). --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The focus must stay on "Not Being Sued" & "Making the best Encyclopedia". The discussion I see are ignoring those questions entirely, focusing on policywonk bureaucracy and maybe even an unstated idea that "The only good fair-use image is a deleted fair-use image". --Randomcommenter (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't worry about legal aspects on WP unless set forth by the Foundation. Their Resolution on non-free content is only one of two mandates for all projects (the other being on biographies of living persons to avoid slander) to avoid legal issues, and we work under the mantra "Until the Foundation tells us there's a legal issue, we edit within consensus bounds". So the legal issue not one of concern here. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation has set the bar above and beyond fair use law in the US through its Resolution. It's not just en.wiki that follows that but all of the Wikimedia projects. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's exactly what I was afraid somebody would admit. They're not even trying to make the best encyclopedia, they're not even trying to not get sued, they have some weird third agenda, Wikipedia has stopped being "pro-free images" and they've started being "anti-fair use" images.

I doubt this goes all the way up to the foundation though. Read the donation banners-- lots of talk about the importance of a fair, neutral encyclopedia. That's only possible with extensive and liberal use of fair-use images. If you think the foundation is "anti-fair use", you're wrong or they're lying to us to get our money for ulterior ends, knowing they have no intention of making the best possible information source-- I can't accept that as a realistic possibility, and neither should you. It's far easier to assume that nobody intends this to be as anti-Fair Use as some people are interpreting it. Randomcommenter (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation's goal is to make a "free (as in speech) content encyclopedia" - that technically means zero fair-use (anything restricted by copyright and IP laws). They have acknowledged that to make an effective encyclopedia a minimal amount of non-free content is needed, and thus set guidance to determine when we can make exceptions for non-free content to aid in visual and aural presentation of material. Yes, that means that other works that don't have such a standard may be more liberal with fair use images, but that is not our goal. Note that we are rather open to including historically important images like the UCD pepper spray photo (indicated above), but the case specifically for that image is that there's a possibility of getting a free image from one of the several other people watching and taking photos of the event. We can't be sure there are other photos out there for it, but if one does become available and made free, we have to use that to meet the Foundation's goal. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you and Hammer have made my point for me-- some people aren't trying to write the best article, they're trying to delete images wholly apart from how that affects the article. This, boys and girls, is what we call a "problem".

You say this problem goes all the way to the top, but you'll have to point me to a resolution or something that says the problem is widespread, though. I just see straightforward calls to abide by the law and some simple, flawed guidelines towards explaining that. I don't see the call for jihad that is taking place. Randomcommenter (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. I work to support the mission of this project. Sometimes that means removing things. If removing things was a problem, then we wouldn't have the ability to remove things. By the way, the issue isn't the law. As previously noted, our policy is deliberately stricter than the law. Jihad? What? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad may be a poor choice of terms. I merely meant that I was correct that there are people who will intentionally degrade an article to a less-educational state, even when issues of legality aren't at stake. Your "holy crusade" against fair use images is a great experiment for a wiki too, but there are real people out there trying their best to use Wikipedia to educate each other, and fair use jihads are making that more difficult for us to do.

I applaud the german wikipedia for going the 100%-free-license route-- I think it'd be a great idea for people to make a 100%-free-license English version too. But, outside of wikipedia world, there's a real world that is very desperately trying to make sense of things. They need a Wikipedia with up-to date info, fair use or free license. It's not morally better, it's educationally better, and it's already looking outdated. You people play your deletion-of-good-faith-legal-content games for another two years, you'll find yourselves admins of Myspace. The world pays us for Free Information, not lectures on Free License Fanaticism. If Wikipedia isn't trying to be the best anymore, convince me that's really how people feel and I'll leave it alone to join the ranks of one-hit-wonders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcommenter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling those efforts to comply with our m:Mission a "holy crusade" and "fanatacism" is hardly helpful. People have been forecasting the death of Wikipedia for 10 years. Yet, Wikipedia remains one of the top ten web properties in the world. The world doesn't pay us a dime. The world donates money to us. That's because they believe in us. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @Randdomcommenter; our top priority is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. What you have written as our priorities is inaccurate. Please see m:Mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statements are PR fluff, let's investigate our values starting with your mind.

IF we could delete all LEGAL fair use images from the projects, at substantial educational cost, is that plus or a minus to our mission? This isn't an abstract question, I wanna know, because it gets gamed constantly. Are fair use images wanted here, or are they a cancer you're trying to eradicate?

It sounds like the later, in which case I think the readers&donors&editors find themselves with one set of educational needs and a few vigilant admins find themselves with different recreational/political goals. --Randomcommenter (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to ignore our reason for being, you do so at your own expense. Maybe you think it's PR fluff. It isn't. It is the very underpinning of everything we are trying to accomplish here. You postulate two extremes. With the community as is right now, neither extreme is acceptable. Of note; the German wikipedia does hold one of those extremes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to ignore our reason for being"-- I'm debating whether really the reason for being-- mission statements come and go, but the values remain. Pointing to the mission statement like a biblical literalist and using it to deduce "our" values isn't how it really works, ya know?

To me, Wikipedia's reason for being was to be the best legally we could be (without being extra risky or without being evil). You claim a very different "puritanical" goal: We're here for free license info only.

This is a pretty big point to clear up, I think, and that's why I'm talking about it here rather than on the specific image this issue arose-- regardless of what happens to that image, the editors/readers/admins/and foundation ahve got to get on the same page about what English Wikipedia is, don't you agree?

And that answer can't be dictated by a mission statement or a settled by a board vote, ya know? -Randomcommenter (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes it can. The Foundation, a non-profit, owns the servers and pays for the electricity and data line use. It is their rules for this sandbox. One of their rules is that we minimize non-free use to stay true to the free content mission. Doesn't matter if 99% of the editors on en.wiki want different, that's "the law" as far as we are concerned. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed. You may be right or wrong depending on who your definition of "we" is, i can't tell. Randomcommenter (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite needed? For what? Do you not believe the Foundation owns the servers, etc. that support this project? Or that they've insisted on minimal non-free use? Look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, item #3. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To you, yes, Wikipedia should use what we can legally use. But, that isn't our purpose here. You're using terms like "puritanical" and "jihad" to criticize people who disagree with you. I'm finding this conversation to be pointless. You're obviously not a brand new user, yet you're hiding behind a new account. You come to this talk page attempting to...what, tear down WP:NFCC policy? What exactly are you trying to achieve? Regardless, the Foundation's board oversees this project, like it not. Their resolutions do control our actions. If you would rather they not, you can make your case to them at Foundation:Contact us. I'm sure they would be happy to hear your well reasoned explanation as to why the Foundation should no longer have control over this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this one I'm certain you're mistaken. Projects make their own policies and consensuses, even their own mission statements. I think you told me earlier that the German Project reached a consensus to try the "opposite-of-English-Wikipedia" route, right? And some projects aren't even encyclopedias. Like it or not, it's up to the readers editors adn donors what our values are, and I wonder what the perncentages actually are. --Randomcommenter (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Please observe near the top where it says "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." There is no choice in the matter, and I am not incorrect. Projects such as this one must adhere to that policy. Now, again, what is your purpose here? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This was explained better, years ago, at WP:VEGAN. Our goal is to be a free-content encyclopedia. Kind of like a vegan picnic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is the crux of things, I think.

from above

Cite needed. You may be right or wrong depending on who your definition of "we" is, i can't tell. Randomcommenter (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite needed? For what? Do you not believe the Foundation owns the servers, etc. that support this project? Or that they've insisted on minimal non-free use? Look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, item #3. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good sir-- I realize the cite needed was vague, but you still got me to where I needed getting. :) thanks.

Here's basically what I wanted:

Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status.

[Fair Use Images], with limited exception, should be (1) to illustrate historically significant events, (2) to include identifying protected works such as logos, (3) or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. "

"may not allow [Fair use Images] where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose. ... [[Fair Use Images] must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose. "}}

All this is essentially what I take to be my status quo. We use fair use images when it helps the article and when it's legal & moral for us to do so. I see whole classes of exceptions spelled out as examples, two of which even touch on commercial intellectual property. I see, essentially, that we're given wide latitude to determine try to make the best article we legally can.

That's it's for the "The Foundation"-- be legal & don't be evil, and have a policy.

German Wikipedia has different values, what's this projects?

Question: When deleting a legally-used fair use image degrades overall article quality, should it be deleted?

1. No! if it's legal (and not evil), use it.
2. Yes! If it's fair use, it's not free license. Delete it.
3. Other! This situation can't ever come up? I dunno?

A lot has changed since 2007. Do we have any sense of what percentage of people would answer "#1" to that question? It matters, you know. --Randomcommenter (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All this boils down to is this; you want more liberal inclusion of non-free images. This isn't going to happen. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly, given the way the current discussion is going on the Occupy UCD photo, I don't think its in danger of being removed save in lieu of an equivalent free replacement if one can be found or obtained. Arguing the point here is not going to change what happens there. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, to me, it's not more importantly. The specific image that prompted the discussions will work itself out. What concerns me more is how we handle this in general-- and I see deleters applying criteria robotically or even enthusiastically, even when there's no legal threat, even when if it comes at the obvious expense of the project's educational quality. There will always be gray, but I shouldn't be hearing "Yes, deleting legal images will make the article worse, we know our articles would be better if we had a saner policy. Still not going to happen, sorry". That's unacceptable. --Randomcommenter (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All this boils down to is this; you want more liberal inclusion of non-free images. This isn't going to happen. Sorry."

I would like a more liberal inclusion of fair use content in those cases where it makes for a more educational and legal encyclopedia. What makes you so certain that won't happen? Because somebody important says so, or because you think there's a strong consensus that this is the best way to do things? If everyone basically agrees with your approach, fine. If you say your way is simply not up for debate, then you're just blindly driving us off a cliff until an adult takes over.--Randomcommenter (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot override the Foundation's desire. Period. People have argued for being at the legal level of fair use, but it always comes down to the fact that the Foundation set a bar specifically more restrictive than fair use. You want to change that, you need to appeal to the Foundation.

Note that when images are universally central for understanding a topic, we have no problem including them; that's the cases we actually want to have. But we seek to minimize particularly when images can be replaced with free-er content or do not aid significantly in reader comprehension. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And now Randomcommenter, who is hiding behind an account, infers that we might be children and need to wait for an adult to come around. So, we're "puritanical", on a "holy crusade", on a "jihad", and are apparently children too. Not to mention the fact you are now edit warring WP:NFCC in an attempt to force policy to what you want it to be. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be going through and fixing up the language. I will not be changing anything substantive (intentionally) but I am going to try to explain the background of the policy, and most importantly I am going to try to "de-adversarialize" it in tone. Recognizing, of course, I have no authority to make substantive policy changes.

I see this is going to be a very long-haul process, even non-controversial things are getting reverted on sheer principle, so let's back up.

Anyone actually TRYING to make this sound adversarial and hostile? Or do we at least agree that to the extent I can help people work together to understand and comply with existing policy, that would be a good thing? --Randomcommenter (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• STOP what you are doing and seek consensus for changes FIRST. I don't believe you are the person that can "help people work together", given your penchant for insulting people (holy crusade, puritanical, jihad, etc). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped, but I'm not taking "Because I said so" for an answer on something as trivial as nettiquette. The board didn't dictate the language on this, so back away from Ownership on it.

So, let's take it slow. #1 Is it good etiquette for experienced editors to help inexperienced editors construct rationales? I worry the current text sends the message "Delete anything you can", and believe an ettiquette statement would help. Do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomcommenter (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am owning nothing. The reality is that the NFCC policy is a highly, highly contentious area. Past precedent clearly shows that even trivial changes generate massive controversy. Engaging in a day long attempt to force what you think should be the appropriate wording on to the policy is entirely out of line. That's not anyone here claiming ownership. That's all of us pleading with you to stop being disruptive to the policy's wording. Seek consensus first. That's all we're asking. Response to #1; this has been hashed out before, and it utterly failed. People enforcing NFCC are not required or expected to write rationales. Yes, I strongly disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Response to #1; this has been hashed out before, and it utterly failed. People enforcing NFCC are not required or expected to write rationales."

I didn't not propose adding a statement requiring anyone to write a rational to enforce policy. You are objecting to a phantom.

Let's try again and see if you still have an objection. I believe it would be good etiquette for people to TRY and help inexperienced users write rationales BEFORE they try to delete them. I believe this is good manners. Obviously, I do not believe this reverses the "burden of proof".

Do you have any objection to my inserting a statement about manners/ettiquette/kindness/keeping things cool by HELPING the inexperienced? Are we intentionally hoping the inexperienced will trip up so we can game the system? These are some very non-controversial changes that should not affect anything unless we're hoping to actually upset people by deleting their images that could be saved with a little courtesy --Randomcommenter (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]