Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes

List of Family Guy episodes

The images in this fair-use image gallery are continually re-added by anons and other editors who seem not to appreciate our fair-use policy which explicitly prohibits decorative uses such as this one. Can anyone assist me in explaining why these are not appropriate for the article, or set me straight as to why this exception to our policy should be superseded by fans' consensus? (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could force them not to use images, such as my resolution—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you reverted a change and then subsequently protected your version of the page. You are entirely out of line. Cburnett 04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If an admin is reverting a page in order to enforce policy, and other users repeatedly violate the policy, then protecting the page is entirely appropriate. Corvus cornix 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe several of the episode lists have already dropped their images for technical reasons (their parserfunction heavy template is hitting the mediawiki 2MB transclusion limit). This does need to get cleaned up, but sadly there are a lot of users heavily invested in these images.. after dejanewsing 1000 episodes and screen shooting each one you too would be pretty aggressive about keeping them in Wikipedia. :(--Gmaxwell 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand there is a lot that people have invested in these images, and that is why (1) I'm not going quickly through several high-profile series at once, (2) I'm not deleting the images outright at the same time, and most importantly (3) I open the discussion here. If I have 200 angry users at my Talk page doorstep at once, I can't respond to them with any degree of respect or thoroughness. Any advice/assistance from anyone would be greatly appreciated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) You'd be surprised how well one frame can illustrate the content of the episode. That said, I do not feel that the aforementioned images serve a decorative purpose but rather does "significantly contribute" to the article, as it illustrates what is being discussed and provides reference, ergo qualifying under Fair Use. And just for the record, I am not involved in the current dispute in any way. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that one image can do a lot more than your average summary, and it should be looked more into a point of reference. It is more than just decoration as they actually apply to the episode and give you as good idea you can get from just quickly glancing down the episode list. Ive managed the family guy episode page, including pictures now and in the past, and I make sure to replace any random gag images that people upload with those that are more closely tied in with the plot. In some cases promo images are used which usually even more accurately give a brief glimpse at what the episode includes. So thats why my feeling is they should be allowed... Grande13

Agreed, images do a lot. I've seen TV Guide put little images next to show summaries and big pictures at the start of articles, although in the latter case there is also a caption explaining why the picture is important. Some more expensive and shorter series have posters advertising particular episodes with pictures. DVDs often have pictures and descriptions on the back to give you an idea of what the episodes are like. Navigation menus on DVDs often have little pictures to go along with each section you can jump to. Claiming episode specific screenshots are only decoration seems very silly to me. 24.195.245.174 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of these images as "a gallery." This has been attempted previously under this rationale (by gmaxwell, IIRC) and it didn't pan out. Please refrain from using this rationale to remove fair use images. Discussion first. Cburnett 04:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW you've never demonstrated a consensus to allow these images. In my view this is what should be required for something which is effectively an exemption to our policy. However, you seem to be taking a might-makes-right approach to changing policy here. I've been around long enough to know that there will be eventually be a backlash which will reverse on these changes more than completely. ::shrugs::. I do, however, wonder what would happen if we sock-checked the sixty some users who have uploaded large numbers of these images and been promoting keeping them, we already know that a dozen or so of the accounts were socks of a single "robbin hood" style copyvio vandal. --Gmaxwell 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You've never convinced to a consensus that your definitions of subjective words are "right." Just to be clear, are you accusing me of sock puppetry? Cburnett 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I don't think you are that stupid. However, some of the most prolific uploaders of episode list images have been proven to be sock accounts. I don't think it's a leap to think that we'd find socks among those supporting the abuse of non-free media in these articles. --Gmaxwell 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

eh we've had complaints about some of these image laden articles takeing too long to download.Geni 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The HTML is going to download in pretty much the same time anyway, images or not. So how does it hurt to have something extra download afterwards? It is a completely opt in extra that provides extra information about each episode. 24.195.245.174 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a solution to all of this. Can we add a "Show images" javascript function? 70.173.222.214 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)–—…°≈≠≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§

Revert and page protection by Ryulong

As I have noted above, Ryulong reverted here therefore engaging in the edit war and subsequently protected it. This is a clear violation of policy by both protecting in an edit war he was engaged in and obviously endorsing the current version. How does abusing admin privileges get any more blatant? Cburnett 04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he is enforcing the law and Foundation and Wikipedia policy. In addition, he was not involved whatsoever in any edit war; there was an edit war between another user and an IP over the removal of these images. Ryulong then removed the fair use images per policy and against the edit-warring IP. —Centrx→talk • 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By protecting his version of a page? Are you joking? Cburnett 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, taking sides when protecting is bad, but when it's an issue of the LAW (as in, the thing that can get people sued), that can and should be done. Protection was needed, and articles should not be protected in versions which are reasonably suspected to be illegal. -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The images were removed under a rationale that has been tried and failed to be supported by community consensus. You are using an unsupported and baseless hypothetical as an excuse for blatantly violating policy. Cburnett 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... it's not an unsupported and baseless hypothetical. It may well be that the images are determined to be fine, but until then, the version which nobody claims violates copyright law should stay. And I see no unambiguous evidence that the images are definitely okay. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious, since when does community consensus override potential legal issues? --Iamunknown 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's over ambiguous and extremely subjective words of "decorative" and "gallery" (the argument and debates of these words go back many many moons). Both of which are stronger requirements than law. So this whole "because of law", etc. excuse is just that...an excuse. It's not a valid argument because it's obvious WP policies are stronger than the actual fair use laws. It's not a valid argument to pick a version of a page to your liking and then protecting it. Cburnett 04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "his" version of the page. Reverting to another version and then protecting happens all the time with libel and copyright issues. He is not an "involved" party in any sense. —Centrx→talk • 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He changed the page to his liking and then protected it. That's endorsement of the current version and engaged in revert warring by reverting. Again, more excuses. Cburnett 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How many episodes of Family Guy are there?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

95, currently. Ral315 » 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

95 episodes have aired, and there are 107 total on the episode list. Can you unprotect the page as ive been waiting to add things as well Grande13

I don't understand how this has anything to do with, well, anything. Cburnett 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do those 95 screenshots that were being used on the list page have fair use rationales that describe why they should be used on the list page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you removed fair use images without checking if they have fair use rationales? That's your job as the remover to know, not mine. Cburnett 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is not our job as the reviewer to determine if the rational fits, it's your job as the uploader to tell us what the fair use justification is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check your assumptions and reevaluate your above comment. Cburnett 05:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand by my statement. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I never uploaded a single family guy screenshot so your lecture is entirely misguided and misaimed. You assume I am the uploader and you couldn't be any more wrong. Cburnett 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cburnett, you're wrong. Foundation policy trumps all, and using fair use images as decoration is clearly not allowed under our fair use guidelines. Ral315 » 04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Upholding Wikipedia policy/US law is not the same as abusing admin privileges. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, decoration is a very subjective word. Cburnett 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm convinced that the use of the non-free images is decorative. You are not. Incidentally, you are in the minority here. Hmm. --Iamunknown 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cburnett can demonstrate a clear consensus to allow these images in any case. He is relying on the idea that the default is that we keep them, and that there are enough people numerically on his side of the debate that it wedges an effort to vote to show he can't. Most of our featured list articles are fairly light on images, it is only the episode lists which have started putting in an image for every item. Even for species lists which are a very visual subject and where there is no policy issue with lots of images our editors have chosen to not use too many images. Ryulong's actions are perfectly acceptable within our policy... it's not edit warring to enforce our copyright policy. He'd be perfectly within policy simply blocking anyone who restored the images after being warned so I see his action here as the lesser of possible disruptions. --Gmaxwell 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use does not spell out such as decorative (amendments have been tried and failed). I may be the minority here on this page at midnight CDT but I guarantee I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with such a liberal definition of "gallery". Don't get confused here. Cburnett 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A gallery is a collection of images. A list of television episodes that contains pictures that do not use the pictures in any other way other than showing a scene from that specific episode on the list is what is considered a fair use image gallery. I've deleted at least 6 in my time on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the forum for changing fair use policy to your liking. And the interpretation of "gallery" you speak of failed to gain consensus that it applies to episode lists. Cburnett 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, number 3.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum for a fair use debate. Quote all you want but it doesn't change that. Cburnett 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making this into a forum for a fair use debate; whatever you say does not change the policy inasmuch as whatever we say does not change it. So what is your point? --Iamunknown 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to stay away form fair use debate here. It is everyone else that is making it into a fair use debate. Read my starting post and it's pretty obvious from my other posts that I want to stay away from a fair use debate. This started about an admin reverting a page to his satisfaction and then protecting it, which is against policy. Cburnett 05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse reversion and protection. Fair use is allowed under a very few limited purposes, and "decoration" is explicitly not one. The images were being used to decorate the list, and therefore can't be used there. That's not negotiable here, it's a policy set by the Foundation, and also implicates legal issues. If you want it changed, go talk to the Foundation and their legal team to see if that's possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the images qualify under fair use for that article, also its not a vote here :). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, decoration is subjective and highly debated and no clear understanding of what it means exists. This argument is very old and not convincing. Cburnett 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) It is not "voting" to say that one approves of an action someone else took, especially when that action is disputed. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the protection and removing of the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So whats the justification for the use of the images Cburnett? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

the images provide an additional point of reference that help summarize and/or give the general idea of the episode...enclylcopedias do have pictures...Grande13

I don't understand your question? What do you mean exactly by "justification"? I'm not here to argue fair use. I'm here to argue that an admin has protected a version of page that is to his liking, contrary to policy. Cburnett 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was Ryulong previously involved in that discussion? Am I missing something? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you, Cburnett, personally write out fair use rationales for each of the screenshots that was used on the page, explicitly describing how they add to the encyclopedic value of the page and why it is imperative that fair use law be permitted such that you can use the images on that page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please justify your fair use of 95 images. That was the right call on ryulong's part. Unless you have a justification per fair use policy. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not upload a single family guy screenshot nor have I ever edited the article in question (to my knowledge). Regardless, Ryulong, your removal of the images was a rollback and did not state you removed them for lack of fair use rationales. So you're either violating policy for protecting a version you support or you failed to check images for FUR. Cburnett 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the job for the remover. It's the job for the person who wants them added back.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove images for not having fair use rationales then it is indeed your job to make sure it doesn't have one. Cburnett 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we all just stop arguing just because someone didn't fill out form 27-BXT? Ryulong is making an effort to rid images that were improperly uploaded, and shouldn't even be on a free encyclopedia in the first place. // Pilotguy radar contact 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 1

I have unprotected the page and reprotected it. As an uninvolved admin, this dispute is now moot. Ral315 » 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Redoing his action does not nullify the fact that he took such an action. Nice try though. Cburnett 05:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing. You have no other reason for raising this discussion than to have a reason to accuse him of abusing his administrative powers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an admin protecting The Wrong Version, particularly if there are copyright concerns. Please, once and for all, explain why this is a problem, other than just claiming "he protected an article he edited!" Ral315 » 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading and critically understanding my point for starting this. He didn't just edit the article. He performed a revert and immediately followed it with a protected (within the same minute). The revert involved him in an edit war; protecting the page stated that he's protected a version he endorses. Both are against policy. Cburnett 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone tell me why it's not okay for Family Guy episode lists to have screenshots, but it's okay for Naruto and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX to have them? JuJube 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I haven't gotten to Naruto yet, and I guess it's time to block a sockpuppet at Yu-Gi-Oh! GX.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't always consistent. Just because we make an error on one page doesn't mean we need to go replicate it on all pages. Eventually the errors will be corrected. Also, sometimes the details are different, and the details matter.--Gmaxwell 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cburnett, if that's not a decorative gallery, I'm not sure what is. Nowhere has it been made clear how these images actually contribute to the quality of the article (see WP:NFCC#8). These images were mass-uploaded under possibly the vaguest fair use rationales and least descriptive titles. I could look at Image:1ACX02.png and even (mentally) rename it to "Cartoon_woman_with_large_glasses.png" but it still would not help me, as a reader, to understand the episode article or the (corresponding episode list) any better than I would if I were using a text-only browser. As a starting point, that would be a good definition of "decorative". — CharlotteWebb 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, wrong forum for this line of discussion (I've said this many times now). This is about Ryulong protecting a version of a page to his liking and after involving himself in an edit war. Cburnett 05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out by several people that Ryulong wasn't protecting it against a content dispute, he was protecting it against an introduction of non-free content against policy.. in effect, protecting it against vandalism. Vandalism by a well meaning editor, no doubt, but we treat it the same. --Gmaxwell 05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The rollback he performed wasn't against the introduction of non-free content since it was already there. His rollback was an endorsement of ESkog's removal of images. Perhaps you want to try again? Cburnett 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious how you can infer whether Ryulong endorsed ESkog's removal or was actively against the introduction of non-free content based upon the mere edit summary, "Reverted edits by 68.72.138.171 (talk) to last version by ESkog". How are you making that leap? --Iamunknown 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? The images were NOT just "introduced" as you imply. They had been there for a while. So, Ryulong's rollback of the removed version is pretty clear support for those images being gone. Besides, his comments here indicate to me that he endorses their removal. (Whether or not he endorses Eskog's specific version is just semantics and irrelevant since he protected a version that is to his liking.) Cburnett 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use abuse does not have the benefit of "squatter's rights" in law or policy. — CharlotteWebb 05:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a hypothetically will help me understand your reasoning, Cburnett. If a user inserts a goatse image in Cheese, and ESKog removes it, then some other user restores it, then Ryulong reverts to ESKog.. Ryulong can't protect the page because that would be an endorsement of ESKog's removal? Instead, someone should stop the 'edit war' by protecting it with the goatse image in the article? This seems odd to me, perhaps I misunderstand your position?--Gmaxwell 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A loaded hypothetical example drawing comparison between an undeniably offense pornographic image and a TV screenshot to pigeon hole me into a supporter of an enlarged male anus image on a culinary article? Sorry, I won't play your game. Cburnett 05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider that others wish not to play a game that involves assuming, as you have done, that Ryulong acted in bad faith, and that it was part of a legitimate content dispute. Copyright policy isn't a game, it's serious business. — CharlotteWebb 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim to be arguing against Ryulong on pure policy grounds and you reject people discussing the images in much of this thread, ... I proposed an alternative situation where we can all agree on the validity of the revert so that you can focus on the aspects of policy which you complain that you complaint is about. I'm not trying to trap you, I'm trying to strip all the distractions out of the discussion by proposing a situation where I think we should agree on mostly everything. --Gmaxwell 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree on the validity of his revert because it's explicitly in WP:PROT that you shouldn't do what he did. And for very good reason. People are constantly iterating here that "decorative" and "gallery" are against policy and some even agree to their subjectivity. My complaint is about a much more rigid and much less subjective policy of not protecting a page in which you have participated in an edit war. It's exacerbated by the fact that "decorative" and "gallery" are very, very subjective terms (you should know this because you got sick of people posting on your talk page when you did this). Reverting and protecting based on highly subjective words on a very fiery topic (fair use)? Nope. Cburnett 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing what may be in violation of our non-free content policy and then protecting the page is not, in my mind, endorsing a specific revision of a page, it is enforcing policy or, at least, one valid interpretation of policy. --Iamunknown 05:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"what may be"? Sounds like you agree that the adjectives floating around ("decorative" and "gallery") are subjective, debated, and not agreed upon. That would mean his revert was, in fact, him engaging in an edit war (after all, he's endorsing a version that agrees with his interpretation of policy) and he protected his version. Cburnett 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in violation of our non-free content criteria. A list of pictures is surely decorative unless you have critical commentary on all 107 on the list page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By your definition of "decorative," which failed to gain community consensus as being correct. If consensus was there that an episode list used screenshots decoratively then I'd guarantee that every LoE would be "naked" of screenshots. But that's not the case at all. Cburnett 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of policy is clearly off to a rocky start. The bathroom walls of Rome were not cleaned in a day. — CharlotteWebb 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: enforcement of personal interpretations of highly subjective words is off to a rocky start. Last I knew, policy didn't state anything so blunt that episode lists with screenshots are against policy. Cburnett 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And, by analogy, are you suggesting that every administrator who nukes a BLP and protects is somehow abusing his or her admin powers by endorsing his or her interpretation of WP:BLP? Not every edit and protect is admin abuse, and I don't think that it was in this case either. --Iamunknown 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, another loaded hypothetical like gmaxwell's. I won't play your game either. Cburnett 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 2

There is a significant qualitative difference between "I'm protecting this page because it is the version I like best" and "I'm protecting this page because the other version violates policy and people keep putting it back". I see Ryulong as having done the latter, and I endorse the move. The episode lists were really excessive. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but how many times do I have to repeat that there is no established definition of "decorative" or "gallery", especially in terms of episode lists. This rationale has been tried and failed by gmaxwell (your signficant other, according to your talk page) and didn't gain consensus that episode lists violate policy. If List of Family Guy episodes violated policy by being "decorative" or a "gallery" then many, many episode lists are violating policy. Yet List of South Park episodes is a featured list...with a policy violation? My point is that this edit war and protection is trying to set policy, not enforce it. I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't protect this if it were in policy, but, at best, it is a loose interpretation (that has failed to gain consensus) of policy with no agreement/consensus/compromise on if it is. As a member of the board of trustees, if you want to change policy to be absolutely explicit about this then do it. But as of now, the adjectives here are subjective and highly, highly debated. Cburnett 05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew South Park would be brought up eventually. Now someone just needs to bring up List of Oh My Goddess episodes and my plot will be complete. JuJube 05:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This some kind of new corollary to Godwin's Law? Yes, I have been worn away to make this a fair use debate against my attempts to not make it that way. Oh well. When it's 10 vs. 1 it's easy to get pushed into it when everyone else wants to make this a fair use forum. Cburnett 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no established definition. I can't think of one that isn't subject to gaming and ruleslawyering. ("Oh, but the rule says galleries must have 30 images or more, and mine only has 28!") If more patient souls than I wish to create firmer guidelines for this, they are welcome to do so and I wish them luck. Until then, we must call them like we see them, and take calls to places like the admins' noticeboard if they're disputed. And it looks here like there is pretty strong agreement that the episode lists were excessive. (And yes, this does mean that I think that many other episode lists are also excessive; there's not some tremendous rush of anti-Family Guy sentiment as far as I am aware. If there is, it is well-hidden.) The foundation-level policy is deliberately not going into great detail because it simply isn't practical to do so; there are too many situations to account for, but I think this is a fair interpretation of what was intended. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I appreciate you saying that there is no definition (I don't think anyone yet has said such). Despite my semi-inflammatory post, it makes me feel you and I can have a discussion when you can at least empathize to some of my points. Again, thank you.

As for the rest of your post. Changing fair use policy has been tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried. Mostly leading in failure partly due to exactly what you hit upon: too many situations to account for. That said, you have to interpret policy fairly liberally, IMHO, and this is tried and tried again in terms of edit warring. To me, this means deciding fair use policy is relegated to edit warring. So when an admin takes the next step of participating in the edit war and then protected his side, I complain loudly. And, yes, I would have raised the same hell I have here if an admin reverted and protected a version with images on it.

I try to say this in every discussion I get in about this. I am not a fair use freak. I definitely favor free material over non-free (anyone is welcome to look at my GFDL image contributions and argue to the contrary). TV shows are of a small niche where there is and will never be a free alternative for a long time (despite not having broached age 30 yet, I'm sure I'll be dead before these shows hit public domain). If you read my fair use support posts you will see I only defend the material that won't be in public domain and has no free alternative. I don't defend fair use celebrity photos. I don't defend magazine covers as celebrity images. Etc. With this, I am done with this thread for the evening. I seriously don't expect any de-admining or anything of the sort to be done here. At best, I hope discourse for fair use regarding television moves more toward discussion (in the proper forum!) and away from edit warring. If anyone cares to restart this discussion elsewhere, I would appreciate a link on my talk page. Thanks in advance to that person. Cburnett 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cburnett, it is explicitly stated in WP:FUC that the amount of unfree images should be limitted. Having 100 of these images violates that part of the policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

This has become a fair use forum, despite my best intentions. Each episode is individually copyrighted which means the minimum is one per copyrighted work (which a LoE satisfies). Lumping 95 episodes into one copyrighted work to claim 95 images is "not the minimum" is legally absurd and a farce. Cburnett 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the beginning, I agree you have been very upfront about your intentions, which have been to attack Ryulong's credibility as an administrator. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — CharlotteWebb 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you high? People's actions can entirely come under question. Wow. Cburnett 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the minimum is always zero. The Czech, Danish, Dutch, German, French, Japanese, Norwegian (bokmål), Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish Wikipedias, for example, survive rather well with almost no fair use at all. — CharlotteWebb 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright registration died years ago.. you could just as equally argue that every frame of the video is an independent work, so therefore it's okay to include a crop of the 54,000 frames that make up an episode. Or you could argue that the season released on DVD is the copyrighted work in question, and we only included one whole episode out of a dozen. (a tiny fraction!). Quit the rules-lawyering when you don't know the rules. The folks here have already called a spade a spade.--Gmaxwell 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could if you want, but I won't. All of the frames of an episode are an aggregate work (this goes to my argument that a single screenshot is a as minimum as you get for an episode precisely because it has thousands of frames). Arguing one page of a book is a separate copyright from the next is ludicrous. Arguing that one frame is a separate copyright from the next is also ludicrous. Why? All those pages are published at the same time. All those frames are published at the same time. The seven Harry Potter books are published independently therefore they have independent copyrights. The episodes of a TV series are published (read: aired) independently therefore they have independent copyrights. It has nothing to do with formal copyright registration at all! Cburnett 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a serial novel is copyrighted differently to one published in the traditional "all in one go" manner? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If what your insinuating is true, then why do all my TV series on DVD have different copyright dates? That's because the series as a whole is not a single work. Cburnett 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly argument "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Each episode is a relevant section of text. This is an entirely appropriate use and if someone thinks otherwise, there needs to be a centralized discussion, the AN isn't it.

The other day I saw a different episode list with screenshots and thought it was so cool that users took the time to compile that, and now I see a concerted effort to destroy them based on flimsy reasoning. SchmuckyTheCat 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's cool, but it gets to a point where it's excessive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Many folks also thought it was cool that people took the time to upload the complete episodes to a Web2.0 video sharing site.. but thats not what we're about here. The episode list pages are also miserably slow to load, bog down my browser with insane amounts of HTML, and manage to hit the internal mediawiki protection limits which no pages should be hitting. Go look at the other featured lists and you'll see that only on the pages where people have decided to take a stand for their 'right' to cram tons of unlicensed material into Wikipedia are there many images. Our other featured lists are lightly illustrated. --Gmaxwell 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is also due to excessive sockpuppetry and excessive fair use violations that I have User:Ryulong/YGOPTL—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this really shows the level of abusiveness Ryulong is willing to go to. This is not the first time, and will not be the last (This is what happens when you have to get your friend to promote you on IRC). We've had plenty of discussion in regards to image use... a few dissenters at the administrators board will unlikely change this discussion. Now, the NFCC agrees with my self and Cburnett, I do invite you to open another forum for discussion. I personally cannot take Kat's message with anything more then a pinch of salt, for reasons unstated, but known... (Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, et al). Addendum: "decorative" is an oxymoronic term for opinion. Matthew 07:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what does any of that have to do with what Cburnett feels is my misuse of the tools? The issue here is that the first post in this thread complained about the abuse of fair use images on the Family Guy list. I reverted the last addition of the images and protected the page, as that was what was necessary concerning fair use and how much is too much. At least ninety-five fair use images were used on that list. Anything beyond 30 is excessive in my eyes, however I have dealt with massive fair use violations that have had over 200 images and nipped some in the bud that had the potential to get to excessive levels. The bulk of the list I linked (/YGOPTL) is to deal with one banned user and her abusive sockpuppets. Additionally, bringing my promotion to adminship into question is really out of line, Matthew. That certainly has no bearing on my past and current actions as an administrator or an editor of Wikipedia. I don't know what possesses users who feel that they have been wronged to come forward and tack on ad hominem attacks just because that person just happens to be in the spotlight for some reason. The last time I had protected a page and someone came forward to state that I had abused the sysop bit, another administrator (who knows who he/she is) decided to tack on "this is not the first time Ryulong has abused the admin tools." Unless you have something seriously constructive to add, go ahead, but I would appreciate if you redacted comments that have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on how many is too much is irrelevant, wholly. If anything you stating you have n arbitrary number, after which you'll happily abuse administrative abilities proves to me that you are unfit for the position. Matthew 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is in no way what I stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 3

Note I've inserted 3 random arbitrary section breaks... —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about an admin violation of WP:PROT#Content_disputes (see here) while attempting to change our policies/guidelines. Concerns should be taken to Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2, or to a new page. - Peregrine Fisher 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion has been refuted in detail by a half dozen people upthread. I know it's a lot to read, but you'll have to try again. --Gmaxwell 07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a new addendum for me (the don't revert, just protect thing, as the second paragraph about being involved in the dispute has no bearing for this situation, IMO). And there are no changes being done to any policy or guideline. When WP:NFCC was WP:FUC there was a statement along the lines that "please limit the amount of fair use (now non-free content) in articles." Removing the 90+ images on List of Family Guy episodes is one of them. I was involved in removing several hundred screenshots of Pokémon anime episodes, Digimon anime episodes, Yu-Gi-Oh! anime episodes, as well as the lists that were for a handful of Kamen Rider articles I deal with, all of which were pretty much galleries of images that did not add anything to the accompanying text (in some lists there was no accompanying text, just an episode title and an airdate). While the Family Guy list has more information, that does not make it immune to policy, nor is the South Park page which I feel may be necessary to take a crack at in the upcoming weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it to include the specific instances of copyright or defamation, since there is abundant support for the idea that we should not leave copyright violations or defamation lying around just for the sake of following process. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) No one's trying to change anything. WP:FUC pretty clearly states that fair use images must not be used excessively, must not be decorative, and must be irreplaceable. Let's examine those here.

• Excessive: 95 fair-use images in a single article goes way beyond excessive.
• Replaceable: This includes if text could adequately describe the scene! One image can convey an adequate impression of what the program looks like on-screen.
• Decorative: For the reasons above, the images are not essential to convey the point. They are therefore decorative.

Ryulong's actions were not to change policy, they were to enforce policy which already exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You see a disputed issue very clearly. More than a hundred editors talked for weeks at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists and Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 without being able to make it black or white. We should probably go beyond just this page to find true consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More than a hundred editors? ... Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 was edited by 37 people. --Gmaxwell 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already gone well beyond that page, the Foundation has already spoken on the subject, and they were pretty clear-"If you must do fair use images, keep them to an absolute minimum." There also may be legal issues there. Either one goes well beyond any consensus on either of the pages you cite, and would override even a clear consensus there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the page still states the following points:

"3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately."

"8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

Several episode lists fail both these criteria.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to help create minimum requirements that don't (effectively) outlaw images on episode pages, I would love to discuss it. As far as the foundation decree, somewhere in the WP:FU archives, there were some editors who thought it affected these list of episodes pages. That opinion had less consensus than most of the opinions conerning images in LOEs. - Peregrine Fisher 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"absolute minimum" is not an arbitrary number, it's minimum, and I've not seen any LOEs use over the minimum (which would be one per copyrighted work (per episode)). Matthew 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to have lists of episodes that contain screenshots for each and every episode of a series, even if that number exceeds something such as 200?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hole in one! (Though I'd advise possibly splitting the pages up for those non-broadband users). Matthew 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you tell me that List of One Piece episodes is in no way a copyright violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of One Piece episodes is in no way a copyright violation. How's that? Because it isn't. Matthew 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IS TOO!--Gmaxwell 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is entirely false, Matthew. How is having 307 copyrighted image on a page not a copyright violation concerning the parent company? The mangaka who created the characters? The handful of animators who put that series on the air? If it were not a quarter to 5 in the morning, I'd be deleting maybe a minimum of 200 of those images as they are used only on the list page. There wouldn't be a problem if they each had their own articles, which would satisfy the "one image per copyrighted property" BS you're bringing up. But putting all 307 images on one page and using the excuse that there are 307 different intellectual properties being discussed on a single page is excessive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because the copyright is per episode. One image with one table rows data is same copy vio as multiple rows. You really should read that "Images in lists" page. It goes into great detail. - Peregrine Fisher 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright registration died years ago.. you could just as equally argue that every frame of the video is an independent work, so therefore it's okay to include a crop of the 54,000 frames that make up an episode. Or you could argue that the season released on DVD is the copyrighted work in question, and we only included one whole episode out of a dozen. (a tiny fraction!). Quit the rules-lawyering when you don't know the rules. The folks here have already called a spade a spade.--Gmaxwell 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That'd be fine if we had 308 articles on One Piece episodes, Peregrine Fisher. But we don't. I do not know how many we have, but it certainly is not over 100. And the Images in lists page is a failed proposition to try and keep these extensive amounts of non-free material to make things look more aesthetically pleasing. I see no purpose to have Image:Onepiece032.PNG as an example for an episode titled "The Witch of Cocoyashi Village, Arlong's Female Officer." It tells me nothing about the episode. All it does show is that Nami has f***ed up eyes when she's angry.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? (about the absolute minimum) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to find it again. But certainly, that was the intent of the thing, even if they don't use those exact words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do find it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WMF resolution is here, and they do indeed note that use must be minimal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Minimal" isn't a number. JuJube 08:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Right but that one image per episode is a made up number, unless I'm missing something? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) True, but it is a concept. Basically, the question to ask is "Could we adequately illustrate this subject with less (or no) use of fair-use imagery?" If the answer is yes, it must be scaled back until the answer is no. In the case of a television program, illustration is in most cases accomplished by a single screenshot. Anything beyond that is decoration, and certainly not minimal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. If I make a policy proposal which says "It's okay to delete obvious vandalism, but not on tuedays", burry it away on some page that no one sees, and when it fails to get support, can I go around insisting that people can't delete vandalism? ... Cause thats pretty much what we're seeing here with Matthew and Peregrine Fisher pointing to Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. --Gmaxwell 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are the most widely participated in discussions about this issue so far. Start a new one if you like. That's how this issue should be adressed. - Peregrine Fisher 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. I'm pretty sure that this page is now, actually. You grossly overstated the number of participants in the prior discussions in your uptread posts. --Gmaxwell 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be a silly question, but when did "we've decided this is permissible" begin to trounce "this is a violation of copyright"? It is my understanding that each copyrighted image that is used on episode lists needs to specifically illustrate the text it accompanies, and must have a specific, customised, hand-written fair use rationale detailed for that individual use on that list on its image page. - Mark 09:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When they aren't copyright violations. Like I said, if we want to discuss what the image pages should, say, I'm all for that. - Peregrine Fisher 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Mark. Regardless of however many discussions have occurred elsewhere, this is not a point that can be decided on by a majority. The fair use restrictions on Wikipedia are imposed by US law and by the Foundation, who unsurprisingly take a stricter line on the issue than might be allowed by law so as not to take unnecessary chances. In order for fair use images to be used on an article, they must each have an individually written rationale as to why they qualify under Wikipedia's fair use policy and they must only be used to a minimum to specifically illustrate accompanying text. What that means, is that the text must specifically be describing the contents of the image. It is not sufficient for the image to simply be of the same episode. It should also be noted that, to all those who are complaining that other articles have such lists of images, this is not a valid argument. Will (aka Wimt) 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know. If we could agree on that, it would be awesome. There's a group of people who want to get rid of these images, and they won't discuss what makes an image OK, becuase then suitable images might be found. We've created entire LOEs with very individualized image pages, but that doesn't cut it. - Peregrine Fisher 09:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the US fair use law (from WP:FU)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of Fair Use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

- Peregrine Fisher 09:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images is stricter than what may be allowed by US law (and there is some controversy over quite what is allowed by law). To quote this, "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Now I am not willing to believe that a list of episodes with huge numbers of copyrighted images falls within a narrow limit. Will (aka Wimt) 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading a lot of good points about fair use and copyright law. What I'm not reading is a clear and explicit policy, or even guideline, about how screenshots in episode lists should be handled. The same arguments that people are using to say "no screenshots should be in episode lists" are used by other people to say "one screenshot per episode is okay" and by others to say "screenshots are okay as long as the show isn't long". Why is it so difficult for people to at least try to come to an agreement about what's OK and what isn't? To Will, the common response to people that invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is to say "Delete the other crap". That's what is being said here. According to what people are saying the policy is, the other crap should be deleted. JuJube 09:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So difficult? You have three editors here saying that one per episode is okay and a dozen saying it's not. All three on the pro image per episode side have spent a lot of time uploading these images. I am many others believe the rule is clear and has always been clear. The use needs to be minimal. I don't believe a list page with 300 images and almost no text meets the definition of minimal. --Gmaxwell 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Gmaxwell, I agree with you. I just want something plain and set that the people who don't agree can't argue against. JuJube 09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why are people bringing up WP:FUIL when it's inactive and not recognized as either a policy or a guideline? JuJube 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that and the other were the big fair use images in lists discussions. Conensus may change, but it is also good to look at the last consensus. The latst consensus we had was that we aren't going to change our rules to prohibit the images in these lists. - Peregrine Fisher 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 4

You get different results, depending on which page you go to. Don't think this is the magic page that represents consensus. I think it would be cool to do a watchlist notification for this. - Peregrine Fisher 09:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a specific page to discuss whether or not its right to have 200 non-free images on a page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a specific page, it just needs a lot of input. Someone mentioned 12 and 3 for this page: that's not a lot. - Peregrine Fisher 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't discussion that's important here, it's enforcement. It wouldn't matter if 400 people came along and told us that they wanted those images in the list. It would still contravene the fact that copyrighted images need to be kept to a minimum. Will (aka Wimt) 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, thank you.. and it's ~21:3 right now in any case. --Gmaxwell 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, 21. I am not for screenshots in episode lists. I only seem ambiguous because I'm willing to acquiesce to whatever the consensus becomes. JuJube 09:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised then. :) Your pointer to WP:FUIL is very interesting. --Gmaxwell 09:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the opinions of the editors on this page, this day, we do not have a consensus. You probably do have a consensus to revisit the issue, though. - Peregrine Fisher 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Who died and made you king of the wiki? --Tony Sidaway 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not king of WP. It seems obvious to me that the removal of 1000s of images, not mandated by the Board of Directors, is something bigger than this page, this night. - Peregrine Fisher 09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisit? you never got consensus to do it in the first place. The only reason this has been allowed to last is that no one has bothered to fight it. Look at all this argument and it's only 3 people on the oppose side. --Gmaxwell 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3 people on this page, probably more if people here about it. I guess enjoy your "consensus" on this page, there are many people interested in this subject who don't have this page watchlisted. - Peregrine Fisher 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. I'm not claiming that there is or isn't a consensus here, I'm saying that the people on the side insisting that we keep hundreds of unlicensed images on our list page are producing an disproportionate volume of argument. I can't blame you, had I wasted zillions of hours of my time pirating episodes, capturing, and uploading many hundreds of screenshots I too would feel pretty committed to keeping the images in Wikipedia. I wish I saw a way to resolve that desire, but I don't really.. --Gmaxwell 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not pirated any episodes. I own the DVDs of the shows that I uploaded screenshots of. I also have fair-use-reduced images that other uploaded - then there's no need for pirating either.--GunnarRene 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk abou how to correctly license these types of images, then. You start. - Peregrine Fisher 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I wasted my time doing that and I'm still against it. (Okay, I'm really going to sleep now.) JuJube 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is frustrating. Some editors argue that 1 image per episode is too much. They can't really say how many are OK, becuase they believe only 0 is the answer. There's no incentive for the 1 is OK group to compromise, when all they're given is 0. - Peregrine Fisher 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1 is OK. 1 screenshot, in the main article about the television show, to illustrate how the show looks. Lists, individual episodes, etc., will all most certainly wikilink back to the main show's article, where that image can be found. Of course, in a few exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to use a fair-use image in an individual episode article or list of episodes. If that's the case, write up a detailed fair-use rationale (as has always, in all cases, been required anyway), and say why you think it's alright in that particular case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero or one in what? You are managing to confuse people ... some have gotten the impression that we're discussion episode articles, we're not .. we're discussing lists articles which have hundreds of images.

For a page thats nothing more than a list, go look at the featured lists which aren't being used as an example promoting the use of unlicensed material in Wikipedia. They typically have no more than a couple images, and thats what I'd expect in a list. For all non-free media we require that the image be matched with and facilitating actual discussion. Most lists hardly meet the discussion test at all, but a few of them do.. For example, I think the lead image on List of The Simpsons episodes is close enough to okay to leave alone. Some of the list articles have a paragraph of discussion per season, and I think that for each of those paragraphs you might be able to make a good case for using an image to illustrate the subject being discussed in the paragraph. Beyond that, images of episodes should only be included in the article for the show as warranted and needed by the discussion and in the articles on the episodes when the episodes themselves are notable enough to have articles and only if the image is really needed to express some critical aspect of the show that the text can't express. I know there are some people who would favor a more restrictive approach, but I doubt the people opposing the overuse of non-free images in list articles here would find my position completely unreasonable. --Gmaxwell 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think yours is unreasonable. People can write up a fair-use rationale for use in anything, the question is whether it's acceptable or not. If there is, for example, a scene out of a particular episode which caused a ton of controversy or which the episode (outside of its fandom!) is highly-noted for, and that's discussed at length in the article/list entry, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use illustration. That would be one of those exceptional cases I mentioned earlier. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) In the case that is described, it is very likely that that singular episode has its own article (Electric Soldier Porygon) and is not solely part of a larger list.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 5

Staying neutral to the discussion for the moment, but I wanted to note that I think it's more than somewhat contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus to count anything like "21:3". The 3 could very well "outvote" the 21 in any discussion for consensus. Also, a likely unintended result of the above may be to have all such lists split into separate pages, to sidestep the "gallery" arguement. As I said, I'm not supporting either side, just thought I would comment on the discussion itself. - jc37 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Be fair Jc37, I'm not trying to claim that because the numbers are a certain way that the result is forgone. Someone asked about why people were split, I responded that there was a 'a dozen' on one side of the discussion that it wasn't much of a split. Later Peregrine repeated my 'dozen' as evidence that only a small number of people supported the view that that these lists are abusing our allowance of non-free images.. so I went and actually counted. whoptie do. :) --Gmaxwell 10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't presuming bad faith by your comments regarding "counts". Indeed, just as you point out, comments from Wikipedians of varying perspectives in the discussion above have commented about "numbers of support" of their POV. I just felt it was worth noting. - jc37 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no real sidestepping there. Tons of fair-use images regarding one single TV series are inappropriate, be they split up among 100 articles or consolidated in 1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's one opinion. My opinion is that they are appropriate in a mega-compendium like wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not my opinion, really. The Foundation is pretty clear we should keep fair use to an absolute minimum. In this case, free content (a wikilink back to the main show's article, a prose description of a scene) can do the job adequately 99% of the time. (Note, we use free over fair use so long as it's adequate, even if it's not as good!) For that other 1%, write up a rationale indicating why this time, fair use is absolutely required, and no free alternative could adequately do the job. But we certainly don't use fair-use images to make articles or lists "prettier" or "nicer", that's the very definition of decorative fair use. Fair use is to be used when it's irreplaceable and absolutely essential, not when it's just nice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking the language of compromise. We've tried 100%, and people obviously aren't satisfied. You've offered 1%, which I feel is a bit low. How about 50%? - Peregrine Fisher 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say the number isn't really a matter of haggling here. You have to justify each-and-every use of a non-free image. --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Tony. (And those numbers weren't intended in any way to be numerically accurate, the actual amount of time a fair-use image turns out to be appropriate might be 5%, or might be a tenth of a percent.) You must justify the use of a fair-use image each and every time you use one. There's no "compromise" there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors disagree about the justification of images. For instance, some editors find all of them to be "decorative." Saying "you must justify the use of a fair-use image each and every time you use one" isn't constructive, because some editors feel they have done so, and yet they're challenged. We need something objective to deal with that. - Peregrine Fisher 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could certainly adopt the objective standards many Wikipedias in other languages have. Their rules are far simpler than ours-"Do not ever use any non-free images, period." Quite honestly, I wouldn't be too sorry to see that. But in terms of decorative vs. essential fair use, ask yourself-"Is the primary rationale for use of this image that it makes the article look nicer or snappier, or is it indispensable to discussion of this topic? Could its purpose be served any other way?" If someone else can come up with something and say "Well, yes, the purpose the image serves could also be served by...", then it's not indispensable. There's your objective standard. But in general, we should be using absolutely as few fair-use images as possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not helping. Some people feel the images cannot be replaced by text, or a free image (I wish there were free images). Sometimes it seems like the plan is to make it super subjective, then delete them all. - Peregrine Fisher 11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if anyone "feels" they can be replaced by text. If the only legitimate purpose for the image (illustrating the subject) can be served by text, or wikilinks back to one main article on the show with one fair-use image, people can feel otherwise all day long. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "mega-compendium", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my other removals of nonfree content have all been reverted by Cburnett: here, here, and here. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that the picture can't be used unless it is itself the subject of critical commentary. Consensus will fail to align with law here simply because there are a lot of people here on Wikipedia investing a lot of well-intentioned time to, unfortunately, run us afoul of copyright law and our own policies. The recent clarification on fair use is not enough - this seems that it will never be resolved absent a clarification from the Foundation on how much risk they want to absorb over pictures of cartoons. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to remove the copyrighted images, but have been reverted several times. I'm about a quarter-step away from following Ryulong's example here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also, apparently, been banned from editing these articles. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I IAR unbanned you. John Reaves (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Naughty naughty! Matthew 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, naughty naughty, Matthew. First, you ave no right to impose your PPOV in that manner, and second, the default in cases of dispute is to exclude content. It is the responsibility of those editors seeking to include content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around, and "I don't think it's an infringement of copyright" won't mitigate the legal bills if some lawyer decides it probably is (note, too, that the number of different opinions on what constitutes copyright infringement may be calculated by adding one to the number of lawyers involved). WP:FUC does not allow for use as decoration, never has. Admins enforcing that are not subject to unilateral banning by involved parties. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow icon sized images illustrating items in a list

Is it possible a compromise could be reached if "minimal" in a list was used to refer to the size of the images? I'm thinking of a size that is really too small to make out exactly what is going on so you would have to click and go to the article to see a large enough image, yet the list size would be large enough to serve as an icon for the item in the list and identifyable to someone who has seen the larger image on the main article. WAS 4.250 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, copyright is copyright, and a derivative (such as a thumbnail) is still just as copyrighted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Icon sized images illustrating items in a list is without doubt fair use in legal terms. The only issue is Wikimedia policy designed to minimize wikimedia use of fair use in order to fulfill the foundation goals of both gratis and libre content. To that end, they insist we only have as few exceptions as are needed. The issue is if this is to be one of those exceptions. If we have consensus for it to be one of those exceptions then we can have lists with icon sized images illustrating items in a list both legally due to fair use law and by policy as policy allows for explicit exceptions to not using fair use. WAS 4.250 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Although we have more than icon size images, most of the images are at pretty much full resolution (I'd consider 480p full resolution for an NTSC tv grab) on their image pages and most of those are only used on the lists. Obviously, our policy is the more restrictive thing by far, but I wanted to point out that we're not actually just talking about tiny icons.--Gmaxwell 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that allowing icon sized images to illustrate items in a list might be a workable compromise. Like flags in a list of countries. WAS 4.250 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal and if necessary protection on episode lists

I'm about to take the step of removing the images again and protecting the page, as the above-cited examples look to me a pretty clear example of decorative and excessive fair use. Thoughts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as you don't delete the images, no harm will be done by removing them from the list and protecting it. Is it true that the images still appear on the individual episode articles? CMummert · talk 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and deleted some of the orphaned fair use images (which is standard practice). Obviously, this huge image gallery of episode screenshots should never exist in the first place. --Cyde Weys 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the only place the images were used was the template, then deleting them is more reasonable. Some individual episodes of TV shows have their own pages, and I think that one fair use image per page is much harder to argue against. CMummert · talk 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Orphaned" means not used anywhere (following the removal of the image galleries from episode list pages). If the image is used on an article for an individual episode, that is a bit different. --Cyde Weys 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• 100% support, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder wiht you at ArbCom if it is challenged. I am too busy on RL work right now to offer to tag team with you to satisfy the process wonks, but in the end the burden of evidence is and always will be on those seeking to include. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Same support here. And I'd even go a step further and question the legitimacy of the images on the main episode articles too. As a rule of thumb, any routine use of nonfree images across a large series of articles, for instance in infoboxes, is highly dubious. It encourages editors to include such images without regard to individual fair use justifications. For proper fair use, it is generally necessary that images be at least individually referred to in article text (typically for purposes of critical analysis and commentary). Infobox images very often have no close connection to the surrounding article at all, apart from being a nice piece of decoration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Support here. I find it sort of odd that the supporters of these images can't understand how 1 image per episode is not "minimal use" but is, rather, a decorative use. Maybe this will help: check out the lists of family guy episodes at tv.com, epguides.com, planet-familyguy.com, and about.com. Those are nice, informative lists, and none of them use more than a few screenshots. We do not have any need to illustrate each episode these lists, which is why the use of those images violates FU. Mangojuice^talk 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of our own featured lists in other subject areas are not heavily illustrated, even when they could easily be with free images that we already have... I honestly believe that some folks decided to use these articles as an example of non-free content being permitted. They picked a bad example. It's time to stop it. --Gmaxwell 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • More support. These have to go. -M^ask? 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alerting other editors...

It seems nobody has alerted editors of this discussion, which concerns a large portion of Wikipedia. Therefore I'll take the task to alert a few. Matthew 12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I predict this will not actually help; there exists a sizeable proportion of the user base who do not understand, or do not accept, restrictions on fair use. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or understand and disagree with how it's being interpreted in this situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if a large portion of the people commenting here thought the over use of fair use was a great idea, that does not override the decree of the Wikimedia Foundation. The use of images per episode in long lists of episodes adds little in the way of encyclopedic value for the "gain" of having a bunch of non-free images in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be free. This argument keeps cropping up in a variety of forums, and the answer is always the same; walk to freedom. --Durin 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Who's trying to override it? Using a screenshot isn't forbidden by that decree, in fact it allows unfree images for contemporary copyrighted works, which is what TV and movies are. --Minderbinder 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Quoting from the resolution, "[the use of fair use images], with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Narrow limits. An image for every episode in a list is hardly within narrow limits. --Durin 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That's your interpretation. For 20-60 minutes worth of material, a low rez image of 1/24th-1/30th of a second seems pretty darn minimal. --Minderbinder 15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Narrow limits", clearly no arbitrary number. Hence "narrow" would be consensual/opinion (and I agree with the above, one low-resolution screencap is minimal to me). Matthew 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look to the upper left of the screen you are currently viewing. Observe the logo. Observe the last text line of the logo. "The Free Encyclopedia". Fair use images are not free. The use of fair use images compromises our goals and needs to be limited as much as possible. If you're not dedicated to the development of free content, you are focused on the wrong goals. --Durin 15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The important criterion is still what you do with them. Identification and critical commentary is what the guideline says, and that's a pretty good approximation. As long as the text of your article doesn't contain explicit analysis of some aspect of the visual appearance of the show that would be impossible to understand without the image, fair use is simply not an issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Please look at the "decree" and at WP:NONFREE. Both specifically allow non-free content. Or do logos and slogans now supersede policies? --Minderbinder 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Both specifically want non-free content heavily limited. --Durin 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually quoting WP:NONFREE (although the formulation about "identification and critical commentary" is in the sentence dealing with cover art; the one about screenshots is even more restrictive: "critical commentary" only. Also look at the very next sentence, which deals with number of quoted items and with the necessity of having explicit textual analysis even for justifying a smallish number.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • And one frame of a 20-60 minute show is heavily limited. --Minderbinder 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course, the use of fair use images in an animated sitcom's list of episodes is certainly within the narrow limits of that "limited exception." 1/39600 (22 minute episode * 60 seconds * 1/30th (for the standard 30 frames/second) = 39600) of the available image for an episode? Seems perfectly reasonable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll apply the argument given by some on your side above: "Each is independently copyrighted". So therefor you are using 100% of a copyrighted work, clearly too much. :)--Gmaxwell 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• If you have to delve into math in order to justify the presence of a fair use image, it's not justified. --Durin 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • • • • Where has anyone but you made this argument? I've only seen you make this silly comment, over and over. --Minderbinder 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for a justification of these fair use images, in this case the burden is on those wishing to include the images. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, you're ignoring any justifications given. --Minderbinder 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing them either. Each image should have a unique justification why it is necessary and uniquely suited to explain some important point of discussion. Since we are talking about images used on lists which are almost completely devoid of discussion, I find it hard to believe that you've met this criteria. --Gmaxwell 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Minderbinder, feel free to re-state your justifications, right now all I'm seeing is stuff about how we are only using a "small percentage", which does not go in line with our current fair use policy, which requires a handwritten message saying why fair use is required in the context that the image is used in. I find it hard to justify the use of 307 images as was found on one list. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Policy says use is permissible: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." While there are probably some where this isn't met, it's contrary to policy to declare that no list is meeting this. It even seems that some feel that it isn't possible for a list of TV episodes to do this - this situation would probably be less ugly, and less bad faith assumed about the deletionists if removals were actually based on policy instead of a knee-jerk "gee, that seems like a lot" or even a blanket assumption that all screenshots (or all screenshots on episode lists) fail WP:FU. --Minderbinder 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The images are still unjustified. There is no commentary on the list, there is an episode recap. Perhaps you need to review your word choice in the future before you try again. -M^ask? 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Coming in here late, I see. It never ceases to amaze me when people try to claim that a large number of supporters to violate policy should be the "winners" in a discussion like this. It doesn't matter if there were 1000 people who said, "keep all of the fair use images just as they are", if the Foundation says we can't do it, we can't do it. If this continues, we might wind up going the way of other language Wikipedias and banning fair use altogether, which may not be a bad thing, but abuse like this is leading down that path. Corvus cornix 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here an example. Image:RahXephon_episode_9.jpg. Please tell me how that jives with the text that is presented in List_of_RahXephon_media. (its Small_Shrine_of_Time to help you find it). Looking at that image, I can't see how it is doing anything *but* decoration. The image description says something about how the shrine doors are open is an important fact, but the list text does not even mention the shrine.... mmm... I can dig up more and question more fair use rationals if we really want to ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck I'd question the use of the image on the article as well... its not illistrating anything that can't be described. I don't see any talk about this shrine at all... In any case, how is this one image, (out of the whole list) justified? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It uniquely identifies the episode in question because the shrine doesn't look like that before or after (its doors are shown open later, but that is in a dreamlike vision where it looks totally different.)--GunnarRene 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok... But I don't see any commentary about that at all in either the article or the list. Hence the lack of justification. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It comments on the work (the episode in question). The episode article is a work in progress, created because all the encyclopedic information didn't fit into the list.--GunnarRene 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Image:Mako_Tribute.jpg, have a look at the fair use rational... I don't see anything justifing its use in a list such as List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_episodes. The image description does not say at all why this image is needed for our list at all. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up for the featured ones

There are 15 featured List of X episode pages. Five of them are currently fine and look like any other featured list, sparsely illustrated if at all. The remaining, however, are overloaded with decorative non-free images. Start your vacuums. (and update my comment as you clean them out). --Gmaxwell 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_episodes
• List_of_Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes
• List_of_Oh_My_Goddess_episodes
• List of House episodes
• List_of_Planetes_episodes
• List_of_RahXephon_media
• List_of_The_Sopranos_episodes (not sure about the cover art)
• List_of_South_Park_episodes
• List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes
• List_of_The_Unit_episodes
• List_of_X-Men_episodes
• The_Simpsons_season_12
• The_Simpsons_season_13
• The_Simpsons_season_14
• The_Simpsons_season_15
• The_Simpsons_season_16
• The_Simpsons_season_17
• The_Simpsons_season_18

There are pages for seasons 1-18

and so on....Grande13 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A more nicely formatted list --Cyde Weys 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... well first image I click on in The_Simpsons_season_16, (Image:The_President_Wore_Pearls.png) does not contain any rational for why this image is needed in a list. Infact I don't see much of a fair use justification here at all, other then the fair use tag. This really makes me wonder... —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Eagle101. This is not an acceptable use. --Durin 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Same for Image:FABF03.jpg (which does not even seem to be descriptively named), Image:FABF07.jpg, Image:FABF14.jpg. (all in episode 15) No justification for why these need to be used at all, let alone in such number, but I'd be happy to see decent fair use justifications here. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All three deleted, per standard practice of what happens to non-free images that do not justify a claim of fair use. --Cyde Weys 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to rush to delete these; it's clear that they are part of a bigger set of images, and they are not only used in the list, they are used in the per-episode pages as well. While you can delete images iwth no fair use rationale, it seems hasty not to give people a day or two to insert them here. CMummert · talk 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen one image yet with a decent fair use rational... that is out of the 30 or so that I've looked at. This is getting silly. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note... what is this fair use image doing on a user page? Sorry but I must have missed some change to policy... —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People are probably confused (I was confused about this a while back) about the difference between a fair use copyright tag and an explicit fair use rationale. The solution is to educate the people about it and give them a very short deadline, rather than shooting first. CMummert · talk 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is it you are worried about? Following the link, I see a list of images, but not the images themselves... --OnoremDil 17:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you are welcome to work on fixing it :) But the rationals for each article needs to be very good. Especially when trying to justify the need for 200+ images in a list. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well come on, that's obvious! 200 episodes, you MUST have an image for each episode, else the reader won't be able to identify the subject episode in question. --Durin 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think there is a rationale for the screenshots in the lists. But when each episode has its own article, one can rationalize having one screenshot on that article, just like a movie. This is given as an example in the fair use rationale guidline. CMummert · talk 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Can we please focus on the lists first? Lets not distract ourselves with episode articles where our position is not as clearcut. --Gmaxwell 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • CMummert, it doesn't contribute much. It might illustrate the episode in question (might) but show me an article that discusses the scene in question in a critical, evaluative way. The images are decorative. --Durin 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A movie would be analagous to an entire television series, not a single episode of a show. ChazBeckett 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • All I'm asking for is a justification for each image that says how the image is being used, and then the image in turn being used and discussed with the text, not just some thing sitting on the right hand or left hand side of a list. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • But but but, it illustrates the episode!!!! Seriously, Eagle 101 is spot on. If the article doesn't discuss the image, it's outside of fair use. --Durin 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you saying the image in Star Wars also fails to qualify as fair use, because the article doesn't critique the logo? Star Wars isn't a good example. What about the screenshot in Raging_Bull? The fair use rationale guideline specifically uses "screenshot from a movie" as an example of a valid rationale. CMummert · talk 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • We'ere talking about episode lists here, so why not confine your arguments to those for now.. there are plenty of them. --Gmaxwell 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on image justifications for these in the lists. I could go dig up more examples if we wish. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resp. to Gmaxwell and Eagle - I support removing the images from the lists. I was trying to explain why i don't think the images should also be deleted right away if they are currently being used in other articles as well. Removing the images from the lists only requires editing the template in question so that it stops transcluding the image. That would work if they only used templates... CMummert · talk 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well most use the episode list template... But removing it there has been tried but the use seems specifically designed to make doing that nearly impossible. Doing so goofs up the headers and the layout. --Gmaxwell 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well i think admin User:Cburnett's answer was clear enough on that one: "Revert: 1) there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONSENSUS to remove this field; 2) this is protected to prevent fiddling with it; 3) the format of every inclusion is messed up". The transclusions of this template are very high, and the template is VERY complicated. If you want to change something, it needs to be discussed and TESTED before you do it. Freaking admins thinking they know everything sometimes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you working on removing all the plot summaries too? --GunnarRene 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno should they be removed? The issue here is the fair use. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Overlong plot summaries, and articles consisting almost entirely of such, are definitely also a fair-use problem that ought to be addressed at some point. Yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I think at some point the whole issue of episode-specific articles should be examined. But right now we should focus on fair use images in lists. ChazBeckett 18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

he whole issue of episode-specific articles should be examined" Do we really need to go there again? It's so freaking pointless and repetitive. Fact is that some episodes are notable, and the other fact is, you can't stop people from creating ones that are not notable. The distinction between what is and what is not, is too hard to clearly define, so it will always be a problem area. Get over it, fix what you can based on WP:EPISODE and stop the whining already. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider my statement to be whining, but as I see you have WikiProject Television in your sig, I think I know where you stand on the issue of episode-specific articles. In general, I support well written articles on basically any subject. Most episode-specific articles I've seen are poorly written, poorly sourced and often unencyclopedic. I've worked on cleaning up quite a few so I'm speaking from experience. ChazBeckett 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually totally against episode articles, and one of the biggest supporters of WP:EPISODE. But i have to work with reality, and I can't be bothered with this episode discussion again. Arguments like these: "but as I see you have WikiProject Television in your sig, I think I know where you stand on the issue of episode-specific articles" are making the good WP:TV editors bailing the ship alltogether. We have been trying to bring ORDER to television articles where there first was none whatsover. We are not there to deal with judging which article is good, and which is not. I have spent many hours designing templates, ordering categories and stubs. Please don't judge me if you do not know me. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If overlong plot summaries violate fair use, then how have CliffsNotes and SparkNotes managed to stay in business all these years? Their entire raison d'être is to provide highly detailed plot summaries and analyses of literary works, many of which are copyrighted. Has there ever been a case in which it was even claimed by a copyright holder that a plot summary violated their copyright? *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats subject to debate, but that is not the focus of this section. The concern seems to be fair use images on lists... especially in large numbers. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think Wikipedia's actual legal exposure is negligible; I am not aware of any case in which screenshots of TV shows were claimed to violate fair use, even in much larger galleries and with much less commentary per image than is the case here. (Check out some fan sites and you will see large galleries of screenshots posted for each episode in many cases.) Since these screenshots are an extremely minimal portion of the episodes (criteria #3) and in no way prevents the copyright holder from profiting from the episodes (criteria #4), I think that including one screenshot for each episode in a list, accompanied by about a paragraph of commentary apiece, is clearly fair use under U.S. law. The question here is whether it is fair use under the much more restrictive policies of the Foundation. Too often people tend to confuse the two, and I'm concerned that this kind of confusion may give aid and comfort to the "content industry" forces that would like to do away with fair use entirely. *** Crotalus *** 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the cleanup is being reverted, so striking out the galleries already done may not make sense. Jkelly 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is your sig some kind of bad joke, or are you actually serious with that?! --Cyde Weys 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's inspired by the Commodore 64 power-up screen. *** Crotalus *** 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How is that in the commons? C64 variants are still on sale, I think... Must investigate BRB--GunnarRene 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the strikes tell people which ones to check...  :) --Gmaxwell 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be watchful of deleting all images and then protecting. That unmakes the featured status of lists that only had episode images (featured list criteria nr. 3). For Fullmetal Alchemist, you should place an image such as Image:Fma dvd.jpg in the lead. --GunnarRene 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed criteria #3. That should solve the problem. By the way, I do think it's kind of funny that you seem to think that featured list criteria, which are an unofficial thing put together by editors, can trump WMF Board resolutions. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The criterium was there because it makes lists better, and it did not violate any policy or guideline. It's not funny at all. --GunnarRene 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of criteria #3. It states that a FL "has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status" (vbolding mine). Nothing in that encourages the inapproriate use of fair use images. If proper, acceptable fair use rationales can be provided, then that is fine by the WMB, and also fine by the FL process. If no fair use rationale can be provided, then WMB say the image should go, and the FL process supports that. If you have followed WP:FLC at all within the last couple of months, you'll see that objectioms get raised whenever there are Fair Use images. The people who need convicnign are those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.
On a related note, I have been trying to get the FL criteria changed to explicitly state that use of a copyright image for every single item on the list is "excessive" as per WP:FAIR #3. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tompw (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I thought some of you guys might be interested in this FLR. An editor has nominated List of The Simpsons episodes for FLR, with his main reasoning be that it has no images. He thinks that we should add 400+ images to the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I still think this is dead wrong, but if consensus is that way...well, guess I've got no choice but to live with it. Anyway, in the interest of positive improvement, anyone have thoughts on how these lists can be made more visually attractive? Because frankly, striped of images, they just look ugly.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they look ugly with images. JuJube 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion anyway. Also, I would like to apologize if this came off too hostile: I won't lie and say I like this, but I do want to make a good faith effort to work with it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in this in a few musical performer articles...

I have seen articles about musical performers which contain discographies with album covers. I've deleted those album covers out of the people articles, as under fair use, they could be used only to illustrate an article about the album. But then there is a question about "succession boxes". If there is an article on Album One, which says it is the first album by performer X, and there is a succession box down below which shows that his second album was Album Two, is a thumbnail image of the album cover of Album Two allowed in the succession box in the article about Album One? Corvus cornix 20:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as those discographies are not in gallery form (<GALLERY> or work-the-same), and they otherwise satisfy the criteria, they are OK. Thumbnails in succession are less likely to be OK, since while discussion of the albums is likely in the artist article, discussion of the next and previous album is less likely in individual album articles. In either case, proportion of representaion is not increased as long as each album has an article. --GunnarRene 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. "work the same" would just be a collection of images, which is pretty much what we have in these discographies. Corvus cornix 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note that, per WP:ALBUM, "Cover images should not be included in the chronology, as that would not be fair use," which I completely agree with. Incidentally, if anyone wants to go at The Used and related articles, I noticed they have lots of cover images in the chronology. (I was gonna do it a while ago but lost energy.) --Iamunknown 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Category:Discographies is full of 'em. I'm up to the middle of the Bs. Any takers? (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, is this official policy, or just this particular group which is against images in discographies? According to that same WP:Album article quoted, it says, "Some editors consider the use of image galleries in discographies an "unnecessary application" of fair use, although the practice is common and other editors see it as perfectly fair and reasonable (see e.g. Kylie Minogue discography or The Beatles discography).". As someone who sees it as "perfectly fair and reasonable", I'm trying to figure out why all the images are being taken from the articles without any discussion, unless there's a quoted policy I'm not aware of. I know there's a debate about this happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, but no consensus has been reached and the photos currently appear to be allowed to stay per the discussion. I don't want to just willy-nilly revert someone's work, but it's my personal belief that Discographies should have photos and that the photos constitute fair use, and hope to go and put them back unless there's a specific policy against it or consensus has been reached on this. If policy or consensus say they should go, then they should go, but otherwise, why remove them? Perhaps we should allow the debate to finish first before removing more photos? --Ataricodfish 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I have commented on this elsewhere, but I will reply here for clarity's sake. The policies specific to the removal of fair-use images from discographies are in two places: one is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 which explicitly states that fair-use images are not permitted in lists or galleries, and the other is Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images which specifies that album covers can only be used when they are accompanied by critical commentary, which cannot be accomplished in a "list of" format such as a discography. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I see what you're saying, and I've read those points, but I'm still in disagreement, and figure that consensus should be reached before simply making blanket edits. There's a whole debate going on right now over whether pictures are free-use in discographies, and this discussion single-handedly overlooks that ongoing debate. If consensus is against my opinion, as someone in the Wikipedia Album project, I'll be glad to help eliminate the images from discographies. But I disagree with your interpretation of the rules, and hence why people are debating this. The first editor noted WP:Album for deleting the photos, I noted that it also says it's allowed. #8 in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is that its inclusive in a list is "normally regarded", a subjective but not definitive statement, and since a discography by definition is a comprehensive listing of albums, I fail to see how not having photos in a discography article makes it more comprehensive. This page is meant to discuss images of episodes in their listings, which I agree is copyright infringement. But stretching that to discographies, which encourage detailed information of music, including detailed chart statistics, sales, singles information, etc? The removal of images is essentially saying to make the article comprehensive, but not too comprehensive.
        • I obviously mean no disrespect to you as I know you're working to improve Wikipedia, just as I am. We just disagree on how to improve this, and I'd like to see consensus on this issue before carpetbombing all fair use images from discographies, since I believe more images should be added to enhance the informative quality of them. I don't feel that our discussion in an unrelated list of episodes talk page should be the end all discussion on this issue. --Ataricodfish 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Random arbitrary section break 1,594,464,135,947,825,310

This discussion is going on too long. The question is: Are the images necessary? If they aren't necessary, then the images are decorative because it's there only to make the page look nicer. --myselfalso 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've yet to see one fair use rational out of 200+ image justifiying just one image out of a 200+ image collection. Just for fun I've found yet another image (its not hard just click any of the lists listed above, and click any random image)

This Image:Springfield_Up.png at least has a fair use justification that is somewhat valid. its being used to identify homer simpson, though I would think we could find a better image for this, (one of just homer). But the fair use justification has nothing about being used to identify an episode. I found this image on The_Simpsons_season_18. Please justify the need to use that image in the context of the list, thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats the exact viewpoint that the foundation takes, and it's the one that allows us to keep fair use here. We can only have the FU if there is no other option. A list does not need to be prettified with pictures. It's a list. Prettify the episode article (or better yet, dont, and get rid of episode articles that dont meet the WP:N requirement of multiple, nontrivial sources). -M^ask? 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is te cleanup of all fair use images on FLs or just ones without justification? The Placebo Effect 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All, except in exceptional circumstances. The justifications are invalid for the lists. -M^ask? 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad criteria. Air date is not necessary but we include it anyway--Will2k 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that myselfalso has simplified the situation, and deliberately so. However, air date is an irrelevance to this discussion because it is not copyrighted. The entire nature of this debate is applying our policy on lists containing large numbers of copyrighted images which have been claimed to be fair use. Whether or not air date should be included is a matter for discussion on the article talk page as it is not affected by policy. Will (aka Wimt) 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not necessary. none of the content of Wikipedia is. Cavemen did without it for the longest time, and many people in world still do without just fine. However in order for the article to be somewhat useful, I think they ARE necessary. I cannot remember the last time i used on of these pages by looking at the titles. If I'm on such a page, it's usually because I want information about a specific episode. If I haven't seen the episode, I'm in general not interested in such a page. The images are the best way for me to identify the episodes in almost all cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are not necessary. They can never be representative of an entire episode, which is made up of many different scenes; are insufficient to illustrate an episode summary, which is its own can of worms; legally ticklish; and, finally, something that screenshot supporters are seeming to miss in droves, clearly against policy. It is a simple matter to me, but its supporters are trying to complicate the issue. JuJube 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, YOUR interpretation of the policy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you. JuJube 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is disputed, obviously, so established lists, some of which are featured, should be modified afterwards, not beforehand. - Peregrine Fisher 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the issue isn't as disputed as you claim, because images are being removed left and right from lists. You seem to have the false notion that there was a consensus to allow fair use galleries on episode listing pages: there never was. It just flew under the radar for awhile under whatever straw broke this camel's back. --Cyde Weys 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had heard nothing before stating that we couldn't, and the fact the WP:TV had a tv episode box that had a parameter for Image, I assumed it was OK. The Placebo Effect 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You know how it goes though: "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse". Hopefully now a lot more users will be educated about these issues, at least. --Cyde Weys 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you crushed yet?

I first encountered these episode lists a while back when User:Matthew came into the tech IRC channel asking about his problems with a List of Episodes page. The page was hitting the 2 megabyte transclusion limit due to the fancy markup needed to add all the images. I and several others told him that the images were a violation of our policies. He said he didn't care. Someone advised him that he should care because eventually people would come delete them and he'd have to argue with admins. Matthew's response was "Why would I argue with them? I have no need to. We just crush them. We then laugh.". So my question to all, is.. are you crushed yet? Can Matthew begin his laughing now? --Gmaxwell 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this all makes sense now. You're disrupting the work of lots of editors - many of whom has worked to provide fair use rationales - because one editor behaves badly. I'm ashamed at how I have foisted this kind of work on others when it's all in vain.

I especially like how lists with significant amounts of text have been called "galleries" to put a "copyright enforcement" face on all this.

Is is this a temporary lesson for Matthew to abide by policy, or is it something we have to live with for a longer time? --GunnarRene 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For some context Matthew's comment was made a month and a half ago. I'd forgotten until I saw him making adminship hitlists in his userspace. So, your your allegation of a grudge is off the mark... sorry I gave that impression. Rather I saw Matthews comment as a statement that he thought he could use querulousness and throngs of uninformed TV fans to manipulate policy. He's wrong, of course, but I think it's an interesting point. --Gmaxwell 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice how you forgot to include the rest of the discussion, eh ;-)? Also, I imagine you would be "crushed" when people begin to wake up... notice how you've received little opposition in removing them? That's because you're doing nothing but bringing awareness. Matthew 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, shame on you, Matthew for using that language and for invoking WP:IAR. That was not the way to discuss policy and guidelines. Rational discussion of principles, policies and guidelines work better. --GunnarRene 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Laudable, why don't you ask Greg to post the full log ;-)? Oh, and I'm shamed... *honest*. Matthew 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell/l as you wish. --Gmaxwell 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

... I don't consider what other editors are doing with fair use lists to be punishment for what Matthew said. I think you may have stretched Gmaxwell's comment a bit. --Iamunknown 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just a bit but I should have been more clear. I have now explained above.--Gmaxwell 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this is a permanent shift, put into place by a recent WMF Board resolution. Matthew is irrelevant. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How did the resolution change things? - Peregrine Fisher 20:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the header of this section... I'm still waiting on rationals, especially to the images that I found and listed above. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fullmetal Alchemist list had rationales. Some of those struck had boiler-plate (which is not enough, we've argued), while some listed above do have specific rationales. Note that when you're reading rationales, the work in question is the series or episode, not just the screenshot of it. Does the screenshot identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text? in other words, commentary in the text on this particular screenshot is not what we're after. --GunnarRene 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this your personal interpretation of policy or is it explicity stated somewhere? ChazBeckett 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FUC nr. 8 says "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.", while FUC nr. 3 says, in part "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." (And the purpose here is to discuss and identify the show and its episdodes.) Now, the part about how the fair use rationale has to be custom-written for each and every image is our own interpretation of FUC nr. 10. It could be that a single rationale can be copied to all episodes in one list, but on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates we have followed the practice that each rationale has to be unique (though with some invariant points). Please tell us if we were wrong to do that. --GunnarRene 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be argued (and I will argue) that screenshots do not contribute significantly to episode lists since they're only one snapshot of a particular scene in a particular episode. JuJube 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Fair use is allowed to "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ". It's those limits that we are discussing, and if the fair use criteria of this project (Wikipedia) are followed, those limits are narrow enought to satisfy the board resolution. I was around for the new board resolution, and the biggest change here is the policy towards "by-permission" or "non-commercial-only" licenses. --GunnarRene 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how the phrase "within narrow limits" has been construed by some as "fair use is ok everywhere on an article". --Durin 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain how. The images in question are used exactly once on the page to describe exactly one aspect of the article. If more than one image were used to describe that aspect of the article, it would be a violation because one image is enough to convey the visual aspect of the episode and a second would add nearly nothing to it. I would be of the opinon that a fair-use image be used exactly twice on all of wikipedia (once on the list of ... episodes page, and once on the page dedicated to the episode). Any other use of that image would likely violate fair-use.--Will2k 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• So hundreds of images on a list of episodes article constitutes "within narrow limits"? I could wallpaper my entire house with this stuff. The images in question are not commented on in the article. They provide nothing useful to support any critical commentary. The justification that they serve to highlight the episode, when the mass of images are mashed all together...just can't be supported. We are a free encyclopedia. We are not The free encyclopedia except in thousands of articles where we have to have an image just to have an image, because we're not going to comment on the image but it somehow adds value. --Durin 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, we are not the free encyclopedia, we are an encyclopedia with free content within the geographical and legal boundaries of the United States of America. To say that Wikipedia is Free is hypocritical. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I will not reiterate my entire position. I have posted it more than enough times. It would be more cordial of you to

keep your sarcasm out of the discussion though.--Will2k 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then by all means explain to me how adding dozens upon dozens, in some cases hundreds, of copyrighted images to an article encourages progress towards our goal of being a free encyclopedia? Every argument in favor of fair use crashes into that insurmountable wall. Copyrighted works are not free. --Durin 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't redact the whole thread, whoever did it; some of it is not off-topic (though the IRC stuff is). --Iamunknown 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me. And I still think the top section of this section is as inappropriate as Matthew's original comment on IRC. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was not productive. This whole issue has just exploded along the same lines as before. sigh --Iamunknown 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose executive decision

On the subject of going too long, this discussion goes back several times as linked to above by Peregrine Fischer and on pretty much every discussion page for each list that has at one point had an image removed on fair use grounds. Bottom line is there are arguments which claim the images in lists constitute fair-use and arguments against it. Everyone has their own view. I would recommend we as users stay out of the discussion and defer the issue to Wikimedia Foundation lawyers to lay down an executive decision on the use of images so we can stop arguing over it. --Will2k 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not currently have a legal counsel. Brad Patrick left and the board is searching for a new counsel. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) --Iamunknown 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats not how things are done here in any case. Besides, nothing but a court can give you a certian conclusion on matters of fair use. Some things are more clear some things are less clear. But if you are using someone elses copyright works your never free and clear. Our own policy is pretty clear on this. The majority of our vested and established users seem to support that... It's true that the overall direction given by the foundation is "minimize", but we shouldn't expect them or ask them to micromanage our licensing policy. It wouldn't scale and it wouldn't produce good results. --Gmaxwell 20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to make an exception. The edit wars resulting from differing opinion is not helping the project. The fact that this discussion has dragged on so long clearly indicates the users are not capable of finding consensus even though that is how things are done here--Will2k 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I imagine WMF board members have seen pages like these and have chosen not to include them in any official statement. - Peregrine Fisher 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That they may have seen the lists and have yet not included them in a statement is not an indication that they either condone or are opposed to their existence; it merely means that they have not included them in a statement. --Iamunknown 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeat after me: The board is not in the business of micromanaging our copyright enforcement. --Gmaxwell 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They've already made their statement. I really don't think saying exception policies (if they exist at all, and many projects make no exceptions whatsoever!) must only allow minimal usage is terribly unclear. Dozens or even hundreds of fair-use images for every TV series in existence is not minimal, non-decorative usage. A single screenshot in the main article about a TV show, especially if the screenshot serves to illustrate that show's unique style and is discussed in the article, may well be reasonable and necessary. If a particular episode has a particularly well-known (outside the series' fans) or controversial scene, a screenshot of that might be appropriate, as in that case it would be being discussed specifically. But most of what I've been seeing here is purely decorative, unneeded fair use. As to WMF commenting, we have several Board members with accounts on en. I'm sure they've noticed this thread, if they intended to comment, I do imagine they would have done so by now. But anyone who wants to is certainly welcome to email them and request a clarification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a highly subjective and disputed opionion. The only real consensus that exists about this is that we are not going to change our rules to prohibit images in lists like this. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. - Peregrine Fisher 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's advocating prohibiting them, and we don't prohibit them. What is prohibited is to use tons of them. If one image is overwhelmingly necessary, write up an individual rationale as to why. But as evidenced by the discussion above, it's pretty clear that the use of dozens or hundreds of such images is not considered appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Well, there are a couple of folks who want to prohibit all inclusions of non-free content... and every argument where I see people try to argue that the fact that we allow a minimum justifies allowing much more I move closer to switching to the position that we should not allow any at all because the loss in the quality of our coverage doesn't make up for the endless arguments from folks pushing for changes which will decrease the freeness of our output. --Gmaxwell 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, arguments like these don't help matters. My position is rather clear: I'm against bulky, ineffective compilations of screenshots in episode list, where they're clearly not necessary since the article should be a simple listing of episodes. I think they're fine in individual episode articles, character articles and show articles as illustrative. However, if people keep pushing for their South Park featured lists with 236236326326222 screenshots, we're going to end up not being able to use anything at all. JuJube 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The lines are clearly drawn. There are those people who feel we should have a free encyclopedia, and there are those who are not interested in that goal. There's no real middle ground. Policy and resolutions support the former group, and not the latter. This does not stop the squabbling however. --Durin 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We're a free encyclopedia with policies that allow fair use images. - Peregrine Fisher 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Copyrighted does not equal free. --Durin 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What's your point? PF is absolutely right, this "free" site allows nonfree content. And declaring "policy supports me" doesn't make it so. I guess the foundation isn't interested in that goal since they've made it clear that they allow nonfree content. If you really feel there's no middle ground, I'd encourage you to contact them and encourage them to forbid all fair use, that's the only way to remove any middle ground. In the meantime, quit pretending that "policy and resolutions" forbid nonfree content. --Minderbinder 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The big issue here is that while the English Wikipedia does allow non-free content, it is imperative that that non-free content be used minimally. Having 100 non-free images on a page because it is an episode list is not minimal use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The big issue here is that people are having a hard time with what "minimal" is. It's being argued that one image per episode is minimal in an episode list article. JuJube 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • That's absurd. Zero images total is minimal for an episode list. That's what many episode lists have. The debate is over there <------ but you're claiming it's over there ------> Cyde Weys 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Again, I'm not opposed to no images in episode lists. That's my preference, actually. But I'm telling you that that's what people have, and will continue to, argue, as long as we keep using the word "minimal" and not a concrete number that can't be argued against. JuJube 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Actually zero images total is minimal for any article. So I guess you interpret "minimal" as the foundation banning all nonfree content? Funny how people only seem to be insisting on No Images on articles about TV shows. --Minderbinder 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • My point is that the interpretation of "minimal" needs to be clear and not dependent on whoever is looking at it and for whatever purposes they might hope to gain from it. I am not for no fair use images in every article, just in episode lists. JuJube 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • That makes zero sense, we don't have rules specifically for episode lists. I agree we need to be clear on what minimal means, but whatever consensus decides will apply to both lists and articles of all subjects. If you're for zero nonfree images in episode lists, then you're for zero nonfree images in lists of paintings or people. --Minderbinder 11:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. And lists are supposed to be navigational. There is no need to include unfree images in navigational aids, and it can hardly be argued that the navigational purpose is undermined by lack of images, which is the essential fair use rationale on the main articles. Of course, if someone were to suggest that we merge the directories of episodes into series articles, on the grounds that we are not an episode guide, a rationale might be made in respect of individual entries. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Squabble squabble. No middle ground. --Durin 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Middle ground" gives people opportunity to fudge around and redraw the lines. JuJube 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So if you want to rid us of that pesky middle ground, have you contacted the foundation and urged them to ban all nonfree content yet? I'm serious. --Minderbinder 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Cute. Response is above. JuJube 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no need to go the German route, as it would split the community in twain (not unlike this). The issue is that a singular screenshot can be used to represent the entirety of the series/season/page. There's absolutely no need to flood an article with what could be hundreds of copyrighted images. This is what got Bobabobabo banned (with sockpuppetry to back herself up).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • • And you really expect people to buy all this hoopla? I don't understand half of it. My issue is with the Admins handeling of what is going on. THEY DON'T inform people. Ryulong also deleated half the the episode summeries in List of Sailor Moon Episodes. I can't take this kind of stuff. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • What do you mean by "the German route"? JuJube 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me answer both of these questions:

• Lego3400: A banned user's sockpuppet had editted List of Sailor Moon episodes. I reverted to the last version prior to that sockpuppet's edits. This inadvertantly removed summaries (oh noes). I deleted whatever images the sockpuppet uploaded and then proceeded to go with the rest, barring they weren't used in another article.
• JuJube: The German route is only GFDL/CC-by-SA stuff.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • JJ, I don't see the response above, and I was asking Durin, who says there's no middle ground and that all nonfree content opposes the Free Mission. Have you contacted the foundation and urged banning all nonfree content or not? --Minderbinder 11:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                • They already have taken a severe stance against copyrighted images. Further, no, there isn't much middle ground. You and others seem to think it's ok to have 200 plus fair use images on an article and define that as "within narrow limits". You're completely unwilling to compromise. Same goes for the opposition. --Durin 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • They haven't taken a severe a stance as you seem to have. I'm disappointed that you're not committed enough to "free" to try and make this a real free encyclopedia - you really are standing on the middle ground, just in a different spot and you're not willing to admit it. At least you admit that you're unwilling to compromise, should I interpret that as you favoring zero nonfree images on lists? I'd like to hear your response to the question below as well. --Minderbinder 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Squabble squabble. Enjoy. --Durin 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I've removed your incivility. If you'd like to make an actual response, please do so. --Minderbinder 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • And I've restored it. What I am pointing to has nothing to do with you. It has to do with the astonishing amount of debate on this page that amounts to little more than pointless squabbles. We're all contributors to that. --Durin 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • I'm sorry you feel it is your duty to increase the amount of pointless nonsense. Seriously, you don't have to be a contributor to that. If you have nothing useful to contribute, could you at least stay out of the way of those who'd like to actually discuss this? Thanks. --Minderbinder 13:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • de-indent Ah yes, the old "get lost" proposal. Perhaps you'd be so good as to leave this conversation as well, until such time as you're willing to compromise. --Durin 13:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if you misread my post. I'm not asking you to get lost, I'm encouraging you to stick with actual discussion as opposed to meaningless garbage. --Minderbinder 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I didn't know I was spewing meaningless garbage. I really thought that negatively commenting on situations like this one counted as something useful. --Durin 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sadly, at this point it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or if you honestly don't consider "Squabble squabble" meaningless garbage. --Minderbinder 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It'd probably be easier on you if you just considered me to be meaningless garbage. Less debate. --Durin 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It sucks

Images in an LOE improve the list greatly, even significantly. They are more than decretive, they aid in episode identification. However, is it important to be able to identify individual episode articles in the big picture? I used to think so, but not anymore. It's taken me about a year to realize that, as great and as useful as these screen shots where, it was aiding a use that isn't important enough to warrant using non-free images.

I cringe at some of these lists now with the images removed. They looked sooo much better with the screen shots in, and were more useful to me when I was looking to recall an individual episode. But when I think about it, that's not really a big deal. These articles can contribute in so many ways that we shouldn't get hung up on just this one issue.

I spent hours upon hours selecting many screen shots for LOEs. I spent even longer arguing in similar debates so that we could use them.

Because of the free-content requirements, Wikipedia simply can't always be everything we want it to be. It sucks, I know. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I kind of feel the same way, although looking back on it I don't think I ever really liked pictures in episode lists. JuJube 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda interesting.. the Featured lists for subjects like the species lists where we have free images don't have many images at all. Only the ones with non-free content have many images. Why is that? --Gmaxwell 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Probubly because its easy to get a screenshot from an episode, and betting pictures of eac animal is hard to do and time consuming. The Placebo Effect 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Except we already have the pictures of the animals. Thats why I don't get. I thought the same thing as you at first.. episode shots are easy if you have a dejanews account and a willingness to break the law... but I checked some of the lists and found we had images of all the species I checked. --Gmaxwell 00:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD Then add them or bring it up on the talk page. The Placebo Effect 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, people don't want them added.. they worked very hard on the lists and think they are better without them, I don't know why the position is so different in the TV camp other than self-selection. --Gmaxwell 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think his point is that people are wasting a lot of time adding non-free content to episode listings when much more important tasks, like adding free images to scientific lists, are ignored. --Cyde Weys 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it wasting time. People do and edit what they want to edit. Adding the screen shots is important to a lot of us, it's just not what Wikipedia is for. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how an episode list with tons of FU images helps to further our mission of creating a free TV Guide encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny (talk • contribs) 01:02, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

Ned, yes... well I think we can say that the biggest error falls on all of us for not cleaning this up earler, and instead letting it grow out of control and building a base of deeply vested editors whos feelings will be hurt and whos work will be somewhat lost. --Gmaxwell 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do non-editors find it useful? Probably yes. Does having them in the list break "a minimum"? One -per episode probably does not until you reach about 60 or so. The problem is to define what "a minimum" is. I know for a fact one of the featured lists had about 25 episodes and that would probably be safe, but getting beyond 50 is pushing the limit The Placebo Effect 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely clear on why it should make a difference if a series has 25 episodes or 250 episodes. Why is one okay and the other not? JuJube 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference, what matters is the context an image is used in.. and lists don't provide enough. However, 250 is a lot more offensive than 25 by virtue of sheer volume. I think it's interesting to note that the commercial episode listing sites don't use screenshots per episode, and you'd think that pleasing the viewer would be their #1 consideration, where for us we're also concerned with other factors. --Gmaxwell 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that peopel feel bad when their hard work is deleted/reverted/whatnot, even when they understand why it needs to be done. But rather than thinking of how much prettier the lists were when they had tons of non-free images on them, think of how much more flexible the use of Wikipedia will be, and how much more free it will be, when we only use non-free content when we absolutely must. More projects like Wikipedia 1.0 and various CD projects will be able to use/sell/distribute our content more easily. I'm sure there are many more such examples. Rather than thinking about how not using non-free content is limiting us, think of how it's freeing us to be more flexible. Mak (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've said it a dozen times, but it is not our responsibility to play lawyer for anyone who wants to reuse the content here. No matter what the user will still have to be cognizant of the licenses involved in the content they are using. Yes, this includes GFDL, CC, GPL, and other various free licenses present on WP. Removing fair use images does not remove this burden of work by the user. Don't pretend for a second that it does. Copying a page and its images does not guarantee you can do everything under the GFDL since not all images are under the GFDL. Being ignorant of the licenses involved with your content that you copy is naive and extremely foolish.

Most importantly, don't pretend you are their lawyer giving them legal advice on what they can and can't do with the content they copy. Nothing you do or say removes their burden of understanding the licenses involved with the content they are using.

That said, having fair use images does not change anything about someone else reusing the content here. Since images can be releases under non-GFDL licenses then a copier must check the license of each and every image they copy and evaluate for themselves if their actions are compatible and remove the images if it is not. Having fair use images in the mix does not alter this process even one iota. Believing it does is deleterious. Might as well think of the children while you're at it. Cburnett 02:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is not our responsibility to play lawyer for anyone who wants to reuse the content here" — you're absolutely right. I'll tell you what is our mission though: to create a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia. We're not playing lawyer; we're just making our content as easy to reuse as possible. Don't make the mistake in thinking that you are writing for Wikipedia; you're not. The GNU Free Documentation License gives any site the same freedom to use our content. You just happen to be uploading your work under the GFDL to here. --Cyde Weys 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can say free as many times as you want but it does not remove anyone's responsibility to check the licenses for themselves.

You say you aren't playing a lawyer, so why did you feel the need to lecture me on the legal implications of my contributions here and the license in which I am doing so? I don't mean the negative connotation that comes with the word, but that was very hypocritical of you for saying you aren't playing a lawyer and then give me a legal lecture like a lawyer. Cburnett 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being sensationalist. Saying someone is trying to act like a lawyer anytime anyone tries to explain your freedoms under the GFDL is counter-productive. You know why I have to explain it? Because you don't get it. Your attitude of "fuck the reusers" says as much. And until you get it, your input into this conversation is going to be disregarded, at best. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude of "fuck the reusers" says as much. Amen. We're not here for us, we're here for the people downstream who will use this encyclopedia. Anything that makes it harder for them to use it is fundamentally at odds with the project, and those insisting on it need to go direct their attention to some other project. -M^ask? 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude of "fuck the users" is even worse.  Grue  10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have cake to throw at people

This is an idea I've been kicking around for a while: I'm thinking about making a meta-data marker for {{Episode list}}, and then make a Wikia Wiki that would host LOEs but in a locked form and updated from Wikipedia by bot. Users would use the Wikia site only for uploading the images and image captions (via templates it would be easy). To update the list all users would still update the same copy, the Wikipedia copy, but would allow for an screen-shot version to exist. GFDL lets us have the best of both worlds.

Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose it would make some people happy. I have no opposition, but I still think episode lists with screenshots are ugly (not exactly the majority opinion, but whatever). JuJube 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• What Wikia wants to do is their business, but I like it. They have a bunch of really great fandom Wikis. This sort of thing would fit well.. leave wikipedia to the dry academic stuff about the episodes while Wikia can do the fandom approach while taking data from Wikipedia. Why do our episode lists contain so much unsourced gunk anyways, even the featured ones? I would expect us to do a little better. Stuff like future shows is listed on quite a few of them, and while some of the entire lists have a source .. it's usually just a link to as list with less data than ours.--Gmaxwell 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are images different than other copyrighted content?

I think some people have a tendency to treat images differently than other "fair use" content, even though there is no legal distinction.

Think about it: If someone made a List of Harry Potter novels and, alongside the novel descriptions, had a representative quote (say, a paragraph or so) from each novel, with proper citations, no one would seriously claim that this violated copyright. Yet, when someone makes an episode list and uses a single screenshot (from an episode lasting at least 20 minutes, or nearly 36,000 frames, not counting commercials) then people claim that this is pushing the boundaries of fair use. Some people have even claimed that plot summaries could violate copyright, which I'm sure would come as a surprise to the publishers of CliffsNotes.

The fact is that without "fair use," we couldn't even write a coherent article on any copyrighted work, because such an article will nearly always involve quoting from the book, movie, or whatever. That is fair use. I don't see why screenshots are considered any different. The fact that they're in separate files from the main article is just an artifact of our wiki programming model.

I fully understand the rationale for deprecating fair use in subjects where free alternatives can reasonably be obtained. We should be working on getting free-use pictures of living people whenever reasonably possible, rather than resorting to fair use. But in articles related to modern literature, film, or television, it is impossible to obtain such alternatives. It's not that we just haven't found a good free image yet; it's that none exist and none will for nearly a century (unless there's a backlash against the current state of copyright law before then). In these cases, we have no option but to resort to fair use.

The Foundation has stated that fair-use content should be minimal. However, minimal can mean different things in different contexts. I think that removing these screenshots from lists was an example of destructive copyright paranoia. They clearly meet the requirements for fair use under U.S. law. *** Crotalus *** 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about what the law allows. You can make an image and say that Wikipedia is free to use it for whatever they want, but unless you give it a free-content license it will still be deleted. That's right, even if you give specific permission to Wikipedia. This is about Wikipedia being a free content Encyclopedia. Some non-free content is required for many subjects, but individual episode screen shots are not required.. not by a long shot. It's not copyright paranoia, it's housecleaning. We should have done this a long time ago. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that the same term ("fair use") is being used both for a legal concept under U.S. law and for a more restrictive internal Wikipedia policy over what images can be used. Another problem is that the Foundation's directives, as noted above, are often vague as to exactly what kinds of fair-use content are permissible and in what contexts. This is one of the "edge cases" that is not clearly defined by Foundation policy. In the long run, I think that there will probably be a Wikipedia fork devoted to TV series, with looser requirements for fair use. That is the only thing that would be able to satisfy the claims of both sides. *** Crotalus *** 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-free media is mostly covered in the audible and visual realms and not the textual realm. As an encyclopedia, one is expected to have quotes and to cite them to the relevant source. Citing images or song clips is possible, but when done to the extent of several hundred to a page or series, Wikipedia has a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree content is nonfree content. We need to apply a consistent standard, so quotes should be minimal as well - if there's a list that has an unfree quote by each item, if large numbers of images are going, large numbers of unfree text chunks would need to go as well. As said above, "there's no middle ground". And we certainly don't want double standards here. Also, at this point there's really no reason to use the term "fair use" since WP doesn't allow fair use, it's limited use of nonfree material. --Minderbinder 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some links to use of non-image copyrighted works that you feel does not qualify under WMF's Non-free Media policy. I will have a look and see if we should also get rid of these at the same time as we're getting rid of a lot of the images. Just a warning though: WMF's policy on images is stricter than inline encyclopedic quotes. There's a long history (centuries old) of allowing quotations in academia and educational works. Not so much for copyrighted images. --Cyde Weys 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NONFREE says about text it must be "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use" which is similar to restrictions about images, and could similarly be argued to forbid using quotes on items in a list. Also "In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." Having a quote next to each item of a list could also be argued as "extensive" similar to the arguments made here about images. And the wiki foundation resolution doesn't even mention images, much less make a distinction between images and text - if their intention was for it to only apply to images and not text, the resolution certainly doesn't get that across. --Minderbinder 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing from non sequitur. This is a fallacy. You're trying to shift the issue over to being about text, which we don't really have any widespread copyright problems with, from images, which we do have widespread problems with. Stop trying to deflect and stick with the issue at hand, please. I've already explained how the situation with text is a lot different than images, so it does no one any good to keep harping on it. --Cyde Weys 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I'm merely responding to the comments above, a thread which I did not start. I'm just saying that NONFREE and the foundation resolution apply to text as well as images. If you want to dispute that, dispute it, but don't make accusations about my intentions. --Minderbinder 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AAGF. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything. When you make accusations about intent, you've demonstrated bad faith. Now please stick to discussing the content and not the contributor. Thanks. --Minderbinder 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You not assuming anything is exactly the problem. You're supposed to assume good faith too. Don't you find it hypocritical to not assume good faith yourself, but then demand it of others?! --Cyde Weys 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

By asking Cyde to assume good faith, you have assumed that he isn't assuming good faith and have, in the process, assumed bad faith. --Iamunknown 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How many is "minimal"?

One? Five? Ten? During the current deletion spree the end result has been zero in every case that I've seen. Is there any acceptable number editors can use as a guideline? And all images are being deleted regardless of discussion in the text, right? Or have I missed a case where an editor actually looked at the list and left images with a fair use justification instead of just blindly removing all? And similar standards should apply to articles, right? There's nothing inherent about lists that says they should have fewer images than articles, right? Looking for guidance here. --Minderbinder 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with lists is that the images aren't being used for the required 'criticism and commentary' thats required for fair use. Notice we've left images in episode articles proper. -M^ask? 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a single image in any of these list was used for criticism and commentary? And you're saying if some images are restored to lists with criticsm and commentary, they won't be deleted again. I have an incredibly hard time believing that. Even if every image is used for C&C, there's a "too many" number that will cause editors to delete them - I'm looking for guidance on what that number is. --Minderbinder 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask for a number, because it depends on the context. The number may well turn out to be zero in most cases. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And what "context" determines the number? Or who? Normally, it would be consensus, but we're not operating on that at this point since admins are just locking articles to their preferred versions. Obviously a number is important to those deleting images since numbers are being cited as the reason for deletion.

And when you say zero, do you mean articles/lists in which justification for image use isn't given, or do you mean that you think some should have zero even when real justification is given in the text? --Minderbinder 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are not the issue. Theoretically, if an article required critical commentary on 83 different screenshots, it would be fair use to include all of them. The list of episodes which contains a couple lines of plot summary and some production codes is not providing any critical commentary on the specific scene illustrated in the image. It's a clear criterion, which has nothing to do with numbers. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the numbers aren't a concern for you, but a number of editors above have made it clear that they feel that numbers are the issue, citing "minimal". (then again, at the same time they're removing even small numbers of screenshots) And there's no way these editors would allow 83 screenshots, even with unimpeachable justification. I'd just like to hear from those fixated on numbers what they'd consider reasonable for an article or list. --Minderbinder 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "minimal" here is "not more than necessary." There isn't a single number that applies in every context. Please don't ask for an answer that is impossible to give. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The non-trivial minimum is one per work, which means one per episode. Cburnett 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you arrive at this conclusion? ChazBeckett 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All that is needed is explained right there. If you want more than that then ask a more pointed question. Cburnett 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pushing this "per work" position, it is bogus. A single frame stands as "one work", as does an episode, or a DVD boxed set. Can we have every frame from an episode because it's one non-free image per copyrighted frame of the show? Can we have one episode video per DVD set? You might have been able to make this argument back when copyright registration existed, but not today. You can't even make that argument based on the products in the marketplace... Single frames are sold as a product (still pictures, posters, etc) far more often than single episodes as episodes usually come in collections per season and the like.

You still haven't explained why these lists need one per episode when our featured lists which are not about copyrighted subject are not illustrated in that manner, and when many of the commercial sites that list episodes don't bother with one-shot-per episodes even when they clearly have a licensing agreement which would allow something like that. --Gmaxwell 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Frames of an episode and pages of a book are a technical limitations. Cburnett 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll play. Why is the non-trivial minimum one (instead of zero)? Why does a work consist of one episode (instead of a series, season, storyline, etc...)? ChazBeckett 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll play what? If you want an intelligent answer then ask an intelligent question. It's not a game. If the only effort you're going to put in is "How?" then I won't put in the effort to respond.

Zero is the trivial minimum. (I'm going to guess you are not a mathematician of any variety (physics, engineering, etc.) because if you were then you would know what "trivial solution" means and I wouldn't have to explain it.) Considering zero the minimum voids the concept of "minimum" completely. Non-zero is sine qua non of fair use. If you have none then the concept of fair use doesn't exist therefore applying zero to fair use is meaningless.

That said, what gives you the impression or understanding a television series or season is a single copyrighted work? You will note that in the credits that the copyrighted date increases with the year. Heck, why aren't all six Star Wars movies a single work with a single copyright despite spanning decades? If they were shorter and released more frequently, does that really change anything? Cburnett 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. It could well be that we're capable of writing a perfectly good article on a subject by using zero non-free images. Then the minimum number of non-free images in the article, and the number which our policy mandates, would be zero. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's some very terrible mathematical handwaving. It also makes a terrible assumption: that screenshots are considered on a per-episode, rather than per-article, basis. --Cyde Weys 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proud

I have to say that I'm really proud at how this is all falling into place. Massive image removals, revert wars (like on List of Heroes episodes), and a good number of page protections (this shows 6, currently). The entire issue of fair use images in episode lists has been handled with class. It really goes to show that very different people from different countries and different laws can come together, have discussion, and civily agree on a compromise. No strong arming and no need for one side to gang up on the other and claim victory due to sheer numbers because, as well all know, wikipedia is about discussion not numbers/votes. The smoothness in which this went down goes to show that Wikipedia is very strong & cohesive and is not dying (contrary to many claims) for things like bureaucracy, instruction creep, and "fair use trolls." I am really proud to have been involved in this. Thanks and kudos to all. Cburnett 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You knew it was coming, one day. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that our free encyclopedia project wasn't being massively compromised was your choice. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assuming these removals are permanent. There's no consensus for them, nor any policy support behind your backs. Several administrators going around removing images and unilaterally protecting pages with no policy support other than opinion is, in my opinion, grounds for de-sysoping. Matthew 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You may not agree with the policy, but that doesn't mean that it ceases to exist. Foundation policies require the support of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, not a consensus of editors. ChazBeckett 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of contention: that isn't policy, that's a resolution, and a vague one at that. If it were a change to policy then one of the policy documents would have changed correspondingly. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a resolution by the Wikimedia Foundation, who more or less run this joint. Any of our policy pages which are in conflict with that resolution need to be changed. This is a wiki; it's quite possible that some of our policy pages have not kept up with this resolution yet - the flaw in such a case is in our policy, not in their resolution. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not even a Foundation question right now, nor will the foundation be interested in micromanaging our policy on non-free works. They trust us to generally get it right, and will only step in if is starts becoming clear that we're shooting way off track. I know it's hard from some enwiki folks to believe but there are other Wikimedia projects and the board licensing resolution really had most of its impact on them. The impact on enwiki should mostly have been limited to shutting down most of the pressure to drift away from our restrictive approach to anything not free enough.

The inclusion of hundreds of non-free images in simple lists just isn't supported by our policy and no consensus has ever been demonstrated to allow them. Some folks pulled a pretty slick stunt: A poisoned proposal to reject these images which no one could support.. Then when it failed some people used that as justification to allow them. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. --Gmaxwell 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Several administrators ... unilaterally protecting". Be careful with the use of loaded words like "unilateral", especially when it's demonstrably not true. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unilaterally" has long been used on Wikipedia as shorthand for "in a manner of which I disapprove". --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations as you have all missed my point completely. In fact, you have further demonstrated my point, thank you. Cburnett 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the point is that people are too willing to force their views on other people without coming to an agreeement. And I always assumed "free" meant their was no User fee, like you have to do To get the full version of Britannica online. The Placebo Effect 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the gratis versus libre distinction. Wikipedia is free as in beer and free as in speech. ChazBeckett 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And Fair Use (the legal concept that the Exclusion Doctrine is based in) is based on free speech, so I guess this drama is making Wikipedia less free as in speech. I don't know if this is intended as some kind of demonstration of how copyrigth law is "evil", in other words, that we should act as if there was no 1st amendment and fair use provisions in copyright law. --GunnarRene 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The first amendment applies to the government of the United States. Copyright law applies to everyone and everything in the United States, including Wikipedia. Picaroon (Talk) 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and when the government passes copyright law, fair use is there so that the law does not infringe on your first amendment rights.--GunnarRene 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty dumb when I believed this was true:

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

• for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. For more information, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Note that, completely consistent with our Non-free content criteria it is used for identification and critical commentary of the work, which is for this discussion is the program and its contents. In other words, the article doesn't have to mention the screenshot, but the screenshot has to contribute significantly to the discussion about the program and its contents. If this latest round of deletion is left to stand, somebody should go through those templates and update or deprecate them.--GunnarRene 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The episodes lists were examples of abuse of non-free images, not fair use of them. If you believe the wording in the template is inaccurate, feel free to suggest better wording. ChazBeckett 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only rationale I've heard for this removal is pretending that lists are galleries, neither have any of the individual fair use rationales been challenged, so I can't change the template when there's been no rationale for deletion. Somebody who's in on the "secret" has to update it.--GunnarRene 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the only rationale you've heard then you haven't been reading very closely. Picaroon (Talk) 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've most of the debate I think. The previous arguments were that having a lot of fair use media on one page was not "our best work" because it "wasn't free enough". But the rationale here was a reference to copyright problems. --GunnarRene 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you call it "abuse" instead of "use". Abuse, after all, is bad use, so why was this use bad? It satisfied the fair use criteria - if any fair use rationales were lacking, why weren't they addressed at all - except for saying "none of the rationales are valid", which is rather meaningless without further explanation? I've seen enough fair use rationales to know that there are bad rationales out there, but I find it astounding that not a single rationale was found to be good enough. There is no different copyright policy between lists and other articles, neither is there a different copyright policy on featured and non-featured articles and lists - only more vetting.--GunnarRene 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The template above says that a "limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" are appropriate fair use. These lists did not contain a "limited number", and the screenshots in them were not being used for "identification and critical commentary." Do you dispute either of those statements? If not, does that answer your question? Picaroon (Talk) 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Only one screenshot per episode is indeed a limited number. Many websites and magazines that operate commercially have multiple screenshots from each episode. I think the argument that should be made here is about identification and critical commentary. There's no question that the screenshots are used to identify the episodes, so the issue is "critical commentary". It was previously decided not to have fair use media galleries, because they would contain too little critical commentary. Now the issue is over if a list article can or can not have enough critical commentary about the show, and I think it can.--GunnarRene 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the copyright law actually say "identification and critical commentary." or was that something we made up? The Placebo Effect 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See for yourself at http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html: it says, "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research". --Iamunknown 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I might be, but couldn't an episode summary be viewed as News reporting? The Placebo Effect 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment and research are closest. Criticism too, except that we don't render judgement. --GunnarRene 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar, as the saying goes. "Commenting" in this context involves commenting on the image. Not on the context ( the episode) in which the image was taken, but the image itself. These lists are not commenting on the images. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that? The series and episode are the works that are commented on. We're not suggesting that individual screenshots are notable as works onto themselves and deserve their own articles, are we? There aren't many screenshots that have that degree of notability. --GunnarRene 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be. --Iamunknown 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an episode summary of a television show would be considered a news report. If a Wikipedia article (episode summary or any other) is merely reporting news, it doesn't belong here. It should be moved to Wikinews. ChazBeckett 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if not news reporting at least commenting right? Doesn't that allow us to use them in these lists? The Placebo Effect 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

United States copyright law could be interpreted to allow many more things than our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy; the policy is, "based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure" and, as such, is more restrictive than what could be allowed. --Iamunknown 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Forking

As I stated previously, I think that, in the long run, the only way to deal with the culture clash between Wikipedia's prioritization of free use on one hand, and the desire to have high-quality popular culture articles on the other, will be to fork a separate wiki specifically for that purpose. ("Popculturepedia"? Or is that title already taken?) This wiki would still license text under the GFDL, but would permit fair-use images in any situation allowed by a reasonable interpretation of U.S. law. As a bonus, this would also eliminate a lot of arguments over "fancruft" (since there would be much wider latitude for that on a dedicated wiki), and provide a place for all the "...in popular culture" articles that are getting deleted — I don't think most of those articles belong here, but people have spent a lot of time and effort on them, and they ought to go somewhere.

I have neither the technical skill, the money, nor the desire to do this myself. But it is probably the best long-term solution to this dilemma. --Crotalus horridus 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need technical skill for this. The servers are already available. See the section titled "Have cake to throw at people" above. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's primarily that I lack the desire to pursue such an extensive project. I don't do all that much editing to pop-culture articles; it would be best if those who are most dedicated to the subject were the ones to take the initiative. It's just a suggestion, but if it succeeds in ending or quieting interminable arguments over what is and is not allowed in Wikipedia, it would be worth it. --Crotalus horridus 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to participate in a free encyclopedia that allows fair use both in theory and practice; I'm not sure I would like to participate in a fanpedia with an in-universe perspective and original research. I've been writing about entertainment, but quite often this creates the need to explain real-world topics such as science, geography and history (I've created articles about notable locations in Japan, for example), and an out-of-universe perspective is valuable even in the entertainment articles. For example, I don't really care about what some random Anonymous thinks about a certain television series, or the height and weight of some Lesser Slytherin, but it IS interesting to see ratings and sales, awards, and what reviewers thought about the works in question.

Your proposal might be comfortably hosted by Wikia, but I wonder if there's a better solution.--GunnarRene 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how Wikia is "a selective wiki hosting service" (Wikia), I'm not sure that'd work out but, then again, I don't know. --Iamunknown 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the wiki only concerned itself with fiction, such as Wookiepedia, I think Wikia might host it, but since I would rather have an alternative to Wikipedia that works in practice, Wikia won't host that. (It doesn't host anything that competes with the Wikimedia Foundation projects.) --GunnarRene 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason that a popular culture wiki couldn't have a policy against original research, or that it couldn't ask that entries be written in an out-of-universe perspective. What is likely is that the sourcing policy, especially the definition of a "reliable source," would be somewhat different than Wikipedia's. --Crotalus horridus 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it should or would go very far outside what we have here. For example, today Wikipedia does cite usenet and blog postings originating from the creators of a show as a reliable source on themselves and the show for example. The only real difference, I think, would be the requirements for secondary source establisment of notability - maybe. Other than that, I think it would be mostly the same.--GunnarRene 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A (rambling) proposal to fix this once and for all

In the heat of all this discussion I think we're missing a key point: why the hell is this so controversial? I'll tell you why: because policy is too fucking vague on this point. Excuse the American, but it is. Half of you are saying "fair-use images need to go", the other half are saying, "fair-use images can and should stay." Both sides are saying, "policy says I'm right." Everyone is just going off of what as best they can tell policy says, and there are solid arguments on both sides. Effectively, the excessively vague nature of policy has created two subsets of editors with two very different ideas on what is allowed on Wikipedia. They go along editing for months, maybe even years under those assumptions, and you're somehow surprised when they react with hostility when you say, "nuh-uh, you're wrong"?

So what do we do about this? Well, far be it from me to bring common sense to this little discussion, but, I dunno, maybe amend the policy so it's clear on this point? I know there's a long and rich history of policy documents open to interpretation on some points, but clearly any ambiguity on this point is not constructive. Policy is supposed to ensure Wikipedia is edited in a mostly consistent manner, and it has overwhelmingly failed in that regard when it comes to fair-use images. (If it hadn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion) The current fair-use policy must be updated and made less unbearably vague, or we'll just keep having this same damn argument over and over and over again.

Now as to how policy should be amended, I really don't care. Honestly, I just want it to be less vague so this unbearable type of argument stops happening. I think it needs to be a community-wide discussion, akin to the recent Wikipedia:Attribution discussion, but however it's done it needs to be final and decisive, with no ambiguity. (This discussion, by the way, isn't sufficient) To put it crudely, this shit is getting old, fast. Why not stop the argument at the source? -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I've been trying to say the whole time. JuJube 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A critical point is that the officual wikimedia-wide policy says that fair use must be minimal, so in case of doubt, we got to choose not to use them. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 03:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then policy should say that explicitly. I'm not saying that is or isn't the case, I'm just saying that whatever the case is, it needs to be a lot more clear than it is. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Minimal" is part of the vague phrasing that I've got a problem with. People will argue that "one image per episode" in an episode list fits the criteria of minimal. JuJube 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple:

1. yes in the articles about episodes that provide critical commentary about the work;
2. no in the episode lists that don't provide critical commentary about the work.

We don't need anything more than that. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Not in a list. Using one (or even 2 or 3) in an article about that episode is within policy. Using them in a list, without the critical commentary needed to support a fair use claim, does not fall in there. And if you expanded the list to include the needed criticism and commentary, its too big and will get broken into seperate articles. And policy is not to vague, policy is perfect. The right thing was done (note the images are still gone and those putting them in have been given disruption time outs) and very easily. Policy is vague for a reason, we need to adapt to situations as they come up, not lay down rigid rules for others to game. Note WP:IAR, WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:BEANS. -M^ask? 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah images in articles are fine as long as the article itself meets our notibility and other relevant guidelines and policys. Again the use of fair use images must have a very good rational, and a unique rational explaining why its needed this time to be in an article. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If policy were clear enough about fair-use images we wouldn't have a gigantic discussion cum flamewar about the whole thing. We've tried "vague"; it failed. It's time to try something new. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I want to know is: Why is it that every time I believe we need to remove a small group of non-free images because I think they are out of line with both our policy and our mission, people on the other side keep characterizing my response as "(all) fair-use images need to go" even though I think a huge number of the ones we have are not only okay but important to keep..? It is very discouraging.

I'm beginning to think we've made an error permitting non-free images at all. Too much our community either is unwilling or unable to handle subjects which are not black/white and which can not be reduced to a set of rules simple enough for a robot. People don't seem to appreciate the non-free images that do go without objection, so perhaps they aren't all that important after all? --Gmaxwell 05:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another step in reducing one of the best implementations of the Internet into an American failure. -- Captain American 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

... The only reason we can use unlicensed work on Wikipedia is because of the United States copyright law. Just because we have begun not allowing non-free images to be used en masse in episode lists doesn't mean that Wikipedia is failure. Go look at something else for a change, say, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. --Iamunknown 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I said step, not "it is a complete failure, run for your lives." -- Captain American 06:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it's an absolute necessity for a free encyclopedia to contain lots of pictures of Shinji Ikari whining, Belldandy looking cute and Homer Simpson burping. (Hey, if you can mischaracterize our position, we can do it too.) JuJube 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the one image to describe an entire show format, long running shows like The Simpsons would not be accurately portrayed. If you were to have a screenshot from the first season eighteen years ago, the obviously lower quality in terms of artwork and recording would not be indictative of the show's artistry today. -- Captain American 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "prosecution" rests. JuJube 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Side note, Captainamerican blocked for trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "policy is too vague" argument won't wash. Policy is damned clear on this. There are no "solid" arguments for putting vast numbers of non-free images in an article in a free encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna quote myself here, because I can't phrase it any better: "If policy were clear enough about fair-use images we wouldn't have a gigantic discussion cum flamewar about the whole thing. We've tried 'vague'; it failed. It's time to try something new." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this the statement for this entire discussion? If it is, then it should be posted at the top of the page. --myselfalso 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going away any time soon

Without throwing accusations around or anything mean, I'm simply saying that this isn't going to go away any time soon. We'll be debating this for the next month at least. I agree that rules surrounding this are rather vague. Yes, the higher-ups and B-crats and stuff seriously need to have a high-level discussion more clearly defining what is and is not allowable. If Wikipedia developed a new entry under policy specifically stating "images in episode lists are not allowed" I wouldn't question it. But all of this hinges on how we're choosing to define fair use law. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that we don't want fair use images in episode lists, it's that it is nearing copyright infringement and violations of fair use law to have a screenshot for each and every episode listed on one page. However, there is no policy that straight out says that this is the problem. We have pages that state that "keep fair use images minimal in articles" but people have been arguing here that the minimum is based on copyright registration or some shit like that and that means one image per copyrighted thing ie episode. That is what could bring Wikipedia into Jeopardy with the fair usage laws.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

unprotecting pages

I am starting to see protected edit requests unrelated to images for some of these lists that were protected because the images were added back. I plan to unprotect them (the ones with edit requests) unless there are strong objections. If images are added back to an article that was protected to keep them out, the right thing to do is to warn or block the person who adds them. It is quite clear at this point that, whether or not policy is clear, there is no consensus that favors adding them back. I'd be glad to hear others' thoughts. CMummert · talk 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The protection was meant to be a temporary solution to a multi-party edit war. At this point, the standard procedure of revert, warn, block, should apply as it does to any violations of policy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was actually about to unprotect them myself. --Cyde Weys 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensuses

Are consensuses at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images and Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists invalid? -- Wikipedical 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, considering at the very top of the latter it says "This proposal was rejected by the community", what do you think? JuJube 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say "No, Trebek"? --Cyde Weys 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So why is the same argument a 'consensus' on this page? -- Wikipedical 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what you're talking about. Those pages suggest fair use images in episode lists is okay, when it's not. JuJube 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, those pages do not "suggest fair use images in episode lists is okay". They failed to restrict the usage, largely due to sheer numbers of TV-project editors. That is quite a different thing from endorsing the usage. Colin°^Talk 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus yet

I just want to point out that there has been no consensus reached yet, no guidelines stating episode list should not feature images per episode and people are alrady removing them!!

Please help revert these injustified edits!--T-man, the wise 08:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy that states Wikipedia articles should not contain excessive amounts of non-free media. It's called Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This policy is being enforced.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think T-man thinks that a decision has to happen at WP:LOE to be binding. We've had a number of pretty civil exchanges, so I don't want to sour it by just repeating what I've said already... --Gmaxwell 08:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix?

A simple question, hypothetically speaking, what would need to be done to an LOE in order for a situation to exist where said images were acceptable?

Whatever the changes, no matter how big, what would they need to be?

perfectblue 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In order for an episode list to contain the images, it would have to provide critical commentary on each of them. At that point, it would probably split into several articles on each individual season or episode. If you envision a world in which an episode list can contain all of the images as it looked before, you have two choices: (1) convince the copyright holder to release screenshots under the GFDL or similar, or (2) fork to another Wiki with different fair-use expectations, per one of the discussions above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A free television series released under the GFDL or a compatible CC license could have as many screenshots on its episode list page as one could possibly want. --Cyde Weys 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use As Mentioned On Wikipedia

Has anybody read the Fair Use article on wikipedia? Under the fair use and the internet section, there is reference to a case Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation which deals entirely with the legitimacy of thumbnail pictures. --Ironchef8000 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So could we cote that case when we add these images to pages as an interpretation of Fair use laws? Since it is a US courts interpretation, it surely holds more say than my interpretation. The Placebo Effect 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Old comment from our former lawyer: Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be both reasonable and applicable to the situation. Also, with regards to copyright, it is not actually "copying" per say as the original work that it is being referred back to is in fact a television show. While it is reasonable to conclude that a video clip would infringe upon copyrights, placing a single frame, or which there are 27 per-second in film and TV, does not appear to be a breach of copyrights. --24.131.253.194 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It falls under copyright because someone ones the shoe and thus owns all the images of that show including individual screenshots. The Placebo Effect 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I worded my last comment rather poorly. Instead of saying that it is not a breach of copyrights, I think it would be more accurate to say that it seems to be within the grounds of fair use as outlined by the aforementioned court case and the concept of Fair Use. According to the article, it says: "...including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." This scenario would appear to be valid because Wikipedia falls under the categories of comment, reporting, scholarship, and research as it is an excyclopedia. Also, as long as we give credit to our sources, this would seem to be well within the guidelines of acceptable fair use as defined in the article and as set down by legal precedent. --Ironchef8000 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zee problem whith that case is that the use of the images is different and since use is a factor in fair use it does not set a particularly useful precedent for us.Geni 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is pretty much settled on a licensing tag on an image. (See below - it appears on many pages. The fact that it's a movie instead of a film is irrelevant) --Ironchef8000 04:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC) {{Non-free film screenshot}}

Fair use rationale

That is what is needed. egde 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

The image is a [screenshot/photo/scan] of [Name of person/subject]. The [screenshot/photo/scan] is of lower resolution than the original photo (copies made from it will be of inferior quality). No free or public domain images have been located for this [screenshot/photo/scan]. The [screenshot/photo/scan] does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the photo in any way, and is being used for informational purposes only. Its use is not believed to detract from the original photograph in any way.

egde 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This rationale would not pass muster. It hits most of the requirements, sure, but you need to show how the image is the subject of critical commentary in the article. Otherwise it's just a lot of words to justify a decoration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LEO with images

Can someone (either with a bot or by hand) remove the images from List of Danny Phantom episodes, just one of the many LOE's still containing a lot of screenshots. I don't wanna mess up the table by doing it myself. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing fair use rationales

Can someone lend me a hand over at Cat:Screenshots of television, I'm trying to tag all the images that are missing mandatory fair use rationals but it's taking forever with over 30,000 images. Would be much easier with some bot help. Removing images off the LOE is good, but it doesn't help when we still have thousands of images that are missing the mandatory rationales. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are removing every image from every individual episode article, doesn't that seem like overkill? By that right, it would appear that most of the images on Wikipedia would need to be removed. --Ironchef8000 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was removing them? I'm simply tagging those which are missing explanations of why they are covered under fair-use. Like I said, taking the image off the LOE is a step for removing excess fair-use images, but the majority of the images that are "fair-use" don't have the mandatory rationale explaining why they are fair-use. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I misunderstood. I was under the impression that tagging them was a setup for deletion instead of review. Also, with regard to this whole List of Episodes and other pictures of Wikipedia, I believe that there really should be a standard set down about what is and is not fair use to be used to cover all images on wikipedia. Standardizing the whole system would make assessing pictures a lot easier and less complicated. There appear to be arguments in favor of and against the tv show episode pictures. It would seem pragmatic to sort out the whole situation, decide what is not acceptable use, then fix the problem instead of deleting, arguing, reverting, (repeat cycle)... --Ironchef8000 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)