This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Exemptions
category for fair use exemptions, as pages required to operate the project. — xaosfluxTalk 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
So, pages belonging to any of these categories should also belong to this one, right?
Any other missing? Also, no categories other than maintenance ones should be included unless consensus is obtained in some way as specified by FUC #9, from what I understand. -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And we are missing a category for this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I added cats to the cat. — xaosfluxTalk 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Think we need some clarification on the others, most of them are temporary categories dealing with deleting the images, often as a violation of their use. It seems rather unlikely that this would be a licensing issue with the copyright hodlers, but let's get a few opionons. I've added CAT:CSD per prior arguments. — xaosfluxTalk 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... for now I like Wikipedia fair use exemptions better, as it gives the impression that the fair use exemptions are given only to Wikipedia-related articles, but that is just my impression. Seeing the available categories at Category:Wikipedia copyright, I would think both names are suitable. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Category:Fair use image replacement request would be suited to be excluded as well, as having a gallery in this category will allow users who browse it to easily spot images they could create free version of. While this is not exactly necessary to "the goal of creating a free encyclopedia", it certainly would be helpful. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also recently noticed that. Yes, the nogallery should be removed from that category. It would be so much easier when you can see the images in a gallery to replace them with a 'free' image. Garion96(talk) 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that, by allowing users to see the thumbnails, we will speed up the process of replacing them with free content. So, I don't really have objections with this. However, I am worried about the amount of consensus needed to "free" a category from the NOGALLERY tag. I guess we can assume good faith and remove it, and if later someone wants to add it, we could come back and discuss. Just notify the user who added the tag that it has been removed, and that if he wishes to discuss further, he should come here. -- ReyBrujo 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I already had contected Gmaxwell, who originally put the nogallery there. He agrees. I removed it and put the category into this category. Feel free to revert it, although I hope not. Garion96(talk) 23:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
At this time, there are no images in that category, so I can't check. Maybe later when some images are added we can check again. As far as I know, it should be showing galleries. -- ReyBrujo 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there any particular administrative need to show the thumbnails there? I mean for no source and no license type cats the thumbs can be usefull to spot images that are easily fixed, but for orphanded fair use images the situatin is pretty black and while, they are either used or they are not, and you need to open the image page to tell either way. From a deleting admin's point of view at least I find the category more pleasant to work with when thumbnails are supressed, it loads faster and the visited link style works to help keep track of images that have been dealt with without having to reload the category page. Granted these are fairly minor things, but I personaly don't feel that having the thumbnails there rely add any value to the categories. Unless people like to patrol it looking for images to add to articles or something... --Sherool(talk) 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Previous discussion
To leave this written somewhere: for previous discussion, please see here and here. -- ReyBrujo 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I would propose that Wikipedia:Articles for creation and its subpages be exempt from the fair use image policy. Since these pages are intended for the submission of new articles to Wikipedia, it substantially complicates things if users can't use images in their article proposals in the same way that the images could be used in the finished article. Kickaha Ota 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added it to the page, as an obvious need. The main page should be enough, as the subpages are constantly recreated. — xaosfluxTalk 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Kickaha Ota 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked back several months on the page and never found a fair use image there. So I removed the category. If it becomes needed again, it can be restored. --Gmaxwell 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Now the way that WP:AFC pages are added has changed. The proposals are now subpages of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ so the exemption should allow a fair use image on a proposed article. However if the article is declined, should the image be deleted or not? Most articles are not accepted, but are declined for a variety of reasons. Many of the proposed articles have non free use company logos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Get the article created without a logo or box art first. Once the article has been accepted, get the images uploaded. What specifically is wrong with this use case? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Archived discussion
Shouldn't archived discussions be exempt from the criteria, especially if the discussions were held before the date of acceptance of policy (apparently July 13, 2006)? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
They probally don't need to be tagged, and note this section primarily deals with fair-use content (e.g. images) used in places that, by themselves, do not qualify as a fair-use rationalle. This exemption is in place when there is an overwhelming reason to (generally temporarily) allow these items regardless, as a means to the fair use or resolution of the content. — xaosfluxTalk 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Portal featured blurb
On Portal:Dragonlance, under the heading The Dragonlance Portal, to the right you can see the words "The Inheritance...". This is like a weekly blurb on something relating to dragonlance, so there are 41, with a fair use picture for almost every one. The current picture is used to help illustrate the blurb, however it has been commented out, as can be seen in the current blurb because it violates Wikipedia's fair use policy.
The portal was originally established to help advertise the Dragonlance campign setting, and since then it has been accepted by the recently established Dragonlance Wikiproject. I'm requesting that the 41 different weekly blurbs be exempt from the part of the fair use policy concerning use of fair use of images on portals because the image is used to introduce and explain something related to the dragonlance, essentially a mini-article. ddcc 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, here are give "permission" to show images in categories, not in templates or portals. For that, you need to go to the Fair use page. -- ReyBrujo 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
See current discussion here. -- ReyBrujo 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Another category
The category Category:Replaceable fair use images, along with the subcategories, should be given an exception. Images included in subcategories are deleted once they have been listed for over 7 days. By giving an exception and allowing to see the thumbnails, it will be possible to find free replacements for the images listed there faster.
When giving the exception, it may be possible to give the template {{Replaceable fair use Images subcategory starter}} the NOGALLERY template, as that template is used to create the category. -- ReyBrujo 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to real old topic, but support. (and its already in place). — xaosfluxTalk 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I request exemption for use of Image:Chippewa michigan logo.gif on my userpage. I uploaded this image before the new copyright rules on Wikipedia, and as a member of the tribe, I feel I have the right to display the image on my personal page. The copyright statement provides for such display and is included on the image page.
Replies to responses maybe slow, as I am in the process of moving. «»Who?¿?meta 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is more for exemptions to categories. In this case, the picure is a fair use logo, and doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose being on your userpage. Fair use images are simply not allowed on userpages. Garion96(talk) 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Going from the text on the project page and the fair use page Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and Pagesexempted from the fair use policy should be categorized within Category:Wikipedia fair use exemptions. So I requested it on this page, because it covers pages that should be categorized so we know they are exempt. I realize it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose, but neither does the categories that are exempt from holding the images, hence they are exempted. «»Who?¿?meta 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You might have more luck at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, but don't count on it. The categories exemptions for instance serve a cleanup purpose for the encyclopedia, it makes it easier for admins to see the picture instead of clicking on every one before deleting. A fair use image on a user page is only useful for the user in question and the occasional visitor. Garion96(talk) 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, while it is true pages are given a special category to point an exception, such exception are thought to be "administrative", and so far, I think all of them have been regarding the Wikipedia namespace. As Garion96 said, you can go to the talk page of Wikipedia:Fair use, but really, don't expect an one. Sorry. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks, if I decide to pursue it further, I will move the discussion over there. «»Who?¿?meta 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not convinced by your argument that this is needed to help the project. — xaosfluxTalk 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I realize this, and stated that it wasn't encyclopedic in nature. It was more to the point of using a fair use image with permission of the copyright of the holder. Wiki's new copyright rules infringe this, even if you are the owner, and you upload your own copyrighted image, you can't use it on your userpage. This would go more towards allowing users to use those types of images, as long as they could provide valid proof of allowance. «»Who?¿?meta 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are the owner, you could simply publish it under a free license, keeps in tune with "the free encylopedia".... — xaosfluxTalk 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction: If you are the owner, you must publish it under a free license (see WP:IUP - user generated content). ed g2s • talk 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I oppose this blanket restriction myself. A fair use image, Image:Tired.jpg has been removed from MY user page. I am THE copyright owner of this image, since I created it. Numerous people have images of themselves on their user pages. I prefer to have one of my art works on my page. I do not want to give away any rights I may have. If someone wants to take the actual jpg and turn it into something, I do not care. What I am trying to protect is the fact I have people with higher quality images that resell it over seas. If I release this image, I would cease to get those royalties. So if a person is the owner of the copyright, they should be allowed to get an exception.
Based on how Copyright law is interperated, by not allowing me to use my own work, you are taking away MY rights in relation to my work, no matter what the policy is. Copy right was meant to protect the public and those who own the copyright. There are stipulations for using copyrighted products. One is fair use, the other permission. When I uploaded it under your policy at the time, I was giving Wikipedia permission to use the image as a copyright owner.
Here is information on permission relating to Copyright issues.
Obtaining permission to use a copyrighted work. If you determine that: (1) the work you have selected to use is protected by copyright, (2) your use is not a fair use, and (3) no statutory exceptions apply to your use of the work, you must secure permission to use the work. There are three main steps in the permission securing process. Each step may take more time than expected, or even worse, may turn out to be a “dead end” in the quest for securing permission. Therefore, start the process for obtaining permission well before you will need to use the work.
According to your own policy on user pages, I can use the image with the copyright owners permission? LOL
Images on user pages
Please do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely). --Wer2chosen 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A few points
You can release a low-res image under a free license. This does not mean that that the high quality image is also under the same license. Only the file you upload to Commons/Wikipedia.
"by not allowing me to use my own work, you are taking away MY rights in relation to my work" This is nonsense. If you do not want to release an image under a free license you can't post it on wikipedia. This does not inflict your right regarding copyright at all. You don't have a right in law which states that you can post your images on a website.
The FU policy (guideline? lets not debate it's status here) lists Main Page templates as being exempt from the use of FU images outside of article space rule. It seems that consensus has changed and we no longer want to be able to use non-free images on the main page. Please comment here if you agree or disagree with removing this clause from the page. This is NOT a vote! Thank you! — xaosfluxTalk 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (adjusted confusing typo in Xaosflux's post --Gmaxwell 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
Agree, see above. — xaosfluxTalk 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't fully understand It seems that consensus has changed and we no longer want to be able to use non-FU images on the MP. Is that a typo, or we do not accept free images in the main page anymore? -- ReyBrujo 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy specifically allowed a FU exemption for Main Page templates, but everytime one has been used on the main page it has been quickly removed with notes such as don't use fair use on the main page. — xaosfluxTalk 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case, the proposal should simply say "we don't want fair use images in the main page, not even for the featured article box." As ed_g2s said, there was a huge consensus for having them in the main page, so we need to achieve a huge consensus to remove them. Has this discussion been published in enough places to get enough users to comment? -- ReyBrujo 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it makes sense. :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that the point was clarified, of course I agree with this. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The policy for the Main Page is that fair use is not allowed in any of the sections except the FA box, and then only under exceptional circumstances when no suitable free image exists. This has actually been policy since considerably before the Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions page was started.--Pharos 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy page (WP:FUC) states there may be some need for an exemption, and states the current situation with the Main Page templates as an example of where consensus/status-quo had overridden the policy. It does not state that Fair Use on the Main Page is okay (unless there is another policy I am unaware of...). ed g2s • talk 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
(Let's not number our comments if this isn't a vote). Definitely agree - the Main Page is not an article, it's a navigation page and we don't use Fair Use to decorate navigation. Not to mention its the face of our project, so having unfree images on there sets a bad example. ed g2s • talk 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In a way, Pharos and ed g2s are both correct. Yes, what is currently on WP:FU is the de jure policy. However, the current de facto policy, is what Pharos says. I am reminded of User:Zzyzx11/Archive4#Image use on MainPage and Talk:Main Page/Archive 40#Scotland map. As far as I can remember, anytime a fair use image has appeared on ITN, DYK, or SA, it has been reverted almost immediately. Fair use images cannot qualify for POTD period, so we do not have to worry about that section. As for the fair use exception on the TFA, I do not know who started it, but I suspect that Raul654, our ratified featured article director, had some say in that. Zzyzx11(Talk) 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Pharos has the right idea. Other than in the FA box, there's simply never enough commentary on the main page for any particular subject to justify fair use of any images. So it makes sense to exclude FU from all but the FA box on the main page. Postdlf 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But why in the FA box. It just gives the first paragraph as an expanded link. There's usually nothing mentioned in the opening paragraph that requires illustration. ed g2s • talk 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The FA summaries are essentially short articles that can provide enough commentary to justify fair use. That's the answer to "why not." As for "why," that's of course going to be a case-by-case judgment, but the most typical reason is probably that the subject of the FA itself is a copyrighted visual work of some kind. Postdlf 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
FA summaries rarely make critical comment on the actual image in the FA box, though. If the FA summary was a standalone article, I think it would quite often be found to abuse fair use, at least by our usual standards.
The real reason we have fair use in the FA box, as you say, is to illustrate articles about copyrighted works — I can't help wondering, though if this could be avoided more often than not thorough more thorough and creative image efforts. See Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey.--Pharos 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree -- the main page should be for our best work. Media used under Wikipedia:Fair use isn't that. To the extent that this kind of media is being removed when it is placed there, we seem to have rough consensus for this already. Jkelly 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree -- Media used under fair use can well be part of our best work in a derivative sense. And no, it's not really all our work. For example, we regularly promote images taken by the US federal government, and we relate news reported by others. I don't agree that we should ban all articles about works of fiction still in copyright from being article of the day, and think many would agree with me. --GunnarRene 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe you're confused about what this policy is proposing. We will be able to have articles about copyrighted works on the Main page, we just won't use copyrighted to illustrate them. Hopefully no featured article will be so derivative that it would constitute a copyright violation. Mak(talk) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But the US GOV images are free content, collecting and distributing free content is an important part of our mission. Perhaps not quite as good as our own work, but not against our mission. I certainly wouldn't want to ban works of fiction from the main page, we just have to work harder and get more creative about illustrations. If all else fails we could put one up imageless. See my comment below. --Gmaxwell 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the idea was to promote "our best work". But yeah, I agree more with the idea to promote content that is libre rather than just content produced by Wikipedia editors. (Though we have some outstanding graphical artists and photographers in the project.) (Still, see this)--GunnarRene 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Concur with Jkelly; we shouldn't have these images in positions of prominence. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?) 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Nonfree content should never appear on the Main Page. Frankly, I thought that this had been the case for a long time, but apparently I am mistaken. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Some expansion on my comments seems in order. I freely admit that I'm completely in favor of eliminating all "fair use" on Wikipedia, although I also acknowledge that this is an extreme position. Many people have pointed out to me that there are some topics, in particular topics such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, which cannot meaningfully be discussed in an encyclopedic manner without the use of unlicensed content, and I am sympathetic to their arguments. However, the problem with allowing unlicensed content even for the limited purpose of illustrating articles such as the preceding is that people are constantly tempted to widen the boundaries further, simply because their pet topic is important to them. It becomes difficult to draw the line with definitiveness between "essential topics" (such as the Iwo Jima photograph, which is unmistakably iconic for Americans, at least, of the War in the Pacific) and nonessential topics, such as, oh, Sanjaya Malakar, and thus we end up with Image:Sanjayam.jpg, oh, wait, that's almost certainly a copyvio, let's try CSI: Crime Scene Investigation instead, and the image Image:Csi logo.jpg on Wikipedia. Now, I can already hear the arguments why we need the CSI logo on Wikipedia. No, dude, we don't. Its main value to that article is decoration. You can easily write an article about a TV show without including its logography (although it's harder if you're trying to write it to look like a TV Guide article, but this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not Wikipedia, the free TV Guide; see also almost all Wikipedia writing about contemporary music). Encyclopedias are fundamentally a textual format; images should be used to add real value, not merely to decorate, and nonfree images should be used only when absolutely necessary. The test for adding nonfree content must be more stringent than "Would adding this image to this article benefit the article?"; it needs to be more like "Would this article be useless without this image?" Frankly, virtually all of our current "fair use" justifications fail this test. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, in fact I thought this was already the policy. We should be promoting free content, and encouraging people to create more high quality free content. This isn't done by using copyrighted images, but by placing free content in visible places. As Pharos said, with a bit of creativity, articles on copyrighted things such as Movies can be illustrated with free content photos, if people are willing to be creative, and encouraged to be creative. Mak(talk) 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree--no unfree content on the main page, ever. Our core mission involves free content and its dissemination. It was only recently I learned that we in fact did allow unfree content on the main page. Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason you have this impression is likely that people have increasingly been removing them. As I suggest above, there is already a consensus forming on this issue. Jkelly 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Riffing off Makemi's and Pharos comments here, every time the lack of a free image causes us to put up a FA imageless or to pick a slightly odd image for the main page is an opportunity for us to introduce more of our readers and our editors to this aspect of our mission. I strongly believe that our main page must be entirely free content. So, of course, I agree. Although we are already keeping most non-free images off the main page, I'd like to see us do a better job. If I had to pick a single page to keep non-free images off, it would be the main page. --Gmaxwell 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is also an important consideration. Having a picture of a simply cricket ball instead of unfree images for the recent cricket featured article probably educated more people about our mission in one day than pointers to our policy pages do in a month. Jkelly 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. The main page should be the best of the best, and that does not include fair use. Danny 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - Apparently this is where anti-FU editors congregate. YOu should bring in non-like minded individuals and see what they say. - Peregrine Fisher 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that we are all, of course, here to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia and are explicitly part of the free content movement, Wikipedia is indeed a place one might expect to find people who are more enthusiastic about free content than unfree content. Jkelly 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you discovered us. Ironically, the more freedom users have to upload fair use images, the less free Wikipedia becomes, although it looks completely the opposite for outsiders. -- ReyBrujo 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - The main page should reflect the rest of the site and if the goal here is to create a free encyclopedia then the main page should reflect upon that. It will also help with the confused people situation where people see fair use images used on the main page on en.wiki so they think it's fine on all wikis (and anywhere on en.wiki). Yonatantalk 04:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - What are these imaganitive free images we can use instead of film posters or book covers? Use a picture of a duck for when Make Way for Ducklings was the day's FA? If you make this change, it's the same thing as dissallowing fiction FAs, since no one is going to want them on the main page without an image. It won't look right. - Peregrine Fisher 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice example. I'd suggest a pattern of duck footprints on a map or satellite image of downtown Boston for that one. Anyone want to make one? Jkelly 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mother_duck_with_chicks.jpg would be an obvious choice. If we felt like being a bit odd we could use Image:Make_Way_For_Ducklings_-_route_to_the_garden.png. I've also contacted the author of the sculpture in the article for a free release of that image. We could also use a generic photo or icon of a book to preserve the layout. There is no reason to think we couldn't run articles without their own image. --Gmaxwell 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree We have fair use because it is not always possible to use-non free images. --thedemonhogtalkcontributions 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Disagree. The policy states that we use fair use images on a case-by-case basis if there's broad consensus to do so. I certainly agree that we did the right thing with Ian Thorpe (taking the images out), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (maybe ... it was certainly bizarre-looking), and Cricket World Cup (using a related image). But what if we one day feature Che Guevara (photo), The Falling Man, or Photo 51? We're not describing a person, a TV show, or a sporting event in these cases, but a unique, iconic, and irreplaceable un-free copyrighted work itself. Substituting any free image, no matter how creative, is hardly encyclopedic, as it's a bit misleading to use one image in a paragraph about a completely different image. I suppose that we could keep the FA box devoid of any image at all, but it's my opinion that such a loss in encyclopedic quality (A paragraph solely about an image, without that image?) isn't really worth it in these very, very rare cases. If we do end up taking that huge hit to encyclopedic...ness (Encyclopedicity? Ha.) on the Main Page, it's not like we demonstrate to anyone that we've completely shrugged off non-free content, as we still end up using that image in the linked featured article, anyway. We should try to promote free content wherever possible, but I don't think that free-content promotion should get in the way of our other mission of disseminating knowledge. The current language is fine — keep fair use off of the main page, save for on a very, very rare, case-by-case basis. — Rebelguys2talk 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, except for the TFA. One sentence really isn't sufficient critical commentary for us to justify a fair use image. Plus, there are several bullets, so at least one of them can generally have a free image. I think it's acceptable to use a fair use image when there aren't reasonable alternatives for the TFA though, mainly when discussing copyrighted works. I'll use Hollaback Girl as an example since that's the only FA I've worked on. There are simply no free images in the article. I've contacted several people about releasing a concert picture freely but to no avail. There are free ones in the Gwen Stefani article, but they're all of her performing other songs and don't illustrate the text well since there's not really anything about Stefani herself in the blurb. We could always avoid using articles about copyrighted works for the TFA, but then the TFA becomes pretty unrepresentative of Wikipedia's articles; there'd be far less TFA's about songs, books, albums, films, computer/video games, and television shows. ShadowHalo 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We've had very high success rates getting free releases of Flickr images. It took me 10 seconds to find this image. Many of our FA's that lack free images do so due to a lack of trying. Often people don't even check other language Wikipedias. --Gmaxwell 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Or the Wikimedia Commons, a sister project that hosts free content for us. But, regardless, lets try avoid using fair use photos on TFA's. I agree with the removal of the exemption for TFA's. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between avoiding fair use images (which should be done anyway) and prohibiting them. What I'm saying is that for articles like the recently featured Final Fantasy VII, what free images can we use? The 40x40 Image:FF project logo.png, which essentially amounts to a completely unofficial fanmade logo for the overall series? People at a convention? A picture of one of the developers? None of these images are representative of the article. There are some articles that, no matter how hard we try, aren't going to have suitable free images for the TFA template. ShadowHalo 06:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already contacted the owner of that image. Due to contractual obligations, he can't allow anyone to use that image for commercial purposes. =) ShadowHalo 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree: There is no need to disallow fair use images on the main page. Disallowing them everywhere is a different story, but to hold a double-standard like that is frankly quite nonsensical. Additionally, I find the goal of an informative encyclopedia much better than the trivial matter of keeping fair-use works from the main page - Featured Articles like Metal Gear Solid would have to go without an image on the main page. Ultimately, there is no reason for this other than trivial pride that creates a large double-standard. --Teggles 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. "Trivial pride" refers to the double-standard between allowing fair-use images in articles and disallowing fair-use images on the main page. I reiterate, in cases like Metal Gear Solid, is it impossible to create a free-use image. Under the new suggestion, there would be no image for it on the main page, meaning a fall in usefulness and information - but there'd still be fair-use images in the article, making the whole idea redundant. Why would you want that? The only way I can see it is trivial pride. --Teggles 09:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But it's not impossible for almost everything. For Metal Gear Solid we could possibly get a photograph of Hideo Kojima, or we could use a picture of a type of weapon which is popular in the game. At some point we might even be able to get the game's authors to release a screenshot. The entire basis of being able to claim fair use under US law depends on the absense of impact to the market value of the copyrighted work. Thus, we should expect for any work that we can claim fair use over, it would not be completely unreasonable to ask for a free release since we already believe that free use of that excerpt causes no loss of commercial value. Failing those options we could use a picture of a videogame controller, or a picture of a person using one. Not ideal, but nothing that would keep the article off the main page.--Gmaxwell 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
While you may have a case for Hideo Kojima, i suppose you think it appropriate to use a picture of Satoshi Tajiri when Torchic was featured? While the creator of the franchise, he is only mentioned once, briefly. your other "alternatives" are actually pathetic. you are essentially swapping out an image that is actually contributing significantly to the article for a decorative image merely to satisfy layout. That is counterproductive to the goals of an encyclopedia. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The main page is our showcase, and this is a project to create a free-content encyclopedia, so the main page should be representative of that effort. If the fair-use option is removed, people will try harder to find or create free alternatives. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the caveat that there may be a very rare case where a fair use image, when getting a free use image is utterly impossible, might be necessary (Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima - even on the main page I can't see a good summary without the picture). Ral315» 08:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree per Jkelly. Our best content is not a fair use image. Garion96(talk) 08:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If we use the original non-free material fairly, the derivative work IS our content, actually. Consider quotes, plot summaries etc. Every quote from a source still in copyright without a libre license is an instance of fair use, as are non-verbatim plot summaries; yet the text as a whole is under the GFDL. We have thousands of articles whose names are protected by trademark rights. Today, Wikipedia is biased in favour of popular culture over. --GunnarRene 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, Wikipedia the free encyclopedia does not just mean Wikipedia-the-free-as-in-free-beer encyclopedia. Our Main Page should be a showcase of that. MoreschiRequest a recording? 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the point of separating gratis from libre. But barring featured articles on copyrighted works would introduce one more instance of systemic bias. I think if we allow fair use in articles, we should keep the current practice for the main page: Strict, but fair, without going absurd. What should I illustrate RahXephon with? A random cosplayer? That won't work because even if both the costume and the photograph seem like "libre" derivatives, they would be based on copyrighted designs. I know the goal is to have all works of fiction released under libre licenses/abolish copyright/whatever, but the entertainment industry simply doesn't work that way. Perhaps George Lucas could afford to release Star Wars under CC-BY-SA, but then he'd have to buy out every actor and other rights holder. It would be even harder for those works that are made for studios. It would only degrade the encyclopedia without any benefit.--GunnarRene 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No one is advocating any change to what we feature. I, and others here, have given examples of how we could illustrate most of the articles that have been brought up. Rather than continuing to repeat this same position which has been refuted, why don't you begin a page of FA's that don't have free lead pictures? I'd be glad to come propose some images. Start your list with pages that haven't been on the main page lately. --Gmaxwell 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It has not exactly been refuted. A guy playing a video game might be a good picture for Video game, but not Metal Gear Solid. The illustration has to identify the work and set it apart from others. Even a picture of a guy cosplaying behind barrels wouldn't work, as it again would infringe on the owners' right to the character Snake. I do, however, like your idea of trying to get screenshots/covers released under fully libre licenses (non-comm is not acceptable), as well as a list of featured articles that have no FSF-compatible lead image. How about this: If we make a good-faith effort to get a cover/screenshot released and it fails, THEN can we use a fair us image?--GunnarRene 13:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Woah, hang on there. I can't see how not allowing no fair use on the Main Page would make a difference to what we feature. Not all FAs wind up on the Main Page anyway, and I for one would be quite happy to have FAs with no images where none was freely available. That won't happen in practice, though, because people want images and they'll just work harder to get free ones, rather than fall back on fair use. Which is a good thing. MoreschiRequest a recording? 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, long overdue, will allow a bot to easily process fair use images used outside article namespace to be removed to help further comply with policy. --MECU≈talk 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not much of a reason, is it? A bot can easily keep a list of excempt pages. --GunnarRene 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me please, I should have stated more clearly that, In addition to above reasons I agree with, will allow a bot... The bot reason was not my sole reason. Just that I agreed with the above, in addition... --MECU≈talk 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, nonfree images have as little business on the main page as they have in articles. —Angr 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, we have had a number of reuse requests for the main page and it's somewhat embarrassing to explain to people that they can't reuse our main page because it contains a fair use image. Cary Bassdemandez as Bastique 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Reuse of the main page? Where? Since the main page mostly consists of templates and has to be custom-fitted to each site, I can't see the problem. All templates except Today's featured article can be safely reused, and fair use images are tagged anyway. --GunnarRene 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Often Wikipedia is reused in publications describing Wikipedia. We can permit the reuse of our logo in those instances, but we cannot permit reuse of fair use images, because we don't have the rights to permit that. Besides, I'm not citing some possibility but a fact, we have had to refuse reuse of our main page because of fair use images on the main page; I've been the one to do it. And it is embarrassing to the foundation, given our free nature. Cary Bassdemandez 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How about taking a screenshot on another day then? Are these publications that can make a fair use or fair dealing claim (not the same thing)? Or in the same vein as those who want to put giant flashing marks on fair use images to "educate" people abour free content, wouldn't a big black censoring panel be a good thing? --GunnarRene 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This does not address the embarrassment factor of the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation can't even allow reuse its main page on each and every day. It's completely contrary to our free content philosophy. Cary Bassdemandez 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
as long as the Wikipedia's sister projects section remains the main page will not be exactly inline with our free content philosophy.Geni 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. This is a perfect example of policy as it should be - a descriptive rule taking account of current community practice, which is to remove nonfree images on the front page at short notice. As to the issue of material we can't illustrate... we can always work something out. There are a vanishingly small number of items where the only plausible representation is an unfree image, and we can always look at those on a case-by-case basis if there is really an utterly essential reason we need to use it. Shimgray | talk | 13:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
See examples above. --GunnarRene 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Any artistic work with an identifiable sole author or major identifiable 'star' can be illustrated appropriately by a free image of them, to my eyes. Books are trivial - if it's a significant work it'll have run into multiple editions, so gather a few together and make a nice artistic shot of them as three-dimensional artifacts without specifically reproducing the cover art of any individual one. The RahXephon example? A photo of Izubuchi would be entirely appropriate if slightly challenging to find. Shimgray | talk | 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a pile of DVDs is the best idea, but I am rather steadfast on the point that an illustration has to illustrate and identify the subject in order to appear with the main article. The exmamples I was referring to was Che Guevara (photo), The Falling Man and Photo 51.--GunnarRene 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree: I've long felt that we should not have fair use images on the main page. At times, I felt like I was screaming at the wall. I'm quite happy that consensus is finally swinging back to what it says in the upper left of every page here, "The Free Encyclopedia". Echo comments by a number above; it's embarrassing, it discourages free content contributions, and should not be a hindrance to an article attaining FA status simply because no free license image yet exists. We're an encyclopedia, not a digital photo repository. It *really is ok* to have fantastic articles missing images if we have nothing free to add to them. --Durin 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"We're an encyclopedia, not a digital photo repository." And that's why we have fair use images, while the commons doesn't. Besides, that logo up there is not free. If we have to remove all "non-free" content on the main page, then the Wikipedia logo should be removed too. (See reuse of main page above.)--GunnarRene 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So where would you like to drawn the line then? Fair use everywhere? There is a constant, ongoing battle between free content and fair use here. I'm routinely burned in effigy because I fight against fair use abuses, most recently being called a jackboot and having the image of an anus associated with me. People are constantly, without end, introducing fair use abuses all over the place. There are tens of thousands of abuses. We take a stance against it, and then say "Oh, but we allow fair use exceptions for our own purposes". That's a terrible lesson. We are the free encyclopedia. Pure, simple. It isn't "We are the free encyclopedia, except here, here, and oh yeah over here too, and occasionally here and there. Fair use abuse is a constant presence and must be fought as hard as possible. Also, the line you are drawing with respect to the Wikipedia logo is irrelevant; if Wikipedia uses its own content to produce a printed version released to poor schools in Africa (one goal of the project by the way), we're not going to sue ourselves for abuse of our own logo. If someone else uses our content for their own purposes, it's unlikely they'd use the Wikipedia logo to hawk their own product, but rather their own logo. --Durin 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
An exception is not an abuse. I fight fair use abuse too. There is also a lot of libre abuse - where people don't properly attribute, misclassify non-libre as libre etc. Does that mean we should do away with all images? And the logo is just as relevant to freeness as the article of the day picture. If reusers can replace the Wikipedia logo, they can replace the image on the main page as well.--GunnarRene 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This works the other way too; since we have free license abuse, we should allow everything? This is all rather simple; either you believe in free knowledge, or you do not. The people supporting fair use do not. That's contrary to our mission here. --Durin 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. Or how about this: "You either believe in free speech or not. Those who want to ban fair use do not". --GunnarRene 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you're not in favor of the idea of a free encyclopedia. --Durin 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like we've run out of intelligent things to say to each other. I'll be over here building a free encyclopedia if you don't mind. --GunnarRene 16:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha :) Ok, but just keep in mind that "fair use = free" doesn't work. :) --Durin 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Better to let other editors make good arguments than playing ping-pong :-) "keep in mind that "fair use = free" doesn't work" It depends on what you mean by free - and I don't mean gratis either. My point is that freely licensed work can contain fair use. Witness our articles, in particular our textual fair use which, is rarely addressed. I've been involved in fair use reduction battles on the side of reduction there.--GunnarRene 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
Disagree. Fair use images are still essential for illustrative purposes on the Main Page. User:Shimgray's argument above is that there is a vanshingly small number of cases in which we need fair use images; ignoring that this is false (about 1 in 20 featured articles has no free images), that is not a reason to ban fair use images on the Main Page, only to encourage the replacement of fair use images if we have free images available. Unless we want to never again have a recent book, videogame, musical production or other media product for which there will never be a non-fair use image available on the Main Page, we must keep the exemption for illustrative purposes. —Cuiviénen 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet we do have free images for some of the works you are pointing out, often obtained at the last minute after the image hits the main page. Furthermore, we do not need to have a free image to put something on the main page (we can use a generic placeholder image to preserve layout if all else failse). Many people have pointed out many alternatives above. No one is advocating we keep such works off the main page. --Gmaxwell 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So 5% of FAs that could be on the main page have no free images. I don't think the main page is going to be significantly harmed by having the available pool of FAs for TFAs reduced by 5%. --Durin 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I agree with Raul654's statement that "it's one thing that it might take a while for their work to appear on the main page; it's a very different thing to know their work will never go there...It is a sure-fire way to de-motivate people from writing about that subject." These images are all in similar categories: nearly all computer games, video games, and books along with just about all songs, albums, television shows, and films. Telling people that articles in these categories will very likely not ever appear on the main page is not exactly going to motivate people to bring these articles to FA quality, which is the main reason why we featured articles on the main page. ShadowHalo 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be okay to have an FA on the main page that doesn't have an image. I also think that we will be pleasantly surprised, if we challenge people to be creative, at what we can come up with for the difficult cases. Jkelly 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If we have TFA's without images, that's a separate issue. That was a response to the statement that "the main page is [not] going to be significantly harmed by having the available pool of FAs for TFAs reduced by 5%." ShadowHalo 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So the only reason people want to work articles to FA is so they can get the biscuit of having it appear on the main page? You do know there was a strategic goal of achieving 100,000 featured articles, yes? That would take only...273 years to get all of them on the main page. If people are editing FAs only to get them to the main page, they're in the wrong business. We're an encyclopedia, not a feel-good-about-yourself-because-you-got-some-publicity project. Besides which, having an article appear at TFA without an image is not some cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs. --Durin 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"If people are editing FAs only to get them to the main page, they're in the wrong business." Perhaps some editors might decide that they're editing just the right encylopedia, but that they're doing it on the wrong website.....--GunnarRene 14:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If they want to edit an encyclopedia that does not support free knowledge, then you are correct; they are in the wrong place. --Durin 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
With 29 featured video game articles to 13 featured philosophy articles, I doubt we're about to create a bias. In any case, the lack of a free image wouldn't mean no use on the main page, it would just mean that we're be left using a less than ideal place holder image (many examples have been suggested). At worst this will cause people to ask questions and then they can learn more about our mission.--Gmaxwell 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think they should appear on the Main Page without a picture, that's another issue. But suggesting that we not feature entire categories of articles defeats the entire purpose of the TFA. ShadowHalo 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - mainpage should be a shining example to the rest - not a permissive exception.--Docg 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think some people might have misunderstood the recent refusal to allow fair use images. This is actually predominantly a criteria 1 issue. Even though we may allow fair use images in articles, there has to be a good reason why these images are not resonably replacable. For a few things there may be no hope for a free image which can do a resonable job of illustrating the article. But for most other things, even if we allow fair use images on the article itself for a variety of reasons, we should usually be able to find a free image which would amply illustrate the article as a whole. E.g for Ian Thorpe, even if we allow fair use images in the article because they illustrate an important event or whatever then we still can't use fair images to illustrate the article as a whole because such images are resonably replacable. Nil Einne 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - I don't like an exception being made for FA that allows fair use pics on the main page. We can do better. Lkinkade 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, as above. Fair use is and always has been an option of last resort for media content. - jredmond 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree - The main page is The Free Encyclopedia's showcase. We should be showing the world what's possible to do with free content only. --Abu badali(talk) 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Where is it written that a featured article must have an image in order to appear on the main page? If this is, in fact, written, can we please strike it out? (And can we stop using abbreviations? I still don't know what "TFA" stands for. I feel like I'm stuck in Office Space and just waiting for someone to hand me a TPS Report.) Kelly Martin (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put out in KP" TMT (too many TLAs (three letter acronyms). KM, TFA is "Today's Featured Article", usually selected by R6 from WP:TFA/R. --D 17:08 28 M 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - "If they want to edit an encyclopedia that does not support free knowledge... they are in the wrong place." supporting free knowledge is not the same thing as forcing it down someone's throat. and a "place holder image" is a sad compromise. I also disagree with Gmaxwell's "at worst" scenario. At worst, people will see that free content means everything must be libre or thrown in a back alley. It deprofessionalizes (?) how we look to slap pictures of people playing a video game next to a FEATURED ARTICLE about one specific game (if it were the article on game mechanics it would at least make sense). The main page serves as an article in itself, an article about what wikipedia offers. The occasional rotation of a FU image demonstrates that we do in fact allow them, these reasons along with our legal ability to do it is why we should fairly permit all media proportionate amounts of time on our main page.
Showing a FU image on the main page in no way prohibits reuse any more than the wikipedia logo does.
For those who can find actual free replacements (not pathetic placeholders), kudos, and by bringing this featured article's FU picture to light we're encouraging people to find those replacements.
But i caution those who think that photgraphs like Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg would be obtainable for free use, the sculptor could potentially lose a lot of royalties if people made derivative works (including another sculpture based on the photograph). The same holds true for screenshots of games. A single screenshot of Mario released under free use would allow derivative works of the screenshot, including a mesh of the character. Game companies know this, and most would never release their IP.
Funny that you make an example of that one, I've already heard back from the sculptor, and I expect to find the proper language in OTRS in no time. ::shrugs:: It's true for some things, but a bunch of ducks isn't especially original. :) --Gmaxwell 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
While we should indeed encourage and support free content we should accept that it is not the only form out there and that there are times when fair-use content is indeed superior in terms of appropriateness to meeting our goal of becoming a free encyclopedia. To take the other approach of prohibiting it is making us less free in other ways. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Disagree. The "Fair Use" clause means that the image is irreplaceable. If it is used in an article, there is no reason why it should not be used on Main Page. These two processes (selecting FA for Main Page, and writing FA) are two independent processes, and should be viewed as such. Bringing this whole issue of "using it on Main Page" is not based on any written law, and is totally uncalled for.--Scheibenzahl 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - The FU policy states that such images can be used in the article namespace. Technically, the Main Page is in the article namespace. Therefore, FU images should be allowed on the Main Page. Now, if the discussion on Talk:Main Page regarding its move to Portal:Main Page was successful, then the use of FU images on that page would be prohibited.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm isn't that irrelevant wikilawyering? Its still the main page even if its at MediaWiki talk:Main Page--Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But if the Main Page was on a different namespace, then we couldn't use non-free images. But the Main Page is on the article namespace, so FU images should be allowed on it. Also, the Main Page would look too boring if there was no image on its FA.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What namespace the Main Page is in is an irrelevance. Note under the current rules, with the main page in mainspace the "templates that make up the main page" have an exemption; exemptions also exist for some of the administrative categories. If the Main Page was moved, that exemption would be adjusted to state "the main page and the templates it consists of". Therefore, the namespace location of the main page is an entirely seperate issue to whether free imagery is allowed there.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with this amendment either way. The use of fair use images on the MP gives it a "brighter" look. Without it, the Main Page would look - well...dull --Ed¿Cómo estás? 23:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And with them the Main Page would be - well... a copyvio. Picaroon 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we used a fair use image for, say, Ian Thorpe. But using the cover of Final Fantasy VII with text discussing the game is not a copyvio. ShadowHalo 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know you were an attorney representing the Wikimedia Foundation and all the contributors to the english Wikipedia! Thanks for your legal advice! --Gmaxwell 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree, stating why would be much more productive than making sarcastic remarks. So would answering my as-of-yet unanswered questions for you. ShadowHalo 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It obviously isn't a copyvio problem or the Wikimedia foundation wouldn't have been doing it several times a month for the past few years. That some people are so far gone into 'holier-than-thou' mindsets that they would deny that inescapable truism is what bothers me about many of these efforts to 'improve Wikipedia'. I think we do need to make changes and develop a better policy for fair use images, but we should approach that rationally and cooperatively... rather than as an exercise in self-righteousness. Making plainly specious arguments just annoys people and detracts from valid concerns. This isn't a copyright law issue. It's about making content freely available for re-use. IS the Main page re-used anywhere? Wikipedia has lots of 'mirrors' - are they copying / modifying our Main page too? If not, then I'm thinking this isn't really a big practical concern. However, there is also the symbolic to consider... our mission of promoting free content is well served by making people aware that this is our mission. The Main page is high profile and thus banning fair use there could have an important symbolic impact... the occasional missing or lower quality/relevance picture drawing attention to the fact that we want this encyclopedia to be freely re-usable. --CBD 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was starting to think I was going crazy there. The way I see the issue is that our use of the content is perfectly legal. So far as I know, none of the mirrors do reproduce the main page, though they're welcome to do so. Even if they're commercial entities, displaying a fair use image for a copyrighted image or some other article where any free image would be of signficantly reduced encyclopedic value (as in, significantly more than just the difference between a promo pic and a concert pic) would still be covered by fair use. Trying to sell copies of the main page (after all, it's legal) could be questionable, but I would say that anyone trying to do so should be significantly more careful about mirroring content anyway (more careful than the normal mirror sites like answers.com). Essentially, it seems to be coming down to each person's belief as to how much a fair use image such as a cover contributes to the mini-article and how much using a copyrighted image on the main page in these cases will keep us from our goal of free content. Personally, I think that in these cases a cover or other fair use image is the one of the most effective ways of identifying the subject of the article, and I don't think that using a cover or other fair use image for the occasional article where a free use image would be unable to identify the specific article is justified. That's just me, and though I think I disagree with your view, it's not unreasonable or anything and I'm glad to see some more productive discussion. ShadowHalo 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, the main page should be the shining example of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Yes, that means articles with only FU images possible would have no images (think computer games). However, if we cannot illustrate them freely there is no shame in having no image on the main page that day. I also find Bastique's comment disconcerting.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It makes little sense to display non-free images on the main page of the free encyclopedia, as per Nilfanion. No image at all is better than displaying a non-free image on the page that tends to get the most exposure. --Coredesat 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, there is way too much nonfree content used in the English Wikipedia. Remember that we are here to create a free encyclopedia. Purging the main page is a good way to start. Kjetil r 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak disagree while I'm normally strongly opposed to fair use, in this case tho I have to disagree. While I agree with the idea as a free encyclopaedia we should be avoiding fair use as much as possible I think we should allow a very restrictive case by case usage. We should generally NEVER allow fair use images of living people no matter if some fair use images are justified in the main article. Many people have been quite creative in coming up with ideas for many fictional works too. That's good and I think we should continue it. However there might be a few cases when we IMHO should allow fair use. We should not use fair use just because we have no free photos even if those fair use photos are justified in the article. Only when we're sure absolutely sure there is no way we can come up with a free photo which will do an adequete job of describing the subject should we allow fair use. I.E. only when the fair use photo most definitely meets criterion 1 for the whole article (not some element of the article). Nil Einne 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be somewhat inconvenient in some cases, and I'm not convinced in the case of certain biographies that there is a fair use alternative (deceased people for which no free image exists but who have not been dead long enough for the images to pass into PD by age being the example that springs to mind) but I think those cases are rare enough that we can just live without pics in those situations, so Agree per all the arguments given above. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Fair use images should stay off the main page. We should do everything we can to promote free images. It should also be perfectly acceptable to have a FA on the main page without an image. That way all FAs can still be recognized on the main page. I don't think very much is lost by not including images on the main page for the occasional TFA when there is no free alternative. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. True fair use images are only used when there will not be a free image for years to come. We lower the TFA quality and possibly eliminate topics that have no free images. Using a cheap replacement is a horrible idea because it devalues the picture, and truely has no resemblance to the actual article. People will complain about having no pic for the main page, and vote articles down because of that. What is lost is a visual discription of the event/item the article is about. If the article deals with a copyrighted item, no picture would be stupid, because people would want to see what the topic looks like. We lower the quality of our main page when eliminating picture on some days. I would support the idea of enforcing the true value of Fair Use, i.e. only when there is not a legal way to get a free image of the topic. --Wikipedia'sFalse Prophetholla at meImprove Me 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Many people have already refuted the argument that this would cause us not to feature or main page certain topics. Furthermore, a picture of someone using a game controller probably tells you more about the experience of a game than a picture on the box. ::shrugs:: There is also a degree of "you get what you expect" involved. Many times we have found good free images to replace images that people previously said we be waiting years for... but as long as people keep closing their eyes and saying we can't, we won't. --Gmaxwell 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what? So a picture of someone playing FF7 (without a picture of a screen, since the screenshot is copyrighted) tells us more about the game than the cover, which has the main character on it? Then I ask why we don't have pictures of someone playing a random PS game on every article about PS games since it's so informative. ShadowHalo 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, pretty often the cover is an artistic rendering which fails to have too much to do with what the actual game looks like. :) I didn't say the cover was completely useless, it might help someone find the item in the store for example... but it's largely decorative. We certainly don't need to have it on the main page. --Gmaxwell 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you give a few examples of that? I went through the infobox images of the first ten CVG FA's, and every one appears to have some major element of the game (generally a main character) in it. As opposed to some people playing a console, which really has nothing to do with that specific game. ShadowHalo 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong agree. Well, this is this simple and obvious.--Jimbo Wales 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, this is not a poll. If it's simple and obvious, there's no reason for you to state that. Secondly, it isn't actually simple at all. The issue is quite layered, with goals of both free content and useful information. In a few cases this is not possible, which is why there is an exemption for when it is not possible. --Teggles 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with you about the need and reasons for exemptions, and the conflicting goals. Some people are zealous in the quest for free content; I'm more interested in useful information. --kingboyk 11:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Definite agree Free images should be used first and formost, and promoted as much as possible. Fair use certainly does not belong on the main page when our focus is free content. We are not a "Fair use encyclopedia that you can only add content to if it fulfils these criteria for inclusion in articles", we are FREE. — Editor at Large(speak) 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. How is this a free encyclopedia if even our main page contains non-free stuff? Do whatever needs to be done to make the main page free. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree Free content is not just one of Wikipedia's goals, it's one of Wikipedia's pillars. Picaroon 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Semi-disagree, semi-agree. It should be modified to have fair use images on the main page only if a free image does not/cannot exist. Certainly we want free image over fair use, but which is better on the main page, a fair use image when we have no alternatives or no image? In my opinion it's a fair use image. I can see both sides though, and obviously we would want to promote free content.--Wizardman 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Want to Agree There's no reason to include images on the front page except for decoration (i.e., make the text less boring). I hope we could make an exception for the likes of the WWII photo, tough. Xiner (talk, email) 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This (or something like it) could be used for a film article.
Agree - a simple icon (see right) could be used in the case of pop culture type article where there is no free image available. --Peta 06:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For decoration, yes, but not for identification and critical commentary. Since we don't use fair use images for decoration today (if we follow the guideline/policy), that icon can't replace any fair use image - except an image of a clapper with a flag on it. If it's a fair use image of one particular famous clapper with a flag on it, that icon can't even replace that.--GunnarRene 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No one's talking about replacing something in the article... We're talking about the main page... and there is no rule that says we can't use an icon rather than an image, some Wikipedia main pages are far more icon heavy than ours. --Gmaxwell 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"'No one's talking about replacing something in the article'". Someone are. But I know Peta is referring to the Main Page onlyl.
On the main page, it might be acceptable as an Article of the Day placeholder image for Cinema of France, but surely not for Swimming Pool (film). --GunnarRene 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Swimming Pool is a 2003 film, directed by François Ozon (pictured) and starring Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier. Sarah Morton, a middle-aged English mystery writer (Rampling), is having a writer's block that is stopping her from completing her next book. Her publisher offers his country house in France for some rest and relaxation. After becoming comfortable with the run of the house, Sarah's vacation is interrupted by the publisher's daughter, Julie... Jkelly 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ozon's picture is not used in the Swimming Pool article, nor is there any reason to include it there. Only a rare few film, television, literature, videogame, etc. articles have, or will ever get, free images. Doctor Sunshinetalk 07:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree - the only need for icons in FA boxes is for decoration. There isn't enough said in the opening paragraph to warrant an unfree picture. Furthermore this is the Main Page, and so is the showcase of our best content. We shouldn't be saying the best we can do is steal other people's work. ed g2s • talk 12:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 3
Disagree - Fair use is fair use and the text in the "Today's featured article" section is enough to qualify in cases where there are no free images to use, for example video game articles. I don't think there's any need for a change, using copyrighted images in these cases is a legitimate thing to do even in a free encyclopedia. --WikiSlasher 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree: Per many of the reasons above. This is too obvious for me. Also to User:Gmaxwell unsigned comment who said: It deprofessionalizes (?) how we look to slap pictures of people playing a video game next to a FEATURED ARTICLE about one specific game, Bah. Newspapers do it all the time. IvoShandor 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide an example of where a newspaper used a picture of people playing a generic videogame in an article that only discussed a specific game? ShadowHalo 10:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever read a newspaper? Find it yourself. If you don't beleve me just say it. Sheesh. IvoShandor 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What an abhorrent logical fallacy. "If newspapers do it, then we should do it!". Afterwards you can't even provide proof that they do it. To answer your question (even though I was not asked), yes, I have read a newspaper - for much of my life. Not once has it occured in any newspaper I have read. --Teggles 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that newspapers do it so we should, since you didn't read what I said, obviously, I will reiterate that I was responding to a point, unsigned as far as I can tell, that said it would make us unprofessional, thus newspapers do it so it isn't unprofessional, not they do it so we should. How should I provide you the proof? Mail you the newspapers? Ridiculous. You should well know that rarely are photos included in online newspaper stories, save the main ones. I have seen it myself in several, have participated in newsroom discussions about fair use and video games, specifically. I don't really care if you believe me, or not, my point was its not unprofessional. Consensus is going to eliminate the use of fair use images on the main page anyway, it would seem. The only thing abhorrent here is your incorrect assumption about my comment. IvoShandor 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Really, you're splitting hairs, not to mention being extremely rude. I'll go along with you anyway. Newspapers doing it does not make it professional, unless it is a very reputable newspaper (which as far you haven't named). Have you thought of naming the newspaper? The date of publication? God forbid, even SCAN IT USING A SCANNER? As for 'consensus', from what it looks like there is no REAL consensus. The only point I have gathered is that Wikipedia's goal is to be free. Argument: If that's so, remove fair use images from everywhere. Simply banning them from the main page is redundant. Remember, this exemption applies ONLY WHEN A FREE USE IMAGE CANNOT BE USED, and I iterate that the main page is NOT FOR DECORATION, so a picture of something loosely-related will not suffice. --Teggles 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Get a thicker skin if you think that was rude. A newspaper is a professional organization, saying its unprofessional is splitting hairs. Like I said go find it yourself, your incorrect assumptions and assertions have more than ended any desire I may have had to continue this discussion and provide any relevant links. If you can't be bothered to to do anything other than be offended by my "rudeness" and make demands of me then I can't be bothered to even continue this discussion. You have the same access to media I do, I was merely making the point that it's not unprofessional, I am not going to sit here scanning newspapers and pouring over local archives to give you satisfaction that my assertion is true, good God, this is a volunteer operation. IvoShandor 11:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I can give you the names, I have seen similar photos as described in the Pantagraph (Bloomington IL), The Daily Vidette (Illinois State Univ), The Daily Chronicle (DeKalb, Il), seems maybe one or two in the Trib and def the Chicago Sun Times. But like I said it's absurd for you to demand that I pour over their archives to find a photo and scan it for you, or provide citation information, especially for such a minor point as my original assertion was. IvoShandor 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This user and I settled our differences on our talk pages and all is civil in Wikiland. : ) IvoShandor 12:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen generic stock photographs used in newspapers a bunch of times. I didn't expect for people here to think otherwise. It's also not uncommon to see icons used rather than photos in some papers. --Gmaxwell 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me restate that then. Because the only paper I get is my campus paper, the news articles I read are online. So far as I can remember, I have always seen a cover used in articles that discuss the specific videogame, book, etc. If people are going to assert that it's a perfectly professional practice, please link me to an article that does so. Considering this is the main issue (everyone seems to agree on not using fair use outside the TFA), it'd be quite a helpful link in determining whether to use a cover, a stock image, or no image at all. ShadowHalo 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. There is nothing inherently evil about fair use, and we should not hide the fact that we do indeed allow fair use within the encyclopedia. I don't get the argument that we need to avoid fair use just because the pages are templates. Ignore all rules if the rules get in the way. --- RockMFR 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And an additional comment — if we do indeed decide to get rid of fair use on the main page, we really need to be more careful about examining images that claim to be free. There were a few cases recently where "free" images were gross copyright violations or were tagged incorrectly. It's great that we all want to discuss this issue so much, but if even a small fraction of our time was spent on double-checking the quality of everything on the main page, I'd be a lot happier. --- RockMFR 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you pleas point out the names above that made an argument that tenplates or namespaces in general have anything to do with this? Other than the person arguing that it's okay because Main page is in ns0? ... We need to be careful about our copyright claims regardless. The overwhelming majority of TFA images are free already. --Gmaxwell 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree for Featured Article of the day. I'm a firm believer that those who lobby for fair use only are cutting off their faces to spite their elbows. We should only be relying on fair use when it's legally and morally correct to do so, and we should be especially vigilant about this when it comes to the front page. However, the text we produce is free in beer and free in use, if we sometimes have to rely on a fair use image to illustrate it so be it. The old saying goes that "a picture is worth a thousand words" and wherever possible I want FA of the day to have an image attached it to. Sometimes only fair use images will be available. --kingboyk 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying then that you think we should accept fair use images e.g. for Ian Thorpe simply because we don't currently have a free image? Nil Einne 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. "We couldn't find a free image" is not a fair use argument. Grace Note 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree, sort of. One the one hand, it's important to defend the doctrine of fair use and ensure it remains as broad and automatic a defense against excessive copyright enforcement as possible. In the future, when the financial, legal, and cultural footing of the foundation is firmer, I'd like to see a liberalization of our fair use policies (though without falling back on "educational purposes" and other factors that might not apply to re-users of content). On the other hand, many people don't know the first thing about "free as in speech" when it comes to copyright, and having only free images on the main page will probably do more to educate people about that than asserting fair use rights will.--ragesoss 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree The main page is nothing if not an exhibit of our best work, that best work should include and celebrate people who take the time to make great images. - cohesion 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
disagree silly anti-content practice. --W.marsh 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean? Do you think that we are talking about deleting something? Jkelly 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing content from the main page. It's still on our servers and in the article... just being made less useful for purely philosophical reasons, hence the silliness. --W.marsh 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Agree Part of Wikipedia is that the data is really free. Fair use is not free. FAs should be our "freest" because they represent what Wikipedia should be. Gutworth 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I'll be the first to say that replacing fair use images with free ones, where possible, is a good thing. But some topics simply can't be illustrated without a fair use image — today's TFA (Gremlins 2) is a perfect example of that. —ptk✰fgs 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Question. Regarding the most frequent argument on the "agree" side: How can it be argued that a fair use image can represent Wikipedia's "best work" as part of a featured article, but that as soon as it is placed on the front page it ceases to be our "best work"? The "offending" image is literally removed from the reader by only one click. –Unint 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A fair use image is NEVER our best work. It's not our work! An article containing fair use images might be our best work. The question is whether we should use fair use images to illustrate an FA on the main page. The image is obviously never our best work. So what it means is are we better illustrating our best work by having a fair use image or by having no image/a placeholder? (Incidentally I think we should allow fair use images in an extremely limited set of circumstances as mentioned above. But I do think you haven't understood the issues if you think a fair use image is our best work. It's not, never is...) Nil Einne 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're not. But that has never stopped articles containing them from becoming selected as being among our best works. Even if you don't display them on the front page, the images are still there. –Unint 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree What are we supposed to do for Chrono Trigger? Take a picture of a potato with Chrono Trigger carved into the side? There are some topics which simply cannot be represented without exercising perfectly legal rights to use copyrighted material for educational purposes within limits. Extending FU paranoia to such a degree that main page FU is banned is bordering on a blatant attack on the concept of intellectual property itself. Give it a friggin' rest. This is unfair to editors who deal primarily with copyrighted works and wish to see their material on the main page. Zeality 04:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Refraining from using images without the permission of their owner is a "blatant attack on the concept of intellectual property?"Borisblue 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're unaware, but a "free image" constitutes much more than simply permission. And you're not going to get an image for Chrono Trigger by someone releasing an image under GFDL or into the public domain; no company will do that. —Cuiviénen 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Agree This is an important step to emphasize, especially to new users wikipedia's commitment to free content. Borisblue 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Calmly Disagree Has anyone sued Wikipedia over a fair use image on the front page in the last 6 years? As someone involved mostly in film articles—for which free images few and far between—I don't enjoy the prospect of spending months working on an article, months waiting for it to make it through the front page queue, to have my work represented by nothing (or worse, a little cartoon clapperboard) and have people's eyes fly directly to this when she makes the news the same day. If emphasizing free image use is so important to Wikipedia make the disclaimer more prominent or just add an exclamation mark to its policy page. Doctor Sunshinetalk 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to read our fair use policies, the recent foundation directive as well as what wikipedia is about. Our opposition to fair use images has little to do with our legal requirements. Some people have suggested that fair use images on the main page are a little iffy because it's unlikely we're commenting on the images in the FA blurb. I can't comment on this since I'm not a legal expert. I can say that our goal when it comes to legal issues is not to wait for law suits but to take all resonable steps to prevent legal action. I'm not saying you have to agree or disagree with the proposal, simply suggesting that if you are talking about being sued or for that matter, if you're approaching this solely from a legal standpoint, I don't think you've understood the issues Nil Einne 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with all of the things you've mentioned. If you think I've approached it from a solely legal standpoint I haven't made myself clear. Wikipedia is not going to get sued for using a fair use image on the main page because it is perfectly legal to do so. As it stands now—without going through every previous main page FA—free images are used whenever possible and fair uses images are used when nothing else is available. Barring fair use images neuters most media-related articles. In a perfect world every visitor would read the full front page every day and then click on every article, but in reality every piece of content on the main page is designed to grab the readers attention. A good picture can do that in a fraction of a second and compel the reader to examine it further. It's a small courtesy to allow editors who have created some of "our best work" an equal playing field if a free image is impossible. Doctor Sunshinetalk 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree The Main Page needs to set a good example. The JPStalk to me 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting that we are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point just by keeping the main page in line with our free content and fair use policies? Shame on you. Please bring something better to the discussion next time. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. It's nigh-on impossible to get non-fair-use images for some articles (see the recent Gremlins 2). Besides, what's wrong with fair-use? If it's legal, its all good. No point in being anal and damaging the encyclopedia just to make a point. Besides, WP:IAR would overide this the second it came into force, as it clearly damages the encyclopedia. Modest Geniustalk 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree - Wikipedia is the premier freely redistributable free content encyclopedia. Allowing non-free images on our main page of all places simply sets the wrong precedent. I've never seen a non-free image used on the main page that wasn't purely decorative anyway. Simply "because it looks better" isn't a good enough reason to throw our free content policies to the wind. And I would contend that it doesn't look better anyway; having fair use commercial images on our main page, like any variety of copyrighted characters, pictures of people, and corporate logos, almost makes us look like we've sold out. --Cyde Weys 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree There seems to be vague consensus that every Today's Featured Article should have a picture, and articles where there isn't going to be a free image (for example, the TFA for April 2, 2007) should have a picture to identify and illustrate the subject, even if it is fair use. I cannot think of a free replacement for Gremlins 2: The New Batch, something needs to be there, and the movie poster is the only thing that uniquely identifies that movie. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree per what has been stated by others. --myselfalso 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree - It's a free encyclopedia. Bryan 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're opposed to any fair use at all on Wikipedia? --W.marsh 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely disagree. Fair use paranoia has got to be the worst "movement" in Wikipedia history. If a free image exists for the Featured Article of the day, use that, but if there is simply no such image, we are perfectly within our rights to use a fair use one (Kelly Martin's example below does not dispute this point; Jimbo replaced a non-free image with a free one). Really, this should be a non-issue. Our goal is to spread knowledge, and sometimes that requires us to use fair use images. Full stop. — Brian (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I don't think fair use, properly applied, is not "free". This seems a rather perverse reading of copyright law to me. (Although I do tend to agree with Kelly's position on record covers and the like.) LOLing at Cyde's rebel screed. Dude, so far as I can see, we want free images so that we can be commercially distributable, as noted from time to time before now. I'm interested in Gmaxwell's statement. Would the board like to confirm that they set editorial policies by fiat here? That they have a "chief editor" function? I'd be interested to see that statement and I can imagine others who would be interested in a clear statement that the Board has an editorial function on Wikipedia. Grace Note 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Articles are the essence of the Wikipedia; they are the display case for the project's values. Wikipedia's articles make it clear some of the project's values are comprehensiveness and usefulness—they contain unfree content if it justifiably contributes towards those ends. Why arbitrarily suppress legitimate values? Certainly, comprehensiveness and usefulness are secondary to freedom, but if unfree content is to be eliminated on the main page it should be eliminated across the project. Presumably, if this stringent rule is codified, quotations will not be allowed on the main page either, unless we want double standards within double standards. Punctured Bicycle 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - people seem to take "wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone to edit" to mean "wikipedia the free encyclopedia in which in cases of entertainment where any screenshots, promo shots, covers should not be seen nor heard." Free use should indeed always be used over fair use, however the zealots calling for fair use to be effectively blocked from wikipedia seem to ignore that sometimes fair use is impossible to avoid. There is a very weird movement in wikipedia that seems to believe that anything fairly used will result in wikipedia collapsing due to the fair use images existing. –– Lid(Talk) 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Closure
In light of this edit, the general tone of the above discussion, and the Board's recent pronouncement, I think it's time we closed this "poll" and acknowledged that it is the stated policy of the English Wikipedia that nonfree, unlicensed content will not be used on the Main Page. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a free image from the actual article, although much weaker than the fair use image, and does not resolve any of the issues mentioned above. The boards recent pronouncement was an official statement of policies already in practice, not a call to arms for a free image crusade. Shutting this down before the rest of the community stumbles in here, and changing the policy without consensus isn't going to help us any. Doctor Sunshinetalk 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. What I'm pointing out is that the policy is already that nonfree content is not to be used on the Main Page. This poll merely seeks to confirm that which is already true, and so is no longer needed. Jimbo's edit is an example of that policy in action. Remember, polls don't make policy on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus here. Furthermore, just because Jimbo does something does not make it law, he's not a god. Nor does he set policy, which is supposed to be done by consensus. Anyway, the current policy is that the Main Page is exempted. Modest Geniustalk 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that there is no consensus amongst commentators to recognize the policy, I will admit that, but I consider that largely irrelevant. Policy is determined by what is done, not by what is said, and what is clearly being done is that nonfree content is not being allowed to remain on the Main Page. Therefore, that is the policy. Again, policy is not made by polls; at best all a poll can do is acknowledge that policy exists. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but today and yesterday fair-use images have been allowed on the main page (except for a few brief interludes after which they were restored). By your own (somewhat twisted) logic, that would suggest that policy is to allow fair-use images. That is policy, but not for the reason you suggest - it is because there is an exemption. Policy is certainly not made by polls, but nor is it simply 'what is done'. That would just be making up as we went along. Modest Geniustalk 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think they all took their "policy" and left. The dissenting voices are nearly the only ones who are talking here anymore. –Unint 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The arguments in favor of continuing the exemption for the Main Page were clearly the stronger arguments. I suspect that is why the others gave up and left. Johntex\talk 08:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thank-you ReyBrujo -Zappernapper 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That isn't going to happen. The direction of policy is to stop unlicensed use of images. There is no justification for use of unlicensed images on a portal. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No shooting the messenger, please :-) Since I have been around, I have seen similar attempts to lessen our fair use criteria (promotional images, portals and lists). I am just informing that there is a new discussion around, because those who are giving an opinion here may be interested in giving one there as well. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
and who are you to decide what the direction of policy is? The portion of the community that desires FU to be obliterated from wikipedia is indeed a small one. -Zappernapper 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't make the decisions, I simply state that it isn't going to happen. Irrespective of your opinion on the proportion of the community that "desires [fair use] to be obliterated from wikipedia", Wikipedia's policy direction in this field is more or less dictated by the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you can "simply state" all you want. The foundation has left it up to the individual projects to decide what fair use we want to allow to better serve our readers. If we think fair-use content in portals aids our goals, we can decide to allow it. Johntex\talk 08:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Should be discussing HOW to handle TFAs with fair-use
As a theoretical position 'no fair-use on the Main page' is a fine principle. What it really means is 'no more TFA images for books, movies, television shows, games, plays, works of art, fictional characters, et cetera whose creators died less than 70 years ago'. Those are the only 'fair use' images which currently appear on the Main page (barring mistakes) and thus the only ones impacted. What we really need to address is how we should handle TFAs for which no 'free' images will be available for years.
If Gone with the Wind (film), or the original 1936 book - which is still under copyright for another 12 years, made 'featured article' - how would we handle it? Do we ban that featured article from the Main page? Do we allow it, and others in the same class, on the Main page, but always without a picture? Do we use some free picture which isn't directly on point, but might be 'close enough'... for 'Gone with the Wind' that'd mean something like Image:Clark Gable 8th-AF-Britain1943.jpg or Image:Vivien Leigh 1958.jpg.
To date we've generally had 'fair use' on the Main page only when no applicable 'free use' image is even possible for years to come (which I think would make a fine standard for 'fair use' in general). Alot of people above are effectively saying that we should change that... what they should be saying is what we should change it TO. --CBD 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is greatly disrespectful to all the people above who took the time to patiently explain why it does not mean what you are claiming. As pointed out above, we frequently replace images after they've gone up, we often find free images for copyrighted works, and we have a number of other alternatives when those aren't available. In the future, why don't you participate in the discussion rather than creating your own section where you effectively proclaim more than half the participants to mere fools? :) --Gmaxwell 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So... you are saying that we already replace other types of fair use images when they appear on the Main page... frequently. And therefor I am wrong about that being existing standard practice? Since I am wrong about us doing... what you say we do, it is greatly disrespectful of me to suggest that we focus on the fair use images that we haven't previously replaced when they appeared on the Main page? I'm afraid I can't follow your logic. There were a few comments above trying to sort out what to do instead of fair use images, but most just said 'we should stop having fair use'. I don't think that makes them "fools" per your lovely assumption of bad faith above, but I do think that means they were stating a principle rather than discussing how to actually implement it. Ergo, a discussion section outside of the 'vote'. --CBD 10:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In the above more people have explained specific actions to deal with the concerns than the total number of people who have opposed the measure. --Gmaxwell 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We've just activated Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images. Hopefully with this project we can help find and create more quality free images for FAs.--Pharos 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actual cases
The first batch of TFA blurbs for April have been listed. In two days we've got Image:Gremlins2poster.jpg and in three Image:Pic5.jpg... both fair use. They are already in the queue and going to appear on the Main page - unless people can reach agreement on some other option? --CBD 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, following the complete absence of discussion (though 'voting' continues to go on above) the image for Gremlins 2 went live and has already been removed, replaced, and then changed back. Are we going to have the same sort of flip-flopping changes tomorrow for Image:Pic5.jpg? Or on April 12th when Image:Scooby-gang-1969.jpg is scheduled for the Main page? We apparently don't have any free images of Ziaur Rahman and Scooby-Doo is copyrighted. If you don't want fair use images on the Main page stop just saying 'agree', and try to work out actual alternatives. --CBD 10:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that the above poll at least demonstrates a lack of consensus for removing fair use images from just the main page, so people are having a hard time keeping fair use images off the main page FA. At least that's my conclusion after looking at what happened with the Gremlins 2 thing. --W.marsh 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
O_o lack of consensus? thats not my read. In my view the poll has resulted in attracting the attention of a vocal fringe minority who would have otherwise allowed the removal of the non-free image without protest. We already have a free picture of at least one of the actors named in the lead of the current TFA, the claims that we can't find free image are clearly false. --Gmaxwell 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So an image of an actor, 15 years after the movie, not in his costume from that movie, as an illustration of that movie, is our "best work"? That's absurd. Anyone outside of the real fringe group here, people wanting to outlaw fair use on the main page, would laugh at such an image selection... if that's our best work that's pretty bad. Anyway, you agree in the above thing so it's not that remarkable that you don't read it as a lack of consensus. It's also a bit troubling that you say "fringe minority who would have otherwise allowed the removal of the non-free image without protest", does that mean that if this had been snuck in without the community knowing about it, no one would have objected? That's not what consensus is... anyone can preach to the choir on some obscure policy page and "get consensus". If the community hears about something and mobs of people say "Whoa, bad idea!" then there might be a problem... --W.marsh 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you're talking about Robert Picardo. That's almost a hilariously bad example of a free alternative here... he doesn't even have hair in our image, and he did in the movie. Wow. That would make us look horrible. --W.marsh 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day the argument you're making reduces to "we should only take a free image if it's as good as the commercial image we are using without a license", which is a position which has been explicitly rejected by the community and the Wikimedia foundation. I agree that that Picardo image isn't ideal, never said it was. I personally like the icon. ::shrug:: There are also a number of pictures of the director on Flickr which we could almost certantly get. As far as the rest of my comment, ... thats my read from above, I've looked at the editing history of the disagree and with few exceptions most appear to be fairly new editors who focus almost exclusively on pop culture articles. I didn't mean 'fringe minority' as a slur, .. it's just what it looks like to me. --Gmaxwell 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Where has the community rejected using fair use if there's no possible free alternative, or the best alternative is still pretty bad as an illustration of that article (e.g. using Robert Picardo to illustrate Gremlins 2)? I'm not opposed to using an amateur free image instead of a fair use professional one, so long as the free image can be said to adequately illustrate the article (which is about what the image is of, not the quality of the image, within reason), I actually think the free images we have for a lot of actors and other public people are pretty darned cool. But often we see these free images replaced with unfree "better quality" ones, and I'm first in line to revert that, and nearly all experienced editors agree totally with using the free one even if it isn't quite composition-wise as good as the unfree one. But when there simply is not a free image that illustrates a topic, and one can't be create, I just don't believe the community is going to say "use no images", eg have pages look like de:Seinfeld. I really can't see the broader community on wp-en being okay with that, I think most editors out there are going to say that's a bad idea. There's a big difference between "don't use fair use" and "use fair use only as a last resort". The former is pretty extreme and I don't think the community is behind that, obviously we do use a ton of fair use. --W.marsh 21:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about the edit histories of editors than about the fact that the majority of "agree" editors are putting forward the exact same argument, and that it usually consists of one or two lines. That might be meaningful in a procedural, speedy AfD, but I don't believe for a second that this is such a trivial discussion. –Unint 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's funny you should mention Seinfeld, because we happen to have an excellent free photo for that, either Image:Restaurant.jpg or Image:Tom's Restaurant, Seinfeld.jpg. Not that Seinfeld shouldn't have one or two fair use photos, but if it's featured, I think Tom's Restaurant deserves to grace the Main Page.--Pharos 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the free images suggested for Gremlins 2, if the free pictures of the cast and crew arn't relevant enough to be put in the article, they're not relevant enough for the main page. The Horror Stub icon that's again been put in it's place—without having reached any consensus here—is pure decoration and should not be used in place of the poster which does illustrate the film and follows common practice across all film articles on Wikipedia. Doctor Sunshinetalk 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And then there's this... it just seems like "out of sight, out of mind" to me, wanting the main page to help hide the fact that many of our "best articles" contain fair use. I try to read the Main page FA every day so it doesn't really matter to me if an image is on the main page or the FA, I still see it. So using a fair use image on the FA is the same as using it on the main page to me. It's "our best work" on one but not on the other? That makes no sense at all. I know some people would like to ban all fair use images, I think we should either do that or just stop with the nonsensical double standards. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The same argument could be used to argue that by refusing to use our free image from the article that you're trying to hide that Wikipedia has free illustrations. ::shrugs:: Are we 'hiding' vandalism by not putting it on the main page? I don't buy it. Free content is a fundamental goal of the project, so it makes sense that we shouldn't make hippocrits of ourselves by placing unlicensed media on the main page. If you don't agree with the goal, we still welcome your contributions, but that isn't an invitation to obstruct the goal. --Gmaxwell 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No... the free image there is just not a good illustration to use in a thumbnail, a very poor quality free image isn't automatically better than a decent fair use one. 90% of people who see that on the main page will be like "What the hell is this?" 0.1% will be like "Yay a free image!". People who are actually here for free content should, instead of just adding poor quality free content, be contacting embassies or whatever to actually replace good fair use images with good free ones. It's always going to be a hard sell to replace quality stuff with laughable stuff for ideological reasons. --W.marsh 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
But the front page is not the content, the featured article is! Nobody has any lasting interest in a blurb in a box. Nobody will look at it once the day is done. If anything, you wouldn't be doing enough to get your message across. –Unint 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a good time to quote our ex-lawyer: Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can. Can we provide free content at the page? Yes. Is that the best image we have? No. The most recent? No. The best suitable? No. But it is free. The discussion has always been Whenever I read the browser's title bar, it reads "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," what is more important for me: That it is free, or that it is an encycopedia?" -- ReyBrujo 05:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How, then, should we handle something like Dalek, where a free image is not even possible until the expiration of numerous copyrights and trademarks? There are plenty of notable topics in our universe that cannot be discussed adequately without illustration, and cannot be illustrated without the fair use of nonfree images. Replacing fair use images with free ones, where possible, should be one of our top priorities, but we should not sacrifice the quality of our main page by failing to use an appropriate image when it is entirely within our legal rights to do so. —ptk✰fgs 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to say, ^that is a good, well made point. Modest Geniustalk 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe photos from the Doctor Who Museum in Blackpool would be OK under COM:FOP, as long as one could show the Daleks were part of a permanent exhibition.--Pharos 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A reproduction is subject to the same terms as the original work. Daleks are Daleks. Translation: Unfree image! Hide the children! Yakuman (数え役満) 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I picked this example carefully. We need to be able to redistribute free images under licenses that allow the recipients of our content to re-use it for commercial purposes. Assemble a collection of images from Commons -- no problem selling it as long as you redistribute the photos under their proper licenses. The same is not the case with the likeness of a Dalek: even the BBC has trouble obtaining permission to use the likeness of a Dalek on occasion.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but suggesting that all one needs to obtain a CC-BY photo of a Dalek is to visit a museum and take one is a bit like suggesting that all we need to get a freely licensed image of Spongebob Squarepants is to find someone to draw it for us. —ptk✰fgs 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now uploaded Image:Bookstore Dalek.jpg. British law specifically allows photographs of sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). This does not mean, of course, that you can sell your own Dalek toys. But it is a special exception to copyright laws that we can take advantage of.--Pharos 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What Pharos is describing is 'freedom of panorama'... which isn't legal in the United States (except for buildings). Essentially the concept is that people should not be prohibited from selling photos they take in public places just because they happened to catch a copyrighted object in the frame. Most countries which allow it require that the photograph be taken in an open public place (England is one of the few that allows photos of indoor public places), that the object be permanently installed in the location, that the photographed image not be modified, et cetera. I'm not sure if the 'Doctor Who Museum' mentioned above qualifies as a 'public place' (I assume you have to pay to get in) under UK law, but assuming it does a photo of a Dalek replica taken there could be sold in England... so long as it was not modified. It could not be sold in the United States (no freedom of panorama), Germany (freedom of panorama only outdoors), or most of the rest of the world. To me that doesn't seem any more 'free' than 'fair use' - though Commons allows 'freedom of panorama' images but not 'fair use'. I'm not sure why. --CBD 11:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no restrictions on modification for freedom of panorama in the UK, so it's not just fair use. Of course some countries have laws that do restrict downstream use under certain circumstances; we do not allow those images on Commons. From the literature I've read, I do not believe that charging admission disqualifies an area as a public place in the UK. I'm not saying that freedom of panorama is some sort of universal panacea — it is just one tool among many that can help us find free images in different circumstances--Pharos 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What would be the situation in the UK if it's e.g. a museum that does not allow people to take photos for commercial use? Nil Einne 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Such a prohibition does not appear to be legally binding, or at least it couldn't affect the copyright status of the photos so taken in any way. Theoretically, the photographer could get a trespassing fine, though.--Pharos 12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I am amused by how the Scooby-Doo image that Jimbo replaced the fair-use image with has now been deleted for being listed in Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, yet the Commons picture of the same name has also been deleted as copyvio/derivative work. Since I'm not an admin and people seem to REALLY WANT to go through with this, try using Image:Scoobydoobaloon.jpg instead. Nifboy 11:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I seem to misunderstand the situation. Nifboy 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can't. That looks like a clear copyright violation too. The person who took it may have said, 'I release this'... but it doesn't matter because they (presumably) don't own the rights to Scooby-doo. Doesn't even qualify for 'freedom of panorama' (for countries which allow such) since it wasn't permanently installed in the location. A big part of the problem we have with sticking to 'free' images is that people don't know what is required to qualify as such. You aren't going to find a truly 'free' image of Scooby-doo... period. Because it isn't possible unless the owners release one. Which they almost never do. --CBD 12:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. {{DisneyCharacter}} explains it pretty well that the characters themselves are copyrighted and depictions of them are copyrighted. (Obviously this applies for non-Disney characters as well.) ShadowHalo 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not strictly true. It is indeed possible to have free images of copyrighted characters, under certain circumstances. See Superman (1940s cartoons), which are now in the public domain.--Pharos 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that then. With the very occasional exception, characters are copyrighted, as are depictions of them. ShadowHalo 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, obviously copyright can expire. It just isn't going to happen any time soon for recently created works. Those Superman cartoons are 64+ years old. Even that sort of age isn't a guarantee of copyright expiration. --CBD 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it is possible for copyright not to apply to certain images, even though they depict characters still under copyright. The same goes for images of publicly-displayed Daleks.--Pharos 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In five minutes the Ziaur Rahman pic is going up as FA illustration. Has anyone attempted to find a free image? Has anyone contacted their local Bangladeshi embassy? Has anyone contacted newspapers or govt repositories? Has anyone considered a coat of arms instead? Or a flag? Or a map? Or are we just assuming that there is no alternative? Danny 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of any attempts on any of the image talk pages, or the article talk page. It seems from the FAC conversation that the freeness of the images in the article was not a consideration. The embassy is closed right now, but I would be shocked if they couldn't help us. --Gmaxwell 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start, as the exemption still stands there's no problem with the pic. Furthermore it's not like no notice was given - if anyone has a problem with it they should have fixed it in advance asrequestedModest Geniustalk 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since when has freeness of images been an issue in FAC's? Just take a look at Campbell's Soup Cans and the fallout when the infobox image was bigger than many of our featured pictures. There are still lots of FA's that don't even have fair use rationales for their images. ShadowHalo 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Main Page Exemption
In this edit Gmaxwell removed all mention of the Main Page exemption from this page. Although he provided an edit summary on the next edit, it isn't clear to me a) why he did so; b) that there is any consensus to remove the exemption (see above) and c) why mentioning it here can contradict policy when the Main Page exemption is still listed as official policy on WP:FU. Comments? Modest Geniustalk 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't get what the purpose of that change was. Every image on Wikipedia shouldn't be in conflict with the resolution, and more specifically our fair use policy; it seems unnecessary to state it there. ShadowHalo 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Our non-free content policy is the primary means through which we ensure that content on Wikipedia conforms with the foundation licensing policy. Enwiki's policy is more specific than the foundation policy. The exception page notes the exceptions to our general policy, it's the means which we allow some images which don't otherwise conform with our policy, but we can't ever make an exception which would put us in violation of the broad foundation policy. That is, it doesn't matter if there is consensus, the foundation policy sets a hard if somewhat vague limit. As far as the main page stuff goes, there is no evidence that I can find that a consensus was ever achieved to allow such an exception nor that one currently exists and the main page was never listed in the exception category. As such it's a bad example, regardless of if an exception does or does not exist there. --Gmaxwell 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh come now, he was suggesting the wording for the whole paragraph, not trying to create an exception for the main page... one was just assumed to already exist. :) Had someone actually been trying for an exception the result would have been to place it in the categories as per the page instructions. In any case, the main page is both unusual and controversial at best so it makes a bad example. I'm not arguing one way or or the other on there being an exemption for the main page, the revision to I made to the text removed it as an example not as an exemption. --Gmaxwell 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a dispute about the wording at the time, so I suggested a wording that said that yeah exceptions are possible but only in extraordinary situations. Using the main page as an example seemed like a good idea at the time since I was under the impression that there was a de-facto exception for it since non-free images did appear there from time to time. --Sherool(talk) 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering that there were two versions presented, and the second had the part about the Main Page, it seems that everyone who participated in the discussion agreed that the Main Page was an exception. The Main Page has (explicitly) been an exception to the "no fair use in templates" policy for over fifteen months, and there does not appear to be any consensus to remove it. If the example is to be changed, I'm fine with that, but the fact that the Main Page is an exception needs to be noted somewhere. Categorizing the Main Page seems a bad idea, so I would recommend noting at Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions that the Main Page and the TFA's are included (since there does appear to be consensus now that ITN, OTD, and DYK shouldn't have any fair use). ShadowHalo 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
By my count the above straw poll was 38-24, which is no consensus. Therefore the status quo should persist, and a quick glance over the last years TFAs should show that is that fair use is allowed. If there is an exemption, as there currently is, it should be listed on this page. It should not be given as an example, that I'll agree with, but it should be mentioned. Modest Geniustalk 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right. Johntex\talk 08:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(moved back left) I have added a sentence mentioning that the Main Page can use fair-use images, and made it obvious that this is not an example. Modest Geniustalk 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't do that again. If you want an exemption, get consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus was never reached to cease the allowance of fair use images on the main page. Kind of a weird double standard here. Doctor Sunshinetalk 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove it, therefore I was replacing it. I even started this discussion about the removal, and waited a month before replacing, in order to allow people to comment. You can hardly complain that I don't have consensus when I'm undoing a removal which did not have consensus. I'll again wait a while before replacing it, but will do so unless you have a good reason. Modest Geniustalk 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If think you're misreading how exemptions work. We don't exempt all pages from our content policy in the absence of consensus to include them in the policy; the policy would be meaningless if each page had to be included in the policy on a case-by-case basis. Rather, to exempt a page from the general policy we would need consensus that that particular page was suitable for exemption. Clearly no such consensus exists. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And I think you're misreading the order of events. The exemption exists. There was a discussion about whether to remove it. The was no consensus to do so. Therefore, the exemption stays. Then, the mention was removed from this page, as it wasn't a good example (fair enough). I'm just adding it back, as there was no consensus to remove it. The exemption still exists, ergo it should be listed on this page. Modest Geniustalk 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And you've added it again, in fact now three times in the past two weeks, and each time it's been reverted by a different person. There is clearly no consensus for such an exemption, much less a "strong consensus" as indicated in the policy. Past practices (several months ago now) do not constitute consensus. The adoption of the official Wikimedia licensing policy on 23 March clearly set a baseline of our preference for free images, and the EDP policy we develop now in the light of that has to be backed by consensus on each point we stray away from that baseline.--Pharos 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Purpose
Why do we have this policy page? It seems to me only to serve the purpose of documenting that the community has concluded that a small number of administrative categories not be subject to __NOGALLERY__ tagging for administrative convenience only. At the same time, it's an attractive nuisance: I see constant requests to expand the scope of the above limited exception to other places where it clearly should not go, the Main Page and portals being the two most obvious recent examples of this.
I don't see any good reason not to fold the statement that "a small number of administrative categories are permitted to show galleries in order to facilitate management of those categories, even though doing so might cause a nonfree image to be displayed in a gallery" into the main non-free content policy, and eliminate this page entirely. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, this page could indeed be summarised in one sentence. Garion96(talk) 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions seems to have almost all the same information anyway. The only issue would be what to do with this discussion page. Would it be left here, or would there be a link at the archive for WP:NFCC? ShadowHalo 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It encompasses more than administrative categories as noted in the discussions above. It should remain here. Doctor Sunshinetalk 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine adding it to the main policy, and having a little explanation on the category page (which already exists). - cohesion 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images in lists
Are fair use images allowed in lists? I know that some are used in several passed Featured Lists, but the list in question I'm bringing up is 2000 in film. A user has added dozens of DVD covers/movie posters within tables next to the title of the film. The thumbnail of the image is relatively small and is probably more decorative than useful. If a fair use rationale is included, are they still allowed to be included or is this too many fair use images on one page (despite their size)? Just wanted to ask here since I haven't been able to find information elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's disagreement about when copyrighted images should be used in lists, if ever. Regardless, the images there are inappropriate. A title, studio, and either sales figures or a couple cast members do not warrant a copyrighted image. ShadowHalo 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a sculpture. I am the author of the photograph, but not the sculpture. I'm "using" the photograph in my user space insofar as I keep a gallery of original photographs that I upload to Wikipedia. Any thoughts on a) the status of the image as fairuse in the article on the artist or b) any hope of an exemption for my gallery of my own personal photographs? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I think the fair use is fine, but that using it in user space is not (you can always link to it as you did above). Hopefully someone more familiar with copyright policy can confirm that. Modest Geniustalk 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I get your point, but it's much easier to scan a collection of thumbnails and parse information that way than to read a list of text. Basically, since my gallery isn't "hurting" anything, why not let me keep using it? Aside from this arbitrarily worded policy, there's no real "problem" with the page. It's not as if I've got a screenshot of Harry Potter on my userpage because I'm a fan... I'm just trying to maintain a record of ORIGINAL photographs that I'VE uploaded. Is this REALLY something that people honestly have a problem with? Isn't this a PERFECT example of the kind of usage that ought to be exempted?? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I am inclined to agree with you, you appear to be under the misapprehension that wikipedia policy is applied with common sense in mind, unfortunately. Modest Geniustalk 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I don't think fair use doctrine covers making things easier for people to "parse information." Common sense is an irrelevant arguement since you want to disregard copyright law. IvoShandor 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed that making it easier for me was my rationale for fair use. Thanks for playing, though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as stated on the page, "some administrative pages / categories that include or transclude non-free images exist as a necessity to creating or managing the encyclopedia" and do so for ease of parsing. They would still work as lists, but wouldn't be anywhere near as useful. Though I'll admit the purpose is different, that stems from an application of common sense to copyright law. Though I still agree the cases are different. Modest Geniustalk 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed addition
Not sure how to go about doing this, but should User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images be added to the category? Like the category's contents, images there are only supposed to be there briefly, and it would be harder to spot duplicate copyrighted images without displaying them. ShadowHalo 00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as it is a page used soley for operations, added. — xaosfluxTalk 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited
I see that this has already been discussed at great length, but the current brouhaha on the Main Page shows that there is no consensus supporting an absolute ban on fair use images in Today's Featured Article. (See Talk:Main Page#Fair use image on the main page? and this rather shameful history, if you haven't been following the fireworks.) Jimbo's famous edit summary has been invoked several times; so has Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, which says "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." Personally, I read the conversation at Talk:Main Page as supporting the use of an image in this particular case, and it seems to me that "case-by-case basis" means that there can be specific exceptions. But others disagree, which is fine.
I'm wondering whether there would be support for a very specifically worded exception — not for the Main Page or Today's Featured Article in general, but for specific cases in which all of these criteria apply:
Editors have made a concerted effort to find free images and their efforts have been fruitless (that is, no free image exists or can reasonably be expected to exist);
The subject of the article is an item in the visual media, and an image of the item is key essential to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject;
Removing the image significantly damages the encyclopedic value of the TFA summary.
There could even be some sort of established forum for discussing whether a given article meets the criteria or not.
Policy is formed by practice, and a consensus of participating editors. Let's talk it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Your proposal above is obviously sensible. I think most of the people who chimed in on the discussion today agreed with that. -- SCZenz 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I would want something slightly more detailed. I think that the specific importance of the image in question needs to be established. In the case of articles about fixed images (individual paintings, photographs), that one is easy. However, for the Scooby-Doo article that caused Jimbo to intervene, no specific screen capture is particularly important. --Eyrian 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the guidelines that Josiah Rowe posted about the possible policy explained, quite well, when a fair use image should be used. --Credema 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Josiah Rowe, with the caveat that "visual media" is too broad. As Eyrian says, non-specific screenshots from a movie or TV programme are not informative enough to be required for the article. I would limit it to the 2-D media: ie. any article about a painting, photograph, or other specific example of 2D media, should be illustrated on the Main Page TFA with a thumbnail of the image, regardless of whether it is free or used under fair use according to our non-free content critera (ie. with a Wikipedia non free use rationale). Carcharoth 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
See for the older discussion here. A featured article on the main page is showcasing Wikipedia's best work, a non-free image isn't that. If only a non-free image can be used, I would prefer no image on the TFA summary. Note, not the article itself assuming the image passes the criteria, only the main page. Garion96(talk) 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So Wikipedia's best work is to give critical commentary on a visual work of art without showing that work of art? Sorry, but that's patent nonsense. Josiah put it best in the main page debate when he said, "This is one of the rare cases in which the values of 'free' and 'encyclopedia' come into conflict, and we're forced to choose which mission we value more: promoting the free content movement, or providing a useful encyclopedia. Although I do support the former, if forced to choose between the two I'll always go for the latter." Discussing artwork in a critical sense without showing that artwork is beyond absurd, even in a main page blurb. — Brian (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't be bothered debating this but if we're going to argue based on this specific case, it's helpful to at least look at what we're talking about [1]. I'm still not convinced that the tiny thumbnail really adds much to the blurb Nil Einne 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the most informative image must be used on the main page regardless of its "freedom" (so strongly that, had I written an FA about a copyrighted work of art, I would specifically request that it not be TFA without the image of the art), but I understand that there is no way that is going to happen for now. I strongly support this proposal and any proposal which is less restrictive on main page content. Atropos 00:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and any argument based on our tagline should be ignored completely, as should any argument based on "Jimbo says." Saying "That's wrong because 'the free encyclopedia'" is useless, even damaging, to an attempt to have a reasoned discussion. Atropos 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think everybody ought to relax a little. If you are going to have a featured-article-of-the-day about a painting, there should be a picture of the painting on the front page. This goes for a number of other featured articles as well, but when it is about a painting, the absurdity of it all is even clearer. 6SJ7 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, if the article of day about a painting, the image of the painting should definitely be included. This policy would cover that, as the article is about a visual subject. --Credema 05:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have a lawyer again, why not ask him User:Mikegodwin? Surely he will say whether or not Jimbo's concerns are justified. Speculating without the necessary legal qualifications seems pointless. ←BenB4 06:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it falls under fair use. But this discussion is not really about the legality of using the non-free image. Garion96(talk) 06:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, in the cases we are discussing I don't think there is any legal concern. But as I mentioned in the earlier discussion, there is greater concern if you start talking about cases when the fair use image is not discussed much or at all in the blurb Nil Einne 10:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a proposed exception to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#9. #8 already states that a decorative image that is only mentioned (or not even mentioned) cannot be used, and I don't think anyone's trying to make an exception to that. 17Drew 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct — we're not talking about decorative images, we're talking about images that are essential to the understanding of the subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And its important that the TFA blurb, in this case at least, would have been meaningless without the fair use image. It describes the painting and expresses its significance, but without the painting itself its all just fluff, because the reader doesn't have any idea what the painting they're reading about is. Atropos 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that there should be a distinction with different kinds of fair use images. Articles that are about a picture or images (Campbell's Soup Cans, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Flag of Armenia) the fair use rational is clear and the need for the image is great. However there are some images that help the article a lot (Firefly (TV series), University of Michigan) but are not about the image itself (the image is a logo or a crest). I think that is why many people got so worked up about yesterday's removal of a image; the article is unintelligible without it. Jon513 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a very important distinction. I was trying to indicate it in the rough criteria I drew up at the top of this discussion, but I probably didn't state it clearly enough. The question is whether there are subjects for which a free use image is essential to understanding and encyclopedic coverage. I believe that there are, and that the need supercedes any arguments about free content. The front page is not something that's going to be adapted by downstream users. It exists to introduce online readers to our content. Garion96 said that the front page should show our best work, and I agree. If we hamper ourselves needlessly on the front page by restricting the use of images which we allow in articles, we present ourselves as a more limited resource than we, in fact, are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo's view
(I took the liberty of separating this out into its own sub-section, since I think this merits highlighting and discussion.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was asked my opinion and so I offer it here. I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales 11:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To what end, if I may be so bold? Doctor Sunshinetalk 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If I may echo Doctor Sunshine, Jimbo: it would be extremely helpful if you were to explain not only your opinion on the subject, but also the reasoning behind it. How does the inclusion of an image of a painting on our front page, in the context of the summary of a featured article on that painting, harm Wikipedia's mission? What is the purpose of allowing fair use images in articles, but not on the front page? Why, (assuming that there is sufficient context for the fair use law to apply) is the front page different? The discussion at Talk:Main Page yesterday shows that many — perhaps even most — Wikipedians don't understand your position on this issue. Would you be willing to go into a bit more detail, please? Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Drew, are you asking me or Jimbo? I'm trying to engage in discussion here. Jimbo's stated his opinion. Neither of us is talking about a poll. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to Jimbo's comment. Stating an opinion without discussing the reasons behind any of the views expressed here reduces community discussion to a poll. 17Drew 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
While waiting for Jimbo to respond, I'll have a go at predicting the tone of his response. My understanding is that non-free fair use was only permitted at Wikipedia in extreme cases and/or where it served an educational purpose. The free nature of Wikipedia was one of the key goals of the project, not an afterthought as many participating in this discussion seem to believe, and not for legal reasons as has been used as a counterargument during this discussion. That's why so many rules were put in place for fair use - to make it clear just how much of an exception fair use was supposed to be. Extreme cases and/or educational purposes - neither of which apply to Main Page. Main Page is more for marketing purposes, not educational. The article itself is where the education takes place, not Main Page. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the first coherent answer I've heard in this discussion, Bill. Thank you. I had been thinking of the Main Page as part of Wikipedia's educational mission. Indeed, any reader who comes to the front page, reads Today's Featured Article, and then goes to some other article in Wikipedia, has been educated on the subject covered in the TFA. In a case like yesterday's, that education would (in my view) be reduced by not using the image of the painting.
This seems like an important difference of opinion about the purpose of the Main Page, and one worth discussing. Is the Main Page merely advertising for the rest of our content, or is it educational in itself? Does it matter that the Main Page is technically in article space? To use a word I learned recently while preparing an article for FAC, what is the role of paratext like the Main Page in Wikipedia's educational mission? All these are important questions, and I don't think that the answers are terribly clear-cut. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Josiah, you say above: "any reader who comes to the front page, reads Today's Featured Article, and then goes to some other article in Wikipedia, has been educated on the subject covered in the TFA. In a case like yesterday's, that education would (in my view) be reduced by not using the image of the painting." - I get the impression from what you said there, that by TFA, you mean purely the template (actually a transcluded page, but let's not quibble) bit on the main page, not the actual article itself (because people clicking through to the article would see the picture there). In that case, the issue seems to boil down to whether people coming to the main page only read the TFA blurb, and then navigate away somewhere else, or whether most of them click through to the article. Carcharoth 01:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I can only speak to my own experience, but there are days when I read the TFA blurb and days when I click through to read the article. I don't know if my practice is typical, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a good number of readers who sometimes read the summarized article in TFA when they're on their way to look something else up on Wikipedia. It's education in passing, but it's still education. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The main page is without a doubt educational. At very least, its five most prominent sections (TFA, DYK, ITN, OTD, and TFP of course) are all completely educational, and the same policies that apply to articles should apply to the content of these sections. While the other sections are more metadata, they are definitely secondary to these five sections. Atropos 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this discussion stalled out because everyone thinks that it's settled, or because nobody knows how to proceed since Jimbo's given his opinion but no rationale explaining it? I think that Atropos' case for the educational use of fair use images on the Main Page is a good one, for what it's worth — anyone have a counter-argument? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Chuck Norris
This is what happened the last time this came up too. All the nays disappeared and the yeas got reverted and ignored. I think what Ryulong did with transcluding the image strictly to the main page is perfect. Really, there are only a couple art/album/novel/film articles a month where free content isn't possible—I can't see how two or three fair use images are going to corrupt any editors. And, frankly, who's paying for fair use anyway? Properly used, they are both free and content. Sure, a downstream user can't slap one on a T-shirt and sell it but can they slap a PD Chuck Norris on a T-shirt and do the same?[2] But I'm getting off topic. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling Jimbo won't be back. I think the best course of action would be to draft a proposed change to this policyish page, then follow the man's lead and take a poll. Doctor Sunshinetalk 17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Friendly neighborhood intellectual property lawyer here. I agree with Jimbo as well. No fair use images on the main page please - our strongest case for fair use is that the image is necessary to illustrate the page its on. It is never "necessary" to have a copyrighted or otherwise unfree image used to illustrate the main page. You have to seperate the main page, conceptually, from the articles that are illustrated on it. It's like the cover of a book - an image used inside the book under a fair use rationale might very well not permissibly be used on the cover of the same. Cheers! bd2412T 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would say its a lot more like the front page of a newspaper. That big picture is illustrating "Local woman found dead in her swimming pool," not The San Francisco Chronicle. The same goes for these images. Atropos 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
BD2412, any intellectual property lawyer should know that the most important component of a fair use defense is the effect of the use on any potential commercial uses of the image, not how necessary the image is in the work in question. Considering WP:NFCC#8 already covers the first, any image that we do use (such as a painting, book cover, etc.) will unquestionably be fair use. The question has nothing to do with whether or not our use of the images is legal, but rather the balance between being free or informative. Also, please excuse my hesitance to believe that a (so far as I can see) anonymous contributor not willing to identify him or herself is an intellectual property lawyer. 17Drew 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
BD2412 used to use his full name as his username, but changed it due to privacy concerns. He has been around longer than me and is currently #29 on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. In his RFA, he had 183 votes in unanimous support. Those are his bona fides, make of them what you will. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just pointing out to 17Drew that BD2412 is not just some random user. howcheng {chat} 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles for creation
Hi folks. I'd just like to bring everyone's attention to the fact that Wikipedia:Articles for creation will often have fair use images, as the material (if accepted) will be copied straight to the main article namespace. I really think we should like this as an exemption - it's common sense really. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The set of people who can create articles and the set of people who can upload images are almost identical. An anonymous user who has written an article that uses an existing non-free image can post the article without images and add the image once the article has been created. So who would gain the most from this change? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, what if they add a logo to the article? I know that it helps me to see what final form the article will take. I should note that the other day I asked for an article to be created due to a conflict of interest. Had I got a fair use logo to use, I would have added it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But how would the unregistered user upload this logo? Even if the logo is already on English Wikipedia, I had never read of the use of WP:AFC to work around conflicts of interest. I always thought it was exclusively for unregistered users, based on the following notice at the top of AFC: "This page is not for you if you are: a registered user submitting an article". And in the case of a conflict of interest, where the person creating the article is the owner of the logo or an employee of the owner of the logo, wouldn't the uploader have to release the logo under a free content license because copyright owners are no longer allowed to upload their own work as non-free content for fair use? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And an anonymous new user definitely knows that they can't use that image on that page. Atropos 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-free content in infoboxes?
It seems to me that according to the existing phrasing of this page it is explicitly prohibited that non-free, including fair use, images be used in templates. Is this a fair understanding of the content of the page? John Carter 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that is correct, no templates, no userboxes, etc, that isn't fair use anyway, I wouldn't think. IvoShandor 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In an infobox the non-free image is not in template space but only in main space (the article itself). So non-free content in infoboxes is ok, provided of course it passes all the non-free content criteria. Garion96(talk) 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just clarifying, then: Inclusion in a specific instance of the use of an infobox is permitted? If this is true, then it might be a decent idea to adjust the phrasing of the page itself, as that point doesn't seem to be made very clearly there. I seem to remember a case when a specific WikiProject (I think Emo music?) was told that it could not use a non-free image in the WikiProject template transcluded onto its project page, so it seems that the statement as it currently exists, if it has remained unchanged, is confusing to more people than me. John Carter 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you are remembering incorrectly. Non-free images aren't allowed outside of articles... I can't find the case you're talking about and I can't fathom why we'd make an exception for that. Of course, it's fine if a non-free image is used in an article with a template wrapped around it.. --Gmaxwell 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am against non-free content in infoboxes. Doing so does not seem fair with regard to GFDL.--Jusjih (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Non free content is OK to put into a specific usage of an infobox. It should not be built into the code of the userbox itself. What matters is that the image only appears in an article in article space, not in template space. Johntex\talk 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible exemption
I created the information box Template:Infobox Burger King for the Burger King series of articles for purpose of including a single, uniform info box in three of the four main Burger King articles. This was done so that all of the three articles would have an identical, uniform info box with out any conflicting or disparate information. The info box was not created to make my or other editors lives easier when editing the main articles.
The four main articles, Burger King, Burger King products, Burger King advertising and Hungry Jack's can be described as one large article split into four distinct parts, this is necause the secondary articles were split off of the main article when it grew too large. The BK info box is on each of the BK named articles because of the splits, and each of those splits covers information summarized in the info box (company info such as history, products and slogans aka advertising). The Hungry Jack's article has its own information box as the company is a franchisee of BK and has its own business structure.
I included the Burger King logo in the box so that the box would be indistinguishable from the original boxes that were in each of the articles. An admin removed the image citing WP:NFCC#9, and I can see his reasoning, however I believe that this case deserves an exemption because of the nature of this box as stated in my first two paragraphs.
I believe the statement from the fair use rationale template helps explain my reasoning as to why this case deserves an exemption: The image is placed in the info box at the top of the article discussing Burger King, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
I would appreciate it this matter were taken under advisement.
- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Make the template take the constant Image:Burger King Logo.svg as an argument. --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I really do not understand what you are saying. Could you give me an example as where I would put this? - Jeremy (19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Instead of referencing the non-free image in the template itself, place the code {{{logo}}} in the template, and then in each page, do {{Infobox Burger King|logo=Image:whatever.svg}}. But it looks like the template is going to be substed out anyway; see the TFD entry. --Damian Yerrick (serious | business) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
that worked. I hope that other editors will eventually read my reasoning, as I think the TfD nominator didn't even take the time to look how the template was being used. He saw it on one article and assumed I was being lazy and did not want to see why I created the template. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Proposed exemption
Maybe this would be too much trouble, but I propose that users be able to use fair use material on their userpages, if they own the copyright. It would be a way for users to express themselves and show off their current projects without releasing the copyright. Grandmasterka 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. First of all it's a long standing policy that users have to release material they own the copyright to under a free license if they want to contribute it to Wikipedia. Secondly Wikipedia is not a webhost or tool for self promotion. There are a lot of sites that will be more than happy to host people's creative content, they are free to link to their deviantart or myspace or whatever from their userpage, but if they don't want to release something they own under a free license they should simply not upload it here, that's not the kind of service Wikipedia is providing. --Sherool(talk) 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Then who should contribute photos of a toy to identify the toy in the context of critical commentary? Under this rule, a representative of the manufacturer cannot do so, as this would give anybody the full legal right to make and sell a competing toy based on the photo. Worse, who should contribute images of a cartoon character to identify the character in the context of critical commentary? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
that is why we have fair use, it is not a reason to exempt such images. βcommand 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that fair use exists so that such non-free images can be used. But who should contribute such non-free images if the copyright owner is not permitted to do so under Wikipedia policy? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
the copyright holder can upload them and use them in the mainspace but that does not give them the ability to use them in the userspace, nor does it give them any extra rights to the image. βcommand 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the current phrasing of the upload page means that the copyright holder cannot do this. In effect, fair use can only be initiated by someone other than the copyright holder, which is fair enough for most purposes. It is not always so simple though. Sometimes people want to upload a temporary image (eg. screenshot to show a problem with the system or software) or to identify an animal. Some professional photographers keep their best pictures for themselves, and donate their "seconds" to Wikipedia. They may, though, want to link to or temporarily upload other pictures to aid identification. Professional photographers will be able to link to an external website. I had to upload here temporarily, see Image:Temporary upload to identify dead bird.jpg. How do I now request deletion? None of the speedy criteria cover this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Criterion "No longer used in an article" might cover it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Category:Fairuse images that should be in SVG format
Shouldn't Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status be exempt from __NOGALLERY__? I was updating an old script I'd written to quickly sort (delete/retag) images in that category, and realized that, though the script now works again as designed, it has become completely useless since one can't actually see the images on the category page any more. As this seems silly to me, I'd like to suggest an exemption be made for this category. Any objections? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
None whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to have NOGALLERY in use on that category. Garion96(talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As I understand the other sections of this talk page, there appears to be broad consensus for not using __NOGALLERY__ on maintenance categories of images by their copyright or NFCC status. Would it be a good idea to codify this? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A month later, no objection. Done --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Too image centric
There's a massive debate over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses. It appears that because non-free text is not explicitly mentioned here, a few people are arguing that large blocks of fair-use textual content are OK in userspace. I suggest that this entire.. policy adjunct, or whatever it is, be amended so that it is not so image-centric. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The main NFCC have been amended to address this issue. Gigs (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Book cover images in critical reviews of books on WP in The Signpost
I believe it is time that such usage was recognised under the "common sense" clause at the top of the WP:NFC category; in other words, that such a critical review page in a weekly and high-profile WP publication should be treated as though in article space. The image at issue is this, which Hammersoft took out of the WP-space draft today.
As far as I can see, such an exemption would not open the door to other WP-space issues for NF usage. Tony(talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Tony's comments are in response to my removal of the fair use image File:Book cover O'Sullivan.jpg from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. See [3]. I did this in accordance with WP:NFCC #9 (note: NOTE "WP:NFC"; the former is policy, the latter is guideline that transcludes the policy) which forbids the use of fair use imagery outside of the main article namespace. The "Wikipedia" space is not article space. As to granting this general exemption for the Signpost, I don't see the pressing need. This might be the first time this request has come up in the how many years Signpost has been produced? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite see the relevance of the number of times this request has already come up for the Signpost (presumably not at all). It is not a "pressing need"; that is not required for exemption: as the policy announces at the top, "common sense" is the criterion for exemption. That is the basis of this application. Tony(talk) 12:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The policy does not say "common sense". You are looking at the guideline.
Right, so the policy is not applied with common sense: is that what you're saying?
May I ask what the rationale was for allowing article-space use but not WP-space use in the first place, and why a book review in The Signpost cannot, for that purpose, be considered as an article? Otherwise, it's fine for an article to use a book cover, but the publisher can send WP two copies of its book under an arrangement for a critical review of it in The Signpost, yet the review is held to be fundamentally different and the use of the book-cover image disallowed. Why are book-cover images allowed in articles, then? Tony(talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This conversation is straying a bit in my opinion. The question is whether we should allow fair use images to be used by Signpost. I say no. It's never been needed before, and I fail to see a reason now. I know you disagree. That's fine. I'd like to note that this page is barely touched. Our debating it here, while it might be titularly appropriate, isn't going to be productive in either direction. This forum is essentially dead. I recommend this be taken to WT:NFC, which has considerably more eyes on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No, please read the heading of this section: it is for Book cover images in critical reviews of books on WP in The Signpost, not for The Signpost, as you have morphed it into. You have not addressed my questions. Tony(talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I have. Regardless, as I stated, because this forum is dead this isn't the place to be discussing this further. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether it's the guideline or the policy where it says "common sense"; the reason we have exceptions to the policy is because sometimes the spirit of a policy trumps its literal application, and we should always use common sense. In this case, using a book cover in a Signpost review of the book is completely within the Foundation's overall policy for how non-free content can be used, even if it violates the current wording of Wikipedia's policy. The fact that it's not in main space is a technicality, since the review is content rather than behind-the-scenes stuff.--ragesoss (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
None of what I'm about to say in anyway should be interpreted as any slight against the phenomenal work you do on Signpost, or its importance to the project. I hold it and you in the highest regard. Signpost isn't encyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia project. Signpost is largely self referential to the project. It is, virtually by definition, "behind-the-scenes stuff". Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost is largely self-referential, yes, but not completely so. And book reviews are among the least self-referential project space content. The Signpost--and especially book reviews--also have a significant audience outside of the Wikimedia community, and often spark dialogue elsewhere.--ragesoss (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
...but it isn't encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We make the rules, and we make the exceptions. If enough people want to exempt this, either as a general case or for this specific image, it's a valid exemption. We can do with in the foundation copyright policy what ever we please, and if we decide this a a minimal and necessary exemption, we can so decide. This is exactly the sort of unpredicted case IAR is meant for. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe use is justified as a use for 'critical commentary' under fair use rationales. Whether it's encyclopaedic or not is largely irrelevant, as it's not in article space - where we apply this exception. It's not an image of a living person, and I think it highly likely we'll ever get sued for using it in this context. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopaedia, but Signpost is to inform those around the project, and is. The article would be of interest to many who write here. I see a huge contradiction in Hammersoft's complaint - why is xhe so up in arms about this issue, which is unencyclopaedic by his own definition? Ohconfucius¡digame! 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Gallery proposal for Other image cleanup categories
The logic under the section "Fairuse images that should be in SVG format" would seem to apply to all other image cleanup categories. It is much easier to figure out which image you can fix up or replace if you can see them. There is even already tacit approval for this, in that many of these categories already have a TOC. In fact, I was surprised there was not an official exception. I propose that an official exception be made. — trlkly 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Insignia
There are both free and non-free insignias in this category. --183.89.92.146 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The category is marked with the NOGALLERY magic word to prevent images from showing as thumbnails, as it should be (see WP:FILECAT). It is not an administrative category to manage questionable non-free content, so it can't be exempted. (WP:NFEXMP) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say no (it is appropriate use), given that the artist appeared to buy the rights to use the image for the cover, so we would treat it as cover art, not as the stock image site image. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
