Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive 2

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive 2

Help, please

Could someone explain to me what precisely do I have to do at Image:Plakat03.jpg (the problem is the subject of this article)? Thanks in advance. --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PaxEquilibrium. For the fair use rationale, copy and paste this template onto the image and fill in the fields. Since the image is used in two articles, you will need to use the template twice, once for each article. You also need to give the source of the image (eg the address of the website that you got the image from). Bláthnaid 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done PaxEquilibrium. Please have a look. Dr.K. 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Believe it or not - this is the first time I've actually come to apply this, so please sorry for my inexperience. Every day Wikipedian learns. :) --PaxEquilibrium 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That's why we are here. :). Dr.K. 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive 2

Two questions

1. Is a rationale for using a high-resolution image as opposed to a low resolution image required, or is it only recommended? {{Non-free use rationale}} says, "If you are using an image of higher resolution, please explain why." It doesn't say you have to explain why; it only says "please" explain why. WP:RAT says, "If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?" It doesn't say anything about providing a rationale in cases where the item is not reduced in quality. It only requires that you state the fact that the item is [edit: not] of lower quality. SharkD (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do not heed the "please" you are at risk that the image will be nominated for deletion or, more likely, simply reduced by someone. I don't think reduced audio quality is desirable or necessary to mention. The equivalent, though, is to include only a short sample. Many people get lazy and simply say "yes" for reduced/low resolution. It doesn't hurt to be more explicit but I don't think it's necessary, except in borderline cases where you may have to make a strong argument why the image use is transformative/does not compete with the original. Wikidemo (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note my edit to the above comment. The previous text may have misdirected your response. SharkD (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the recommendation for using low resolution images as strict for video game screenshots as it is for posters, cover art, paintings and other single-image works? As I understand it, the rationale for using low resolution images is that only a portion of the original work is used (low resolution = portion). Using a single screenshot as opposed to a full-length movie of the game would seem to qualify as a "portion" of the whole, and thus meet this requirement. SharkD (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP:FURE encouraging intellectual laziness?

I've been noticing a lot of copy-and-paste jobs on fair use rationales that are from the non-template rationales on this page, or from WP:FURE. It's somewhat frustrating as it seems to encourage some misunderstandings about fair use policy: for example, no revenue harm is a necessary prerequisite for fair use on Wikipedia, but it is not sufficient. If it was sufficient then advertisements, which by definition increases revenue with exposure, could be posted here without the low-res or all the other criteria. Usually when I write a rationale it's actually shorter than the examples, but they're templatized and much more to-the-point instead of adding a lot of writing that I think muddies the issue. Any suggestions on how to improve these examples? Kelvinc (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is appalling - it's like filling out a tax return. Unless you spend your whole time here doing these no one in their right minds can be bothered learning all the inticacies. Plus many of the bots don't recognise non-standard templates. No wonder people cut-and-paste - in fact most just give up and go away. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod - I agree. When we post articles in here, we don't have to post such a template for

each article , nor do we face the risk of having an article deleted due to a incorrect template. They image need to follow the same format as the articles, the FUR is nothing but WP:Bureacracy! We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Lovechild

here are some of the sources.

http://www.ballerstatus.net/beyond/read/id/36838325 http://www.myspace.com/msnicolewray more is coming

Soccermeko (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

src: i0.wp.com

Is this an official guideline or is this some sort of vandalism I felt on ?

I wish to have explanation about this sentence of the page witch make me think seeking psychiatic treatments.

"If the image is a screenshot of a movie that for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement."

HELP PLEASE !!!..... all of the resources in the world please define what this encompass --Preceding unsigned comment added by Transisto (talk o contribs) 09:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

src: jewishjournal.com

Boilerplate rationale templates

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like the templates in Category:Non-free use rationale templates defeat the purpose of requiring separate, individually written non-free use rationales for each use of an image. The non-free copyright tags such as {{Non-free symbol}} are not acceptable rationales by themselves. Why not? Because they are too broadly worded; they are not tailored to each use of each image. Now, how is that different from slapping {{subst:Symbol rationale|Some article}} on the image? The only difference is that now an article is named. But the generic boilerplate rationale is still just as useless as the justification given in {{Non-free symbol}}: "Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic." How can this possibly be acceptable as a rationale if {{Non-free symbol}} is not?

The worst is probably {{Generic rationale}}, which makes claims for you such as:

• To avoid misrepresentation, the image hasn't been cropped.
• Image was selected in order to maintain the quality intended, without being unnecessarily high resolution.
• Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image.
• The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic.
• Protected by copyright and trademark, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.

None of this has to be written by the person adding the rationale! A rationale should be carefully written--we need to make sure that all ten points of the non-free content criteria are being adhered to, and this requires thought. These boilerplate rationales are encouraging a lack of thought. Why does {{Generic rationale}} claim that the image hasn't been cropped? Many non-free images are, and often it's a good idea, so that you aren't using more of the image than is necessary to show what you need to show (see NFCC 3b). How can it guarantee that the "image was selected in order to maintain the quality intended, without being unnecessarily high resolution"? The uploader didn't have to make that assertion--it was made for him. How can the boilerplate rationale know that the image is being used "for purposes of illustration in an educational article", and that it is "the primary means of visual identification of this article topic"? Why does the rationale claim the image is protected by trademark (most images are not)? And why does it make the unfounded assertion that because this particular image is protected by copyright, then no free image can possibly replace it?

Rationales have always been required for non-free content, but at one point in the past it was generally accepted that a generic non-free copyright tag like {{Non-free symbol}} gave enough justification (at least, images weren't being deleted for lack of a rationale if they had one of these). After a while the community realized that this was being abused, uploaders were just mechanically tacking on a non-free copyright tag, and the generic justification given in the copyright tag was insufficient for a good non-free use rationale. So the non-free content policy was made a little stricter, and the non-free copyright tags were declared not to be rationales themselves. This had the effect of forcing people to think in order to write rationales, which is the point. But apparently some people thought this was too much unnecessary work, so they made boilerplate rationales that they could just subst in to the image description pages to avoid any thinking. These rationales cannot possibly be any better than the generic stuff that's already in the non-free copyright tags and which has already been deemed insufficient (except for the minor point that the substed rationales mention the name of the article the image is used in). So there doesn't seem to be any good reason to keep them. Why are they useful, other than as an attempt to avoid the spirit of the NFCC by putting a box on the image description page that includes the word "rationale"? --Bkell (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, if not all. We need to develop a system where we can add data to images to indicate whether or not they have been reviewed for the 10 (really 13) NFCC (non-free content criteria). Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance for my attempt at a page to address this (the relevant bit here is towards the end). See also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance#Handling rationales post-March 23. The key point is that though some aspects of images and rationales can be boilerplate and checked by bots, all images will need human review and humans to tick a box saying "image reviewed", with disagreements being discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed one editor that is reviewing fair-use claims. It's a good idea. Yes, there is the potential for a template to be misused, but that potential also exists with our GFDL tags (eg [1]) and is far more serious. The templates are good because they remind editors of the essentials a rationale must have. Without them, even the best intentioned editors forget things like the article name, for example this recently uploaded image. I think there needs to be a new images patrol similar to the new pages patrol, to make sure that the license tags and rationales are correct. Bláthnaid 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more about new image patrol. I wish we could implement something like a gallery of images with descriptions and licenses next to them. Usually it's very easy to spot copyvios by just seeing the contents of the image. Mangostar (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mangostar, you might be interested in the discussion about non-free image compliance taking place here. Bláthnaid 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with templates. The goal isn't to make people re-discover copyright law and non-free policy from scratch with each image they upload, but rather to give some thought to each image on a case-by-case basis. Where the image is of a routine type, say a corporate logo, the threshold of new thought may be fairly low, mainly just to ascertain that the usual rationale used for such things is applicable in this case. Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But for some reason the {{Non-free logo}} tag is not considered to be a valid rationale. My question is, how is {{Logo rationale}} any better? What does {{Logo rationale}} give us that {{Non-free logo}} cannot? Only the article name. Is that the only reason {{Non-free logo}} is not considered a valid rationale?

Also, the argument that "for certain specific types of images rationales will all be pretty similar" doesn't fly when you're trying to make a case for {{Generic rationale}}. --Bkell (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues in there. The "non free logo" template is a copyright template that doesn't contain a use rationale at all (though it hints at one). It's used once per image, whereas a logo may be used multiple places and needs a separate (and likely different) rationale each time. As a rule we divide the world up in two, once for the copyright tag to say what it is, and the other, possibly multiple cases of use rationales. I hope that's clear. The problem with "generic rationale" and with using the "non-free logo" template with no more than a list of articles, is not that they're inherently wrong. In my opinion, if the end result is a rationale that works, great. But because they're too broadly purposed, it's quite likely that people will start to use them when they don't apply. For example, what's to stop someone using a corporate logo in an article not about the company itself but to illustrate the entire field of business, e.g. the Fedex logo in an article about shipping? If you just needed a list of articles along with the non-free logo template it wouldn't catch that. You need to make people actually go through the motions of applying a specific rationale for each use. Wikidemo (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Bkell here. I already noted above that WP:FURE had been a real problematic source of copy-and-paste rationales (most of the WP:TAGS/FU templates link to WP:FURG, which links to WP:FURE). Then BetaCommandBot began its NFCC10c rampage ;) and now I think these pre-made rationale templates are the response. I'm more concerned about what this does for the newbies: the WP:FURE rationales perpetrate a lot of misconceptions about WP:NFCC. For example, people would occasionally argue that the images are "small" or "won't hurt the copyright owner" when I request deletions or reviews: they seem to misunderstand that these are necessary but not sufficient criteria. The main point in WP:NFCC, I think, is that each case should be individually considered on its own merits, and copy-paste behaviour goes exactly against that. Kelvinc (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Each image can be considered on its own merits even if a rationale is copy & pasted. For example, I have a text file of rationales that I have written for specific types of images used in specific circumstances. When I see an image without a rationale, I check the license and the article page. If the image meets WP:NFCC, I copy and paste the rationale. This saves me time. Boilerplate rationales are not suitable, IMO, for historical images and images used in the body of an article. However, for the most common types of image uses (albums, logos in infoboxes) they are OK.

I think that the rationale examples are better for newbies because they clearly lay out WP:NFC's requirements on the image description page. I certainly found them useful when I was working out what a rationale needed. "Doesn't hurt the copyright holder" is a common misconception; I don't think that the boilerplate rationales increase that misconception, but obviously our mileage varies on that. :-) Bláthnaid 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Source

I've been seeing more and more copypasted rationales and one thing bothers me is the "source" of an image. For example, "This image is believed to be obtainable from XYZ Company." or "This image may be obtained from Amazon.com" or "The exact source of this image is irrelevant as all copies of it will have the same licensing" or whatever. This is pointless. Does anybody else agree that an uploader should be stating where they got that copy of the image from? --Geniac (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Geniac, if they dont state where they got there image from delete it as un-sourced. some websites imbed things in their images. some of those can cause problems for us. ?^_command 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come across this problem today, where the uploader said the source was amazon.com with no specific link to the image, and I couldn't find the precise link. A concern I have is what happens when the image linked to changes or goes dead? For example, I definitely uploaded this image from Amazon about 2 years ago, but today the image has changed [2]. Betacommand, what kind of things get embedded in images and what websites do this? (so I know to avoid them) Bláthnaid 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead links on older images are a seperate issue. (you provided the source at the time). if users are uploading images with deadlinks that is a problem and those images should be deleted. As for what companies may inbed, its up to them and almost impossible to detect unless you know what your looking for. it could range from a very small watermark to stenographic data. ?^_command 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree about the new uploads with deadlinks. Catching the uploads with bad/no sources as soon as they are uploaded would be the best thing. Bláthnaid 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the ultimate source/copyright owner, and the proximate source (website, scan from book) should be given, and people should be told the difference between the two. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

src: cdn.theatlantic.com

This policy is nuts

I've just found a "fair use rationale" tag on a game screenshot I uploaded (Image:Moo2SpaceCombat400.png). This nuts. The copyright pertains to the software itself, and possibly to non-interactive images etc. generated automatically by the software (e.g. splash screens). But most screenshots result from the software's responses to / representation of user actions, which differ from game to game. If we treat these as needing a FUR, then any image produced by the use of a copyrighted graphics editor needs a FUR; the logical end-point of the current FUR policy is that Wikipedia text created using a non-open-source browser (e.g. Internet Explorer) also needs a FUR.

From a legal point of view: game reviews generally include screenshots; if a game review includes screenshots without FUR and the game's publisher / developer has not complained, any later claim that Wikipedia cannot include screenshots without FUR is likely to fail. Philcha (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The law does not support your position. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Merge

Per Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Video_disc_cover several cover licenses have been merged. Is there a standard bot that can go through and standarize the links and cats? MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Fadi Al Khatib

The photos that I've uploaded are definitly safe, they don't represent any argument or acused manner. They're from a respected site that doesn't pocess any harm, for any misunderstanding please talk to me and thank you. --Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeFe (talk o contribs) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

src: financialcryptography.com

Template:Non-free use rationale

My apologies if this has been brought up previously, but... it seems like it would significantly aid bots and the project if all fair use rationales were required to use a template. The template parameters are easily parse-able by bots and it would standardize image description pages. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

However, NFCC does not require a template, and I'd say a good 50% of our images meet NFCC but do not have a template. I'd support using the templates as a long term maintainence plan, but not as a requirement whose failure will result in an image deletion. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, adding a requirement for new uploads to the guidelines would be a good first step. Nobody really mentioned deletion... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my several month old User:MBisanz/ImageSystemProposal and the related bugzilla:12452. According to some some of the senior devs I spoke with, implementing such a system would require a complete recoding of the Upload interface, and none of the current devs understand the existing interface well enough to create a new one. One of those annoying catch-22s. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What are some examples of the ways end users are benefiting from the machine readability of the fair use rationales that currently use templates? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

src: scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Use in more than one article

If a logo if is used in more than one article (ie Image:EDGE of Existence logo.png) how can i specifiy this in the template? Chris_huh^talk 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case you use the template twice. It is possilbe that there are different reasons for including the logo in each article. Sv1xv (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks i will add another template. Chris_huh^talk 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarifcation requested...

It was my understanding that it was desirable to have original rights holder attribution information with respect to Fair-Use images..

However, it has been raised as a concern by some contributors, that this isn't strictly needed by the relevant legislation.

Could a clarification be added to the guide as to whether or not Fair Use images need to indicate who the original copyright holder(s) in terms of both the image itself and any content depicted is ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Save me some time in the future

If someone selects "free use" from the pull-down when creating an image, could we have this set of terms automatically input? It's been 4 months since I created an image and although I put what I thought was enough info into the description for human eyes, the bots slapped me for not filling in every detail I didn't know I had to provide. And months later it's hard to remember.

• Non-free use rationale

| Description =
| Source =
| Article =
| Portion =
| Low_resolution =
| Purpose =
| Replaceability =
| other_information =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale  

Talk about the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Get these bots going and there's no way to stop them. If the programmer did not think of every exception, the bot kills all. I can just imagine WP:WALL-E . I do not want to read every page of WP image rules and exceptions and instructions and exceptions the the instructions and additions to the exceptions to the instructions. Can't there be just a few simple ideas on how to upload an image? God Almighty only gave us 10 rules! WP has gazillions. Kristinwt (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening

The first word of the article will from now on be "whenever." It is much more appropriate and descriptive. Thanks! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk o contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"When," the original word, is more grammatically correct. Please stop changing the original wording to make a point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that "When" is the more appropriate word here. --- Barek (talk o contribs) - 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why "we" is the more appropriate word. You appear to be rather obstinate. Thanks! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk o contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to explain why it's necessary to change the original "when" to "whenever," especially given that there's no consensus for the change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever is more descriptive. I realize now that you have no reason you want to keep "when" since you cannot explain your reasoning. You just want it to be "when" just because. That, my friend, is a poor reason. Thanks! --Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk o contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The uploader should be warned at marking for deletion

There is something that truly annoys me: to find that a pic that I uploaded was deleted for the lack of proper tags. It is nothing short of infuriating to see that the effort I made to find and upload an appropriate image is simply destroyed. Whenever an image is marked for deletion, the uploader must ALWAYS be warned, by means of his talk page; this way, he has the chance to go there and fix things. -- Stormwatch (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Magazine covers

Folks, exactly what are the "rules" regarding use of magazine covers in biographical articles? See for example John Henry Towers - the relevant template - {{Non-free magazine cover}} - seems unequivocal: "Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." To me this means that they should not be used in lieu of another free-use image. Now take a look at Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers - a huge number of those would seem to be in violation of the non-free use rational for mag covers. Am I missing something? Thanks.  - ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The is "rules" are the policy (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). If a magazine cover is used in a way that does not satisfy all 10 criteria it should be removed, magazine covers get no special treatment there. Also note that "(...)illustrate a point about the publication of the image." does not mean it's ok to use a magazine cover just to "prove" that a person did in fact appear on the cover, that's another common misuse of magazine covers. --Sherool (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So my tagging of File:John_Henry_Towers.jpg was correct? I only ask because the original uploader left a pointed message on my talk page referring me to the category I mentioned above. - ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it may be acceptable to use a cover image of somebody who is dead to show what they looked like. What is not acceptable is to use an image of somebody living simply to show what they looked like, because that would be considered a replaceable image. Jheald (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's right, the text in the template that I quoted above should be edited because on it's face it applies to the living and the dead. - ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some kind of stricter standard when it comes to magazine covers, as least as far as enforcement is concerned. Obviously, fair use images are inappropriate in biographical articles for living people to show what they look like etc. But in other articles it seems as though film and TV screencaps are considered acceptable to identify fictional characters and other elements, and to identify the works themselves, while magazine covers seem to be stripped as a matter of policy (unless it's an article about the magazine itself, etc.) I've seen this happen many, many times and am wondering if there is actually something in policy that specifies a difference.-- TAnthony^Talk 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

SVGs

Is it possible for SVGs to qualify as low-resolution for purposes of the non-free use rationale? They can theoretically retain fidelity at any size, after all. Powers ^T 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I am considering adding a fair use image to Carletonomys, which would be one of the images given in the paper in which the animal was described (published in 2008 by someone who is still alive). No other images have ever been published, but I'm concerned whether the theoretical possibility that someone could go to the Museo de La Plata in Buenos Aires, ask the curator for entrance to the collection (which is almost certainly not open to the general public) and make another photo, which would make it fail irreplaceability. Any thoughts about this? Ucucha 13:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"separate" rationales?

I'm in the middle of a dispute with User:VMAsNYC over these three images on The Shells. I was wondering if the FURs given for these images were considered "separate" as required by this guideline. Thank you. ~ Paul^T+/_C 07:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, it doesn't help to just list all the articles it's used in and claim it illustrates the topic. If the exact same rationale had actually applied equally to multiple articles it might be acceptable, but I'd say not here (just because you mention (list) something in an article doesn't mean it's suddenly a topic of the article that require visual identification). Beyond that I'd say those back and inside covers don't even qualify for use in the actual album article, the main front cover yes, but that other stuff is not "primary identification" stuff. --Sherool (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images for our production that I am authorized to grant usage rights for

Hello all,

On the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Phase_II_%28fan_series%29), there is discussion regarding the Fair Use of certain of our images. From reading the "Fair Use" rationale page, I am unsure of how (or if I should) add a note to the "Fair Use" section for such images that they are being used (retroactively, as we did not post or approve them when they were posted) with our permission and knowledge.

As related information to this, I am one of the people in the STP2 production charged with ensuring there is no violation of our copyrights for the images or videos we produce and can grant such permission if it is wanted, needed and/or permitted. (My identity and claims are verifiable via contacting the production via our website's "Contact Us" link if that is required)

Thanks, Robert Mauro Line Producer/Webmaster/Forum Admin/Gaffer/Authorized Agent (Copyrights) RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions at all, besides uploading a selection that may or may not be needed, or may or may not be wanted?

Thanks

Robert Mauro

Line Producer/Webmaster/Forum Admin/Gaffer/Authorized Agent (Copyrights)

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

CD image resolution

How is "low resolution" defined? The guidelines for the WikiProject Albums says that CD cover art should not be more than 300px. However, I haven't found any discussion of this that makes this a firm line in the sand. There is discussion that says that larger images might be fine, and indeed, many larger images now exist within Wikipedia. It is common to find 500px images at Amazon, posted by users. iTunes downloads 500px images when you rip and album. It seems that we could follow the trend both in Wikipedia, iTunes and at Amazon and say that 500px images are OK. If there is some reason why 300px is acceptable and 500px is not, the reason should be elaborated in the guidelines and templates, in such a way that it is clear what the criteria are that need to be applied. As it is now for album covers, it seems like an arbitrary line in the sand. -- ? SamuelWantman 07:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there ever a reason to host a non-free image larger than it will be displayed in the article? postdlf (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is. So that readers can click on the image and see it bigger. I do that all the time. I already think that 300px is too small as a default. I recently got a 26" monitor, and would raise the default thumbnail size if I could. Over time, everyone's resolution increases. Also, with album covers, the reality is that people come looking for them after ripping CDs into media players or MP3 players. As the players have gotten better, 500px has become the new norm. Personally, I'd rather come find them at Wikipedia than at Amazon. As someone who cares about the project, I think that a resource that brings people to Wikipedia is a good thing. A young user might come looking for an image for their media player, stop to read the article and follow links to other articles about other topics. Certainly we have to stay on the good side of the law. But if large marketers of the recording industry (Apple and Amazon) are essentially giving 500px images away and encouraging users to upload better and alternate versions of them on their sites, this doesn't seem to be an issue. I don't think we should be setting the trend to up the resolution of these images, but it seems prudent to slowly follow the trend. -- ? SamuelWantman 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is not to provide that kind of service. Fair use doesn't mean providing high quality album covers so that people can print them and stick them on a burned CD. Its purpose is to illustrate the album cover in sufficient detail that it can be identified and if there is critical commentary about it (in the case of a notable cover that has some specific features) those facets can be clearly seen.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

300 pixels is an abitrary number which seems to work. I'm sure there will be cases where a larger image would be nice, but I'm not really seeing the point of this disussion. What are you aiming for here? J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I also add that this is a rather strange place for the discussion? Might I recommend this page instead? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaceability

If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement. is a time machine considered one of those things that we're okay with Wikipedians lacking? A photo of a living person is fine to consider for replacement. In theory someone could go out and take a picture of most people. On the other hand I think we'd need to be practical about this as well. Do we honestly expect an amateur to get a picture of Kim Jong Il? or an African warlord? or some other people in those circles? Probably not. What about past events that might be notable in a subject's history? Right now I'm looking at taking a still from a 3 year old youtube video because it illustrates a notable event in a hockey team's history. They were involved in a bench clearing brawl that led to a league leading 13 suspensions from a single game. The games aren't archived, so there isn't much hope of taking a still from a TV broadcast, the only thing we have is a fan video. I've sent him an email to ask him to release it as CC, but its 3 years old and not an active account. Since games aren't archived and I don't have a time machine, do we consider a still from that replaceable or what?--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

If I stand in front of the Mona Lisa and take a photo of it, I can upload it here with no restrictions because it's my own work. Ergo, when I take a screenshot of my desktop, which happens to show the (copyrighted) applications I'm using, why do I need a rationale to upload that screenshot? Yes, a copyrighted application may be visible, but so what? How is that different to taking a photo of something in real life? The image of the application is just a by-product of the overall shot. What I'm really trying to say here, is that a screenshot should not be considered any different to a photograph. Both are just snapshots at the end of the day. Or, to take it further, what if I took an actual photo of my monitor showing the application? Would a rationale be needed for that? SJ2571 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the clear intent of a photograph is to show or reproduce a copyrighted work, the photo is a derivative work. The Mona Lisa is different, as it is too old to be copyrighted, and at least under US law, making a reproduction of a two dimensional work is not sufficient creative effort to qualify the new work under its own copyright at all--so photos of a public domain portrait are themselves in the public domain. On the other hand, a current software program is copyrighted. Taking a photo for which the clear intent is to show the software means that the photo/screenshot is a derivative work of the software. Now, of course, if the software is free software, that would mean reproductions (including screenshots) can be distributed under the same free license. But if it's nonfree, so is the reproduction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Author

The fair use rationales suggested on this page should stress author in addition to source. Currently, too many images provide as the source whatever website the image came from, which is not sufficient to determine attribution and therefore copyright status. See WP:AN#Non-free images that do not identify the copyright-holder for discussion of this issue and possible means of addressing it. I've suggested adding an "author" field to the basic rationale template at Template talk:Non-free use rationale#"Author" field. Chick Bowen 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're already using a fair use rationale for an image, then you've already decided to treat that image as copyrighted and not freely licensed. How would learning its particular author affect that copyright status? For a screenshot of a film, for example, the author may have been a particular production company, not the studio that distributed it...and neither may be the current owner of the copyright. Learning all of that won't affect our understanding of the image's copyright status if we're already treating it as copyrighted, and as long as there's no dispute that the image is what it is (a screenshot of a particular film, a cover scan of a particular album), who the particular author was would not affect our NFU rationale for using it. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment policy says that where the image came from is sufficient. Original author may be desirable, but is not required. (If not supplied, we tend to presume least favourable reasonable case, and go from there). I think that's a fair position -- for many old images the original author/copyright holder may now not be knowable, as recognised in many copyright laws around the world; and even when they are, it's not clear that there's much advantage in going beyond the position above, given the amount of original investigation that might be required.

If you wish to change, or discuss, this underlying policy, the most appropriate venue would be WT:NFC, rather than here. Jheald (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am suggesting a change in policy, only a clarfication. Is it your feeling (this is not a rhetorical question; I am trying to figure out where people stand on this issue) that the website from which the image came is a sufficient source under current policy, even if the link is dead, the website provides no further information about the image, or the website is itself clearly violating copyright? Chick Bowen 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The place for policy questions is WT:NFC, where you will get a much wider range of response. But yes, my understanding is that current policy and customary usage requires either the immediate source (typically a webpage) or original author/copyright owner.

Whether the website was using the image appropriately is essentially irrelevant - what we are trying to assess is whether we (and our downstream reusers) can reasonably use the image legally. It's useful to have an indication as to where the image came from -- has it just been found from Google, or is a lot more known about it? And can we reasonably assert that the image has been widely accessible before our usage -- as this can in itself colour the NFCC #2 analysis. That is my understanding as to why we demand at least a web source or original publication/author, as somewhere to at least start the ball rolling. My understanding is that we don't require more than that. (Compare also the majority response you've been getting at the DRV, mostly from pretty seasoned policy watchers) Jheald (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the source is primarily relevant to authenticating the image. Is this, in fact, the published cover of It by Stephen King, or a screenshot from Star Wars: Episode III? The source of where we found the image may help establish that. We can't necessarily trust the content for what it appears to be because what appears to be the cover may be fan art or an unpublished mock-up of a design never used, or what appears to be a screenshot may actually be a publicity still taken on set during rehearsal. And that would affect our non-free use rationale (or indeed whether the image is useful in the first place). But in neither case would the author's identity, in and of itself, change that rationale.

Note also that the "source" of the image in many cases may be "scan of book by uploader" or "screen capture of film by uploader." No less valid (sometimes more so?) than if we found it on a website. And as these copyrighted materials are going to (almost always) be from mass media, there should be plenty of websites you can find showing that the image is what it purports to be. Even if you took an album cover scan from a fansite that is now a dead link, linking to that album's Amazon page would establish the cover's authenticity even though it's not using the same bit-for-bit jpeg file that was uploaded. All without ever knowing if the author/copyright holder of that cover was the musician, the record label, or a photographer (who may have only licensed his photograph to the record label...). postdlf (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

This is one of the most confusing instruction pages I have ever read on WP, and I have read plenty of them. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with you! This is serious information overload and not to mention, nowhere does it actually explain WHERE to upload anything. There is no link. This is possibly the worst set of instructions on Wikipedia that I've seen yet. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FUR template for marketing and advertisement graphics?

Apologies in advance, I have no clue where to post this question, and this seems the best place. Although my question is for marketing and advertisement graphics in general, I will use a single example because this is what instigated my query. In uploading the image for Avril Lavigne's Forbidden Rose fragrance, I noticed that I had little choice from the FUR templates I could choose from -- although obviously I could have gone with a blank FUR to begin with. Still, I temporarily went with the film poster FUR for the time being, though obviously the word "film" would have nothing to do with this image. "Poster" is somewhat moot. But there must be dozens or hundreds of examples of advertisement graphics being used as fair-use on Wikipedia... shouldn't there be a template for them? What "licensing" is appropriate for these images? (In this instance, I used "poster".) I started creating one in my sandbox, but I wanted to get some input from others before I really proceed with the template and documentation. Would a new rationale have to be created as well? Is this not enough of an issue to really create anything new at the moment? Thank you. - Ker?uno?copia^?_galaxies 19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template question

I though I would start here with this question. The {{Fair use in}} template is used on images but the wording seems to lead, at times, to confusion. For example several years ago it was established that any image marked as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" should be deleted. When it first was set into place it was advised to delete images marked as such "on site". The issues always seem to come into play when an image that *is* using a license that states those also contains the {{Fair use in}} tag in the licensing area some take that as the image is claiming fair use, however the tag uses wording that is "asking" for speedy deletion. The first thing this license tag says is This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. That seems pretty straight forward - such images could be tagged with an F3 - "Improper license", F4 - "Lack of licensing information", F11 - "No evidence of permission" or F9 - "Unambiguous copyright infringement". But the issues I am seeing now due to the next line: It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories... and if you stop there this now is an F7 - "Invalid fair-use claim" because, clearly, this tag explains that the image does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories. But it does not end there because at the bottom of this tag it explains that this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. So if no FUR is supplied it is now F6 - "Missing non-free use rationale".

Another way to look at this is that any image that is marked with some variant of "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" *and* is copyrighted and unlicensed should be deleted, "on site". Now if you add in that the same image does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories it would seem to lead to only one conclusion - speedy deletion. But what I see happen is that if an image is tagged with the {{Fair use in}} template a lot of admins will not delete the image if it is tagged with F3, F4, F11 or even F9 because the overall consensus has been as long as it is suggested the image is used under fair use it is untouchable by anything other than F6 or F7 (or F5 if it is unused). So the question I am asking is does this template need to deleted, or does it need to be re-worded? It seems pointless to have a template that essentially states an image does not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for use but it is ok to use it anyway. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The image would indeed not be an F3, nor an F4. No license is being improperly claimed. The template makes quite clear that there is no claim the image has been licensed to Wikipedia; rather a claim is being made that it should be considered acceptable as fair use.

Fair use does not require permission, so F11 is not relevant here. (Valid) fair use is not a copyright infringement, so F9 may not be appropriate here.

It is entirely possible that the image might be valid fair use, provided it satisfies each of the WP:NFCC criteria, and it has a credible rationale to explain why it is valid (in particular, why it satisfies NFCC #8). WP:NFCI gives some examples of images which satisfy WP:NFCC, but it is intended only to be some possible examples for guidance, not to be a complete closed list. So it is indeed possible for an image not to fall into one of these categories which have blanket acceptance, but still to satisfy all the NFC criteria, and therefore to be acceptable.

Ideally, when this is the case, such an image will be accompanied by a rather detailed rationale to explain why the image nevertheless satisfies the criteria.

Being marked as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" *and* being "copyright and unlicensed" establishes that the image has to be considered non free content; but it does not in itself establish that the image is unacceptable non-free content. (So they should not necessarily be deleted "on sight"). To establish that you have to look, rather closely, at the case being made as to why they should be considered acceptable.

Therefore appropriate taggings are F6, if there is no NFC rationale provided at all; or F7 if the claim that is being made is invalid.

Note that earlier images may have been uploaded before the present rules came in, so that it may be better for the encyclopedia to consider supplying or improving the rationale, rather than automatically reaching for CSD.

Finally the reason to have this tag at all is so that every image has a tag which categorises it. Images with this tag need particularly careful examination; the tag identifies these images, and usefully puts them into a category where they can easily be found. Jheald (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The first part of what you said is my exact point - What the template actually says is that the image being uploaded and licensed is "copyrighted and unlicensed" as well as the fact that it "does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories". That sets up the license and what you say it says: "a claim is being made that it should be considered acceptable as fair use." comes after the fact. That also lead to the statement that is oft used, to use your words, that Fair use does not require permission. That is not the real point though, imagine if we reworded all our fair use templates to read "This image is most likely being used without the original authors permission because fair use does not require any. Furthermore any claim of a copyright violation will be discarded because the fair use of this, or any, image taken from any location, without the copyright holders permission, is not a copyright violation." Even if what that says is true it should not be the prevailing attitude whenever somebody claims an image is a potential speedy candidate.

My point is, part of it anyway, is that the wording on this template contradicts itself based on the current policies we have - first it says the image does not meet criteria of Wikipedias acceptable non-free content and than goes on to say it is believed it qualifies as fair use. Unless I am mistaken "non-free content" can only be used on Wikipedia via "fair use" correct? And than only under very limited criteria, and it must meet all 10 of those criteria.

As I like to say at this point - forget about any FUR for a minute. Pretend it does not exist.

Now if you have freed your mind for a moment - I don't know where you are in the world so lets just say you are in mid-America. So here is a scenario: You find a cool image of a current artist you like that has an article on Wikipedia but no photo, so you upload a photo you found on the internet that is licensed as non-commercial, and have obtained no permission for it's use under a "free" license that is acceptable here. You look around when you upload the image but it is a bit overwhelming because you can't find the license that the website said it was, so you up it blank. The image is tagged on the spot as not having any license attached. You panic a bit so you take the suggestion of the template that the image was tagged with and use the {{Fair use in}} for a license, not because you feel it is fair use, or have even read the mountains of information on the subject here, but because it makes the most sense. Now somebody comes alone and views the image - excluding that {{Fair use in}} tag what do you have? First it would be a copyvio, second it would be lacking any evidence of permission and third it would be under an unacceptable license for use here. Or, in CSD terms - As the original was using a CC-NC license it would an F3 - "Improper license". Because it was uploaded without the CCL tag, and this template was stuck on it, it very well could meet F4 - "Lack of licensing information". At this point it has no OTRS or no sign that you attempted to get permission to use it under any sort of free license so it could also be F11 - "No evidence of permission", and we already know you obtained from another website so it meets F9 - "Unambiguous copyright infringement". I believe one can discuss which CSD should be used in this case, but if you have truly forgotten about any claim of fair use it is really not to much of a debate as far as *not* using some of them, if you follow what I am saying.

And I just want to point out that "one size does not fit all", and that is another part of my point with this tag - it is understandably generic but the wording does imply that anything this is used on is unlicensed and does not meet our non-free use criteria. That is why I look at as much as I can before making a decision, and place notes where needed.

Now you can bring back in the issue of the actual tag. The tag we are discussing here first spells out what the image "isn't" - and any one of those "this image isn't" scenarios is enough for deletion. But I understand that you read it different, but I firmly disagree than this tag actually implies "Because this is licensed for Wikipedia use only (or some variant), not licensed for free use and does not meet fair use criteria I am claiming it is fair use anyway". The fact is the *only* reason that any image with this tag alone is felt to be not deletable is because of the second part of the wording that says it is believed it qualifies as fair use. As images here are my main "thing", over the last several years I have had similar discussions about copyvios as well as use of press agency and stock photo images. The issues seems to come into play more when only this template is used, or when an editor sees a CSD tag, decides the uploader used the "wrong license", and "fixes" it to use this template. This is not about the concept or the attitude that there no such thing as a copyvio, or permission, when it comes to fair use, it is about the words used on a specific template. When I look at images I don't just read the template though, I look at the image, do research on it if need be, and look at the entire page - including talk pages that relate to it. I am familiar with our NFCC policy and other images policies and know that, in my scenario above, if I come across an image of a living person that states it is non-commercial (See Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted - May 19, 2005: "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight."), was taken from the internet, has no FUR, contains a template that states the image is copyright and unlicensed and does not meet any of our NFCC policies there is no doubt it could be speedied. The issue only becomes under what CSD because it meets a few of them at this point. Fair use may not require permission but we already accept than any image from a place like Getty is a blatant copyvio - somebody slapping a FUR on it should not change that. We already have a very direct, explicit, policy that says any image uploaded as non-commercial, for Wikipedia use only, or an offshoot of one of those should be deleted on sight - nowhere in that directive does it say the addition of a FUR exempts it.

And that comes back to the wording on this template. If it is meant to imply that the image is being claimed under fair use because the uploader does not know how else to license it, than lets reword it so it says that. We could say: "This images (Files) copyright is most likely held held by its creator (author) but the uploader is either unsure of its license or it falls under an unacceptable license for Wikipedia use, in addition this image may not meet all 10 of the criteria found at Wikipedias Non-free content policy. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article may be appropriate because..." And it could be re-worded sort of like the {{otrs pending}} tag where the "To the uploader:" is a new section stating "Note to Editors/admins:" can be placed, and to read: "If the image (file) contains a sufficient Fair use rationale please replace this template with {{A new template such as PermissionOTRS}}. Otherwise, remove the content." Possible options would be the addition of the May 19, 2005 directive, as in "if this image does not meet all 10 of Wikiepdias non-free content criteria and it was/is licensed under a non free license or one marked as 'non-commercial use', 'for Wikipedia use only', 'With permission only' it should be deleted immediately. (See (See Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted)"

It is important, I feel, to update these older templates (this was first created in 2004), although in this case maybe going back to the old wording might be better. In 2004 it was much more explicit in what it said - "This image is copyrighted. Its use in (article) is contended to be fair use under United States law." Even in 2005 (October 23, 2005) it was more direct in stating that even though the image was unlicensed and did not meet Wikipedias fair use guidelines the person who added this tag asserts that the use of this work in (Article) qualifies as fair use. That also seems to be the direct "decedent" of the current wording and has, for the most part, remained untouched. The formatting has changed and the addition of a little mini FUR on February 3, 2006 but there have been lots of discussions on deletion criteria and Fair use and the use of images from Getty, AP and such all the would relate to a template such as this. For example a few years ago there did not seem to be anything that specific said an image from AP could not be used under fair use. I was involved in a discussion that argued AP, and like, images fell under copyvios and failed our fair use criteria unless it was the image itself that was being discussed. There is now a specific mention in NFC - Unacceptable use - image that states A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. My point being that a this template reflects wording that was ok in, say, 2005 - but not so much currently. As I said in my first post any image that was uploaded and simply stated it was non-commerical would have to be deleted. If the uploader also stated that it was also unlicensed (For Wikipedia use) and did not meet any of our fair use criteria it would be deleted. Again - maybe not in 2005, but in 2010 yes. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be on a rant here, but it doesn't stand up. Whatever might have been said in the heat of discussion, the current policy is that images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" are to be considered non-free. As non-free images, they can be deleted if they do not conform with the NFC criteria, and we have an ordered system for doing so -- with timescales, and checks and balances. On the other hand, if they do conform with the NFC criteria they should be kept.

With regard to this template: it does not say that the images fail the NFCC criteria. What it says is that the image does not fall into one of the categories that have blanket acceptance under WP:NFCI -- i.e. some images are automatically acceptable, simply because of the type of image they are; other images do not fall into such blanket categories, but need to be considered more carefully, on a case-by-case basis. This template claims the image is one of the latter.

Finally, if you have specific NFCC #2 concerns about an image, there are deletion templates for that; or, better, nominate the image for WP:FFD, so others can assess whether they agree about your concerns. Jheald (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Lol! A "rant" - funny. No, I actually try to explain in more detail what I mean because too many times I see editors simple say something very generic and/or random. You, and others in the past, tend to ignore the parts that might establish what I am saying is valid. The template in question here needs to be updated to be more in line with other like templates that do reflect current discussions/consensus/license that are in use is what I am saying. And on the issue of slapping a FUR on an image making it immune from other CSD's mentioned above - I discovered this image the other day: File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg - Jimbo Wales himself, low and behold, CSD'd this image as a blatant copyvio - even though it had a FUR and was claimed as Fair-use. So what I am saying does hold up. (And a P.S - show me where in this directive there is any mention that images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" are to be considered non-free? And to be fair, as you said "current policy" can you direct me to the addendum to the linked policy? If it is true than other links and templates need to be fixed as currently they all seem to link to the, according to you, outdated one.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Things have moved on since May 2005. Specifically, in August 2005 the en-wiki fair use policy was comprehensively re-written to give the current WP:NFC framework, which was subsequently confirmed by Foundation resolution. Those are the fundamental texts of the non-free content policy today. If you think otherwise, take it up on the talk page at WT:NFC. In particular, what we have now, which we didn't in May 2005, are established criteria to assess whether non-free images will be kept or not -- including NFCC #8: the image must make a real contribution; NFCC #1: it must not be replaceable; and NFCC #2: it must not damage commercial opportunities. If an image passes all of the NFC criteria, it will be kept, whatever sweeping remark Jimbo may have made five years ago. But note specifically in what he writes that he includes the possibility of older images going though FFD to be assessed for fair use -- on which grounds they could be kept. The difference after May 2005 is that wiki-only permission was no longer enough in itself. From then on, such images would be allowable only on fair use grounds, not automatically. That's how Jimbo's remarks were interpreted, and it's the logical interpretation given what he said about how images already uploaded were to be treated.

If an image's fair-use rationale is so patently false that it clearly would not hold up, then it can be speedied; there are CSD templates for that, including "disputed rationale" and "blatant copyvio". But, in my view, it is best to use the template that is actually most specifically crafted for that purpose -- F7 "disputed rationale"; to follow process; and, preferably, to involve the community, either through WP:FFD or WP:NFCR -- because following procedure and keeping the temperature down helps to keep the community together, and everybody onside and thinking they have been treated fairly and with respect. Jheald (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The particular image in question was being discussed here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 28#Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg, it was not speedy deleted out of the blue. The main issue was that using it was believed to reduce it's value to the copyright holder, and also not strictly necessary for the article. Calling it a copyright violation may not strictly speaking be correct, but it was a matter of it not complying with the NFCC policy. To be fair Jimbo is not the best at following "the book" to the letter, he usually take actions he consider to be "the right thing" based on what he consider to be the spirit of the project rater than the current wording of any particular policy (and this was also a number of years ago now). The only thing that incident tells us is that we should be careful about using very current non-free news agency photos because it tends to violate NFCC criteria #2. --Sherool (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand it wasn't done out of the blue, but another editor also tagged it as a speedy for a copyvio as well before Jimbo did. Last year (or the year before - not sure right now) I was involved in a discussion about an AP image that was a copyvio. The discussion had it's share of "it is not a copyvio, it has a FUR!" arguments and that lead to discussions about the wording of the actual CSD criteria, which does not mention AP. While I understand that wording will not change the attitude of some that Wikipedia can take whatever it wants form anywhere and claim fair use it does seem that if only some editors and admins know that images from Getty, AP, etc can be speedied while others simply go off what a template says the wording needs to be changed or clarified. Yes we have a very "strict" policy in regards to how non-free images may be used but there are always discussions that arise from that and new templates/tags have arisen. I see no issues with that, for example we can have a freely licensed image and also use the {{trademark}} tag on it. So why couldn't there be a tag for, say, a news or photo agency that further explains it's use? Such as {{Non-free logo}}, {{Non-free promotional}} or {{Non-free Mozilla logo}}. In all honesty as there are non-free tags for almost everything now one of my first questions was "is there even a need for {{Fair use in}} anymore?" As I have already pointed out if an image does not meet the criteria than it should not uploaded as non free. Or, the wording needs to updated. I could say we don't have a tag for, say, "non-free living person". And there is a reason for that - that would fail our criteria, and if it is a publicity photo the {{Non-free promotional}} tag even states that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. In the scenario I laid out above if you removed the fur what would you have? Jheald did finally go as far as to say If an image's fair-use rationale is so patently false that it clearly would not hold up, then it can be speedied; there are CSD templates for that, including "disputed rationale" and "blatant copyvio". but I really feel that needs to be laid out better in regards to some of these templates and tags. A big "problem" is it needs to start somewhere and in the past somebody may be in favor of it but will point the discussion to another location and than it goes around. Bringing this back to this section and the image Jimbo deleted, I would have mentioned it in other discussions over the last few years because if nothing else it aids to show an image with a FUR can be tagged as a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the first practical thing, going forward, is to audit how in fact this template is being used. Images tagged with this template can be found in Category:Fair use in... images. Note that the first page only shows the first 200 images, but there are in fact many many pages, not just this first one.

One characteristic, and as far as I can see, reasonably appropriate way this tag is being used is for small identifying pictures of people now dead, that are not unique high-value shots being marketed by picture agencies, but are simply an unextraordinary run-of-the-mill photo of a deceased individual that is not replaceable by free content, being used to show what the person looked like. This seems an example of appropriate fair use.

In a quick look I also saw pictures of things - for example off-limits places, provided from the official website of the Singaporean Navy; as well as some odder examples, for example musical notes of a score where the music was copyright, even though the actual graphic had been re-created by a volunteer in a free drawing program.

There were other examples which were more questionable -- for example some images that would improve the understanding of historical events, even though the specific image itself was not the topic of the article, nor singled out in it as a unique image for comment. These may or may not be legitimate - at times I have heard different people I respect set out different lines on this as to what the position of WP and our downstream reusers would be for such images under U.S. law, including at least one U.S. copyright lawyer arguing strongly for their retention here. I have also seen the policy line flip backwards and forwards more than once. In my view this is a frontier-line case, that has never been well enough debated with sufficient expertise and a wide enough range of examples to really set things in stone; so I think it is something that needs to be looked at carefully, and not rushed. Ideally I think it would be useful to segregate such images into a temporary category, so we can gather together a large number of cases to consider; then ask WP legal counsel how they think the legal position stands, so what legal freedom we (and our reusers) have to move within; and then finally, having established that, to only then make an informed policy choice as to whether, if we (and our reusers) are legally allowed them, we actually want them; and/or how to draft appropriate guidance. What I have in mind is images where the individual image is not particularly singular in its own right - so not of any particularly high value or commercial exploitativity for the purpose of NFCC #2 - but nevertheless from an old newspaper and non-free. For example, there was an image showing the depth of the snow in the particularly hard winter of 1946 in U.K., shown by a train passing through deep snow drifts on the either side of the line. It was a good and striking image; but not iconic; indeed, if one looked at the newspapers and magazines of the period one could praobably find any number of such images showing the same thing. So probably we are not doing anybody any great commercial harm by using this image to improve our reader understanding, particularly if it was now just sitting in an archive of old forgotten newspapers, not being marketed by Getty or Corbis or similar. These I think are the kind of images that Soundvisions1 (talk · contribs) is most concerned about. They're also images that some other people think is some of the most valuable and legitimate fair use on WP. Is the image itself of historical importance; or is required that it must illustrate something that is of historical importance, if it is be acceptable under bullet 8 of the WP:NFCI acceptable images list? I think, so long as it's not a currently actively marketed press agency image, the current position is the latter. But it is something I would like to be able to reference an informed, authoritative, thorough discussion about, that had started from a survey of the use of current images on WP, and an authoritative clarification of our understanding of the U.S. legal position with respect to them from the WP foundation's legal people. I think SV1 does have a point, that it would be much more useful for such images to be segregated out into a category of their own, pending further consideration (and even post further consideration), rather than left in the rag-bag that is defined by the application of this template.

Finally there are a lot of images where there is already another more specific template being used in parallel with this one; or there is an obvious more specific template which should be applied. SV1 has a point there as well, that it is not useful for such cases to clutter up the Category:Fair use in... images, and in those cases this template is redundant, and it would be useful for it to be de-applied. Jheald (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

It will take me a while to go through and do this, I have been working on the pd-self images which are a handful. I definitely agree though that all image using this template need to be gone through. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 20#Template:ScreenshotU

Thoughts are welcome at the above discussion. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I propose a few changes to the wording of the instructions. In the section that begins "A well-written rationale [....] should state:

• "What purpose does the image serve in the article?" -> should changed to:
• "Why this image is of vital importance to the article".

reason: we need to remind users that it's not enough to describe any odd function, but that their rationale will only work if they show this function is crucial.

• "Does it illustrate the topic of the article?" -> should be removed or changed to:
• "Is it necessary to understand the topic of the article?" or something similar.

reason: old wording is vacuous. All images are used to illustrate the topic of the article, otherwise nobody would want to be using them.

• "Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?" -> should be changed to:
• "Is it necessary to support a point of sourced commentary in the text? Which point and how?"

reason: an image cannot "comment" on anything. Only text can "comment". Images can only support comment, if and where such comment exists in the article.

• A new point should be added:
• "Is the image itself the object of sourced discussion in the article, and necessary to understand that discussion? How?"

reason: this is in fact the classic, prime case of legitimate fair use.

• "To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image? " -> should be changed to:
• "Why is the image not replaceable with a free content image, or with a textual description?"

reason: the wording "to what degree" implies that a rationale could also be valid if the answer is "yes", or "to a high degree". Users must be reminded from the start that the only valid answer here is "not at all", and they should be made aware of the fact that replacement with text also needs to be considered and refuted.

Fut.Perf. ? 12:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. The requirement is set out at NFCC #8: The image must significantly add to reader understanding.

That does not mean that the image is of "vital importance" to the article. Nor does it necessarily require that the image is "necessary to suppport a point of sourced commentary in the text". Nor does it necessarily require that the image is "necessary to understand sourced discussion, of which the image is the object".

For more on this, see eg the recent RFC at Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC.

The guideline on this page needs to follow the interpretation set at WT:NFC. This talkpage, and edits to this guideline, are not an appropriate place to try to re-write interpretation of that policy, out of sight of that page.

To reiterate: the requirement is that the image must significantly add to reader understanding of the topic of the article. The rationale must indicate in what way it is asserted the image achieves this. Jheald (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I only now notice, with half a year's delay, that this change was met with an unconstructive blanket revert. This behaviour is disturbing. Just because you disagree with one detail of wording in my proposed change, you have no right to ignore the arguments about all the rest, which still stand undisputed.

I reiterate that the gist of the above proposal is still valid: It is is not enough to instruct uploaders to describe what function the image has, or to what extent it is replaceable. They must be clearly reminded that they need to demonstrate that the function reaches a certain minimum quality. I am quite open to discuss the precise wording of how we can best describe this elusive minimum level of functionality that it must reach, in keeping with NFCC#8; in my view, "vital for the article" or "crucial for understanding the article" is in fact a pretty good plain English equivalent of what NFCC#8 says, but I'm quite open to alternatives. The rest of my points stand. The wording of "used for commentary" is nonsensical and needs to be changed in some way, because an image simply cannot "comment" on anything (only text can comment on something); an image can only support commentary (or do something else entirely). I didn't mean to imply that "supporting sourced commentary" is the only legitimate thing an image can do. The old question about being "used for commentar" didn't imply any such exclusivity either. But unlike the impossible and nonsensical "be used for commentary", "support sourced commentary" is at least something that will be applicable in some cases. - The other suggested addition, about being "itself the object of sourced discussion", also didn't imply necessity, but was simply meant to offer an example of another prototypical class of legitimate uses. - On the other hand, the change in the wording regarding replaceability is absolutely necessary, because here we do have necessity. An open question like the one given here ("to what degree...?") is simply counterproductive. Uploaders must be told why only one answer can be the correct answer here ("not replaceable at all"), and that they have to demonstrate why this is so. I very often see uploaders who quite innocently fill in the rationale template with "replaceable=yes" (which, in a way, is touching in its honesty, but still, shows they didn't get the point.)

I'm not sure I'll reinstate the whole set of changes at this point; I'm coming to think the whole page should actually be rewritten in a much more radical form anyway. Fut.Perf. ? 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree more or less with Jheald. This is a very important guideline that applies to hundreds of thousands of pages, so any significant changes ought to be justified and gain consensus one at a time. The proposed changes go beyond the scope of this guideline and amount to a tightening of the policy on non-free material, something that is not currently in the policy nor is mandated by the Foundation resolution from which the policy derives. Specifically, there is nothing in policy requiring non-free material be of "vital" improtance, that it be "necessary" to an understanding of the subject or to support material in the article prose, or "necessary" to understand a discussion of the image itself, or that it be not replaceable "...at all". The current text of the guideline is the product of many weeks of work by dozens of editors balancing the sometimes contradictory goals of a quality encyclopedia versus a free one. It is not something to change lightly, and if any change would go beyond the requirements of the underlying policy the place to make that change is on the policy page, not the guideline page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am not trying to tighten the requirements; I am trying to find a way to teach people more effectively to tell us the important things about their image. Can you please respond to the issues I raised: (1) It is counter-productive to tell people merely to explain "to what degree" it meets our requirements; we must teach them they need to demonstrate that it meets our requirements. (2) Neither the old wording about "illustration" or "commentary" nor my proposed new alternatives to them are meant to describe necessary conditions; both are meant to point uploaders in the direction of typical rationale arguments that might work in certain cases. (However, we also need to separate out such suggestive questions from the core necessary questions, to avoid just this misunderstanding. That goes for both versions.) (3) If you wish to keep the wording about being "used for commentary", can somebody please please finally explain to me what the heck that is even supposed to mean? It's strictly meaningless. An image cannot comment. (4) About the replaceability wording, yes, "not replaceable at all" is the policy. Fut.Perf. ? 06:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your last proposed change seems fair enough: the policy requires that two questions are asked; the current guideline reflects only the first. Uniplex (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following (which quotes the missing policy question more directly): "To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image" becomes "Why can't the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using a free content image?" Uniplex (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There is a discussion underway at Non-free content review - File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg - new NFCC discussion that regular participants of this page might be interested in. This is a courtesy notice. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD F7 and this guideline

A discussion is underway here which relates in part to the wording of the "Speedy Deletion" section of this guideline.

Thparkth (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

This guideline currently says:

However, the speedy deletion policy on which this is based states that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." So established policy has a "most-obvious cases only" principle that the wording of this guideline currently ignores.

While many cases of failure to meet WP:NFCC will indeed be obvious, others will require judgement calls, may be the subject of good-faith disagreement, or may not be consistently decided the same way by different administrators. Speedy deletion is inappropriate in all such cases - not because it is "speedy" (which it isn't particularly in this case anyway) but because it bypasses the normal process of community consensus-building and substitutes the judgement of one administrator instead. I should note that this isn't some radical new policy theory I just made up; this is a very orthodox statement about speedy deletion policy which has the weight of years of consensus behind it :)

Given all that, I think it would be worth slightly tweaking the wording of this guideline to remind administrators and others of the "obviousness" requirement for speedy deletion. I don't think it's worth getting too far into the details of what is and isn't obvious; I think that can generally be left to administrator discretion.

So I propose changing

"Fair use images that fail any part of WP:NFCC may be tagged as {{subst:dfu|reason}} and deleted after 7 days."

to

"Fair use images that obviously fail any part of WP:NFCC may be tagged as {{subst:dfu|reason}}and deleted after 7 days."

This is a fairly minimal change and seems like a sensible accommodation for this important principle of speedy deletion policy.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that non-obvious cases shouldn't be deleted at all - just that the speedy deletion process shouldn't be used to accomplish it. Questions of judgement and interpretation are handled much better by the discussion process at WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. Thparkth (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like nobody much cares about this change, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make it. Thparkth (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Low resolution

What is the motivation for the low resolution clause? It's ridiculous.

Also, what was considered low resolution five years ago is now considered too poor quality to view. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of images, limiting their resolution to only that which is necessary for the context of the article is a necessary part of rationalizing fair use. For logos, that typically means not keeping an image any larger than an infobox or floating thumbnail would provide. For photos, that means not keeping an image any larger than necessary to serve whatever purpose laid out in its articles' fair use rationale(s). Remember, Wikipedia is not a media repository. Free media without specific article context belong only in Commons. Non-free media without specific article context are illegal. In all fairness, this should be clearer than it is. Hope this helps. --LinkTiger (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Expand the guideline

Could we perhaps expand this to clearly and specifically address all 10 criteria at WP:NFCC#Policy? I would appreciate that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the copyright questions page. If you mean that we should add the instruction that uploaders must explicitly address each of the 10 criteria in their rationales, I'd be opposed. This would be counter-productive, as it would push people even further into the fallacy of thinking fair use rationales are just mindless pieces of trivial paperwork. We want people to get their minds off the trivial formalities and focus on those parts of the rationale that really need individual, non-trivial thought. There are things that typically don't need to be stated in a rationale. Of course, an image needs to be used only in articles, have a description page etc., but if it does these things, it's utterly trivial to recognize the fact; there's no need to state the obvious. What is usually not trivial is purpose/significance, replaceability, and in some cases commercial opportunities and minimality. That's what we need to tell people to address. Fut.Perf. ? 06:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Fut.Perf. In fact, when I'm doing NFCC checks, the primary thing I focus on is the purpose of use expressed in the rationale. Sooooo many people treat that as just mindless paperwork, but it's the critical piece in most non-album cover, non-book cover non-free use rationales. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:NFCC#Enforcement clearly says

"it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created"

I am currently working through a list of non-free files violating 10c. So what exactly am I supposed to do? What I currently do is, I remove the file from the article and leave the person adding the file a detailed talkpage notice (see User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFC Notification template). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And I agree that is in fact a very valid thing to do. Yes, rationales must meet criterion 10c, insofar as they must be "presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use". What we of course don't need - and I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by "expanding" above - would be a requirement that a rationale must not only meet this criterion but also (recursively, as it were) describe that it meets it along with the others. Just to clarify, by "address all 10 criteria", did you mean that this guideline should be restructured to address the criteria in turn, or that rationales should be required to address them? Fut.Perf. ? 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• What I typically do is remove it, using a detailed edit summary (example), and if someone restores the image without providing a rationale, I place my own version of your template on their talk page (see User:Hammersoft/10c). So, what you're doing is great. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• If the intent is that we want rationales to have effectively 10 bullet points to say how each of the NFCC is met, this is excessive and we'd get into endless arguments about what is needed, or if missing one is sufficient cause to tag for deletion, etc. The absolutely minimum requirements is 10c (name of the article it is used in), and some statements towards 8 about why the image is being used. It would be nice if the uploaded addressed all the other points, but some of them are trivially satisfied (a 300x200 screenshot, for example, is clearly low resolution; a album cover from a recent work is clearly not going to have a free alternative, etc.) I'd rather have uploaders focus energy on a strong rationale than to weakly fill out excessive points and ignore the rationale side. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very glad to see this pragmatic approach, focusing on the core of the rationale rather than the peripheral formalities. As Masem said, it's going to be obvious whether some of the criteria are satisfied, and I'd go further to say that it would simply be disruptive and even WP:POINTy to remove, for example, a low res image for the uploader's failure to state in a NFUR that "the image is low resolution." So I hope no one is dong that sort of thing. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template instructions

Could someone more experienced than me add instructions to the Template section on how to use this template? My guess is that one highlights and copies the template to the clipboard, then clicks "edit" next to the "Summary" or "Licensing" section in the "File" page for the image or other media, pastes from the clipboard, then enters text after each equals sign. Presumably a major audience for this guideline is novice users. For many of us, this may the first time we've used a template. Or perhaps there's an instruction elsewhere on using templates, which can be linked. The fact that the File:help page does not even mention the "Licensing" section is a further barrier. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Covers of books and CDs

Seeking guidance. Can one put an image of the cover of a book in the author's article (with a FUR)? And of a CD in the musician's article?

[Assuming that the text does not discuss the cover itself (which I understand is an exception}.]

And if one cannot do so generally, can we do so if the book or CD does not have a separate article, but is mentioned only in the author's/musician's article? This question stems from discussion here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Software screenshot rationale}} nominated for deletion.

Just wanted to give you a heads up that {{Software screenshot rationale}} has been nominated for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ?? 18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Doubt on use of Rationale image in other articles

I have a doubt on any rationale provided image. Example i would like to use is 'File:Amol Palekar with Zarina Wahab, Master Raju, Vijayendra Ghatge, singing Aaj Se Pele, in Chitchor, 1976.jpg. This screenshot image has a Non-free rationale from 2008 and is used in the article for 1976's Bollywood film Chitchor, of whose it is a screenshot. The guidelines do not allow a non-free rationale for images of Living people to be used in the infobox of these people. But can we use this image in the article about that person? I intend to use it for the BLP article of Vijayendra Ghatge whose Free picture is not available for use. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If I want

If I want to upload a logo of an organization How can I upload it.. I will have to upload it to wikipedia or wikimedia commons. Can someone briefly discuss about it.... -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizaz Ur Rahman (talk o contribs) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WHAT TO DO ?

I have been given permission through e-mail from THE PHOTOGRAPHER & AUTHOR himself to use two photos related to articles Sonny Johansson and Landskrona BoIS. The permission was given directly to me through e-mail, and the photos came from the Archivist that also recieved the permission. All the photographer BERTIL PERSSON, he is born in 1935, and he only asks of me to print his name on the photo. And so I have done. "Donated for use at Wikipedia by BERTIL PERSSON" may clearly be seen in full view. Photo isn't for any other use. I cannot possibly ask of him to make an upload them here. I goes above MY HEAD aswell. Please tell me what to do and where. Authors e-mail is in the Summary, by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll want to follow the instructions over at WP:CONSENT for how to submit work that others have donated (namely, we'll need them to send email to a specfic address to affirm their allowance for use. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Template:Non-free use rationale 2

Could a mention of Template:Non-free use rationale 2 and the fact that it is sufficient to meet the NFCC be added to this article? That template is what the File Upload Wizard adds to many fair use files uploaded to Wikipedia (at least most, if not all, the ones I've uploaded). This created confusion with a recent file that was uploaded with fair use rationale included in the NFUR2 template. The file was quickly nominated for speedy deletion (diff) despite having clear and detailed information in the NFUR2 template. A couple other editors then claimed that the article must have the NFUR template for each article, which was the reason for the speedy deletion claim, despite the fact that the NFUR2 template has a parameter for "Use in article" with the correct article wikilinked. The image now has both templates, which isn't appropriate/necessary. The main difference between the templates that I think could create this confusion is that the NFUR template includes the article name in the header, but NFUR2 doesn't. Refer to: image in question, brief contested deletion discussion on image talk page, extended discussion on article's talk page (it will likely be archived soon, then search for "Infobox photo choice" discussion). AHeneen (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there was some other issues on that image, but I definitely don't see why the second NFC template was added to the page, since the one you had was sufficient. I have added the ref to NFUR2 as well as the note that templates are not required to meet NFC. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Gold Records images

I am writing a wiki page about a mastering engineer and with his permission, have taken several pictures of Gold and Platinum Records that have been awarded to them by the record labels in hopes to use them in the article. It has their name on the award so it needs to be large enough to be able to see it. I see that album covers are allowed (which is on the award as well) so am trying to figure out where and how I can upload the images to be used in my article correctly. They will go next to the list of credits to illustrate the sales of the records. I would really appreciate the help in doing this properly as it's really confusing to me. Thank you so much! Dmileson (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:In the Land of Grey and Pink.ogg

Is this upload acceptable/ legal? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

It is a 29-seconds sample, so yes, as far as fair use law concerns, it is legal.

But it does not meet the more stringent requirements of Wikipedia. Four fields in the file description page, i.e. "Purpose of use in article", "Not replaceable with free media because", "Not replaceable with textual coverage because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities", are not properly filled in.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've tried to correct it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why Rationalize?

Hello, I have a question: why rationalize fair use? Any use on Wikipedia is fair by default as per a universal presumption of innocence--whatever it may be, it is used fairly unless proven otherwise. As such, Wikipedia and its editors are not in the slightest obliged to give anyone any explanations or rationale whatsoever. Clearly the rationales serve no purpose other than wasting digital space and helping potential challengers find words of accusation easier by obtaining apriori knowledge of Wikipedia?s fair use argumentation--helping enemies. The rationales are optional at best--unnecessary complications--so I?m asking you: when did you all forget how to apply Occam?s Razor? Resources shouldn?t be wasted on awkward apologies. 95.220.226.75 (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects work on a free content mission, with an allowance for exceptional uses of non-free material to help comprehension. As such, our requirements for non-free images are purposely more stringent than US Fair Use law to assure we are working towards free content and minimize use of non-free content. To comply with the Foundation's non-free exception doctrine policy we need to include rationales to explain why the images are being used. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a difference between a "non-free" and "fair-use" rationale? I recently posted a few images to a character-list and they were reverted. The claim was the images were there to simply "decorate" the page. I find this to mean that this is a disagreement on the image so I wonder if I the image need a different rationale. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as I admire the sentiment behind the Foundation's mission to support free content, it is extremely naive to suppose that using as much free content as possible will be adequate to make knowledge available to the reader (the intent of the project) in the best way possible. Intentionally imposing harsher restrictions that what are required under law to discourage the use of non-free content only serves to further empower the institutions that use intellectual property law to stifle the freedoms of others. Many articles are about non-free content and require its use to adequately explain the topic; requiring the non-free content used to be of arbitrarily low quality and thus less useful to explain the topic sacrifices the purpose of Wikipedia in favor of a spiteful dig at non-free content. The bottom line is this: as much as I like Big Buck Bunny, it's not Citizen Kane or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The cause of free content must ultimately wait until the conditions that handicap it are no longer present, a requirement which ultimately entails a fundamental shift in the path of human civilization, culture, and economics that is still a distant glimmer on the horizon of time. -- Benjwgarner (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our NFC policy recognizes that some topics are impossible to provide sufficiently summarized knowledge about using only free media, and thus we do allow non-free (that's even part of the WMF Resolution). We just act to be more strict than fair use to assure that people try to seek out free media first before resorting to the usually easier-to-obtain non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Magazine cover in an article that isn't the magazine

Hi. I just finished my draft of Ricky Williams trade, an article discussing a major NFL trade from 1999. There was a famous photo used as the cover of ESPN the Magazine (see here) which received lots of coverage that I want to include in the article under fair use rationale. When I went to upload it, I saw that the upload form says that magazine covers can only be used on the wiki page of the magazine. That's not the case for DVDs, newspapers, books, etc. WP:NFC#UUI #9, as I read it, suggests this usage is okay because "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary". So is it okay to use or will it be tagged for deletion if I upload it? - Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The cases listed in UUI aren't meant to be all encompassing but specific examples, so while #9 doesn't list DVD covers, the same reasoning we don't allow magazine covers would apply to DVD covers too. As to your specific image, you might need a bit more text, since envisioning the two dressed in wedding outfits isn't a stretch - for example, why was the marriage angle played up? It's not that you can't use it but you'll want more of a point as to the media's response of the trade and why they considered it a marriage. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. I think I will upload it, and expand the text a bit to discuss why. - Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To add a little bit to what Masem has written, if I remember correctly, the type of case that in particular prompted this clause to be added were cover images from Time (often quite striking editorial cartoons), to illustrate that the subject had been declared Time person of the year -- so for example this striking image of Willi Brandt, Time's man of the year in 1971. (Despite a former editor of Time saying that they regarded such covers as essentially promotional for the magazine, and would have little objection to reuse in a "fair use" context).

So it's not necessarily enough (for policy here) just that the image is striking. But I think you can probably make a case that whereas there were many images of Willi Brandt over the course of his career (and so the Time cover, striking as it is, doesn't necessarily add much to the overall perception of how Willi Brandt was seen or portrayed), in contrast this image did become particularly associated with the trade, and enough was written about it that it did become a significant part of the whole story, so that an article on the trade would be incomplete if it did not present it. That's the kind of test that I think you have to have in mind, for an image like this. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and as another example that is clearly okay (and why you can justify this ESPN cover with just a bit more "omph" to the article text) would be the Caitlyn Jenner cover from Vanity Fair (and arguably the Wheaties box cover), which drew a lot of attention to an otherwise still-living, still-publicly scene person. Basically, for cover art of any type of work in an article that is not about that work, we do expect that the cover gained notice by secondary/third-party sources RS, more than just a passing mention. It's a fair balance between where there is a free alternative and when the cover is providing significant understanding to the article beyond just happened to illustrate the same topic. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

low resolution

@Masem: This guideline doesn't specify to what degree an image is degraded in order to be considered "low resolution." I'm looking at two images for a GA review (this and this) and WP:GACR requires I verify the fair use of these. How can I check something like this other than just looking at them? (From all appearances the originals and the versions here look the same to me.) Chris Troutman (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Low resolution for things like movie posters and shots of characters from a screenshot generally means under 0.1 megapixels, as a rough guide. The aspect is more is that considering what the fullest high resolution version of those images could be, have they been appropriately reduced, and I think they have been. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Diligence for replaceability

Is it adequate to say that an image is not replaceable by free use options when we don't require (or even advise) editors to contact the copyright holder for a free use version? For example, it's easy for me to throw up a low-res, fair use painting or screenshot and say that no free use equivalent exists (and this is true) but doesn't it go against the spirit of the NFCC, which is to first pursue free use when none appears to exist? I've contacted many copyright holders over the years and found that at least half both respond and have offered free use alternatives to our mutual benefit. czar 21:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reask this at WT:NFC since it is about NFC#1, but my stance is: we cannot anticipate behavior of non-WP parties, so while we strongly encourage contacting copyright holders to release for free, this is not an assurance that we can say creates a possibility for a free image to be available under NFCC#1. That said, there is common sense involved too. If a third-party copyright holder has granted free imagery of older works in the past, then there is a reasonable expectation to approach them again for free imagery of a newer work before resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fair Use

Ma'am, thank you for moving this discussion to a central location. Have a really productive week :) Infinitepeace (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia