Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

Archives

Cover and packaging of home media

Hello, a new "Home media" section was recently added at MOS:FILM and included the following the line: Include an image of the medium's display case only if it is accompanied by critical commentary. This was intended to ensure that covers were not added to film articles for solely decorative purposes, like with this example (since removed). Considering that WP:NFC#Images says this about cover art, Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary), I sought to add "about the cover itself" to the MOS:FILM sentence to iron out a possible loophole. This has caused some discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Critical case commentary, and I wanted to verify from editors here that it is appropriate to have such covers when there is critical commentary about it (like at Fight Club) and not appropriate to have such covers if all you're doing is talking about what features a DVD may have. In addition, I'm working on a draft regarding non-free images so there can be an outline to implement them in film articles (also at WT:MOSFILM), so if there are any interested parties, feel free to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One cover image in the infobox should be fine even if there is no text about the cover itself. Cover images for each DVD release is not ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no free quota for images, and things like "one per article" are not acceptable policies. An image should be included only in the presence of direct commentary on and analysis of the image.
Kww (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is something I don't get, though... articles about companies use their logos as identifiers without any direct commentary, same with book articles and their covers, same with film articles and their posters, same with fictional characters and their in-universe appearances, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because cleaning the abuses out is a long, slow process that will never be complete so long as there are abusers. All it takes is a little bit of care, attention to the concept that we are building an encyclopedia, and taking the time to actually discuss and educate.
Kww (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Abuses" is a little extreme. Beyond the so-called identifying images we see in infoboxes, I agree that there could be better compliance. It's a process that I'm actually trying to undertake at WP:FILM, but I cannot realistically envision the purge of all the cover-esque images that are at the forefront of all these articles. That's just me, though. :) Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The wording "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" was specifically added to make clear that what is required, per the interpretation of WP policy, is "critical commentary" of the item (album, film, etc) that the cover art relates to. It does not necessarily need critical commentary of the cover art itself.

So Kww's take above is not correct on this point; as can be checked by looking in the revision history of the WP:NFC when those words were added, and the discussion on this talk page at that time. For the purposes of WP:NFC, presenting the reader with the primary visual identifier associated the work is considered, of itself, to be something that makes a significant addition to the reader's understanding of the work, so something considered justifiable - if critical commentary on the work is clearly a significant purpose of the article. Note also that "critical commentary" is a term of art from U.S. law, and refers to any serious discussion, not just artistic criticism. Jheald (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a correction here: "critical commentary" is NOT a term that is used in U.S. law. Both "criticism" and "commentary" are, individually, terms that are defined within U.S. law, but "critical commentary" is basically an invention of this guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It derives from the foundation resolution point 3 - the part about how nonfree images may "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you indented this so as to reply to me because you are expressing some kind of disagreement, but I don't object to the "critical commentary" language except in that it could and should probably just say "commentary," which would synch it up with the law and simplify the language. It should probably also be defined in the text, by the way, but I think that asking for a definition would just expose the fact that there really is not a consensus about what we actually mean. In the law, though, "commentary" does not mean that the specific fair use material must be the subject of commentary. It could merely be present within some work of commentary to qualify as fair use. Croctotheface (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We can use a company logo in the infobox when we discuss the company, even if the text does not discus the logo itself. Same goes for game screenshots, many album covers, etc. I know some people disagree, but you are a minority. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Each use must still meet NFCC#8 - if the use in a particular article doesn't "significantly enhance" the reader's understanding, the image isn't permitted. In most cases, a cover image of a DVD or album does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the DVD or album. 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)— Carl (CBM · talk)

Just to be clear, you are articulating your own opinion here and not the consensus opinion, correct? My understanding of the current consensus is that it holds that cover art DOES significantly increase the reader's understanding of articles on DVDs or albums. Croctotheface (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've proposed a re-wording to be a little more open-ended. It points to WP:NFCC, especially significance under #8, and I've suggested details about such cover art as a good way to indicate that significance. Thoughts on the specific wording would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "non-free content"?

You know, I have a master's degree in journalism, and I taught for many years on the university level. I was a department chair. Tenured. And I have no idea what "non-free content" means. Does this mean material that you have to pay for? In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purpose, non-free content is materials that have copyright restrictions on them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More specific, "non-free content" is referring to images, text, and other content that can't be distributed with the contents of Wikipedia under the full terms of the GNU Free Document License. Where this breaks down is with "fair-use" images and content, where some countries and jurisdictions allow this sort of use in limited situations and others don't. Even trying to define a "safe" definition of fair-use to permit certain kinds of images can be problematic and often results in flame wars like can be seen in the archives of this discussion page.

This is also an outgrowth of the discussions related to the GNU General Public License and the philosophical concepts addressed by Richard Stallman in regards to "content freedom" that has less to do with the actual fiscal cost of obtaining the content but rather the "freedom" to be able to modify and update things like an encyclopedia without requiring "permission" from some potentially draconian authority protected by a government.

The GFDL allows for modification of (usually) textual content, but defines how that could be modified and insists upon attribution. Most of what is found in academia is usually "non-free", as you don't have permission to reproduce the content, and certainly can't update something like a physics textbook to account for advances in science. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are other free licenses than GFDL. Free content. Basically, free content is content that may be changed and redistributed freely for any purpose. If not, then it's non-free. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To sum up, we are talking about freely distributable content? Why use this jargon. Why not just say not copyrighted content. Or is there a distinction I am missing? Still a bit puzzled by it all, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of it is copyrighted. Most of the stuff I've uploaded to Wikipedia I own the copyright to, but I've licensed under various free licences. The GFDL has the advantage that downstream reuse and modification also has the GFDL'd, so any new content created from it enters the "freely licenced" sphere, whereas if I release an image into the public domain, you can modify it and copyright it, and then use your copyright to prevent anyone else from reusing it (excluding fair use and fair dealings cases). WilyD 04:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one last point, because my original whine seems to have been answered: Is there one place where the definition for Free content vs. Non-free content is given succinctly enough for anybody to understand it? Specifically, why not a definition that says "Free content is that which is freely available for re-use," or something like that. Hoping to be helpful, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Licensing makes reasonably clear what free content is, and what licences qualify as "free content", though not really explicitly in contrast to unfree content. I'm not sure there's a page around here. WilyD 11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This web page provides a very clear definition for the difference between "free content" and "non-free content", although I'd be honest that it reads more like legal definitions than something for a mere mortal to understand clearly. This "Freedom Defined" page is referenced on the "content side" of this page, although it isn't exactly something to stand out. GNU dot org, on the main page under "What is Free Software?" gives a much more simplistic definition oriented more toward computer software rather than textual content, but it is some place to look at for a more succinct and general philosophical statement about free content. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason this guideline should not begin with a clear definition of "non-free content." Croctotheface (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in biographies of deceased people?

How acceptable is it to use non-free images in biographies of deceased people? -Malkinann (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's acceptable for depiction purposes alone if (and ONLY if) no free images exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is too strong, let's say it meets NFCC#1 if no free images are known to exist. In that case, it's very likely to meet NFCC#8 as well. It still needs to meet #2, #4 etc. which isn't necessarily the case. WilyD 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's right on target. If free images exist, then for depiction purposes we would never allow a non-free image for that purpose. If the image is somehow historically significant as reported in secondary sources, then we would allow a non-free image (assuming all other criteria had been met) but that wouldn't be for depiction purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• In cases, for instance, where it rams right a demonstrated commercial use by the copyright holder, it'd probably fail an IfD. Or if its never been published (harder to imagine, but not impossible). WilyD 21:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no images of the person on Commons or Flickr after the person's death, is it safe to assume that there are no free images of that person? I imagine it would be very offensive to write to a person's family, saying "I'm sorry for your loss, but could you please release an image of your loved one under an appropriately free license so that we can show people what they looked like on their Wikipedia article?" How hard do we have to look for free images of a person who is deceased? -Malkinann (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A good faith internet search is probably fine, regardless of how little or hard you look, if anyone finds a free one, the nonfree one is gone. WilyD 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A search of the library of congress's images is also a fair prerequisite. By the way, I think we should make a non-free image tag for these, because so many of the images tagged with {{nonfree fair use in}} are really just this. If we had a tag for this, it could spell out the places where you were expected to look, and a fair-use-rationale template to go along with it could include a field to write where you searched. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public domain image resources exists, which gives good places for honest searches. WilyD 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That serves a different purpose, though. Without a dedicated tag, people don't know they should be searching, and it makes it difficult to monitor how many of these images there are, and whether the uploader has in fact searched for a free image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering that on WP, we will be dealing with famous people, it might be that their personal effects and legacy are managed by an estate. Such an estate may be willing to release an appropriate promotional image for display on Wikipedia, (assuming the article on that person wasn't rubbish) but would be unwilling to release it under a free content license. -Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The way policy is written (and practice, so far as I see) is that things are replaceable if there's a free alternative, or if a free alternative could be created. Badgering estates (which in most cases are probably near impossible to locate anyways) doesn't fall into that. WilyD 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really accurate. Have we ever tried this? Working with people's publicists during life has generated many free images; an estate might be willing to help out for the same reasons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Every copyrighted image where the owner is contactable would be identical to this, but say, we could actually ask FOX to release Simpsons images (and they'd tell us to die in a fire), but I doubt I could figure out who or what runs the estate of Mike Pearson, say (it's probably dissolved, and whoever owns his old copyrights in all likelihood doesn't realise it). WilyD 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It would still, however, come down to decorative vs. necessary use. Does what the person looked like substantially contribute to the article? Do the sources comment significantly on the person's appearance? We don't need an image in every article, if the person's actions as opposed to looks are the main subject of the article, zero images suffice. If the person was a model or the like, then perhaps we can make a case that a nonfree image is genuinely necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather hardline stance - I would put that knowing what a person looks like would substantially contribute to a reader's understanding of the article because readers might know a face, but not remember a name (with actors, for example) - so they'd follow a link to an article and then be able to say 'I know that face, they were in such-and-such!' -Malkinann (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a hardline stance. It should be, this is a free content project, so the default should always be the assumption that nonfree content is disallowed, and a strong case that an exception is warranted in a given situation should be required. In a case like Kim Phuc, such a case can be made. In an article about a deceased Nobel Prize winner, on the other hand, is what they looked like important to the article? If not, why should we have nonfree content in it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What deceased person looked like is important to their article because it assists identification, helping the reader to know that they ended up at the right John Smith. This is a weaker fair use rationale than somehow getting critical commentary on a person's appearance (!), but it is still a valid fair use rationale, especially under the circumstance where there may not be a free image of the person available. It is also possible to choose a fair use image to illustrate a particular stage of a person's life (or an important event in their lives), with the proviso that the article should discuss the event or general life stage (e.g. being at the height of their game in a particular field, or the award ceremony for their Nobel Prize). -Malkinann (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question related to this, so I'll post it here rather than start a new thread. There is a family who was once prominent and ran an organization. Then the family had an internal feud that has never been reconciled (decades later) and one of the family members is dead. Would a photograph of the family together be fair use? It is impossible to recreate due to the split and the death, and it depicts an important period in the family's history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That might fall under the "Crash Test Dummies" rationale? -Malkinann (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Covering non-free images in WikiProject Films's style guidelines

Hello, I have been working on revising MOS:FILM section by section, and my most recent task is to clarify how to use non-free images for film articles Currently, MOS:FILM does not address images in the article body, devoting most of its explanation to the typical poster image in {{Infobox Film}}. With the help of other editors, I've put together a draft for a new "Non-free images" component at MOS:FILM that imports the most relevant WP:NFC requirements and explains how to meet them for film articles. WikiProject Films has traditionally been more lenient with non-free images than it should be, and I've been actively suggesting better implementation on an individual basis for the past year. This added component will be a major push forward, so I hope that editors familiar with WP:NFC can review the current draft here and provide feedback in the comments subsection below. I look forward to any constructive criticism that may be had. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are non-free images in BLPs ever acceptable?

I'm thinking specifically of the John Koethe article. I've spent the better part of my time on the project today working on this article, and searching for a free image or two which could be used on the article. I scoured Flickr, but there was nothing to be found. I looked through Google, Yahoo!, and Ask images, but I'm unsure how to tell if a given image found there is "free" or not. NFCC #1 seems to come very close to prohibiting non-free images from ever being used in an article, without going all the way there. Any help that could be offered here would be greatly appreciated. S. Dean Jameson 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of this article, no. For some articles, there are chances to use a non-free image, but they must be for specific reasons, such as showing an athlete winning an event, like the Tour de France. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For identification purposes, known recluses like J. D. Salinger and Jack T. Chick can have a non-free image. Otherwise it's as Zscout370 says: The non-free image may be included if it's central to the article. Billy Ripken's baseball card comes to mind, and Malcolm X's famous LIFE magazine photo is also acceptable. howcheng {chat} 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why not for this particular article? Is it simply because there's a chance (however remote) that someone, somewhere could possibly take a picture of him and make it free content? What's the deal on this particular guy? S. Dean Jameson 06:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have it correct. Any non-free image of him (for identification purposes) could realistically replaced by a free alternative, and therefore a non-free of him may not be used (the gist of WP:NFCC #1). howcheng {chat} 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• His article says he's a Prof at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Maybe someone listed in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee will be able to help? -- Ned Scott 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Of those users, User:Kevin82485 seems to be the only one active and indicates he's still going to the school. I wonder if Kevin has a camera... -- Ned Scott 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  I just checked his contribs, and he hasn't edited since 19 June. S. Dean Jameson 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Summer break, he might be out having some fun :) In any case, it wouldn't hurt to fire off an e-mail to him and see if he would be interested. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• You could also just email him directly and ask if he has a photo. Try at koethe<at>uwm<dot>edu Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll send that email now. S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • S Dean Jameson, you can use the tips at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission to keep not only ask for images, but also the requirements that we need to use the images under. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    I did just that in my second note to him. I'll copy the text of my email in full below:

    Perhaps an email, with a jpeg would be best. Wikipedia has kind of a standard form that copyright holders complete, for both ease of use, and clarity of understanding what's entailed in releasing a given photograph. I'll copy that text below.

    I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

    I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ].

    I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

    I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

    I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

    DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

    The easiest way to do this would be for you to send me the photo(s) that you are interested in releasing under those terms, with the above form completed. As long as it's a "Creative Commons (attribution only)" license, we should be good to go! Thanks so much for your cooperation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I couldn't believe there wasn't one about you already, when I checked the "most wanted articles" section of our project.

• • Regards,

    Dean

    S. Dean Jameson 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Email correspondence with John Koethe regarding free use photograph

Let me know if this is enough for uploading the photograph he sent me. Also, should I include this email text in the upload description? I'm not sure of all the protocols here. (I have bolded his free use assent.) S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

John L Koethe to me
show details 2:52 PM (1 hour ago) Reply

Dear Dean,
I've attached a photograph, and filled out the form you included--let me know if I did it correctly. I wasn't sure what you meant by selecting one of the LICENSE choices, so perhaps you could just pick one for me, or let me know how to proceed.

Best, John

---

Original Message -----

From: "S. Dean Jameson" <sdjameson1974@gmail.com>

To: "John L Koethe" <koethe@uwm.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 1:21:54 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: Could I request a free use photograph of you for your Wikipedia article?

Perhaps an email, with a jpeg would be best. Wikipedia has kind of a standard form that copyright holders complete, for both ease of use, and clarity of understanding what's entailed in releasing a given photograph. I'll copy that text below.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of koethe.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [ choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

John Koethe, August 5, 2008.

- Show quoted text -

The easiest way to do this would be for you to send me the photo(s) that you are interested in releasing under those terms, with the above form completed. As long as it's a "Creative Commons (attribution only)" license, we should be good to go! Thanks so much for your cooperation, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I couldn't believe there wasn't one about you already, when I checked the "most wanted articles" section of our project.

Regards, Dean

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM, John L Koethe < koethe@uwm.edu > wrote:

Dear Dean Jameson,

I'm pleased to hear about the article you've written, and would be happy to authorize the use of a photograph. There are quite a few photographs of me under my name at Google "Images." Would you be able to simply copy on of those and have me give you permission to use it? Or would it be best to email a jpeg to you?

Best, John Koethe

---

Original Message -----

From: "S. Dean Jameson" < sdjameson1974@gmail.com > To: koethe@uwm.edu Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:44:28 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Could I request a free use photograph of you for your Wikipedia article?

Prof. Koethe

I have recently written an article about you for Wikipedia. As we are a free encyclopedia, we depend on free images as well. I was wondering if you possess a photograph of yourself that you would be willing to release under a Creative Commons (attribution only) license? I have always felt that Wikipedia articles are enhanced greatly by photographs of their subject. We would love to be able to have a photograph of you at your article.

Sincerely, S. Dean Jameson

koethe.jpg 3K View Download

• Make sure permissions-en AT wikimedia.org get a copy of the email. Make sure he chooses an explicit licence. If he's unsure of a licence, recommend GFDL as his best bet to retain maximal rights. If he doesn't care, you could recommend a weaker CC-BY or just public domain, but I wouldn't recommend it. WilyD 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Once he does that, feel free to upload it. Tag it with Template:OTRS pending and be patient, or feel free to harrass someone with OTRS access to expedite the verification. WilyD 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that's enough--you didn't substitute in the license you wanted in the sample text, so he didn't give you permission for anything! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Err, sorry if I didn't make that clear. Yes, an explicit licence is a must. Otherwise, just make sure he cc's OTRS. WilyD 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent him an email, with the license filled in as "Creative Commons (BY)", with istructions on how to CC his reply to OTRS as well. Hopefully this solves our problem. Would it be acceptable to upload this, with my email correspondence with Koethe as evidence, along with the good faith assumption that he will send it back tomorrow or should I just wait it out? S. Dean Jameson 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not on a deadline, so I would think it courteous to both Mr. Koethe and everyone here to make sure he agrees to that license before uploading (if for some reason he changes his mind and disagrees, no reason to upload an image which would just need to be deleted anyway). It looks like you're very likely to get that agreement though, great work in getting free content! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding screenshots

Template:RFCpolicy We've had some discussion at WT:FILM regarding the usage of screenshots, and there appears to be some disagreement centering upon one phrase. Per the Image guidelines, screenshots are to be used only for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Could there be a clarification on what "and discussion of the cinema and television" means? Is this distinct from the concept of critical commentary, and if so, how? If not, does this phrase need to exist? Most importantly, does it give license to allow for screenshots to be used solely in an identification-based capacity? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Identification-based" is effectively an attempt at carte blanche for nonfree image use for a given class of articles, so no. The screenshot itself must be supported by critical commentary or otherwise be essential, not just nice, for the article. This is a free-content project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would "otherwise be essential"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

essential means that the image illustrates the example being described in the article in a complementary manor where words cannot fully articulate what you are attempting to explain. For instance, if you are describing some fantastical imaginary technology in a science fiction film, it might be necessary to provide a screen shot from the film where the item can be clearly seen. Or in another example from science fiction films, you are describing some significant prop that has been reused in a series of unlreated movies, you might want to provide one or two screen shot examples of the prop (eg, Robby the Robot, comes to mind). BcRIPster (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For instance, if you are describing some fantastical imaginary technology in a science fiction film, it might be necessary to provide a screen shot from the film where the item can be clearly seen. - Okay, here's where the problem comes in. If this is taken at its face-value, then it means that anything fantastically visual within what is inherently a visual medium can be included as a screenshot within the plot section, merely to illustrate the plot by showing what is difficult to describe. However, if the phrase "if you are describing some..." means that this imagery is being discussed within a critical context (such as the film's visual effects innovations), then it's for critical commentary, and therefore doesn't need additional "essential" justification.

I think some of you can see my point here - the current phrasing creates a giant ambiguity loophole, and I personally can't see any reason why screenshots can't just be used solely "for critical commentary", period. I'd definitely be open to other thoughts on this matter, but if there's no outstanding reason otherwise, I'd like to propose shortening this as such. (Which will also more closely harmonize it with most of the other image types' fair usage criteria.) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that "critical commentary" is a technical term in American law. It essentially means criticism or commentary. The key test for WP is NFCC #8: does the non-free content significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? Would omission be detrimental to that understanding?

One other key test in American law is that no more copyright material is used than is necessary to achieve the identified purpose. So, does the identified purpose really need the image?

If it's clear from the article that the image really does significantly improve readers' understanding of the plot, then it would likely be acceptable. Jheald (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections in film articles are largely written using the film itself as a primary source. Would the image have to be backed up by a secondary source's discussion of the image? Because if not, that creates additional problems. Per WP:PSTS, only simple, descriptive passages can be used in plot sections that have been drawn from the primary source. It should also make "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Choosing an "important" image, or one that an editor believes to portray a (for example) unique visual effect, is in direct contravention of this, as it's relying upon the editor's interpretation of what's important or striking. Therefore, it seems to me, "critical commentary" from a secondary source is required (and these are almost exclusively used in sections other than the primary-souced plot section). Steve ^{T • C} 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This was raised briefly last month. In short, I don't think so. IMO it's just like the editorial judgment that goes in to assessing which elements of the plot are significant enough to go into the plot summary, and which should be left out. Nobody is calling that WP:NPOV, rather it's an editorial judgment. The article isn't saying "this is an important image", rather it is saying "this is what the Alien looked like". In that way, it is a simple descriptive use, per WP:PSTS. What then matters is whether there is a consensus that including the image "significantly improves readers' understanding". But that's not text in article space, rather it's a discussion in talk space. I suppose there might be a circumstance when one might argue that a particular image was being given WP:UNDUE weight, but that would be a discussion for that talk page, not cause for a blanket ban. Jheald (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the comparison of editorial judgment. Editors write in their own words the description of the primary source (the film). A better comparison is if there was a five-paragraph synopsis of a film by a historian, and we directly cited the whole thing for the plot section instead of rewriting in our own words. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary sources, and the usage of primary sources is acceptable in a limited, complementary fashion. For example, WP:NOT#PLOT states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Also, you're neglecting the criteria of having "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema" when it comes to screenshots. It seems irregular to consider the plot summary as meeting this criteria. Editorial judgment applies to a lot of tasks in Wikipedia, like how much information to include from a source. My concern is that the editorial judgment is easily overridden for images in plot summaries, when they are removed by editors or admins who are cleaning up non-free images. The editorial judgment does come in when we have the requisite critical commentary and can choose what non-free image significantly illustrates that context. In this case, though, we have something more tangible, more explicit. If there is commentary about how the director shot his film, the screenshot serves a clear purpose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment wqas specifically addressed to the question of whether choosing a particular image would fail WP:PSTS,WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. Of course the image must still pass WP:NFCC. But I was arguing that the other policies WP:PSTS,WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are probably not be an issue. Jheald (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion (trademarked content)

I'd like to seek some opinions on a non-fair image issue here. Template:Nobel icon currently displays Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.png on dozens of Nobel prize winners' pages, which I think is questionable, as the image page says "The design may be subject to Nobel Foundation trademarks." Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks aren't usually a problem for wikipedia, because we don't use them in a way that might suggest the trademark owner was the source, guarantor or authoriser of any product or service we may be offering. In this respect trademark law is rather different to copyright law. Jheald (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NFC in infoboxes

At this FAC discussion for a recent Doctor Who episode, the issue of non-free content in infoboxes has been brought up. There are two distinct but related issues that have been raised: using NFC in infoboxes (on the general principle of non-free content avoidance), and using an NFC outside of the area of text where the image is discussed in the article text.

For the most part, I do agree to some extent that having NFC images in the infobox and away from the text is a problem, however, disallowing all NFC content in infoboxes is rather difficult to envision working well, as it goes against the general approach of en.wiki's use of infoboxes, to summarize the details of the topic at a glance.

My suggestion is then as follows: NFC is still allowed in infoboxes, but they must be NFC images that are the official representation of the topic. That is, a movie poster, a book cover, or a TV series title card are an appropriate NFC image for an infobox, but a screenshot or similar work that has to be selected by the end user for inclusion is not. This is not to say the latter cannot be used at all, but instead just needs to be used in the text where the image is discussed. The use of official imagery for the infobox avoids any issues of NOR/NPOV that may occur in selecting the right screenshot to use. (Mind you, there are times where there are multiple official images to use - that is a different argument and still holds with the intent here). And since generally screenshots or other user-generated-from-media content are used not to identify the topic but to visual represent elements that are part of the topic, this would then help to tie these images better with the text. --MASEM 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I was wondering of a concern that was raised a week or two ago, though. What if the articles consist of little more than the image-containing infobox and a few sentences -- stubs, basically? Working with film articles, I've noticed that a lot of non-English film articles of no great notoriety tend to have very little content, yet there are many poster images for them. It seems more of a challenge to argue a case for their inclusion if there is not really any substance beyond the infobox. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking this through, I agree with this approach. That would automatically limit the number of screenshots to usually no more than one (many Simpsons ep articles including older GAs and FAs still have two), and this one used image must either be really pivotal for the plot to be used in that section, or for production. The official images are usually promo shots, which makes claiming fair use easier (less likelyhood of unintended copyright infringement). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

digital copyright slider

This is an awesome tool for determining the copyright statuses of works. I just wanted to pass the coolness around and figured the folks frequenting here would have good use for it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which policies and guidelines to follow for logo's?

After some discussing with J Milburn I have the following questions:

1. Does Wikipedia have (and/or should Wikipedia have) a special policy and/or guideline for logo's? Or is there no reason that logo's should be treated any differently from any other (non-free) images?
2. Should I follow WP:LOGOS or is that guideline a hideous one that should be deleted?

My answers to the questions are "Yes, Wikipedia has a special guideline for logo's and there are many reasons.", "You can follow WP:LOGOS". But J Milburn strongly disagrees.

My questions about how to use the policies and guidelines in a specific case will follow later, but we first have to know which policies and guidelines have to be followed. --Egel _Reaction? 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear guideline for the use of logos at WP:LOGOS as you have identified. F---ing hideous or not its what we've got. Without having seen the discussion over the logo (and not wanting to start a riot), strongly disagreeing with the guideline is just a personal opinion, while the guideline is, well, a guideline. Its intended to provide direction for editors and establish a standard practise that is separate from opinion. Can you point at what the debate is about? I do note that guideline states that logos without slogans are preferred to those with. Wiggy! (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not over a specific logo but over can a non-free use rationale be written for a specific use. --Egel _Reaction? 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion well beyond the bounds of WP:LOGO, which has been written (badly) with the view to help people add a logo image to articles about companies (it doesn't well address logos for bands, government agencies, places and such, and has plenty of other flaws, but that's a discussion for another place). Thankfully, even the logo guideline itself acknowledges this, and says in big bold letters at the top that the non-free content criteria still apply to logos. This discussion is over Age groups in Scouting and Guiding, which Egel believes should include somewhere in the region of 150 non-free images- one for each of these scouting groups. This is where the disagreement comes in- I say that logos (what with them being, well, non-free) are non-free media, and should fall under the NFCC's "minimal use" rule, in the same way that screenshots in episode lists, album covers in discographies (etc etc...) do. Egel claims that as these are logos, they should be treated differently. (This is the reason I'm so opposed to WP:LOGO, it gives people a belief that logos shouldn't be treated as non-free media, but whatever...) Oh, and Egel- well done on introducing me with a quote that makes me sound like an aggressive individual with no respect for Wikipedia guidelines, and a bonus point for not informing me directly of this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, copyright and trademark are two separate "streams" of intellectual property law, with separate criteria regarding when the law applies to a specific work. (A few other IP areas would be patent, trade secret, etc.) Any one image may be either trademarked or copyrighted, or neither, or both. That a work is trademarked does not excuse it from application of copyright criteria/law, and vice versa. If an item is both trademarked and copyrighted, then use of it must simultaneously meet the requirements of both copyright and trademark law, and any licenses issued under those laws.

Now, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are applied only in addition to the related law, and Wikipedia could, if it wanted to, elect to apply those additional requirements for trademarks and for copyrights differentially based on the circumstance that a work is both trademarked and copyrighted. But it has not done so, to my knowledge, nor can I see a reason to do so. Therefore, I would presume that a work that is both copyrighted and trademarked must adhere to all policies/guidelines related to both copyrights and trademarks, at the same time - not either/or.

What this means in the context of Age groups in Scouting and Guiding is that no logo may be used if it fails any of the tests found in both WP:NFCC and WP:LOGO (except insofar as WP:LOGO is a guideline rather than a policy). I would suppose that all of the images in question are subject to the trademark guideline, and most (though maybe not all) are subject to the copyright guideline. Since most, if not all, of these logos will be subject to NFCC, I would suggest that their use in this particular article would not meet NFCC#3a - minimal use. To use just the handful that are in the public domain would result in a very patchy appearance for the article. (Egel's proposed usage does not appear to me to offend WP:LOGO in any way.) --Ipoellet (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the article including any public domain logos- if they genuinely are free, we can do what we like with them. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• The bold letters are: This page helps to ensure that logo usage conforms to Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. It is clear (to me) that it says that when you follow the logo guidelines you stay within the non-free content guidelines.
• non-free content criteria 3a: Minimal usage. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It is clear (to me) that it says that 1. for example you should use a group picture of a band instead of multiple portraits. 2. an extra screen shot, album cover etc. must give significant more information before it can be used. 3. It is allowed to use multiple items of non-free content when you can "prove" it gives significantly more information. (my POV ->)When you have enough "prove" the number of items doesn't matter, it can only makes it more difficult.

I have informed you at the place where we were discussing. (I have removed the offending word) --Egel _Reaction? 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

With regard to interpretation of NFCC#3a, I will also refer you to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use: Images #5. The basic idea of that example is that if you have a non-free image, it is likely to be germane only to the main article about it (or, in this case, about the organization the logo represents), not on various articles that address the organization indirectly or secondarily. The Age groups in Scouting and Guiding seems to fall into this latter category. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sufficiency of WP:LOGO

In the thread immediately above, J Milburn expresses the opinion that WP:LOGO "doesn't well address logos for bands, government agencies, places and such, and has plenty of other flaws". I know I have found the brevity of the final US government agencies section section of WP:LOGO to be frustratingly useless as a guide to appropriate usage. I wonder if J Milburn could expand on what (s)he believes to be the shortcomings of that guideline, and maybe spur a revision/improvement effort? --Ipoellet (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(Briefly, as I am off in a minute) I find that the guideline is so often misused. By this I mean that people believe that logos should be treated differently from other non-free images- the above thread is one example, but it has also been used in other ways- for instance, someone claimed that the guideline implied that every article on a band should have its logo (when, in practice, band logos are not particularly important, and are generally only required if the logo is discussed in the article- this is not citing specific policy, rather discussions that have been had at various places including the heavy metal project, as heavy metal bands often have logos, and at FAC. I could dig out some key discussions if it really matters). Because it is misused and because it mostly seems to be an essay about where to place logos in articles (which is mostly redundant as the majority of logos do/should appear in infoboxes) I asked what the point of the page was. There'll be a notice somewhere in the village pump archives, too. I didn't really get much of an answer, so I changed it to an essay and people opposed due to lack of consensus. It was changed back, and the discussion drifted off-topic (due to one of the more misleading points in the page at the time which I'm hoping has now been fixed). As I see it, that page could be useful if it was changed to a discussion about further restrictions on logos due to trademark concerns. I can't do this, as I know nothing about trademarks, but as an editor who spends a lot of time dealing with non-free content, I only ever see that page being abused by people who believe that logos are for some reason more usable than other non-free images, believing that the NFCC do not apply to logos as they do to other non-free images. In a nutshell, that is why I am not a fan of WP:LOGO. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGOS rewrite

After seeing attempts to use WP:LOGOS to bypass the non-free content criteria, I have proposed a rewrite of the guideline. Comments are welcome on the guideline talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible fair use?

Image:Croatian first team.jpg has been listed at the copyright problems board. The uploader indicates that the copyright holders specifically released the image for use on Wikipedia only. Specifically, he translates them as having said, "We are very happy to help the cause of a such a project, providing that it is not used for any sort of commercial/profit use." Obviously, this is not an acceptable release for Wikipedia, since it does not permit commercial reuse and derivative works. My question is whether it would fit into any of the non-free content criteria. (I'm slowly gaining experience with images, but could so use an experienced image admin over there some days!) It is an historical image, but I don't know if it is sufficiently historical, as in the example here. Can this fit within WP:NFCC or should it be deleted, given the improper license? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is sufficiently historical then keep, otherwise wikipedia only image are deleted. β^_command 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can figure out how historically significant it is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More specific wording on fair use?

I'm involved in the discussion here regarding Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg, so I won't suggest any specific edits, but it seems there's a serious misunderstanding on the purpose and scope of fair use. There's a common belief that every subject requires illustration, and that fair use allows for unauthorized use of copyrighted images when you can't procure an image yourself. But the intent of fair use is much narrower than that. Too many editors claim an image is iconic or otherwise passes WP:NFCC because the content of the image is iconic, whereas the test for fair use is whether the image itself is iconic. WP:NFCC gives the examples of the Billy Ripken baseball card and the Iwo Jima photograph, but could you provide more specific wording and more examples? Off the top of my head:

• A news photo or screencap of Zinedine Zidane headbutting Marco Materrazzi would be appropriate in an article or passage discussing the meme derived from the image, but NOT for illustrating Zidane, the 2006 World Cup Final, or even the incident itself.
• An Ansel Adams photo of Yosemite would be appropriate in discussing the project itself, but not for discussing Ansel Adams, Yosemite, or black and white photography.

My point is, editors seem to believe that as long as a photograph depicts a historic event or object, it's fair use. But a fair use image shouldn't be used to illustrate anything other than the image itself (except when the image is part of the subject's identity, i.e. book cover, logo, etc). --Mosmof (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for clarify, as I find these issues confusing myself. I can't suggest wording, but I like what you've come up with. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

These examples do not seem to generally be true. An article about an artist can easily make a good case for some quantity of their art to discuss their style and so forth. Jackson_Pollock uses Image:No._5,_1948.jpg, in what is unquestionably valid fair use legally and in this policy. In contrast, the use here almost certainly fails the infamous #8. One cannot explain visual art without being able to see it any more easily than they can explain poems on roses to blind watersnakes. For photographers, painters, sculpters, clothing designers, architects and so forth (except where Freedom o' Panorama might save us, Frank Gehry is probably stuck with the Royal Ontario Museum and buildings from other places with good FOP), a small sampling of their art is definite appropriate. Zidane's headbutt probably isn't iconic enough yet, but I don't know that f'r sure.

Instead, maybe it is better to ask for examples of failing each criterion. Fair use to depict the subject of the photo where the photo is uniconic generally fail NFCC#2, and maybe #1, but that's all. An unfree photo of an artist's photograph of Yosemite to illustrate Yosemite fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#2, probably. For the artist himself (herself?) low quality images are used to steer clear of #2, and then it's just a balance of #3 figuring out how much you can use. WilyD 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand correctly, could I get an example of an image that satisfies all or most of the other NFCCs, but fails NFCCC#8? My understanding is that simply being iconic isn't enough; there has to be an actual discussion of its significance. For example, the use of Image:Vj day kiss.jpg, a clearly iconic photograph, is appropriate in VJ Day because there's a whole section devoted to discussing the photograph in the article. But if it that section were missing and the image was simply used to illustrate the event, then it wouldn't qualify? Mosmof (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, consider the photograph of the Israeli soldiers at the Western Wall, currently used in the infobox of Six Day War. This is perhaps the iconic photograph of that conflict, certainly what it meant to soldiers on the winning side. But there is no discussion of it in the article. I would find it very hard to make a case for that being in compliance with the current guidelines. At the very least, IMO, at least an extended caption is needed with content specifically about the photo -- who took it, where was it published, why has it become seen as iconic, what is the evidence of this, etc. -- but at the moment the article has none of that. Jheald (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This was pointed out on this IDF discussion one year ago. The result was that the image shouldn't be deleted and a compromise was made to remove the image from the infobox and to add some critical commentary / discussion about its importance to some article. It seems nothing changed since them. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic logos

Fasach Nua has initiated a one-man crusade to purge historic logos from Wikipedia, insisting that this guideline backs up his actions. Fasach Nua seems to believe that only current logos are acceptable in articles, regardless of any other considerations (how long a previous logo was in use, it's historic significance, whether the logo is discussed in the article, etc). IMO, his crusade is counter-productive and is causing unnecessary wiki-strife. How should these guidelines be interpreted regarding historic logos? Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the historic logo is discussed in the article, then its inclusion is probably supported. If there's just a gallery (or even only one or two) logos which have just been chucked in, then they should be removed. Could you show a few examples of logo removals you are concerned about? J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of historic logos no longer fall under copyright or trademark laws, so do your homework before you decide that a logo should be removed. Otherwise, you will also cause unnecessary wiki-strife. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

dhett is specifically referencing the "copyright not renewed" proviso. Galleries of public-domain logos do not violate any policy, and as a good number of historic logos are public domain (as "copyright not renewed"), such a purge is inappropriate. Editors need to tread carefully with image removals. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical query in preparation for Signpost article

User:elcobbola is preparing a Signpost "Dispatch" article on the scrutiny of NFC issues in nominations for featured status. This will be a powerful way of getting across our message about taking NFC issues seriously, and persuading WPs at large to familiarise themselves with the NFCC. Elcobbola posted the following query on my talk page, which I can't answer. May we have expert input from contributors here, please? Tony (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• NFCC#4 sets forth "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)
• Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"

Would it not, then, be that case that Wikipedian-created images (i.e. derivative works) of, for example, sculptures would fail? How can this image be reconciled? Could the issue be gamed/resolved by, say, uploading to Flickr or a self-published website first? If I'm being too literal, do you happen to know how the criterion was meant to be interpreted and/or what it is intended to prevent? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The nonfree content criteria only apply to nonfree content. They don't apply to free content. Which any content a Wikipedian makes must be. WilyD 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A photograph of a copyrighted statue has two copyrights: the phtographer's and the sculptor's. That's why Image:Life Underground Alligator.jpg is nonfree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Tony: we do permit original photographs of copyrighted 3D works. The question you're asking just hasn't come up much. It may be that the policy should be clarified on this point. My guess is that one reason for #4 is that copyright law is often concerned with infringement of commercial opportunity, and if we were to publish a nonfree work before its creator, that would be bad. But that isn't an issue with publicly displayed statues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The United States does not have freedom of panorama. Are NFCC#2 and NFCC#4, then, meant to address the same thing? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember a story from years ago of a low-budget documentary that happened to catch five seconds of an episode of The Simpsons on a TV monitor in a grade-school classroom. The docomunenary-makers' lawyer said "Better be safe and check it's OK". The copyright owners of The Simpsons wanted US$25,000 to allow it to remain in the doco. Bastards. But it's something to ponder. Tony (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused with where this conversation has gone. The issues for 3D art are essentially the same as with any other art (and other copyrightable works generally). A sculpture might be "published" when it is sold, though obviously what constitutes publication depends on the particulars. The right to choose when to publish a copyrighted work is an integral part of copyright. (This is a factor, along with commercial value etc, in courts' fair use analysis.) NFCC 2 and 4 are related, but not the same. Some works might have no commercial value, but their creators have the right to prevent publication nonetheless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the confusion over what must be published? A wikipedian's photo of a sculpture need not be published, because we would require the photographer to release his image under a free license (subject to the copyright in the sculputre) so the NFCC wouldn't apply to the photo itself, but the sculpture itself need be published. (So here the issues of when a one-of-a-kind artwork is "published" would come into play.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 3D and 2D art is that the photographer has an independent copyright over a photo of 3D art (along with the copyright of the artist) but not over a photograph of 2D art (which only has the copyright of the artist). — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Elcobbola, I do think it is related to #2, and you're bringing up a good point. #2 is somewhat more general, since it covers all commercial use, not just the first publication. The other motivation I know for #4 is covered by #1 - a WP user who creates a diagram or photo that they will publish for the first time on WP can't upload it here as nonfree instead of free. I don't know of any other motivations for #4, and I don't know the original motivation for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm running up against, obviously, is the difficulty of explaining NFCC - especially in the context of a FA review - when no one is exactly sure what some of the criteria mean. Does it make sense, perhaps, to just discuss what we'd actually like NFCC#2 and #4 to accomplish and then consolidate/reword to articulate that purpose? These criteria appear to have been dumped in one day in October 2005 and I can't find the underlying reasoning therefor. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No no no, they're separate issues. It is well established in copyright law that the "unpublished" nature of a given work "militates against" fair use. See e.g. Sundeman v. The Seajay Society, Inc., 142 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1998) and http://www.lib.uconn.edu/copyright/unpublished_generic.html. This can apply even where things have zero commercial value. One example of where the issue of unpublished works comes up is in archival photos or that sort of thing. If they have never been published, even if they have no commercial value, we cannot be the first to publish them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Better citation: "the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works." Harper & Row v. Nation (supreme ct). Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lemme clarify. The copyright portion (the statue) is published (effectively, by public display). The Wikipedian's copyright needs to be freely licensed. Think of it as a combination of two works. Only the nonfree portion needs to meet the nonfree criterion. WilyD 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, public display is not publication in and of itself. Publication, defined in Title 17, is as quoted above. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to be true in the United States. Maybe #4 is a problem. WilyD 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. A famous U.S. court case once decided that the Oscar statuette as sculpture had not been "published", despite a few having be re-sold. In the old days court reluctance to declare something published was probably a reaction to at that time how completely one lost copyright if one accidentally did something considered publication without an explicit copyright claim. Nowadays that case law seems a bit odd, even a perverse incentive. On the other hand images of the Oscar certainly have been published; and what we might be publishing would be just another image of the Oscar.

More to the point, it may IMO be entirely likely that #4 came into being without anyone ever even thinking of the U.S. legal meaning of the word "published". I suspect the intention was to be more careful about making material widely available on the internet if it had not been widely available before.

With the statues, I wonder whether #4 is serving any useful purpose. If essentially similar photos of the work are already on the net, then the impact on the fourth fair use factor is likely to be minimal - I don't see why Wikipedia should declare fair use of such material particularly beyond the pale.

If the object is open to public access and apparently widely publicly photographed, then even if Google images doesn't find such photos, I suspect the impact on the fourth fair use factor is probably still minimal. So NFCC clause #4 seems significantly inflexible, and we should perhaps review what we think we're setting out to achieve with it.

Perhaps what this indicates is that, even with WP:NFC, the written policy is never the last word. WP policy is not black-letter law. On WP it is always important to think what practical good the policy has been framed to try to achieve, particularly in cases with more unusual aspects, no matter how much the policy has been tested out in more standard cases. Jheald (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, after much searching, I've found the policy that applies for this highly specialised, previously undiscussed case. WilyD 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC4: A Proposal

I think we should just change the wording all together.

Currently, it says this:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia.

I think it should be changed to this:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia first, and cannot be self-made. If laws (or the lack there of) such as freedom of panorama add restrictions that make a self-made image non-free, this will not apply.

There, is this better? ViperSnake151 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannot be self-made doesn't seem necessary to this clause. User-made content is supposed to be freely licensed, but that has nothing to do with this. It is better to not mix clauses like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• No. I think the suggestion gets things 180° in the wrong direction. If there is a famous sculpture in a city plaza that is notable enough to deserve its own article, we should prefer fair use of a user-created image of the non-free sculpture, rather than fair use of somebody else's non-free copyright image of the non-free sculpture. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the suggested wording is so convoluted, with so many layers of implied double negatives, that I thought it was saying the exact opposite of what you wanted. Jheald (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: should we be careful not to exclude some other "derived" works that we currently permit -- eg in a few very particular occasions the tiling together of previously well-published non-free images, such as Image:10dr19.jpg created for the article Doctor Who ? Jheald (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This wording is all wrong, but its intent is not bad. What we need is probably more like "Nonfree works must have been published outside Wikipedia first, or for artist works of which only a single copy exists, must have been put on public display". It probably needs reworking, and maybe a preference of the former to the latter? WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What we really want to say is that "all original content first published on Wikipedia must be freely licensed". This would imply that derivatives of non-free works that also contain original creative elements, such as photographs of statues, should be released under a free license but with a clear statement noting that they incorporate (under the legal doctrine of fair use, and subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy) elements that may not be free depending on the context they're used in.

Unfortunately, that would pretty much make Wikipedia's current image tagging system choke and die. We assume that images are either free or not, and the idea of "a free image of a non-free artwork" just won't compute. I suppose, given enough time and effort, that the system could be made to handle that; in the mean time, however, something like what WilyD proposed may be the best approximation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a problem with the tagging and uploading system. WilyD 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia first, or for self-made reproductions of artistic works covered by a incompatible freedom of panorama exemption (or lack there of), put on public display. All other original content first published on Wikipedia must be freely licensed.

This better? ViperSnake151 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The underlying intent to NFCC#4 almost seems to be respect for "privacy" (for lack of a better phrasing). One of the rights afforded by copyright protection is that of publication; it seems, then, that it would be particularly unfair to "force" an image still under protection to be published (thus the purpose of NFCC#4). If we accept that NFCC#4 is indeed meant for this purpose, does the issue become moot for publicly-exhibited works? Would the issue perhaps be resolved by the following:

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly-exhibited outside Wikipedia.

The italicized portion is new. Obviously, there is room to kibitz about whether considerations of permanence should be included or whether "exhibited" should instead be, for example, "displayed", "installed", etc. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)