Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Is it fair to use two book covers of the same comic book title, with one for the Japanese version and one of the English version?

Should it satisfy the fair use convention to use two covers of the same comic book title, with one of the English version and one of the Japanese version?

Here is a diff [1] - In this particular case the differences are the logo used and the English and Japanese texts. The basic artwork is the same. Is it in fair use policy to use both covers on the same page? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On first blush and skimming the linked article? I cannot see a good argument for including a image of either cover in the "Reception" section, the image just does not relate to the text (contrary to policy point 8). One image or the other should be picked for the infobox, with the other dropping since both are effectively "This cover exemplifies the series. Using both is contrary to point 3a, multiple images used for the same effect. - J Greb (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the second image in Dragon Ball (manga) should be removed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's illustrating the editing and censorship Viz exorcised, the sole focus of that section, yup. And to be honest, it doesn't look like it does.

The other option would be to work on expanding the section so that it justifies a general illustration of the series. - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with J Greb on RK, and that was part of my reason for what I mentioned on my talk page. As the differences are not significant, using just the Japanese in the infobox is all that is needed for exemplifying the series. For the Dragon Ball, yes, I'd have to say it should be removed as well as it doesn't illustrate the section and, as its a different volume than the infobox image, it doesn't seem to indicate Viz changed the covers. Collectonian (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one can simply explain the approach that VIZ did with its version of the series (for both InuYasha and Dragon Ball and the covers can fit) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Critical commentary": what is that? Could someone please define.

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).

Pgr94 (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a well defined term though it is borrowed from US copyright law. It is generally taken to mean, on WP, that you are including more than just the image and the basic, trivial facts about the work the cover is from; this information would include but not limited to critical reception, sales, development of the work, and influences of the work. --MASEM 13:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If it's not well defined perhaps a different term should be used. I read it to mean that the item in question has to be criticised which is the meaning the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives: censorious, fault-finding; skilful, engaged, in criticism; involving risk or suspense. All rather negative really which I don't think is the intended meaning. Pgr94 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that the term "critical commentary" is direct language from US law regarding fair use and copyrights. However, the law leaves it at that term and does not attempt to define further, which of course leaves it sufficiently vague for our purposes. --MASEM 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your definition does an excellent job capturing how the term is largely understood in the context of Wikipedia. I propose expanding it slightly and adding it to the guideline to clarify the meaning of this term which still evidently confuses many who are unfamiliar with it. I would add a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images:

For the purposes of this guideline, the phrase "critical commentary," used below, refers to verifiable information including but not limited to a work's development, design, execution, distribution, critical reception, sales, scholarly interpretation, historical reputation, and/or influence.

Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to define what context, if it is the only context used with the image, that does not define critical commentary for our purposes? That is, can we supply the negative of this definition for counter-example? Otherwise, the above sounds like a smart addition. --MASEM 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps something like:

Information consisting solely of raw data, lists of character and/or performer names, [and perhaps something else?] does not qualify as critical commentary.

—DCGeist (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we planning to open up a witch-hunt on album article stubs? I think that would not be desirable. Jheald (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I don't believe anyone involved in this discussion is planning such a witch hunt. As it is, the current language offers inadequate protection for basic identifying images in stubs. That's an important but distinct issue from what's been under discussion here. Perhaps a stub exception should also be included in the lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images.—DCGeist (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that any stub/start article that exists because it is presumed to have notability from specific guidelines (such as MUSIC or BK) that otherwise do not immediately call for secondary sources should be allowed up to exactly one non-free image, that being the representative cover of the work. This reasoning is based on the fact that these guidelines for notability are built on the presumption that if they meet the given criteria, there will be secondary sources that will go along with that criteria, and from these we can ultimately supply the "critical commentary" needed to enhance the article. But since it is a stub/start article and has not been worked on much, these may not be present at the start but can and should be expected in the future for the article. --MASEM 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is perhaps redundant because it's covered by WP:V. My reading is: anything beyond a passing reference. Pgr94 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)

A specific clause providing a "stub exception" might be a bad idea because it could be interpreted to run afoul of US copyright law. It may be better to leave the language as is, with the implicit recognition that there is a de facto stub exception. While that could arguably be called a copyright violation, I don't think anyone is likely to get up in arms about it.. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with your reasoning above in every detail. The question--which Jaysweet has raised--is whether to articulate the stub exception. Surveying the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, I believe there is in fact virtually zero danger of such an exception--specifically limited to one basic identifying image--being interpreted as running afoul of U.S. copyright law. On the other hand, articulating such an exception would help clarify the matter for many newer contributors, while helping to reduce the incidence of stubs with multiple images.

Pgr94, you are correct: the mention of verifiability is redundant. Intentionally so. In practical terms, editors need to be on alert that textual content may be challenged not because there is any sincere doubt to its validity, but simply because it relates to a fair-use image. The more prepared editors are to cite sources, the more stable the article content.

An additional thought on clarifying what constitutes "critical commentary." I think it would be worthwhile to articulate something like the following: "Critical commentary may appear in the main article text and/or the image caption, remaining mindful of the general preference for brevity in the latter. See the lead image in Wikipedia:Captions for an example of caption-based critical commentary."—DCGeist (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To sum up to date, I'm proposing to greatly increase the amount of guidance in the lead of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. The lead currently reads as follows:

Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

I think something like the following accords with the current prevalent understanding of the relevant terms and objectives and would help address several questions that are repeatedly raised:

Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

For the purposes of this guideline, the phrase "critical commentary," used below, refers to verifiable information including but not limited to a work's development, design, execution, distribution, critical reception, sales, scholarly interpretation, historical reputation, and/or influence. Information consisting solely of raw data (such as dimensions, costs, or dates), names of creative participants, and/or lists of character names does not qualify as critical commentary.

Critical commentary may appear in the running text and/or the image caption, keeping in mind the general preference for brevity in the latter. See the lead image in Wikipedia:Captions for an example of caption-based critical commentary. Where applicable, an exception to the requirement for critical commentary is made in the case of stub-level articles, where one and only one image providing basic identification may be included (again, so long as it meets the policy criteria).

—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you try to define "critical commentary" (the actual phrase from copyright law is criticism or commentary, but it's often contracted in the process of writing about it) you're going to run into the same problem the law does. It cannot be defined concisely or in a fixed way because it's so context dependent. One glaring exception, for example, is that the definition proposed above does not admit commentary about the subject of the work, as opposed to commentary about the work itself. We could go into a long digression (and probably a multi-page definition) about when that is and is not acceptable here. Cover art, for example, is a case where it is acceptable. Sometimes it's best to simply let the word speak for the word's meaning rather than trying to define the word too closely. That leaves a bit of a learning curve for newbies, but that flexibility allows us to adapt the guideline to a lot of different contexts. Wikidemo (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree on general principle here--I'd be interested to see where broader opinion stands on this at the moment. Is attempting a definition along the lines described above viable, as I suggest, or not, as Wikidemo suggests? Either position strikes me as reasonable. Which is more representative of community opinion at the moment?

Wikidemo, just to be sure I (and others) are clear: When you say that "that the definition proposed above does not admit commentary about the subject of the work, as opposed to commentary about the work itself," are you speaking of, for example, using a reproduction of a painted portrait to accompany a discussion that is primarily (or exclusively) about the person depicted in the painting, rather than the painting itself? Perhaps you have a couple more pertinent examples in mind of the sort of image use that is generally regarded as acceptable, but would not be protected under the proposed language. The reference to cover art is confusing in this context: I believe both the following language of the guideline and prevailing practice make clear that it is acceptable in general to use cover art in the context of critical commentary on the work which it covers (e.g., audio recording or book), not necessarily on the cover artwork itself.—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of image of living person with a "no commercial use" restriction?

Hi, I have approached a company about providing an image to illustrate an article. The company is generally agreeable, but wishes to stipulate that the image not be reused for commercial purposes. I am trying to persuade the company to license the image freely (I've suggested they provide a small, low-resolution version rather than a high-quality one), but if it insists on the condition, is it possible to use the image under "fair use" guidelines? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

to claim fair use you do not need permission. β^{_{command 2}} 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. The image is of a living person, and generally fair use of images of living people is not allowed under the non-free content criteria. However, would it be all right to claim that the use is fair if the copyright owner generally consents to the use, provided that no commercial reuse of the image is allowed? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Our policy doesn't permit that. An image with a noncommercial-use restriction is classified as non-free, and we don't permit non-free images for the purpose of identifying living people except in dire circumstances. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks for the information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of a photograph of a turned on iPhone

There seems to be some confusion over the definition of copyrighted material over on Talk:iPhone. No one is diputing that a pictures taken from Apple's webpage is not fair use (which were on the page at one time and have been properly deleted). But now one user is maintaining that because the iPhone interface is copyrighted (The famous look-and-feel case), then no photograph — taken by a Wikipedia user, uploaded to commons and released to the public domain — which actually shows the iPhone's display can be allowed. Is this interpretation correct? I personally don't think so, but thought asking here instead of fighting on the page. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trey Lewis Pictures

I'm having trouble finding pictures of Trey Lewis to use in his article. I've gone above and beyond and everything i've uploaded has been deleted. There has to be some loophole around these darned guidelines. The articles would look much better with a picture. i've searched and i can't find a free alternative. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a loophole: if you go out there with a camera and take a picture of the guy, and upload it to Wikipedia with a free license, it shouldn't get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Sizing Requirements

It has always been my understanding that to meet the fair use requirement for low resolution, the guideline was that the shortest side of an image should be 300px. Another editor has begun arguing that the longest dimension should be 300px, not the shortest, and he feels some images in articles I work on, which are 375x300 pixels and 300x485 in dimension, are in violation of non-free. The specific images being discussed are Image:Tokyo Mew Mew - the Mew Mews.jpg (originally larger, but I resized to 300 on the shortest to meet requirements) and Image:Saint Rose Crusaders.png. He is also claiming that the first image, should be forced to 300px width in the article itself, rather than the current 350px, to avoid violating non-free image requirements as well. Which is correct? We already have a request for a third opinion in, but I feel his view is a complete reinterpretation of policy that would require many many images to be resized if it is the correct view. As such, I felt it should also be asked here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it more based on the .1 megapixel; if we use a standard 4x3 resolution, a 400x300 image exceeds this. Mind you, if the image needs to be above this size (say, text becomes unreadable) then the FUR needs to state why the larger size is used. --MASEM 05:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...so that's 102 KB? The TMM picture is 53 KB, so well below that. The second is 188, which is a little above, though if it were re-uploaded as a JPG it would only be 37kb. It seems to be the PNG format on that keeping it above the 102 mark in this case, rather than the image itself? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No you misunderstand. He means how many pixels appear on the screen. So a 400x300 has .12 megapixels that appear on screen, which exceeds the .1 megapixel limit.--十八 05:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware there is a specific size. Could you point to where that is stated. There was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_27#Proposed_rewording_of_WP:NFCC.233b. It has to be judged, as stated in that discussion, to some extent on the nature of the image itself and the amount of detail. Please note even a 600 pixel (maximum dimension, width or height) image will only print out at 2" at 300dpi standard print resolution, so is fairly useless for any commercial exploitation. Ty 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)