Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 2

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:MollyMormonBookCover.jpg

Fair use of book being requested in article about the term "Molly Mormon" which does not deal primarily or even substantially with the book. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now, it usage is totally inappropriate in Molly Mormon. howcheng {chat} 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this image truly doesn't belong here, then let's remove it. Before reviewing this, please consider that this review stems from a ridiculous content dispute that has gone on so long, he was accused by another editor of likely making a WP:POINT when he (speedily unsuccessfully) sent the article to AfD. This is now attempt #4. Luke edits many Mormon-related articles, and judging from his persistence at removing this article's content, he clearly has a personal bias involved (religious or otherwise). I feel Luke perhaps just doesn't know when to cool it. To address the fair use issue being claimed, WP:NFCC has 10 criteria. The use of the image meets all 10. None of those criteria require that a nonfree book cover be used only in an article about the book itself. Also, WP:NONFREE (a guideline) says it only needs to be relevant, in the context of critical commentary, which clearly exists here. Reswobslc 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. Cover art can only be used within the context of critical commentary about that item, not about the concept of Molly Mormons in general. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The critical commentary I am referring to reads as follows (though you may not have seen it, because Luke recently deleted it). "A series of paperback romance novels written by an LDS author has also appropriated the term into the series' title. The title Molly Mormon? by Tamra Norton (ISBN 1555176062), characterizes the term of attempted perfection with a halo over the word Molly.". If that's not "critical commentary", and on Wikipedia "critical commentary" solely means "An article about the book", then let's remove the image and update the guidelines to be more clear. Reswobslc 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That may actually pass muster, as the cover art is specifically being discussed. -- But|seriously|folks  23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is a perfect place to discuss the book as well. Goodness knows, if we tried to start a Molly Morman (book) article, it would be tagged with a Merge or non-notable --Knulclunk 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Per above, the article now includes some more detail about the book, so it probably passes fair use at this point. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Two sentences? No, that doesn't pass. This image would be usable in article about the book, or in a significant section that is substantially about the book, but the current page doesn't cut it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

These images were discussed [1] at IFD, which seems to resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi photographs

• Goebbels children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Can someone look at the photos in the above article (which includes a gallery)? Conflicting licensing statements for the photos in the article, with some claiming public domain, some claiming PD in Germany but not the U.S., and some claiming non-free use. What's the real story on copyright status of Nazi photographs? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a similar question in the past. I suppose the best place to ask is on Commons. nadav (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If the copyright was held by the (Nazi) German government, then those rights have been transferred to a private company in Germany that holds all these copyrights currently and actually sues unauthorized reusers in some cases. Great Britain, for a time, had a law for a time that said these copyrights did not have to be respected, but it has since revoked that law, and the U.S. has never considered the images to be PD. If the image's copyright was held by a private entity (such as Goebbels himself), then that could be different, but the images would still not (likely) be PD. See Image talk:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg and, in particular, this edit on IFD from about a year ago. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading the article correctly, it would seem that Magda Goebbels has living descendents (through Harald Quandt) - presumably they would own the copyright to any family photos. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These images are up for deletion on this IFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jackrack.jpg

The actual symbols portrayed are PD (works of the US federal government). Would it violate the original copyright to create a replica set of ribbons (which would make this replaceable). On the flip side, is the arrangement sufficiently creative to even be copyrightable? -Nard 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the image for deletion but did not realize that these are actually real ribbons (I just assumed they were made-up ones for the show). These are very good questions, to which I have no answer at the moment. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how constructing our own image of the ribbons would violated copyright any more than listing the rewards as text might (and I'm assuming that doesn't, otherwise we have a lot of problems), since it is exactly the same information. However, the actual screenshot makes it clearer what we're talking about, a constructed image would just be a whole load of coloured blocks. (Also, the screenshot is effectively the source for the information, while not strictly necessary, it is nice to show it in the article if possible.) --Tango 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You could buy the actual ribbons and put them together on a dark colored cloth (or an actual uniform if you were going for authenticity). Total cost would be around $30. -Nard 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been pondering this one for the past half hour. My intuition tells me this is replaceable but I haven't thought of a good argument yet. TO me, the question boils down to whether the costume designers incorporated their own creativity into how the ribbons are arranged. If this is the standard military way to arrange these ribbons, then I would argue that the image is replaceable. nadav (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The ribbons go in an order determined by the USAF regulations. The only creativity is in deciding which ribbons to give him. --Tango 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the image is to show the representation in the actual TV show. A recreated image would not achieve the same function. Jheald 09:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Magnetoripadamanitum.png

Need help with the above image. It's a comic book panel used in 4 articles. Originally had no rationale, but the uploader added a rationale that does not specify usage in any articles, and removes my 'disputed fair use' tag with the statement that a rationale has been added. Rather than get in an edit war or brutally orphan the image by removing it from the four articles, thought I would ask if I am off base for asking for compliance with WP:NFCC#10c. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So far as NFCC#10c is concerned, would it be sufficient in your opinion to simply modify #4 in the rationale to say ". . .visual identification of topics in the articles this, that, and the other"? I think NFCC#8 is a more serious problem with this image in the articles it's in, but I don't know enough about the subject to say whether it's a violation or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Images seem to be tagged as PD now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of symbols in 666 Satan

• 666 Satan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article on the above manga series contains tables that include symbols for the various entities. I've been having a discussion with the uploader about their use - right now the symbols are scanned from the comic and need a fair use rationale. If the uploader created their own symbols, would they be derivative works? (Some of the symbols are pretty simplistic and probably not copyrightable, but I'm not sure about others. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This one might be trademarked, but none of them are copyrightable. I would tag them {{PD-ineligible}}. Recreating them would be a good idea, but not (in my opinion) necessary. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TsER-4.jpg

I gave it the fair use tag because... I didn't know what else it'd fall under, or what else I should give it. I found the image here. It'd be great if you could help with this image, and help me learn about the tags. BlueCanary9999 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

My personal opinion on this would be that we can't use this image. Criterion 1 of the non-free content criteria requires that we use non-free images "only where no free equivalent [...] could be created". It would be more than possibly for any reasonably artistically talented editor to create their own "impression" of what this planet looks like. Cheers --Pak21 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, I'll wait for a few more comments, and I'll go from there. BlueCanary9999BlueCanary9999

Sorry. I'm sure everyone appreciates the effort, and I thank you for uploading it in the first place, it's just that one of Wikipedia's core goals is to try to make the encyclopedia as reusable as possible. Fair use is often one of those uncomfortable compromises we make trying to balance that with article quality. Bryan Derksen 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no. It's not much of a problem. BlueCanary9999 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

Hmm... I guess I'll get no more opinions. Well, okay then; up to deletion it is. Thank you folks for your help. BlueCanary9999BlueCanary9999

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Josephine Bakhita.jpg

• Josephine Bakhita (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Help! I uploaded this image 2 years ago as a newbie for one of the first articles I created, but someone just asked me if it could be uploaded to Commons and I realise now that the {{PD}} tag I put on it at the time is invalid even though the image itself may be 110 years old -- and I can't even confirm that. Is there a case for using the photo under fair use, at least on Wikipedia? I appreciate it can't be uploaded to Commons either way. If this image can't be used as it has no source, would there be a case for using this alternative from the Vatican website under fair use? That image was published by the Vatican news site on the occasion of Josephine Bakhita's canonization.

If it's the case that neither image can be used, will someone please delete it for me? I will write to the religious house where the subject lived (assuming it still exists) in any case asking for an image with explicit permission. Many thanks, ~ Veledan • | T | 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the picture is everywhere (especially a colorized version), but I can't find the original source. It's obvious, though, that she's younger than 50 in the picture, which would mean that the photo was created before 1923. That would indicate that the image is considered PD in the U.S., and can be used on the English Wikipedia. However, since the photo (presumably) was not taken in the U.S., it could be considered copyright in its country of origin, so you can't upload it to Commons. If I find the source, I'll let you know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I called my library, who found the photo in a few books, but it was never credited (indicating that it's probably PD everywhere). I've written to two different publishers who reprinted the image, asking if they know its copyright status. (My librarian told me that she has found that the best way to find the copyright status of an image is to check Wikipedia, and she gravely informed me that even they don't know the status of the image. I was amused.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol!! Lucky I'd already removed the original PD tag I put on it, or I guess we'd have had our confirmation by now :-) Thanks Quadell, I'd never of thought of doing that. Yes this photo would be before 1923, but I was concerned when I went to look at the fair use rules again and saw the bit about the image creator having had to be deceased for 100 years or more. Is that overridden by the 1923 rule for en wiki? ... Just read your very helpful copyright page ... would we have to prove it was originally published before 1923 then, or does its presence in US books published before 1977 without copyright notice make it PD in the US regardless? ~ Veledan • | T | 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was published (not just created) before 1923, then it's considered PD in the U.S. I can't prove (yet) that the image was published before 1923, but since she wrote her memoirs in 1910 it's extremely likely. Also, if it was first published without a copyright notice, in the U.S., and before 1977, then it's PD -- but that's hard to tell. (Was it first published in a pamphlet that only had 100 copies printed? Did that pamphlet contain a copyright notice? How would one know?) Also, one of the publishers wrote me back saying that they couldn't provide any information about the image. The fact that they published it anyway means they're either ridiculously reckless, or they know it's not a problem. The photo was obviously created around 1900 and was by all indications published before 1923, so I'm fine with it being tagged {{PD-US}}. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell, that's extremely helpful and I'm glad we can use the picture, at least on en-wiki. I'll let Alex know (who asked me about uploading it to Commons) that we can't do that on this basis, but hopefully we'll get permission to put one on the Commons soon—it turns out he lives only 500 metres from the religious house where Bakhita lived, and can take along a boilerplate permission request in person! Thanks again ~ Veledan • | T | 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:AntiRussianPoster.jpg

• Russians in Ukraine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anti-Russian sentiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I need help with this image. While there is no article on the Svoboda political party that issued this poster, it is being used in those two abovementioned articles to illustrate other points. There is more argumentation at the image talk page. A review of this image's use and possible fair-use violation would be appreciated. --Hillock65 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Absent any evidence that this particular poster is a keystone of anti-Russian sentiment or of the experience of Russians in Ukraine, it fails NFCC. It appears to be simply an example of anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine which could be replaced with other, free examples. <eleland/talkedits> 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conclusion seems to be reached and implemented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Absolut-diner-NJ-small.jpg

It seems to me this image is not being used in accordance with its {{Non-free poster}} tag. It is an advertisement for Absolut vodka showing a diner in the shape of a vodka bottle, with the caption "Absolut Jersey". The advertisement itself is not the topic of discussion. Rather, it's being used to bolster the argument that diners are important part of New Jersey culture. I don't think this usage meets nonfree content criterion #8. —Angr 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a citation, the caption in Diner ("New Jersey's cultural association with diners is exemplified in this advertisement for Absolut Vodka") reads like original research. If there is a citation that ties this particular ad to this idea then the usage could be acceptable (although I would think it would be better served in Culture of New Jersey, except we don't have that article, maybe because there isn't any?). howcheng {chat} 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the criteria is bolstering listed as a prohibited argument for fair use. Also, Howcheng, I am asking you to strike your last comment. Not only is it not WP:CIVIL, we don't have Culture of New York, Culture of Florida, etc. either although we do have Category:New Jersey culture. As for OR, this notes the Absolut Jersey ad as part of an Absolut ad campaign that goes back to 1979. This too notes the association between diners and NJ. Wl219 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to add a smiley to that comment, as it was solely in jest. howcheng {chat} 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • So you have a source showing that the Absolut Jersey ad is an ad for Absolut vodka, and you have a source showing that diners are part of NJ. It's still WP:OR to synthesize those together to the claim that this ad is intended to exemplify the importance of diners in NJ culture. —Angr 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How is stating the obvious OR? Did you even bother looking at the sources? "This ad shows a diner in the shape of an Absolut Bottle to portray New Jersey's reputation for it's many diners." Wl219 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Drawing any conclusion not directly stated by a reliable source is OR. And I haven't reviewed WP:RS lately, but I'm fairly certain that pages from the domain geocities.com are generally not considered reliable sources. -- But|seriously|folks  10:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added this image to Absolut Vodka#Absolut Statehood. As such, I believe this fair use review is now moot since its inclusion on Absolut Vodka fully meets the fair use criteria. Wl219 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to write a new rationale for it based on its use in that article. And it still doesn't meet NFCC#8 for its use in Diner. —Angr 19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wl219 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The images were deleted and the action was upheld at deletion review Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi insurgency

• Iraqi insurgency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Is the list of logos in Iraqi insurgency#Insurgency groups logos a violation of WP:NFCC#8? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. —Angr 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, but they've placed back by an editor who believes that I may have a COI. It's probably best if the image list is removed by another editor. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NFCC#8 restricts "potentially replaceable" images, which these are not. Any replacement would be of essentially the same non-free images. Therefore, I believe they are allowed even in a gallery because they quite obviously serve to identify, and "identification" is an explicitly allowed non-free use per {{logo}}. ←Ben^B4 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NFCC#8 is not about replaceability. It says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These logos do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the Iraqi insurgency, and their omission is not detrimental to that understanding. —Angr 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for referring to the wrong criterion #8 below instead of above its reference.

The significance criterion is most certainly met. The images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" because they allow readers to identify the group from the logo, a function that you would expect a comprehensive reference on the topic to serve. Removing the images removes that very useful ability from the article. As {{logo}} states, use of non-free logos for identification is explicitly permitted under the current policy. ←Ben^B4 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

These images are now on deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 21. Why do I get involved in these things? -- But|seriously|folks  15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article no longer contains nonfree images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of CGI in film and television

• Timeline of CGI in film and television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a list containing beaucoup non-free images, but the list does however, contain commentary on the images. Special case? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Allowed per the critical commentary as pointed out. ←Ben^B4 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm. There isn't much commentary. I must admit that my initial reaction was - yes - that's an article that would support unfree images through critical commentary - but looking at the actual article far too many images, far too little commentary. Example: The Abyss "First 3D digital water effect.". Inaccurate, and not exactly commentary. If there were a solid paragraph of prose per image, describing it's creation and artistic qualities then it might qualify. Not currently NFCC. Megapixie 14:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

All issues have been resolved. Some non-free images were removed and/or deleted, and the audio clips have been reduced in size/fidelity per Wikipedia:Music samples. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)}}

[edit] Bradley Joseph

• Bradley Joseph (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article contains replaceable non-free images of the person performing in concert, album covers being used decoratively, and six audio clips of the musician. I think most of this needs to be purged per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8, but it's a featured article so if I even place {{non-free}} on the page it gets reverted. Appreciate any additional opinions. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've disputed the NFC status of the images. Somebody more familiar with the use of audio on WP should handle the clips. Maybe you want to list the article for review at Wikipedia:Featured article review to give the !owners a chance to take care of the problem? -- But|seriously|folks  18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reponse from major contributor: *Screenshot: Image:Bjlata1.jpg and Image:Bjlata3.jpg were nominated for deletion here. I will repeat my rationale: These two images depict a non-repeatable historically significant appearance of a famous individual; showing Bradley Joseph as a featured instrumentalist during the recorded version of Yanni Live at the Acropolis, a concert film recorded in 1993. My question is how can this be replaceable? No free equivalent can be found. (WP:NFCC#1). Also, there is extensive commentary about the concert in question directly adjacent to the images which constitutes fair use. ♫ Cricket02 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

These images are replaceable with any image of him playing the keys, because that's all they show. -- But|seriously|folks  20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, they show him "playing the keys" during a nonrepeatable event, which is what is being discussed in that section of the article, the event. ♫ Cricket02 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Would a fair compromise here be to remove one and leave one of the concert images? Would that be more compliant? ♫ Cricket02 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One image removed and discussion continued here. ♫ Cricket02 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Audio files: There are six audio samples, out of more than 100 compositions and arrangements recorded by this composer (and this is stated within the section), which I do not consider excessive, and of minimal use (WP:NFCC#3). The audio samples are included in a "Musical style and composition" section, a section that extensively and exclusively discusses his musical style and the differences of such over time. Reliable third-party sources are provided in both commentary and in sample boxes. I have also complied with WikiProject Composers Guidelines for using sound excerpts, which also state Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. I believe these samples significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, per (WP:NFCC#8). ♫ Cricket02 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I cite Wikipedia:Music samples in which Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands, musical styles, and genres. They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot. All guidelines are followed. I also cite Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Audio_clips which states, Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by critical, analytical or historical commentary and when attributed to the copyright holder, and these guidlines are followed as well. ♫ Cricket02 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*Two album covers used: Depict the albums being discussed. Image:Hear the Masses.gif, Image:Thejourneycontinues.jpg ♫ Cricket02 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The albums already have their own articles. We are required to keep nonfree content to a minimum, and this doesn't do so. -- But|seriously|folks  20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that these images are indeed "used to compliment discussion of the album", and not "simply complementing" the article, and this is relayed in the rationale for each as well. ♫ Cricket02 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please state your position in terms of WP:NFCC#8, i.e., will readers fail to understand the article if these images are omitted? Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. No, they will not. Removed. ♫ Cricket02 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what about this? WP:NFC#Examples_of_acceptable_use 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). The two album covers in question were used in critical commentary. Does this only apply to album articles and if so, that probably needs to be clarified. ♫ Cricket02 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct - normally this only applies to album articles, where the images are used for identification of the article subject. (WP:MUSTARD addresses this somewhat.) Sometimes they are also used in articles about the band or the illustrator if the article contains sourced commentary about the album cover itself. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of album covers is harmless and can be downloaded from a kazillion sites across the web. Their usage does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD album in any way; copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD; and it is used to compliment discussion of the album within its respective articles. This is all stated in the Licensing tag for {Non-free album cover}. I don't believe that using two album covers to compliment discussion is excessive. ♫ Cricket02 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Complementing discussion" is not an approved use per WP:NFCC#8, they must be necessary for reader comprehension. And those images have no rationales for use in the Bradley Joseph article per WP:NFCC#10c. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Noted. ♫ Cricket02 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously, in trying to achieve featured article status, I have (or believe I have) followed all the rules for fair use. ♫ Cricket02 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is questioning your good faith, and I think everybody here will be happy to work through these issues with you. -- But|seriously|folks  20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. ♫ Cricket02 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Only audio files are left for review. Would like to get a determination and archive some time soon please. ♫ Cricket02 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The FAR is over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AC/DC

• AC/DC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The featured article AC/DC is up for featured article review based on its use of non-free media. Expert opinions are appreciated. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/AC/DC so as not to fragment the discussion. Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion here has run its course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design

• Intelligent design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't see how the book covers Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg, Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg and Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg help on the understanding of the article. We don't need to show a book's cover evderytime the book is mentioned. I have tried to removed the images, but the keep being readded (after my second revert I was accussed of violation of teh three revertion rule). --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was pointed out how the images are significant in the article talk page. [2] If you still insist that you don't understand, then there's the question whether this is a misuse of process. Reinis^talk 16:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I dispute the removal of these images. Intelligent Design is part of a "Culture War", and as such, it is a war of ideas, ideology, philosophy, views, lifestyles, opinions, propaganda, politics, education, etc. A vital part of these battles are the publication by both sides of books. These are the weapons in this war, where the two sides grapple for ideological supremacy. This culture war is fueled by books. These three books were major signposts in this battle. The book covers are not shown "every time the book is mentioned". Articles like intelligent design are dry, and full of citations and statistics and detail. They are heavy and hard to read. These book covers are extremely useful in describing the intelligent design movement. They give the reader something to visualize, and make for a much more readable, accessible article. They are invaluable to Wikipedia articles. The cover art in many cases become iconic in this sort of conflict. The titles themselves evoke certain kinds of feelings, and conjure up all kinds of related positive and negative connotations. I argue STRONGLY for their retention. One person, operating against consensus, should be extremely cautious about summarily and single-handedly in a unilateral fashion, imposing his will on a legion of editors, with minimal discussion beforehand, and minimal evidence supporting his views.--Filll 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll on the whole, and want to add the following. Quite frankly, I've about had it with Abu badali's repeated use of "borderline misrepresentations" in the course of his otherwise worthy efforts to remove the many unnecessary non-free images presently in Wikipedia. Indeed, we ought be able to admit that it is quite arguable that all of the images on WP are unnecessary! First off, these images were added to the intelligent design article, then removed by Abu badali and re-added by three separate editors. Without a word on the article talk page, he chose to use his three allotted reverts, which is what's widely understood to be "edit warring", trying to come in "just under the 3RR radar", so to speak, especially if it is repetitive behavior on the part of a particular user. Well, in this case it's three, so it did not come in under the 3RR radar, but instead resulted in a 3RR warning. And so what? It happens to the best sometimes and that's why the limit of 3RR was set, to put a limit on it. But whether this sort of testing of the local consensus is a repetitive behavior or not, it is, frankly, a slap in the face to people who've chosen to devote themselves to an article. In this case, on the part of at least several of this article's editors, it has involved hundreds of hours worth of personal time, research, thought and actual contribution to the article over the course of months or even years. Collectively this article has taken thousands of person-hours over the last several years, without a doubt. Over 4megabytes of talk, and some 180 footnotes chosen from among many more references found by the participants. Several of the editors of this article know this topic as well as virtually any reliable source in existence.

As to the specific assertion regarding NFCC #8, on the evidence of the user contributions of Abu badali and several other image-deletion advocates, this quite plainly is primarily about "non-free-image" deletion under any criterion that certain image-deletion advocates believe they can argue, rather than about the use of these three images in particular. NFCC #8, being a catch-all subjective criterion, appears quite handy as a tool in this approach. Abu badali and several other image-deletion advocates have made it eminently clear in some of their previous statements that the underlying objection is actually an objection to all images and media in WP that aren't granted an explicit free license (referred to in WP as "non-free"). I will respond to this "fair-use review" more specifically below ... Kenosis 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The images have no rationale for use in that article per WP:NFCC#10c and need to removed on that basis, regardless of other arguments. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that several non-free images are used in that article in violation of Criterion No. 8 and possibly No. 3(a) as well. Another example is Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, which is currently being discussed here. These images improve the article. They're not irrelevant. They should certainly be used if they were free. But — they're not free images, so we have to ask if they are necessary and if they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding. To me, it's obvious that aren't and they don't.

It's completely understandable that people who are very committed to a high quality article on Intelligent design would want to keep any images that enhance it, but such people may not have the best understanding of our image policy, and may not even like our image policy. In struggling to find the balance between building a free encyclopaedia and building a free encyclopaedia, we have to remember that Resolution:Licensing policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." ElinorD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The images do not contribute significantly to the article, so they are to be removed. There's no such thing as a non-free image that improves a free encyclopedia; their very non-freeness degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. —Angr 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the book covers be replaced with free images of the book authors? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think these three images contribute substantively to the articles on Intelligent design, in a way that no amount of text could adequate replace. In each case, an image of the book itself is of far more value to a reader than an image of the author. Each book stands as having pivotal importance in the whole intelligent design movement.

• "Of Pandas and People" has been to date the only text specifically written for use in schools. It is the impact on schools that is the major source of social significance for the Intelligent Design issue. The book was also a focus of the watershed court case Kitzmiller vs Dover.
• "Darwin's Black Box" has been the only major text directly related to the Intelligent Design movement written by someone with a credible claim to being a credentialed practicing biologist. It is critical to the claims (pretentions?) for Intelligent Design to be considered as a theory worthy of recognition as scientific. Discussion of the merits and significance of this book are of major importance.
• "Darwin on Trial" is the book that better than anything else marks the foundation of the Intelligent Design as a recognizable movement. ("The Design Inference" comes a distant second, with its much reduced scope.)

The intricacies of policy and law with respect to copyright, fairuse and wikipedia are all a bit over my head. But as long as there is no legal impediment, there is certainly ample warrant for the images to be retained and used as a substantial benfit to the Intelligent design article, and related articles on associated subtopics directly associated with the particular importance of each book. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing the significance of the books. Can you tell specifically how the reader's understanding would suffer if the images were omitted, leaving the text about the books? The text seems to do a great job of conveying the information, I don't understand how the images improve comprehension of the books' significance. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the image is directly showing the object under consideration, it is presenting information that is accessible at a glance. Many readers process visual information far better than text. To take another obvious example; when the topic being addressed is a book, one vital bit of information is the means to identify the book. A citation is certainly useful in this case; but when you are browsing a bookstore, the knowledge of its visual appearance is information of immediate and direct relevance to locating the book in the shelves. No amount of text can give you this. These books are not merely peripheral additional material. They are actively objects of interest in their own right, and a visual image of the cover is useful and directly relevant information for the general reader who is interested in the topic. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RE Can you tell specifically how the reader's understanding would suffer if the images were omitted, leaving the text about the books? In a word (speaking for myself here) "no", because the conclusion is already drawn by those presently asking the question here. ... Kenosis 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things re: Darwin's Black Box. First, Behe has no claim to being a credentialed biologist. He's a credentialed biochemist. Second, the cover imagery is demonstrative of the IDC movement's use of iconography. Behe's arguments are about sub-cellular molecular systems, but the cover art is right in line with hooking readers whose animus toward evolutionary science hinges upon linking man by descent with other animals and especially non-human primates. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is not original research, it should be added to some article. And in this case, the image could stay. Can you attribute this analisys to reliable sources.? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Wesley R. Elsberry. This image is, among other things, iconic in that it represnets one of the ID movement's watershed presentations of the topic to date. .... Kenosis 04:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good example of useful information best seen visually rather than with text. By the way; I think the distinction between biochemist and biologist is a bit fine. I wouldn't make too much of it; the point is that Behe is a major part of the claim for scientific respectability; and the response to that is the quality of his scientific work rather than slotting him into a precisely defined category. Behe doesn't seem to have done much in the way of scientific work of any kind for about ten years; his publication record for a tenured academic is woeful. Sorry; off topic aside. (Hi Wes! I'm Chris Ho-Stuart.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. the point about man-ape iconography: That's an interesting point and would certainly warrant a fair-use image for illustration - if the point was actually made in the article. Fair use is all about "critical commentary" and "analysis". Come on, folks, don't be lazy. "Analysis" needs doing, not just implying or suggesting. But of course, that will work only if the thought isn't original research, it needs to be attributed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That in turn raises all kinds of interesting peripheral issues on WP:NOR (original research) and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). I am not aware myself that the iconography is discussed in reliable secondary sources. It would not surprise me in the least; but since I don't happen to know of such a source, it would be original research for me to make the point explicit in the article. So I won't.

The real point for us here, I think, is the demonstration of useful information in an image that cannot be replaced by text. Under NPOV, the most neutral presentation of the content of the cover is simply to give the image. We've got that. Analysis would be original research, so we should leave that out. Citing analysis to an independent secondary source would be okay, but not necessary. The real point here, for this discussion, is whether the use of the image gives information that could not be replaced by text. This shows that it does: fairly, and neutrally. Attempting to describe salient features of the cover would be an invitation to OR and POV. The image is better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely the point. If it's "useful information" but we cannot say so, because saying what the "useful information" is would be original research, then it isn't useful information. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Allen MacNeill makes the point about the Behe book cover. While the venue is dodgy, the source is notable: MacNeill is faculty at Cornell University who taught a course on "intelligent design", and even has been cited favorably by the Discovery Institute. --Wesley R. Elsberry 10:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Above, ElinorD mentions specifically the Time magazine cover, "Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg", suggesting that this is an illustration of invalid use of a non-free image. But in fact, according to the Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline, a magazine cover may be acceptable if the cover itself is the relevant topic. That is; you cannot use a magazine cover as a convenient way to get an image of some object, but you can use it is the magazine cover itself is the object of interest. The specific example used in the guideline to illustrate this distinction is the famous Demi Moore cover in Vanity Fair.

When it comes to the Time magazine cover, this falls squarely into the exceptions provided for fair use of non-free images. It is the magazine cover itself that is the object of interest, since the image is useful supplementary to the section of the Intelligent Design article dealing with "controversy". The image conveys immediately, better than text could provide, the public nature of the controversy through a Time magazine front cover. This should be allowed as a legitimate instance of a case identified as suitable fair use of a non-free image in the Wikipedia guideline. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Postscript. If anyone, from any side of this, would like to express their particular perspective on the Time magazine cover, there is a discussion on whether to delete the image at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19#Image:Time evolution wars.jpg. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer Abu Badali's question, ID is not aimed at the scientific community, but squarely at high school science students and thus school boards. As covers of some of the primary ID books high school students and board members are likely to find in their library or waved furiously around at board meetings, Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg, Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg and Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg are indeed illustrative of the topic that they represent and thus are quite properly used at the articles at which they appear as the primary means of visual identification of the topic. Clearly they need to stay. FeloniousMonk 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appears to be ignoring WP:NFCC#8. The images must be more than usefull. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Can you please explain how NFCC#8 applies here? You (and others) have asserted that it applies, but I don't see anyone having actually made the case. Especially given what Wesley and DQ have said, how is it that these images add nothing significant to a user's understanding of the topic? Guettarda 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup... meaning no offence, but what WP:NFCC#8 says is "significant". That means useful. Really, it does... if it is useful, then it is significant. There is also the rider that the image cannot just be replaced by text having the same usefulness; but that is certainly the case given here, where the usefulness/significance is, amongst other things, for visual identification. This is very practical information of immediate significance to anyone looking for the book. This information cannot be given using text. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A gratuitous assertion, which of course, can be gratitously refuted by the rules of logic. Nevertheless, if you look above, its refutation has been far from gratuitous.--Filll 13:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How does an image of a book cover add at all to the reader's understanding? It's not like it's a scientific diagram or even a person's likeness. It's just a book cover designed by an artist. -- But|seriously|folks  13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this whole images issue, and there seem to be undercurrents here of which I may be unaware. I hope I am not stepping on any toes. But it seems to be that some folks are inflating WP:NFCC#8 out of all proportion. What this clause actually says is that non-free images may only be used if they "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". It seems to me that this is well and truly covered by the discussion. A strong case has been made there is there indeed a significant increase in reader's understanding, which could not be replaced by text; and that omission would indeed be detrimental to understanding. It is not merely a presentation issue; but a real contribution of substantive relevant information.

It is significantly useful to know what a book of interest looks like. It is significant and relevant to see directly how a writer or publisher chooses to present their material for its first visual impact. The idea that anything by an "artist" is by default insignificant is... odd.

Some folks seem to take this clause as demanding that the images be necessary, and they interpret that far beyond what is warranted in the text of the guideline. If there was a real legal issue meaning that the images had to go, then fine; they are not "necessary" in such a strong sense that the rest of the article becomes worthless. One could also quibble over what is "significant". If there is a legitimate basis for fair use (and it certainly looks like there is) then it becomes a matter of reasonable application of the guideline only. And the removal of images would indeed have a detrimental effect on understanding. The images are directly relevant and useful information for reasons given. Is there some major problem here that motivates taking the guideline as if it requires that an image be "necessary" rather than "significant"? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution requires us to construe our EDP (the nonfree content policy) narrowly. That is why it is narrower than the copyright law concept of fair use. Beyond that, the article is on ID, not its proponents. It is not particularly relevant how its proponents choose to present their theories, so that choice doesn't really help a reader understand the theories behind ID. -- But|seriously|folks  13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution is not the issue here. The Board resolution did not say that quote-unquote non-free media must be necessary, nor do the presently agreed WP:NFCC say this. NFCC #8 presently reads: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. The Board requires only that we meet the requirements put forward in the resolution, and that they can be more restrictive, but are not required to be more restrictive than what the Board put forward. Thus, the use of words like "the image is unnecessary" are advocacy positions of certain users within Wikipedia. Moreover, the agreed terms of NFCC #8 presently are as I just reproduced here. It's a highly subjective criterion, and its repetitive use by image-deletion advocates in cases where other all the other NFCC have been met is merely a "catch-all" image-deletion advocacy position, and nothing more than that. ... Kenosis 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about proponents. Or at least I'm not; personally I'm not fussed about what proponents look like. The images of Dembski and of Dawkins are great for presentation, but not actually significant for content, IMO.

The important images here are the book covers and the Time magazine cover. Knowing what the books look like is substantive information that helps you find them, and it also helps you understand how the theories are being presented. Covers are generally intended to convey something about the theories at a first glance. It seems to me that they do; certainly in the case of DBB and OPAP. The Times cover is also a deliberate and very effective presentation of a major dimension of the controversy, as well as a significant indicator of its prominence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the book-cover images, all three of which are valid fair use and fully compliant with all WP:NFCC. Same goes for the Time magazine cover. These four fair-use images substantially increase readers' understanding by giving them a far better sense of the particular aspects of the topic, a visual reference with a relevant caption, the combination of which adds to the understanding in a way that merely including a verbal description of the book could not do, and which the words in the image caption could not do on their own by merely replacing them with text in the article. Each gives the reader a marker of an important and interesting aspect of the topic. The basic fact of how thoughtfully chosen images add explanatory power to a written presentation are widely agreed in the professional publishing community, whether profit or non-profit, whether freely licensed or copyrighted. The reason that visual images, not just charts and graphs, are used, e.g. in college textbooks and other material where you might expect that text should suffice is that they are understood and widely agreed to substantially increase explanatory power and thus substantially enhance readers' understanding of the topic. The four fair-use images in this Wikipedia article also give readers a sense of how the particular book or magazine approaches the topic by showing what the authors/publishers choose to depict to represent their particular slant on the topic in a way that mere words cannot possibly (e.g. the panda, the monkey and man back-to-back on the cover of Darwin's Black Box, the look of the Darwin image on Phillip Johnson's book, the illustration and front-cover presentation of the Time issue).
  ........The three book covers represent the three seminal works on intelligent design (in addition to William Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, which came after the three books at issue in this Fair-use review). The manner of presentation chosen by the author/publisher are not not mere visual niceties. Rather, they provide valuable emphasis on these three seminal works in a way that a mere verbal statement could never come close to achieving. Also, as I already mentioned, the image along with the captions serve as "call-outs" for the reader, thus significantly enhancing readers' understanding in a way that a mere textual callout box could never come close to doing. Moreover, all three of these important markers, w.r.t. this complex topic called "intelligent design", allow those readers who give a quick scan of the article to far more easily discern these markers, or "watershed events", so to speak, in the earlier development of intelligent design in a way that a mere sidebar or callout box could never do without appearing trite.
  ........ The Time cover-image visually illustrates a public dimension of how the controversy manifested as it came to the foreground of the public discussion, as presented by one of the foremost publishers in presenting topics of wide public interest in the United States. And, it illustrates the fact that the controversy was deemed worthy of presentation by this publisher on its cover image, in a way that the words "was featured on the cover of TIME magazine with an illustration of [insert a description of that cover]" could never do even in that proverbial thousand words that an images is said to be worth. In other words, the visual image of the magazine cover adds significant explanatory power to the article, and significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Viewed the other way around, its exclusion would detract from the explanatory power of the article, and thus its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. ... Kenosis 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid these images will have to be removed from the article in order to comply with our policy. NFCC #8 is a very high hurdle, and for good reason. An image can be useful, relevant, and mentioned in the article, and still not pass NFCC #8. In order to satisfy this difficult criterion, an image has to provide encyclopedic information that can't be supplied by text alone. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but on Wikipedia, a thousand free words are preferable to one non-free image. I agree that the book covers add to the article, but I don't think there is any encyclopedic content that couldn't be conveyed by text (simply naming the books' titles). The book covers decorate the article well, but being decorative isn't enough. I hear that they "provide emphasis", that they assist readers who scan the article, that they give a "visual reference", that they are "useful supplementary", etc., and I agree with all of that. But I don't agree that they "substantially enhance readers' understanding". They make that understanding more memorable, perhaps, and they attract readers, of course, but that's not the issue. I understand why many find it disappointing, and I sympathize, but these images don't pass muster. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're afraid "these images will have to be removed from the article in order to comply with our policy"? Excuse me your highness, but who the hell are you? I'm afraid I don't recognise either your pedigree or your authority.

  Moving on to reality, I'm not so sure which part of "NFCC #8 is subjective" you fail to comprehend. In fact, you've managed to prove the subjectivity of the item in your own words. Hoisted by your own sad petard, as it were. •Jim62sch• 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quadell is a WP admin who I trust will recuse her/himself from being the closing admin of this review. ... Kenosis 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • These reviews don't having closing admins. This isn't a vote for or against deletion -- it's just a forum where people who don't fully understand Wikipedia's non-free content policy can come to ask questions of those more knowledgeable in that issue, or where people can come when they have a disagreement and want to get more opinions. In this case, several administrators and long-time users who have dealt with our non-free content policy for years have spoken, and nearly all those users agree that the use of these images violates NFCC #8. In addition, several newer users who care deeply about the article in question, but who haven't dealt with non-free content policy extensively, have come to argue vociferously (and frequently with personal attacks, as above) for the opposite conclusion. But it's not a vote. It's just a place to ask advice. If someone isn't interested in listening to the advice of those who have dealt with many hundreds of non-free images, then I don't know why that user would come to this page at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadell (talk • contribs)

Look here, I wasn't born yesterday. This procedure, if it results in weight of opinion among those who happen to be participating that these images do not qualify as fair-use under WP:NFCC, will promptly be used to justify a deletion. Thus, this hook line about "counseling" is, well, I'm not supposed to use those kiinds of words here unless it's essential. Fact is, the regulars around here do not make the policies, at least not alone, and the regulars around here are not the sole interpreters of WP policy. ... Kenosis 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing how blithely those here in favor of deletion just ignore what has been argued previously. --Filll 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Such is the modus operandi of a made up mimd in the deletionist mold. Qui potest creare, facit; qui non, delet. •Jim62sch• 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quaddell said: "I agree that the book covers add to the article, but I don't think there is any encyclopedic content that couldn't be conveyed by text (simply naming the books' titles)" (emphasis added). If I read this right, Quaddell has rejected the extensive explanations made by a number of people (including Wesley and DQ) which explain why these images add addition content, above and beyond what could be expressed through text. Despite all this, Quaddell asserts that the images could be replaced with no significant loss of information simply [by] naming the books' titles. I am amazed by this assertion. I can't imagine how anyone who has read the discussion could possibly make the assertions that Quaddell made. I can only conclude that he hasn't bother to read the discussion. Guettarda 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  I read the discussion very carefully, and I spent about an hour looking through all the comments here and on related pages and reading the article in question before I commented. If you disagree with my response, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of negligence or bad faith. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've read the discussion, and I'm sure Quadell has too. And he's absolutely right. NFCC#8 says quite clearly, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Omitting these images would in no way be detrimental to understanding the topic of Intelligent design; therefore they violate Wikipedia policy. —Angr 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Then go on and delete all images. Because I doubt you will find any image which is absolutely necessary. Several people explained why it would be detrimental to understanding, but you, Abu and Soldier aways just reply it wouldn't, without any explanation why are those arguments wrong.SuperElephant 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

    He didn't say absolutely necessary. He said that the image needs to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". 17Drew 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And you (I wrote this as a reply to Angr) also are merely ignoring all the explanations provided that show the images do give a significant additional contribution to understanding, and hence their removal is indeed detrimental to understanding. You are merely asserting that there is no contribution to understanding made by the images, without any acknowledgment of the debate. Your only contribution the debate above has been the claim "There's no such thing as a non-free image that improves a free encyclopedia." This is denying the guideline that does explicit acknowledge two sides to the issue, and does give the principle of allowing some use of non-free images to meet another central goal of our mission—the production of a quality encyclopedia. (Quoted from WP:NFCC).

It seems to me that there is some kind of campaign underway to dismiss as wholly secondary to the goal of quality some overriding importance of ridding wikipedia of all non-free images. I think this is subverting the plain intent of the guidelines and destructive of the project's goal of a high-quality free encyclopedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I utterly reject the idea that the goal of creating a free content encyclopedia is in conflict with the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Nonfree content is not intrinsically higher quality than free content. On the contrary, deleting all nonfree images would vastly improve Wikipedia's quality, and it's true I've never seen a nonfree image here yet that complied with NFCC#8. But that aside, none of the arguments presented actually does explain why omitting the images would be detrimental to understanding, merely why it's important to discuss the books, and why including the images (allegedly) makes the article more visually appealing. But no one has made a single coherent argument showing that the books cannot be discussed without showing the images. —Angr 23:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't true that deleting all non-free images would improve quality. That is a bizarre perspective in conflict with what is expressed in the relevant guideline. Some images; a magazine cover being a classic example, have no non-free replacement.

The notion that the books "cannot be discussed" without showing images is a red herring. That is not a requirement. The guideline does not mandate total understanding, or absolute necessity. It only requires some significant contribution to understanding.

In the case of a cover, that contribution is pretty clear. To take one very simple and obvious demonstration. It is useful and significant to provide information that assists in obtaining or locating a central reference. Various bits of additional information are typically provided; ISBN, publisher, url, and so on. The cover image is another useful contribution of information that helps locate a book. It is especially significant for browsing in a library or bookstore; and it is information that is typically able to be assimilated at a glance, unlike an ISBN.

This is by no means the only substative contribution to understanding available with the images in question; but it is one that should be readily comprehended. The real substantive benefits of visual information and cues is uncontroversial for inclusion in reference material like an encyclopedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridding Wikipedia of nonfree images would improve quality not just in the immediate way of removing nonfree images from Wikipedia, but in indirect ways as well: currently a whole lot of editors' time is spent in arguing about whether or not nonfree images comply with policy or not, and a whole lot of admins' time is spent in deleting images that don't comply with policy, and then justifying themselves afterward. If the Foundation would finally come down and say "No nonfree images ever; no project may include images not allowed at Commons", it would free up thousands of hours of time that could be spent writing articles. It's true some images have no free replacement, but those images can simply be done without. People could describe things in words, which would also improve the quality of the encyclopedia. As for what the guideline says, "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" really does mandate absolute necessity. "Some significant contribution to understanding" is not sufficient. And your example doesn't even support your argument: even if knowing what a book cover looks like did make finding the book easier (which I strongly doubt considering how very different two editions of the same book can look from each other--there's no guarantee the edition in my bookstore or library will look anything like the version in the article), making it easier for someone to find a copy of the book does not help them understand the article while they're reading it. The bibliographical information and ISBN can be conveyed without compromising Wikipedia's status as a free content encyclopedia, so that information can be provided merely as a service to the reader. But a nonfree image does compromise Wikipedia--to include it merely as a service to the reader when it is not absolutely essential to understanding the article is to undermine Wikipedia's entire raison d'être. —Angr 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems you wish to revise the current guidelines and establish a new consensus, in which there is no use of non-free images. It looks to me that these reviews are wasting far too much time on debates founded upon a campaign to give a stronger guideline than is currently expressed, rather than in actual review of the article in terms of the guideline as it is now expressed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admit I have digressed into discussing how I think things ought to be, my reasons for calling for the removal of these images from this article are based on the current status quo of policy. —Angr 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not.SuperElephant 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions: 1.How on earth can be Wikipedia IMPROVED by removing USEFUL images?

Yes, you're right that this arguing takes too much time. So why don't you stop arguing for removing obviously useful images?SuperElephant 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Angr will correct me if I'm misrepresenting him, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, and though copyrighted images may be useful, including many of them is not worth going against the mission of creating a free content work. 17Drew 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae Quartunciae, if your comment was about what I said, you're pretty far off. I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm just correcting the straw man SuperElephant made, implying that Angr thinks only images that are "absolutely necessary" should be used, when he actually just quoted from WP:NFCC. I didn't make any sort of comment as to what my own opinion of the images are. 17Drew 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, 17Drew, I wrote my comment in response to Angr. We had an edit conflict, and I went back to try again, adding a rider that I was responding to Angr. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. 17Drew 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw man? What do you mean? He said "The big deal is that it violates not only Wikipedia policy but Wikimedia policy to use nonfree images when they are not absolutely essential to understanding the article."SuperElephant 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An hour after the comment you made. 17Drew 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (In FUR Musical theatre)SuperElephant 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I searched for "absolutely essential" and neglected to compare the rest of the quote. Regardless, his policy in this discussion was related to the policy, even quoting it. If you take issue to comments made in another discussion, bring them up in that discussion rather making tangential comments about them here. 17Drew 01:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have agreement that the book covers add to the article, the debate seems to be how significant they are. As a casual observer of both the Intellegent Design movement and the article, I think it important to understand, as has already been stated, that ID is part of the cultural wars, in this case part of the attack on science by fundimentalist religion. In this "battle" the weapons of choice are the books. In this regard the books are "artifacts", and are not included as mere decorations. Without trying to spread an analagy too far, the article on the Battle of Britain would be poorer without a photo of a Spitfire. In fact an illistration of a Spitfire is very important to that article. Likewise the books are central to the story of Intellegent Design, and are very significant to the article. I would support their retention. --Michael Johnson 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep As has been pointed out by multiple users above, use of these images is fully justified under fair-use policy as it currently stands. The fact is they do substantially increase the readers understanding of the subject and the underlying culture war, as they are in a very real sense the physical manifestations of that war. ornis (t) 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing the air on the non-free content guideline

This review is being distracted by a large volume of debate focussed upon review or proper interpretation of the Non-free content criteria policy. Can I propose a couple of common sense points that I hope will be acceptable to everyone.

1. The Non-free content criteria policy of the English wikipedia is currently the subject of debate and dispute. Debate on that policy should take place in its discussion page, and not within the review of other articles.
2. Some Wikipedia editors believe there should be no non-free images used in Wikipedia. That is not part of the present policy, and not a basis for this review of non-free use in various individual articles. Current policy does allow for non-free images to be used to enhance the quality of articles, under conditions set out in the policy.
3. Some Wikipedia editors believe that establishing "fair use" under copyright law is an adequate basis for non-free images to be used in the same way as images in the public domain. That is not a part of the present policy, and the use of non-free images does have strong additional requirements set out in the policy, which must be addressed in a fair use review.
4. The current guidelines do not require that the images are essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic.
5. The current guidelines do require that images give a significant contribution to understanding of the topic.
6. Non-free images must give a significant contribution that cannot be obtained by the use of plain text.
7. Non-free images must give a significant contribution that cannot be obtained by using other images that are available in the public domain.

It will really help if people just show a little bit of willingness to work with different perspectives and stick to the intended focus of these reviews. Thank you —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What you've said here is absolutely correct. (I would have combined the last 3 bullets for clarity, but that's just me.) Thanks for bring this fragmenting discussion around to first principals. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with all of the principles given above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that everyone agree with this. The problem is how much is "significant".SuperElephant 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No! A lot of things are wrong there. First, instead of "current guidelines" you should say Policy. Second, I believe you meant to say "non-free images" instead of "images" in #4 and #5. Third, item #4 is factually wrong. Non-free images must be necessary for the article understanding. Creating a distinction between "necessary for the understanding" and "significant contribution to understanding" will just to the debate. Fourth, in #7, you would have to replace "public domain" for "freely licensed", "images" for "images or text" and "available" for "possible to find or create". --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. SuperElephant 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not trolling. He's disagreeing with you. Please try to understand the difference. His first, second, and fourth points are rather clearly correct. The third point is a valid opinion on how best to word things. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Third: NFCC#8"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." SuperElephant 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest discussion of refinements or clarification on this go to the talk page, so that this page may return to its main business, as recommended in my initial point. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation of fair use review

This is as clear-cut a violation of NFCC#8 as you can get. I understand that the particular books are important to the ID debate, but why is a reader's understanding significantly improved by showing an illustration of the cover? I the purpose of the image is "to identify the book" surely the way people identify books is through title or ISBN number. That information can be put in text form. Borisblue 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Please, read the debate. It has been explained several times.SuperElephant 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have- and they are entirely unconvincing. Books are identified by title or ISBN. Nobody will do a search for a book in the library based on a cover design, nobody searches books on amazon based on a cover design. If the omitting the cover is so detrimental to the article, how come Britannica can create a good article without it? In this case it seems likely that their article is more free than ours, which is a crying shame, given that one of the central goals of wikipedia (and the central goal of the Wikimedia foundation) is to generate free content. Borisblue 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Borisblue, this is the musical theatre discussion. The intelligent design discussion is up one. —Angr 06:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

d'oh I've moved it to the correct section Borisblue 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was to make a free encyclopedia. Ah, well… Reinis^talk 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is exactly the same amount of free content with non-free images than it would be without them. Cover helps to identify the book when you see it.SuperElephant 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Borisblue, our goal is not to ape Encyclopedia Britannica or to as be as good as them, but to create a better encyclopedia than EB. We already are considerably better than EB by many measures, after all. You think we should get rid of all articles on WP that are not found on EB? Should we model ourselves after them in other ways? Your statement above is LUDICROUS. And also, I might add, EB might very well include images in many of its articles which are not available in its free version which you have directed us to at Britannica. And you claim that EB would not be significantly be improved by the inclusion of more images? Why then does World Book outsell it ? Your reasoning is completely spurious.--Filll 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BorisBlue was just pointing out that it's possible to write a good article about Inteligent Design without the use of these non-free book covers. It's a shame that the Free Encyclopedia fails to do so. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is possible to write a good article without images. Nothing in the guidelines or policy demands that article must be impossible without the images. The policy requires "significant increased understanding". Images often give that, whether free or non-free images, and a high-quality encyclopedia employs judicious use of images to good effect. The question is how much you are willing to compromise high-quality for the sake of a principle about non-free images. The guideline is perfectly plain that there IS a tension between these goals of free-use and high quality. PLEASE don't just disrupt this page with proposals for stronger policy in which free-use takes absolute precedence. Take that to discussion of policy. If you can get that written into the policy, I'll be quite happy to act accordingly. But please don't argue the case here. It is currently being massively disruptive of these reviews. Have a bit of consideration. Sheesh. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: identification is explicitly listed in the guideline as a valid factor for consideration in the case of cover art. It's very useful in a library and more so in a bookstore. It's especially useful because the human mind is so well suited to processing and recall of visual information. If you have looked at a number of images for several books relating to a topic in which you have an interest, they recall to mind instantly when you are next idly scanning shelves or stacks. An ISBN is also useful, but in a different way. Most folks will need to write it down; the mind is not so good at assimilating a sequence of text. But once you have it, it can be a key in a database, or a confirmation for checking you have precisely the book you want. Visual cues to pick it out, ISBN to confirm, might be one way to proceed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could that concern be satisfied by clicking the wikilink to the book article and seeing the book cover there? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Only by compromising the quality of the article, to the detriment of understanding conveyed to the reader. There is a genuine cost to such inconveniences. I can't see any benefit whatsoever to such an arbitrary modification, and I do see a benefit to having the image right there on hand in the articles where it is directly relevant and able to contribute to increased understanding. It's also best to have the images together, viewed just by scrolling through the page. Given that there is an increased understanding associated with the images (my position on their value) there is plain quality benefit in having them visible. This one is a non-brainer. Get rid of the images if you must; but arbitrary partial constraints like this is cutting off your nose to spite your face, it seems to me. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary; it makes perfect sense. Non-free images should be used only in contexts where they are surrounded by text specifically about them. Otherwise they would be abused and placed will-nilly on anything remotely connected (which already occurs in places where the rules have yet to be enforced). The standards we have are strict for a reason. nadav (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that either the image is valid; or it is not. We should not just make usage awkward for the sake of going beyond policy.

However, on rereading your comment and that of Videmus Omnia above, I owe an apology; I misunderstood the basis for the comment. Allow me to try again. Videmus Omnia's suggestion makes sense for some of the images, but would be an arbitrary imposition in others. I suspect Videmus Omnia might agree with this, although of course I cannot speak for him. We have a mutual regard even in spite of some substantial differences in opinion.

The question of whether an image belongs on the Intelligent design page or not is properly addressed by policy, with the help of the guideline. The guideline indicates that a cover image can be acceptable for identification when it is associated with critical commentary in the article. There are four cover images in the article, and three of them are associated with a significant critical commentary within the text. The fourth image, of the book Darwin on Trial, has passing mention and quotation, and it is arguable that this is insufficient to stand as critical commentary.

Hence, there is a strong case under the policy for removing this image from the article; but not for deleting it since it is also used in other closely related articles that do have substantial critical commentary. Such removal would be without prejudice. If the mention of the book within Intelligent design is extended to give critical commentary, then there should be no impediment to restoring the image. If there is only passing mention of the book, then I concede that Videmus Omnia's proposal is adequate. There is some detriment to understanding for the article, in my opinion, should the article be removed. That is not a sufficient justification for retaining it; the policy gives stronger requirements for non-free image use than for free image use. The article is under active and on-going development. I think some critical commentary would be valuable in its own right. But what mention is there at present is a bit less than critical commentary. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This image significantly increased my understanding of the article. Omitting it would be detrimental to my understanding the article. Pasado 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. And I find it fascinating that you made the exact same uninformative comment at the IfD, to which Abu Badali gave you a very apt reply: [3] nadav (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction, this is not just a vote. ornis (t) 03:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:FUC policy clearly states that non-free images should only be included if if their inclusion would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Reading above it is obvious some editors have interpreted this as meaning non-free images must be necessary for the article to be understood. This is logically an incorrect interpretation. The policy clearly indicates that the image must improve understanding, which implies the article can be understood without the image. Those arguing for a stricter interpretation would require the article to not be understandable without the image. This is clearly beyond the intention of the policy. The policy does place a high barrier for inclusion, i.e. that they must "significantly" improve understanding. Therefore arguments should only address the significance of the images, not whether they are vital to an understanding of the subject. --Michael Johnson 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the addition of bookcovers without critical commentary of the books themselves contravenes the fairuse guidelines for images. Furthermore, piggy-backing of covers to related articles is a thinly veiled breach of WP:NOSPAM prohibition. --Gavin Collins 08:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Basically, the bulk of "keep" arguments focus on the importance of these books to the topic of ID. There's no dispute about that. But, that's no justification for an image of the cover. The covers are hardly to complex for words. I mean, people do know what a Panda looks like. Also, I suspect anybody who's familiar with a books cover would also be familiar with the title (unlike a painting for example). If "keepers" really think the covers themselves (as opposed to the books) warrant much "critical commentary" I suggest they add such text to the article. Then, we'll see if such text needs the image, or in fact, such text can replace the image. I can imagine a number of free images that could be usefully added to this article. We seem to be using pictures to decorate the article, rather than having images to illustrate concepts and research discussed in the article (e.g. diagrams, charts, example objects, etc...). Finally, the onus of proof is entirely on those that want to include the non-free images. --Rob 06:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the onus has been accepted and given. I'm not optimistic for a sane result in this case... we've already lost to the article the Time cover image, which had an even stronger case for inclusion under the allowed exemption doctrine policy. It plainly met every requirement of the guideline, and had a strong consensus recognition for its its significance under the guidelines. Even so, over the top of that consensus in a decision that I consider to be frankly ridiculous, the image was deleted by the closing admin of a delete debate. It was a classic example in my view of the triumph of bureacracy over consensus, and the desire to downgrade the intent of policy as I understand it, in favour of the foundation resolution for which policy was intended to give exemptions for the sake of quality content. I don't doubt that the closing admin in that case acted in good faith, but it was a bad decision to the plain detriment of the real substantive content of the article; an erosion of substance for the sake of an abstract principle of so-called freedom. No actual benefit in freedom of the encyclopedia itself was gained by this; the encyclopedia becomes no freer for distribution and access and use than it was previously.

People who think this is all just decoration don't get it. It would certainly be possible to write into the article a comment on the iconography of the covers and their direct relevance to the culture war that the article addresses. That was done for the Times cover, to no effect. Basically, I think at this stage there is a resolute determination to deny significance as matter of principle from certain entrenched positions that won't move under any circumstances.

Cover images are often intended as deliberate statements in their own right that convey a deliberate message, the strength of which is not adequately given by text alone. In this case, each cover provides its own insight into how the culture war is engaged. The strongest example is Dawin's Black Box, in which a book ostensibly about the process of evolution and microscopic biocehmical structures is nevertheless illustrated with a man back to back with a chimpanzee. This is a clear appeal to the creationist movement and the objection to evolutionary relationships between humans and animals; even though the text of the book does not attempt to address common descent or relationships. It's a classic example of playing to two audiences, a recurring feature of how ID flips between different inconsistent positions for different purposes. The cover of Of Pandas and People shows a Panda making using of the famous "Pandas thumb", a classic example of what is called exaptation, and implying the contrast of teleology with blind adaptive modification. The cover the Darwin on Trial is less impressive with its iconography, but even here the bold font and austere image of Darwin as if in a dock made by the letters is a subtle message of its own.

Yet here's the problem. If you try to write this account of iconography into the article, it runs a bad risk of being original research. The right thing to do, under policy, is to recognize that the books are significant (this is not disputed) and ALSO that the whole ID debate is very much aimed at popular appeal and emotive reactions of a divided public rather than the dry technical account of a credible scientific case. In such a circumstances, the visual impact of major covers is an important part of the whole engagement, and the proper neutral presentation of that is primarily in the images themselves. The article already deals with the conflicts inherent in the ID focus on popular appeal. Trying to write up the the covers runs the risk of violating undue weight and original research, but the simple presentation of the images and associated iconography, with the brief account of the role of the books in the whole debate, is all a part of the useful information in the article.

Sorry; this comment is overlong. I'm frustrated that this debate is being carried out all over the place in such a fragmented manner. Even now, before this review is even finished, several individuals are rushing into an edit war with repeated deletion of the images over the top of the plain consensus for their importance with the people actually working on the article. No discussion is given, the delete warriors just carry on their argument within the edit comments of each successive delete. These hasty deleted get reverted, with an appeal to explain this major change in the discussion page. But even now at the same time there's a discussion HERE, and it's still open.

I'm fed up with the whole thing. Arbitration doesn't want to touch it. Given the fundamentally clueless albeit good faith deletion of the Times cover, I'm sensing a swing for bureacracy and free content, over editor consensus and quality content. It's particularlly galling to have the edit war over delete going on while this review is still open.

I expect the review to close soon; and want to get in one last rant. Sorry about its length. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – these images are significant and iconic in the public understanding of the subject, givinge a significant contribution to understanding of the topic that cannot be provided by the use of plain text or other freely licensed images. The books and their significance are already the subject of critical discussion in the article, this should appropriately be reviewed and focussed more clearly on the books which would benefit the article as a whole. A good faith effort has been made to carefully follow the image policy and guidelines, if a narrower interpretation is to be deemed "community consensus" that should be made explicit and clear in all the guidance. At present WP:FUC "Minimal number of uses" does not state "once only", and "One-article minimum" requires that "Non-free content is used in at least one article." If images are to be used once only, there should be clear consensus for this and it should be explicitly stated in the policy. .. dave souza, talk 14:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• A book cover image of a book mentioned or discussed in an article enhances the readers' understanding most of the time where it is chosen to be used in an article on the book, on the author, and/or on the subject matter of the book. In addition to what's been termed "iconography", among the main reasons are that visual learners learn better from images than from text. And that includes many people who are not only visual learners but also many who are both verbal and visual learners, which actually is the vast majority of people. Additionally, the cover image also informs the reader of the article how the author and publisher chose to present the topic to the public. Further yet, the rendering of the fact of certain books that are prominent in a subject, and/or article on the author provide visual references that, in essence, tell the reader that the book title in the image is of importance in a way the mere text never does by using the words, e.g. "Book X is an important book w.r.t. the subject matter of this article", even if you put it in bold typeface (which typically looks quite trite by itself anyway). Placed in an image caption, the words "Book X is an important book w.r.t. the subject matter of this article" provide explanatory value to numerous readers of the article, with no diminishing of understanding or enjoyment by those who are excellent textual learners. And further yet, such an image provides a visual offset (different from visual learning per se) that provides a mental break from which most readers (not all, but most) return to the body text able to absorb more textual material than if the image had not been placed there (don't have the studies to cite at present, but suffice it to say here that it has been studied professionally and major book publishers of non-fiction material and periodicals are well aware of this fact). ... Kenosis 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If a reader is unable to read the sentence "This book is important" and believe it without an image, there's nothing we can do about it. These "visual offsets" that you talk about sound a lot like "decorative use" to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved here, and at IFD [4]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical theatre

• Musical theatre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The above article contains numerous copyrighted posters which are being used (in my opinion) in a decorative capacity in violation of WP:NFCC#8, in that they are do not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic discussed. Originally the images had no rationales for use in that article, so I removed them per WP:NFCC#10c. The images now have rationales for that article, which I have disputed on the individual image pages, despite instances in which editors were simply deleting my 'disputed' tags. However, this had led to some bitter discussion and accusations on my talk page, and I'm getting frustrated because I'm having to restate my position over and over again for different editors. Could someone neutral please take a look at this and weigh in? Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article examines the history of musical theatre and describes some of the most important musicals throughout the history of the art form. After 1923, the images that could be used to illustrate musical theatre history (for example publicity posters and cover art for album covers or DVD covers) are under copyright, so there are no free images available for illustrating the modern eras of musicals. Therefore, we are forced to use "fair use" images. The images being used are all comfortably within the "fair use" doctrine, and they are not readily replaceable, as Broadway and West End theatre shows do not permit audience members to take photographs of the productions. In addition, most of these productons are closed now, and no free images are likely to be contributed to the public domain until the copyright expires. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  I dispute We see everything's assertion that those images are purely decorative and ought to be omitted. Using the language of WP:NFCC#8: their presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Michael Bednarek 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Videmus Omnia is quite right that these posters are not being used in compliance with Wikipedia's fair use policy. The first poster is for The Fantasticks, which is not mentioned in the article (apart from the caption to this image) at all. The next is for Sound of Music, which is only mentioned in passing, but never discussed in depth. Same goes for Chicago, A Little Night Music, Little Shop of Horrors, Moulin Rouge, and Hoy no me puedo levantar. Show Boat, Hair, Les Misérables, and Wicked have a bit more discussion, but not to the point where a poster is necessary for the reader to understand what is being discussed. Porgy and Bess is discussed, but the original 1935 cast is not, so Image:Porgyandbess.gif does not meet the significance criterion. Oklahoma! is mentioned, but the DVD is not, so Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg is not validly used. My Fair Lady is mentioned briefly in passing, but the particular issue of Playbill in Image:MusicalTheater3.jpg is not discussed, so that image is invalidly used. A Chorus Line is mentioned, but the audio recording of it isn't, so Image:ChorusLine.jpg is invalidly used. In short, not one of the nonfree images in the article Musical theatre is being used in accordance with policy, and all should be removed. —Angr 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added textual discussion throughout the article to support the use of each non-free image. These images are all of key musicals in the development of musical theatre over the last century, so more discussion can still be added. If anyone knows of any free images that can be used to illustrate an of the post-1923 sections of the article, please point me to them, and I will gladly use them in place of non-free images. Thanks for any assistance. -- Ssilvers 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• By far the majority of the images appear to be for decorative purposes. Just mentioning the name of a musical in passing is not sufficient grounds to include a non-free image. If it was, the history section could in theory be completely stuffed with these images. No, even though I think the article is prettier as it is now, policy is against it. I have seen someone raise the argument that we should ignore all rules here, but I have so far not seen a convincing argument for doing that (and yes, you do need a good reason to ignore policy). --Pekaje 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Unless there's substantial discussion of the play or its artwork, these images don't belong in a general article on the genre. Perhaps one would fly as an example, but otherwise, it's decoration. -- But|seriously|folks  13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping the images. I completely disagree that they are for decorative purposes. These images are a necessary part of the article and significantly contribute to the readers' understand the topic of musical theatre. As mentioned above, they are not easily replaced with and a fair use rationale has been supplied for each of them. Thanks --Broadwaygal 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand how someone could say, "I didn't understand this article until they included that Chorus Line poster. Now it all makes sense." -- But|seriously|folks  15:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation licensing resolution says: "3... EDPs [such as the non-free content policy] must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." This is exactly the case here. We are illustrating "historically significant events" in the development of musical theatre (an article "about copyrighted contemporary works" (at least with respect to the post-1923 works)) with "identifying protected works". -- Ssilvers 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful lot of nitpicking among the editors who support removing the images. Personally I prefer to see some pictures breaking up the text in an article as long as Musical theatre instead of looking at a long expanse of print. Really, what's the big deal with leaving things as they are? ConoscoTutto 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is that it violates not only Wikipedia policy but Wikimedia policy to use nonfree images when they are not absolutely essential to understanding the article. Wikimedia projects are part of the free content movement, which rejects material that is not freely licensed. For some (unfathomable) reason, Wikipedia makes exceptions in a few cases, allowing nonfree images under strict conditions. These conditions are not met in this article. —Angr 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 says something different. It says when it significally helps, not when it is absolutely essential.SuperElephant 22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It says nonfree images are used when omitting them would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic. This topic is no less understandable without the images, so they violate the policy. —Angr 22:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• These images will have to be removed, I'm afraid. I know, the article looks better with the images. . . but that's the point. It isn't "nitpicking" to apply our policy consistently, and that's just what we're doing. If the Les Mis poster is so important in the article, you would think the poster would be discussed. We just can't use copyrighted images to "spruce up" the article unless the topic could not be fully understood without them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I see a bland assertion being made that is not in the guideline at all. The word "fully" does not appear in the guideline. The guideline explicitly considers a tension between being "free" and being "high-quality" when it comes to the use of non-free images. With respect, you are rephrasing the guideline and subverting its actual intent. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You think someone understands the article significantly better with a picture of a poster, where one wouldn't have understood it nearly as well without that poster? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to leave that question to people more directly involved in this particular example. I am only hoping to head off a bunch of distractions founded on requirements not actually given in the guideline. I am suggesting the debate will be more productive if it is founded on the guideline as expressed, rather than dealing both with your apparent desire for a much more strongly worded guideline, and with this review based on the existing guideline. Thank you —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a desire for a more strict guideline. I was just paraphrasing. I think that, even under a very liberal reading of our guideline, these posters don't pass NFCC #8. (You don't seem to disagree.) Really, try not to assume the worst about people. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to understand what musical theatre is about, and appreciate its history and development, an image of the iconic Les Mis emblem (which appears on the Les Mis promotional materials) is extremely helpful. I agree, however, that the discussion of Les Mis in the article could be somewhat expanded to help the reader fully appreciate its importance in the history of musical theatre. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Instead of deleting a key image that illustrates a subject of importance to the article because the discussion in the article needs expansion, the discussion should be improved in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I must concur with Quadell. Regretfully, none of the posters really conforms with our fair use policy, even with an article-specific rationale. About the only way any could would be with a section on musical marketing, e.g. the once-ubiquitous Les Mis ragamuffin (I lived in NYC at the time, it adorned every other bus stop) that became a template for modern theatre advertising. We will have to get our imagery for this article from free-licensed photos taken for school and community theatre productions, I'm afraid, and I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. For one thing, we only need some mention of the posters; they're just the public face of a production. There are photos of the cast in action, to be sure, but there should also be photos of sets and lighting and orchestra pits and other aspects of the genre. Now, if this were an article on theatre posters ... --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning, a screenshot of a program, e.g. Windows Vista, can only be used in an article about screenshots? This seems, even by the strictest standards, way too narrow.

The user User:Nv8200p has now removed the image Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg from Musical theatre with a nebulous reference to WP:IFD where I can't find any mention of this image. Wouldn't it be more helpful to point out the shortcomings of the FUR of that image, if there are any, instead of removing the link to it? Michael Bednarek 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The IFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19#Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg. The lack of significance of the image to the article Musical theatre has been amply shown here. —Angr/talk 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Many images were removed on Sep 30. [5]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 AD (comic)

• 2000 AD (comic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

16 non-free comic covers. I've tried to address this via {{non-free}} and the article talk page, and even boldly removed many of the images, but I was reverted and issue seems to be going nowhere. Appreciate any additional input. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what you man by going nowhere - as I said on the talk page, where we are discussing this, it might take a bit of time. It isn't like the issue has died away - it has only been a few days and I'd like to reach a consensus from the people who know the content and issues. (Emperor 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

As the history and timeline of a major and influential comic series, I find it hard to justify the removal of any of these images. Each issue is strongly commented on in the accompanying text, and shows a major introduction of storyline, character, artist or change in direction.

To imply that 17 covers, of an estimated complete "whole body" of over 1,400 is ridiculous. Most issues are extremely low resolution as well.

I would suggest that the article is possibly too stingy with imagery, and should include The Ballad of Halo Jones cover and probably others as well. --Knulclunk 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as clear copyright infringement. The comics are highly collectable, and permission to reporoduce them should be sought from IPC Magazines. Clear break of copyright.--Gavin Collins 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I finally took care of this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet

This page has tons of pictures of puppets, divided by historical period, etc. Many of these photos are non-free. Most are in galleries. Someone really ought to go through and figure out which ones can be kept, and how. Any volunteers? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Crickets chip, a tumbleweed blows across the page...

Thanks for volunteering, Quadell! —Angr 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I exceeded my wormcan limit for this quarter during my most recent unwarranted deletion spree. Maybe in October . . . -- But|seriously|folks  08:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You take pride in that as if it was a merit badge :) nadav (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I messed up. -- But|seriously|folks  08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Kim TechTV Screenshot

Fair use rationale for [[6]] was written after Admin User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise nominated it for deletion siting bad rationale. The rationale did not pass Deletion Review and was deleted. Now completely new rationale which meets WP:NFC was written in good faith to make good on the problem. Admin immediately deleted image and rationale again without allowing review period of new rationale. "Fair use review" is requested however unfortunately the image is not available for you to see, as Admin has threatened to block if it is uploaded. Please advise. Thank you. Rugz 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This image was nominated for deletion here because it failed NFCC#3 and #8, not just because it lacked a valid rationale. As a "Delete" !voter said in the discussion there, "no amount of tweaking the rationale can make this image relevant". I deleted the image as violating NFCC#8 in particular, regardless of the stated rationale. It was taken to DRV here, and the deletion was endorsed. There's really nothing more to do here, in my opinion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Fair use images uploaded by User:Wl219

I am requesting FUR of the following images that I uploaded over the span of the last year:

• Image:Fob-cover.gif (fair use, book cover)
• Image:183clubalbum.jpg (fair use, album cover)
• Image:Bramson ORT logo.gif (fair use, institution logo)
• Image:Diplomaticlicense.jpg (fair use, TV logo)
• Image:Fordham-iplj.png (fair use, magazine cover)
• Image:Bluebook.jpg (fair use, book cover)
• Image:FordhamFinSecTaxLawForum.png (fair use, magazine cover)
• Image:FordhamJCorp&FinL.png (fair use, magazine cover)
• Image:Formosa airport argentina.jpg (fair use, promotional image)
• Image:Brick-single-cover.jpg (fair use, single cover)

I assert that there is a fair use rationale for each of them, but User:VegitaU has tagged all of them as disputed. Not only that, he has also deleted what I wrote down as my rationales and then had the gall to warn me about removing content. I believe that I properly addressed VegitaU's concerns and legitimately removed the dispute tags, but then he reverted. At first I assumed good faith but his pattern of behavior suggests to me a campaign of harassment. However in the interest of civility I'm bringing all the images here so that 3rd persons can comment. If the FUR results in delete then fine, it's Wikipedia's loss not having these images that I believe are legitimate fair use. If the FUR results in keep then I want it made clear to VegitaU to stop what he's doing. Wl219 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Smashing! Allow me to retort. I have informed the user above about the regulations guiding matters on image use. None of the supposed "fair use rationales" the user has provided have followed the regulations set forth here, regardless of efforts to educate him to the contrary. Additionally, the user has used incorrect copyright tags to mark "magazine covers". These images, as anyone can see upon first glance, are not magazine covers, but inner contents, copyrighted and, as always with him, with no appropriate fair use rationales. Now, I am particularly amused by the Formosa airport image. I have been reviewing non-free images on Wikipedia for quite some time. This user has apparently not heard of freely-replaceable images, or, more likely, has chosen to ignore my constant reminders. Any knowledgeable reviewer will recognize this image must be deleted immediately since a free image may be obtained. Also, this user has been waving the symbolic "harassment finger" unto my actions, without realizing, of course, that there is already a harassment guideline which states that: This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. I welcome any comments on the matter from educated reviewers. Thanks. -- VegitaU 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's have a look at this:

• Image:Fob-cover.gif (fair use, book cover)

Hard to see exactly what this is from. Could well be the cover of a play guide, and in that case the tag is the closest appropriate and there is a valid cause for fair use (for identification purposes). A rationale needs to be written.

• Image:183clubalbum.jpg (fair use, album cover)
• Image:Brick-single-cover.jpg (fair use, single cover)

No question that these are going to stay, particularly the last one. Need rationales, I'll see what I can do.

• Image:Bramson ORT logo.gif (fair use, institution logo)
• Image:Diplomaticlicense.jpg (fair use, TV logo)

Logos for the purpose of identification in the articles on the subject. Allowed by default, rationale missing but not exactly difficult to add.

• Image:Bluebook.jpg (fair use, book cover)

Does appear to be a cover for the purpose of identification. Allowed, but needs rationale.

• Image:Fordham-iplj.png (fair use, magazine cover)
• Image:FordhamFinSecTaxLawForum.png (fair use, magazine cover)
• Image:FordhamJCorp&FinL.png (fair use, magazine cover)

These ones are harder to make a case for. They're not really that identifying, in that it's scans of the tables of contents. Of course, there is the possibility that these journals don't in fact have any other covering.

• Image:Formosa airport argentina.jpg (fair use, promotional image)

Unquestioningly a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Mark for deletion.

As far as I'm concerned, the only ones warranting a review are the Fordham ones, and maybe the Fob one to determine what it is. The others seem OK, albeit with missing rationales. --Pekaje 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the Fordham covers, they are, in fact, journal covers and not the inside contents pages. HeinOnline.org is a journal archive service which scans the printed issues (including front/back covers) into PDF, which allows readers to read them with their original formatting. I uploaded the cover PNG image from the Hein PDF. The magazine fair use criterion is the closest match, as a periodical publication. Wl219 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is common for law reviews to be published with their TOC as the cover and not have an inside contents page. Notice the practices of Yale, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern all follow this convention. Wl219 22:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case I think we can agree on that. Ordinarily we don't allow such high-resolution images in the fair-use category. However, a case might be made for it here, in that much lower than 500px high would render the text useless and therefore the image pointless. But in that case it should explicitly be explained in the fair use rationale. And BTW, you seriously should take a look at WP:FURG, because someone will eventually spot a missing or poorly argued fair use rationale (which they all were, as far as I can tell). I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about what kind of justification is required. --Pekaje 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's, what, the sixth time someone's told him about WP:FURG? -- VegitaU 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found the original source of the FOB image here: [7]. I think it might qualify under magazine cover fair use if it was on a Playbill cover, or poster fair use. However, I concede that I haven't been able to find evidence that this specific graphic was used for the book cover of a published edition of the play. There is another possible book cover that may be useable, here: [8]. Wl219 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it definitely looks more like a poster, but I'm no expert. The cover in the second link is, IMO, of too low resolution to be usable, and I'm also not sure of its relevance. Based on some other plays in the first link, I'm inclined to believe that it is in fact the poster for the play that is being shown. As such, {{non-free poster}} applies. --Pekaje 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Resolved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image was deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jreb.jpg

This image is only being used to decorate the Johnny Rebel (singer) article. Since it's an album cover, it doesn't seem to meet fair use requirements to include it in the singer's article. There is no article about the album. Corvus cornix 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fair use there. It's not being used in compliance with its own tag, which says the image may be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". I'm orphaning it and tagging it for deletion. —Angr 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Logo is OK on this article, discussion caused by confusion about the initialism FUR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChicagoMarathonLogo.jpg

I have had Chicago Marathon listed at WP:GAC for a month. The 30th anniversary running will occur on Sunday. I have posted a request for expedited review. There was some talk that I might need a WP:FUR for logo usage. However most athletic organizations such as Major League Baseball, Los Angeles Dodgers, Montreal Canadiens, New York Giants, Olympic Games and Indianapolis 500 are allowed a fair use image. Is there any way to expedite a request for usage approval.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the author who referred to "FUR" at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Chicago Marathon was referring to a fair use rationale, not a fair use review. --Pak21 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems likely to me too. No question of this being anything but 100% acceptable for fair use. So much so that we even have a standard templated use rationale for this kind of use, which I have added. I think that is all your reviewer was looking for. Jheald 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald, and Pak21, they refer to Fair use rationale and it looks like you're OK, good luck - Modernist 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was referring to, sorry I wasn't more specific. --Nehrams2020 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved - image not F/U removed, others licensed & tagged correctly. SkierRMH (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Series of Unfortunate Events

Can I please get a FUR on the images in this article? There's been concern at the WP:GA/R that the images aren't appropriate.

• Image:Snicketbookset.jpg - some concern as to if this can be licensed under GFDL, as it is a picture of the books' design, which is copyrighted. Probably comes down to whether you consider a book's cover to being a 2D or 3D object.
• Image:ThePenultimatePeril.JPG - seems to have been put there to illustrate the plot summary???

Is used in infobox as well as in a compare/contrast with alternate cover w/commentary. Appears to be OK.SkierRMH 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Orphelins.jpg - doesn't seem particularly relevant to where it is in the article. (Themes) Fair use rationale says it illustrates the calendar.

Since the calendar isn't mentioned in the article, can't seem to justify this one. SkierRMH 08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Image:The grim grotto uk.jpg - seems okay, in the section discussing the books.
• Image:Tragictreasury.jpg - seems okay, in the section discussing the soundtrack.

Cheers. -Malkinann 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Pac-man.png

Image:Pac-man.png - I'm only disputing the rationale of it used in the video game article. The rationale listed is:

1. There is no free equivalent
2. It will not hinder the copyright owner's ability to sell the related product
3. It is of low resolution, and it is not used extensively
4. Similar images are posted elsewhere
5. This image helps contribute to encyclopedic content
6. Has no unresolvable problems with the Wikipedia:Image use policy
7. Is on at least one page because it is on Video game
8. Is significant to the Video game article because it provides a picture of the most famous and iconic example of a typical game
9. Shouldn't be used outside of the article namespace
10. Has this notice as well as a copyright tag

Number four isn't really relevant for fair use rationale. But what I'm really questioning is number 1. It implies that there's no free equivalent - when there do exist free screenshots of games. It's not necessary that this one be used for the video game article, especially if we could use a free screenshot. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I imagine plenty of videogames are available under free licenses. We should be using a screenshot of one of those instead. Calliopejen1 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's necessary - see number 7. You can't exactly have a video game article without having a picture of the most famous and iconic game. 79.75.146.78 14:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in the article Video game it's completely replaceable with a free equivalent since there are freely licensed video games. —Angr 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that, since the article doesn't actually discuss Pac-Man, no need for this game to be the one doing the illustration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed from video game, unless the article has changed, which it should, must be a pretty weak article if it doesn't even discuss Pac-Man. 67.173.131.28 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a strong case for including Pac-Man: it was, to some extent, a paradigm of video games for decades. Games of all sorts exist, but for a long time video games were associated with stylized, pixelated characters interacting in a highly unrealistic plot and setting. Gran Turismo is a racing game, Halo is a shoot-em-up, Mario is an adventure game, but Pac-Man just defies pigeonholing. Plus there's the notability in popular culture, which itself makes a case for a copyrighted game screenshot: no free game can convey the idea that video games occasionally go beyond just what's on screen (Mario or Halo would also work in such cases). But I agree with the above IP: if we can't work in Pac-Man itself as a game into the article, then the image should go. Kelvinc 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the way it's used in the article is not to illustrate Pac-Man's unique gameplay features -- it's simply used at the top of the article to illustrate video games in general, and any game screenshot would perform the same function. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've replaced it with a free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image deleted according to I7 - fair use wasn't provided. SkierRMH (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Nightingale

Image:Annie2007small.jpg I seem to be having ridiculous trouble with this one. I asked Annie via an email for a suitable image for WP & her agent sent me one. It's in the article and credited to the photographer, who has also given permission for its use in Wikipedia. But whatever rationale I put on, it keeps being disputed. The only way a free image would be available is for me to go to one of her gigs and take one, but I'm too old for that sort of thing and can't afford it anyway. What do I do? Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the bot tagged that article is that the rationale doesn't name the article the rationale applies to (which is required for WP:NFCC#10c). That part is easy to remedy.

There is also the issue that, since Annie Nightingale is alive, we don't generally permit nonfree images to be used to identify her. If the Old Grey Whistle Test is a notable show, we may be able to use that image from the article (it would help if the article backed up the notability of her hosting). But the green one image isn't going to pass our restrictions about replaceable nonfree images unless it is released under a free license. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Write an email to her or the agent, and say that the Wikipedia is meant to be reused, so needs images that others can reuse. We need them to put it under a free license, such as the GNU Free Documentation License or the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. If she and/or agent agree, forward the email to permissions-en AT wikimedia.org, and Bob's your uncle. If they don't agree, ask the Flickr user who owns http://flickr.com/photos/breakspoll/112990909/ and http://flickr.com/photos/breakspoll/113001158/ if they would be willing to change their licenses to CC-BY-SA, and we would give them attribution. It sometimes works; not always, but more often than not. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image has been deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Pritzker Pavilion

I recieved a fair use rationale request for Image:ABChelicopter view of Pritzker Pavilion.jpg. Is it possible to justify a fair use request by a picture that adds perspective that is not available from other pictures when many other pictures exist. This seems to be the only skyview in which the stage and seating are visible. I believe the following considerations are in favor of allowing use of the image:

1. There is no free equivalent
2. It will not hinder the copyright owner's ability to sell the related product (the video)
3. It is of low resolution, and it is not used extensively
4. This screenshot is an insignificant frame of an entire video
5. Similar images are posted elsewhere from other perspectives
6. This image helps contribute to encyclopedic content

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. There's absolutely nothing that this unfree image adds to the understanding of the article that the other free-use images don't already show. There are plenty of aerial and ground shots of the pavillion. The only distinguishing point about this picture is that it's an aerial shot where you can see the stage and the seating. That's it. How do you justify that when there are free images of both? You'd have to make some argument that only an aerial shot of the two can possibly make clear to the reader what the pavillion is and that's an argument that won't ever wash. -- VegitaU 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Seems to be resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Man Enters the Cosmos

The above added perspective argument is relevant because I also would like to download the image at [9] and upload it to add the skyview perspective to both Man Enters the Cosmos and Adler Planetarium.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one of the images you want to upload, but it really doesn't matter. The Adler Planetarium is not a historical structure as it is still in use. That knocks out that first picture per WP:NFC#UI12. Pictures A, B, and C are all freely replaceable and the last satellite shot adds nothing significant to the reader's understanding. -- VegitaU 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Replaced with free images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of “Watt balance” picture in Kilogram

I would like greater input from the larger group of administrators. This is an issue of whether it is fair use to use the Watt balance image in the Kilogram article. I had the image originally placed there in a section of the Kilogram article dedicated to the Watt balance. Here is an old version of the article as I had the picture originally placed; please click on that link and then click on the 7.2.1 section to see how I had used it.

An administrator User: Swatjester removed the picture from the article. He left no other commentary or discussion anywhere other than a cryptic edit summary stating “bad fair use image.” The only way I learned Swatjester had removed the image from the Kilogram article was by receiving a message from Orphabot that the image was orphaned and targeted for deletion. After that, I placed the image in the Watt balance article so if Swatjester again deleted the image, it would no longer be orphaned. Note that Swatjester never identified himself as an administrator. Due to his method of operating, I suspected he was some sort of super-user.

My fair-use rational is here in the image’s Licensing section and I think it lays out my reasoning in as succinct a fashion as I can. In a nutshell, my position is that the Watt balance is current government research into a new electronic definition of the kilogram. Given that the International Prototype Kilogram (the artifact upon which the kilogram is based) has proven unstable and there is currently intense interest in finding a new definition, the Watt balance is obviously germane to the topic of “kilogram;” that’s what the project is all about. Further, according to the NIST’s policy, the picture is free to use whenever it is used to discuss NIST projects directly.

I had a discussion with Swatjester on his talk page. The full account of it is here (complete with my last response, which he deleted using Twinkle). His claimed basis for deleting the picture has varied as fast as I addressed them. For instance, at one point in my discussion on his talk page, Swatjester stated “It [the picture] still fails to meet the requirement ‘significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject,’ and more importantly, it's omission is not detrimental to the understanding of what the subject is.” I replied that no common person has any notion of what a Watt balance is so a picture of it is crucial to understanding the basic, essential nature of what a new, electronic kilogram would be. Currently, in a nutshell, his stated reasoning was as follows: Suffice it to say, the picture would be acceptable on a separate "watt balance" article but it simply is not allowable on the Kilogram article. I've given you many reasons why: it's too attenuated, we have other free pictures to explain the subject, it's not the direct subject of the article, it doesn't improve the article, it's omission does not hurt the article, etc.”

I had earlier appealed for help with another Wikipedia administrator, User talk:Theresa knott and while in the process of writing that appeal to her, Swatjester interceded and started addressing comments to me as well as her. Please see his comments here on her talk page since it is clear that Swatjester is not assuming good faith on my part. His comments betray that he is put off by past “ownership” problems on my part and I believe this view of me has tainted his judgment so he isn’t properly judging this issue solely on its merits. Note that the above link is a historical one, after his last edit as of the writing of this appeal. I think it is revealing as to his feelings on this matter. If he changes his mind on any of it, his current views can be found on Theresa’s current talk page.

It is a simple matter for me: 1) I want to have a good article on the kilogram, 2) the picture is crucial for the average layperson to understand the basic nature of what a watt balance is since it is beyond the average layperson’s experience, 3) the watt balance project is entirely about developing a new electronic kilogram, 4) the picture is being used precisely as intended and desired by the NIST, and 5) I disagree with Swatjester. It’s that simple. That doesn’t amount to “vandalism” as Swatjester has accused me of doing for reverting his edits (again, he never identified himself to me as an administrator). I ask only that the suitability of the Watt balance picture as used in the Kilogram article be judged on its merits and that all involved in this matter assume that I am acting in good faith.

Can other administrators help(?) here, or at least articulate better than Swatjester has accomplished so far, as to why an picture of a current U.S. government project to develop a new kilogram standard doesn’t sufficiently discuss the subject of “kilogram”? Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's argument is right. This image doesn't help the reader understand what a kilogram is. It might help the reader understand what a watt balance is (that is debatable as well, given the strange nature of the image). But the article is not about watt balances, it's about kilograms. A second point, not raised by Swatjester, is that it should be possible in theory to obtain a free image of this balance. If so, this image is "replaceable" and thus not permitted by our image policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional information: The kilogram currently is the mass equal to the IPK. The current image at the top of the article is one I created for the article. I made that CG-generated image even though it's rather easy to imagine what a shiny, golf-ball-sized cylinder of metal is. The inclusion of that image makes the article look better. The Watt balance image certainly helps the reader to understand what an “electronic kilogram” looks like; how can one get their minds around such an abstract concept? Regarding the “theoretical” possibility that one should be able to find a free picture of the Watt balance, if someone can find one, I’d be happy to use it instead. Greg L (my talk) 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What would help the reader more is a diagram of how a Watt balance works. The Watt balance article is very vague about the actual operation. Just showing someone a picture of something, without saying how it works, doesn't help them understand that thing - it's like showing someone a magic artifact.

To address a different point raised: the policy on nonfree images is concerned with the theoretical possibility of replacing images, not with the actual availability of replacements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• During the course of revising the Kilogram article, I exchanged 25 e-mails with R*chard Ste*ner at the NIST to check facts and get more information. He’s the guy in the Watt balance picture. Last night, I e-mailed R*chard asking for non-copyrighted pictures. I just checked my e-mail and see that he sent me some non-copyrighted (free) pictures. I would appreciate it if someone would tell me exactly what license tag I should use in this instance. I would also very much appreciate it if someone would make sure that any of Swatjester’s Twinkles won’t interfere with my editing. Greg L (my talk) 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  P.S. Make that two e-mails with pictures from Mr. Steiner. Greg L (my talk) 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Notice/Update Swatjester and Greg L have been corresponding via direct e-mail and appear to have reached an agreement on how to license the new pictures with minimal bother to the fellow at the NIST who took the pictures. Greg L (myself) is working towards that end. No further help in this regard is required. If an administrator out there thinks that the non-free picture of an “electronic kilogram” pertains sufficiently to the subject of “kilogram” to merit its inclusion in the Kilogram article please still weigh-in; I’d rather use the original picture as it looks better than the home-grown ones. Greg L (my talk) 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RESOLVED. For the record, the guys at the NIST were flat-out anxious to have an image of their watt balance used in this article and send me three free ones to use. The fair-use rational I had was 1) clearly within the law, and 2) per the wishes of the NIST. Accordingly, the odds of a lawsuit over this one was precisely zero. I accept that the judgment is per current Wikipedia policy. I submit that the policy should be revised so that non-free content can be treated according to greater range of criteria. Clearly, a vidcap of a copyrighted, modern movie to show an actor in a particular context is in an entirely different class than is a press release image from the U.S. Government to promote that department’s work. IMO, Wikipedia policy should be revised to accommodate these realities. Greg L (my talk) 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is actually a great example of why the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are good. Without them you wouldn't have bothered to ask for a free content image and simply would have used the fair use image. Garion96 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:DSCN0732.JPG

• Please consult Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG and Talk:Nobel Prize for the dispute about this image of the medal in the photograph Image:DSCN0732.JPG in Nobel Prize's infobox, which appears to be a violation of copyright and trademark of the Nobel medal image of the Nobel Foundation, and fair use criteria of Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a copyright violation as it is the work of a contributor. Explanation is provided and a trademark template is included concerning the subject of the photo. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the short answer of why the design of the medal is not under copyright? -- But|seriously|folks  07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[Short answer: "the design of the medal" is both "under copyright" and trademark as the logo of the Nobel Foundation. The statement that it is not the copyright (as well as trademark) of the Nobel Foundation is false. --NYScholar 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

That contributor who responded is the creator of the photograph; the design of the Nobel medal is a trademarked logo of the Nobel Foundation and its display is protected by the Nobel Foundation via its copyright and trademark notices requiring written permission before it may be displayed anywhere and only if permission is granted in writing, following such written permission being granted, one is required to use both a trademark and a copyright symbol followed by "The Nobel Foundation" in any use of it. This photograph is a personal photograph and should not be posted on the internet via the license claimed in Wikipedia. It violates the notices on the Nobel Foundation's offical website (as the user does know). He (or she [understood throughout]) refuses to accept these facts and his (or her) "licensing" description is misleading. See User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16#Previous discussion re: Image:Nobel in Literature.jpg for quotations of the notice that pertain to the display of the image of the Nobel medal (Alfred Nobel's profile stamped on Nobel medals). --NYScholar 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[gender neutrality intended throughout. --NYScholar 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

Specifically the "design" of the Nobel medal is both copyrighted and a trademarked logo of the Nobel Foundation, as its website clearly states in its warnings and notices. --NYScholar 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the notice: "Copyright" and "Trademark" from nobelprize.org (official website of the Nobel Foundation). The notice refers to all images and to all photographs of Nobel medals, not only to those distributed by the Nobel Foundation itself on its website; that includes photographs that individuals take of medals in museums and on display in cases in other venues. It pertains to the photograph taken by User:Anubis3, who posts with a different signature above (one and the same user as the creator of the photograph). --NYScholar 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [See sec. re: "Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate." Such written permission is required before any such "use". --NYScholar 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

Re: the use of the logo of the design of the medal (in photographs or otherwise) see the section on "Trademarks" in "Copyright: Legal Notice", a PDF accessible via the previous link given; it's part of the copyright notice. --NYScholar 08:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Following that section on "Trademarks" is a separate section on "Copyrights", stating: Everything, including but not limited to the articles, texts, photographs, images, data, files, audio and video clips, illustrations, designs, educational games and documentation in whole or in part (the “Content”) which appears on the Site is either proprietary to Nobel Web or used in accordance with applicable law or third party consents." (Italics added.) --NYScholar 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from not being particularly short, that doesn't answer my question. -- But|seriously|folks  08:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's the same design they've been using since the start, presumably there's a strong chance the basic design is now copyright-expired? As for the website boilerplate, we shouldn't necessarily accept that uncritically -- notices like this do all too often get slapped on stuff people don't actually own the rights to, or where rights have expired. Without having done any research, a-priori I would think there is a good chance it's now PD. Jheald 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace medal sculpted by Gustav Vigeland, d. 1943. But presumably published in the United States before 1923, so now out of U.S. copyright? {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} ? Jheald 11:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that copy and pasting your (NYScholar) lengthy discussion is going to make your argument correct or more convincing. Again, I think where there is a misunderstanding is that the notices you are referring to, are under the "Terms and Conditions" of the NobelPrize.org website and is referring to the content of NobelPrize.org. This picture is clearly not from that website. Regardless of the subject of the photo, the person who takes the photograph owns the copyright to it under US copyright law (I don't know if this could be any more clear). The subject of the photo, however, may limit its use. In this case the trademark. But the trademark, here, is noted with a template on the page and on wikipedia the use of this image is non-commercial. Further copyers/distributors have to take note of the trademark. Here is a similar picture in commons under the same principle [10]. So, NYScholar, I really don't understand what the problems is because so far only you have vehemently questioned this. ButSeriouslyFolks, I hope I was better able to answer your question. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C) 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)}

Not necessarily. The person who takes a photograph has copyright in it under US law, but the subject of the image may also be copyrighted to someone else, making the photograph a derivative work. If the subject is copyrighted, the image is non-free, no matter what the photographer says.

Jheald is on the right track here. I would think the medal and/or its design were published (which can include public display of a medal) in the US prior to 1923, so I would agree it is most likely PD in the US. Not sure of the proper tag, though. -- But|seriously|folks  15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I can see how one could possibly consider this a derivative work. But, even so, if there is that issue, then this work clesrly has a degree of originality to it (i.e. angle, lighting, background, resolution, etc.). In other words, it is not attempting to be passed off as the original or depicting the original in a negative way. I will also, however, try to research when it was first published in the US so that this situation can finally be cleared up with this user. Thanks. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C) 15:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)}

Yeah, there are potentially two copyrights in play, the original copyright of the medal design and the photographer's copyright in the particular photo of the medal. Probably should have said it that clearly above. If the medal is PD, we only have to worry about the photograph, and if that's released, we're good. -- But|seriously|folks  16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of the tags available at the moment, IMO {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} seems closest. But I can see there might be a case for creating a new tag {{PD-Roundart-US-1923-abroad}}, based on that and {{PD-Roundart}}. Jheald 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The image in the photograph (the "design" of a Nobel medal) is the "proprietary" trademark and copyright of the Nobel Foundation. When in doubt about whether or not permission has been received and granted for displaying the Nobel Foundation's Nobel medal image, one needs to consult intellectual property attorneys. The above posters are not lawyers. Their opinions contradict the copyright and trademark notices posted by the owners of the image. Their guesses are not informed by knowledge of copyright and trademark laws or by Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies relating to fair use. --NYScholar 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See the recent admission by the uploader (Anubis3) that her/his photograph would likely not be permitted by the Nobel Foundation: [11]; Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG#Email the Nobel Foundation. That calls into question further the claims on the image page for this "derivative work" (the photograph). --NYScholar 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the licensing and its claims violate Wikipedia's own policies pertaining to fair use. The image page needs to feature the proper templates and to correct the false and misleading information in the licensing claims. --NYScholar 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, it should be a "candidate for speedy deletion"; reverting of the template that I placed on the image by its creator deleted that intention. The image should not appear in Wikipedia articles with misleading information on the image page. Wikipedians are required by policy to delete potential copyright and trademark violations (which is why I deleted the image from the article earlier); by reverting my deletion of the image, the user in question has been engaging in violations of WP:3RR (I have filed and updated my report there). --NYScholar 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above by another user: the photograph of the medal on display is a "derivative work" and such works are subject to proprietary copyright and trademark of the design of the medal as posted publicly and clearly by the Nobel Foundation. Its posting in Wikipedia is not within fair use; written permission is required by the Nobel Foundation for such "use" of its design in photographs and images of its Nobel medal. One can enjoy one's own photograph privately; to post it publicly on the internet and to claim ownership in false licensing violate Wikipedia policies pertaining to copyright and fair use of such derivative works. --NYScholar 19:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing copyright and trademark law. We are not prohibited from using other's trademarks as long as there is no likelihood of consumer confusion. Wikipedia readers understand that the presence of a trademark or logo in an article does not mean that the article is being produced by the trademark holder. As for the permission issue, the copyright concept of fair use permits us to use images without permission in certain cases, and if the use of the image complies with our non-free content policy, which is narrower than US fair use law, then no permission is required. -- But|seriously|folks  21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of fair use require a detailed fair-use rationale listing every instance of its use in Wikipedia. The image has no detaileed fair-use rationale. I am not "confusing" copyright and trademark. The Nobel Foundation website addresses the "design" of the medal (all of its medals; "everything" under its proprietary notices) clearly. The design is both copyrighted and trademarked as the logo of the Foundation. Giving the image as if it were with the permission of the Nobel Foundation and failing to provide notices with copyright and trademark symbols such as "Original design" copyright and trademark registered (symbols) The Nobel Foundation violate its notices; not seeking written permission to display its logo clearly violates its notices that one must do so. Otherwise one gives the false impression that the featuring of the image that belongs to the Nobel Foundation has been done with its permission. It has not been.

"Butseriouslyfolks" pov is not in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statements re: fair use. The image placed in Nobel Prize is not within fair use and the image page does not address the need for a detailed fair use rationale pertaining to its use in Nobel Prize. The only place where that particular image would make any sense is as an illustration of the article on the person (Norman Angell) who received that particular medal in 1933; if placed in that article, it would still need a detailed fair-use rationale on its page. The licensing statement is false and misleading. The uploader does not own the rights (copyright or trademark) to the image of Alfred Nobel stamped on the medal. S/He has created a "derivative work" from copyright and trademark-protected content. It would not pass muster in Wikipedia Commons for the same reasons and it is misleadingly uploaded to Wikipedia. It should be removed while permission is pending for its use from the Nobel Foundation. Such permission has not been received (yet). If written permission is granted, then it could be featured with the proper "Original design" notice of copyright and trademark by the Nobel Foundation. The creator of a derivative work based on an original protected design does not have permission to feature it on the internet. See discussions pertaining to images on stamps, self-created derivative videos of original works owned by others, and so on. It is also not clear whether the museum where it was photographed permits such photography. The Nobel Foundation Museum in Stockholm prohibits such photography of its artifacts housed there. A large sign at the entrance states the prohibition. Other museums often have similar photography prohibitions. Their proprietary rights need to be taken into account too (who owns the physical artifact currently); the design of the medal (which is the way it is being featured in Nobel Prize) is not the property of the museum holding one medal. The medal's image design is what places this license in doubt (makes it "dubious"). I suggest that experts in Wikipedia's fair use criteria and copyright issues comment here re: this derivative work (photograph) of the Nobel medal design. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it matters, the design of the medal in the photo is the same as the current design so it may be difficult to prove that it is a photo of a medal from 1933. See [12]. I don't know how copyright works for something in which the design has not changed in the last 70+ years, but if it has in fact expired, shouldn't anyone in the world be able to reproduce the Nobel Peace Prize Medal? –panda 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The design(s) of the Nobel medals (all of the Nobel medals, including the Nobel Peace Prize medal) have not in fact expired; the design of the Nobel Peace Prize medal (as the designs of the other Nobel medals) is still trademarked and copyright protected by the Nobel Foundation. There is no point in trying to make up interpretations of copyright laws in this manner with a limited knowledge of the laws. Copyright law fair use provisions make very clear that when doubt exists, one should consult an intellectual property attorney and that lack of knowledge of current copyright laws is not considered a legal defense in copyright violation cases. I have linked U.S. copyright provisions in my own talk page; please consult it for further information if you have such questions. The design for the Nobel medal has renewed trademark and copyright registrations by the Nobel Foundation; its own current notices are germane (not [various] Wikipedians' faulty speculations based on incomplete understanding of copyright laws and the restrictions of copyright notices. Please read the notices again. --NYScholar 22:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For an image of the 1933 Peace Prize medal featured on nobelprize.org, see 1933 index page. The description of the medal that appears in the image page created by User:Anubis3 appears to be more and more misleading, and its relevance for an infobox in Nobel Prize is disputed; Norman Angell was the recipient of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, which has a separate article in Wikipedia. Anubis3's image would not necessarily be an improvement if added to that article either (or to Norman Angell, as its provenance is still disputed and there is still no detailed fair-use rationale pertaining to its use anywhere in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If one uses one's mouse to highlight the image on the Nobel Foundation page for Angell, one sees that there is a clearcut symbol (R in a circle) for registered trademark (and the Nobel Foundation site copyright is registered too) there; if one goes to "The Nobel Peace Prize Medal", one sees the same design image as the image in the photograph that Anubis3 has posted in Wikipedia's Nobel Prize (misleadingly, I believe); the Nobel Foundation website provides a clear notice saying that it (the medal; its design) is the "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation." That notice presents clearly this conflict: it establishes problems in the posting of this image with the license given by the uploader with no detailed fair-use rationale for use in Nobel Prize. I do not believe that the use of this image constitutes "fair use" according to either the Nobel Foundation's or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no justification for featuring this registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation in the infobox for Nobel Prize. The official site provides the images and says that one cannot publish them without written permission and (when written permission is received and only then) with the proper registered trademark and copyright symbols). --NYScholar 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[Note that other articles pertaining to the Nobel Prizes do not feature the image of the medals because such images have been deleted in the past for violations of copyright, trademark, and fair use provisions of U.S. and international copyright laws. The same problems pertain to the uploaded image by Anubis3. --NYScholar 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Updated above. I'm logging out of Wikipedia to do other things. --NYScholar 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

Please stop bringing up the trademark. That's clouding the issue. Trademark is irrelevant to use of an image at Wikipedia. See, for example, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, AT&T, McDonalds and thousands of other articles containing trademarked images.

As for copyright, works published in the US before 1923 are not protected by copyright, period. (See WP:PD.) If this medal was published in the US before 1923, it is not protected by copyright for Wikipedia purposes no matter what assertion the Nobel people make. And if it's not protected by copyright, it's a free image, and no fair use rationale is required.

Similarly, permission is not required for a free image. -- But|seriously|folks  01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your comment is entirely misleading: the design of the Nobel medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation. The use of the image is strictly restricted by its registered trademark and copyright (both): re: use of trademark in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos: the image itself is a registered trademark/logo and it is not being used in an infobox for Nobel Foundation; it is being used (misleadingly) in Nobel Prize. The photograph that the user took is not being used in Nobel Foundation as a trademark image; it is being used in the infobox in Nobel Prize as an illlustration of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, where that image is not relevant. It is not within fair use in Nobel Prize and its licensing statement is misleading. I do not appreciate being told that I should stop bringing up something that is entirely germane to the problems posed by the posting of this image. The derivative work is publishing an image whose use is restricted by its registered trademark. There is no way around that, much as those verbal gymnastics are attempting to do. They are simply wrong-headed attempts to skirt the notices on the Nobel site. Wikipedians do not have the license to do that. Wikipedia has to operate in the same world of laws as other publications (online and in print). (Notice that the MoS (trademarks) is a "guideline" not a "policy" in Wikipedia, and that the word "may" is used in the section on use of graphic logos; moreover, the user claims that s/he is not using the image as a logo; it is being used as an illustration in the infobox in Nobel Prize; as it is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation (its Peace Prize), it is not even reasonable to include it in the infobox for Nobel Prize; doing so is in violation of the MoS guidelines as well as fair use criteria in Wikipedia. The claims otherwise are simply inventions with no basis in Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. --NYScholar 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [The image page category is currently including "non-free image" for good reason. --NYScholar 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

You didn't address the many other trademarked images on Wikipedia, nor have you cited a Wikipedia policy that restricts the use of trademarked images to illustrate an article. And, per WP:CIVIL, please stop attempting to characterize my actions and stick to the issue at hand. -- But|seriously|folks  02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines directly say that trademarked images should not be used to illustrate the main text of an article and they should not be in infoboxes that are not in articles for the company of the trademark; and that they only "may" be permissible; the Nobel Foundation clearly restricts and prohibits use of its image of the Nobel medals (even with written permission). E.g, the Encyclopedia Britannica features "Nobel Foundation" under the images, indicating that its use of the registered trademarked images are with permission and that is because it has written permission to feature the images of the Nobel medals in its articles about the Nobel Prizes. Wikipedia does not have that permission and it should not be featuring the image contrary to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. I suggest that the above users read the policies, guidelines, and Nobel Foundation notices (its pdf notice in terms of service) more carefully. --NYScholar 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [There are also other concerns re: the Imperial War Museum conditions of use being violated; Crown copyright pertaining to images of its holdings, that I have added to the image talk page. Please consult it. --NYScholar 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

I've provided plenty of justification for deleting the image from Wikipedia; I have no more time to devote to this. The image is currently under review. --NYScholar 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar:

(1) You seem to be confusing Wikipedia's policy on copyright with WP's policy on trademark. The restrictions you quote are about copyrighted images, not trademarked images. As BSF has explained, WP is perfectly at liberty to use trademarked words, logos etc, so long as there is no danger of consumer confusion. WP's trademark policy can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).

(2) Copyright law. EN-Wikipedia follows the laws pertaining in the United States; specifically, in the state of Florida. Whether the Nobel medal design is still copyright in the European Union (which in fact it is) is irrelevant. In the United States the medal design, being published there before 1923, is now out of copyright.

(3) There is no copyright held by the IWM -- they did not make the image. It is also not from their website. And WP has no contract with them, implicit or explicit, which could be contravened.

In short: there is no copyright in this design in the United States. Nor is the trademark issue a problem. And flooding this page doesn't change that. Jheald 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this also mean that the images of the medals on the Nobel Foundation website are no longer copyrighted in the US and can be used in WP? –panda 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Nevermind -- the Nobel Foundation holds a more recent copyright on the photographs (derivative works) since they took them. –panda 15:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: "*Please consult Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG and Talk:Nobel Prize for the dispute about this image of the medal in the photograph Image:DSCN0732.JPG in Nobel Prize's infobox, which appears to be a violation of copyright and trademark of the Nobel medal image of the Nobel Foundation, and fair use criteria of Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)": that pertains to both trademark and copyright, both of which are related to the design of the Nobel medal as clearly stated on the Nobel Foundation's webpages; the use of trademarked images (e.g., company and organization logos) has specific restrictions according to U.S. and international laws governing trademarks (they are linked on my current talk page--for over a year) and also has specific criteria (guidelines and policies) to follow in Wikipedia (trademark is linked via Wikipedia:Trademarks and Copyright via WP:Copyright [with related links throughout]; see also WP:Non-free content). Wikipedia takes a very conservative approach to both copyright and fair use, and it states that. When in doubt, Wikipedia says delete the image. That is the case here. The image in question is not properly inserted where it is (infobox in Nobel Prize), its licensing is deceptive, the "derivative work" uses a design that is currently both trademarked and copyrighted (the image of Alfred Nobel in profile on the medals featured on its website as its trademarked logo and throughout as illustrations of the medals, notably the very same Nobel Peace Medal in the derivative altered photograph); the image is too close to the original design to be claimed to be the original work of the photographer (User:Anubis3/the uploader); the references in the summary and license are awkward and inaccurate; the uploader states that s/he doesn't think that the Nobel Foundation would give permission for the use of this photograph in Wikipedia. This is not "flooding" the page; these are legitimate concerns, and the statements made and other implications suggesting that they are not legitimate concerns are uncivil. I have no further time to address these concerns. I have made them clear and properly linked to the "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" and "Copyright The Nobel Foundation" (with the symbols) showing that these registrations are currently in force. 1923 has nothing to do w/ anything; that it does is a fabrication. --NYScholar 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NYS: however much you continue with this blathering, it will have no credibility, unless you respond to the fundamental point which has been put to you. Namely, that since the design was known in the United States before 1923, it can have no current U.S. copyright. Now, can you for once tell us straightforwardly what part of that simple assertion you disagree with? Put up or shut up. Jheald 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning to the above user: WP:CIVIL. An administrator has removed the image from Nobel Prize infobox. --NYScholar 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I should take that as a refusal to respond, should I? Jheald 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, please stop filling this page with repetitive nonsense. Furthermore, this issue has already been established whether or not the image has been removed temporarily by a new admin. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C) 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)}

Alright. My two cents:

1. NYS, posting long essays essentially makes your argument seem like an argument of content than of value of the argument.
2. You have failed, from what I can see, to address the points of both BSF and Anubis3. Arguing that a turd is a pterodactyl doesn't make it anything more than a turd.
3. I removed the image on request of NYS. That does not mean I am adverse to any admin reverting me - I will not edit-war over an image.
4. There is no special note in Wikipedia:Copyrights with regards to Europe, and Wikipedia:Public domain explicitly states in its header Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States and In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain. This means that if the medal was first struck a priori that date, it is public-domain in the United States.
5. Public Domain also states in its footnotes Strictly speaking, only U.S. works published before January 1, 1923 and foreign works published in compliance with U.S. formalities (registration, © notice) before that date are in the public domain in the U.S.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you had to go to all this trouble to reply without seeing what I spent scores of hours working out in the other image where the "public domain" template is still inaccurately posted. These images posted by the uploaders [the matters in dispute] are not "in the public domain" according even to both Public domain and Wikipedia:Public domain, in my reading of all this material and the copyright laws and the full talk pages of the images. I have updated the image page for the other image accordingly, to help people to follow the history of the trademarks and copyrights by the Nobel Foundation over images of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals. The symbols are there. See October 21 entry in WP:PUI page (October 21); links are in Image:Nobel_medal_ dsc06171.jpg (same and even worse problems, given the false template by another user) and Image Talk:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg. (Detailed fair use rationales are required by Wikipedia for each and every use of any of these images which are "Derivative works" whose images still do derive from the 'Nobel Prize(R) Medals and the Nobel Foundation's (the "author" of record) still-copyright-protected designs of those images.) ... [see below] --NYScholar 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

These copyright and trademark issues (relating to "non-free use" and "fair use", or not) are extremely-complex matters requiring extensive expertise with intellectual property legal issues; the recommendations in Public domain, WP:Public domain and pages relating to "non-free use", WP:PUI, and WP:Copyvio, etc. are to consult legal experts in resolving such complex matters in Wikipedia. The uploaders of the image in question has claimed "fair use"; that is in part disputed by me and others, but I've provided potential fair use rationale for starters to help to resolve these matters; the "public domain" templates being used in the above linked image (dsc06171.jpg) is inaccurate (wrong); the image was uploaded in 2005 not prior to 1923; same for this one that you are talking about; the "derivative work" is the image being "used" in Wikipedia, not some other image. Copyrights and trademarks in force stil pertain to these 2005 and 2007-uploaded (published) images created by Wikipedians themselves using copyright-protected (non-free) content owned by the Nobel Foundation. What is being "licensed" in Wikipedia (falsely) is an image uploaded [created/published] in 2007 by Anubis3 and in the case of dsc06171.jpg closely-related images uploaded [created/published] in 2005 and 2007 by 2 other users; see my talk page archive 16 as well for reply by the original uploader of that image. I'm offline to get some much-needed rest after all this. I can't take any more time w/ it at all. Please see the "N.B." box on my current talk page. --NYScholar 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NYS, you need to realize that you're so far deep in left, the hotdog vendors are wondering why you've got a uniform and a mitt on. Your arguments only bolster my fifth point, because the Nobel Foundation is using both the copyright AND the registered trademark, and since it is known the first was struck before 1923, your argument now has a hole that's letting in a whole lotta water. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: I can't take any more time w/ it at all. That's like the fifth time you've said that. But you can't get away from it. This thread has you wrapped around its finger and you cannot escape. You've made 50 of the last 80 edits to this page. You will keep adding repetitive, lengthy and consecutive posts until the issue is concluded or until you drop from exhaustion. And if the powers that be decide that you are incorrect, you will start a new flurry of posts in a new forum. I'm sorry, but this is your current reality. Accept it. -- But|seriously|folks  21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have been told it, with 3 dimensional objects, there are two separate copyrights in the US.

• The object itself has a copyright. In this case, since the first cast of this medal was before 1923, it appears the copyright on the original object has expired in the US. (In the same way, David (Michelangelo) is no longer copyrighted). If, however, each medal is considered a separate work, it might matter when this medal was struck.
• The photographer has a copyright, because of a legal precedent. In this case, it appears the photographer has agreed to release their copyright to the public domain. (In the same way, if I photograph the statue of David, I gain a new copyright on my photo, but may license the photo as I see fit).

Unless one of those two bullets is incorrect, or there is a third copyright concern I have missed, the claim of public domain does seem correct. I would appreciate any specific comments about the two bullet points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put the image back in; it is becoming incredibly clear to me that NYS's arguments have no basis in law or policy. He's simply been reiterating his points, which all of us here have defeated at least once apiece, which suggests to me he's either unfamiliar with copyright laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is based) or he's conflicted. The medal was first struck a priori 1923 and was registered with regards to US law (Registration + Copyright + before 1923 = PD); the photographer released his work for use under the GDFL; any copyright situations with regards to the medal are thus nullified. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!) about this image. They responded:

"This is the most hectic time of year. We will not be able to get back to you immediately."

So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. (Also cross-posted to Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg.) –panda 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Panda: Please see the comment about the impropriety of the e-mail correspondence by another user referring to Wikipedia Foundation correspondence re: Nobel Prize (R) Medal images. Thanks. It is currently in my current talk page, but I'll eventually be archiving it in Archive 16. So look for it in both places. (Under these circumstances, this image and others whose copyright status is in dispute should not be put into articles in Wikipedia. Please try to find the correspondence ticket in question. (I don't know how to do that.) Thanks. --NYScholar 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with individual editors contacting copyright holders to request permission. It's done all the time, and it's actively encouraged at WP:COPYREQ. -- But|seriously|folks  21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

People who want to know what the previous correspondence with Wikipedia Foundation is can access it, however that is done. (I don't know.) --NYScholar 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Isotope 217

Resolution: Images have been deleted & article updated SkierRMH 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Album covers in a discography. 80.202.107.43 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Album covers are allowed in the Isotope 217 discography section according to fair-use guidelines because there are not seperate articles for each album. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FU#Unacceptable_images #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.107.43 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP editor is right - album covers in a discography are a relatively well settled issue now. As the guideline says, they aren't used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Southern Leyte

Resolution: Appropriate mention in article & correct fair use added to image. SkierRMH 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kindly review this image, Image:Southern Leyte Subang Daku River.png. I have stated my rationale in the image description page. Thank you. --Britand&Beyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• If the flood was an historic event, and described in the article, then you are right this would be a good picture. But the article just uses this picture to illustrate "topography". There is no claim that the flood drew great attention (the article just says "after a heavy rain"). Compare this to the mudslide picture, which is accompanied by some text about the mudslide. I would say that, for the purpose that this picture serves, it is replaceable in this article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will create a section or part of that topographical section so that the image will not be doomed for deletion. --βritandβeyonce 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just recently added the info about the issue on flood. Please visit to qualify my rationale. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The added text makes it much more clear that the flooding issue is relevant; the image accompanies that text, and this sort of use appears to have general acceptance. The one lingering issue in my mind is to identify what year this photo was taken. That would add meaning to the reader by allowing them to identify which flood caused this damage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it already. Now, would you please, if possible, delete the tag in the image page. I think my reasons already passed the criteria. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's done. Thanks. --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Mbta-logo.svg

Moved to WP:PUI#Image:Mbta-logo.svg

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:A.South.jpg

Resolution: Non-"flagged" image replaced with appropriate image & fair use added. SkierRMH 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As amazon.com makes more and more books searchable, the trademarked "Search Inside" banner is beginning to pop up on images copied from there. Would like a confirmation that the "TM" on the "Search Inside" takes this specific image out of the fair use category all together. As an additional question, what would be the status of a cropped image that simply has the remnants of the orange arrow? Albeit that's a pretty 'lame' image (though not as bad as some I've seen ;) , but I'm not sure if even that small part of the "Search Inside" banner would exempt an image from fair use.SkierRMH 22:58, 4 November 2007

The arrow doesn't affect the legal ability to use the image. But in my opinion it does make the image unsuitable for use. We could cut the "search inside" words off the top, but just finding a better image would be more helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And it turns out to be easy to find better imags: just click the "look inside this book" link and you get a much better cover image. It does have 'copyrighted material' watermarked across the top, but this is relatively subtle and I think isn't of much concern. The only issue is that the version on Amazon is too large for our nonfree content guidelines. So I uploaded a new version of this image, scaled down to 33% of the image on amazon.com. I think this should resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

New image has been marked w/ fair use. SkierRMH 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use in Barack Obama? Is the existing fair use rationale sufficient, and if not, how might it be improved? --HailFire 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a press photo by Reuters, a press agency. We do not use images owned by press or photo agencies, unless the image is particularly iconic itself (and we have reliable sources to support this claim). Since this isn't an iconic image, it should, per precedent (for example, here), be speedily deleted as a copyright violation . -- RG² 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not fair use. No rationale could possibly justify using this image in that article. Megapixie 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. The article does have a long section about the keynote address that this photo illustrates. It is true that that this photo probably is not iconic, but the article does imply that the speech itself was notable, which is the standard often employed for photos illustrating events. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a photo of a man standing at a podium. We aren't talking about the photograph, we are talking about the event. It's a reuters news photo (see WP:FU#Unacceptable_images #3). We are using something they sell, while directly competing with users who are paying for it. It fails the economic test, there is no creative criticism, this isn't satire or parody. Also we have similar free images. If you think this is fair use, then I would like you to explain how an image can ever NOT be fair use ? Megapixie 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was confused yesterday when I ran into this image. After consulting the nonfree content policy in more detail, I see this sort of use is prohibited. One example of an unacceptable photo in the guideline is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." That matches this situation. I see the reasoning for this, and have no problem with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolution: No proof it's not a screenshot, correct lisc. & rationale used. SkierRMH (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be an image capture taken by the user. --EndlessDan 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As the radio show is now simulcast in HDTV, would be a possible screenshot. Anything specific that leads to the idea that it might not be? SkierRMH 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Massurrealism

Three nonfree images on a stub article, apparently ignores WP:NFCC#3. The images themselves seem to have no explicit rationale for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The images Image:Ms cart1.jpg, Image:Fmm1.jpg, have been marked as "no fair use". The other image, Image:In-the-valley-all-was-still.jpg, is now listed here; only the author's name is mentioned in the article, there is no reference to the picture in the article, and only a non-descriptive caption. SkierRMH (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of images used in the same manner (e.g. surrealism on Wiki and I noticed none of you are there airing the same concerns) that serve as visual examples, with only a passing mention of the artist in the text. The images currently posted on the massurrealism article are relevant; Morris was among the original members and King apparently has been an active member for some time now. --LAgurl (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Images are slowly being cleaned up across the whole wiki. In this particular case, the article itself is barely a stub, which is why having three images seems excessive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping my eye on surrealism Wiki and will expect to see you there. Essentially your position is the article needs to be longer and discuss more in depth about the images used?--LAgurl (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it LAgurl, the questioning of the images usage is based on a minor technicality, or prejudice, or both. I wish I had this kind of time on my hands all the time to play Hall Monitor -Holgar K.--87.187.2.66 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a fair use rationale is a technicality, but not a minor one. But the issue here is the seemingly excessive use of three images on a very short article. WP:NFCC#3 requires use of nonfree images be minimal. It isn't enough that the image be discussed in an external link to the article - the article itself needs to give sourced commentary in order for us to use all three images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are also no sources on 2 of them. I have reduced the number of non-free images to one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Lo Piccolo photofit.jpg

I think having this image in the Salvatore Lo Piccolo article is a violation of WP:NFCC#3. The uploader disagrees. Please see also the image's talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is relevant to the article. I added an explanation why in the article on Salvatore Lo Piccolo itself. By removing the picture you are withholding useful information to the readers, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. - Mafia Expert 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Actually the other two images are also problematic. One has no source, the other has been tagged as fair use/PD-Italy, when it probably isn't. Funnily enough the photofit photo is the most likely candidate for fair use, since we observe that the photofit looks nothing like the man that was arrested. However - as it stands, I would probably say that all the images should be deleted. Megapixie 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found the source of Image:Salvatore LoPiccolo.jpg, it may be {{PD-Italy}} since it looks old, but I can't find the date of its creation. Image:Salvatore Lo Piccolo.jpg is also tagged as {{PD-Italy}}, but it's clearly not. I guess it could be considered a {{mugshot}} since it was taken by the Italian police. Mushroom (Talk) 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh jeez, the image isn't even a photo. It's a police sketch of what they thought he might look like. Tagged as replaceable. The new photo is a crop from an AP photo, and I nominated it for deletion. The older b&w photo might be PD, however. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, well, the posse has gathered to hunt the terrible copyright violator. Why not delete the article as well? That way you are sure there are no copyright violations at all. Let my try to explain why I think it is important to keep all three of the images. I think it is important to identify the subject and the development of the effort to arrest him, as well as to show the development from and the difference with the photofit. I think that is sufficient reason for fair use. Fair use is there for educational purposes, which I think apply here. By the way, it is not clear whether the so-called AP photo is an AP photo. It might as well be Ansa, see: [13]. Or Reuters, see: [14] As you can see in the fair use rationale it is taken from Italian State Police site, which in my view makes it PD. Probably it is a police photo distributed by several photo agencies. See for instance the mugshot Image:Salvatore_LoPiccolo.jpg from the Italian police most wanted list, which appears as an Ansa photo in [15] (I have put a fair use rationale for this one on the talk page. Lo Piccolo was a fugitive since 1983, so probably it is in the PD - at least in Italy). I hope that this will convince you, but I am almost sure it will not. Your only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be deletion. - Mafia Expert 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. I've replied here, and I reckon all further discussion should go there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am always prepared to assume good faith, and I do not dispute that some copyright control is necessary. But there are two ways to do your job:

1. assume good faith yourself and make a positive contribution by trying to assist people to find the right fair use rationale or maybe even permission to use images;

2. deleting as much images as you can and harass contributors with red tape so that they give up and leave Wikipedia.

Pick your choice. Did anyone object to the use of the three images? Apart from that fungus Mushroom, who is part of the copyright violation squad, I am sure nobody did. Or is the line of reasoning, we delete everything to avoid any objection. It seems the latter is the case. You start to sound like Mafia boss Totò Riina: "His philosophy was that if someone’s finger hurt, it was better to cut off his whole arm just to make sure." - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: Keep. (Since the discussion gets dispersed I want to make sure there are sufficient arguments to keep Image:Lo Piccolo photofit.jpg - the original issue under review - as well as Image:Salvatore LoPiccolo.jpg and Image:Salvatore_Lo_Piccolo.jpg) As per WP:FUR: use is for nonprofit educational purposes and does not effect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. All three images are widely distributed on the internet and the potential copyright holders have not identified themselves clearly and/or do not financially depend on the copyright. WP:NFC: photos from a press agencies are not permitted unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The photos are discussed in the text and with some good faith and leniency might apply for above mentioned exception. Fair use: a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. I think this also applies. Unless you think Wikipedia has no scholarly purpose. I think there is sufficient leeway, in particular because the three images are discussed in the text in relation to each other. As for WP:NFCC#3: one of the image will not suffice, because the three are related and need to be kept together to show a history of images used to identify a dangerous criminal and the difficulties to do so. Also remember this: WP:NFC is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: See also Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 13#Image:Lo Piccolo photofit.jpg and the entry below it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further discussion should go there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removed from 1 article correct FUR added to other use. SkierRMH (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Five_Rites.jpg

This is a book cover which has been used on an article which is not about the book itself. It has also been cropped. This doesn't appear to me to qualify as fair use. GlassFET 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cropping doesn't change anything. The use in the "Five Rites" article would seem to be okay, as the article seems to be mostly about the book. However clearly not fair use in the "Yoga Series" article. Megapixie (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Full cover uploaded. Fair use modified for book & for Yoga Series - Added explanation on the link between the book & the yoga exercised included therein. SkierRMH (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are: doesn't really belong on the Yoga series article since it's just a summary. But what about moving Five Tibetan Rites to The Eye of Revelation. Is there any doubt about this book being the origin of the practice? GlassFET 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the Yoga series isn't probably FU. Like your suggestion, but what about splitting out the "booklet" section from Five Tibetan Rites and making the article The Eye of Revelation specifically about the book and the Rites article about the exercises themselves? SkierRMH (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since there was no article on The Eye of Revelation, I made it an rd to Five Tibetan Rites. (Feel free to be bold in moving this to a better name if you prefer.) So the image belongs in the Five Tibetan Rites article for now. In no way does it pass our NFCC in Yoga series. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Pierrot and nemo.JPG

This image is claimed to be self-created and thus under GFDL, but it contains the copyrighted characters Nemo and Pierrot. Review please? -Malkinann (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a "Derivative" work (using that very loosely here as it's just a combination of two copyrighted works w/captions), should be replaced with individual images at best, with NFU-appropriate information added. If kept this way, copyright holder of both images must be noted, with the NFU-appropriate information added. Either way, GNU as "self" would not be appropriate here. SkierRMH (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that GNU is not appropriate here, but the fair use to demonstrate the basis for litigation seems reasonable. See [16], where the images appear in a newspaper discussing the case. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree. I've clarified the licensing on the image description page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Cillian Murphy

There are fair use images in this article with a claim that the "critical commentary" in the article is sufficient to allow their use. The critical commentary is basically "he is in the movie". If this is the level of critical commentary that is allowed for screenshots to be used in articles about the actor, then any screenshot is fair game to be used as a fair use image in an article about the actor, and any album cover can be used as a fair use image in an article about the band. And this is a Featured Article! Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be three images currently on the page, two which are in question. The "infobox" image Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg is from the commons & tagged correctly. The two in question are Image:RedEye05.jpg and Image:Cillian Murphy - Brkft on Pluto.jpg. For both images there is no critical commentary in the article that relates specifically to the image's inclusion. I could see that the "Pluto" image could be included with a bit more commentary, given the nature of the film & the picture in question; but as it stands now, that's not the case. SkierRMH (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are two now, because one was deleted by an admin and is the subject of a WP:DRV discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we suspend the discussion for now because this is a fork of a discussion already taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Failure to grasp the significance of images of actors' fictional roles. That discussion, if resolved, will settle the underlying policy question of when and if we allow non-free screen shots of dramatic productions to be used in articles about the actors involved. Any resolution here would be premature, and any comments made before right now may be impertinent after the policy is decided. Further, carrying on a deletion review and a FUR at the same time risks contrary results to the exact same issue. In the meanwhile, it's clear we don't need critical commentary on the images themelves; commentary on other things portrayed in the images will suffice. Based on my understanding of the policy I would say Keep all images on the merits, because commentary on the actor's role portrayed in the image qualifies. I can explain further if this discussion proceeds.Wikidemo (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Corvus misrepresents the commentary for the two current FU images -- he says there is only "he was in the movie" commentary in the article. For these two images, one for his role in Red Eye, and one for Breakfast on Pluto, I'd like to offer selected quotes from article; the critical commentary is particularly detailed for the latter role, for which Murphy received more acclaim.

2005 was the year that Cillian Murphy won wider recognition, first for two high-profile villain roles: Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in the thriller Red Eye. ... In Wes Craven's Red Eye, Murphy starred as an operative in an assassination plot who terrorizes Rachel McAdams on an overnight flight. New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis asserted that Murphy made "a picture-perfect villain" and that his "baby blues look cold enough to freeze water and his wolfish leer suggests its own terrors."[35] ... The New Yorker's David Denby wrote, "Cillian Murphy, who has angelic looks that can turn sinister, is one of the most elegantly seductive monsters in recent movies."

In late 2005 (early 2006 in Europe), Murphy starred as Patrick "Kitten" Braden, a transgendered Irish orphan in search of his mother, in Neil Jordan's dramedy Breakfast on Pluto, based on the novel of the same title by Patrick McCabe. Murphy had auditioned for the role in 2001, and though Jordan liked him for the part, The Crying Game director was hesitant to revisit transgender and I.R.A. issues. For several years, Murphy lobbied Jordan to make the film before the actor became too old to play the part. In 2004, Murphy prepared for the role by meeting with a transvestite who dressed him and took him clubbing with other transvestites. Taking notice of the group's quick wit, Murphy attributed it to their constantly having to respond to insults from prejudiced people around them.[15]

Against Breakfast on Pluto 's kaleidoscopic backdrop of 1970s glitter rock fashion, magic shows, red light districts and I.R.A. violence, Murphy transforms from androgynous teen to high drag blond bombshell. The San Francisco Chronicle's Ruthe Stein said of his performance, "Murphy projects enormous energy onscreen, as he's already shown in 28 Days Later... and Red Eye. He's supremely well cast as the androgynous Kitten ... [and] smoothly makes the transition from broad comedy to drama. He delivers Kitten's favorite line, 'Oh serious, serious, serious!' with the full implications of its dual meaning."[39] While even lukewarm reviews of Breakfast on Pluto still tended to praise Murphy's performance very highly,[40] a few critics dissented: The Village Voice, which panned the film, found him "unconvincing" and overly cute.[41]

...A late 2005 Back Stage feature labeled Murphy "a chameleonic performer, a character actor trapped in a leading man's bone structure."[2]

This is just "he was in the movie"? I think not. This is clearly critical commentary. The images' fair use rationales were written with the assistance of Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and a member of WikiProject Fair use. They made it through the article's multiple reviews, including a successful FAC but two and a half weeks ago, where the rationales were commented on positively. The images depict not Murphy as a person, but his work as a performer portraying a fictional character in a visual medium, used in an article that provides critical commentary on both roles. Discussion over this fair use has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and Talk:Cillian_Murphy, but there is no consensus for removal of the images. Despite this, today Corvus tried to recall the article's FA status over these three images, an impulse that seems inexplicably over the top and very disrespectful of months of work on the part of me and the many reviewers who attended to all aspects of this article, not just three FU images. --Melty girl (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....

In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.

I see the bolded phrases to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That's a not unreasonable analysis of the fair use of the images. It's clear to me at least that the images qualify for fair use here; in other words there is no copyright infringement. However, one of several issues is whether the images satisfy Wikipedia's more stringent standards of non-free image use. There are other issues, e.g. whether we need to change or refine the standards in light of this issue, and the degree of deference we give to the review already done on the images in connection with the featured article candidacy. I won't repeat my opinion here but perhaps this can help lay out the issues.Wikidemo (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion of the actors appearance in these roles passes WP:NFCC#8. There are only two non-free images, and they show him in very different roles, passing WP:NFCC#3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Cheicon.jpg etc.

Marked for deletion due to a missing fair use rationale; however, I believe it could be acceptable due to its iconic status, so I am listing it here for review in which articles it should be used, and for the rationale to be written.

Another user attempted to mark it with the following explanation:

Cuba is not signatory to the Berne convention; see Alberto Korda's copyrights claims for the photograph as conditional Conditional (Free) use, thereby restricting subsequent commercial claims, or claims not challenging the free use condition:

{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|it is used "to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara".}}

As far as I know, a) Wikipedia copyright policies ask to respect copyrights of all countries, and b) asking the image to be used "it is used "to propagate the memory of Che Guevara" is not an acceptable restriction. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few versions of this photo that I've seen floating around, most (or all?) of which of which are linked at Che Guevara (photo), but I never really bothered to act on them. With the restriction you mentioned, we can't really consider these images to be free. But the original photo is fairly iconic, so I think that we could keep and appropriately tag as non-free Image:Famousphotoche.jpg and Image:Cheicon.jpg.

However, we should get rid of a few other versions as unnecessary fair use. Image:Che.svg is a Wikipedian-created derivative work. It's clearly unnecessary, and it's placed only on user pages and in photo galleries, anyway. I don't really see any reason to keep Image:Che.jpg, either, though I know it's been on User:El C's user page for quite a while.

Also note that the Commons gallery of Che Guevara images doesn't display the iconic photo in question due to copyright issues. At the top of the page is a link to a previous deletion discussion. -- RG² 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, the license restriction, although fairly bizarre: "to propagate the memory of Che Guevara", would hold true for any possible usage of the image (notice, it doesn't specify any details about how he should be remembered). Any recognizable image of anything at all could be said to "propagate its memory", so I don't really see how that would affect licensing... except for the licensing statement, of course, which might be taken as subtle propaganda. Just my 2 cents, Storkk (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a funny one. Korda is "not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world." Now, WikiMedia cares about social justice, but I don't think their interpretation of it necessarily matches Korda's, and Jimbo Wales is on record condemning Che's legacy as one of "death and destruction"... but then, it's not Jimbo's site, it's not even really WikiMedia's since contributors retain copyright... I'm thinking this is a legal minefield and that Korda's statement has to be dismissed for purposes of WP:NFC.

That being said, this version is certainly an "iconic historic image". Anything that's on ten million T-Shirts is a unique historic image. My friend has a T-Shirt with the Che image, and underneath it says, "I have no idea who this is." <eleland/talkedits> 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I want that shirt. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a free image -- the restriction given is not compatible with the GFDL. It is acceptable to use under our WP:NFC policy, though, since the image is certainly iconic and non-replaceable. However it will have to be removed from userspace. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I clarified the licensing on the image description page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image was removed from NFU page SkierRMH (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Oldmansea_petrov.jpg on Marlin

Marlin is illustrated not only by a Public Domain image, Image:Marlin.png, but also by the "Fair Use" Image:Oldmansea_petrov.jpg. IANAL, but it seems to me that the argument for including Image:Oldmansea_petrov.jpg is exceedingly weak, especially since a PD illustration is already available. I mistakenly removed the image from the article, having looked at the image page, but not having seen the last Fair Use entry for Marlin. I put it back, pending a review. A {{dfu}} didn't seem the right tag, as the image is used Fair Use on other articles. --Storkk (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairly clearly not fair use, especially as no commentary on the image was being made in the article; I've removed it from the article. Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, fails our NFCC here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Undercover Mosque

i am unsure as to whether these two screenshots (Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg) used on Undercover Mosque comply with WP:FUC#3a. that is because there is already another fair use image, Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg, being used as the lead image. the rationale for using all three images is the same; that is, to depict the documentary. as the aim of depicting the documentary (the necessitating factor in justifying use of non-free material in this case) is fulfilled by Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg, the other two images (Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg) cannot invoke the same rationale. as such, i think the images' claim to fair use is invalidated due to their being redundant (see 3a). my interpretation might be wrong, so it'd be nice for some feedback from more experienced heads. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the article's talk page, the two other images combine with the first to be examples of the statements of three separate clerics, as listed in the article text. Furthermore, Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg has the added benefit of explicitly mentioning Jews in its caption, something the first article does not do. Thirdly, one screen capture shows a close-up of a cleric and another shows a wide-angle view of the audience, demonstrating the size of the groups at each of these gatherings. Since one picture does not capture the elements of antisemitism, group size, and clerical close up, I think multiple images are warranted. -- Avi (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As "examples of the statements of three separate clerics", the images can be replaced by text (quotes), and so fail NFCC#8. One photo adequately conveys the content and tone of the documentary; having three fails NFCC#3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've listed 2 of the 3 images at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_17#Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg and the entry below it. Further discussion should go there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg

Bringing this here to get an opinion on whether this is replaceable or not. While "normal" notable adults tend to make appearances where a free photo could be obtained, I'm not sure how true that is for children. Thanks --Pak21 (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikimedia licensing resolution, Wikipedia "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Children are individuals too. Now if you can provide a source that says this individual is a hermit, never available for photography, then this could be an exception -- but there is no age exception for NFCC#1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning/rationale is shown on the image talk page. The basic bottom line is that even now a new photo being taken would not be representative of the person's primary notability, and thus a new photo would not be attainable. See talk page for (excrutiatingly) long explanation. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it should be noted that this picture is not being used on her own article but on the List of Kid Nation participants article, if that makes any difference. Ospinad (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've listed the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 December 17#Image:Laurel McGoff .28Kid Nation.29 SC.jpg. All further discussion should go there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Image:62 war.jpg

Use of a Life magazine cover for the article Sino-Indian War, uploaded by User:Idleguy. It's true that freely licensed images may be hard to obtain, but this does seem to be clearly in breach of both WP:FU#Unacceptable images #4 and #8. The photo merely shows an Indian soldier so is not especially informative about the war, and the magazine issue or cover is not discussed at all in the article. The "unacceptable images" list at WP:FU contains provisions about: 4. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). 8. A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate; see the Demi Moore article. The image seems to fall into both prohibited categories. The current fair use rationale is:

The cover has been uploaded to show some image in the Sino-Indian War which doesn't have a single image, let alone fair use. Also the image shows the portrayal of the war in the western media.

A cursory glance at the article reveals that there are no photos (just maps) on such an important war and the fact that the image is one that serves a dual purpose, viz. to show a soldier from the war for an article bereft of photographs and the coverage of the war in the western press, which is also of equal importance. Further, it would not be possible to produce an article cover in any manner, except under a fair use tag, which is what it is tagged under. The images on the Chinese side were not released under any free to use license and the Indian military too holds copyright to the images, and until I get any free to use images, only fair use is applicable as free images cannot be reasonably found, nor created per policy of WP. Moreover, several articles allow 1-2 pertinent magazines images for use in an important war's images, like the Six Day War which also uses a Life magazine cover.

I don't think that this rationale takes the image outside the scope of criteria #4 or #8, although the uploader may disagree! Purgatorio (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear case of using a magazine cover to illustrate the subject, and not the magazine or the article. The image is not "iconic" and fails WP:NFCC#8. You are correct that counter-example #4 at WP:NFC is perfectly analogous to this case. You should list this image at WP:IFD. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_17#Image:62_war.jpg. Further discussion should go there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Taken to PUI SkierRMH (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Bringing these here for the following reasons: 1) The alleged source's opening page [17] states "For Editorial and Press Use Only" and various sub-pages state "Copyright free for editorial purposes only." 2) There is no direct link to either of these images, and they do not appear in the "Photos" section. 3) Both include trademark (Mitsubishi) 4) Uploader GalantFan has been asked to prove "I got permission..." claims thru OTRS, but has not done so - and was informed of the problems at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Press Release Photos from Mitsubishi. I do not believe that either of these images can be claimed as Public domain. SkierRMH (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, these don't look PD to me. You should probably list them at WP:PUI. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.