Wikipedia talk:Fair use review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:FUR

Contents

[edit] Feb discussion

Sounds good. I think we need to rethink our tagging again a bit. The boiler plate tags are being mistake for a 'type of content' identifyer rather than a copyright tag... Logo is probably the worst, but they all have problems. We also need to step up education. It would be useful to make people attach a justification for *every* article an image is used it (boiler plate or not), this would make it easier to automagically detect questionable use and better focus our efforts. Most importantly we need to be careful to avoid creating too difficult a process... there are a couple thousand fair use tagged images uploaded a month, and a heavy weight debate prone review system would be completely ineffective. --Gmaxwell 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a good first step would be to put a lot more emphasis on point #1 of our fair use criterea. If it is possible to create a free licensed image of something then no fair use image should be allowed on the subject. Otherwise people will tend to be lazy and just find a image of the subject on the net rather than go out with a camera, or take the time to re-draw a map or plot a graph or whatever themselves, or just plain ask the copyright holder if they would be willing to release a picture under a free (or at least semi free) license.
I agree that education is the key tough. Our rules should be fine as is, problem is to make people aware that they exist, and then to follow them. My impression from working a bit with images here is that a lot of people don't have the faintest idea about copyright issues, and many who do don't bother taking the hassle of writing verbose image pages because "nobody else does". As long as people interpret licenses like "you may download these images for you personal non-commercial use" to mean "anyone can use this for anyting", or believe that "stuff found on more than one webpage is public domain" and whatever, trying to enforce the "finer points" of our fair use policy is going to be an uphill battle indeed, there are just too few people who are willing to spend time enforcing these things compared to the number of people who upload poorly or mistaged images, not to mention "unfair" fair use. Currently we are months behind dealing with even the most blatant problem of images that have no copyright tags. Seems to me that unless we can somehow raise awarenes about these things whatever review processes we set up will be hoplessly backloged. --Sherool (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So what do people think about beginning a massive campaign to apply {{Fairusenoalternative}} and {{Fairusereplace}} in mass to all standing works? I could create a webpage on toolserver which would enable highly effective colaboration for this task (quickly displaying a dozen images at a time and providing 'yes/no/don't know' checkboxes etc).... I've thought about doing it in the past (after all, I created the templates), but it seems like such a waste of time when there are so many images which .. well.. should just simply be deleted. That concern is what caused me to begin my orphan fair use tagging adventures (over 20,000 tagged and deleted now)... I think that with the right tools setup we could probably tag all 130,000 images with around 151 man hours of labor. If people think this would be useful, and think that we can actually get the work done, I'll go ahead and build the tool. --Gmaxwell 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. Far too often I see images which are blatantly not fair use (just look at the featured picture on Portal:India) and can't think of what to do with them. See also my comments on WT:RFAr; not enough people understand how fair use works. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Magazine covers

I have produced a list of articles which don't appear to be about a magazine yet are only illustrated with magazine cover tagged images. Might be useful for finding some offenders. --Gmaxwell 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll deal with them soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk is cheap

So here are the new actions I'm going to take in the near term to improve the state of 'fair use' images on Wikipedia:

  1. I will alter all of the currently active 'boilerplate' fair use justification templates to include a field for what article the justification applies for. I will make the change in such a way that the notices still look fine for media which uses the template without the new field. I may adjust the language of the template so that multiple instances of the same template on a media page to not look disturbing.
    This change is important because justification must be *per use*. Although in many cases the same justification applies, there are many other cases where it does not. More importantly, when someone links an additional article to a fair use image there is currently no record created that allows us to know if they even considered the copyright implications. Also, when an image has been orphaned due to vandalism or an editwar, such tagging can help us avoid incorrectly deleting an image as an orphan.
  2. I will rename some of the more generically titled fair use boilerplate templates. For whatever templates I rename I will announce my intentions in advance and have my robot fixup all current uses to the new name.
    Right now many are misused by people who believe they are identifying the type of the content rather than it's fair use justification. For example {{icon}}. As a result some of these templates can't even tell us if the content is fair use vs free content, and we can forget about these templates telling us if the use has been carefully considered.
  3. I will adjust our fair use guidelines and instruction pages to reflect the above changes, and require that every use of a fair use image have a justification template, or the use of a generic 'fairuseinbecause' template.
  4. I will adjust our fair use guidelines and instruction pages to require the use of the {{fairusenoalternative}} and {{fairusereplace}} additive templates.
    This is important for two reasons: The first is that it segments works into a group which is very likely to have a strong fair use justification and a group which is less likely, the second is that the use of fairuse images where free alternatives are possible is strongly at odds with our goal to create a 'Free encyclopedia.
  5. I will setup an automated tool on toolserver which will facilitate the auditing of fair use media and it's tagging without an excess of duplicated effort.
  6. I will produce a live report of fairuse images which are in pages without a matching justification template.

If anyone has any comment on these items, please let it be known now. :) --Gmaxwell 18:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I'll support you on these excellent action points. One thing I'd like to see is an extension that makes people prove the 4 criteria for fair use that is documented in the U.S. Code (see fair use). How easy do you reckon that would be? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well an interesting discussion can be had on this. What do you think about the boilerplate justification templates? I think they are clearly benificial in cases where we have a fair use claim becuase they ensure that our use has a well thoughout and consistent justification attached. In cases where we don't have a claim they can be benificial because they should state requirement which are easy to see as untrue. However, they can cause harm as well, because they attach a good looking justification in cases where no one has actually given the matter in any though. I think we need to determine the future of these templates before we talk about making sure the requirements are documented. Do we remove them? Do we keep them? Do we amend them?
I think we should keep them, with improvements to their language, but be anal about ensuring that they are actually used correctly. I'm not overly attached to this plan, so if someome thought we really should replace them with something you subst then fill out, I wouldn't cry. --Gmaxwell 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I had no idea those templates existed. I've added them to almost all the fair use images I've uploaded; fortunately, I only had to tag one with {{fairusereplace}}. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong claims of fair use will never get a replace... that's a lot ofthe point of fair use. I introduced them after a conversation with Jimbo on the subject [1]. Originally I intended to replace the generic fair use template with this and this, but Wikiproject fair use was really spinning up at the time and they over-ruled me. I fought it enough to keep them as additive templates but Jimbo began another worldwind tour of the world, so I couldn't lean on him for support, and I realized that it was a waste of my time to battle with the Wikilaywers. Instead I divorced myself from them and began taging thousands of images for deletion. I've had a lot of success wit that, but now that process is going smoothly it's time to take my work to the next level. The tags have gone almost entirely unused, and it's time for that to change. Thanks for tagging your images. --Gmaxwell 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factionalism

OK guys, this business of factions is getting irritating. It does not help us if there is one group taking Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as their policy development locus, and a different group using Wikipedia:Fair use review, and having editwarring over the two. If you look at some of the discussion on the respective talk pages, there is quite a lot of similarity, and everybody involved wants to end up in the same place, so let's stop working at cross-purposes. We need both people to develop better templates, and people to take action once developed, and they aren't necessarily going to be the same people. We don't have to panic about fair use images, but at the same time we absolutely must have process that will keep with the influx. Stan 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of JYolkowski blanking the page here I haven't seen anything anyone would call editwarring. I've certainly done nothing that has impeded the folks on WikiProject Fair use in their work, and the only thing I've seen anyone from there do thats impeded anyone else is the attempts to justify our copyright violations in the TIME cover case. It's not a big deal. The world doesn't end when we have more than one team attacking a problem. --Gmaxwell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
He added a link to the fair use project, you removed it. I've looked at the whole page history, and and it's really underwhelming. Your phrasing it just now as "attempts to justify our copyright violation" sounds like an assumption of bad faith. More than one team attacking a problem is great; teams attacking each other is not at all helpful. If one team goes to the trouble of defining a template and adding it to images, and another team independently decides it's no good and deletes all the images with that template, then the effort of the first team has been wasted. If your belief is that all fair use images should be deleted no matter what, and you're just interested in tactics towards that goal, then at least be honest and say so; don't pretend to be working with anybody who is trying to develop good fair use rationales. Stan 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You have a funny notion of 'adding a link' [2] [3] . Even when he finally did add a link he managed to change the page to instruct users that this isn't an approiate page to discuss the matter, but his pet project is... That you see no problem with this kills your creditability in my eyes.
As far as "attempts to justify our copyright violation", I do not believe he is acting in bad faith, if I did so I would be requesting he be barred from further action. Rather, I think WikiProject Fair use and most of its participants value increasing the quality of our articles over ensuring that our content is Free. I realize my statement that they are primarily attempting to justify our copyright violations is a serious claim, but I've back it up with, what I believe to be, a solid argument and I've yet to see a serious attempt to refute my claims.
Where has there been an instance of anyone "delete(ing) all the images with (a) template"? Name one.
I never claimed that I believe that all fair use images should be deleted. I believe that fair use images should be preserved where they are important to their articles, and that fair use images which are not fair use, or are just of low value should be removed. This is consistent with our policies and with the goals of the project. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from [4], I didn't let him off the hook; effectively erasing a project page by redirecting it is not a friendly act. By "deletes all the images with that template" I meant {{TIME}} specifically; if only 1-2 covers can be a valid fair use no matter what, there's not much point in defining the template and wordsmithing what it says, etc. In any case, I'm glad to hear we agree on the goals for fair use!
However, I don't think phrasing like "attempting to justify our copyright violations" is helpful - a determined skeptic could say that about any fair use rationale, and argue that the most well-written judge-pleasing rationale is just an excuse so elaborate that it's hoodwinking the judiciary. So to some extent I think we're operating in an intrinsically messy zone, and we get into disputes because different people want to draw sharp lines at different places through the zone. To take an example, some of our most highly-credentialed academic editors, who have been involved in professional publishing ventures and presumably have firsthand experience with image copyright issues, also seem the most inclined both to upload and vigorously defend what seems to everybody else like blatant copyvios (an exercise for the reader to supply the user names I'm thinking of :-) ).
Empirically, I think WP works best when we have the sharp lines, because then the one side can be a freefire zone for bold and energetic enforcers, while the other side is safe for random editors. For instance, orphaned images are a good sharp line; either the image is used or it is not, and once the initial whining was over, the rule has become generally accepted and uncontroversial. So as I see it we just need to establish some more lines, and then act on them. Stan 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Should we archive fair use review requests? If so, which ones? Do we archive all, or just the ones where the image(s) were kept? I just removed a deleted image's discussion from the page, but I didn't archive it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no one seems to care much, since no one has answered in over three months! I don't suppose there's really much need to archive. Everything is still in the history. User:Angr 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use criteria consensus discussion started

After quite a few months, I have kicked off Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It is not a vote, but will give each editor the chance to support or oppose the amendment very clearly. I've got it going for a fortnight as obviously it needs to end some time, and there is a lack of guidance on how to amend policy.

If anyone knows where else I should be notifying that this has started, please let me know! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainspace categorization of this page?

These wikipedia maintenance space articles shouldn't be classed with the mainspace encyclopedic categorization. I created Category:Wikipedia fair use as a better categorization structure, and linked from the mainspace; but I can't figure out where the category is on this page? Embedded in some template? ... also, the fair use media categories (e.g., Category:Fair use media) are confusing. Do they have mainspace encyclopedic significance, or are they only used for wikipedia maintenance? Thoughts? --lquilter 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free content criteria explanations

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Any opposition to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Non-free content review to match the majorty of our pages on non-free content? --Gmaxwell 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd been thinking that for a while. Good idea. Also, Template:Replaceable non-free, Category:Orphaned non-free images, Wikipedia:Non-free content rationale guideline, etc. etc. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'll give it a little more time for comments then do it... I took a break before driving the rename process to completion.. it should be done soon. --Gmaxwell 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems a good idea. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. They should all match not only for consistency, but also because our non-free content policy is not equivalent to the legal definition of fair use.

Question: Should "fair use rationales" be changed to "non-free use rationales"? What I mean is, is the fundamental nature of such a rationale a declaration that the image complies with the law or our policy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree to change Gmaxwell's proposal, not sure about Quadell's. --Iamunknown 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "non-free content rationales"? -- But|seriously|folks  02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial photos

Have you ever tagged aerial photo as replaceable, only to be chided that you would need a plane to replace it? Here is an innovative solution. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but using neighboring frames of video is cheating. --Knulclunk 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
How can this help to replace aerial photo?SuperElephant 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This discussion is brought over from comments I made within the Intelligent design section of the main page.

I think there is a need for clarification on the guideline and the policy on Non-free content. At present, reviews are being distracted by a large volume of debate focussed upon review or proper interpretation of the Non-free content criteria policy, and the associated guideline for that policy Non-free content. This is disruptive for the reviews of other pages, and frustrating for everyone involved, regardless of their perspective.

I have proposed a clarification for addition to the guideline, but that is now being discussed and will not result in any change for the forseeable future. In the meantime, we can at least try and help avoid every review on this page being distracted by asides on the guideline and policy.

I think the following points ought to be pretty obvious; though not everyone agrees. I've taken account of some suggested improvements in the wording, however.

  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 policy does not require that non-free images must be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic.
  5. The current policy does require that non-free 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 freely licensed images.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am gob-smacked that the factuality of the fourth point has been disputed on the main page. The guideline to the policy provides an illustrative example for legitimate use of a magazine cover, as an exception given within list of "unacceptable" uses. Here is the example from the guideline.
7. An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply; see the Demi Moore article.
The Demi Moore article shows a famous cover of Vanity Fair, in which Demi Moore is shown in a profile shot from head to thigh, naked, pregnant, shielding her breasts with one arm and cradling her swollen abdomen with the other.
The textual description I have given for that magazine just now is sufficient for basic "understanding", and so the cover image is not "necessary". But the actual image of the cover unquestionably conveys significant real information over and above what can be provided as text. And what the policy actually requires is "significance".
You can easily test the meaning of the policy by applying the words to a free use image. Suppose, for example, that in another context there was a concern for bandwidth, so that images were only added if they provide some significant contribution. This is much different from saying that images should only be added if they are strictly necessary. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I simply see no other way of interpreting the wording of NFCC#8, "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", than to say that the policy does require that non-free images be essential or necessary for understanding the topic. If a non-free image merely gives a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, but without reaching the level of being essential or necessary for understanding the topic, then the omission of the image will not be detrimental to understanding the topic. What NFCC8 says in simpler language is "If the article can be understood without the image, don't use it." —Angr 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposal for a subsection on application of policy. —Angr 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow the bouncing thread . . . -- But|seriously|folks  06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intent to have a debate on the meaning of the guideline and policy carried on in many separate locations. Primarily, I wanted to let discussion on the main page here return to its proper focus, which is the various articles that contain non-free content, and to review those articles. Not to review or debate guidelines. I sought to help forestall disruptive secondary debate by giving a limited statement of what I naively thought could be a common ground for agreement by all sides. And at first, that seemed to be the effect.
I will not debate the meaning of the policy phrasing here while it is being addressed in a discussion at the guideline page itself, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposal for a subsection on application of policy. That discussion arose when, in the first flush of apparent consensus across divided lines here, I proposed a corresponding clarification to be added to the guideline. My proposal was not adopted in the form I presented it, thought I remain hopeful that some kind of clarity will emerge over there. We'll see. My sincere apologies for fracturing this discussion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matching the rationale of review with the rationale of policy

I have made what I naively trust will be a universally acceptable change to the description at the top of the page for the purpose of the non-free content policy. In my view, the previous version only provided half the story, by having no mention of the goal of high-quality, which according to policy is the basis for allowing limited amounts of non-free content. Rather than try to interpret policy, I have simply take a direct copy of the rationale that is given at the top of the non-free content policy, and used that as the description of purpose for these reviews. The review is, after all, guided by policy; and so should have the same rationale.

I have also cleaned up a problem with the archive box, which was rendered badly on my browser. It has been relocated down to be next to the table of contents. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on fair use review

I asked this at help desk WP:HELP but seems like no one there knows, so I would like to try my luck here as well:

I have a question on fair use review. Suppose I have doubt whether an image qualifies as fair use or not in an article. There is a tag called {{fairusereview}} so I think one places this tag on the image. When done so, it displays the following:
Review requested A user has requested a review of the status of this image under our policy for non-free content. Please do not remove this template until an independent review has taken place.
Now what is this "independent review" mentioned here? Is this an admin looking at the situation and deciding? Or is it a discussion for consensus at WP:FUR much like, say, an WP:AFD discussion? As far as I see, placing this tag does not automatically generate a discussion section at WP:FUR so should the tag placer also make such a section when placing this tag? I ask this because I saw many images with this tag but no corresponding sections at the WP:FUR so was wondering what the official procedure is. Thank you... --Kudret abiTalk 08:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The review is a discussion here. The user placing the tag should start a new section here. Some of the existing tags could be from images whose discussion here has archived. Someone will need to go through Category:Fair use review requested and remove the template from images that are not actually being discussed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)