Talk:Punk rock/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit] Some of the free images we could be using in this article instead

(continuation of earlier discussion)

Buzzcocks live in 2006

The Adicts, also in 2006

Anti-Nowhere League at Augustibuller 2007

Joe Strummer

Jello Biafra, 2003

Keith Morris of the Circle Jerks 2006

Steve Ignorant of Crass

Johnny Thunders, c. 1980

Dave Vanian of The Damned

Captain Sensible of The Damned

Tony James of Sigue Sigue Sputnik and the London SS

Another of Strummer

Don Letts

Blink-182's Mark Hoppus

Punks, 2003

Patti Smith, 1976

Punk street sign, NYC

[edit] Discussion

There are more; see here. Now, bearing in mind "3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary", what is the argument for retaining these nonfree images, which it seems there was never a consensus to add in the first place? --John 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

These images simply don't have a place in what is largely a historical article. We could add Johnny Thunders--the only appropriate place seems to be Characteristics (remember, Early history/New York only goes through late mid-1976 and this is a 1980 photo; also our image there is already a free-use one). But we certainly couldn't substiute his image for the cover of what is widely regarded as the groundbreaking album of punk rock. And, even that position is a stretch--there's no mention of Thunders in the Characteristics section and I'm not clear how might bring him in; what "characteristic" of punk rock is he significantly representative of? Drug-related self-destruction, certainly, but we don't get into that in this music-focused article (though I've been thinking perhaps we should). Similarly, we could add the Buzzcocks image to the Pop punk subsction, which currently has no image--though, given that they are discussed as a 1970s progenitor of the style, a 2006 image doesn't seem inappropriate to me. There's certainly no fair-use image currently in the article that it could appropriately be substituted for. And that's about it.
Again, if you found an encyclopedia-quality historical free-use image that we could use for the Oi! section, say, that would be great. Again, most of the images in the gallery you've presented would be appropriate for the Legacy and later developments section, which already has two free images and no fair-use images. Specifically, we already have a free-use image to cover the recent history overview. If you identify free-use images from recent years appropriate for the Queercore and riot grrl or Emo subsections, it would certainly be nice to have those.—DCGeist 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of what I said above applies to these new additions (note in the interim I did find a free image for the Queercore and riot grrl subsection). I'd suggest taking a closer look at Image:11scenestrummer09.jpg (aka Joe Strummer of the Clash)—I find the public domain "release" there quite dubious.—DCGeist (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, well spotted. What do you think though about using some of them in the article instead of the non-free images we are currently using? (I shouldn't even be asking this as it's a core policy that we prefer free over fair-use.) I thought you might find this interesting. --John (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would first like to point out that we're down to five fair use images in (a) a long article on (b) a popular culture topic whose (c) history takes place entirely in the timeframe where copyright applies. I'd say our employment of fair use images in this case is impressively restrained, even exemplary.
I'm all in favor of replacing fair use images with free images where (a) the free image is as appropriate and illustrative as the fair use image and (b) it is of equal or nearly equal quality. I regard the cover of the Ramones debut album and the poster for the "Anarchy in the U.K." single as irreplacable—they illustrate the two most important and defining records of U.S. and UK punk rock while also, by turns, (i) illustrating the Ramones themselves and (ii) strongly conveying a sense of the punk aesthetic. I could see having a healthy debate if a good-quality free image of the Ramones and/or the Sex Pistols from their 1970s heyday were provided; in the absence of that—our current situation—I can't imagine what the grounds would be for arguing against the continued presence of these two images. The cover of Strength thru Oi! is also a very powerful and effectively illustrative image that happens to represent a historically significant album as well. There might just possibly be a historically fitting free use image illustrative of Oi! that could replace it, but the gallery above possesses no images of Oi! at all.
The images of the Wire debut album cover and the shot of Joy Division strike me as—potentially—the most replaceable. But I see nothing in the gallery above that is of equal or nearly equal value and quality to illustrate the strictly historical Second wave section (which requires an image from 1977-78, preferably relating to a second wave band) or the fundamentally historical Post-punk section (which should have an image, I think, from no later than the mid-1980s). I'm not resistant in theory to replacing those last two (or even three) images, but I haven't seen anything so far that comes close to doing the job. Again, there are a few images above that could plausibly be added to the article, but only to sections where there are already free images serving us quite well.—DCGeist (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. In my opinion, they all should, as they are replacable. We are supposed to be a free encylopedia, and are specifically prohibited by our own core policies from employing non-free material for, essentially, decoration of an article. The free images would illustrate the article just as well, and would also be free. The German, French and Spanish wikipedias (which was where I got these images from) don't permit non-free images, at all, as I understand it. They manage without images like this, and we aspire to do so too. See here and here. I understand that you disagree with me aesthetically, but you must read Angr's esay if you haven't. It's quite good. --John (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. You completely lose me when you starting tossing around that bogeyword "decoration." That's not the language of someone interested in entering into a debate; using it in such a sweeping manner, I'm afraid, indicates the desire to short-circuit the possibility of any debate. If your mission is to to change our rules and eliminate all fair use images from the encyclopedia, I know there are much more appropriate and potentially effective venues in which to do that.
I'm going to hold you to your more reasonable words—the ones that address this situation. You have suggested, in general terms, "using some of the[se free images] in the article instead of the non-free images we are currently using." Step up to the plate. Which images do you specifically suggest should be used instead of which?—DCGeist (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. That parable was enlightening indeed. If our English-language Wikipedia ever does go strictly "vegan" (i.e., all fair use images are removed, tout court), I believe our quality will be sufficiently compromised that I can't imagine feeling motivated to contribute any longer (Spylab, at least, will be pleased...). No, by no means am I claiming it will "ruin" the encyclopedia. Just that it will lower our standards to a point that will no longer inspire this dedicated contributor to devote energy to the project.—DCGeist (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No that isn't, with all respect, how we work here. Neither is it up to you. I know you like it the way it is. Let's see if we can get other eyes onto it. Which would be the best forum, do you think? Glad you liked it. --John (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Howzat? This, right here, is the proper and best forum to debate the content of the punk rock article. You describe your specific problems with specific images; you propose specific images to replace them with or you specifically argue for their deletion. We debate, inviting all interested parties to join in and attempt to reach a policy-based consensus. If that's unattainable, then we can move on to other forums. With all respect, you're simply refusing to engage in a productive process. How is it you imagine "we" do "work here"?
I have to say, I'm surprised at these gratuitous aspersions, John: "Neither is it up to you." I didn't say it (if "it" is the article content) was up to me. Is it up to you? I thought it was up to "us" (you know, in a big ol' Wikipedia sense). "I know you like it the way it is." And I know you don't. The difference is, I've addressed the article's image content in a specific way. You haven't done so at all. I'd love to see you start...anytime.—DCGeist (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to gratuitously asperse anybody. Just stating the obvious; you've done a lot of work on the article, I am making a proposal that we change the article to more closely conform with my interpretation of our policies, and I know that you and I disagree on the aesthetics of the thing. If it's just the two of us talking to each other we won't get anywhere. Let's think about appropriate ways we can progress this. We need to get other people talking is all I meant. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed. I too would like to hear other peoples' perspectives on these images. In fact, I suggest we promote this thread to the bottom of the page--it might possibly attract a little more attention there. What do you think?—DCGeist (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with DC here. Certain images are iconic to punk rock - they should be the ones included, free or non-free. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Free images trump non-free here, however iconic. We're a project trying to build a free encyclopedia. --John (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That's wrong, at least at this time. Free images trump non-free when they are of roughly equal value and quality (and, of course, when they are superior). We're a project trying to build a high-quality encyclopedia, as well. I look forward to the day when our free image resources are sufficient that we can have a high-quality encyclopedia without any non-free images. But that day is far from here. Pursuing the elimination of all non-free images, whatever their value, on an ad hoc basis like this does a disservice to the community in general and this article in specific. Those who desire the swift elimination of all non-free images from the encyclopedia are free to pursue that mission in the appropriate policy venues.—DCGeist (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. It's been policy for a good while. I'll dig you out chapter and verse if you want, but meantime you could do worse than read the links I already posted above. --John (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Like Max Cady says, "Already read 'em." Let's hear that verse.—DCGeist (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're finding that digging a bit tedious, you could do worse than devote yourself to something that will actually serve the project and prove the depth of your commitment to making Wikipedia a 100% free encyclopedia. Start seeking out and culling all the images on here that people have flat-out lied about being free, like the Joe Strummer image you posted in the gallery here yesterday and the Ian Curtis image I just briefly put into the article. Surely you agree that the existence of these falsely "free" images on Wikipedia does much, MUCH worse damage to the project—in terms of credibility, in terms of legal jeopardy, in terms of simple honesty—than the appropriate and judicious use of properly described fair use images, right?—DCGeist (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that while I've changed my opinion on this topic in recent months — Wikipedia should strive to be free without relying on fair use — I agree with DCGeist. We should always replace non-free images with equivalent free images, but some images simply have no free equivalent. If a free replacement for the Joy Division, Wire, Oi! or Ramones images is found (somewhat doubtful), I'm all for including it, but there is no other image which would contribute as much to the article as the Pistols poster image.
I'd also like to point out the images Image:Ramones 30081980 10 800.jpg and Image:Khanna.jpg. Both might be non-free (I have very strong doubts about the former, and only mild doubts about the latter). If the latter is free, it might make a better image for the Riot Grrrl section.
While the topic is up, what are the copyright laws regarding advertisement posters bandied about in public? ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are duly noted. If there was a widely-held consensus that these images are essential to convey the subject then you would both have a point. However, as we established some time ago, there isn't. These images were arbitrarily chosen some time ago by one user. In part of the page which has now been archived I already pointed out how weird and arbitrary some of the chosen images are. In these circumstances, they are indubitably decoration, and can indubitably be replaced with free ones, in spite of your two opinions. --John (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're misusing the word "decoration". We know what "decoration" means in a Wikipedia context--images adorning discographies and similar lists, images not illustrative of article content. If you want to debate the significance of images on a case-by-case basis, we can do that any time, but you've made clear you want to avoid that at all costs. The phrase "arbitrarily chosen" is tendentious and, in several cases, almost certainly false. All content of every article on Wikipedia--text and media--is "chosen" by the editors who contribute it. On what grounds do you find these images more "arbitrary" per se than any other Wikipedia content? Specifically how do you imagine that choosing images of, for instance,
  • The groundbreaking first Ramones album
  • The poster for the groundbreaking first Sex Pistols single
  • The notorious Strength Thru Oi! album
are "arbitrary" choices? Mind you, in each of these three cases, not only is the work itself important and worthy of illustration as the sourced text indicates, but the image itself conveys significant information about punk style and culture. To a lesser, but still significant degree, the images of the Wire album cover and of Joy Division both (a) illustrate one of the most important second wave records and one of the most important post-punk bands and (b) convey information about the stylistic connections and divergences between those phases in punk's evolution and its roots.
Your attempt to dismiss Wwwhatsup's and SwitChar's judgments about the images reveal seems to evidence your prejudiced state of mind on this issue. Despite your free-swinging use of the word "indubitably" (a funny word to use in a debate where you're in the minority), it should be increasingly clear that it is your opinion that is highly dubious in this case. That you think the choice of those images is "weird" is, itself, pretty weird. Anyway, still waiting on that chapter and verse.—DCGeist (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right; I am highly prejudiced in favour of our policy and mission to provide free content. Next to that, no offence, your opinion and that of your two friends count relatively little. One word of advice; where disagreements like this occur on Wikipedia it is probably better to personalise them as little as possible. It seldom helps. I've raised this centrally to see if we can generate a wider consensus. --John (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

John, please respond to DC Geist's question about the 'arbitrariness' of the three images mentioned above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give you a partial response. Since the "Anarchy in the UK" one is so 'groundbreaking', why is it vital that we use the poster? Why not the cover of the single? The Pink Flag one seems the essence of arbitrariess, especially with the current caption. For the other ones, I'd be relying on my own aesthetic opinions, which would be no more encyclopedic than DCGeist's. My main argument is that these are not being validly used within policy. My secondary argument would be that there is no consensus to use these exact images; at least I have never seen any such consensus. Like so much of this article it is currently one person's idea of how the article should look.--John (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Anarchy in the U.K. single" had no cover image--it came in a plain disc cover. The poster illustration is the image famously associated with the single.
How does the caption "especially" make the choice of the Pink Flag cover the "essence of arbitrariness"? Wire (Trouser Press: "one of the most influential bands of the class of '77") and its debut album in fact capture the "essence" of the significance of many of the bands that emerged during the second wave, which was the transition from punk to post-punk. Pink Flag stands out as the first album to be released by a second wave band; the only such album to appear during the second wave, that is, during 1977; and one of the most celebrated albums by any such band. Beyond its illustrative utility within the context of critical commentary, the image has additional informative value, representing an aesthetic shift evident in comparison to the "Anarchy" poster.
You feel compelled to share your "advice" about not "personalizing" the discussion. Yet you keep claiming, against the evidence, that these images reflect "one person's idea of how the article should look." John, you wanted to hear other voices. Now you could do worse than listen. The choice of images that you find "arbitrary" and "weird" also seems to reflect Wwwhatsup's and SwitChar's ideas of how the article should look. Perhaps because that is they, unlike certain editors who will go unnamed, understand that the English-language Wikipedia's policy allows for fair use images that significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
Also John, you are wandering into dangerous territory when you tell fellow Wikipedians not only that their opinions "count relatively little" but baselessly try to dismiss them as the collective argument of "friends." I don't know who Wwwhatsup and SwitChar are outside of the context of this very Talk page. It's you who seems to need some advice about personalizing these issues: When people agree with each other and disagree with you, that doesn't mean they are friends and it doesn't mean their opinions count for little. When you choose to participate on Wikipedia, you choose to accept that sometimes your view will not prevail. Please observe, not one of the three people who disagrees with you has claimed or even implied that your opinion counts for little.
Finally, I wonder, as you are concerned about the "arbitrary" and "weird" choices that have gone into the article's illustration--all of which, I can assure you as a long-term editor of the article, were not made by one person--which of the eight free images you find "arbitrarily" and "weirdly" chosen. Or is it only each and every one of the fair use images that manages to strike you in this fashion? I think we may learn a lot from your specific answer to this question.—DCGeist (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would ask what other images might be considered more instructively representative of the 1976-77 period than those included - The Ramones , and the Anarchy In The UK poster? When it comes to the latter, designed by Jamie Reid, it was particularly significant as the first mass-reproduced image of 'ripped/safety-pin' style that has become emblemic of punk. Since the the Sex Pistols were dropped by both EMI, and A&M, very few actual records went out at the time. The 'fashion look' of The Clash at that time is also relevant. I agree specifically that Pink Flag represented a stylistic step-forward from that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on User_talk:Macintosh101 requesting some provenance on those new Clash and Strummer images. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Wwwhatsup. DCGeist, thanks for picking up my error on the "Anarchy" single; I should of course have referred to the Never Mind the Bollocks cover, which is what I was thinking of and is (I consider) far more 'iconic' than the poster. If it is merely an image of safety pins we need, a free one could I am sure easily be prepared. Similarly, it would be easy to 'mock up' an artwork in the Clash's style; after all they used stencils to make them in the first instance. An important point which has been made in the centralised discussion is that the use of these (or other) non-free images would be easier to sustain if there was referenced commentary on the images (rather than the bands or records) in the article (and not just in the captions). This would answer one of my main problems with them which is their essentially decorative use here at the moment. I'd still quibble with the exact choice of images, but that would at least put us on the right side of policy. --John (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that their current use is not essentially decorative ("purely ornamental"), but rather illustrative. Certainly there is only one participant out of the total of five who have recently discussed the issue here and in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content who finds that an appropriate characterization. I am not clear if the notion of creating a free image of safety pins for a serious article on punk rock is simply a whimsical joke or an obscure attempt at satirical rhetoric. In other words, What point is trying to be made here? Wwwhatsup has noted that the poster "was particularly significant as the first mass-reproduced image of 'ripped/safety-pin' style that has become emblemic of punk." One wouldn't seriously prefer to replace that with a nonhistorical, insignificant, purely ornamental--but free!!!--image of safety pins...or would one? Please remember, we aspire to professional standards of presentation at Wikipedia.
Much of Jamie Reid's work for the Pistols qualifies for "iconic" status. Sabin focuses on his imagery for yet a third recording: "Amongst many record covers, posters and flyers that he produced probably the most famous and controversial were the series of images Reid created for the 'God Save the Queen' single" (Punk Rock, So What?, p. 86). The use of the "Anarchy" poster is, of course, also predicated on the unmatched historical importance of the single itself to UK punk ("The Sex Pistols' 'Anarchy in the UK' has been named the most influential record of the 1970s in a magazine poll") and on the structure of the article, in which Early history/The UK covers events there through the end of 1976. Given that structure, images associated with "God Save the Queen" or Never Mind the Bollocks--both 1977 releases--would not be appropriate substitutions. Note, in conclusion, that in cases such as cover art, the definitive guideline actually calls for critical commentary on the item itself, not its visual content (and does not specify whether that commentary be in the main text or the caption). We have one participant here and another over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content in favor of adding commentary on the visual content. Noted. As a record poster, the "Anarchy" image is not technically "cover art," though it conceptually fills that role. We could paraphrase and cite, for example, this from Pardo, who discusses Reid's "anarchy flags subverting the Union flag": "His controversial images rapidly became icons of the anti-establishment punk movement" (Communicate: Independent British Graphic Design Since the Sixties, p. 245). Let's see where the discussion leads.—DCGeist (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
These are (some) good points and good arguments Dan. We would have a very good and strong argument for that one particular fair use if this material was in the article, although I would follow your argument to its logical conclusion and would probably use the "God Save the Queen" image rather than the one we have now, but I would be prepared to haggle further. Two other points; first of all, as has been pointed out to you, it is not the case that every section must have an image to illustrate it. Punk rock (as opposed to punk art or punk fashion) was primarily an aural phenomenon, and music samples cover this adequately. Images are great, but too many can be as bad as too few, and we need not be slaves to chronology or the structure of the article; I'd rather pick the best images we can justify under our policies than slavishly have one for each period as you seem to be saying. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't really matter if you get six, ten, or sixteen people here saying "sure, the hell with policy, use images x, y and z because I like them". Foundation policies (read: 'our bosses') force us to ensure minimal non-free image use and to replace with free images whenever possible. To change this, we'd need to change foundation policy. This is an area where local consensus cannot trump our core mission. Rather than counting how many people have said this or that, we need to focus instead on arguing towards a solution which will best combine our goals of being a free encyclopedia, and being a good one. Finally it's worth noting that the only other contributor (last time I looked) on the central discussion is, like me, an admin. That is not of course to say that our arguments automatically count for more than others', but it wouldn't do any harm to give us credit for knowing and understanding what policy (both the spirit and letter thereof) says about things; after all it is us who have to enforce it from day to day. --John (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, having been the one to actually make the argument, I assure you its logical conclusion is to use the "Anarchy" image. I quoted Sabin not to "prove" the "God Save the Queen" images were the "most" iconic, but to show you that most of Reid's work with the Pistols fit that category, not just your favored Bollocks cover. Let me sum up: "Anarchy," "Queen," Bollocks—all iconic images. "Anarchy"—most important recording.
It is tendentious of you to suggest I advocate "slavishly" having an image "for each period as you seem to be saying," when you know very well I agreed with Carcharoth on the philosophical point and underscored the fact that we have thirteen sections/subsections in the article, including several purely historical ones, that do not have images. I am very careful not to misrepresent your position; you have been far from scrupulous about representing mine.
Something similar can be said about this strawman you've built, characterizing people who disagree with you here as saying anything like "sure, the hell with policy, use images x, y and z because I like them." Again, you're not debating honestly, John. No one has said or even implied that. You've gotten a lot of very specific arguments in favor of keeping these images that are clearly in the spirit, and often explicitly by the letter, of our non-free content policy. And again you raise this generic point about "replacing" fair use images with "free images whenever possible." And again, I ask you--for the fifth time? the fiftieth?--specifically which of the fair use images in the article you would replace with which of the free images you've posted in your gallery.
Finally, you want special credit for being an admin and possessing particular policy knowledge that presumptively goes along with that title. Lovely. Will you give special credit to those who've demonstrated a deep knowledge of this particular article topic and thus an understanding of what images are particularly significant to an understanding of it? Thanks in advance.—DCGeist (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the God Save The Queen cover is used to illustrate the Punk visual art article. Style, in visual art and fashion, was a vital element in the establishment of punk rock music. That's an important point and including key examples is valuable. Each of the images included played a major role. By your 'aural' logic, no music article should contain any images! My understanding of WP policy is that while 'free' is desirable, 'non-free' is perfectly acceptable lacking alternatives, til something 'free' of equivalent value comes along. It seems we can at least making progress in that we are now discussing what references to the role of imagery in punk rock might be appropriate in the article to validate the images' use. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And may I say? Merry Christmas! Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
DCGeist, "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". I've read what you wrote above; there are fewer useful points this time, though I take your point about all the images being potentially 'iconic'. If you have a problem with my behaviour being tendentious or dishonest, there are other places to talk about that. If you have specific points which will help us to address my concerns, this is definitely the place to post them. You could address one of my concerns by adding some of the referenced commentary on the image to the article. Best wishes, --John (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
No, John. When you are tendentious and mischaracterize others' positions and say their opinions count for little, I will continue to point it out in the venue where you do these things. Do you have a problem with that?
I'd like to start by addressing this concern: Specifically which of the fair use images in the article would you replace with which of the free images you've posted in your gallery?—DCGeist (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wwwhatsup, I agree that we are (potentially) making progress here. Season's greetings to you too. --John (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've taken a crack at "Anarchy," Pink Flag, and Strength Thru Oi!. That's enough for today. Merry Xmas, to each and all. Good will trumps heated debate, the whole year 'round. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice work. I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. Good wishes to you too --John (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by a suggestion in the NFC Talk thread, I searched around Flickr for an extended period and came up with something that I think is quite edifying in the context of the Post-punk section. The photo itself is clearly under a usable free license; while logos are sometimes copyrighted and often trademarked, research appears to indicate that the PIL logos are not. Lydon is very conscious of copyright and similar matters ([1]) but nowhere on his extensive site claims protection for the logos; there are also indications that Lydon, as part of his conceptual project with PIL, wanted the logo to be imitated ([2]). Let me know what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're indulging in wishful thinking here DC. I'm not sure that johnlydon.com isn't just a glorified fan-site. It certainly doesn't give any indication on copyright on the PiL logo. Neither does the statement "often imitated never bettered". And then the picture in question Image:PILsign.jpg is not a PiL logo at all - AFAICT from Flickr it's just a picture somebody took of a sign that happened to have the letters on it. How you relate it to the cite is beyond me. The circular logo IS the only PiL logo. Does it say in the cite that Dennis Morris designed it? That's possible although I've always thought it was Jill Mumford, either way it was commissioned and thus copyright the band. I believe that the Pink Flag cover was a departure graphically that presaged post-punk and was a valid inclusion. I think you should stick with that and maybe look to Simon Reynolds for validation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's no question JohnLydon.com is 100% authorized. All the available evidence suggests that the logo is not under copyright (there's no proof, but that sort of negative is notoriously hard to prove). And, as several sources I could have cited establish, Dennis Morris designed virtually everything visual for PiL in its early years, including their logo. That said, you're right about the most important thing--it ain't a PiL logo. I found the image powerful enough--and obviously the typeface is virtually identical--that I misinterpreted the photographer's description and failed to ponder the little issue of the capitalized "I." Ah well... A thorough search of Flickr turned up nothing else historically appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made another stab at substitution, now involving an image that has been residing on Wikipedia nominally free under a GNU Free Documentation License for over two-and-a-half years. There is a question here whether that license is valid--the content of the image (the Metal Box package) is probably copyrightable under UK law. I have added a provisional fair use rationale for its use here in punk rock. The album itself is one of the most important post-punk recordings and the packaging design is obviously one of the most innovative and celebrated in rock history. While given its ambiguous licensing status, this is not a perfect substitution, the image itself is, I believe, more informative and the fair use case for it is certainly stronger than is true of the Joy Division image.—DCGeist (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you're right about Reynolds, who is superb on the connections between musical and visual aesthetic. I've expanded the Pink Flag cite with reference to him and done similarly with the Metal Box cite.—DCGeist (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but, under US Copyright law at least, authors have 'prima facie' copyright by default. If the work is 'for hire' that copyright belongs to the employer. The PiL logo and any other band product must be considered non-free unless absolute evidence to the contrary exists. Open availability can be argued to dilute trademark rights but not copyright. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I've added an FU rationale to the Metal Box image page. I don't feel comfortable about eliminating the uploader's GNU License, but I concur that we have to presume it is insufficient.—DCGeist (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A few clarifications here:

  • Free images need not be as good as nonfree to be preferred and considered replacements. This cannot be stressed enough. "The free image is lower-quality" is not an acceptable reason for keeping nonfree content over free, the lower-quality but free replacement is still preferred. If a free image of at least reasonable quality exists that could be used to provide reasonable illustration to an article, the nonfree image is replaceable, replaced, and must be removed. This is not at editorial discretion and is not subject to exemption (even if there were consensus for an exemption), it is a Foundation requirement.
  • Illustration is per article, not per section. A few images per article are good that illustrate a concept, but sections can be and are often left pictureless. "The section will have no illustration without it" is not an argument with any base for retaining a nonfree image, especially since the article will still have plenty.
  • It is rare that a broad topic such as punk rock will be able to justify a nonfree image, let alone multiples, simply because broad topics are the most likely to have fitting free images. There are tons of free images available here. They must be used instead of nonfree, even if one considers the nonfree images "better" or "more iconic" or what have you. The only possible exception may be if a source discusses an image (not what it contains, but the image itself, that's a critical distinction!), and the picture is necessary to accompany the sourced commentary on that image (again, not on the image's subject, but on that photo itself). A nonfree image of Joey Ramone, for example, would only be appropriate to accompany a source which comments extensively on "Jack Crack's 1985 photo of Joey Ramone...", not just to accompany a section on Joey Ramone (even if that section is on Joey Ramone in 1985).

I really just don't see any justifiable nonfree images here. Too many replacements are available, replaceability means removal, regardless of other considerations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the accompanying NFC Talk thread, "Current pictures cannot adequately illustrate the history of a topic" ([3]). In addition, all of the fair use images remaining in the article are, in fact, discussed in detail by the cited sources—that is, the image itself and that image's significance. Given the historical nature of the fair use pictures used and their notability as confirmed via cited sources, in fact replacements are not available for these specific images.—DCGeist (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't need pictures from every moment of punk rock, so it really doesn't matter if it can "adequately illustrate the history" or not. Current, free imagery can convey an illustration of what "punk rock" is. We don't need an illustration of everything it ever was, that's excessive and decorative when we're talking about the use of nonfree images. (Else, one could easily justify a nonfree image anywhere—"Well the free image of X living person taken today doesn't convey what he looked like yesterday, so we still need that nonfree photo too!") Text can be used to describe its history. Sourced commentary on previous images are another story, though, and that might be justification. Could you please point me to some examples of sources with extensive commentary on the images themselves? I don't seem to be finding them in the reference list. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you speak of there being no need for "pictures from every moment of punk rock" and "illustration[s] of everything it ever was." Surely that's not a comment about the content of the Wikipedia article that this Talk page accompanies or about the position of those who support its current use of images. All are invited to take a few moments to look at the article and the earlier comments in this thread to confirm that they are not accurately described by these recent statements. One might also recall the NFC Talk thread, if one has participated there, where it was pointed out that thirteen sections/subsections of this article, this one here on Wikipedia, are unillustrated: Garage rock and mod, Origin of the term punk, Early history/Australia, Early history/Other U.S. cities, The second wave/North America, The second wave/Australia, The second wave/Rest of the world, Punk transforms, New wave, Hardcore, Pop punk, Other fusions and directions, and Emo. We should all make an effort to remain focused on the article in question, the real article, not a notional article reimagined for rhetorical effect.
Now, to address the problem you seem to be having locating the referenced sources, I need to understand the nature of the problem. Let's start with the two fair use images where the sources should be the simplest to identify, as citations for discussion of the images appear in the captions themselves: the Pink Flag and Metal Box images. What problem are you having in these two cases?—DCGeist (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't answer for Seraphimblade, but I personally would need to see the information integrated coherently into the article text, rather than just being in the picture caption. At the moment it looks tacked-on to justify the images. If it's really essential to the article to have these images I would want to see that, as a minimum. Others may of course have tougher standards but I think that would be my requirement. --John (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It looks a little clumsy as it is. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(continued from above) The answer there is, I'm talking about sourced discussion of the image, not the event or item the image depicts. (In other words, to count as sourced commentary on an image, the source must discuss "Jack Crack's iconic photograph of Johnny Rotten at his Somewhereville concert", not just discuss the Somewhereville concert in general. To count as sourced commentary on an album cover, the source must extensively discuss the cover, not just the album.) This shows that the image itself, rather than the item it depicts, is essential and sourced commentary can be made about it. But right now, there's an extreme overuse of nonfree material, especially given the easy availability of free material. (In fact, while there probably is sourced commentary enough to justify a few sound samples, free licensed punk, generally CC-BY-SA, is certainly available, and there are way too many.) I'm not saying no nonfree content is justifiable here, there might be a bit that is, perhaps a couple sound samples, and if significant critical commentary can be found on an image, maybe that image. But broad topics, where much free content is available, must use free content in preference to nonfree, even if that causes some quality loss. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, your rationale for deleting the images of the Ramones debut album and the "Anarchy in the U.K." poster were objectively in error--in both cases, the sources cited in the text of the pertinent section explicitly discuss the image and its significance. John, your baseless reversion did nothing but compound the original error.—DCGeist (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement here is not so much one of general philosophy but specific application. Yes, free content is used in preference to nonfree when, as you say, it is available. The free use images used in this article are all specific historical images of well-sourced significance. Due to their historical nature and specific significance, there are no free images available to replace them with. As for the sound samples, I imagine there are others more specifically competent than me on that topic; the argument for retention would probably be better served if someone else took the lead on that in any debate you wish to engage in.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dan, your opinion on the necessity of the images has been noted. You are now in a minority of one in your interpretation of our fair use policies. Please don't revert against consensus, as I don't think that will end well. Instead try to discuss here and answer the questions others have raised here. --John (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in a "minority of one"? Did you just execute a contract on Wwwhatsup and SwitChar? You scare me, John.
Your imaginary "consensus" in favor of your and Seraphimblade's position is one thing. Another is the evident fact that objectively false claims are now being made to eliminate images, images whose historical nature and specific content is self-evident and whose well-sourced significance is equally evident to anyone who cares to expend just a little bit of energy on verification. A third thing is your thinly veiled threat-- "I don't think that will end well."
If you wish to bring proceedings against me, go ahead. I look forward to discussing how you've informed your fellow contributors that their opinions count for little, how you've imagined them out of existence so you can claim I'm in a minority of one, how you've fabricated a consensus, how you're now backing objectively false claims in support of your mission here. In what forum will you be making sure things don't end well for me?—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No need to be scared, and I'm sorry if that came across badly. Just please answer the questions that I, Seraphimblade and Wwwhatsup raised above. We have pointed out that the images contravene policy at present and are not needed on the article. I'm sure you wouldn't be silly enough to edit-war on an issue like this, and that no further action will therefore be needed. --John (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, aside from indicating the fallacious basis on which Seraphimblade summarily deleted the two images in question, I've now also addressed his latest points quite clearly. I believe your last point was more stylistic--about the placement and form of the sourced commentary on the images. It seems clear that everyone has a somewhat different idea about what works best for those (Serpahimblade can't seem to find the references no matter where the citations and the relevant text appear). In direct correspondence with Wwwhatsup--who agreed with your point on the text style--I encouraged him to take a crack at editing them.
I'd just like to note in passing, the cover of the Ramones debut album has been in the article since January 14, 2007. It was added not be me, but by Hoponpop69, who sensibly substituted it for the much less historically significant cover of the band's third album, Rocket to Russia (which had been in the article well before I made my first edit to it on January 12). Here is the link to Hoponpop69's historic edit: [4].—DCGeist (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The images should be left as they were. Didn't we agree on their significance, and that it was just a question of wording the article to reflect that on Dec 25? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a good few days ago and I don't think the requirements I stated then have been met yet. To restate them; as a minimum, the importance and significance of the images should be asserted and integrated into the article text (not the picture captions). As of now I do not think this article conforms with policy. --John (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This, for example, is the source under the Ramones album cover image. I've read that source full through, and simply cannot find commentary on the cover art. Could you please at least tell me what paragraph it's in, since I seem to have some real difficulty finding it? The others, fair enough, page numbers are given, so I'll see if I can find the works. I suspect we've got a similar situation there (discussion of the album, not the cover), but asking to look first is fair enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mose

Mose Allison's influence on Townshend's writing of "My Generation" is certainly a significant point for the full-length article on that song, but as this article is focusing on punk and its primary influences, there just isn't a significant enough connection with Allison to bring him in here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your point. However, it seems to me that "My Generation" was much more influenced by Mose Allison than The Kinks. While a song like "I Can't Explain" shows an obvious dept to the Kinks, I can't say the same about "My Generation." If you want to create some kind of trajectory of influence between The Who and The Kinks, it seems to me that "I Can't Explain" would be much better suited for this purpose. Remember, "I Can't Explain" was a regional hit in the US, so it certainly influenced US garage rock bands more than "My Generation" at the time. I guess what it comes down to is that - for me - the connection between "My Generation" and The Kinks is too tenuous to warrant inclusion here. Thus, if it is to remain, it would have to be supplemented with an Allison mention to achieve some sort of balance. As it is now, it reads kind of one-sided. While Pete Townshend has always been quick to generously credit Ray Davies for all kinds of things, "My Generation" is usually not one of them. 81.234.201.217 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points, all. We can't go into too much detail in this summary subsection, so that's what "I Can't Explain" (whose effect largely recapitulated those of the earlier Kinks' singles) goes unmentioned. Yes, that and other Who songs definitely demonstrate the Kinks' influence even more clearly, but "My Generation" does so as well, and allows us to draw the line from the Kinks to the Who in the efficient way we need to here. Note the citation comes from a book on Townshend. On the cited page, Townshend describes how he completed the song by introducing "several key changes, pinched, again, from the Kinks." Having already addressed the U.S. side of the Garage rock and mod history/later influence equation, this song allows us to effectively address the UK side. Again, if there was a stronger line from Allison to punk, his inclusion would make sense; as it is, I still believe its more appropriate to mention him in the article on the song itself, where all of the influences on it can be discussed. However, it may be true that the phrase "Influenced by the Kinks" is simply unnecessary in this context.—DCGeist (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift reply. Yes, I think the phrase is unnecessary in this context and I believe the section would read better without it. Actually, I think the words of Townshend here complicate the trajectory, since what he is talking about is key changes, which doesn't really go well with the fact that the Who's influence on punk had more to do with form and aesthetics rather than content: they "presaged a more cerebral mix of musical ferocity and rebellious posture that would characterize much early British punk rock," as the article says. Do you see where I'm going? If the Kinks influence on "My Generation" was limited to key changes, then that influence cannot part of the punk trajectory, since what The Clash and Sex Pistols et al found appealing and inspirational about The Who surely wasn't their key changes. Rather, like the articles states, it was in their musical attack and non-conformist image where The Who was influential on punk. 81.234.201.217 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. As I do think it is important to trace the link between the Kinks and the Who here, I've tried a little rewrite. Let me know what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, nice formulation. 81.234.201.217 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)