This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Older versions/revisions of company/organisation/product LOGOs
Is it acceptable to display older (i.e., outdated) versions of a logo (in order to illustrate changes in the logo design) or does it fall unter "minimal usage" ? Hippo99 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to have commentary about the history of the logo to support the inclusion (typically will be along the lines of reasoning why they moved to a new logo relative to the old, but there are other ways). Simply displaying older logos without commentary is not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Masem, I believe you meant sourced commentary, but feel free to correct me. While Masem it technically correct, reality is otherwise. The actual, practical rule of thumb is that if you want to include historical logos you need only fight hard enough for them in the face of opposition to them. I'm not suggesting you edit war, but rather that a vociferous opposition will win the day, regardless of any policy or guideline standing in opposition to you. Examples abound. History of BBC television idents has nearly twice as many images as it does references. Test card with just 4 references is even worse. There are many more, such as PBS logos and hell let's just do an entire article based on 2 references..Logos and uniforms of the Los Angeles Lakers. And if you want to ignore WP:NFTABLE, you can do so usually with impunity. See Velology. And let's not even bother discussing currency articles <rolls eyes>. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Another reality is that the more famous an older logo was, the less likely it will be to get challenged or removed without discussion and the more likely any attempt to remove it will be challenged. Fortunately, for very old historical logos like pre-1923 AT&T logos, the copyright has expired so "NFCC-compliance" is irrelevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Older logos that are "famous" should easily have sourcing that describes it as famous, which would be sufficient to keep. The fallacy is that what some believe is "famous" is only a supposition that can't be supported. There may be exceptional cases that everyone agrees an old logo is famous but can't find sources for it, but realistically, there's enough documentation on marketing and branding that will mark these significant logo changes and we really don't need to relax the rules for these. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
And there you go accusing me, once again, of saying something I don't actually mean. I mean exactly what I say, and I demonstrated the reality above. I'm sorry that reality doesn't agree with policy/guideline, but there you have it. The policies/guidelines don't apply to currency articles, stamp articles, advertising articles, musician articles, art articles and more...just so long as there are people willing to fight for inclusion. That is the reality of common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
And it takes people to review such problem cases and deal with them, and not those sitting back in armchairs that have given up trying to fix them problem. You know very well that NFC remains policy, you're just unhappy with how its maintained (that you can't use a heavy hand to enforce it). If you want to help, help, otherwise, sitting around and complaining does not help anyone, including those asking the questions. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
And once again you accuse me of using a heavy hand, an approbation you've used many times and never once backed up. I've begged you to stop doing so, yet you persist. Why? As for "complaining" and whether it helps or not; you are not the judge of who gets to post here and what content they are allowed to post. I will continue to "complain" as much as I like, within the bounds of policy and guideline. Since I am not violating those, you have no grounds on which to suggest I should stop, nor will I acquiesce to such an ill-based request. To the point; "fixing" these problems hasn't been the problem. They've been debated before, and the result is these categories of articles do, in practice, get a special bye that excludes them from the constraints of NFC policy and guideline. I've demonstrated this above. You've yet to refute this with any demonstrable evidence. Simply saying something isn't so changes nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
NFCC remains policy; NFC remains a guideline. Until they are revoked of those statuses, saying that we routinely ignore those like they don't exist is being purely disruptive to improving the encyclopedia, and gives editors that are actually seeking sound advice the wrong impression. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And once again you accuse me of being disruptive. I fail to understand why you are so motivated to discredit my opinion. Frankly, I don't care. But, accusing me of being disruptive for recognizing what the reality is here and the dichotomy that exists between reality and policy is out of line. This does NOT make me disruptive. As I outlined here, "Have I advocated anyone upload as much non-free content as they like? No. Have I edit warred to retain non-free content? No. Have I approached any of the people who attempt to enforce NFCC to get them to stop doing so? No. Have I added non-free content in violation of strict interpretation of NFCC policy? No. Have I insulted anyone over NFCC issues? No. Have I done anything other than voice an opinion? No." I remind you of the fifth bullet point of WP:WIAPA. Drop it. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
An article only gets one file for identification without commentary, in most cases this is the album cover. Aspects has made it a point to ignore NFC. I just haven't had the time or energy to escalate the issue. The user needs to stop or be topic banned. Werieth (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely only the case that "for identification" applies to cover images only and not audio files. There must be critical commentary on the audio to justify its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, it would have been helpful if I was told of this conversation instead of coming across it on my own. (Struck through comment since there was a link at the article talk page, but I actually came across this discussion myself before I saw that comment.) Since I had seen these sound files on numerous song/single articles I assumed they were acceptable, I added them back and I guess you know what that makes me. It would have really been helpful if Wereith would be more specific with his edit summaries as to why he removes files, instead of removing different types of files from an articles with a blanket "WP:NFC," so that other editors have to guess what parts each of the NFC they fail, which also makes it difficult to argue against a removal when you do not know exactly why it was removed. I will go through the articles that I added them back to, to see if there is any critical commentary in the article to justify them. Aspects (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Werieth is basically right, with possible rare exceptions that I can't think of right now, each article only gets one file for identification. However, I don't think Masem is right. If a famous sound was only released over the radio and online and it never had cover art, then a small clip of the the most recognizable section would be acceptable for identification. But only if no cover art or other suitable visual was available or the cover art existed "in name only" but was largely unknown to people who knew of the audio work, AND no other sound snippets that did have commentary also served to identify the file. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
When we use cover art without discussion as "for identification", the rationale to keep the images is based on the fact that cover art has implicit marketing and branding that is carried by the cover art, thus meeting NFCC#8. This doesn't apply to an audio file, and thus why we can't use audio files for identification. More importantly, we don't use the concept "we have an article on a topic, thus we must have a means to identify the topic" - eg adding some type of media because there is a place for it. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The reasons you state can apply to audio as well. Granted, it isn't common, but it does happen. As an example, if a visual identifier for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech wasn't available, his voice echoing the words "I have a dream" would be qualify under NFCC#8, even if those words were not the subject of critical commentary. As it happens, those words and the words that follow are used for purposes other than identification and that audio clip is used in I Have a Dream in accordance with WP:NFCC but not for identification. I'm just saying that barring another form of identification, a very short snippet of the most famous part would qualify under the "implicit marketing and branding" concept that you put forward. Other examples would be famous advertising jingles where a visual identifier would not properly identify the jingle itself. By the way, your point about not having to have an identification-file is spot-on. It's rare that an audio clip used merely for identification (i.e. without critical commentary) would significantly increase understanding and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, as described by NFCC#8. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that doesn't carry any implicit marketing or branding to make it an identifying "cover" for the speech, though as you put out, this is a bad example since the speech is well known. A jingle may be an example, but even in such cases where the ad campaign itself may be notable (like Where's the Beef) there's nearly always visual marketing or even straight up text replacement (to avoid non-free media in the first place) that works. Basically, there is no case where an audio file can be included that is doing the same implicit purpose as a cover image for branding and marketing (read, used without additional commentary). A key to remember is that save for sight-impaired and screen-readers, everyone can see images for identification, but there is a significant fraction of readers that don't have advanced browsers that can play audio/video files so the consideration of "for identification" fails there. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
SOS is a very good example of where an audio file IS the "brand." As it happens, this is also a free file, but in a hypothetical world where it were non-free it would be the best "branding" file available, and its omission would diminish the understanding of the subject. I don't have time to think of other examples off the top of my head, but I still contend that the number of cases where audio would serve as the best (or only possible) file identification (i.e. far superior to any visual identifier or there is no realistic visual identifier available) while meeting the NFCC is greater than zero. Your comment about many people not having the technology to quickly play audios being an "automatic disqualifier" for "for identification" files applies to images which are not in nearly-universally-supported file formats as well (e.g. GIF, JPEG), yet non-free, "for identification purposes" images in such formats are allowed.
I will reiterate that it is rare, perhaps even very rare, that a sound file would qualify for use as a "brand/identification-only" fair-use file, and I would support any argument that anyone attempting to use such a file in this way should have an "extra burden" to demonstrate that this is the case, including the burden of demonstrating that having the file significantly improves the article vs. not having any identification-file at all. While I am not going to propose it now, I would offer at least weak support for a guideline change that said that before a non-free audio or video file is used "for identification only," it must be discussed for at least a few days on the article's talk page and any objections addressed first, and that if such a file is removed from a page in good faith, it cannot be restored without the same discussion period. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I will challenge the fact that only an audio file is an appropriate file that represents the branding and marketing and that no text or image can do the same job. (Eg, I know NBC's three chimes is their call mark, but we still use the peacock symbol for their identifying image). --MASEM (t) 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do we allow images for identification of songs at all? Songs are typically distributed as part of an album (which has a cover image in the article about the album), on the radio, at concerts and as streaming audio on the Internet, but to much fewer people as a product with a separate cover artwork. In most cases, I would argue that the main identifier of a song is the audio, not any form of art. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Some songs are released as CD singles or, as with 45s and cassette tapes with 2 songs on them. Such recordings typically have artwork. Songs or 2-song sets sold only online (e.g. Yes/No (Banky W. song)) may or may not have "cover art." That said, if the cover art is not highly associated with the music, it would probably not qualify as a non-free image if its only use was for identification and the song's article would likely not have any non-free image in it unless that image qualified as a non-free image for reasons other than "identification." However, a bona fide cover art image, even if not widely recognized, would likely be more acceptable than a non-famous audio clip. However, if it came to a files-for-deletion discussion between a famous audio clip and a relatively unknown but bona fide CD cover image, I'm not sure which file the community would decide to keep, or if they would decide to delete both, as such a scenario would be new and there is probably not yet a consensus on the issue. Such a scenario would be realistic if a notable song was available online without cover art but also available by CD but the CD was not widely available and its cover art was pretty much unknown by the listening public, AND there was a clip that was widely associated with the song by the general public over and above all other parts of the song. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Euro coins
Hi, I have a question regarding copyrighted euro coins: Should we see official drawings of euro coins as a "freer alternative" to photographs? In the case of photographs. there are two copyrights (on the photograph and the original design) instead of one. If I'm correct in this regard, all photographs should be replaced with drawings, which are available at [1] (e.g. in this publication etc); per "Where possible, non-free content is ... replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." --Eleassarmy talk08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Since any European user can photograph the coins, they can license the photograph under free terms, even though the work depicted remains copyrighted to the EU. This is a "freer" work than a photograph that does not have a free license that is a picture of the coins, and thus this is the preferred option. (We do the same with things like buildings and the like where Freedom of Panorama doesn't exist - while photos will have the copyright of the building, we can assert that the photograph itself should be a freely-licensed image than a non-free professional one.) --MASEM (t) 15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Any user can photograph the coins, but for the national side, photographing them is an exclusive right of the copyright holder on them,[2] unless it is a photograph for a fair use.[3] How can one freely license such a photo? --Eleassarmy talk19:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There are two copyrights that start when the photograph is take - that of the coin and that of the photograph (as it consider a 3D object and thus the way the coin and lighting are used are considered creative elements). As long as the coin copyright is there, the work will never be 100% free, but we can be free-er by having the photograph side put under a free license. Thus, when the coin's copyright goes away, the photo by the free license is now free of the derivative work issues, and since the photo was licensed free, the whole image is now a free image, which is exactly what we want. On the other hand, if we had a photo licensed with a second copyright atop the coin's, then we'd have to wait for the photograph copyright to go away to call it free. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A nit-pick: Some coins are two-dimensional, they get their image from either the use of color (rare) or the mix of a glossy and non-glossy finish. The Euro coins and most if not all other coins currently minted by sovereign nations are, as you pointed out, 3-dimensional. This is only relevant in countries like the United States where a "mechanical" photograph of a 2-dimentional object is ineligible for copyright protection in its own right. Although typically not minted by or on behalf of a sovereign nation and therefore arguably not a "coin," Wooden nickels were commonly 2-dimensional. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the info. I am not sure whether the photographer's copyright also exists for fair use photos. Any source about this? Another thing, with photos, one has to consider two copyrights (of the photographer and the designer), whereas with official drawings, only one (of the designer). Isn't it therefore so that a drawing is freer, because attribution of the photographer etc. is not needed, unless the photo would be given to the public domain? --Eleassarmy talk21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In terms of how we would treat it as non-free, a exactingly accurate drawing of the image of the copyrighted coin (slavish reproduction, no creativity == no new copyright) is equivalent to the photograph that is licensed freely of a copyrighted coin - we still have the single copyright of the coin that blocks it from being free. In terms of aesthetics, the freely licensed photograph is more ideal in most cases. Also to note with the drawing, we would expect attribution to be included so that when the coin copyright expires, we can validate the ineligibility of the copyright of the drawing via the attribution. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
With exactly accurate drawings ([4], [5]), the copyright goes away in the moment that the copyright on the coin goes away. "On the other hand, if we had a photo licensed with a second copyright atop the coin's, then we'd have to wait for the photograph copyright to go away to call it free." - the same applies even for CC photos, they're still copyrighted and attribution would be required until 70 years after the original publication/death of the photographer. I also can't agree with the aesthetics argument. --Eleassarmy talk22:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, not true. If I took a photo of a coin right now and uploaded with as a CC-BY photo on my side with the fair use clause of the coin, then once the coin copyright disappears, the photo's copyright remains, and since I put that in CC-BY, it becomes immediately free. It is as good as the uncopyrightable drawing of the copyrighted coin.
That said - remember that because the coin image is copyrighted, WP:NFCC#3a comes into place, and that a highly-detailed drawing would be inappropriate, unless there is some specific detail that has been discussed in text to require the highly detailed drawing. Similarly, we could not use a high resolution photo by the same means. This is another reason why the photo is preferred, since we know what is low-resolution there , while to what level of replication in a drawing remains in question. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And to be specific, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license are quite satisfactory with what the foundation considers free content - they allow redistribution and reuse by any entity. There is no difference, in terms of free content, between a work that is in the public domain due to uncopyrightability, and a work copyrighted with a CC-BY/CC-BY-SA license. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I am asking because of the discussion at File talk:1 eurocent malta.png. If I correctly understand you, should a photo of this coin appear, we should replace this drawing with the photo in articles and delete it? On the other hand, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that we can't be sure about the resolution of the drawing: for this case it is evidently quite small. --Eleassarmy talk12:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the photographer's contribution to the coin violates WP:NFCC#1 whereas the coin itself is irreplaceable. Therefore, I would assume that we should delete the current image, and, provided that the coin itself doesn't violate any other section of WP:NFCC (I haven't checked how it is used), replace it with a photo tagged with {{photo of art}} where the photographer has provided a licence for his own contribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
More specifically, whoever the photographer is for that website that the coin image was taken from has a copyright on the photograph of the coin. There is no indication the photos are in a free license so there's two non-free licenses on that photo - the coin's design and the photographer's version. Since this is an object in existence, anyone else is free to take a photo - and more specifically we want a photo that will be licensed in a free manner (PD or CC-BY). --MASEM (t) 12:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a photo, but in either case it doesn't matter as it shows the kind of light effects that we claim make photos of coins to be copyrightable. If it is a drawing, then it would seem that the person who made the drawing holds a copyright equivalent to a photo copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, no other person can photograph the coins without permission of the copyright holder. International copyright law says that a photograph is a copy, and we have to go by the copyright law of the country in question due both to policy here and U.S. copyright agreements that the most restrictive copyright wins.
Another photograph is at best just as unfree as this one--being at the whim of the copyright holder, or, at worst, even less free since you could get a desist order for using it without permission. The only way we can be sure that an unofficial photograph can be uploaded is if it was relicensed, and a quick chat via email with the bank of Malta says that they will only release it under the Euro license, which is at least considered non-free for commons purposes, and, thus, likely our own. (See Commons:Commons:Currency#Euro.)
From a purely practical point of view--we also have to consider that there is not actually another photograph available. That's what WP:NFCCP actually says: "Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." Not "can be made" but "available." A clear reading of that is that there must already be a freely licensed photograph of the coin available to be uploaded before we delete the current less free one. We need to find or make such a photograph before that can be the case. (That is, if I am wrong in the above paragraph and such a legal photograph can be made at all.) — trlkly14:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I am not the original uploader of this image. I just uploaded the PNG version. Back in 2011, I was less fastidious at indicating the original uploader, as I didn't realize there was a time when that would matter. My point is that this is not a personal thing for me. I believe the image should be allowed to stay based solely on the research I've made since being informed of this dispute. If I am wrong, I think we should make a clear policy for Wikipedia that we could easily cite for further cases with coins. — trlkly14:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
US fair use law - which is what we abide by because of where the servers locate, allow use of published material - regardless of restrictions or limitations that the copyright owner might have set - in a manner consider with fair use (eg: minimal use, non-commercial infringement, etc.) It doesn't mean that there is ownership claimed on the use, just that the use is believed to be in fair use. Technically, that means the copyright holder could sue since its not within their terms but the fair use legal case is very strong that it would not be worth their time and money to do so, given how restrictive we are with non-free use. All that matters to our policy is that the coin designs are under EU copyright, and thus non-free.
Of course, this means that a photograph of the coin will be non-free because it is a derivative work of the coin. But the photograph carries a second copyright attributable to the photographer. We want the photograph of the coin to be as free as possible so that the current limitation making the photograph non-free (the coin's EU copyright) to be the only one such that when that copyright expires, that image becomes free.
Or another way: let's say the EU coin copyright expires in 2020. One photographer takes a photo and leaves it under standard copyright, which we'll say expires in 2075, while a second photographer takes the photo, puts it out in CC-BY. Both photos remain non-free until 2020 because of the EU coin derivative work, but as soon as 2020 hits, the second photo is now a free image because it is a CC-BY photo of PD-old coin, while the first photo remains under copyright until 2075. This is why we want to use an image of the coin created and licensed under free terms, even though it will be tagged non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is correct. However, this still does not cover: " "Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." Not "can be made" but "available." A clear reading of that is that there must already be a freely licensed photograph of the coin available to be uploaded before we delete the current less free one." Does this mean that the file should stay until a freely licensed photo of the copyrighted coin is available? --Eleassarmy talk16:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The intent is exactly what we have been telling you. A photograph taken of a copyrighted copy is more free than one pulled from a website that otherwise does not claim any free reuse of its photos. We want you to use the free-est version that you can, with the understanding that at the heart of the photograph is a item that is copyrighted and that the photograph remains a derivative work of it. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, should we go to reach this intent by deleting non-free images of copyrighted objects if a freely licensed image of them could be made? Then the sentence "replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available" should be corrected to "replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality could be created". --Eleassarmy talk21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
NFCC #1 and the benefits of dying
As I try to find useful images to support bios of famous people, I'm consistently prevented from doing so for living people. The rule's primary sentence:
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
The result is that only after a person without a WP photo dies can we allow a non-free photo. This is regardless of whether they are retired or active in the profession for which they are notable. Therefore, I constantly come across articles like Geneviève Bujold that don't have a free photo. And when I come across one like this one, which shows her during her prime acting period, it can't be used. (WP honestly expects editors to track them down and take a photo like paparazzi).
For others, like Eli Wallach, who is now 97, we'd be stuck with a candid like File:EliWallach-1.jpg had I not come across some old stills, only usable because of the older, more liberal, copyright laws. But for most famous actors, we have article photos that should only be in a celebrity tabloid, such as those in Robert De Niro, where, except for one old film photo I recently found, we have eight photos almost unrelated to his career as an actor. The restriction on using fair use photos has degraded his bio, along with countless others, IMO, by preventing photos that would serve an encyclopedic purpose.
There are some legal factors that I feel should be considered to see if an exception could be made, at least for celebrities:
Publicity stills are and were created and distributed to be free (see Film still). I'd assume that the new copyright laws would not have changed that logical premise;
There is an aspect of U.S.copyright law that should be relevant, (cite can be found), that even if a copyright notice is on a photo between 1978 and 1989, the courts only allow a grace period of five years for the copyright owner to file a registration. If they don't, the law shifts the burden of proof to the alleged owner to prove that they still own the copyright. Related to that fact is that a copyright owner cannot file suit against an alleged infringer until they have filed a registration;
For photos published under a "reasonable" claim of fair use, which WP meets as a non-profit encyclopedia, they are not allowed to be sued until the copyright owner first requests that the user remove the photo and the user refuses or fails to do so after a reasonable period of time;
For obvious publicity photos, it would be illogical for a copyright owner to want to not have their photo shown to as many people as possible, especially where full credit is included, something WP automatically requires. That's why even when a notice is printed on a recent photo, the owner states that they are giving permission to newspapers and magazines to print them, and where they state a restriction, they add something like "not to be used for advertising purposes." The "advertising" exclusion is to make sure that an advertiser won't mislead the public by including a celebrity photo with a product's ad.
It would be logical to reconsider the restriction of fair use photos to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" of WP, without having to wait until people die. As it is, WP is inadvertently discriminating against living people born after the 1950s. Just a thought. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Eli Wallach was active in the United States at a time when copyright renewals were still required. Lots of magazines and newspapers published photos of famous people, and lots of magazines and newspapers neglected renewing copyrights. If a person was active in the United States while copyright renewals were still needed, it should be assumed that free images exist in some magazines and newspapers somewhere and that any unfree image violates WP:NFCC#1 for that reason.
If a person is still alive, then you just need to contact the person and ask if you can take a photo of him or her. Alternatively, if the person frequently makes public appearances, check where the person makes his or her next public appearance and attend that public appearance. Very simple.
NFCC#1 is not about Wikipedia not being sued. If legality of use by Wikipedia were the purpose of NFCC#1 then it would serve no purpose. NFCC#1 (and the NFCC in general) exist because of the free-content mission and, by extension, the objective of re-usability. If you want to debate any of the non-free content criteria it needs to start from a consideration of to what extent it inhibits re-use, not from a consideration of what it would be legal for us to do. All non-free content always inhibits re-use to some degree, of course, and so there is a balancing act to be struck between that and the objective of comprehensive coverage. CIreland (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That implies a tug-of-war or balancing act between one objective, creating free images, and "serving an encyclopedic purpose." So for an article like Eli Wallach's for example, while it's logical that a candid such as File:EliWallach-1.jpg would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as File:Baker - Wallach -1956-1.jpg, which shows him doing what he is notable for, it can't be reused freely, so the other "purpose" suffers. --Light show (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Two things to keep in mind:
If a free image of a person exists, even a snapshot, and that image serves the encyclopedic purpose, then even if the person dies we still can't use a non-free image.
If the person has changed so much since he was well-known that any newly-created photograph or available free image would not be meaningful, then a non-free image can be used. Hypothetical examples may include former child actors, people who were well-known in their young adult life and now look close to 100, people who have been seriously disfigured since they were well-known, people who have undergone a gender change and who as a result are no longer recognizable.
Pulling out my handy-dandy little calculator, it seems that even if your four examples were allowed, we'd still have 99.43% that couldn't have normal representative photos for their bio. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is an explicitly defined situation from the Foundation in encouraging free content. If it is the case that for a living person that their younger appearance is the subject of sourced commentary, then we can use a non-free there, but for most people outside of entertainment, this is simply not the case for the bulk of bios out there. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The big thing you're missing here, as others have pointed out above, is that being deceased does not automatically qualify one for a non-free image on his or her profile. If we've got a free image there already, it would not be defensible to replace it with a non-free one, alive or dead. (ESkog)(Talk)01:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not missed. I can see why we require using a free image over a non-free one when there's one available, but my point is the rule allows non-free images "only where no free equivalent is available," which is being interpreted as meaning "so long as the person is still breathing." We can now add a non-free image to a pictureless bio only after the person dies, otherwise it gets deleted under the premise that it's remotely possible to get one. Just call them up or track them down, as an editor mentioned above. --Light show (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Most artists will have authorised pictures to give to various medias, generaly downloadable through their website in some sort of "Media" section. Like press books, actually. Musicians have this a lot, I guess actors and models should also since it's part of their resume. While the artist / agency / whatnot still retains the rights to the picture, it is nonetheless authorized for use in the medias. Wouldn't that work or am I getting this wrong ? zubrowka7417:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You're wrong on that one. The important part is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Not just free to use, but free to use, remix, and redistribute to your hearts desire. Using a press-kit photo might be allowed on Wikipedia, but not for re-use. That's why we prefer not to have any non-free content like press kit photos. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
However, a few emails to the right people can often result in one of those images being released: often very high resolution professional photographs. We've got a number of featured pictures which were acquired that way, and which we would never have had were we happy to just stick up some low-res non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Very true, this is a very valid way to get more free content, but not an excuse to use non-free content because it has been released as promotional material anyway. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There are a few apparent contradictions and gray areas in the non-free guidelines that make uploading publicity images needlessly complex, IMO. These are a few:
The non-free licensing options include one for "Promotional material." The template text is fairly long, with the first sentence stating: This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. However, a publicity photo, which fits that description, would still not be allowed for living persons even where no free image is available. The premise being that anyone can call someone like Cher or Robert De Niro on the phone and ask if they wouldn't mind if we dropped by and take some snapshots. In the alternative, we can find out where they'll be shopping or dining out and get a shot there. Hello?
That same template requires that it "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." And for WP, those images naturally would. Yet they still get deleted if the person is still alive and not a citable "recluse." And elsewhere it makes clear that "fair use" is actually not enough for WP;
Another non-free option is for a "Fair use image of a living person." But as editors interpret it for living people, unless the person is a known "recluse," it is therefore always considered "reasonable" to be able to get your own photo. However the reality is that for almost all living celebrities, except politicians, getting photos is not a reasonable ("very simple") expectation;
There is also an option for "screenshots", so long as there is "critical commentary" to support the image. Therefore we can allow a photo like File:Barry Lyndon painting style.jpg, because the photographic technique was discussed within his biography. Yet a thousand-word biography of a famous star, such as Geneviève Bujold, who has acted in fifty films and won numerous awards, is somehow not considered critical commentary, which would otherwise allow their non-free (publicity) photo to be shown.
Yup, you got it. We have these lines because once you cross them, you weaken the goal of encouraging free use, because these argue we could use non-free just because. Remember, the line is "if free content could be created", we don't make a determination on how easy it is, just that it can be done legally. Cher or De Niro are not recluse, they just don't go out in public much but they are there for awards shows and the like, so getting images isn't impossible, ergo no non-free may be used. And yes, even if an actor has a long career but never have had their visual appearance discussed, simply there, we don't need to include non-free, since that does not help increase the reader's understanding. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify a few of the points.
Promotional material of copyrighted material including i.e. movie shots are inherently copyrighted because of the underlying work. It is a-priori impossible to create your own free image of the copyrighted underlying screen capture/album art/etc, so that's why that may be at times permissible to use. This is never the case for photographs of person.
yes, that an image could legally be used as fair use doesn't mean we want to make use of the image under the fair use doctrine.
Nobody ever said it was very simple. Just that it is possible. If it is at all possible to create a free image, we won't use a non free image.
Again, it is a-priori impossible to have a shot from the movie, without using copyrighted material from the movie. It is possible to make a photograph of a person. I'm not saying it is easy, but the possibility of a free image of the person exists. The possibility of a free image of a still of a movie doesn't.
I'm not necessarily asking you to agree with me here, (though that sure would be nice), but have I at least clarified the intention of the criteria? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I feel that setting the bar at what's "possible" is much too high, whereas a level of what's "reasonable" is more logical. So while it's "possible" to do something, expecting that an editor will do it is often "unreasonable," as in expecting them to call up famous people or tracking them down to get a photo.--Light show (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll give you that it is a balancing act, and opinions are divided. I personally don't find it defensible in most cases to have a non-free photograph in a biography, even for people who have died, because I don't think that a photograph is required for the understanding of the subject by the reader, unless the subject is specifically known for their unique appearance. Only in the latter case I think we should make an exception to not allowing non-free content, and provide some leeway, and I agree that death of the subject is somewhat arbitrary (compare, for example, File:Littlemill1.jpg, which I obtained from a forum years after the distillery was demolished, after asking if anyone had any photographs they were willing to freely license). The upside of having a hard and fast rule, is that it is somewhat of a compromise that most can live with, so we don't need to debate every non-free image on every biography, balancing the possibility and probability of obtaining free content, how much it would hinder the understanding of the subject if it has no image, and how important the adherence of being a free encyclopedia is. In the end, it is a compromise I can live with, though it doesn't harm to question it from time to time, in both directions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is that encyclopedic purpose is a continuum. Some images clearly possess a greater encyclopaedic value than others, so no hard and fast rule is possible. In the end, though, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, and the use of fair use images is entirely defensible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
We're heard to build a freely redistributable encyclopedia, and that sets a line that we can't cross - if we can generate free media to replace non-free to do the same purpose, we must do so. Note that no one has said you can never use non-free on an article about a living person, but the visual aspects have to be the subject of significant discussion that free imagery simply can't convey. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Formulation of NFCCE
Per request, I am bringing this issue here. HereWerieth reverted this change I made to WP:NFCCE with the rationale that it "changes the meaning of the policy". I undid that revert here but was reverted again here.
The formulation as it currently stands (and had been until my change) is unclear, because it plainly and generally refers to removal or deletion of non-free content. The second part of the sentence at NFCCE should specifically refer to the removal for non-compliance with 10c. Otherwise, this could be interpreted as including any other reason, such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which seems counterproductive. -- ToshioYamaguchi21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually the way you had it phrased makes it difficult to enforce NFC when any kind of rationale exists on the file discription page, regardless of the validity of said rationale. According to the way you phrased it files can only be removed if zero rationale is provided. The way it is phrased before your change requires a valid rationale. (It might sound like systematics, but anyone who has done any large scale enforcements can vouch for the fact that it often does matter). Werieth (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"According to the way you phrased it files can only be removed if zero rationale is provided."
Not true. 10c does not merely require the presence of a rationale, but the presence of a valid rationale for each use. If the provided rationale is invalid or its validity is disputed, the file can still be removed, because WP:NFCCE clearly places the burden to demonstrate the rationales validity on the users who want to keep the file in an article and an NFCC enforcer can remove the file. (And by the way, I've done enough NFCC enforcement to know the difference between mere presence of a rationale and the presence of a valid rationale). -- ToshioYamaguchi12:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Following on the above closed RFC
I would like to suggest if there is someway we can make Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches an en.wiki guideline (not policy), as I believe it is a layman's simplification of how to process NFC. Yes, I know we have that at Signpost, but I think there's value in actually making it a guideline that will give it better weight and maybe more help for editors confused on NFCC. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The close is invalid, as Werieth is involved. I've reverted him once and placed a note on his page, he's seen fit to re-close it.
I will not his close again, but will state that I find his close incorrect due to his voting already in this. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Given how flawed the proposal was and the fact that multiple people agreed keeping such a flawed RfC open would be pointless. Take the advice given, re-structure your proposal and come back with a better formed RfC. The close wasnt due to a preference one way or another, but rather it was a close do such a malformed request. Werieth (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Werieth, three people does not equal consensus. Or put another way, if three people supported this and closed it as the new consensus, would you accept that ? I doubt it. Your close is still incorrect because you voted and closed. If I voted and closed with three consensus votes my way, would you have accept that ? I would hope not, if for nothing else because I voted and would be partial to one side or the other. Your close is incorrect. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 17:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I've re-closed it as uninvolved, with a suggestion on how to go forwards on this issue. An RFC attempting to rewrite an entire policy on which there are differing opinions on every criteria is clearly going to fail, much like a mass AfD for articles that are not the same. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Policy: change "3 (no title)" to "3 Minimal usage:" and "3a Minimal usage." to "3a Minimal number of items". Blank for 3 looked awkward, new title for 3a better matches prose: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used..."
I had seen the previous discussion that is now recently archived at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#New UUI item. I keep an eye on Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files to make sure images are being properly deleted. I have seen more music video screenshots go through the orphaned process and get deleted and I felt they were all correct. I noticed File:Heyya.jpg was deleted from Hey Ya! along with an image of sheet music and two sound files, [6], with an edit summary of "Images fail WP:NFCC #1,3,8." I then reverted the music video screenshot with an edit summary saying how I felt the image passed WP:NFCC and that edit was reverted. I started a discussion to hopefully gain a consensus one way or the other if it passed WP:NFCC, added the image back so it would not be deleted for being orphaned and was reverted three minutes later. I feel that image is inline with the archived discussion and was hoping I could get some more opinions in that discussion. Aspects (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in the image that was selected that is notable and discussed in the article. Yes the video won an award, but there is nothing other than the award being discussed in the article. There is a distinct lack of critical commentary of the image you included. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
When used purely for identification of a video whose song had no associated printed material (e.g. album cover) or publicity stills to use the first second where the title/track information is shown. For those with publicity stills, I would only allow either the first such still that was released or perhaps the the most well-known such still if multiple stills were released. However, there is not a consensus on Wikipedia for this, so don't try it without discussion first. Any other use requires critical commentary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
How many identifiers does one need? I could make a strong argument that a sound snippet is a much better identifier than a cover image, but I would also argue that once you had the sound file as an identifier, there's no good reason to keep the cover image as well. For a few songs, I could extend it to a video still or clip as well. But once you've identified it, you've identified it: there's no reason to keep adding more identifiers.—Kww(talk) 23:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) Sorry, I meant to put this link to the discussion in the first place, Talk:Hey Ya!#Fair use of video screenshot, so that opinions could be listed there whether or not that screenshot had critical commentary in the article, instead of rehashing the general concept of music video screenshots here. Aspects (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at Category:FA-Class song articles, Category:GA-Class song articles, and their accompanying image reviews. In this case, there is significant commentary on the video, and a description of the scene depicted. The image adds significantly to the text, and allows the reader to understand where the video is set and how it is framed. Werieth's shoot first, hope no one asks questsions later approach has led to the removal and default-deletion of the music sample at Hey Ya! which hurts the article even more. - hahnchen20:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If the video's framing is significant to the reader's understanding, then there will be sources that critically discuss the video to help make that clear, to know more than just musicans and actors moving about on a screen. Whether it's interested direction, the video iconic nature, or controversy around imagery in the video, we need that sourced to use the image. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the video section, "The song's music video, directed by Bryan Barber, is based on The Beatles' landmark appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964". How can readers possibly understand how that looks without an image? - hahnchen20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
They could look to other resources to learn what the appearance looked like? WP should not be the end-all of learning about a topic. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
(And to add - we actually don't appear to have an image of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show in their first appearance, so we'd technically need two images to visualize that statement which is harmful via NFCC) --MASEM (t) 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We wouldn't need two images, or I'd be arguing for two images. Your argument was that the image did not add to the reader's understanding, I poked a hole in that, and now you're arguing that the reader can go understand the subject on Youtube and iTunes. Wikipedia should be doing the best job it can to the maximum extent that NFC allows.
Werieth has jumped into a good article, ignoring clearly differing longstanding applications of NFC from FAC and GA processes, removed (and default-deleted) the audio sample, and then accuses someone objecting, despite giving them only 5 days to conclude any argument before files are deleted, as starting "disruptive discussions". This is very poor form. - hahnchen15:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Considering NFC as a means of "allowance" is a misconception. NFC is meant to be exceptional and the goal is to minimize such usage while keeping to the educational goals. Considering what the text there currently says, a reader is either going to either know what the Beatles performance on the Ed Sullivan show was like and can visualize the band doing the same here, or they are going to have no point of reference and without seeing what that original performance would be like, would have to have a reference image to understand.
Now, ignoring all that I went back to the article and looked to the source about it being like the Ed Sullivan show (this link [7]) and there is a LOT more in that link that can be added to make the inclusion of the video screenshot reasonable. Specifically the part about making the video as if it was flipping the British Invasion around, having an American band break big in Britian, and hence some of the set choices. At that point, the image helps to clarify much of the remaining section. The current text lacks that information as it reads more like a plot summary and with no sourced commentary on why that set was picked. So yes, this video shot can be used but assuming more text from that article is added to better support it. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Then this is an editorial decision. And Werieth's extreme position is not supported by policy or practice. His modus operandi of culling non-free media, including the music sample, and "it's policy" get-out-of-jail-free reverts should not be encouraged. - hahnchen23:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually its not, right now there isnt enough critical commentary for the image. That can be fixed, but until it is the file cannot be used (see Masem's previous comment) Werieth (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Arguably, now that we know this content to support the exists, removing it as an NFCC violation could be seen as tenacious (since we're literally talking about adding one sentence that summarizes a known source). However, up until I noted that point could be made, yes, it was an NFCC violation - there has to be some context to keep the image in the article. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Let's have no more of this "as long as someone as pointed at stuff that isn't in the article, we can retain the material even though we have no reason to believe anyone will ever actually put it in the article" stuff.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We need some common sense here. If the work is done, in plain sight, and it's just a matter of doing a small task, being jerks about NFCC is going to end up with more complaints about it. I would consider this akin to deleting images where the rationale fails 10c due to a typo in the article name where the right name is plainly obvious. Are we in the right? Yes. Are we doing anyone favors by deleting it without thought? No. (Note: this type of case for this specific image is very exceptional). --MASEM (t) 22:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, Hahnchen readded the image on the 27th [8] with an expanded caption, which Werieth. Okay, Hahnchen's expansion isn't perfect (there's more to be included including the source), but its trying. Werieth's revert, on the 28th, is completely out of line in terms of AGF. That's the type of NFCC enforcement we have to avoid lest we want more wrath on proper NFCC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry but an image caption doesn't qualify as critical commentary. It needs tied to the text, without it being tied to the text its removal isn't detrimental. Werieth (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
But at the same time you know that commentary existed, so my point is, this is what gets people upset that there's no common sense here. I'll all for enforcing NFC when there's clear cases to do so, but AGF also needs to come into play. FWIW, I've readded the image but did add the text that I described above to explain the video better. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTSUICIDE comes to mind, Ive seen countless times where until users hands are forced, inaction is their modus operandi. Often there are issues that are only addressed once the feet are in the fire (article is AfD, image is FfD, or similar). What happens is a mentality of "someone else will take care of this issue" and then years pass and no one does. See Kww's comment. Werieth (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Werieth, your subjective, unsupported opinion of how much commentary is needed to justify an image, is not policy. It's merely an opinion, and when users in good faith disagree, you take it to the talk page. You don't couch revert warring, default-deletions as "policy enforcement". It's clearly just an editorial dispute. - hahnchen15:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not an editorial decision, when I removed the file it clearly failed NFCC. Take a look at previous examples, in order for an image to be acceptable its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If it isn't referenced at all in the associated text (IE critical commentary) it is not possible to meet that criteria. An image caption isnt justification for #8. In good faith when an image is removed for NFC users should leave the file out of the article, make a strong policy based argument for inclusion with supporting evidence. In the case of this screenshot that didn't happen. We do not include non-free media because at some point in the future it could be justified, Masem actually added the needed material to the article to justify inclusion. Without that justification existing in the article (regardless of the possibility of meeting the criteria) the file cannot be included. Im sorry if you dont like the facts, and disagree with policy, but policy is policy and in this case the file violated NFCC. NFCC isnt a simple subject, and yes some calls are subjective. In this case it wasnt. Werieth (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
NFCC#8 is not an objective criteria, and as such cannot be enforced in that fashion, unlike say #10c or #9. When Hanchan readded it, removal under NFCC#8 was not a valid option (per BRD) and that leaves the discussion of its appropriateness and rationale's validity to either NFCR or FFD. Yes, the rationale still needed to be improved with something along the additions I made, but that would have likely arisen in the subsequent discussions. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The omission is detrimental to the understanding as I argued here. Masem's addition is not the only content that justifies the image's inclusion, which would have been the case had your "it isn't referenced at all" argument been remotely true. It didn't fail NFCC, and given the section on the song's composition, I don't believe a music sample would have failed either. Your edit warring should not be protected by claims of policy enforcement. - hahnchen16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Discussion on simplying the text of NFCC
None of this is clearly going to gain traction here. It should be split down into individual criteria as there are clearly some ways in which NFCC can be tightened to make it easier for NFCC patrollers. FWIW, changing the numbering system shouldn't be considered - it will break thousands of historical links. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page in a nutshell: This RFC is not an attempt to add or remove anything from the current NFCC policy , but rather to simplify it, therefore, making it easier to enforce and easier to understand. This would lead to less stress for those who enforce NFCC, and less stress for the users, as this policy would be easier to understand, easier to enforce and most of all easier to do for the average users of Wikipedia.
* A Brief History of NFCC * NFCC began life as a post by User:Rossrs on September 24, 2005 Link * It became policy on January 5 2006 , originally called WP:FUCLink * It was changed to NFCC on April 22, 2007 Link
Non-Exhaustive list of NFCC troubles -- Caution It's pretty big
* Those who sought to enforce it were sometimes subject to confusion about the correct interpretation of NFCC, as well as abuse from those that were themselves confused about NFCC. Admittedly, some were users that decided they weren't going to follow NFCC even when it was patiently explained to them, fortunately, they constituted a minority of users on Wikipedia. The majority of the users, those that wanted to follow the policy, all had the same problem, or a variation on the same problem, understanding
or interpreting the current NFCC policy.
To correct that problem, and ensure more good will in this area (not to mention, less hassle for both the users submitting an image, and the users and admins enforcing NFCC), I'd like to propose that the text that makes up the rules of WP:NFCC be made simpler, easier to understand. With that change, it would be easier to enforce (as it wouldn't be left up to individual interpretation of rules, due to the vagueness about what each particular rule might mean , but rather, NFCC would be a set of simple,concrete rules) thus, easier to read, easier to understand and easier to enforce (less abuse heaped upon the admin and non-admins who choose to enforce NFCC rules ). I understand that no matter what change is made, we're not going to stop those few users that want to ignore NFCC, but at the very least, those users would be in the minority, and the abuse to both admins and users that actually enforce NFCC would be limited to those who just want to ignore NFCC. To that end, I would like to discuss a set of changes to be made to NFCC. Text in italic would be a proposed change in wording .
Criteria 1 - No Free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available. As a quick test before adding any non-free content, ask yourself "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version" ? and "Could the non-free content be described with text alone"? If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content does not meet this criteria.
Criteria 2 - Since Criteria 3 appears to amplify criteria 2, a merge would be suggested creating something like:
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original copyrighted media , this is defined as :
a. Minimal usage.One item of non-free content may be used if that one item can convey significant information about that article.
b. Minimal extent of use An entire image is not to be used if a piece of that image (or a cropped image) will work. That image should be low resolution (especially when the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).
Criteria 3.(formerly Criteria 4) - No Change - it's fine as is.
Criteria 4.(formerly Criteria 5) - Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards. (Strike "and is encyclopedic" as this would be a matter of interpretation )
Criteria 5. (formerly Criteria 6) - No Change
Criteria 6. (formerly Criteria 7) - No Change
Criteria 7. (formerly Criteria 8) - Strike it because it's already stated implicitly in Criteria 2. (both "a" and "b" ) .
Criteria 8. (formerly Criteria 9) - Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed in articles only.
"Free replacement" includes both text (zero images) and free images. This change removes the idea of free image replacement, one of the core principles of the Foundation's resolution (eg no non-frees of living persons). --MASEM (t) 14:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
where no free equivalent is available What about those images that can be created? Just because we don't have a free image of a living person doesn't mean we can use a non-free just because a free version does not currently exist. (the possibility of creating a free file overrides). Werieth (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Discussion for Criteria 1 change
@Werieth - I hear what you're saying. Non-Free images are covered by NFCC, so, any non-free image (derivates ...etc...) would be covered by
that wording. So yes, if I create an image of the Millennium Falcon, it's a derivative and cannot be considered non-free. I'm using non-free to
cover that instance too (it's still non-free even though it's user created ) KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what he's saying. For example, we don't have an image of Kim Jong-un (despite abundant press photos), because its not because describing him can be replaced by text (your wording) but because a free image of him is reasonably possible. This is, in fact, one of the explicit cases the Foundation has required us to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Masem - actually, I'd disagree that a photo of Kim Jong-un is reasonably possible. If you (or anyone) were to point a camera at him, his secret police would a.) notice and b.) throw you in the Gulag for threatening their "beloved leader". KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a free picture of his father, despite the same issues existing on that. (And how would worldwide press otherwise have their non-free images of him if that was the case). So a free picture is reasonable without having to risk one's life. Is it immediately available? No, but that's not the question we ask for NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You are disagreeing it is reasonably possible (or you believe it is not reasonably possible to get such an image). I'm pointing out that we do assume it is. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It depends on how you want to define reasonable. For a 13 year old in sub-Saharan Africa to travel to North Korea and get an image of him is unreasonable. However there are a lot of others who its fairly easy. All you would need to do is talk to someone in the press and ask them to get you a pic.
Also the wording as you phrased it means that If I cant find a free image (regardless of how difficult it is to create a free image) I can use a non-free image, because no free equivalent is available. The wording on the current policy was crafted very carefully. Werieth (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Other parts of NFCC#1 that Kosh proposes to cut are also valuable to retain:
...that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose... -- a useful qualifier, indicating that we do sometimes accept NFC to illustrate specific points, that available/creatable free content would not convey.
Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense -- reminder that sometimes e.g. a crop is possible (for example, the 'Whaam' text bubble in the recent Roy Lichtenstein article on the front page)
or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available -- addressing images subject to multiple copyrights, or e.g. use of screenshots over creative photographer-composed portraits
"acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. -- put in to bring an end to many failed arguments in the past, that a free pic was not of the same quality as a professional image. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Werieth, this is a bad idea. They are two distinct ideas: current #2 is about using images that are from image houses where we would be directly violating the commercial opportunities, and current #3 is about image use overall. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless you're suggesting planning on striking "encyclopedic" from every other policy that uses it (eg WP:NOT) there's no need to distiguish NFCC as a special case (though I would suggest linking that phrase to WP:NOT where what isn't encyclopedic is spelled out). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Support for Criteria 7 (old #8) Change
Support. I had a nasty run-in over this criterion, not so much here but in somewhere in the deleted pages I think --- basically, if someone doesn't like the information you want to convey, they can say that it "doesn't contribute to understanding the topic", defining the topic however they wish to see that is the case. I think that, being determined, they would have won the edit war and gotten it deleted for disuse no matter what, but dropping this would be a start. Legally speaking I don't think our scholarly discussion has to be particularly understandable or relevant, just sincere. (Note that if we're dropping this, this isn't Criterion 7, old Criterion 9 is, isn't it?) Wnt (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for Criteria 7 (old #8) Change
Absolutely not. It is not implicitly stated by #2, and its clarity is needed to understand how to evaluate when an image is used. Yes, it is the most-contested point when it comes to debating specific non-frees, but that should be the case - people need to think if the image really does affect understanding due to its inclusion or omission, instead of blindly adding images they think look nice. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose. NFCC#8 is actually THE core point of the current policy. Also, I strongly disagree that this is covered in criterion 2 as stated. -- ToshioYamaguchi14:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
No Standalone NFCC#8 directs people to the key point they need to discuss regarding NFC/Fair-use inclusion: what does the reader gain from seeing this image (what would the reader lose without it) ? Should not be in any way buried into any other point. Jheald (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Discussion for Criteria 7 (old #8) Change
@Toshio and @ Masem - I respectfully disagree. Criteria is echoed implicitly by Criteria 1. Criteria 8 by itself is somewhat vauge,
however, asking the questions shown in Criteria 1 automatically answer Criteria 8. If the text can describe the event without the
non-free image, then without a doubt, the image does not add contextual significance. So, no the core of NFCC is not being removed, it's
already addressed in criteria #1, no need to re-word it again in #8 and make it harder to understand. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 16:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what NFCC#8 means. There are some NFCs that cannot be replaced by text or free images, but do not contribute to the understanding of the topic of the article (for example, screencaps of a television episode or the like that are just used to illustrate a plot element). NFCC#1 does not cover this. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Masem, Actually, I disagree with you on that. Question #1 in Criteria #2 is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text with using the non-free content at all ?". If it fails that, it automatically fails #8. The two criterias are intertwined. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Again,you're misreading. OFten people will include a screenshot of a scene of a TV show that they feel helps to explain the plot better but otherwise not critically commented on. Most of these aren't replaceable by text (you can guide in text somewhat to what's going on but that would not explain everything going on the screencap), but at the same time, if the scene is just an interesting transition scene and not commented on further, the screencap fails current #8. By this change, that screenshot could be kept since the core idea, the image can't be replaced by text, "meets" this new requirement. You're arguing a simplification that removes critical points of how NFCC has to be evaluated. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
What constitutes an article? Right now defining it to the main namespace and preventing them in specific kinds of pages helps make things clear. Werieth (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Wiereth, are you really going to ask "What constitutes an article" ? That strikes be as bureaucratic. It's common sense what
an article is, so there's no need to define it, in my humble opinion. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
"Look, I've got an article in user-space that I plan to move into mainspace. Let me use non-free there!" That's how this will be gamed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it, look at criteria 8 . Ir doesn't say "userspace" it says "articles". They're not the same, once again, common sense applies, (and yes I know people would try to game it that way ) KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
And that's why we have to be explicit about the limitation. You're waving that concern away is very considering and shows a deeply flawed understanding of NFCC problems. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you there, that we do need to be specific, that's why the proposed wording is "articles" not "articles in workspaces"
"userspace", just "articles". Adding a definition to it opens up gaming if the definition doesn't cover one or the other definition. Articles, by itself
covers all articles on wikipedia, not userspaces, diambigs,e tc.... and....comment on the content please, Masem KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 16:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
KoshVorlon, I hate to say this but Masem is correct. I have already had countless arguments about #9. People argue that stuff that they have in user sand boxes, or AfC are articles (which they are to a degree). However having the explicit definition that we currently have helps stop those arguments. A user could also copy an article to their sandbox for testing/rewriting purposes because they dont want to disrupt the primary copy (in namespace 0). Without the namespace definition how do you define the difference between articles (namespace 0) and those versions that are in other namespaces (AfC, userspace, or somewhere else)? disambiguation pages are articles in the primary definition thus those need specifically addressed too. KoshVorlon your proposal has so many holes that I could drive an oil tanker through them. Users argue for inclusion of non-free media all the time, they look for every possible angle to allow them as much non-free media as possible. I recently got into an argument about what a bibliography is. I actually had to reference the dictionary definition and was told that's not what a bibliography is. Your lack of perspective on NFC makes this proposal extremely detrimental to Wikipedia's mission. With your current phrasing its almost carte blanche for liberal usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. That would break too many historical links. Should any of the changes that strike rules be passed, it is better to strike the rule as historical and leave the numbering as is. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The wording of NFCC has remained nearly unchanged since its inception in 2007, and there's a heck of a lot of discussion from back then by numerous editors to make sure the tone and language best suited the intent of the policy. While simplification and ease of understanding is a good goal, NFCC is also a complicated policy that editors should read before they attempt an image upload; its not difficult to understand the nuances once you read this and the associated NFC page, but most of the cases that we have are editors that simply refuse to read it, or that refuse to follow them. That's not a wording issue, that's an editor behavior issue. The changes above dangerous carve away at the core points we have had for NFCC possibly breaking the Foundation's requirements for an EDP. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, WP:NFC exists as the "practical" application of NFCC, a layman's version to speak. It is better to introduce clarifying language there that explain the nuances than to try to change the balanced wording here. (This is where that Signpost article on NFC is a really boon since it is a point-by-point breakdown of how to evaluate NFC which should also be mandatory reading for anyone wishing to use NFC. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There are serious problematic issues with these proposals which are beginning to be highlighted above. With respect, this proposal is a non-starter out of the gate. Striking #8 as redundant to (old) #3? Again, with respect, this shows a lack of understanding of the massive battles that have happened with regards to #8. In fact, #8 is probably THE most powerful tool available to NFCC enforcers. Subjective, yes, but it is critically important as a cap to NFCC over usage. There is overlap, but nowhere near enough to consider merging #3 and #8. This is just one of many serious problems with this proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Fourthed. Much of the discussion here is TL;DR, but my basic reaction to the proposals is to oppose all. And for any editors who feel like there has been too much confusion about NFCC, I'll shamelessly plug WP:AAFFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This RFC really is flawed: it's presenting a complete revamp and gutting of the criteria as a "reword". The notion that NFCC#8 is somehow superfluous is really questionable: it and NFCC#1 represent the large majority of items that need removed.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
A splitting is needed
IMO the biggest problems come from blending policies that:
Relate to avoiding violating laws
Relate to other Wikipedia objectives (such as amassing free content)
For #1 we basically need to have and tolerate the very nasty un-wikipedian enforcement techniques such as semi-automated smacking of editors, summary decisions made in secret or by individuals without having to explain themselves, "guilty unless proven innocent" methods of handling things, non-use of the consensus process, and empowering people to act in a Caesar/Barney Fife/ martial law "police" fashion. We also need to tolerate "overreaching to be safe" embellishments of the policy wording. For #2 we do not need to have this, yet the importance/seriousness of #1 has allowed these tactics to be applied to #2. #2 should be separated from #1 at both the policy and enforcement level. The current NF enforcement processes should be limited to #1, and #2 should be turned over to normal Wikipedia processes such as talk page discussions, RFC's, and noticeboards. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
NFC may legal policy, but arguably has nothing to do with immediate legal issues. By meeting all NFCC goals, we assure we're fair below the tolerance that US Fair Use could allow. If there is image use that goes far against the legal fair use allowance (say, someone uploads a full ripped movie), we call it copyright violations and deal with it that way. We do treat NFC in a rigorous manner as outlined by the Foundation, however, as to remove inappropriate uses in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You are talking about #1 and there is no argument there. I am talking about separating #2 from #1, and that #2 never should have been blended into #1. An example of #2 is "replacability" criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about all 10 points. If I were outside of WP, and published a blog on my own site that used a Getty Images thing as part of my discussion, I may be treading a line on US Fair Use but that's not alone a legal flag. We simply do not tolerant any commercial photographs on WP, peroid (outside of the limited cases where the photographs are themselves notable and subject of discussion), since we have to worry about redistribution of these images around the world and maintain our free content mission. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, by my definition (where everything required by legal compliance is #1) everything that you discuss related to legal compliance is by definition #1. The "Replacability" criteria is nothing to do with compliance with laws. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Also "Legal" is one of the main justifications given for this policy and the allowance of unusual-for-Wikipedia enforcement methods. It's even written in the beginning of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)
Not really. Remember that US Fair Use law is purposely vague. It says that reuse of copyrighted works break fair use depending on four points (per [9] "the purpose and character of your use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market" but completely relies on case law for metrics as to what those limits are. As such, NFCC is designed that policy-meeting files will never touch the the limits that case law has shown - it assures we are meeting the law by staying deliberately far under the thresholds and hence why a legal policy. We could likely easily use a Getty Image for illustrating a signification point but where the image specifically itself is not the subject of discussion, and not worry about being hit with a fair use complaint. But by rejecting any such images unless they themselves the subject of discussion, we just avoid the issue. Similarly, #3 minimal use assures we are avoiding "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken", even if we are a lot more restrictive (like avoiding cover art galleries which other sites uses without question). All the points are legal issues, but really a buffer before we really hit where fair use law aspects would come into question.
That said, I'll also for clarifying the difference between black + white, non-arguable NFCC issues (eg like #9, #10c, #2) from the subjective ones (#8, #3, etc.) to be clear that NFC failing the objective points will be removed without question (and thus maintaining these should be exemptions from 3RR, etc.), while the other points if there's issues will trigger discussion about that. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the abstract notion of separating the legal NFCC issues from the objectives oriented NFCC issues is a sound concept. There are lines in the sand with regards to legal usage of fair use content, such as previous publication and respect for commercial opportunities. That needs to be delineated and treated with direct action to avoid usage that violates fair use law. Separating these two issues has a number of beneficial outcomes; (1); too many people think NFCC is only about fair use law. Isolating the actual law components to a separate policy page would rectify this issue and help show that NFCC is not about fair use law. (2) It would allow for direct action under a separate fair use law policy to be considerably less equivocal. (3) Isolating NFCC from law would allow discussions of NFCC issues to be considerably more clear. (4) Isolating NFCC would make it far easier to be ignored/deleted or, conversely, enforced. The project, taken as a whole, ignores it already as reinforced by the Foundation's refusal to act on these issues. We can't get away from the legal issues currently entangled into NFCC. Those must be enforced lest we risk lawsuits. But, we can finally begin to separate ourselves from the horribly flawed, horribly enforced, insanely controversial components that have nothing to do with fair use law. Ok, ok, ok, I know some will oppose this saying we can't delete the objectives components of NFCC. I'm not talking about ideals here. I'm talking about reality; we may not have deleted the objectives, but in practice the objectives have long since left the building. The reality is the objectives are worth as much as a bucket of sand to a man dying of thirst. Separating these into legal & objectives related boxes stands a very good chance of radically shifting the discussion of objectives related NFCC issues into serious reconsideration. This, as opposed to the laughable status quo. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The wording of NFCC is not the root of the problem
The proposer suggests that a clearer wording of the policy will erase arguments about NFCC enforcement, except for a minority that will continue to willfully edit in violation of NFCC. The NFCC arguments over the years prove very much otherwise. There are much more significant problems with NFCC than wording. Could the wording be improved? Maybe. But, enforcement is woefully inadequate to the task at hand. The situation continues to get worse, and worse and worse. Month after month, year after year, compliance with NFCC has miserably failed. I know of what I speak; I spent years enforcing NFCC and finally gave up because it became blatantly apparent to me that the project simply didn't care about NFCC enforcement. That's the deeply seated, underlying problem to all of this. All but a very small fraction of the editors here give a damn about NFCC enforcement. The number of people who actually conduct NFCC enforcement on a regular basis can be counted on two hands, probably one. The project is overwhelmed with NFCC violations and has no means of rectifying the enormous quantities of violations. Worse, the Foundation simply doesn't care. They've been approached on many, many occasions about these issues and their response has been only from counsel informing us that the images do not violate U.S. fair use law. Changing the wording of NFCC isn't going to fix this. The entire project is aflame with NFCC violations, and here we're talking about a hot dog stand with an overheating cooker. Changing the wording is showing up to a five alarm fire with a thimble of water. I mean no disrespect to the proposer. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
IMHO the split that I propose above would give the need for enforcement of the legal-related aspects more credibility. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
"The number of people who actually conduct NFCC enforcement on a regular basis can be counted on two hands, probably one."
I regretfully have to agree with this. This is also one of the reasons why I have largely given up any active NFCC enforcement. And those who followed my involvement in the NFCC business a bit might know that I tried more than once to establish a coordinated effort to deal with NFCC violations. All the policy nuances are actually irrelevant if no enforcement occurs. (Yes, NFCR deals with some cases, but compared to the overall number of violations, that is only a drop onto the hot stone). -- ToshioYamaguchi15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Many of the discussions on NFCR are unnecessary (whether an image passes TOO and should be free when it is plainly obvious that it is) which bogs that down. I've suggested to the editors that post the bulk of those to be bold if they are sure that PD-textlogo is met. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that I personally cannot point to any specific type of image (save for maybe money images and historical logos) where there is a massive problem; NFCC issues exist across all types of articles and all types of images and thus difficult to set up any type of rigorous task to evaluate them as a whole. Without having an easily identifible issue, we can't tune a script to highlight these images and bring them up for discussion. As such, unless we want to coordinate manual checking of all 450k+ images (if not more), identifying and fixing NFC will take a while. We just need editors to not act like we're destroying articles when NFC is removed, but at the same time, enforcers can't act like robotic jerks particularly when subjective measures are the reason for removal/inclusion. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the biggest problem is the lack of images in articles. And how badly the deck is stacked against fair use images where the requirements have nothing to do with the laws. The net result is that the end result is not to protect the artist's rights, it is to get them to 100% relinquish them. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, what we need to do is to eliminate this whole non-free use rationale business. It just adds work for no apparent benefit. Then at least enforcement could focus on the actual issues. -- ToshioYamaguchi16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
With respect, where did I say that we should not have an EDP? What we need to do is to eliminate this whole non-free use rationale business. It just adds work for no apparent benefit. Then at least enforcement could focus on the actual issues. Thus we should have an NFC policy that reflects the underlying legal construct (fair use law) without all those nonsensical boxes and squares. -- ToshioYamaguchi16:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Foundation requires an EDP that has stronger requirements than fair use law, meaning we are always going to have nuances unless we go the de.wiki route of absolutely no NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the resolution does not require non-free use rationales like EN Wikipedia uses them. Eliminating non-free use rationales would enable us to focus on the actual NFC problems. -- ToshioYamaguchi16:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually it does: "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well." --MASEM (t) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
What is an "exemption rationale" in the context of The Resolution? That hardly refers to a non-free use rationale as EN Wikipedia defines it, as that doesn't make any sense. I understand that as saying that a rationale for the use must exist (in theory), not that one is present in the sense WP:NFCC defines it. -- ToshioYamaguchi17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't explicitly define what is required but it does say it needs to be in a machine-readable format, meaning we need some type of documentation of the exemption rational. As long we allow NFC, we need a rationale (not necessarily one as detailed as we do), but by its mere requirement, that will create the nuances that exist now for NFC. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest trying to get an "official" clarification from the Foundation on this. If the Foundation is fine with an EDP that allows the use of NFC without a rationale, then I'd vote in favor of dropping rationales alltogether. -- ToshioYamaguchi21:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You won't get a response. Every inquiry to them about non-free images is met with utter silence, with the long exception being the legality of using a given image. It is worth trying though. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've reread the resolution and I simply see no way to remove the rationale requirement, particularly considering they call out en.wiki's NFC as an example of what they want EDPs to be. Further, doing this is basically giving in the towel; there's no way to enforce NFC without having the rationale requirement. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Resolution only says "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale." That's all. So what does that mean. Should we change WP:NFCC to require speedy deletion of any non-free content where a rationale is missing? -- ToshioYamaguchi22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
CSD#F6 only applies to non-free content having zero rationales. If we follow the wording of the Resolution it would mean if a non-free file is used in two articles but only has a rationale for one, it could be speedily deleted under F6 due to lack of a rationale for the other article. -- ToshioYamaguchi22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If it has at least one proper rationale, deletion is not proper per F6. As Werieth says, that's common sense.
To stress the press, the purpose of the rationale is to make the upload apply some rationale thought as to whether the image is really necessary to include - does it merit the exception for non-free use per the Foundation's language - and that only can be documented by some machine-readable written statement. I cannot see how the rationale requirement can be removed and allow us to satisfy the Resolution (unless of course we completely disallow non-free) --MASEM (t) 22:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That also means that we need some form of checking and enforcement. And for that we need editors willing to check the large number of 10c violations. Again, all this boils down to the insight that we need more NFCC enforcement. -- ToshioYamaguchi22:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, this was clarified by Kat Walsh on 8 August 2007 [10]:
"The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way."
The Foundation requirement is that an appropriate rationale must exist for use of an image, not that it be written down. The requirement for rationales to be written down is one that has been created by en-wiki. Jheald (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Given how much we've seen gamed in the process in people trying to include NFC as well as those trying to remove it, we dare not drop the need for at least a boilerplate for certain classes of images. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) "...we need more NFCC enforcement". This isn't going to happen, so any solutions must be based on the status quo of the available manpower. Personally, I'd sooner dip my hand in a vat of boiling grease before doing NFCC enforcement. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thinking that "the biggest problem is the lack of images in articles" is absolutely the wrong way to think about it. We're not here to be visually appealing, unless we can do that via free content. Non-free use is meant to be exception when it aids in topic understanding. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
IMHO such a statement is a statement of the problem, not a valid rationale for not fixing it. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Our goal is to create a free content encyclopedia, not to make a pretty-looking encyclopedia, period. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
For example, I had it where a celebrity was willing to let an image get used freely for all reasonable uses. Then when reviewing the required license ("unlimited permission for use") ) they asked whether such, for example, authorizes the Nazi party to put that image as the cover of their magazine, I asked at the Wikipedia talk page and weeks later when I got an answer it was "yes" and then they of course declined to grant that license. So I tried the fair use route. Then somehow one wiki person was empowered to decide (quite incorrectly, and without basis, and without having to describe any basis) that it was "replaceable" and deleted the image. (and "replaceable" is not a legal criteria) It was not "replaceable" and so the article has no image. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the celebrity living and not recluse? Then yes, a free replacement is possible and removal was correct. That's the Foundation's required principal. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@Hammersoft - no problem, I don't feel disrepected by what you said. You may want to ask the question "Why are there so few people willing to enforce NFCC "? My stance is that because of the current way it's currently written, it's vague, not easily understood and because of that, few people are willing to get involved for that reason. Make it simpler to understand and you may yet wind up with more hands ! KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 17:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
let me make a counter proposal, the reason that so few people enforce it is because they are attack, insulted, degraded, and harassed for enforcing policy. Admins tend to do very little to curb the abuse, and often openly ignore the issue when its brought up. If you want to solve NFC issues I know a fairly easy way to do it that will never be implemented. Before a non-free file can be added to an article its use must be review by an outside group of users who fully understand and support NFC. (there could be a few uses that are auto accepted, book covers, single company logos ect but only one image per article for the auto process). However because this would restrict the usage of non-free media to a degree that too many oppose it wont happen. Werieth (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I do wonder what the rate is of NFC additions (not just uploaded but new uses is) on a daily basis. A rough estimate is that about 120 images are added per day (based on 450k images after 10 years), and probably less than that since most of those were likely on WP's early years. There's an idea I have about getting something like New Page Patrol - but to review any non-free image addition to any part of en.wiki (based on a daily bot generated report) - to make sure that the most mechanical and fundamental parts of NFC are met and tagging other images as questionable or needing discussion or as outright violations. That would solve the front-end pipeline issue, but there's a lot of moving parts I'd need to think out before fully proposing that. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the tail end, we're talking 100-120 per day on active days, but there's also negative days (removal/deletion) (heck, over the last month we've DROPPED ~500 non-frees). So clearly there's something worth it to have a NPP-equivalent of NFC use that is meant not as a rigorous check but "yes/maybe/no" quick check for every inclusion that should not be a burden - spending a minute to make that check is 2-hr man-work at most per day. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@Werieth - actually, that's not true - I, personally, was blocked for abusing BetaCommand and Laura Love over an image that BetaCommand insisted failed NFCC and I insisted that it didn't. SO, yes, abusing those that are enforcing NFCC isn't supported. Once again, NFCC needs to be simplied so that everyone can understand it. I agree that having every one understand it won't make everyone stop being a dick when their images are being removed, but the NFCC enforcer will have solid footing to work with because the policy is made to be simpler. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ... 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There's language simplification that I can completely support, but you are presenting policy simplification that drastically change how NFCC is handled. Again, I point out that we have WP:NFC as the layman's instructions for how NFCC is practically used, and I am all in favor of making that Signpost article another guideline page about NFC. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So what, do we need a change to NFCC or not?
Per the statement by Black Kite above, should NFCC actually be rewritten or is that not necessary? If it should be rewritten, I think we should try to identify first what specific goal is to be achieved by such a rewrite. For example, given that I still think we have too few NFCC patrollers compared to the number of violations (please note that this is just my personal opinion, I actually haven't checked the trend of the ratio of violations compared to the overall number of NFC uses), I would try to simplify the policy in way that allows fewer NFCC patrollers to deal with more violations. -- ToshioYamaguchi22:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's very necessary. We have a policy that's creating all kinds of arguments and fights on Wikipedia. If this policy were a user, that user would already be banned, but as it's not a user, and since not having NFCC isn't an option, my recommendation would be to simplify it, as I suggested above. With the rules made plainer and easier to understand, there would be more people willing to lend a hand and enforce it (like there are with vandalism ), there would be less misunderstanding and hurt feelings over it, less users would quit (because they had their feelings hurt). What we would have left would be the users that want to disregard that policy, so yes I very much believe that a re-write (simplification) of NFCC is very much needed. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The existing policy is clear and usable in the vast majority of cases. No matter how the policy is re-written, any policy that would clearly exclude what the current policy clearly excludes and which would clearly allow what the current policy clearly allows would have a grey area similar to the current policy. Unless the policy could be written in a way that clearly shrinks this grey area without causing a major controversy of its own, it's not worth trying to clarify the existing policy. I doubt any rewrite-for-clarity would be easy and, sad to say, I very much doubt it could be done without causing an uproar of its own.
The question of whether we want to replace the existing policy with one that would have different results - that is, one that might put something the existing policy clearly allows into the "grey" area or even into the "not allowed" area or which might put something the existing policy clearly does not allow into the "grey" or "allowed" area is a totally different question and one that should not be approached without expert legal advice from someone well-versed in United States copyright law. An expert can tell us whether we are already on safe legal ground and what narrow parameters we must stay within in order to stay on safe legal ground. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My recommendation: Write an "Simple guide to NFCC" essay which says "if you do these things, you will be okay, if you don't, you might be okay but you are not clearly in-bounds." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not as simple as doing x-y-z to meet NFCC for all cases (things like album covers, etc. are a bit more straightforward). Again I point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches which is a good laymen's guide to understanding how the 10 NFCC points are understood. I would prefer to make that a guideline, as an alternate suggestion to this one. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a fairly long document but a good one. It would need some slight updating to fix broken wikilinks and stale URL-links. I was envisioning a much shorter document that was more like an "x-y-z" checklist. As you said, that might not be possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Quoting Kosh; "If this policy were a user, that user would already be banned" Indeed! NFCC constantly generates arguments. Did you know that WP:NFCC is connected to 105 different WP:AN/I archives and another 58 WP:AN archives? That's just the tip of the glacier. NFCC arguments are all over the project. Years and years and years of arguments, and very little gets resolved. To what purpose, such waste? None. The reality is the Foundation has said precious little about non-free content. In fact, our hysteria over the need of having rationales has at best a vague connection to the Foundation's desires. The only aspects of our WP:NFCC policy that are required by Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy are some elements of NFCC #1, a vague, ill-defined connection to #3, and a vaguely interpretable support for #7. That's it. The rest is fair use law and stuff made up by this project notionally to adhere to a lofty goal of having a free content encyclopedia. We departed that pathway many years ago. The idea we are a free content encyclopedia is farcical. Now, going the other way; our NFCC policy does not adhere to the Resolution. In particular, there is no stipulation in NFCC about licensing being in a machine readable format. The sobering reality is that prohibitions on location of NFCC on portals or development articles is made up fluff, not mandated by the Foundation. The requirement for a separate rationale for every usage that specifically notes the article where it is intended to be used, resulting in hilarious demonstrations of bureaucratic stupidity with dozens of rationales, is all made up fluff. The rest of it is legal aspects directly connected to U.S. fair use law. Outside of the Resolution, the Foundation has been absolutely silent on the issue of non-free content usage. The resolution is 6.5 years old, and they haven't said peep about it since. They have been made aware on many occasions of the mass amount of non-free content on the project. They have remained silent. They've been approached several times over NFCC arguments that have sustained on this project. They have remained silent. If you truly want these arguments to go away, if we want to ban the "user" that is causing all these arguments, then reduce WP:NFCC to bare legal requirements and a simplified #1 (some of it isn't mandated), a more tightly worded #3, and a reworded #7 that allows non-free content to be used anywhere so long as it is contributing to the furtherance of the project, like a portal, article, development article, review of non-free content, image shops, etc. But, here's the rub; the very small cadre of people left on this project who give a damn about NFCC would never allow this to happen. Think about that. The Foundation does not agree with their stance, but they hold to it anyway. If they didn't hold to it, and we could do as I suggest, then we could dramatically reduce the NFCC arguments and stop the silliness. But, the small cadre will not give up. We are therefore left with an impossibly farcical situation resulting in insane, never ending disputes. It is blatantly clear to me where the problem lies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If we were to consider any policy/guideline "bad" based on how many times the enforcement of it was brought up at AN/I, ARBCOM or equivalent, you'd certainly have WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a host of others on that list. How many times the issue of NFCC policy enforcement has come up at ANI is a non-argument for the need to change it, only in making sure the core message is better understood and making sure that our enforcement of it is not draconian. Simplify NFC might solve complaints about it, but it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The core of all this is the fact that when you have an open wiki that allows anyone to edit, you will have two or more sides to what that wiki should ultimately look like - some want it purely academic, some want it to be encompassing everything possible. Fortunately, there's been a sufficiently long-running core consensus about what exactly we're trying to make, something that is broad yet staying academic to the core - even though it doesn't have to. Part of that is to how and when non-free media can be used to enhance an article - the Resolution is broad and could allow for a lot more inclusion, but we have and should continue seeing NFC as a means to balance the free content mission against improving the reader's comprehension. We should be seeing this as an intellectual challenge - WP is not a "job" but should be an enjoyable pastime as a volunteer project, and I do consider it stimulating to figure out the balance that we should be taking with NFC use; certainly if it was a job, I'd be all for simplification and removing the root of dispute. We should be seeing it as a challenge to maintain that balance and find the edge cases where we could reduce non-free content more or recognize where there is a better allowance for some uses, but always looking towards free content mission as the unobtainable but perfect ideal. Simplifying NFC may allow us to directly meet the letter of the Foundation's requirement, but it also basically ignores all the work we've done in the past to strive to meet - but knowing it's unobtainable for the most past - of a free content work. It is an "easy" solution but one that I don't think is wise - I'd rather have complaints that lead to discussion and improvement of how to present the NFC metrics, than to bury our heads by allowing a simpler NFC approach that would eliminate disputes but lose everything we've worked towards over the years.
For example, Kosh does have a point that the language of NFCC is not layman-clear; it's precise for those that enforce NFC but does lack the clarity that a new user would likely need. The problem is that changing that precise language alters the carefully crafted meanings from the discussions 6 years ago, so Kosh's approach in the closed RFC was pretty much the wrong way to fix that. But we have at least one guide (the Signpost Dispatch) that guides the user step by step for what each point "actually" means, and we have NFC to document the black and white parts of NFC. We just need these more visible to the users (hence why I'd like the Dispatch to become a guideline if only to have it in WP space).
But at the same time, it's also enforcement issues: Werieth has had a few ANI's about his NFC removals lately (in one case reverting the same user 23 times due to reinsertion of NFC); the problem (which I've talked to Werieth before about) is that he's taking a run-and-gun approach, removing all excess non-frees from pages without considering if one or more of them are appropriate (in at least two of the cases, there was one image out of several that actually had justification for being there). That is not how NFC is supposed to be enforced, given that what is "excessive" non-free is a subjective call. There are definitely some objective criteria, and thus non-contestable reasons for non-free removal which certainly are exempt from 3RR, but the bulk of what leads to ANI issues is edit warring over the subjective parts of NFCC. We as NFC enforcers cannot edit war over these, and instead need to turn to NFCR or talk pages or other aspects to discuss these types of issues instead of trying to insist we are right. As I've pointed out , Werieth's removes had some improper removals, and similarly Beta (NFC or otherwise) had several mistakes but insisted he was correct. NFC enforcers are not perfect so let's not act haughty about it.
The thing to remember is that it is impossible for us to have the entire en.wiki use of NFC all in line, and certainly improvements are not going to happen overnight. We're 6 years since the resolution and we're still likely not as compliant as we want to be, but there is nothing in the Resolution that says that every image has to be perfectly meeting NFC at any instance. It's common sense; there's maybe 2 dozen, if that many, people that enforce NFC and nearly 500,000 images. Simplifying NFCC will not fix this; it might draw a few more editors to help in enforcing it, but it will also create more images, and the problem either stays the same or gets worse. Perfection is not going to happen overnight, and given the lack of response from the Foundation, they don't expect it to happen overnight either. As long as we act in timely manners when NFC problems are discovered, then we're doing our best towards maintaining NFC policy across the board. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hammersoft, looks like we're not too far apart in our view. Tell you what, why not propose a change (or set of changes) and let's see if we can change this policy - again, it's creating too much drama, so let's see if we can correct that. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I hate to be pessimistic, but while there remains a small cadre willing to fight tooth and nail to keep the horribly flawed NFCC the way it is, any such proposal will not gain traction. Please do not take that as a no. I am willing to help, regardless of how futile it is. Eventually the mind set will shift or at least the cadre will give up (as I did). It is long since overdue that we stopped with the absurd notion that if we try just a little bit longer, a little bit harder that we'll somehow magically solve our WP:NFCC problems. NFCC in its current form has had at least 7 years to accomplish its goals and has miserably failed. It is insane to keep trying the same thing year in, year out expecting it will somehow magically cure itself. We must change. We must. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I actually have an idea how the rationale requirement in WP:NFCC could be replaced. The problem is, I have my doubts whether that would be accepted, as that would completely alter how one can add non-free stuff to Wikipedia. -- ToshioYamaguchi14:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
An easy one would be to indicate in WP:NFC that any album cover used as the primary album cover shown in the infobox automatically has a rationale associated with it. This concept can be expanded, in abstract, to cover any situation in which we automatically allow one non-free image per article. For example, corporate logos for identification of the company on the article about that company. Do we really have to go through the pedantry of writing an obnoxiously repetitive rationale for every such usage? Of course not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Non-free content without a rationale will be deleted. For non-free content to be used, a rationale (in the sense the The Resolution defines it) needs to be approved via consensus. Every new use of non-free content needs a new consensus, to be determined on a new board specifically established for that purpose. The discussion where consensus was reached on a use on non-free media would be linked on the image page instead of a rationale. We could establish something like an incubator where uploaded NFC can be linked. NFC linked there must not be deleted until a decision to do so was reached there. At that incubator new uses of the NFC must be approved by consensus. Any uses without incubator consensus can be removed on sight. -- ToshioYamaguchi15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Description of how that would work:
1. User uploads non-free content (will contain a non-free copyright template due to upload form)
2. File is linked on Incubator (so cannot be deleted until that is determined there)
3. Consensus in favor of use of the NFC is either reached or not
3.a. Consensus in favor: consensus discussion is linked on file page and rationale for use is added
3.b. Consensus not in favor: file is not added to proposed article
4. If no proposed use gains consensus, file is deleted
Toshio, I like the first part ("Non free content without a rationale will be deleted"). However, on the second part, I could see that becoming very much like ANI where everyone has their own interpretation on NFCC. Yes, I could also see where an incubation area would lend itself to talking through before posting. I'd support something like it on a opt-in basis, like ("If your'e not sure how to bring an image in, bring it here with a proposed rationale and have it looked over "... something along those lines. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on the stats pointed out earlier, this could be a board that could get 100-150 new items on certain days. Not going to work given how long it takes to process NFCR items. I'm all for a what would be a spot-check process to make sure it's not completely failing (something that should take 1-2 minutes by a single editor per item), something closer to NPP's approach. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Better to have a board of 100+ potentially valid non-free files only in an administrative space where there would be a backlog to adding more NFC to a free content project than having a board of 100+ potentially invalid non-free files in article space. IMO. -- ToshioYamaguchi15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This could be a good idea, but I think that we do not need consensus for non-free use cases which are presumed to be 100% acceptable per past consensus (i.e. primary logos/box art/etc.) ViperSnake151 Talk 17:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
What you describe is a fundamental shift that I am not prepared to take and which will cause major backlogs. The way things are now is that you can upload a file, and until the use is challenged it stays. By requiring a consensus BEFORE it is used, it will create a large backlog. About the only way I can think of to make a plan like yours practical without creating a big bureaucracy is to have it on auto-pilot: If nobody objects even if no other editor endorses the use within X days, then a bot automatically marks the file as "nobody blocked consensus" and moves it. Even if the practical issues were addressed, I would have philosophical objections to the "high barrier" it would create to creating articles that have generally non-controversial types of images in them (e.g. logos in infoboxes). I doubt I am the only Wikipedia editor who has philosophical issues with this proposal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
NFCR is about 220 items that have accumulated over 5 months. We are talking half that number per day. It ain't going to work if there needs to be a discussion on consensus. A NPP-like system that spot checks for the obvious and drops the edges to NFCR might work, but we certainly cannot increase the volume at NFCR or an equivalent and expect it to work. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. How do we handle SVG non-free content (particularly SVG logos like File:FC Southampton.svg). Although the file is rendered as low-res on the Southampton F.C. page, a link to the file page is still active and gives the opportunity to download the SVG which, as we know, can be rendered at any resolution without losing quality. And there's more: we even have links to PNG high-res versions of this file displayed on the page. Isn't it just plain violation of the Wikipedia policy on non-free content? --Gikü (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-free SVG images are nearly never allowed, unless it is an SVG obtained directly from the copyright owner (typically from official documents or a website). Most other SVGs are images created by other uses to recreate a JPG or the like, and that's not appropriate due to the infinite resolution issue; the above case is one that lacks any clear indication it came from the FC, so it must be deleted. (and I worry the claimed source is basically an image macro). --MASEM (t) 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be accepted for non-free, if that route is possible (it prevents us from making any mistakes in representing their image if that SVG is readily available). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should just put a hard ban on all non-free SVG's regardless of source. It is impossible to meet the low-resolution requirement, even if its rendered at low-res, if the image has a de facto infinite resolution. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I would agree too, but again, this is what the practice has been. But if we want to limit that, we could easily write that into policy (as a footnote to #3?) How many images would that affect (I suspect at most 100) --MASEM (t) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's how I've come to understood how most of these are obtained. Just make sure that you identify the PDF source for those when you do so on uploading. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A window dressing?
Quote from content guideline: ... for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
When I used this notable exception to WP:NFC#UULP at the upload of an image taken during the film debut or Ms Joanna Pacuła who is now 56 years old, I was reverted by two editors hand-in-hand. Please tell, what is the actual valid use of this exeption than, if her notability rests in large part on earlier visual appearance as beautiful young woman. Thanks, Poeticbenttalk15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the condition of the article, and the rationale provided on the file description page, you are about a thousand km from meeting the bar for an exception. Werieth (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another is "Weird Al" Yankovic where his old look (with glasses and shorter hair, prior to LASIK) is noted as being iconic, but something we can't expect to get a free image of again. This is akin to noting that KISS was iconically known for performing in the makeup and outfits. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If so, why don't you include the Kiss signature look as possible example directly in our guideline? The fact is, any Kiss member can put the makeup on again and again (which they actually do) and be photographed iconically. Not a bullet-proof example it isn't. However, an aging individual cannot be made young again for the relevant photo. Poeticbenttalk16:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I was using KISS as an analogy. They are still performing which would make any image replaceable, but that is the type of unique visual appearance that is an easy example of what would qualify. Taking a quick look at Joanna Pacuła, there is nothing in the article that would be remotely considered critical commentary on her visual appearance, let alone enough to justify a non-free file for it. Just because she was known as an actress when she was younger doesnt require us to use a photo from that time frame. Have you attempted to contact either her or her agent and see if they are willing to release a photo of her when she was younger for the article? Otherwise I dont see a justification for a non-free file of a living person. Werieth (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, film in general is not my main area of interest in Wikipedia, but I regularly upload non-free files and that's why I needed your feedback. If the subject of our article was a politician or a philosopher, I wouldn't mind an older gentleman in the photo, but (let's say) a child-actor photographed in her sixties for our infobox would probably look ridiculous, wouldn’t you agree? Poeticbenttalk16:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It all depends on context, and third party critical commentary. It all depends on your perspective on what ridiculous is. Unless the look that the person had was iconic and notable beyond a limited scope, a picture of them when they where older would be completely justified. Werieth (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course I meant the iconic looks only, because only notable performers develop iconic looks in their careers, others don't. The scope is "limited" as you say; for example, to acting. Poeticbenttalk17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say no. You need to specify why it satisfies WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2, but the person who wrote the fair use rationale forgot to do so. It should, however, be trivial to fix this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I will note part of the "problem" is that the current file upload wizard does not specifically ask for these fields and as such, they tend to be left open on most recent uploads. That said, if it is fairly obvious that the points are met due to the nature of the image, then it's okay to leave those blank, with the understanding that if either "N/A" point is challenged, the rationale needs to be expanded for this. As noted, these are NFCC#1 and #2. And when I said "fairly obvious" I do mean this in the most un-BITE-iest of ways. An album cover, like this example and considering its use as the leading infobox image, meets NFCI#1 (note, not NFCC), so it clearly isn't a case of failing NFCC#2 (commercial opportunity, typically limited to images coming from media corps.) and NFCC#1 (that there's free replacement or way to replace with text to show the album cover). Should they be addressed to say these? Ideally yes, but we all know that blanket statements will likely be added to address both points above. That is, ask yourself that if you were to take this image to FFD based on the failure of NFCC#1 and #2 (due to omission or implicit allowance), would that FFD have a chance of survival? Likely no. Mind you, this does point out that we need to make sure that #1 and #2 are somehow addressed at the File Upload Wizard, even if it puts in canned language. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a waiver from the legal people re copyrighted images and commercial opportunities, and should it be referenced at NFCI? Cristallo (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec) This rationale is one of those that are created automatically for standard cases by the File Upload Wizard (except, in this case, the entry for "minimality", which was provided individually by the user). I wrote these standard rationales, including the "n.a."s. They have been used like this in thousands of uploads for close on two years. The fact that they don't explicity cover each point in more detail is by design, and I'll defend this choice. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We need to teach uploaders to write FURs with common sense. FURs need to focus on those bits of information and those arguments that are individual in each case. Forcing ourselves to fill up FURs with empty boilerplate verbiage about those bits that are entirely predictable and trivial would not only be useless but actively harmful. If we actually have a written guideline worded in such a way as to suggest such an obligation, then that guideline needs to be changed, as quickly as possible. Fut.Perf.☼15:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I'm saying that boilerplate language for #1 and #2 could be provided by the Wizard for the obvious cases. Mind you, I would also consider the option of having entries for #1 and #2 that fall after the "submit" button, where "additional licensing information" currently is, in case the uploader knows what they're doing and want to add it. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
And you'll find me strongly opposed to any suggestion of adding more boilerplate language. We ought not to treat our readers and uploaders like idiots. When you include an image with the sole and express purpose of illustrating itself, as is the case with cover art and the like, then the fact that it cannot be replaced with something else is so obvious it doesn't require an explanation. Period. That's why it says "n.a." Offering such an explanation, even as an automatic boilerplate addition, would mean just that: treating our readers like idiots. Any addition of further boilerplate material would only serve to strengthen that most harmful of preconceptions about FURs: that they are just bureaucratic red tape and a matter of form in their entirety. (Obviously, in other than these standard cases, the wizard does prompt for individual input regarding NFCC#1 and #2.) Fut.Perf.☼15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, because current practice does require #1 and #2 to be addressed, and while I agree that most images have self-explanatory reasons for #1 and #2 being met, I'd rather see the effort to have something in there to make the user aware, every time, these requirements exist, than leaving them empty, even if the text is boilerplate. The fact that the Wizard does not fill these in - though does have the user consider the aspects of #1 and #2 appropriate in other parts of the form - is the problem (though by no means do I suggest we mass delete all images put through the Wizard that lack these, because it is implicit that is the case). Heck, I would have no problem with a checkbox that must be checked by the user that says "I affirm, to the the best of my ability, this image cannot be replaced by free media", and the like, possibly after a short paragraph that explains the how to evaluate #1 and #2. If anything , #2 needs to be fixed more than #1, to make sure that uploaders are aware that images from places like Getty and AP are out of the question unless the image itself is the subject of discussion. Boilerplate reasoning is fine, as long as the reason to use the boilerplate makes sense. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
And an additional comment is that the place where boilerplate should not be allowed - save for images used for identification - is for explaining NFCC#8. This is where the most thought needs to be put into why we are using an image, moreso than the other 9 points. Most of the other points, including #1 and #2, have only a small number of possible ways to explain how the image meets the requirement and hence boilerplate is fine here. But you cannot reduce NFCC#8 to a small handful of reasons outside of the infobox identification image, and hence absolutely no boilerplate should be used here for any other case. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
About your issue with #2, obviously the wizard only omits prompting for that in those case groups where it literally is never a problem – i.e. basically logos and cover art. Logos and cover art never come from Getty, and #2 is never an issue with them as long as the usage in the article is of the standard kind. And no, we should not include more checkboxes and stuff either. The questionnaire is already dangerously overcrowded, and the last thing we need is yet more uploaders simply ignoring everything they see in it as soon as they begin suffering from cognitive overload. It was really hard work to narrow the form down to the absolute minimum, and that is apparently still over-taxing the attention span of the average newbie uploader. Fut.Perf.☼19:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, even if we don't add an extra field (the checkbox), there is absolutely no reason that on cases like "a portion of a copyrighted work", #2 is immediately "met" assuming in good faith that the uploaded material is a portion, as such. In those cases, I see no problem with the Wizard never actually prompting on this and dropping a #2 rationale similar to the one used on the boilerplace for album art. I complete agree that what you have now focuses the user on meeting NFCC#3 and #8, the two that require the upfront thought and consideration to avoid non-free misuse; we shouldn't ignore #2 but at least drop some standard text that, as long as we're not talking a historical photo, is likely going to be the same near-paraphrased language in all cases. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How many ways can you say that an image meets #2, if it is not a Gettys/AP image to start? There is a point where we need to avoid boilerplate like the plague and a point to accept it as reasonable, and for #1 and #2, in the case of most images, boilerplate works fine. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) #2 compliance is a non-issue (hence covered with a "n.a.") for all items that are used in a clearly transformative way, i.e. to illustrate themselves ("object-of-commentary" creative works, logos, cover art). For all other types (e.g. historic photographs, portraits of deceased persons etc.) #2 compliance is decidedly non-trivial and always requires individual argument. Neither class requires boilerplate text. Btw, just for ease of further reference, here's a table of what the wizard actually does depending on case type ("manual" means that it requires individual input, "auto" means that it inserts a brief piece of boilerplate usually corresponding to a checkbox the user has to confirm; "n.a." means that it inserts just that string; and "--" means that it neither prompts nor inserts anything at all.)
Case group
NFCC#1
NFCC#1-text
NFCC#2
NFCC#3
NFCC#8
Object of discussion (e.g. painting, iconic photograph)
n.a.
--
n.a.
manual
auto1
Excerpt for discussion (e.g. TV screenshot)
n.a.
manual
n.a.
manual
manual
Cover art (e.g. bookcover)
n.a.
--
n.a.
manual
auto
Logo
n.a.
--
n.a.
manual
auto
Historic portrait
manual
--
manual
manual
auto
Other non-free
manual
manual
manual
manual
manual
1 (Only if the article as a whole is dedicated to the work in question; otherwise manual input required.)
I'm not disagreeing in any of the above take, that where you have "n/a" presenting are cases that are markedly trivial in terms of how the image by its nature meets the criteria. The issue is that by not including anything for these, you are breaking the NFCC#10 requirement that a rationale address all 10 points, even if the comment is trivial or boilerplate (see, for example, Cristallo's comment that we should change NFCC because of what this is doing). All I'm saying is that every place where you have "n/a" marked above, and only where "n/a" is marked above, can we include boilerplate about how said criteria is met. That avoids having to beg the user to fill that in, but ends up with a rationale that satisfies NFCC completely.
Are any images processed by the Wizard going to be deleted because there's an "n/a" in a field? No, since I think most all agree the reason that the NFCC criteria there is met is apparent, and if push comes to shove, some editor will easily fill out the fields. But what this is doing is setting a bad example. You argue about getting rid of boilerplates, but leaving those as "n/a" will make NFC-newbies assure that the criteria is irrelevant and upload images that obviously clearly fail them but they'll just mark the problem lines "n/a" believing it all to be correct. Even with boilerplate, it shows the NFC-newbie editor there's reasons for each element. Yes, they will likely copy the boilerplate just as they would the "n/a", but hopefully they will pause on the text of that boilerplate in certain situations and realize that the boilerplate may not apply to their case, and have to modify it. This is less about being exact with NFCC and more about preventing mis-information down the road, while still trying to make it easy for the uploading process. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You say "but hopefully they will pause on the text of that boilerplate...". Well, this is where we differ. From years of experience, I can assure you: no newbie, ever, pauses over boilerplate text. Every newbie, without exception, ignores boilerplate text, and if they see that there's some boilerplate text, they will always, invariably, conclude that the whole exercise of the FUR is just as ignorable too. Boilerplate text has exactly the opposite effect of what we want it to do; it is not only useless but harmful. Fut.Perf.☼20:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Boilerplate or "n/a" - both present the same problem at the newbie level of not understanding, but leaving as "n/a" breaks policy as written. The thing is -- boilerplate reasons are accepted. Your table makes this point that there's 3 special cases where we know that as long as other NFCC reasons are met, these other NFCC criteria are typically implicit. That's the whole point of boilerplate is to simplify the process where it can be, so I don't disagree that those cases can be handled special, but we can't break NFCC in that simplification process. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The demand that every FUR has to explicitly talk about every NFCC has never been common practice, so it's never been valid policy. The best FURs I've ever written myself certainly didn't do it. That rule is crap and needs to be removed. (Not even mentioning the circular absurdity that, if you took the rule at face value, any FUR would have to self-referentially describe its own existence: "This image meets NFCC#10c insofar as it has a FUR that, among other things, describes how it meets NFCC#10c, by pointing out that it meets NFCC#10c by virtue of describing how it meets NFCC#10c...") Fut.Perf.☼21:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That is an idea, as to have an explicit statement , not NFCC but maybe NFC, that the rationale must at minimum include X, Y, and Z, and that if the image does not fall into certain specific NFCI cases, it must also include P and Q, and then touching up the #10 wording to point how what the minimize standard that is expected. The idea that the rationale still touches on all 10 points would remain but, as stated here, allow for trivially-simple parts to be left out in specific, well-defined cases of identifying infobox images. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media." should add clarification that is implied by the subsequent text: that images being used as the primary identification image about that work at the top of the article do not need to spell this out on the the assumptions given.
An addition to reflect the same for NFCC#2, how the image respects commercial opportunity, and with the subtext which for nearly all cases outside of press corp, typically has the same answer, it doesn't.
That would bring this approach in line with what's going on here. A key thing to remember is that these are not get-out-of-jail-free passes. If someone challenges if an image is not respecting the commercial opportunity, then an "n/a" rationale for NFCC#2 won't cut it and it should be filled in. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that the main problem is that users do not fill in the data correctly. I very often see replaceable photos with "n.a." in the WP:NFCC#1 field. These FURs are usually incorrectly filled in elsewhere too, for example by stating that an article is specifically dedicated to a discussion about a non-free photo of an existing building, or that the photo is a unique historic photo. I'm wondering if the upload wizard could be clarified somehow, but I guess that users simply ignore such clarifications anyway... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree (having noticed that the large majority of uploads in, e.g. the relevant tracking category are blatantly wrong), but I've become quite pessimistic about fixing this. If you actually look at the extraordinary lengths the wizard already goes to warn users against these uploads, you'll simply despair: no adult human being with a working knowledge of English, average intelligence and a basic willingness to read what's before them could possibly fail to understand that the wizard is telling them not to upload these items. The reason for this mass abuse of the system (short of assuming that 90% of our newbies are either evil, illiterate or imbecile) can only be this: people come to the system with the fixed intention to make an upload, come what may, and will simply not take no for an answer. They must see that none of the use cases offered by the wizard matches their situation, but the implication that this actually means they should simply not upload the file meets with insurmountable cognitive dissonance. So instead of not uploading, they'll just opt for what they think is the least bad mismatch among the upload options and to hell with the small print. No matter how carefully you explain it to people, anything you tell them that boils down to "sorry, you can't upload this" simply will be ignored. There's not a thing we can do about it. Fut.Perf.☼21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The idea has been brought up before of doing the equivalent of NPP for media files, and in my opinion, shouldn't be a harsh check but a basic "are you missing anything obvious" to fine tune the output of the wizard. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, a case like that is caused not so much by the presence of the "n.a.", but by the fact that the uploader selected the wrong case type from the wizard. It's a logo, and they used the questionnaire for web screenshots instead. No matter what boilerplate the wizard might automatically put in about NFCC#1 and #2 for this case group, it would still come out wrong if applied to this file. Fut.Perf.☼00:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Explaining more on "when free content could be created"
Based on several discussions from the last several months, I wonder if it would be a good idea to add to WP:NFC (the guideline) a casebook of "when free content could be created" per NFCC#1. This specifically would be used to address things like:
When we would allow for a non-free of a living person (due to the person being incarcerated, on the lam, or known to be remorse); a similar discussion that people that have just died don't automatically get a non-free.
The issue of building/FOP photography
The issue of respecting public/private property laws and how photography applies there.
Photos of physical products not yet released (in which those to be released within a short, fixed time frame likely don't need non-free)
In cases of things like packaging or branding, replacing a full image with a brand's text logo with an freely-made SVG text logo that serves the same purpose.
and probably other cases. This would also address that while asking for permission/free licensing for WP is always a good step into getting free content, it is neither required nor expected (since that would rely on a third-party's decision). I'm sure there are other cases that can be included. Key is that this is a guideline so we're describing typical expectations that have obvious exceptions. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Non-free SVG images
Since SVG is the superior format, should it always be used for non-free images? I would assume that using SVG may replace the original market role of any image, like a logo. The iCarly logo is copyrighted, and the format is SVG. I saved the picture into the PNG format, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
For free images which a well-done SVG image exists, yes. However, photographs, screen-captures, and some other types of images are best done in other formats, even if they are free images. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not correct (ETA that I see davidwr explicitly calls to free SVG). The only time we accept non-free SVGs is if they directly originated from the copyright owners (eg commonly extracting a logo in SVG format from corporate literature already in a digital format). The SVG recreation by an editor of a non-free logo (where pulling the SVG is not possible) still remains non-free, but now at higher displayed resolution than raster versions, and that's a problem from a standpoint of non-free. So, no, SVG is to be avoided for non-free unless the original work as from the copyright owner happens to be SVG. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Then shall we propose discouragement on SVG non-free images, unless original author uses SVG? Therefore, policies and guidelines will be affected, as well as all SVG images? George Ho (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I could have sworn we had explicit advice about non-free SVG along the lines I've described, but if its not there, it's simply additional text to be added to both NFC and IUP/MOSIMAGES. But basically, when we have to create the SVG where one does not exist for a non-free image, we're increasing, not reducing, the resolution, and thus why we avoid that process. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You can't "shrink" the resolution of an SVG, that's the whole thing. It's infinitely scalable, and only the Wipidedia software determines how it comes out. (to be exact, SVG is a language that instructures the renderer how to assemble shapes to make a drawing, as opposed to a raster that identifies a drawing pixel by pixel). That's why recreating a logo or similar work as an SVG to use as a non-free is harmful , since you're creating a image with indefinitely higher resolution than the original. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Masem: Is this restriction based upon community consensus and/or a rule established by the WMF? I understand that you were under the impression that such advice already was documented, but if it isn't, is this due to an oversight or because that course of action hasn't been agreed upon? (To be clear, I'm not criticising the concept, which strikes me as sensible.) —David Levy21:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Its based on past discussion which I just recently searched to make sure (in talk archives). SVGs "extracted" from PDF/PS docs are okay to use non-free, but SVGs generated from non-free works via any others means (and for argument, ones where there is originality based on the US TOO) are a problem due to resolution/potential mistakes in scaling/etc, whereas the smaller raster image would be exact. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have the URL(s) handy? Years ago, I cited potential inaccuracy as an argument against the use of unofficial non-free vector graphics, but I don't recall any consensus. —David Levy22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess I should read the section header before replying. In any case, it's my understanding that the only time a non-free SVG is allowed is if the SVG sacrifices significant detail that "ruins" its use when it is enlarged. For example, if File:AccioBFF.jpg (a historical stock certificate) was a modern stock certificate which was available as an SVG on the company's web-site. It's my understanding that if enough detail were removed from the SVG file so that it looked basically the same in an infobox as the real thing but was noticeably lacking in detail when expanded, then it would be okay to use as a non-free image. But why bother, when it's much easier to just display it as a 300px image, take a screen-capture, and upload it as a small jpeg file instead? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the above based upon documentation/past discussion? (To be clear, I'm not challenging your understanding; I'm just curious as to how you arrived at it.) —David Levy21:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It's just my reading of the phrase "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" and the related concept of "minimal usage" as applied to vector- and other infinitely-scaleable formats (see: WP:NFCC#Policy, bullet point 3). By the way, implicit in this is that if an SVG cannot be simplified without rendering it useless for Wikipedia use, then it can only be used if converting to another file format would not meet the requirements of the encyclopedia. For example, if the SVG file were being discussed as an SVG file rather than as an image. I can't think of any real-world examples of this but hypothetically, it could happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Correction: Regarding Masem's comment of 21:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)21:50 a few lines up, removing detail from an SVG may actually be HARMFUL, so unless the harm is zero, this technique should not be used. In short, there's almost no case where a non-free SVG can be justified unless the SVG, as an SVG rather than as an image, is the subject of critical commentary and where the other non-free criteria are met (e.g. the presence of the file adds significantly to the understanding of the discussion, etc.). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Neither the Wikipedia editing community nor the WMF has reached such a determination (hence the widespread use of non-free SVGs). I know that discussions have occurred (and I'll search for them when I have the time), but I don't recall agreement that our "low-resolution" requirement is applicable to vector graphics (which have no native resolution). —David Levy22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I would not expect the WMF to say anything, and its very unlikely its a legal issue. It really is a question if an SVG, which scales infinitely large and hence is difficult to qualify as "low resolution" meets the "low resolution" aspect of NFCC. (Prior discussions on this can be found by searching on "SVG" in this talk page's archive box above). The core issue is that while an SVG made by a user can be very close to a raster version of a logo or other image, there will always be subtle differences that may not be apparent at low resolution (small image sizes) but at much larger sizes. So while an SVG may look better at small sizes, it is not a slavish reproduction (as one would with as xerox image) and may have potential issues; it is much easier and simplier to prescribe the use of raster where the resolution aspects are easily under control. This would also be why we do allow for SVGs of non-free imagery that are pulled from official PDF/PS documents (specifically re-coding the EPS into SVG, NOT a line-retrace that greatly expands the file size), since there's no mis-represenation of the logo from that conversion. Basically, by avoiding non-free SVG, we avoid potential mistakes and mis-representations of copyrighted worked. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your explanation of the relevant distinction between an SVG derived from an official vector-based source and one created by a third party (and I've expressed this view in the past). My above message addresses Davidwr's statement that "there's almost no case where a non-free SVG can be justified" (with no such distinction drawn). —David Levy04:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, from that, it is certainly not the case that SVG's can never be used for non-free. I would strictly limit them to cases where the SVG has been strictly extracted from official digital works from the copyright owner. User-created SVGs need to be free (or at least PD-US "free"). --MASEM (t) 05:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple differences between non-free SVGs and non-free raster images:
The file size is determined differently, affecting WP:NFCC#3b. The size of an SVG file is determined by the number of geometrical shapes and their quality whereas the size of a pixel image is determined by the number of pixels. WP:NFCC#3b tells that "This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." It is therefore not sufficient that the thumbnails used in individual articles is small; the SVG source code (i.e. "the copy in the File: namespace") must also be small. For example, Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format specifically mentions the size issue for vector graphics. Test by rendering the SVG file at a high resolution: if you see faithful details which are not clearly visible at a lower resolution, then the file might be too big, in particular if (for example) a single line or curve would serve the same purpose as multiple lines or curves when the file is rendered at a low resolution. However, it is not completely established how high quality an SVG file may have.
The quality issue may also affect WP:NFCC#2. A high-quality file is more likely to replace the market role of a work. However, people usually do not sell copies of logos in the same way as you sell copies of postcards, books or films, so I think that it is not very likely that size will be an issue with regard to WP:NFCC#2 when the file is a logo. It could potentially be an issue if the file is something other than a logo.
User-created files must be licensed under a free licence (see for example WP:IUP#User-created images). This also tends to be assumed to apply to images which combine user-created elements with non-free elements: such files need both a free licence (for the user-created parts) and an unfree copyright tag (for the unfree parts). See for example how {{Photo of art}} is used for photos of non-free statues. An SVG file does not only contain an image, but computer instructions which tell how the image should be drawn. Such computer instructions have sometimes been found to be copyrighted by the person who wrote them (see for example Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.). If the person who writes the computer instructions (the SVG source code) doesn't license the computer instructions under a free licence, the image violates WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could write different computer instructions for the same image. If the computer instructions were written by the uploader, the computer instructions further violate WP:NFCC#6, and if it is unknown from where the computer instructions come from, they violate WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The file size is determined differently, affecting WP:NFCC#3b. The size of an SVG file is determined by the number of geometrical shapes and their quality whereas the size of a pixel image is determined by the number of pixels.
Where and when was this decided?
WP:NFCC#3b tells that "This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."
I know of no one challenging that principle, but there certainly has been disagreement regarding its relevance to SVGs.
Vector graphics have no native resolution. It's reasonable to opine that this renders them inherently unfit for non-free use. It also is reasonable to opine that it merely renders the aforementioned restriction inapplicable. And it's reasonable to opine that some intermediate position (such as one based upon an evaluation of the maximum level of detail available) makes sense. Please point to the community discussion(s) in which the lattermost approach was agreed upon.
It is therefore not sufficient that the thumbnails used in individual articles is small; the SVG source code (i.e. "the copy in the File: namespace") must also be small.
But what does that mean? You claim above that "the size of an SVG file is determined by the number of geometrical shapes and their quality". How and by whom was this determined?
Placing text on an obscure category page doesn't create policy. On what discussion(s) was it based? (I consulted Selket's contribution history and didn't spot any from around that time.) —David Levy22:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how the text ended up on the category page. The category previously had a different name, but the history provides no information about how the text ended up there due to lack of proper edit summaries. You write that vector graphics do not have any native resolution, but WP:NFCC#3b doesn't talk about resolution. Instead, it demands you to use only a portion of the work, giving three examples of what this may mean (depending on file type), "resolution" only being one of those. Therefore, the resolution is irrelevant; the only important thing is that you use a sufficiently small portion of the work. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The file size of an SVG doesn't matter in the sense of resolution though there are ways to have computers to auto-trace out elements and not be intelligent about shapes and paths and yet still come out with the exact logo, but the SVG file will be huge. That type of SVG we can't support. But otherwise, NFCC doesn't care about the SVG file size. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how the text ended up on the category page.
Exactly.
The category previously had a different name,
Yes, I linked to the category's first revision under the previous name.
but the history provides no information about how the text ended up there due to lack of proper edit summaries.
Indeed. That's why I checked Selket's contribution history for edits to a page on which the matter was discussed around that time (and found none).
You write that vector graphics do not have any native resolution, but WP:NFCC#3b doesn't talk about resolution. Instead, it demands you to use only a portion of the work, giving three examples of what this may mean (depending on file type), "resolution" only being one of those.
"Bit rate" obviously isn't a relevant concern. "Fidelity" is, but this brings us back to the matter that Masem raised above. If, as proffered, we should disallow the use of non-free SVGs created by third parties from raster-based references (thereby ensuring that no inaccurate conversions are misrepresented as official), we're as unable to reduce fidelity as we are to reduce resolution.
As noted previously, I support such a restriction but don't know whether it's backed by consensus. I acknowledge that the concept of barring the use of any non-free vector graphic whose fidelity crosses a particular threshold is a possible alternative, as is the option of prohibiting the upload of non-free SVGs completely. Likewise, I'm aware of no consensus for either of these restrictions (and I've requested that you cite evidence that the former is in effect).
Therefore, the resolution is irrelevant; the only important thing is that you use a sufficiently small portion of the work.
And you've stated that "the size of an SVG file is determined by the number of geometrical shapes and their quality". Again, please point to the discussion(s) in which this was determined. —David Levy00:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I can tell you about Australia, which is probably a typical case. There is no copyright on the coat of arms. However, use without permission breaches the Competition and Consumer Act (2010), the Trade Marks Act (1995) and the Criminal Code Act (1995). Moreover, I can tell you as a former Customs officer, that the importation of goods bearing the coat of arms is absolutely prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Accordingly, the coat of arms is tagged on Commons with an {{insignia}} template which (correctly) reads: This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. This includes its use of Commons. It is properly used, for example here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Coats of arms are often subject to restrictions similar to trademarks: you may not use them to impersonate someone, and similar things. As with trademarks, we typically ignore such restrictions, but Commons has Commons:Template:Insignia.
Works by the governments of many Commonwealth countries expire 50 years after they were published. Some of those are old drawings made by Commonwealth governments and are in the public domain because of age.
Hmm. I can see this is as complicated as I feared it might be. Putting to one side for the moment the issue of the coats of arms, if I want to use just the escutcheon (the 'shield') instead of the full design of the coats of arms, would that run into less issues? There are some coats of arms where the escutcheon has been done as a separate image (others, I would have to ask for the images to be drawn, but that is something I'm prepared to do). Are the escutcheons typically easier to draw from the public domain blazons? Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Grammar
Is there some reason why this contorted grammar is necessary?
1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
Surely this should begin in direct fashion, e.g.: "Exclude non-free content where a free equivalent is either available or creatable to serve the encyclopedic purpose. Non-free content should be transformed into free material if possible. When transformation is impossible, it should be replaced with a freer alternative with sufficient quality to serve the purpose. Only if no suitable free alternative could possibly be made available do we consider that there is no free equivalent."
This sort of twisted legalese is part of the reason editors tune out NFCC. It hurts their brains!
LeadSongDogcome howl!22:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that its the difference between active and passive voice that confuses people on non-free (you're using the effectively same terms as the current language). Further, as we are describe how the non-free must meet criteria, we're not giving instructions, but specific requirements for the non-free media, so it makes sense to talk about the media as the subject of each term. The active voice would be better on a page about actually using NFCC in practice (eg WP:NFC). --MASEM (t) 22:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My concern wasn't primarily the passive voice. It was the negations and the comma spliced "or" clauses. If policy is difficult to parse, it will routinely be misunderstood.LeadSongDogcome howl!14:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Given what editor mess up with NFCC, it's really not the language or parsing, it is understanding the difference between fair use and our non-free content (eg the concept of free speech vs free beer) where there is the most confusion. Some of this could be fine-tuned like the spliced comma but I really doubt this is why NFC seems difficult to understand. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". There's no requirement for editors to have postdoctoral skills in legalistic hairsplitting. Policy must be understood to be applied. It must be written in language that will be understood by the editors we actually have. Policy is generally written by the most persuasive talkpage debaters. They often are not the best judges of readability. LeadSongDogcome howl!16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, I want to stress: it is not the language that most have trouble with, it is the concept of fair use verses non-free to start, thinking that we are like a wikia and should insert lots of pretty pictures. I have rarely seen a new editor argue at a wikilawyering level on the way that one of the NFCC criteria is grammatically parsed to justify that image, and more on the fundamentals of non-free. That's the first hurdle to get them over, once past that, most have no problems, and thanks to the Wizard above, it usually goes smoothly. I am not saying we can't explore changes to the text here to fix up the grammar problems, but I very much doubt their grammar is why people struggle with NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It might be helpful if Wikipedia used a different word than free, because our usage differs from any usage they have encountered before, especially if they are familiar with copyrights. Normally we use "free" to mean "free from commercial exploitation" whereas here it means precisely the opposite. To most Australians "free speech" explicitly means non-commercial speech, which makes the difference between free speech and free beer very slight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
And well, the wording uses a similar structure to some of the other criteria, but you begin to wonder if it should be stripped down. Much of it sounds more like something that should be in the NFC guideline instead of the policy language itself. So, how about
Non-free content is used only where no freely-licensed equivalent (such as an image or properly sourced article text) that serves the same encyclopedic purpose can be found or created.
Perhaps it would be helpful to come up with some actual and hypothetical cases where it would be appropriate to use a non-free vector image instead of a JPEG, GIF, or similar image of the same number of pixels that would be displayed in the Wikipedia article (for the sake of argument, assume 300px wide for thumbnails and infoboxes that don't specify a size).
For each example, we would need to demonstrate that those aspects of the NFCC#Policy that are not in common with raster images are complied with, specifically:
2) "Commercial opportunities are respected" Full-fidelity copies open the door to abuse of commercial opportunities often enough that this will need to be justified on an image-by-image basis.
3b) "Minimal extent of use"
"An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." "In common" with raster images with respect to cropping. NOT "in common" with respect to raster images regarding "the portion of the file which allows showing of fine detail [fidelity]"
"Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used." Resolution and bit rate are not applicable. Fidelity is.
Here is a hypothetical example and arguments for and against allowing the use of the SVG rather than a display-sized raster image of the logo and a display-sized raster image of a particular close-up section:
Acme Food Company changed its logo in 1973 after a religious group complained that when you looked at the logo under a magnifying glass there were pictures that were offensive to the religion. These images were so small that when printed on newsprint or paper packaging they could not be seen, but they could be seen when printed on plastic or other glossy materials. The company's web site has a section outlining the history of the corporate logo and it includes an SVG file of the logo. The logo is to be used in a {{main article}} article about the logo and in a section about the logo in the article about the company. There is also an editor-created raster image of the zoomed-in portion of the logo, created as a cropped screen-capture. The raster image is used in the article about the logo.
Arguments for allowing it, by Editor #1:
2) "Commercial opportunities are respected" - Company does not seem to be using the logo commercially today. Even though the trademark registration has been renewed every few years as required by law, there is no indication that the logo has been used commercially since 1973 and there is no reasonable foreseeable commercial use in the future.
3b - entire work necessary) The detail of the image is needed in order for the text in the article about the logo and the text in the section to be fully understood.
Arguments against allowing it, by Editor #2
2) "Commercial opportunities are respected" - It is impossible to say "there is no reasonable foreseeable commercial use in the future." Many copyrighted items were used commercially for many years, then ceased to be used commercially, then were later used commercially.
3b - entire work necessary) The combination of a small raster image of the complete logo and the existing raster image of the zoomed-in part is no less useful than the SVG and it respects any possible future commercial opportunities better than the SVG.
Another hypothetical example, this one with much weaker arguments against allowing it:
Acme software company, now defunct, had a logo with a small fuzzy spot in it. But its flagship product, AcmeWare, had an "Easter egg" in it: If you hit CTRL+S+V+G it would bring up an SVG viewer and load in an SVG of the company logo. If you zoomed in, you could see a cartoonist's rendition of the company founders.
Arguments for allowing it, by Editor #3:
2) "Commercial opportunities are respected" - The company is defunct. The true copyright owner is unknown and likely unknowable without a large amount of legal research. A simple search for company records shows a non-bankruptcy dissolution two years after this product was released. Relevant legal records are not readily available.
3b - entire work necessary) The detail of the image is needed in order for the text in the article about the logo and the text in the section to be fully understood.
Arguments against allowing it, by Editor #4
2) "Commercial opportunities are respected" - As we do not know who may have a legal interest in this copyright, we cannot know if there are or are not any commercial opportunities that need to be respected.
3b - entire work necessary) The combination of a small raster image of the complete logo and a small raster iamge of the zoomed-in part is no less useful than the SVG and it respects any possible future commercial opportunities better than the SVG.
The first example has a moderately-strong case for disallowing the use of the SVG but it is possible that the participants in any FfD or related discussion would agree that it should be allowed as a non-free image.
The second example is there to show that weak arguments can be made for disallowing just about any non-free image and such images would probably be acceptable unless the the image was being discussed by people who were either deletionists in general or who were relatively conservative when it came to the use of non-free images.
Well, if there was ever a case that an official SVG logo from a company contained such details embedded at a resolution beyond what we normally show (about 250px on average) and those elements are discovered and reported by others, I'm sure there's reasons to use the SVG then. But I'm not aware of any case now, so it's extremely theoretical. (NFC is designed that there's always cases that fall outside the norm that need discussion to deal with when they come up for the first time). One thing I would say is that NFCC#2 really wouldn't apply at all, assuming we're talking about logos which are plastered over anything a company does, and thus our reuse in no way impacts the commercial value of their work; #2 is normally reserved when the image itself is a thing of commercial value - eg the Getty/AP images by professional photographers. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
And exactly when could non-free SVGs be used, we have one well-established scenario , when the SVG is a logo that surpasses the threshold of originality, that has been obtained or programmatically extracted from official digital documents (PDF/EPS, which can include vector commands for graphics), as to avoid any mis-representation of the company with a raster/user-created SVG version. There might be others, so this is not meant to block off other uses, but that the most reasonably expected use is this. This specifically excludes user-created SVGs of such logos (which are otherwise fine if we're talking free/uncopyrightable logos). In other words, this should be written as an exclusionary approach:
"SVG/Vector images - Non-free images in SVG or vector format are generally unacceptable due to the nature of vector images having no bound on resolution, and thus would typically fails NFCC#3a. SVG images of logos which have been obtained directly from the copyright owner, or automatically converted to SVG from digital documents from the copyright owner may be used under NFCC policy instead of raster graphics, as these graphics will not distort or mis-represent the company. However, SVGs created by users or other third-parties, even if visually exactly, may not be used. There may be other reasonable uses of SVG but at the present time there are no known broad classification for these other uses."
Re: "we have one well-established scenario" - do you have some specific examples and better yet some deletion-type discussions regarding these specific examples? If your proposed wording winds up in a guideline, footnote-links to the examples and discussions would be very helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Archives of the discussions from this page (again, search for SVG in the above) can be used. Also point to that VPP discussion just recently that a wholesale block of SVG isn't appropriate. It's just that the logo case is the clearest use for this. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ideally it is by he copyright holder/licensee or someone connected with that. But if the photo is on a website and that website properly identifies the copyright holder, that's okay as well. If the image was found on a random website and its origins are not obvious, then that should be investigated. (For example, I wouldn't question a movie screenshot that was taken from a facebook page in an unaltered formed since its obvious it was pulled from the movie itself) So if someone uploads a photo from a web site where there is no clear indication where that photo came from, we should not be using that. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems odd to have a clause that can be met by simply posting the non-free item to Facebook/etc. along with a copyright acknowledgement, and then using it in WP (and perhaps removing it from FB a while later). Is there a good example of what this specific clause is intended to prevent? Aquegg (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I'm saying is that if the photo came from a random Facebook page, clearly not copyright of the FB page owner, and the nature of the photo is not obviously clear who the copyright owner is, we need an idea of publication history. On the other hand, if the FB poster said "Photo taken from Book Such-and-Such" that at least gives a first-publication history we can track down. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Use rationale vandalism
I know WP:BEANS, but I hope there's not much more of this going on, because it would be damn hard to spot, in almost completely un-watchlisted pages. Thankfully I think it's the first time I've see anything like it. Jheald (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I see a file page get vandalized like once every three months or so. I do hope editors use common sense if they see such a rational to check the history and make sure to identify and undo the bogus change before considering the file for any type of review or deletion. (This, however, is where a #10c tracking bot like BCBot would be useful since those inevitably change the article name. )--MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This is my first (and maybe last) attempt to upload a non-free movie poster, File:Gloria Victoria poster.jpg. I've tried to mimic what other users have done in such cases, but my concern now is that the image is so darned big -- much bigger than it appeared on the source page, and I suspect, too big/high-rez to be uploaded for this usage. Am I right, did i foul it up? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added the image to the article's infobox. The infobox automatically provides a size that is good for viewing. Because the image you uploaded is larger than needed, I added {{non-free reduce}} to the file's description page. I will upload a smaller version soon and replace that template with {{non-free reduced}}. In a week, an administrator will delete the version you uploaded. There are many tools out there that can shrink photos. I like Irfanview because it's relatively simple to use and it can even be used in a "batch" mode, and it's free (as in beer - it is not open source software) for personal use. This should not be taken as an endorsement as much as a statement that I'm too lazy to download, install, and try out all of the similar free (as in beer) tools that are out there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I won't add the image to the infobox until a smaller, compliant version is available. But once it is, can't I tag it db-author it and get it deleted faster?. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
We can upload over the existing graphic without changing the rationale or other details, so there's no need to tag it beyond the reduction. It looks like someone has taken care of the reduction as well, so you should be good to go. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Shawn in Montreal: Everything is done. By the way, don't worry about the infobox. Even if the image were huge, if you put it in the infobox it will be displayed "normally." For example, in Cactus, the image is displayed on my computer as an image 220 pixels across, even though the actual image, File:Echinopsis mamillosa 1.jpg, is 1000 pixels across. If I were viewing it on a phone it might even display smaller. If you want to display an image that is not in an infobox at a reasonable size, add |thumb, as the Cactus article does for the other image. Here is the wikimarkup:
[[File:Cactus1web.jpg|thumb|right|Many species of cactus have long, sharp [[spine (botany)|spines]], like this ''[[Opuntia]]''.]]
Note that the "|right" parameter is redundant, thumbnails right-justify by default. Use "|left" to put the image on the left side of the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
RfC: remove "free equivalent could be created" as exclusion criterion
inactionable, the WMF needs to amend their resolution first Werieth (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi *! I believe the rule that NFC use of images is not permissible for living persons on the grounds that a free photo could in theory be created is patent nonsense and should be abolished. Either we assume that sometimes NFC is useful to improve Wikipedia, in which case it is counter-productive to delete images that demonstrably enhance an article when there is actually no free replacement available. Or we don't, in which case no use of NFC should be permitted at all. The rule as it stands is not consistent from either point of view, and it is being used (abused, in my opinion) by over-eager patrol users to randomly shoot down content that has been added by other editors with careful consideration. Several cases are documented where new WP contributors have been put off by the enforcement of this rule.
Side note: I'm absolutely behind the idea that we should use and produce as much free content as possible, but I also think that WP should not unduly restrict fair use rights - to the contrary, it should make a point to support those fair use rights, within reasonable limits. The NFC rules as they stand now seem to attract policy zealots without much concern for the articles in question, which is a very frustrating situation. Nettings (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Inactionable. Thee Foundation specifically spells out this requirement that non free of living persons is unallowable. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If free content can be created, then non-free content should simply not be used - those files should be removed from display and subsequently be removed. Foundation indeed specifically disallows replaceable non-free media. This criterion can, should and must not be removed. --Dirk BeetstraTC21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither of these comments contains actual arguments, other than "It's the LAW." The point of my RfC is to question that law. The usual situation is not "Author is too lazy to create a free picture.", but rather "It is practically impossible to create a free alternative." Inflexible application of "The Law" thus directly results in less informative articles. This is a very fundamental trade-off that deserves to be discussed and/or clarified. It is quite common for articles on notable living persons to not contain any images of the person in question, which reduces their usefulness a lot. If we are prepared to accept this loss of quality, we might as well do away with non-free content entirely. However, the other NFC policies indicate that on the contrary, we are willing to accept reasonable amounts of NFC in order to improve the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. This is an inconsistency that must be resolved, not the least in order to avoid frustration of editors who are confronted with "by fiat" deletions and are subsequently trying to figure out why precisely their uploads were binned. Let's talk about the spirit of the law, we can all read the letter. Nettings (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Except the "law" is immutable; it is a specific case spelled out by the Foundation in their nonfree resolution. No amount of whining on en.wiki can change our requirement to meet this. You'd have to get the Foundation to change their resolution before we can consider this change here. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Nettings, your argument is ridiculous. Why limit it to cases when free images are not available? Why not allow non-free images if they are better than the current free image we have? You may as well claim that "it is counter-productive to delete images that demonstrably enhance an article when there is actually no free replacement of equal or greater quality available". If users don't want "policy zealots" removing content that violates policy, perhaps they should consider not introducing said content in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Not inactionable, but difficult:
The Foundation's resolution of 23 March 2007 regarding Exemption Doctrine Policies (EDPs) of the various Wikipedias, including WP:NFCC, has this to say: "An EDP 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. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
WP:NFC#UUI clearly provides for two very specific exceptions in which "a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career."
About the only wiggle room we have is to expand NFC#UII to include ALL cases where we can NOT "reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." If "NOT reasonably expect" was interpreted very conservatively to include only cases where either the person's appearance had significantly changed AND the appearance at the time was important OR cases where the person was in practical terms "not available for photography" by the general public, and (for both cases) there is no reasonable expectation that a suitable existing free image would become available, then I would be in favor of such a change.
Note: The foundation's full text says that "with limited exceptions" non-free images can only be used to "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 pretty much rules out the use of non-free images to identify people, including "for identification of the person" (vs. "illustrating historically significant events" e.g. a child actor's career) allowed for in NFC#UUI. However, we do have articles about child actors with non-free images used purely for identification purposes (e.g. Christopher Castile, whose image deletion request was disputed earlier this year), so it does look like we (the English Wikipedia) is already taking a little liberty with the Foundation's 2007 resolution.
It's been 7 years since this resolution was adopted. If there is strong support in the Wikipedia community to ask the Foundation to revisit their resolution, they would probably at least list to the arguments and either modify or re-affirm their earlier decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
About the only wiggle room we have is to expand NFC#UII to include ALL cases where we can NOT "reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." The UII does not list all possible usages that meet the NFCC; in theory and in practice, there are other cases in which non-free images of living people may be justifiable, not even counting the likes of book/album covers or notable artwork. Examples potentially include people who are missing or people imprisoned in the long term. These are the kind of things which should be, and are, decided on a case-by-case basis. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close. The applicable WMF policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." The purpose of the proposed change is to circumvent, if not outright deny the applicable policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree, Speedy close - actually this is similar to asking for an exemption on the copyright policy, so that it would be fine to wholesale copy the text from a homepage of a notable subject and paste it into a page on Wikipedia, if Wikipedia before did not have a page about the subject yet... WP:ANARCHY!!! --Dirk BeetstraTC04:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I value your opinion, but since this is a behind-the-scenes discussion (and not, say, a legally problematic issue on a living-persons article), yelling speedy anything within ten hours of a request for comments (as opposed to a rally for armed uprising) is not really called for. I'm sure you can quote due procedure at me, but don't come down like a ton of bricks. Nettings (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Except it is very clear this is a decision that can't be made on en.wiki as it is set by the Foundation. Hence why the speedy close. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Question for the nominator: When you said "I believe the rule that NFC use of images is not permissible for living persons on the grounds that a free photo could in theory be created is patent nonsense" did you mean that the "presumption that a free photo could in theory [or, alternatively, in practice] be created" is patent nonsense and if so, do you mean that this presumption is patent nonsense in a few cases, in most cases, in almost all cases, or in all cases? Or, did you mean that even in cases where a free photo could, in theory or in practice, be made, it's nonsensical to have that as grounds for not allowing a non-free image. Or did you mean some combination of the above, or, one last possibility, have I completely misunderstood you? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not making myself clear. I meant that it's nonsensical to forbid use of NFC material on the grounds that a free alternative could hypothetically be created. The point is that currently no free alternative exists, and it is not possible in most cases for the editors working on the article to fix that. So we either accept a loss of quality (and if we're prepared to do that, we might as well forbid NFC entirely), or we embrace NFC if there is no alternative, in order to improve the quality of WP, and then this rule is counter-productive and inconsistent. I'd like to suggest that NFC use in such cases (be it persons, buildings or related cases) be made permissible until somebody actually comes up with a free alternative that can serve the same purpose. At the same time, there could be an auto-generated todo-list of NFC material which could possibly be replaced (perhaps by asking the uploader via the NFC rationale tag), so that people may browse it and try to produce alternative content. Nettings (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Another question for the nominator: IMHO, it is either that we do not allow ANY non-free images where a free image can be obtained, or we allow all non-free images even if a free image could (even easily) be obtained. Anything halfway is not enforceable, line will differ from person to person - that discussion is already often the case for images for which it is extremely difficult (though not completely impossible) to get a free-replacement. Where do you think Wikipedia should draw the line, and how are you thinking it should be enforced? --Dirk BeetstraTC05:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, the line is pretty clear: unless there actually is a free alternative which has been uploaded to WP or Commons, NFC use is permissible under the given rules (except for the one which this RFC discusses). This is very easily enforceable and quite unambiguous. Nettings (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
A subject of which easily a free alternative can be obtained (not even hypothetically ...) then does not need even the slightest effort to get the free alternative, you just take something non-free from the internet. That is absurd and completely unacceptable. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Quick response before I go back to banging my head on the table: I'm writing an article about notable singer X. There is a non-free image available that would enable people to recognize her and say, oh, that X. Singer X. lives on the Easter Islands (or in Hollywood, don't care, both are equally unreachable for me.) My point is there is no reason not to include a non-free picture within reasonable limits _until_ a free alternative is available, and _then_ replace it. Makes for better articles right from the start. Imposing the artificial restriction which I've tried to discuss is at odds with the rationale of that same policy, to facilitate judicious use of NFC for the benefit of Wikipedia, hence I'm asking for a clarification and simplification. There is nothing in this suggestion which is "non-sensical", "inactionable", "absurd", or "unacceptable". It's just that the culture of discussion in this thread is largely abysmal, and the invocation of "speedy close" on a discussion thread less than ten hours old (which tries to imply that such a procedure exists and to frighten newbies away without pursuing their point) is outright fraudulent.Nettings (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem that has been pointed out is that you are trying to change the "law" that the Foundation has required us to work by, not anything that en.wiki ourselves have set. They supersede by their right anything we might say here. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no requirement that you get that picture, anyone else can do it, and if there is a non-free picture on the page, why would anyone replace that picture. There is no mechanism for that, and hence, we would live what basically is a violation of the Foundation's rules until, finally, someone does it. There is all reason not to include a non-free picture, the foundation prohibits it.
Do note that, it is equally true for someone who lives in Hollywood, next door to the subject, but who just made a cup of coffee and just does not want to let it get cold (or plainly is too lazy to walk to the neighbor to make that picture) - there simply is then no reason whatsoever to introduce non-free media in any form 'until it gets replaced'. Sorry, this is unacceptable. (and as Masem said, and I argued - this is not a decision that we can make, certain things are simply not governed by any (local) consensus, hence the speedy close). --Dirk BeetstraTC11:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
See below for assuming laziness, and for my suggestion how to encourage replacement by free media. Frankly, if only ten percent of the manpower that today goes into policing today goes into content creation by working through a "to be replaced if possible" list, our free-content mission would take a huge boost. Heck, I would be the first to throw Platinum Barnstars galore at anyone who can help out with free content where my own attempts were fruitless. Why would you assume otherwise? Nettings (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary remark: it is doubtful to me whether the intended change actually touches the policy, as some participants in the above thread allege, or just the formulation of the relevant guideline (and hence the interpretation of said policy). Depending on this, the following should either be construed as a request for clarification directed to the Wikimedia Foundation or as a RfC to edit, clarify and simplify the guideline text.
Current guideline: (unacceptable use) "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images."
Proposed amendment: (move to acceptable use): "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing, until a free replacement becomes available that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image."
Why it is possible to discuss this:
The amendment does not expose WP to additional legal threats, as NFC use is still covered by the strict fair use criteria detailed by the NFC policy.
The amendment is not in direct conflict with the policy rationale, and the policy formulation "...or could be created..." is left vague and can be read or clarified as "could not practically be created for this article by the authors within a reasonable time-frame", without opening undue loopholes for non-judicious blanket use of NFC (the avoidance of which is the purpose of the NFC policy).
Why it is necessary to discuss this:
The guideline is in direct conflict with the policy rationale "[t]o facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia".
The strict policing of NFC in practice leaves no room for careful consideration of the single case, hence the effect of this guideline and most other guidelines is that of a policy, which is by no means always "treated with common sense", and it's practically impossible to argue "occasional exceptions" (quotes from the preamble of WP:NFC). The outcome of discussions for deletion tends to follow the most strict and rigid interpretation of any available guideline.
The "could be created" assumption in the guideline is counter-productive, because it unnecessarily limits fair use and impairs the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. It is not within the power of most editors to produce a free replacement when such an image is needed, so the rigid application of the policy in question is perceived as crippling and frustrating.
Allowing more liberal fair use would not in any way harm the free-content mission of Wikipedia, as any such use could be documented in a central Todo-list to allow other Wikipedia contributors (who may live in the area of the subject of interest) to replace the non-free material with a free alternative. On the other hand, restricting fair use unnecessarily does harm Wikipedia's mission of creating a high-quality free encyclopedia. Assuming laziness of the authors or suspecting blanket abuse of any less restrictive formulation is against the assumption of good will that is fundamental to Wikipedia, and processes exist to deal with any such problems.
"Somebody thinks somebody else could in theory create something eventually, so I'm deleting what you have" is a very problematic procedure that can be highly disruptive to any community.
Once again: inactionable. Here is the relevant text from the Foundation's resolution: " An EDP 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." This statement is immutable and we can't violate it. It clearly requires us to consider that free content "could" be created, not that it already exists (The purpose there is to encourage editors to find and generate free content instead of relying on the crutch of using non-free where it is right there.) So we can't make this change at all. We can talk cases on a one-by-one basis, and we do and have allowed non-free to be used for images of people in long-term jail sentences, or people that are known recluse. But take the example you had of a famous singer, still in their career, that lives on Easter Island. If they lived, worked, and never left the island, sure, that's a starting point for discussion about using a non-free depending on how accessible Easter Island is to public. But if Easter Island is like any other tourism destination spot, or being a singer that the person would tour and travel to other places to record and make public appears, that means a free photo can likely be taken. The Resolution doesn't consider the situation for any one specific editor (yes, I believe you when you say that places like Easter Island or Hollywood are inaccessible to you, but we consider what's inaccessible for any WP editor since we are a worldwide project). But the Foundation's set a pretty high bar for when we can talk about these types of cases. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Also to add - you are falling into the "fair use" trap. We are clearly in the right to use non-frees like this well within US fair use law provisions - a single non-free of each notable individual at low resolution, barring use of press images like Gettys or AP, would barely tickle any legal issues with that. But the Foundation, and thus ourselves, set a bar much stricter for non-free inclusion than fair use allows for to encourage the growth of a free content work. Thus to say "but these meet fair use", while true, falls on deaf ears because that's implicit in NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Masem, regarding technicalities, one of the things that you keep saying is the foundation rule rule is actually a paraphrasing effort (which is more categorical, farther reaching, and leaves out the remedy) written by you rather than the rule itself. Next the remedy specified by that rule is "must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." which besides specifying the remedy for things covered by that rule, (= replacement, not simple deletion) is also a test of whether the condition and rationale (actually replaceable) is actually the case. Third, the English Wikipedia guideline is not the foundation rule, and the foundation rule does not mandate that the local rule remain as is or even exist. So, IMHO a statement that the foundation rule terminates this discussion or precludes any changes is an overreach in several respects. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with the close, and IMHO this shows that the close was faulty. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
What part of "where we can reasonably expect" is not clear that the Foundation is looking towards the possibility of creation, not the existance? And further the next statement that you quote specific says that if we have non-free to start (even if it met the EDP) and an equivalent free one becomes available, we are required to replace it; this is a process statement that tells use what happens if we originally used non-free (same a photo of a deceased person) properly under our EDP as then we can't expect a free replacement, and then later discover an equivalent free replacement (like the family licensing photos of that person for free). So yes, we are still talking about something inactionable from the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General recommendation to any new variations of the above "in-actionable" proposal
When discussing a proposed change that you could reasonably assume that someone will respond with "in-actionable, per WMF resolution" or some such, consider adding the text "and, if there is a general consensus that the proposed change is in conflict with XYZ resolution, asking the WMF to either declare that there is no conflict or amend XYZ resolution to eliminate any conflict prior to this proposal going into effect." to the proposed change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Which is precisely what I have done in the first paragraph of the proposal. The forced closing of this debate after such a short time is a really bad joke, particularly since there was a dissenting opinion. The person who has closed the thread should re-open it for discussion again. Nettings (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
We have to assume the Foundation's stance is immutable. You're free to approach them and ask about the change, after which we can start talking policy changes but you're putting cart before the horse. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, we have to assume that a single editor asking the Foundation to revisit a resolution or policy adopted years ago is a lot less likely to result in them changing their minds than if the "voice of the community" asks them to do the same thing. The phrase "weightness makes greatness" applies. Yes, it is true that they may come back and say "sorry, it's too legally risky" in which case all we can do is ask them to lobby Congress. They can also say "this goes against fundamental ideals of Wikipedia" in which case all we can do is ask them to remind them that even "fundamental ideals" can change over time, and it may be time to revisit whatever fundamental ideal they are pointing to. Now, I say thing in an academic way - I'm not exactly sold on the proposals above being things I would favor, particularly if they are more than minor changes from current policy and practice. However, the excuse of "Several years ago the Foundation laid down the law and it's not our place as a community to ask them to reconsider" doesn't wash with me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that if there is an issue that is near universally a problem with editors on en.wiki, then with the global backing of editors a request to the Foundation makes sense. This actually probably came up with the recent issues on paid advocacy / editing. However , here you are not going to get that universal agreement that we need to request the Foundation to take steps. My take on the state of consensus for this free image possibility is that it remains a strong commitment by most en.wiki editors even if the Resolution was cancelled tomorrow. (Remember, en.wiki set the original framework that the Foundation based their Resolution on). But even with that, I cannot see how we could approach the Foundation about that and make us look dense because the proposal Nettings has put forward flies in the face of the Foundation's mission to promote free content generation for educational purposes. It's basically, lets not waste time with something that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with an early close of "Fail" even when there is a small consensus in favor if it's worded like Proposal clearly has insufficient support to proceed: This proposal would require the WMF to overturn their previous resolution, which is very unlikely to happen unless there is a strong, broad consensus from the English Wikipedia asking them to do so. Given that the consensus in this discussion, if any, doesn't even rise to the level of a strong consensus, we cannot even move on to the next step of seeking a strong, broad consensus of the English Wikipedia. This would be a far more reasonable closure reason than just In-actionable, because it leaves the door open for revisiting this in the future if and when consensus changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The foundation has set us up to create a free content encyclopedia, and has enforced that to a certain extend with the resolution where they expect us to create free content where possible. It is the mission of Wikipedia, and the mission that I think we should adhere to. For me, even if that resolution would not be there, I would strongly oppose this change as it diverts from the free content mission. Editors already are more interested in using non-free images because it is fair use anyway than creating free content (why would we, we have fair use, why not use that?). Editors, like here Nettings with above proposal, keep wanting to erode that principle. All that uploading more non-free material under fair use would do is that more non-free material stays, straying from that mission. Nettings (and others have done the same) suggest that they think that building the encyclopedia is more important than actually attempting to make a free encyclopedia (not being able to add free images because we don't have them hampers building the encyclopedia, hence we should use non-free images). Where this would need to start, is to get consensus that we are not building a free encyclopedia, but just an encyclopedia.
I oppose eroding that principle, and I would oppose suggesting to the Foundation that the resolution needs to be adapted, the mission is to build a free encyclopedia, and that may mean that sometimes building the encyclopedia is slowing down. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This raises a good point that given the free content mission and the stricter requirement than fair use, writing for WP is an intellectual challenge of how to construct articles around minimization of non-free. In some fields, this remains the status quo for how they would write in the real world (eg for things like sciences, history, and humanities), but for contemporary topics, we must revisit how one writes such articles. What happens here is that some do not want to consider this challenge and instead write like in the real world. If you don't think you like that challenge, then wikipedia isn't the place to be editing, and that's why again, trying to convince the Foundation to change their ways - when they likely know full well they would be introducing this challenge to all its projects - isn't going to happen. It is very much by design. --MASEM (t) 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
WMF resolution w.r.t. contemporary works
The resolution states that non-free content may be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". How is the stipulation that qualifying works must be contemporary reflected in NFCC? — Aquegg (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
For example, while Shakespeare is generally public domain, a copyrighted cover to a recent edition of one of his works could not be used to (generally) illustrate an article on that play. The same would not be true for Tom Stoppard. The principle lines up with the "no free alternatives" rule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but what I mean is that, as I understand, WP:NFCC is an EDP that should accord with the WMF resolution, and the resolution explicitly states that one of the areas that an EDP may be applied to is "articles about copyrighted contemporary works". "Contemporary" means "belonging to or occurring in the present" (so I don't think the 1923 situation applies particularly here). Shouldn't the word (or an equivalent expression of the same requirement) be present within the terms of WP:NFCC? — Aquegg (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how you define contemporary, and what context you are placing it, some definitions use the term "modern" or existing at the same time as someone else. Right now the oldest living person is 123 years old, which would mean that anything 1891 or newer is "contemporary" to them. Werieth (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it depends how the WMF define contemporary, but in the given context (Resolution:Licensing policy, clause #3), there's no reason to suppose they mean anything other than "belonging to or occurring in the present" (since for the other usage, contemporary to a person, the person has to be identified). Anyway, the immediate question is not "how can it be interpreted?"; it is "how has it been interpreted, and embodied, in our EDP: WP:NFCC?". — Aquegg (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
How NFCC has always defined that in regards to what is 100% still under copyright (artwork, books, movies ect) that has zero probability of being free, and where such usage is critical. Branding of a company, discussion of a particular artwork, iconic historical photos (IE 1968 Olympics Black Power salute), and similar. Werieth (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Foundation is clearly talking about contemporary works that have ongoing copyrights and yet to fall into the PD. There are very few contemporary works (no matter which way you slice the term) that lack copyrights, and that's what we're talking about. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/images/currency/KM200/KM187_2007b.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/images/currency/KM200/KM183_2002b.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
