Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Advice on pictures of show dogs

I've been slowly but surely filling out the list of best in show winners at westminster and I've gotten far enough ahead in the timeline that I've encountered a problem. There are no longer any public domain or free use images of these dogs (cameras were not widespread at the time) but all the show winners are long dead (the average lifespan of a dog is around 10 years). These are individual dogs, and they win based on their conformation or appearance, so an image is important to the article.

Is it considered acceptable to use the available pictures of these dogs, or would it be best to create the articles without them? --TKK ^{bark !} 14:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is for a list, it would be inappropriate to use non-free images to fill out the "missing" ones, per WP:NFLISTS. If any of the individual winners were notable enough for their own article, a non-free image could be used there, but not in a list or table about the winners. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to using the images in the articles, not in the actual list. --TKK ^{bark !} 14:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How long ago are we talking that "cameras were not widespread at the time"? Camera's have been fairly widespread the entire 30+ years of my life, which would likely put most of those pictures well over the 5 year deadline for pictures taken from 1978 until March 1st of 1989, if the picture was never registered. See WP:PD#When does copyright expire?. At least "some" of those images I expect have moved into the Public Domain. Technical 13 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The point that I think is fair is that for any of the dogs that have passed away, the NFCC#1 possibility of a free work is considered highly unlikely and so we'd not immediately contest a non-free for a standalone article in that way. But, that said, if it is the case that we can find some photos that fell through the copyright cracks above and would be considered PD, then any non-free should be immediately replaced with the PD image, but we can't reasonably expect that to be the case to start with. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's only really since digital cameras became common consumer goods (early 1990s) that photography has become an everyday occurrence, before that personal photography was reserved for "special occasions", so photos of show dogs from before the 1990s are most likely to have been taken by professional photographers for publication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay, I'll give you that one, kind of. Going to a "show" is a "special occasion" for the people that go to such things. I know I have a trunk full of old horse show photographs (my mother used to show horses, and I was dragged along) that I could scan in and offer as free images. That being said, the likelihood of me, or anyone really, making those images digital and uploading them is slim. So, I'll concede that point, although even so, it's been 20+ years since 1990. That and I'm sure at least some of such professional pictures of dog show dogs were never registered and have fallen into public domain as being more than 5 years since publication (or 28 years since some stuff in the late 60's and the 70's). Technical 13 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#4 - previous publication - and deliberate or engineered leaks

Sometimes companies "leak" things on purpose or "arrange" for someone else to "leak" things in a way meant to appear to be against the wishes of the company. For the purposes of WP:NFCC#4 "previous publication", an organization should not be able to say "we want this out, but we don't want Wikipedia using it" or "we want this out, but we don't want to take official responsibility for it being out" so "we'll publish this out to a select group of developers who we know can't all be trusted to keep this under wraps and we'll deliberately not take measures to find and punish those responsible for any leaks, knowing a leak will occur and that we will benefit from that leak" and avoid having WP:NFCC#4 satisfied. Now, there is a heavy burden on the person who uploads such a file to Wikipedia or who wants to keep it in a FdD discussion to convince the community that the software was indeed "published" in fact even if it appears "not published" on its face. Before any screen-shots from this particular "leak" are allowed, the uploader will need to show the community that the "leak" was a "true publication by the content owner" albeit an "un-official" one that the content owner may deny responsibility of. In these cases of known "arranged leaks," we should treat is as if it was a previously published unless a higher authority dictates otherwise.Originally posted here in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 14#File:Windows 8.1 Build 9374 screenshot with proof of the installation setup and original signature.png. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my personal opinion. Even if it became the consensus through repeated FfD "keep" actions, there is no need to update the policy page as this is rare enough that WP:IAR and references to then-in-the-past precedent FfDs would suffice. I expect there are those who will disagree with me, they are encouraged to make their opinion known when FfDs which raise this issue come up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is something that we'd have to be seriously careful about. Should we decide a leak was engineered, and distribute screenshots of it, we run the risk of discovering it's not engineered. If that happens, where do we stand? In the cases where people are caught leaking, their interception and neutralisation is usually done as quietly as possible; unless a public example needs to be made, companies don't like bringing attention to the fact that a build is out there illegally, because then more people will download it, and the problem becomes larger. As much evidence that could be used to prove a leak was engineered relies on the absence of evidence to the contrary, we run the risk of not researching well enough, or the information simply not being easily accessible. Where then would we stand, taking into account many companies will happily prosecute the cause of potential leaks? I know Fair Use would probably provide protection, but I doubt we'd want to cause potential legal hassle for the Wikipedia staff, and the content uploaders. drewmunn talk 19:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's rather easy if you start with "why do we need to show this image?" eg if NFCC#8 is met first. If there are third-party sources that talk about features of a yet-to-be released software program that are encyclopedicly appropriate to include, and the screenshot is necessary to show this - then these sources likely have published the screenshot themselves, and it is fair game for us to include as long as the source information points back to the third-party source. However, in the situation where the screens are leaks but there's no third-party discussion, we should not be the ones to put those up, not only to avoid NFCC#4 issues, but because they would fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Aren't most software screenshots that we have here not previously published? The software that we're taking a screenshot of was published ... but not the screenshot itself. I don't think that NFCC#4 is relevant here though - it exists, therefore it was published. What has become our NFCC#4 was introduced into the predecessor of this policy in 2005 in this edit. The original policy read, "Its usage meets general Wikipeda content requirements (like all content, its use on here must be encyclopedic, and it should be previously published)." In other words, the point of the policy wasn't to suggest some legal hoop to jump through - it was to say that no original research applies here. Obviously, I think that the requirement is meaningful from the standpoint that we don't want our own contributors uploading their own work and refusing to provide a free license - you can't upload your own stuff under a claim of fair use. But this shouldn't be an exercise of "prove it was published with the permission of the copyright holder". Still though, Masem has the most important point for this particular image - why does there need to be an image at all? --B (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Screenshot publication is based on the software publication, not the actual screenshots themselves. So if Windows 8 is published, any user-created screenshot from it is considered to be previously published. If the software is not yet published (often the case of video game software in this case), then screenshots must be published in sources first. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    Are we completely non-prejudicial in the case of source-published screenshots? That's something else to think about. For instance, going not too far back, a newspaper here in the UK broke an injunction laid down in a court of law. It came under legal fire, as did anyone who quoted it, because they effectively aided in the breaking of the injunction. If a screenshot of pre-release software is published by another source, do we go ahead and publish it whatever? Companies have in the past been known to be quite hostile in the action they take against people facilitating or publicising leaks of their pre-release software, or even just reporting on possible future products. drewmunn talk 07:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    • In the Ubisoft case, it seems that someone distributed full copies of the game. That is obviously illegal in all jurisdictions – but here we are talking about screenshots, i.e. a minor part of the product. In the Apple case, it seems that the problem might not have been copyright but leaking of information in general, so we are probably talking about other laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

      However, we'd still be depicting products that belong to a company who don't want them distributed, and aiding the publication of information they don't necessarily want in open forum, so we'd definitely have to tread carefully. Also, unless we're physically copying directly a screenshot from another source, we'd be accepting illegally-obtained property, surely? If an editor here downloaded a pre-release leak, took a screenshot, and put it onto Wikipedia (as with the Windows 8.1 image), then they would be breaking the law, and we would be accepting property we know to have been obtained through illegal methods; there is currently no legal way for the screenshot to be reproduced unless Microsoft themselves granted us access to a copy, or gave us a screenshot. For that matter, even screenshots sourced from other locations must be illegal, so would we be being irresponsible to replicate it here, even under Fair Use? drewmunn talk 09:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

      We already accept images obtained illegally in some cases, for example v:Museum photography#House rules: legal and psychological aspects (photos taken in violation of museum admission rules) and {{FoP-USonly}} (photos taken of buildings without permission from the architect in countries where permission from the architect is mandatory under local law). The question is what US law says about this and what WP:NFCC#4 is meant to mean. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

      That's my point, it's the blurry line regarding what previous publication means exactly in this case. Also, there's a little bit of difference, as implied contract in the museum example is a little different to the fact that, on top of everything to do with the actual screenshot's copyright, any user uploading such an image to Wikipedia is advertising the fact that they must be involved in piracy, which is definitely against the law, there is no doubt about that. drewmunn talk 09:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

      • Right, so on a bit of investigation, and also asking a law-y guy, I seem to have understood the different legal challenges here a little better (hopefully). According to the Windows 8 pre-release EULA (I don't have access to the 8.1 one, the cause of this discussion, but it won't be too different): "you may use but not share its icons, images, sounds, and media." So, then production of screenshots is contrary to the contractual agreement, the legal standing of which is debated. However, Microsoft have won EULA cases in the past for different infringements. I asked the law community whether Fair Use would cover you in this situation, and was told that "[fair use] has no relation to what you contractually agree to do or not do in return for consideration". There, then, becomes the issue that, even if a leak was 'deliberate' by the company, if the EULA states that screenshots shouldn't be distributed, the act of creating them is potentially illegal. Unlike the museum example, the company who owns the software does have copyright over the content, so would that section of Wikipedia still apply, or would we have to rethink our strategy in this area? drewmunn talk 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This is why, for us at WP, the difference starts if the software is published (thus making user-generated screenshots acceptable under NFCC#4), or not. In the latter case, if someone did break NDA and leaked screenshots, they would have to be published by a reliable source for meet both NFCC#4 - as we would never accept WP editor-contributed screenshots from unreleased products - and NFCC#8 - that the reliable source that is publishing them is talking about them screenshots in a critical manner that would justify encyclopedic discussion here. The latter is a rather tough nut to crack for pre-release out-of-NDA software screenshots, and it would be the exception that such images even qualify. But this is why it is important to provide the source publication for the image so that WP can point the finger of blame there. I just have a feeling that there is almost never a case where a reliable source is going to publish such images voluntarily and in a means that makes it appropriate for WP to use. I will also add there's a third component here being consensus on whether to include such image after determining if they passed the two NFCC hurdles; we're never required to use NFC, and this would be a case that editors, if they know fully well that the screenshot was made out of NDA, can come to a decision to opt against using them. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with that, and think we should basically steer clear of pre-release screenshots. The paradox of reliability means that any existing screenshots can't be on sites that are all that reliable, because they have to stake their reputation on showing an illegally obtained photo. That, and plenty of those kinds of sites will fall for a hoax even if it's written in comic sans and presented to them on April 1st. What do we think about possible putting in some kind of guideline to the effect of "no screenshots of pre-release software". The only real reason I can see for using such screenshots would be to demonstrate new features, and the point of a pre-release is, as stated in most of their EULAs, "It may not work the way a final version of the software will". We could be demonstrating something that was only evident in one daily build of the software, which happened to be leaked to the world potentially months after it was superseded. For that purpose, I seriously doubt any encyclopaedic value could be brought from a pre-release screenshot, and from the hassle that would be involved vetting every source and keeping ourselves watertight, I personally feel that we should move to nip the whole issue in the bud. This is going to only get more difficult as time goes on, what with leaks becoming more popular, and software releases becoming more regular. drewmunn talk 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  There are IAR exceptions to consider though. Let's say MS Windows 9 is confirmed to be happening (we would have an article on it), but a screenshot is leaked and shown to be using Comic Sans throughout the interface, with the leak violating NDAs, but sites like CNET, Ars Tech, etc. (highly reliable sources for software) all publish the photo and critically comment on how the interface looks bad, and all affirm that the screenshot is not a hoax. Now, assuming that NFCC#8 is met through the commentary about the terrible approach of the new interface, it would be reasonable to include that shot even though we know that its a violation of NDA, because we as WP won't be the ones to get in trouble, its the user that leaked the image to start. But notice how many "what ifs" are in that list. It's going to be a rare exception, and it makes sense on general advice to avoid the use of unofficial/unsourcable pre-release screenshots (vendor provided pre-release ones are fine). --MASEM (t) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  That's where the flexibility of Wikipedia guidelines comes into it. Anyway, would we really need a screenshot for that instance? I think, for instance, that sort of difference would be able to be written quite easily, but if not, an exception could be made for it. If a guideline was put into place, it wouldn't be the end of the matter, because the guidelines are flexible. However, it'd make it easier to blanket protect users, articles, and Wikipedia. However, as I've said above, we don't want to give too much weight to a build that might not be current. Even though a screenshot might suddenly hit the web doesn't mean that a new build hasn't completely changed things (see the Vista development), and an image would give one iteration extreme weight over another. I think having a guideline where the only pre-releases that get into articles are through exceptions means that the community wouldn't get locked into editing wars, and major changes could get through if the community agrees it should. During Vista development, the builds that appeared around this stage of 8.1s development each had a radically different UI, each a different variation on Luna or Aero. For all we know, Windows internal development of 8.1 is now using a new, completely different UI, and this applies to all screenshots of pre-release, especially before developer previews. drewmunn talk 16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  The quote in Microsoft's EULA sounds very much like v:Museum photography#House rules: legal and psychological aspects. That is, it is a contractual issue between Sonicdrewdriver (talk · contribs) (who owns a copy of the Windows 8 pre-release) and Microsoft, and if Sonicdrewdriver (talk · contribs) violates the EULA, then this doesn't affect my right to use the software, since I haven't agreed to the EULA in the first place (as I don't have the pre-release software). The question is maybe whether the first-sale doctrine allows fair use screenshots of pre-release software or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  But there's a fundamental difference, as I noted earlier, in that in Microsoft's 'museum' they own the copyright of everything. Also, unless as noted earlier by Masem we get it from another source, we are directly handling images we know to have been created through illegal means; rather than taking photos in Microsoft's 'museum', we're stealing the exhibits. drewmunn talk 19:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, davidwr. There are two problems with screenshots of leaked software, the combination of which prevents Wikipedia to use these images:
  1. Copyright violation: Publishing the screenshot of leaked build is against DMCA and cannot be sufficiently justified with fair use because the risk of commercial impact is profound.
  2. Forgery: An alleged screenshot of a leaked build cannot be verified for authenticity since the leaked build is often not accessible. (Occasionally, the build itself is leaked to the Internet but only for a short period of time. A year later, it is nowhere to be found.)

Therefore, publishing a leaked screenshot – engineered or not – is against Wikipedia fundamental policies like WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:V. Apart from that:

1. I do not believe there is anything called "deliberate leak" (at least, not outside the long-gone Communist Soviet Union! and especially in not in United States)
2. I do not think the pretext of deliberate leak has any legal validity in the event Wikipedia is sued for copyright violation. If it is indeed a plausible deniability measure as you try to imply, then I say it is a successful one which we must not seek to defeat.

Given all the above, I disagree with publishing any form of Internet leak. NFCC#4, IMHO, should be upheld in its strictest of senses.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lisa, would you then, in principle, support my idea of having a blanket ban of pre-release screenshots added to the guidelines? drewmunn talk 21:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is likely that the image is fake, then it does in my opinion violate WP:NFCC#8. Such images shouldn't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Drew, something important has come up – I'm dropping out. Just off the top of my head: Does "pre-release" include official public beta and release candidate? I support such an idea but you have to be careful with wording. Best, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Game companies often publish videos and screenshots of upcoming games as part of their marketing. I would say that those videos and screenshots unambiguously pass WP:NFCC#4. Also, I would say that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied if anyone is able to try out the beta software. The question is about screenshots of beta software only available to a limited group of selected people, and there I am more inclined to say that WP:NFCC#4 isn't satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The way to state it to cover valid use of pre-release screenshots is that if the product is not yet released worldwide (released would include known open beta testing versions, but not closed ones under NDA testing), then the only time an NFC screenshot is valid is if the source of the image can be tracked back directly to the company of the software product, narrowly defined. If MS puts out preview images of Windows 9 but its not out in public beta, that's fair game if we know for certain the sources came from MS. This would also cover the use of video game screenshots and the like. That way, there's no question that the image is fair game for us since the company developing it released it. The gotcha here is that the chain of sourcing has to be impecible. If CNET says "here's some beta screens from MS", that's fine. If Joe's Blog says the same thing, that's not. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not yet released worldwide" can mean either "not released anywhere" or "not released everywhere" (many pieces of software are released only in certain countries, and some or all US-produced software is "officially" not available in US-embargoed countries). Any future policy or guideline would have to be explicitly clear on this point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would mean "anywhere", not "everywhere". If a product gets released in Japan but not yet available in other regions, then user-made screenshots are fair game to be included without concern. "Once the cat is out of the bag" idea here. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, in agreement with the above, if it's released anywhere, it's released, so any potential guideline coming out of this would be invalid. When we're given copies of programs as developers (developer previews), they're usually still under NDA, and we have the contract from which I've above quoted. That's the same for Microsoft OSs and programs, and all Apple software I've ever been given, but other companies may be different. That's also generally a fairly closed circle who get them, not a public beta. However, when we get to public beta levels (release previews), I'd have to see if I can dig out a EULA to confirm what they subscribe to in that. However, this type if package is almost always available to the public, so accessing it does not have to be through illegal means. I'd say that's where the line would probably have to be; anything before public beta (release preview) is potentially governed by a "no screenshot" rule, anything after that isn't in that jurisdiction. That would not, of course, change anything should a press release include a screenshot. I don't think they'd need to be treated in any way as an actual screenshot, but as a marketing image, so again, guidelines born here wouldn't have any power. drewmunn talk 06:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, if a release candidate is publicly available, then it wouldn't come under anything here. If it's not (see Apple's GM builds, which only assigned developers get), then it'd still be governed by any potential decision here. drewmunn talk 06:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

So, what do people think about this as a starting point:

Screenshots of pre-release software should only be included if the build depicted has been released to the general public by the software developer.

I think for a starting point that covers the bases quite well, and is something that provides a manner in which users can easily provide a way of proving the validity of a possible screenshot. I've taken the liberty of developing the idea of a screenshot only being added if the pre-release is public to limiting the screenshots to only public builds; for instance, a developer build that is newer than a public beta shouldn't be depicted. What do people think about that? As I say, this is a starting point, and I'm well aware that it may need firming up or completely changing, but it's the most concise way I could think of putting my proposed limits across. Fire away! drewmunn talk 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work. That negates most video-game previews since we get tons of game screens before any release copies go out, but these are all official screens from the developer."

The better language would be - and this can go into NFC#UUI as a "we do not include": "Screenshots and samples of unreleased media that do not originate from the developer or publisher of that product. Such images and media may be leaked by third parties, breaking confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, and the inclusion of these images would violate NFCC#4 as lacking external publication and may be illegal to include." --MASEM (t) 14:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that screenshots released by the developer prior to a software release should also be allowed? If so, yes, that's something not covered in my original. Your version works for that purpose, and I'm struggling to find a way to put it any more concisely (I'm a fan of concise, in case you hadn't guessed). drewmunn talk 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that's the gist (again, from video games, this would kill us since public builds aren't out until the game's official release but official media flood news sites. And I'm also considering the same aspects can work for movies, TV shows, music, etc. hence broading to any published media). Basically there's 2 states: whether or not the work is released or not; and whether or not the image comes from the developer or a third-party. The only state that we can't allow is when the work is NOT released and when the image comes from a third-party - the other 3 combinations are all acceptable, so it's just a matter of limiting that one specific case. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I'm happy. There's only one change that I'd make and it's purely that the semantics of the last sentence's construction is bugging me. I'm not sure about the appearance of the word "include" in two places within the sentence, and think that maybe "Such images and media may be leaked by third parties, breaking confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, thereby potentially violating NFCC#4 as lacking external publication, and may be illegal to include." might look nicer. What do you think? drewmunn talk 16:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That, or "...may pose legal problems for the Wikimedia Foundation if used on their sites." --MASEM (t) 16:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's nice. I'll support that being presented for inclusion if you're happy with it. drewmunn talk 16:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)#

On the other hand, per the point you made previously, if the pics have been covered by reliable sources, we should be able to cover the reliable sources covering the pics, including showing the pics if necessary.

Some of the legal issues above seem to be overstated. We're not covered by contract -- we haven't signed a EULA. And if there is a genuine fair-use case, that would stand against a copyright claim. It's not our place to break the news, but we can cover what others (if they're WP:RSs) have already reported. Jheald (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I recognize there is that case, but as this is suggested to go into NFC (guideline), we can treat the legitimate use as a IAR for inclusion - particularly since this is just regarding NFCC#4, and NFCC#8 + others still must be met; it's not a very likely situation to carve out the specific wording for an exception. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The only possible wording change I can think of right now to cater for that issue would to to add "user generated" or something similar at the beginning. However, I really don't like how much that changes the whole purpose, and opens the floor for large numbers of possible forgeries. drewmunn talk 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa's just made a good point on the originating image for this discussion, in that even changes made to the underlying OS/software to allow for its leak may mean that data represented in the screenshot may not be accurate. That furthers reasoning to not include any user-generated shots of pre-release software, I think. drewmunn talk 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would make the following changes:

Screenshots of pre-release software should only be included if the build depicted has been released to the general public by the software developer, the image itself has been published in a reliable source, or the person who created the image and the person uploading the image to Wikipedia both attest that the software was legally obtained and there is no contractual obligation not to upload the image to Wikipedia.

An example of such "legally obtained" software would be a vendor at a non-NDA-required trade show handing out what he thought was a public beta but which in reality was a newer beta not meant for public consumption.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...resulting in any user installing it breaking the NDA in the EULA. drewmunn talk 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Given all discussed above, I propose:

Previous publication. Non-free content, as well as copyright-protected subjects of photographs or screenshots taken by a second party, must have been publicly displayed, published or released outside Wikipedia.

This should solve the issue that Masem mentioned about video game shots.

Best regards,

10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that breaks it the other way - in that this means that user-generated screenshots of publicly-available software would by considered a problem - which they are not. It doesn't make to modify NFCC#4 to try to cover this, just simply to clarify the specific case of media that is from yet-released works. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. What makes you think like that? Looks to me they are screenshots taken by a second party whose subjects are copyright-protected. Since their subjects are released, they pass the condition. What is wrong with that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, that's not immediately evident to me from your proposal as is. Even after release, the subject is still copyright protected. Fair use may be called effectively either way, it's the legality of obtaining a leak, and leaking a screenshot from it, that are the two main concerns in this case. drewmunn talk 05:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that you're inserting a specific type of media into NFC policy, when this is more a guideline issue. Further, as Sonicdrewdriver points out, its not clear that user-generated screenshots are acceptable. As I pointed out before, there's basically 4 cases based on published/unpublished software and official/user-made medium, of which only one is a problem, and that can be addressed at NFC#UUI. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• From the above, I've picked through and come up with this possibility:

  Screenshots of pre-release software should only be included if the build depicted has been released to the general public by the software developer, or the image itself has been published by the developer, publisher, or in a reliable source.

Or in "we do not include" form:

User-generated screenshots of pre-release software, where the build depicted has not been made publicly available by the developer or publisher.

I feel that both of those options flow nicely, and put across the points made since my original proposal, what do you think? drewmunn talk 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• bump! What do people think? It'd be good if we could get this moving... drewmunn talk 16:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed copyright

I don't see how File:Leewards.PNG and File:Windward islands flag.png are non-free, when they are entirely made up of components which are in the public domain. Should their statuses be changed? VEO^onefive 15:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit iffy saying that something made up of free elements is automatically free. Most things are made of free elements, it's just the way they are arranged, their existence together, and the final outcome that can make them non-free. However, in the cases you've cited, it is certainly questionable as to whether anyone holds copyright. drewmunn talk 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It does depend on the exact nature of what creativity is involved - it is completely possible to take all PD elements and make a new work that is protected by copyright if there is artistic merit involved in the remixing. That said, if in each case, if each of the 4 squares are PD works, the act of putting them into the 2x2 squares is not creative enough under threshold of originality to make a new work. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Just putting 4 public domain squares together is not original enough to give rise to copyright protection. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Photos of occupied private residences

I nominated File:Heritage Home 396 Downie Street Peterborough Ontario Canada.jpg as a replaceable fair-use image, but the uploader disputed this, saying that "taking a picture of a private residence that is occupied is not legal in Canada." Is this really true? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Canada has FOP for 3D works and buildings taken from a public place as far as I know. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-8.6/index.html#docCont should have links to the privacy laws and http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-42.pdf should have FOP under/near Section 32.2 (1)(b).--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming [1] [2] this is true, as long as a person is not trespassing on private property, they can take photographs of it (read: similar to US laws). So a photograph of a private home from a public street is legal. There doesn't seem to be anything about occupancy of a building, outside of making it a private residence that means that if you're on their property there may be problems, but this appears to be photogaphable from a public street, so they cannot restrict photography from there. Thus a free image can be made, and deletion is proper. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, You are correct that it is replaceable with a free licence. If the building still exists then they can contact someone in the area to take a picture for us. Google camera club Peterborough or something similar. Photography shops may take a pic for us as well if we include their website in the file page at commons. Even the police or fire department, taxis, real estate agents, etc. may take one to get attributtion. They are always driving around with nice cameras.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit on "authorized" previous publication

I reverted this edit not that the idea isn't in the right direction but I think it is too broad a stroke. This is related to a recent discussion about the use of screenshots from unpublished software "leaked" by testers.

I agree that we really should avoid unauthorized screencaps or similar material, but that said, if there is an unauthorized screenscap that is published widely through reliable sources (likely being acknowledged as a cap), and as such the existence of certain features is widely discussed beyond the level of a rumor , and the screencap is necessary to understand these features (NFCC#8) then it is not a problem for us to use it as long as our source points to one of these RS's that published it. On the other hand, if an WP editor is also a tester and publishes a screencap from unreleased software that hasn't been published anywhere else, that's a problem and removal is correct. I don't think in NFCC (policy) we can make the blanket statement of requiring authorized publication (fair use specifically is meant to remove any type of authority for publishing images), but we can certainly caution against using unpublished images in WP:NFC (the guideline). --MASEM (t) 19:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about book covers tagged non-free

I notice the image of the Harcourt first edition cover (located at File:FourQuartets.jpg) for Four Quartets is a non-free image. It is used at the article on the book at Four Quartets. If I were to include the image in List of poetry collections as an image in the lede (where the book is mentioned parenthetically), would it be an acceptable/permissible use? Please advise.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If the judgment received here is that is should not be used or the use is not permissible, I will likely replace the image with [[File:Prufrock And Other Observations.jpg]] which is tagged as public domain in the United States.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to use the free image. I'd say the use you're proposing is more decorative/illustrative, and thus we probably should not use non-free images in that way. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can make this simpler. If we had a non-perspective image of just the cover (a scan, as opposed to this as a photograph), the cover is too simple to be eligible for copyright (it is text and simple colors, and thus fails the Threshold of Originality). As such, a flat scan of the cover cannot be copyrighted, and thus it would be a public domain, free image. As this specific photograph, because it is taken from a 3D perspective, there is "copyright" in how the shot is arranged and the lighting so yes, this photograph is non-free and should be replaced. I did find [3] this page that offers a flat scan of the cover (there is some scanning artefacts but that doesn't change the fact it is a "slavish reproduction" of a 2D work in a 2D manner), so you could replace the current image with this one, and then the cover would be free, and thus there would be no issue using the cover on the list article. (As a non-free, I don't think there's sufficient justification to use it on the list page, as it is only name-dropped). --MASEM (t) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per policy, use free images where they are available. A non-free image should only be used if it required to explain a concept that cannot be conveyed using words. This applies to any image, whether it's used elsewhere on the project or not. As noted above, however, a free alternative's available, so you may choose to upload that if you wish.  drewmunn  talk  17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to the three of you for prompt advice. I will replace it with the free Prufrock image just to avoid any problems or questions down the road (i.e. if I nominated the article for Featured List status or whatnot). Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Usage of photos of deceased people in articles about their deaths

Hi! Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 - It is an XFD debate over images of deceased people in articles about their deaths WhisperToMe (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We may want to direct all those (6-7?) XFDs to here and have those close down pending discussion, since I don't think either the past RFC (in 2011) or the DRV/XFD of the example give any sufficient consensus to pictures of dead people on articles that are not specifically biographies of dead people (eg pictures of dead people on events, like suicides, etc.)

As to the point at hand: if we have a true bio article (the article is named for the person) with the person being notable, a non-free of the deceased is clearly allowed by consensus (Editors are free not to add one if they feel it would not help, but that's not the question presently). Implicitly, the image helps connect the reader to the notable person. But if we have a person that falls into BLP1E, not notable for a standalone article and only part of an event, then the image of the person is likely not appropriate, following the same logic of why we allow cover art on notable published works on standalone articles, but not on mere mention of the non-notable work in a larger context. Cover art has been stated to implicitly carry branding and marketing that helps to connect to the work event if it is not discussed when the work is notable/has a stand-alone article. Similarly, seeing the person in an article specifically about that person helps implicitly to connect the reader. But that's if there is enough to have a stand-alone article on the person (read: notable). If the article is about a large event or they are mentioned in passing, even if they are a victim or the like, using a non-free of the deceased cannot carry that implicit connection because we don't have enough to talk about person in detail and ergo there's no motivation to tie an image to that person short of emotional/memorial purposes, which we don't allow. Even something like the use of a photo of Amber Hagerman at Amber Alert is a problem since its her abduction that was the notable facet, not her specific and the photo does not aid here.

This does not mean that we can never use a non-free of a deceased person on such articles, but if the person is not notable, the image itself must be the subject of significant discussion and backed by sources to describe its significance. I don't have any strong examples of this in practice, but a hypothetical one would be Lindbergh kidnapping - we don't have an article for the toddler, but we do have (free) images of the toddler showing how much this was publicized. (Yes, it's free, so it wouldn't fall into NFC but I'm at a loss for an immediate recent example). But as a general rule, non-free images of deceased persons should not be used on pages that are specifically not stand-alone biographical pages about that person unless the image itself is the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Some examples I can think of would be

• Non-free photos of a tragedy where no free photos are available, and the chosen non-free photo has a person in it. There would need to be some justification for choosing this over a non-free photo without a person, but it should not be a high bar.
• Photos of a tragedy or the people who died in the tragedy where the image is "well known" but not "discussed" (i.e. used in newspapers worldwide, but the image fails WP:N), and which the use of the image is clearly encyclopedic and where there is no non-free alternative. Care must be taken not to create galleries, as that would create a situation analogous to using album art in discographies, which has been a no-no for a long time. For example, if there was an article called List of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a well-known non-free photo of the most famous victim OR an already-published, well-known collage photo of all of the victims would also have a chance of qualifying for fair-use. But again, only if they added value and there were no non-free alternatives.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We are overloading too many concepts onto the titles of our articles, and WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are at the core of the problem. These policies exist as a measure toward ensuring that, in the case of people notable for a single event, that we do not unduly invade privacy, and that we do not unduly suggest that the event is the whole of the person's life and in doing so create a negative impact. These policies are, as literally written, nearly never enforced. We never see articles on the "Winning of the Bronze biathlon medal in 1934", we see the name of an athlete. Similarly true of politicians known only for a single term of a single office, or creatives famous for a single work. Where we *do* see these articles is when they begin "Rape of" or "Murder of" or "Suicide of" or "Beating of" or "Death of", because the emotional and uniformly negative weight of those events is so powerful that if were to limit a description of a person to those events, we would really be coloring the whole of their lives. In short, most of these "Rape of" and Suicide of" articles are in fact biographies, most of them started off as biographies and were reframed otherwise as events as a legal fiction, as a reminder to ourselves and to our readers, in pursuit of due weight. Note that we do not blindly apply these policies, even with respect to questions of article title and focus.

Our legal fiction may be a valuable tool, but it is stretched one step too far when blindly applied to fair use. Our allowance of fair use images of living people who later died comes from concerns that have absolutely nothing to do with due weight, they stem largely from the fact that images of the deceased, taken while they were still alive are unlikely to be freely replaceable.

In short: "Murder of X" is, or at least should be, almost always a biographical article for the purposes of our image licensing policies. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before. If it is the legal issue that we are concerned with then WMF legal should voice an opinion before any more discussions that we have consensus on. If our consensus does not agree with their legal position then it is their choice to overrule it, not ours. Consensus has been reached numerous times. If WMF doesn't like it then they can make the choice to revert it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a legal issue, it is the philosophical issue of building a free encyclopedia and identifying when exceptional use of non-free should be made to meet that goal. Sure, fair use, there's no issue of using these images. But non-free is supposed to be avoided unless it aids educational purposes, and unfortunately, people want to use these images towards an emotional response. This is a clear situation where non-free can be avoided without failing the educational goal of WP. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand your point and actually agree with it. The problem is that consensus does not agree. This is why the only reason to remove these images is the legal one. If consensus wants to turn the project into a tabloid then we must agree. If we can legally stop them that is our only option according to democracy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. There's no established consensus (based on the discussion links posted in the XFDs) - they're unresolved, and just because they're used in some articles doesn't mean the usage is fully established. (there's no NFCI/UUI going either way). I'm suggesting the approach based on cover art which works the same way under fair use law for people that aren't notable for their own article. That's consistent. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another good point, but the major problem is still consensus. Readers and editors like images and I can see their point. The majority of editors and readers may be male and hetro, with no bias intended on my part. If this is the case then it will be very difficult to exclude images of young females that died a tragic death. I didn't look through all the files but I assume that 90% or more are female and young. Female + young + tragic death. This may require an image according to the majority of our readers and !votes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus != majority. It is the strength of arguments. I can argue strongly on policy why we shouldn't include these, when the only counter argument seems to be "its a person, we should show it". (outside of any formal RFC). Just because a majority of editors want it doesn't mean its necessarily going to be included. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems they are being deleted now. I may just start emailing grieving families and asking on Facebook memorial pages to see if they are willing to provide free licence images for commons. I assume I have that right.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can do that (though I think from a more recent discussion, this shouldn't be something done if the person passed away in the last 6 or so months. Our attempt to get free images should not disrupt the grieving process), and WP:CONSENT is a good thing to keep in mind to help. There's no question if images are free that they can be used, short of MOS, accessibility issues. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My argument above does not, and was not intended to address any legal concerns, merely the interpretation of WP policy. I don't believe there are legal concerns, but appeal to the WMF is entirely fine by me if there are, I am not a lawyer. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How to interpret WP:NFCC#7 for audio files

I am sorry to post a second RfC on this page while there is a different RfC on the same page, but I feel that this is somewhat urgent because a lot of files may risk being deleted by accident per WP:CSD#F5 if we don't act quickly. As some of you may have noticed, Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 24 May 2013 contains lots of orphaned audio files. This is because {{audio}} was changed a few days ago. Previously, files were referenced as [[:Media:Filename.ext]], but this was changed into [[:File:Filename.ext]]. If you use "Media", then the file shows up as "used" at the bottom of the file information page. On the other hand, if you use ":File" (with a colon at the beginning), then the file doesn't show up as "used" at the bottom of the file information page. Due to the edit to the {{audio}} template, lots of files which previously showed up as "used" now show up as "unused", and as a result, Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) tagged the fair use ones as orphaned fair use files, meaning that they are up for deletion in seven days.

I think that this edit to the template illustrates something interesting: what do we mean with using an audio file on a page? For images, it means that the file is in use if you can see the picture on the page, but not if you only see a link to the file. On the other hand, things may be different for an audio file. Several criteria refer to the "use" of a file:

• WP:NFCC#1 prevents the use of replaceable files. A file may be replaceable in one article but not in another article. For example, a photo of a living person may be replaceable in the article about the person, but irreplaceable in the article about the photo (if the photo itself is notable).
• WP:NFCC#3a prevents the use of too many files.
• WP:NFCC#7 requires that a file is used at least once.
• WP:NFCC#8 disallows you to use files which are unimportant to the article.
• WP:NFCC#9 disallows you to use files outside articles.
• WP:NFCC#10c requires a fair use rationale for each use.

If we don't know what "using" an audio file means, then we don't know how to verify whether the above criteria are satisfied or not. Consider the cases below:

a) If you use the {{audio}} template, then it looks like this: Drum sample.mid^ⓘ (syntax: {{audio|Drum sample.mid}}). Here we present the file with a "play" button. Does this count as using the file? I would say that nothing changed when {{audio}} was changed. Either they were in use both before and after the change, or they were unused both before and after the change, although the file information page lists usage differently.

b) You can also link to the file directly: (syntax: [[File:Drum sample.mid]]). This is the syntax for using an image. However, for a MIDI file, there is no visual difference. You see a link which goes to file information page, just as you do above.

c) You can also link to the file using a colon at the beginning: File:Drum sample.mid (syntax: [[:File:Drum sample.mid]]). I see no visual difference to the above.

d) You can also use "Media" instead of "File": Media:Drum sample.mid (syntax: [[Media:Drum sample.mid]]). This is the only one which looks a little bit different: the link goes directly to the audio file. On the other hand, this way, there is no link to the file information page, which may be a problem in other situations.

In cases b) and d), the MediaWiki software considers the file as "used", whereas in cases a) and c), the file is considered as "unused". However, the situations a), b) and c) are really identical, so it would be strange to differ between them as it doesn't affect how they look to a reader.

So: How do we tell whether an audio file is "used" or not? There are situations where we need to link to a file (for example in a deletion discussion) and there are situations in which a file needs to count as "used" (due to WP:NFCC). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

midi are kinda a odd example however if you take a ogg for example

• [[File:White noise.ogg]]
• Becomes:

Which mediawiki sees as a file use. Werieth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PS I do not see any "Play" buttons that you are referring to in A&B All I get is a link to the file discription page where it can be played there. Werieth (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There doesn't seem to be a way to include a "play" button for MIDI files. In this aspect, MIDI is different to OGG. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because we're talking something out of user's control (to demonstrate use) we should be mindful of bot-tagged orphan audio files until resolved, or at least don't process these mindlessly. So while we do have NFCC#7, its beyond a user's control to manage at least until we figure it out ourselves.

As for "use" I would expect that for audio (and video) that we have play controls shown on the page that the file is used on, and not simply a link to the media file. (The play controls, however, can and should have a direct link , however). The problem with the direct link analogy is that you could then argue the same for a image file ("I'm linking it, it's used!"). Having the play controls would also justify contextual significance so the viewer doesn't have to leave the page to hear the sample. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should put a big warning on the relevant categories. I see lots of audio files in the categories for 22 May and 24 May, most of them probably in that category because of that template modification. I'm guessing that caching has caused those to be split up on multiple days. Maybe there also will be lots of audio files in future categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• See bugzilla:18852 Werieth (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Motion for an emergency moratorium for no less than a week (until 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)) preventing deletion of any file that would, had the change above not occurred, not been deleted. As part of this RFC we can request extending this deadline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's two days too late. There are also lots of audio files in Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 22 May 2013, up for deletion after 29 May 2013. I didn't notice that when I wrote my first post here. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The point of the emergency motion is that if there is WP:SNOW support of such a motion in the next day or so, there will be no deletions until the 31st at the earliest. This may mean stopping deletion-bots, suspending cleanup work, or undoing the change that happened earlier or taking some other technical action that will have its own negative side-effects (primarily an increase in the backlog as deletion work is stalled). But there will need to be strong support - and quickly - before such "expensive" technical steps will be taken. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry, I thought that you meant that people would delete audio files normally for a week and that audio files wouldn't be deleted after that point. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• If this problem was caused by a change in the {{audio}} template, has anybody figured out if there were independent strong reasons for that change from the "media:" to the "file:" syntax there? Is there any strong reason why we can't simply change that back? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please change it back, I'd hate to see a lot of work on the audio files wasted. It doesn't make sense that the use of a template called {{audio}} doesn't count as use of the audio file. Probably the template gets used instead of an embedded player simply for layout reasons, not to somehow lessen the connection between the article and the audio file. The template takes less space and the text in the link can be made descriptive, whereas the embedded player doesn't have any text. The documentation of {{audio}} doesn't hint to any file-using alternatives either. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I have changed it back from a "file" to a "media" link. Hope this works as intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have pinged the person who edited Template:audio. Many free audio files have been deleted over the years (and many then restored) because, following erratic bot-tagging as "unused", they have gone to FFD witrh "unused, unencyclopedic". With no-one objecting, they have been deleted. I caught a few here (the sweet little visual melody arrived unexpectedly, is it just Firefox?) but many others were submitted around that time. So, of course I support stopping doing this. Speedy deletion of "unused" audio files could be suspended indefinitely because FFD can deal with legitimate problems. Thincat (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that we, at least as a temporary measure, need to suspend deletion of audio files per WP:CSD#F5 if they were tagged as orphaned on 22 May or later. If they were tagged before 22 May, the tagging was not caused by this template change. If tagged on 22 May or later, then the tagging was most likely (and almost always) caused by this template change, and then it would be disruptive if the files are deleted before this has been sorted out.

User:Masem's suggestion that audio files should count as used if you see a play button on the article page sounds like a good definition, but with at least one problem: there doesn't seem to be any way to present a play button for MIDI files, and there is obviously a need for using non-free MIDI files. If you use Media:White noise.ogg, then you hear the sound by clicking on the file name, although this also hides the article at the same time. Does this count as a "play button"?

If people use {{audio}} for free files, but the file shows up as unused, then there is a risk that people nominate the file for deletion as "unused and useless", so this problem may also affect a few free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be reasonable with the Media: link for MIDI files as counting as "used", as that is a technical (media wiki) limitation and not one under user control. Given that there is a software issue here for tracking files, we need to figure out how this can be best done, and 100% agree on a temporary hold on audio file deletions particularly those from orphaned use (save for obvious problematic ones like copyvios, no rationales, etc.) --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the kind of link also {{audio}} currently generates. If we look at it from a different perspective, not being worried about copyright issues but simply wanting to know which articles use an audio file, then it would quite certainly make sense to include in the File usage list also those pages that link to the audio file like that (closing the article, opening the audio file so that it plays). Olli Niemitalo (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Future Perfect for this fix.

I was responding to an edit request. The discussion that preceded included a brief question as to why the media name space was being used and settled on changing it. The participants in that discussion weren't aware there was any special significance to that namespace. Neither was I.

Wikipedia:Namespace doesn't list this functionality under its description of the Media: namespace. Could someone with understanding of it expand the description of the namespace there? Thanks, --RA (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms and WP:NFCC#1

Could something be added to WP:NFC#UUI about coats of arms? Coats of arms are generally replaceable by a free drawing based on the same blazon, so most non-free images of coats of arms seem to violate WP:NFCC#1. See for example Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden which has free drawings of the coats of arms of all Swedish municipalities and Commons:File talk:Lerum vapen.svg which has a discussion in Swedish about the matter, and Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) with similar information in English. The use of non-free coats of arms from many other countries prevents the creation of free replacements. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is always the case that the representation of the coat of arms is public domain? If it is the case that a coat of arms may be a copyrightable thing, then making this UUI would not be correct, or otherwise we'd need to add several clarifications when replacement is expected. I agree that if coat of arms are nearly universally public domain that we should never allow non-free versions of them, but I'm not sure how "nearly universal" that is. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A coat of arms is defined as a few words, in English typically a mixture of modern English and mediæval French. The page Commons:COM:COA uses the flag of Wales as an example, which is described in words as Per fess argent and vert, a dragon passant gules. The words Per fess argent and vert, a dragon passant gules are in the public domain, and any drawing satisfying those words is a valid representation of the flag. See for example Commons:Category:Flags of Wales for three such drawings. A drawing is copyrightable (and the copyright belongs to the artist), but as any other drawing of the same coat of arms is equally valid, I don't see why you can't use a different drawing instead, made by a different artist. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, reading the COA bit on Commons, as long as we're clear on what "coat of arms" are restricted to, then I agree a UUI is appropriate for that using the same justification Commons uses. We just have to be careful we're not talking a "generic" coat of arms but those specificially coming out of that historical period. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

UUI #14

Werieth (talk · contribs) has suddenly began commenting out images from several hundred articles under this ruling, which I've honestly never seen enforced or heard of until he began doing so. So does this rule truly and completely forbid using one non-free logos on multiple pages?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It not "multiple pages", I am removing files that are used repeatedly in season and yearly event articles. I am leaving the file in the main subject article when it is used there. Werieth (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You've done this on several hundred articles concerning their yearly iterations and in places where it isn't a yearly iteration but simply a related article. I would like to get a wider opinion on what is really done here rather than you simply going off of one NFCR request.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There are other NFCR's along with discussion in the archive of this talk page when #14 was added. Werieth (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's approach is correct. Logo reuse just because the event happened against (yearly or otherwise) when there is a main page for the event where the logo is unquestionable appropriate, is inappropriate reuse. The logo is allowed on the main event page because it is implicit branding for the event overall, but when it comes to specific iterations of the event, that reasoning breaks down. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

One of my main issues with his approach was his removal of images on articles that weren't yearly events but general topics (example here), or, in the cases of File:The Amazing Race 2 logo.jpg and File:The Amazing Race 18 logo.jpg, he removed them from The Amazing Race 2 and The Amazing Race 18, simply because they are used on The Amazing Race.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting me when you have no understanding of WP:NFCC. this edit clearly is a violation of #1,3, & 8. It can be replaced with File:ASUinterlock.gif but you refuse to listen. Werieth (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't brought up that idea until now so how was I supposed to know anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps read the link that I used and if you still have questions ask them before you start blindly reverting. NFCC default action unlike most other things on wikipedia is to remove first, then get consensus for re-inclusion. Werieth (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's correct though - while the logos may have been introduced in those respective seasons, there is no uniqueness to those seasons to require the logo reuse. (Contrast this to File:The Amazing Race Family Edition.jpg from the Family Edition where there is a unique logo for that season.). --MASEM (t) 03:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So simply because they're used on the main article they're not allowed to be used on any other articles? I find it difficult to understand why they cannot be used once particularly when it was at that time they started to be used to identify the program.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not "any other articles" only where the logo is being used and the use is not on the primary article for that entity, take a look at File:Arizona State Sun Devils trident logo.png I left in on Three other articles where it is the primary identification for that group. Werieth (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few days but I've been busy. Basically, because I've been dealing with an IP editor blindly enforcing this rule after he removed every single non-free content rationale template from the two images in question, I would like something other than the dozen free images I and other editors seasonally scour from the Commons and Flickr for these pages. In the past, non-free images from the program were denied under the NFC criteria because the free images were so prevalent and because there was no reason why these particular images were chosen over the others from the program. Is there any alternative that can be implimented?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of alternative do you mean? Different images? Different rules? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A possible alternate non-free image to be associated with the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That, I'm afraid, is based on a false presupposition: that the article ought to have an image for the sake of having one. There is no such expectation. If there is something in the article that is in need of illustration to be adequately understood, we can talk about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So there's nothing that can be done to have an identifying graphic as with every single other television show simply because this one uses a title card that does not change over long periods of time?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Most other TV shows end up having DVD covers become the per-season identifying image, which could work here. Another option would be, as these are reality shows, pre-show press that generally includes a group shot of the cast which is a reasonable way to individually identify the seasons. But just repeating the show's title card per season isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The former seems feasible. However, over the years we've collected free images of most of the cast individually.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation just demonstrates that your whole approach to the question is wrong. You want an image for the sake of having an image. That never works. As soon as you find yourself asking: "I want some image for this article, so which one am I going to use?", there is never a correct answer except for: "none at all". The only justification for an image is if one particular image is actually needed, and if that is the case, it will be obvious from the start which image that is, and you'd never even think of asking the question like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There was previously no need to ask this question because said image was always the title card. And now because that's out of the question there's nothing to adequately identify the individual seasons anymore, as title cards were generally an exception to the rule.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What "identification"? The title card didn't "identify" the topic of the article either, because it wasn't even specific to it. The topic is "identified" by its title and series number; what else do you need? Be honest: what you want is not identification, but a spot of colour at the top of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to note that there has never been an allowance for identification of a TV season (show, yes). We generally do accept DVD/home media covers for seasons if released in that fashion, but the per-season identification has no immediate UUI allowance and some stronger rationale than just non-discussed infobox identification is needed. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for citizen journalists

Citizen Journalists are everyday people armed with smartphones who document violence around the world. A contemporary example is the on-going protests and police response in Turkey.

Citizen journalists share their images globally through social media. They are non-commercial content providers who do not want to be paid for their work, they want to have their images shared as widely as possible, often making explicit requests for the images to be widely distributed.

We can do no commercial harm to an image that is already being globally shared. The producers of the content are non-commercial, and are actively sharing images globally without profiting from the images. The images are evidence of violent crimes or human rights violations, so we have a clear 'journalistic' claim of fair use.

It seems to me we should have a rationale for the narrow case of non-commercial individual citizens actively sharing photographic evidence of violence/human rights violations with the global internet community in an attempt to generate awareness of the events depicted.

If no one else does it, I'll take a stab at it, but I suspect experts in NFCC could do a far better write-up than I. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. I have faced the same problem with photos from Bahrain where protests started in February 2011. What I did is talk to every photographer I know about including the word "CC-by-sa" and asked them to tell their friends. I also posted several threads in opposition forums teaching them the importance of Creative Commons licenses and how to use them. The result of my efforts was limited success, not because people don't want their images to be re-used, but because they couldn't bother. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What Mohamed says is right. Hector, if these individuals are willing to share the images in the way you say, then, I suspect, they'd be willing to share them under free licenses. This doesn't mean that we should assume that we can use the images freely, it means we should make an effort to secure a release. There's no way that there can be some kind of blanket "yes, this meets the NFCC" for certain kinds of images- that doesn't make any sense. The NFCC necessarily relate to particular usages, not just particular images. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify-- individual rationales would still be needed on a per image bases, but we need to make writing those rationales easier. Consider that if I want to use a commercially produced movie poster owned by a for-profit corporation, it's still easy to create a rational for that -- we have a template for Non-free logos and a firm understanding that their use is allowed. We have a lot more of those kinds of tags-- such as Template:Film poster rationale and Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot and many more. But we don't have such a tag these sorts of images, and we need one.

It's inappropriate that it's currently easier for WP users to justify using a promotional for-profit movie poster than it is for us to justify using a globally-shared non-commercial image of human rights violations. That's what we need to fix. No, we shouldn't just assume that the image are free-- but we should recognize that their use is a fair one and make it easier for editors to justify the use of such images is legal.

Obviously, when possible, it's ideal to just get explicitly CC-by-SA permission, but as Mohamed CJ mentioned in his own experience, that's not always possible. There are language barriers, cultural barriers; photographers are often anonymous / pseudonymous and fearing govt reprisal-- tracking down the photographers and making them say the magic words is the best solution, just like it would be ideal for every movie poster we use to be released under CC.

The question is, in those cases when CC permission cannot be obtained, what would a good fair use rational look like for images of this type? --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Templated rationales are generally a bad thing because it takes any thought into why we need the image and what it could be replaced with out the question. We have templates for movie posters etc. because the community has decided that such cover art is appropriate in the infobox for an article about the work, specifically noting that there is branding and marketing that may not be discussed that is associated with the poster. As such, a standard templated rationale is available that is primarily the same for these types of images, though users are encourages to provided better rationales than what these templates provide. On the other hand, citizen journalists photos do not have automatic allowance in WP per NFC. Users need to consider for these if all 10 parts of NFCC are readily met (particularly here, NFCC#1 on free replacement and NFCC#8 on contextual significance) and thus they need to put thought into a rationale to strongly back the use of these photos. A template to simplify that would be very harmful in allowing too many of these to be believed to be acceptable. Remember, we're not about fair use - we're about freely redistributable content, a much higher barrier to inclusion. No one would question our use of citizen journalists photos under fair use law, but we are specifically more demanding to promote free content. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, this higher barrier did help promote free content. From my own experience, Bahrain Centre for Human Rights has sent an e-mail to WP:ORTS allowing us to use all images they own, similarly Al Wefaq political party have changed all their YouTube videos into Creative Commons. For citizen journalists (mostly unknowns or anonymous), the case is harder as they often don't respond (if they had a Twitter account). My idea about this suggestion is that we should lower the inclusion criteria for images that are obviously intended for mass distribution. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed: There is already a lower level, in some ways, because these images will not encounter NFCC#3 problems. So, for instance, while an image from Getty of a protest would fail NFCC#3, an image from a citizen journalist almost certainly would not. However, creating a class of "not free, but not totally not free" images is a terrible idea. It's binary- we can use free images freely, but non-free images may only be used if the usage meets all of the NFCC. Hector: Part of the reason these templates work is because the usage is identical in each case. With photographs from citizen journalists, the usage will not be identical in each case. That's why there can't be a template rationale. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another consideration is that judging from what I've seen of these images from citizen journalists, they end up being rather "generic" images. For example, not to in any way understate the events happening now in Turkey, most of the images that have come from that (due to lack of national press coverage) are from citizens but are just (and I'm not trying to be insensitive here but coming from our NFC policy) rioting and wounded and/or dead bodies. There's little context that separates those images from any other documented rioting elsewhere in the world, nor has any photograph necessarily been promoted as an important historical image. As such to use their works as non-free to show "hey, there's rioting" is failing NFCC#1 since it doesn't take much to envision that. If they were truly free (CC-BY-SA) we'd have no problem. A similar case can be argued for the recent 2013 Moore Tornado. Torandoes are tornadoes and damage from such, while tragic, is predictable as well. Fortunately there we have free media taken by the OK National Guard as well as other contributions under free license to document it better. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 3

We can play the "No" game all we want, imagining cases where it would be inappropriate-- and certainly under NFCC1, cases where a free image would serve the same purpose is one of many scenarios where it would be inappropriate.

What I'm not hearing, yet, is how we can improve the user experience to help people craft fair use rationales for images like this. I'm thinking of editors with moderate English literacy but low "wikipedia" literacy. If those people want to upload a highly non-free image of a movie poster, they can do that. But if they want to upload a citizen journalist image, they need a wikilaw degree.

I suppose one argument could be "we don't want those sorts of people uploading images"-- only dedicated wikilawyers should have the freedom to upload non-free images. If you don't see any problems at all with the status quo, then it's easy to just say "nah, nothing can be done"-- but what does that get us?

My suggestion for how to improve the user experience was to make a template and eventually, with consensus add it to the upload form along with other the other NFCC tag, but I'd suspect brighter minds than mine could find better solutions. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that if one uses the "Upload File" link on the left side of the screen and run through the file upload wizard, when they get to the point where it asks "what type of copyrighted file is this?" the wizard doesn't call out to any specific category that citizen journalists photography would fit into , outside of a catchall "I believe this is fair use". The problem is that the restriction on the use of journalistic photos doesn't give way to make them easily classifyable. I could argue that we could possibly create a selection radio button there for cases of "non-press photos of current events" and make sure the uploader is aware that these are highly scrutinized. The problem boils down to is that we don't generally allow for such image to be used, certainly not to a point a catchall rationale template can be made for them. Of course, what are allowable images is spelled out all over that space there, and we do expect uploaders to be aware of this before uploading. We have nothing against these types of photos except for the fact that more often that not, they will fail a combination of NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hector, the point is that we can't make a template for images like this, as you're talking about a very wide class of images which are used in a very wide number of ways. With album covers, the image, usage and provenance are always basically the same. It's a 300 by 300 square album cover, copyright probably owned by the record label, available in a variety of places around the web and released by a particular individual/band (or their representatives) to represent their work. We use the image in an article about the album as a visual representation of the album. With shots from citizen journalists, all of these things could be different every time. The images are "released" from very different places and different people, they show any number of things, and we use them in a variety of ways. Each rationale is going to have to be carefully tailored to the image and the way it is used- no template is possible. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(de-indent)

Replying to "you're talking about a very wide class of images which are used in a very wide number of ways."

Well, I'm talking about a class of images that basically share a set of common answers to NFCC 2-7,9-10. So, certainly, points #1 and #8 will need per-use customization at the article level, with editorial consensus being used to determine if the claims of no free equivalent and contextual significance are met.

So, "citizen journalist" images could share the bulk of their rationales.

No free equivalent is an easy test to understand-- obviously if there were a free equivalent, we would use it.

The 'dicey' area, where I agree things will never be as simple as album covers, is #8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We often do have free images of "generic riot"-- so I think we'd need to limit it only to cases where the events depicted are actually discussed in text, and where the photograph is the only known photographic evidence of the event. "generic rioting images" won't pass #8, as Masem points out.

So, perhaps we need something that helps uploaders give a good rationale for all but point 8, and leave it to the uploader to assert (and defend) the increase in reader's understanding, with the understanding that failure to achieve a consensus for that point would lead to the image being removed?

The point is-- see how complex this is?? And that complexity is an unnecessary barrier to editor participation. If I, native english speaker with a firm understanding of US law who's deeply invested in WP, and I still don't know how to write a good NFCC rationale. I imagine myself in the position of a newish user with only moderate english literacy, and realize it would be impossible for me digest all the complexities of NFCC and successfully write a rationale.

In the general case, there's nothing we can do about that. But in specific cases, like albums, we can reduce that barrier. We can 'help start them off" on a rationale. In this case, perhaps we can help "start them off" with answers to most of the criteria, and help the uploader focus on the most-pertinent questions-- namely NFCC #8.

Mohamed CJ suggests we should have a lower barrier for these kinds of images, and Milburn points out that, of course, in our policy, we actually DO have a lower barrier, since they meet so many of the NFCC point automatically (eg, no effect on commercial providers). I guess what I'm looking for is some way to easily communicate this "slightly lower barrier"/"already met some NFCC critera" to uploaders at upload time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful, #3 is not automatically met with use of a template. If the image is non-free, we can't use a high-res version of it if the same effective details can be seen at a lower resolution. Further, this would allow for 10 non-free images from the same event when only one would do. The comparison to album covers is really not there because of the fact there is a standard practice and allowance for covers that simply is not there for these photos. And also, our upload wizard already does start them off with a rationale - it asks them enough questions to try to address all 10 points of NFCC. The answers they give may not be the best means of answering or even at times inappropriate but they are asked and cannot complete the upload without a minimal number filled in. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful, #3 is not automatically met with use of a template. If the image is non-free, we can't use a high-res version of it if the same effective details can be seen at a lower resolution. Further, this would allow for 10 non-free images from the same event when only one would do. The comparison to album covers is really not there because of the fact there is a standard practice and allowance for covers that simply is not there for these photos. And also, our upload wizard already does start them off with a rationale - it asks them enough questions to try to address all 10 points of NFCC. The answers they give may not be the best means of answering or even at times inappropriate but they are asked and cannot complete the upload without a minimal number filled in. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NFCC#1 isn't as easy as you make out ("No free equivalent is an easy test to understand-- obviously if there were a free equivalent, we would use it")- some non-free images, for instance, could be replaced by text or diagrams, or could hypothetically be replaced by free media later (in on-going conflicts, for instance, or in situations where large numbers of images are surfacing- one of the authors of the many images may be able to release content). It's not just a case of making sure there isn't free content, it's a question of judging whether there could be free content that could do the same job as the image you wish to use.

"I think we'd need to limit it only to cases where the events depicted are actually discussed in text, and where the photograph is the only known photographic evidence of the event." That's not what the NFCC#8 requires. The criterion requires that an image add significantly to an article, and that reader comprehension be significantly diminished if the image is not used. Yes, an would almost certainly need to be discussed for this to be met, but the mere fact that it is met would not be sufficient. That there is only one picture of that event is neither here nor there, really (but it would be an important, though not decisive, factor with regards to NFCC#1).

So, you suggest we improve things how? hehe Clearly, the current system is meeting all your needs. Unfortunately, your experience isn't universal-- most users don't have this talk page on their watchlist, most users don't even know it exists. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is all pretty difficult; that I accept. If in doubt, we shouldn't be uploading. Having a few too few non-free images is probably better than having a few too many. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an improvement to limit uploading on non-free images to admins, then. If the unwashed masses don't understand NFCC, let them leave it to the special people who do.

It's a lot harder to swallow that when we consider that Wikipedia is now the most popular reference source and that our image choices literally can save lives, in areas of humanitarian crisis. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Replying to "Remember, we're not about fair use - we're about freely redistributable content, a much higher barrier to inclusion. No one would question our use of citizen journalists photos under fair use law, but we are specifically more demanding to promote free content."

I think this hits at what I'm getting at-- images that are clearly LEGAL for us to use, and where there's some "moral force" argument for us to being less insistent on free content. As I've said, it troubles me that we'll allow NFCC images to promote movies, but not to protect lives. So, for example, if an image like File:Nguyen.jpg had been taken by a citizen journalist and there were no free equivalents, it WOULD meet NFCC, yes? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really not our job to take sides. We're not going to be more lax with the NFCC just because you happen to think we're using images which support the good guys. As for that particular image, as has been explained, there is not a class of images which "meet the NFCC". Certain uses of certain images pass the NFCC. No answer can be given unless you explain how the image is being used. (As a partial answer, though, I can't see how the image being taken by a citizen journalist as opposed to anyone else would have much effect. If its use is justified when it's from a press agency, it would almost certainly be justified from a citizen journalist.) J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason that photo is important (and in fact the only two uses of it on WP) are because it was was led to a Pulitizer Prize for the photographer, with Nguyen gaining notability being the result of the victim in that famous photograph. It is not used to illustrate the larger events that led to that. This is where we talk about "historically significant photographs" - that clearly is one because of its award but not so much about the political aspects of it directly. It is not that citizen journalists cannot also gain such notarity for their photos in the same manner but that's something we can't presume. So it is very hard to extrapolate here. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See, this my point-- I'm trying my hardest to understand all the details, and I'm failing. Speaking in generalities is confusing, but when I ask a hypothetical, and even the NFCC experts can't give me a straight answer. Suppose the Nyugen image was taken yesterday, the event was widely covered in the media (along with the image) and we wanted to use it in an article that discusses the event. Would we want to allow that usage or forbid that usage? I had thought that would be a slam-dunk "yes", but apparently not? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Repling to "It's really not our job to take sides"-- well, yes it is. It's not our job to take sides in article space, to be sure. But in terms of simplifying user interface-- I'm on the side of "Let's make this easier whenever possible". There's nothing neutral about Wikipedia-- we're revolutionary. Our articles are NPOV-- our existence is not.

I mention the 'moral force' issue because it what's drives me to find improvements for wikipedia in this case. We've set up a system that is very impenetrable for lay readers, I thought I had a great understanding of it, and Masem has corrected me on dozens on specific points.

When the non-free image is something unimportant, like a tv-show screenshot, I don't care so much that our system is difficult. But when the non-free image is globally important, I feel a duty to help WP "push the envelope" of user interface simplicity and reducing the barriers to users uploading successfully. That's not "taking sides" as much it is feeling especially compelled to streamline things for new users. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify-- I don't argue for us "to be more lax with the NFCC just because you happen to think we're using images which support the good guys"-- for me, it's not about laxness or shifting standards-- it's about improve the user experience user interface and user communication-- NOT policy change.

As an empirical question, for example, I wonder what the rate of deletion is for non-free content uploaded by non-admins with under 1000 edits or so. Based on what I'm hearing, I would expect a near 100% deletion rate for non-free images uploaded by new users? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's nowhere near 100%, but it's still quite high. About improving the uploading interface, I personally have worked hard on that (the current upload script is largely my work), but I've grown rather pessimistic. People keep uploading things with bad rationales, even for those case groups where we do offer more or less standardized FUR packages. Looking at the barrage of images that get uploaded with blatantly misused, falsely applied standard rationales, I've become convinced that this is happening not because people don't understand the instructions – in the relevant case groups, they are really not that hard to understand, and I see little room for making them even easier – but because people don't want to understand them. Our rules are not difficult to understand, they are difficult to accept. Any instruction that boils down to "sorry, in this case, you really can't upload this image" will simply be ignored, not because people fail to understand it but because they can't be convinced we really mean it.

As for offering a new set of semi-standardized rationales for this specific case group you're talking about, I'm similarly skeptical as Masem, for several reasons:

• The number of cases where such a case could be legitimately invoked is quite small.
• The case group is difficult to define. What is a "citizen journalist"? Anybody who publishes snapshots about anything? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of political events? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of events that involve social violence? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of political events that are otherwise dangerous to go to or inaccessible to official media? Where's the line?
• Except for NFCC#2 (commercial), none of the other important NFCCs are trivial and predictable for this case group:
  • NFCC#1: it will often be difficult to make a convincing case for non-replaceability. If one person was able to take a photo of a demonstration yesterday, why would it be impossible to find another person who not only also took a photo but is also able and willing to provide it under a free license? Or why couldn't another person take another similar photo of a similar demonstration tomorrow, and license that one? I'm not saying such a justification might not be possible on a case-by-case basis, but it's nothing we can provide a ready-made standardized argument for.
  • NFCC#3: as open as with any other non-free image; always needs individual discussion.
  • NFCC#8: as problematic as with any other historic photograph. Very often, people will be tempted to add images because they feel it "proves that something happened", or because they feel it adds a sense of immediacy that helps the reader empathize with the participants of the event (and that, in turn, will often be motivated by an urge to support their cause). Neither of these are good NFCC#8 justifications. If I want to prove that policemen were beating demonstrators, what I need is a reliable source that says so. I don't actually need an image to understand that it happened (we all know what it looks like when policemen beat demonstrators). So, again, there may be a justifiable argument on a case-by-case basis, but there's nothing standardized we could offer.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment here but under your NFCC#1 argument: "If one person was able to take a photo of a demonstration yesterday, why would it be impossible to find another person who not only also took a photo but is also able and willing to provide it under a free license?" - that is not a consideration of NFCC#1. Yes, it may have been a very public but one-time-only event and one widely photographed, but we make no presumption if other people photographed that event at the same time, nor that they will be willing to make free images. The NFCC#1 replacement is typically based on the hypothetical aspect of any WP editor being able to get that free image somehow, not the public at large. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this type of issue has repeatedly been discussed here. NFCC#1 does imply an obligation on the part of the uploader to demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts at finding free alternatives, including – where feasible and appropriate – trying to contact third parties that own such images and might be willing to license them. Also, "replaceability" does not entail an assumption that replacements should be readily createable by any random WP editor (otherwise our general ban of non-free images of living persons would make little sense), so yes, we do take into account the possibility of creation by members of the wider third-party public. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not true, as that raises an extremely high bar for non-free. At least, it's not a cut-and-dried assumption. Yes, if there's an event that we can expect that a lot of public photography can be taken that there's a good chance one person will put those images out for free, but that is not a 100% guarantee as required by NFCC#1. Nor is the possibility that one person can be convinced to relicense their photos for free. These efforts should be made in good faith of course, and in some cases, if we know that one photographer has put out photos under a free licence before, they will be willing to likely do it for a different event. But that's about the extent that we can assume. The reason we consider what a Wikipedia editor can do is that all Wikipedian editors are expected to contribute only free media as part of their participation. Remember that WP editors include all WP projects, so there's editors all over the world that can get photos, and hence why that applies for our restriction of non-free on living persons - we assume that by contacting an editor in the area such a photo can be obtained. The problem and the assumption you're making is that we can force third-parties (non-WPians) to comply with free license. That simply cannot work. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems we are going in circles here, as I remember we had this exact same discussion just a few weeks ago. I can only continue to wonder where you get that bizarre idea about "100% guarantee" and about "forcing third parties" from. Sorry, but that's an utterly bizarre non sequitur and red herring, and a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I can find little else I could add to this at this point, as I hate to say I'm really mystified seeing an intelligent person like you stuck in such an absurd line of reasoning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me describe the hypothetical case of a major sporting event (like say, the World Series), attended by 10,000s, where not only do we have the media taking photos but a large percentage of the spectators. There is a moment in the game that is later considered as a critically important moment and sufficiently discussed that if we had to rely on non-free media to show it, we can (say, the series-winning home run, or a botched play, or the like). Now, the question is in terms of NFCC#1. We obviously can't go back in time to get the image ourselves, so that option of course is not there. So now the question, per NFCC#1, is if "no free equivalent is available". Obviously, the media will only have non-frees, so now the question is whether 1) any of those fans captured the moment in question, 2) whether they publish it in a manner we can discover it and 3) whether they have used a free licence or are willing to put it as a free license (I'm not even considering sthe quality here). Those are 3 major "ifs" that likely do not hold true, even with 100,000 spectators. The chance is non-zero, certainly, but NFCC#1 does not work on the chance, it comes into place if it is assured that it is the case - that is, we are fully aware of a free equivalent. All the steps to contact photographers and get free images are good, but we simply can't work NFCC#1 on the idea that we can convince non-WPian editors to change their minds on licensing. So this would be a case that assuming all other parts of NFCC are met, then a non-free image from the media could be used for illustration and NFCC#1 is passed. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here, weight my opinions accordingly, but my instinct lies with Masem. "a free image could someday exist" doesn't work as a standard-- we can't look into a crystal ball. "a free image does exist" is what violates NFCC#1, not the theoretical possibility of such an image emerging in the future. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

deindent

Fut.Perf., I'm quite pleased to read your response above about "the barrage of images that get uploaded with blatantly misused, falsely applied standard rationales" and how you've "become convinced that this is happening not because people don't understand the instructions – in the relevant case groups, they are really not that hard to understand, and I see little room for making them even easier – but because people don't want to understand them."

I see hope in that you recognize NFCC isn't a part of wikipedia that is working well, but it a 'problem'.

As someone in the trenches, I can accept easily that you've become 'stuck' and skeptical of how, and whether, the system can be improved. We've all been in situations like that, and you'll note I don't have any easy answers either.

The primary argument I've made is that there's a problem with the NFC upload system, and I think we see eye-to-eye on this. You look at it more as a "defense of the wiki" issue, I look at it more as a "confusing instructions". I have uploaded a few NFC images in my time, all in good faith, and I've found it very difficult to predict which usages will be accepted and which won't.

The argument I'm making isn't really about citizen journalist per se.

What I'm arguing is that we should look kindly on images that are:

• Globally distributed free of charge on the web, via systems that allow embedding.
• Where no known rational commercial claim exists, and especially where the content owner has called for widespread sharing of the content.
• Where there exists a 'moral imperative' to sharing the content, such as human rights violations, local censorship, etc.

I know that "moral imperative" sounds way too emotional, but we already recognize a similar duty when we delete encyclopedic content for the sake of WP:BLP. In similar vein, I want to make the case that we should consider the intentions of sharer when deciding what images to include, and where their intentions can be described as "wanting maximal exposure", we shouldn't just pretend it's another commercial copyright holder image.

I have to admit, I started this discussion without an example image in mind to discuss. I was editing an article about a protest, and realized that even if somebody tweeted evidence of a murder with a plea for the image to be widely spread, I still wouldn't know how to write a good fair user rationale for it.

I know we strongly prefer free content, and I do too-- but it seems we're taking NFCC to a bit of an absurdity when it stops someone who is intentionally sharing content globally. I worry we're adhering to closely to the 'letter' of the law (requiring the magic words "CC-BY-SA") when really then spirit of the law is being ignored ("PLS RT!! imagelink).

There is a big gulf between "what we're legally allowed to do" and "what NFCC allows us to do". Usually, I never notice it-- but on "really important articles"-- articles about on-going injuries and deaths, it's much for harder me to morally justify our using sub-optimal images, overlooking images that we're legally allowed to use, exclusively because of our "radical free-content evangelicalism" agenda. (and in general, I love our radical free-content agenda-- just not when I consider it stopping me from showing the best image on a very important article)

End wall-of-text. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are raising two different issues here. The one is about the "moral" legitimization of certain politically sensitive images. On this issue, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree: a moral imperative of the type you propose cannot become a criterion for NFC use. What is one man's "moral imperative to share knowledge about human rights abuses" is another man's "blatantly tendentious POV-pushing". The NFCC#8 criteria for such images must remain strictly the same as for all other historic images, if for no other reason than to prevent opening the floodgates of political agenda editors trying to maximize coverage of their favourite political victim group by plastering articles with unnecessary images of them, using the more direct emotional appeal of images compared with text as a tool to further their ideological cause (there is already a very strong temptation for agenda editors to try just this.)

The second issue is the more general one of improving NFCC processes for uploaders. I think this, too, can be subdivided into three logically independent sub-issues:

1. Good-faith uploaders who may not be sure about our policies might not know which images are likely to be accepted or rejected.
2. Uploaders who have objectively unacceptable, blatantly unsalvageable images will try uploading them anyway, contrary to clear instructions.
3. Uploaders who have objectively good images may feel intimidated by the process and may find it difficult to write good rationales for them.

About point 1, I agree this difficulty about potential borderline cases exists, but I don't think we can do a whole lot about that, without putting uploaders through the information overload of having to study a whole bunch of precedents. We can of course offer such information to them, but we can't make people read through months of FFD records to get a feel for what's likely to survive. When people upload stuff without first developing an advanced understanding of our policies, they will just have to be prepared to have their uploads challenged (and as long as they have demonstrated they have made a good-faith effort at complying with our policies, such challenging should be done gently and politely).

About point 2, this represents by far the bulk of the problematic cases we currently have. This is the type of case I've become so pessimistic about: no matter how clear and simple we make our instructions, a large number of people will ignore them anyway. These people are not making a good-faith effort at complying with the policy. They may still be making a good-faith effort at improving the encyclopedia, but they can't bring themselves to accepting the idea that we actually want certain types of images to be excluded, so no matter how often and how clearly we tell them that, they will still try to sneak them in.

About point 3, this is where I disagree there is much of a problem. If you have an objectively good image, writing a good rationale for it is not difficult at all – you just write two or three sentences, in your own, simple words, about what you want to do with it. The only thing that's difficult is writing a good rationale for a bad image (which, unfortunately, is the situation most new uploaders are much more likely to find themselves in.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding that absolutely agree on Future Perfect's first point: Wikipedia and the Foundation have no motive or mission to publish images of "moral imperative". The situation in Turkey is a strong example here: we know there's civil unrest going on in Turkey, and we know that some citiizens there have published images showing the violence that is being employed that may not be published in otherwise free sources. But we are building an encyclopedia that is clinically insensitive to that plight, and we can't loosen our NFCC requirements just because of the moral imperative to show these images. It doesn't prevent us from using NFCC rationales to justify them, we just can't publish them as freely as this proposal wants us to. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional event posters as identification

We've recently had some cases come up at FFD (and ensuing DRVs) concerning posters which were made to promote events - in this case, boxing matches. These images are being used on a fairly common basis as "identification" of the matches in question. I have closed a couple of these discussions as "delete" on the grounds that the images can be replaced by free images of the fighters (more like the way we typically do articles on a particular election) and that the posters, unlike book covers or other media, do not serve to functionally identify the event in as central a fashion. I'd appreciate some broader input on this, as there are a lot of such images currently in use.

Some examples of images: File:Douglas vs Holyfield.jpg, File:Pacquiao vs Bradley.jpg, File:Holyfield vs Lewis 2.jpg. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Such uses are inappropriate under WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. I agree that this is not the same case as cover art. It would fall under WP:NFCI#4 (other promotional material), which is only appropriate for critical commentary. That's not what those posters provide. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would generally agree these are not appropriate. The only clear cut allowance for identification when it comes to events like this are logos (ala how the Super Bowl tends to have a new logo each year), but promo posters aren't the same as logos, and in all three cases , look more like advertising materials than not. I'd not call it 100% but those three examples are certainly inappropriate as ID images. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• While I understand the veneration in which NFCC#8 is held, I take the view from 30,000 feet and it's not at all clear to me how deleting these images helps us build an encyclopaedia. Removing images that (a) it's lawful for us to use and (b) nobody outside the encyclopaedia objects to us using seems utterly unconstructive and wasteful.—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither of those views apply to considering when to make exceptions for non-free use in a free content encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "images helps us build an encyclopaedia" - well there's your problem, the project is to build a free encyclopedia, so keeping the use of non-free content to a minimum is certainly helpful to that goal. And if you want to argue about that, please go ahead with the foundation "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"" --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's true as far as it goes, but it says nothing about the balance to be struck between "free content" and "encyclopaedia". As far as I'm concerned producing an encyclopaedia is a much more important part of the task than handing out free content to scraper sites and image re-users. Removing these images looks like a WP:HERE issue to me.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The first goal of the Foundation is to create freely redistributable educational material, even if that means its being scraped and reused improperly. That takes precedence over making a pretty-looking encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• NFCC#8 applies: there's nothing about a match that isn't understood without seeing a poster.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I could not disagree with ESkog or any of the users who feel that the images should be deleted more. Why would we replace the official fight poster with a photo of a smiling Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield when those images have nothing to do with the event. For whatever reason, these posters become the image most commonly associated with the fight and to delete it would cause an overwhelming amount of harm to the article. Do any of you guys suggest we replace the movie poster for Mission: Impossible with a photo of Tom Cruise staring into space? Or should we replace the book cover of Catcher in the Rye with a photo of J.D. Salinger sipping lemonade? It just doesn't make sense. These images are being used correctly and should remain on this site. It would be a complete travesty if they do not. Beast from da East (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Cover art is used to market and brand the published work. These are simply promotional ads, and since it is the event itself of discussion, they don't help to understand the event. If there is unusual marketing used that is the subject of discussion, then it can likely meet NFCC#8 and be used, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • These posters illustrate the promotion's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not possibly convey. Some of the poster are also sources for the official fight names, for example "Repeat or Revenge" for Bowe vs. Holyfield II. These images being used the same way movie posters are, to illustrate the subject. Beast from da East (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
      • But in the case of the events, simply showing the photos does the exact same job. Movie posters carry aspects of the narration and story for the film that simply isn't present for fighting bouts. Further, while I agree some fights will have catchphrases, this is easily described in text and requires no visual representation. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree with some of my fellow editors when it comes to the "official poster" of the event. Such posters should be treated the same as a movie poster of a movie that was only aired one time, a play that was only performed one time, or a TV show or TV series which was only aired one time. In any case, if there is more than one "official identifying graphic" - be it a logo or promotional poster - available, only one should be used and ideally we would pick the "most official" or "most commonly used" image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• That logic seems to be based on "we have to have an image, so let's pick the best one." We don't need to have an image at all. The purpose of the covers of albums and books is supposed to be that there are readers that won't be certain they are in the right article without the reassuring presence of the image. That's a pretty weak argument even for books and albums, but for fights? Do you really envision a reader that won't be certain that he really wanted to be reading about UFC 1139 unless there's a poster that says "UFC 1139"? Doesn't sound at all likely to me.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I aree with the principle that davidwr states, namely that an "official" poster is appropriately used under a fair use claim, similar to the way we treat movie posters on movie articles. For example, we wouldn't replace File:The Hangover Part 3.JPG in The Hangover Part III's infobox with free images of Ed Helms, Zack Galifanakis and Bradley Cooper. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:15, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
• I don't really see why anyone would use advertisements or programme covers for identifying a sports event. In normal cases, the event is identified by naming the combatants (say, "the fight between X and Y") or by the year and type of competition (say, "2013 World Cup"). There might be exceptional cases where a certain programme or advertisement is particularly noteworthy, but in those cases, the images would presumably usually violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the article about the event. Do articles about specific washing machine models contain a photo of the box art for identification? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at PlayStation 4 and Xbox One

I was able to find flickr-posted free images of these two units as on display at E3 taken by a user that marked them CC-BY-SA, and best as I can tell , are the user's own photos (not flickrwashed). I've uploaded both to Commons and cropped sections and replaced them in these articles but now editors are reverting that to the non-free image against NFCC#1. I won't deny they aren't as professional as the clean non-free images but they do the job of showing the hardware as required by NFCC#1. Note that both non-frees are at FFD and where I've since ID'd these free versions as part of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Urgent request for advice

Colleagues, can anyone tell me (soon) whether there's a problem if the Signpost uses File:PRISM_Collection_Details.jpg? The documentation doesn't seem entirely clear to us. Tony (talk)

Technically it is the work of the US Gov, so it appears to be PD, and Free, and free images have no restriction on use in WP. I do have concern, however, that with the image logos of the companies involved, themselves not free, that while the presentation is PD, it doesn't cover those logos and thus shouldn't be considered free , however that's something to be figured out at commons (there may be a de minimus argument here). --MASEM (t) 05:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And, I see the commons image page says de mininus so yes, the work can be treated as PD for using in in the singpost. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Masem! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: fair-use images on the main page in TFA on a (very) limited basis

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.

---

Several arguments have been put forward for scrapping the 'no fair use images' on the main page rule that we have enforced since 2006. This would be put forward only on a limited basis, and running TFA without an image will be preferable to an indirect non-free image. Should this get enough support, the exact restrictions can be decided upon by the closing administrator (if there is a clear consensus) or in a subsequent RfC. Please note the following common misconceptions:

• This is not a case of "we've always done this". Fair-use images running on the main page was completely uncontroversial until Jimbo Wales removed one in 2007 because "I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia." This sparked changes to NFCC that have survived to this day.
  • Discussions surrounding these changes can be read here, here, and here.
• Putting such images on the main page is not illegal or against any of the WMF's core policies (some have pointed to the licensing policy, which doesn't seem to cover this and in any case was created to address a very different problem, ).
• While TFA is transcluded on various user pages, it would be trivial to add code that allowed it to show only in the mainspace, i.e. only the main page.

Folks, we aim to be a free-content encyclopedia. Sometimes those goals conflict. I personally believe that our encyclopedic mission should come before our free culture goal, but that's just me, and I may well be in the minority. Happy discussions, and let's keep this civil. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that this would apply only to TFA, not DYK, and that it is a proposal to re-add an exemption for TFA to NFCC (per WP:NFCC#9). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 21:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
3. I'm unimpressed by opposes. How is it fine for an article to have a non-free image, but when a summary of it (TFA) is displayed on the main page, then somehow it doesn't satisfy the NFCC anymore (ex: If NFCC#8 doesn't apply to the summary, then how come it applies to the article?). Don't confuse this with DYK or ITN sections, this is only about TFA. (i.e. a single article per day, some of which don't have a free image such as video game articles, so we end up having no image for the summary despite the article itself having a non-free one). Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   NFCC#8 requires "contextual significant" meaning that the article text generally needs to talk about the image. TFA blurbs are condensed lead sections and will very unlikely contain that contextual significance, so the use on the front page fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Masem, as you say they are blurbs written based on a condensed lead section, wouldn't it be just as easy for the person writing the blurb to be mindful (we surely don't have mindless people writing these, do we?) and make sure in the first sentence to include "... as pictured here ..." which then makes the entire blurb about the picture and therefor meets WP:NFCC#8? That just makes simple common sense here, and to be honest, that phrase should be used regardless of if the picture is free or non-free in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   That's not ideal writing, though. It's certainly not how we write articles- a lot of the arguments in favour of non-free content hinge on the claim that FA blurbs are like mini-articles, unlike (say) DYK hooks. J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Nor does that put it in contextual significance - we'd not allow that in articles as to support NFCC#8, we'd not allow it here. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Masem, I like your explanation below about "non-free infobox images would be okay (since these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article)". Do you think we can expand on that? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   See also WP:NFC#UUI §6. If the article mentioned on the "today's featured article" page has its own article on Wikipedia, then WP:NFC#UUI §6 prevents us from using the image on the "today's featured article" page as linking to the article would be enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I didn't fully understand the guideline, but it seems to me that WP:NFC#UUI only applies to uses outside of the exceptions noted in the above section (i.e. WP:NFCI). Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   NFC is a guideline that can be considered a casebook for the application of policy of NFCC - it doesn't cover all cases but outlined established ones. NFCI are cases where the use of images in those context is nearly always appropriate when all other factors of NFCC are met. NFC#UUI are specific types of examples where non-free may not be used, barring exceptional cases. So NFCI and NFC#UUI should be considered established points on either side of the fuzzy line of NFC for proper and improper (respectively) use. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Exactly. If the use meets any point under WP:NFCI, then it is usually appropriate. On the other hand, if it meets any point under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually not appropriate. If it meets points in both sections at the same time, then things are unclear and need a closer discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Mohamed, precisely the same argument could be used for summaries of articles posted in lots of places- portals, list articles, album details in musician articles, Signpost summaries and so on. We do not use non-free content in any of those places, and that is uncontroversial. Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the fact that NFCC#8 is met on an article does not necessarily mean that NFCC#8 is met in a summary of said article. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   This one made me think about it. I think the suggestion here is that we add an exception to the NFCC#9 to allow non-free images to into the TFA section, so it wouldn't apply to other places. Since as you say it's uncontroversial, then we shouldn't be excepting other people to want more exceptions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Of course this is assuming we manage to agree on Masem's explanation that non-free infobox images satisfy NFCC#8. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't think you understand what I am saying. We all agree that NFC shouldn't be used in those other places (portals, Signpost, lists)- if your argument could be used to show that we should use it in other places, as I claim it does (as it applies to them as much as to the MP) then there is clearly a problem with your argument. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   There was a RFC I personally started about 2 years ago on the use of cover art in general. It was closed with consensus saying that cover art in infoboxes is accepted as meeting NFCC#8 as it helps, even implicitly, identify the branding and marketing of the work as the publisher desires. So yes, that is established. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, J Milburn. But then Portals, the Signpost etc won't pass NFCC#9, because they aren't articles and they don't have an exemption. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The main page is not an article and does not currently have an exemption. You're trying to argue that it should. If the argument holds for the main page, it would hold for those others. I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Because as you stated above, it's uncontroversial not to use non-free content there, whereas the situation in the front page is different. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   This is my point. If it's uncontroversial that content should not be used on these pages, there is no way we should be endorsing any argument which would equally allow us to use content on those pages. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Are you arguing that this could be a slippery slope, J? Because I find it hard to imagine any scenario where non-free content is allowed on user pages, portals, the Signpost, etc. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, I'm not offering a slippery slope argument. I'm obviously not making myself clear. I am saying that Mohammad's argument is not a solid one, as the same argument could be used to support non-free content in places we know it shouldn't be. I'm asking what the relevant difference between the main page summary and the Signpost summaries are- I don't necessarily see one. Let's say I propose an explanation for the sky's being blue. It seems like a potentially reasonable one. However, someone comes along and says "look, if that explanation were correct, then there would be no ozone layer in the atmosphere". As we know that there is an ozone layer in the atmosphere, we can conclude that the offered explanation is false. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Support - Mohamed's logic makes sense to me; TFA should be treated differently than portals and the Signpost. TFA is far more analogous to individual articles. Lacking an image of Darth Vader in a Darth Vader TFA blurb is detrimental to the understanding of the blurb, and there is no free replacement for such an image. Non-free images are never necessary, even on articles, in the absolute sense that many of the opposers seem to require. Neelix (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Why should it be treated differently? What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Because there aren't many FA articles that have non-free images, so this is going to be very limited. I don't have statistics, but I think it's less than 5%, maybe 1% of all FAs. That's 40-200 out of ~4000, so maybe we'll feature one of them once a month? Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   What you've just said is completely unrelated to my question. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   In what sense does Mohamed's answer not relate to your question? In addition, I would argue that TFA blurbs are more like articles than more internal areas of Wikipedia because average non-editor users are familiar with TFA blurbs, but are not familiar with, for example, the Signpost. Neelix (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Neelix, you support non-free images on MP article summaries, but oppose non-free images on SP or portal summaries. Mohamed asserts that very few FAs have only non-free images. This has nothing to do with the opposition to non-free images on Signpost or portal summaries, as there are portals which summarise only FAs, and the featured content report on the SP summarises only FAs. Why are we justified on using those non-free images to illustrate the summaries of FAs on the main page, but not justified on using those non-free images on summaries on portals or on the Signpost? As has already been established, you cannot appeal to NFCC#9, as it is precisely NFCC#9 which is in dispute. (You say that TFA blurbs are like articles- sure they are, they're like very short articles, but they're like very short articles on non-article pages. The main page is not an article, whether it's technically in the article space or not.) J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Is this theoretical or you can actually provide an example for such content that would satisfy all NFCC except for 9? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   I can provide examples which meet the NFCC just as much as TFA blurbs- that is, examples where if TFA article were justified in using non-free content then they would be too. Portal:Video games/Featured article gives a few dozen article summaries of featured articles, almost any of which could easily and meaningfully be illustrated by non-free content. The summary style is identical to the summary style of the main page; if TFA was permitted to carry non-free content, how could we justify removing non-free content from those portal pages? J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   You're linking to the wrong page. Portal:Video games is the portal page, the one you linked is just dozens of summaries to be chosen from randomly. I wouldn't mind having non-free images in portals such as the latter, since the situation is very similar to TFA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, I'm not linking to the wrong page. That listed the summaries which would be illustrated. I know how portals work, I've created several. It'd also be nice if you could work out what you actually support. Earlier you said how "we shouldn't be excepting [sic] other people to want more exceptions [than the main page]", yet now you reveal your true colours- you actually do want non-free content to start proliferating outside of the article space. You're welcome to believe that, but don't try to pretend that your position is a Wikipedia-friendly one. (Also, as far as I can see, the full extent of your participation in the featured article candidates procedure is a single nomination, which was shot down. I'm surprised you're taking such a strong position on this issue when you have previously had so little involvement with featured articles. On the other hand, I've written featured articles which, under this proposal, would probably end up illustrated on the MP by non-free content.) J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm not experienced as much as you are, but that doesn't mean you got to question my motivations (or mock? my contributions). It is these discussions that make one learn the details of Wikipedia. P.S. I tried to start a chat on your talk page, but you never replied. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not meaning to mock your contributions or suggest that your views should hold less weight than any other- I could have probably phrased it in a better way. I'm just unclear on why you feel so strongly about this issue- especially when you hold such a minority view. I also wonder whether you might have a different perspective on the subject had you experienced more of the featured article process. (Of course, I am not meaning to suggest that you would definitely feel differently if you have more experience in the area- Ed has plenty of experience with FAC, but he feels that NFC belongs on the MP.) And sorry, I didn't realise you were wanting to start a conversation- I thought it was just a quick note that you'd listed the discussion on the CD template. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   It's alright. I was going to raise the white flag as soon as you brought up the portals and Signpost argument, but I though maybe I could explore this from another angle. You know when I first joined Wikipedia, I though what "the free encyclopedia" meant is that it was simply accessed without subscription. If anything, this discussion has served to further my understanding of Wikipedia policies, and as I have expressed on your talk page, I enjoyed it :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Support I see no reason to not use a fair use image on a featured article of a person on a WP:TFA, even if it is a summary, per se, if the article uses the same image.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support: This "free" ^<cough> project has about 500 thousand non-free images. This silly charade that we are somehow "free" is a joke. It's time this joke ended. "We're free because we don't allow non-free images on our main page!! woohoo! It's as laughable as the Veganism Parable. End the hypocrisy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
7. support yes, end the hypocricy already. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." how else do you propose to freely share copyrighted knowledge other than fair use and fair dealing? non-free out of sight out of mind? if you want to raise the drawbridge, or overturn the NFCC then gain a consensus, do not act arbitratily or capriciously, as was done here. if you want free culture than change the law. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
8. I support this. Wikimedia Commons is the repository of free content. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia. We should use anything that we're lawfully entitled to use to enhance that. I do support creating, supporting and using open/free content, but not at the expense of our main goal.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Our main goal mandated by being funded by the Foundation is to generate freely redistributable educational content to the world. Not to make pretty encyclopedia pages. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   You know as well as I do Masem that that goal was abandoned long ago in favor of non-free image use in overwhelming numbers. I know what you'll say in response, but it's just part of the charade I mentioned above. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

   I believe that's a misstatement in any case. I believe our mission is to be an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

9. I'll probably get hammered by everyone else here for saying this, but I personally consider anything covered under fair use to be de facto free content. From a legal standpoint, such material is protected by copyright, but the only time anyone ever gets into trouble for violating fair use is if they step beyond the permissible boundaries of the term (eg. uploading a full song, publishing the complete text of a novel online for free). How often do companies sue people for using their logo; when does a music artist file a lawsuit over the excessive public usage of an album cover? They don't, because it does not infringe on their ability to profit off of their intellectual property, which is the whole point of having copyright laws.

   But that's beside the crux of the issue. Most editors and administrators regard it as dishonest to call Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia" while simultaneously featuring what is legally considered copyrighted material — and I would actually be inclined to agree, were it not for my perspective towards fair use. But it is still a permissible recreation of somebody else's work — thus, for all intents and purposes, it is free. Some would call my views unethical irrespective of the legal ramifications for doing so because they view it as a fundamental form of theft. I completely disagree, but your mileage may vary on that point.

   Now, I say all of this knowing full well that it is an unpopular opinion and would never be accepted by the broader community, or the Wikimedia Foundation for that matter. I promise that I will not act against policy if it conflicts with my own beliefs. Nevertheless, my stance is known. I support a liberal interpretation of fair use policy. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   That's not even a valid position, given that the Foundation has set the bar higher than fair use. This position cannot be supported in the context of the Foundatin's free content goal. Plus, as stated over and over, NFC is not in place to protect the Foundation legally. We know fair use exists and if there were problems with exceeding that, the Foundation would let us know. So its not a legal question of use. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry, what? I'm not even sure what you're saying there, Masem; perhaps you misunderstood what I had said? Let me reiterate this crucial point: "I say all of this knowing full well that it is an unpopular opinion and would never be accepted by the broader community, or the Wikimedia Foundation for that matter." Another thing to bear in mind, I specified the "crux of the issue" as being our mission to provide Wikipedia's readers with free content, not the legal ramifications of using non-free content. I hold an unpopular opinion that fair use ought to be considered "free" for all intents and purposes. Yes, my perspective on the matter is moot, because the WMF would never permit it.

   I guess I should make my actual position on this topic clear — I personally have no issues with fair use images being used on the main page. I will however accept the consensus that showcasing them there contradicts our espoused goal to provide readers with free content. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   Your definition of considering fair use media as "free" is completely at odds with what "Free" means from the Foundation's standpoint. "free" is free as in thought - no restrictions on distribution or reuse. Anything else is considered non-free, including works used in what would normally fall under US fair use law. You can't redefine "free" as you are trying to suggest - that's like calling night "day", in terms of policy application. I recognize where you're coming from in terms of the balance of fair use and educational purposes, but I strongly recommended avoiding thinking like this because it is not consistent with how we use the terms and moreso not just against popular opinion but against how the Foundation sees the term. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   I know that, which is why I acknowledge that it'll never happen. I am very well informed on copyright laws; I can explain what constitutes fair use, what would be considered public domain, etc. I can practically recite most of the Creative Commons licenses off by heart. I guess this was not a good place to express my opinion of certain copyright provisions (specifically fair use in application). In any case, it doesn't really matter. The broad consensus established here is that fair use should remain off the main page. I can definitely accept that. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   On second thought... yeah, probably best not to have fair use images on the main page. I mean, I have my own qualms with regards to copyright policy, but I am unwilling to push the boundaries of permissible fair use so long as the laws themselves remain strict on the matter. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

   You know what? I'm going back to supporting. I mean, come on! Really? Do you think anyone who reads Wikipedia will care that we used an album cover or a logo on our main page? Wouldn't that be what they are expecting? I also agree with Daniel Case below, and I stand by my original comments. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

10. Support. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. Cavarrone 11:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
11. Support-- sometimes fair use images are the best-- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If the best image from a FA is a fair use one, so be it. If we wanted to go 'full free-content only' on this, we should amend FA criteria so that articles containing NFC cannot be considered FA. But when our dedication to promoting free content is in conflict with our duty to be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is the one that wins. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
12. Strong support. There is simply no good reason (legal or otherwise) to exclude the article summaries appearing on the Main Page from the normal usage of images under the doctrine of fair use. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia; that goal is clearly furthered by the use of fair use images. TFA is supposed to highlight some of our best articles, in a way which a) is informative, b) is visually appealing, c) encourages readers to open the full article and d) fits in with the rest of the Main Page. All four of those are hurt by excluding fair use images. There are entire classes of article (e.g. those on artworks, films etc) which by their very nature are impossible to illustrate without a fair use image. If those images are considered suitable for the article, there's no reason why they wouldn't be suitable for the Main Page. To counter two arguments presented below: 1) Wikipedia is not a free-licence advocacy organisation, so the only reason to prefer such images is that they make it easier to create a good encyclopaedia; actively damaging the encyclopaedia by avoiding fair-use images is counterproductive. 2) Jimbo's opinion counts for nothing if he doesn't enter this discussion, and for no more than any other user even if he does - WP:AAJ applies. Modest Genius ^talk 14:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Addendum: use of fair use images on the Main Page was policy for a very long time, with a specific inclusion on what is now WP:NFCC. It was removed (years ago) with no proper discussion or community involvement. See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Use_fair_use_images for more background. Modest Genius ^talk 14:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Except our policy is not based on fair use, it is based on non-free concepts, a much higher bar. There's zero question if our policy was only as strict as fair use that using images on the main page wouldn't be an issue, but we have a higher bar. The main page does not provide sufficient contextual significance to meet the requirements of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    We're talking about modifying the policy to explicitly allow this. So whether or not it currently meets our existing criteria is utterly irrelevant. The RFC isn't asking whether the existing policy already allows this, but whether the policy should allow it. Our only constraints are operating within the WMF resolution and US law on fair use. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Drop the fair use part - the WMF resolution is stronger than that, and that's the minimum bar (eg we are always going to be within fair use by following the WMF resolution). I stress this because the "its fair use" argument has been used over and over and over for image discussions and that is simply not applicable. Keeping to the free content mission is the goal of this project, not staying legal under US law (though by nature, we of course need to assure we comply with it) --MASEM (t) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, the WMF resolution is stronger than the law. But it also allows us to decide exactly what criteria to apply. It does not require us to, for example, ban fair use images from the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 17:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Also to add "there are entire classes of articles that are impossible to illustrate without a fair use image" is the wrong way of thinking of this - it is whether there are possible free images that can be used to illustrate it (alongside non-free), and in most cases that is likely yes, such as a picture of the actor, director, painter, etc. which can always serve as the main page image. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Most of which utterly fail to illustrate the concept. These have been discussed at length and using e.g. a photo of one of the producers has been found very unhelpful, to the point where we're forced to run with no image at all. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    And unless you can show that having no image at all verses having an unhelpful but free image verses having a relevant free image makes a significant factor on the educational goals of Wikipedia, it's window dressing, and not appropriate to break NFC policy to add. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    That's just your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. My opinion is that small changes to WP:NFCC are justified (and beneficial) if they help improve the encyclopaedia whilst staying within the requirements of the WMF resolution. Modest Genius ^talk 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

13. If it's fair use, then its fair use...and let's make the front page look GOOD. The people opposing this have a fetish of free media. If it's legal and if it is the better choice for communication, then we should use it. Not some freikultur slant.TCO (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

    Non-free images are absolutely not used for visual appeal. They are for contextual significance, which is not present on the front page.

14. support While it should be rare, there are times it is the right decision. In particular when we've got no free image and there is a non-free one that fair use is clearly reasonable (not harming anyone's income) and is useful/helpful. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    Starting from a "fair use" argument is invalid. Our requirement set by the Foundation is stricter than that. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    Correct, but as I stated fair use is a bar that must be cleared. So starting there is required, not invalid. Oyi. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    But fair use is not sufficient to meet the Foundation's requirements, hence it is a waste of time trying to argue on that ground. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Agreed. You'll note I did no such thing. I stated what I think would be reasonable rules for allowing non-free content. It needs to generally meet our NFCC guidelines. That it is on the main page, makes the bar higher IMO than in an article. We'd need to be darn sure the image is both useful/helpful and that this extremely high-profile use doesn't harm anyone's income. I could have been more clear, but I've no idea how you reached the conclusion that I felt fair use was the only bar...Hobit (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    NFC policy is not based on "harming anyone's income", that's a facet of fair use. NFC, and the Foundation's resolution, is based on the fact this is supposed to be a freely redistributable work and non-free use must be exceptional and used in context. You infact did say "that fair use is clearly reasonable" which can never enter into these discussions. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    OK, first of all, WP:NFCC does specifically list "Respect for commercial opportunities" (i.e. harming someone's income) as a guideline for when non-free images can be used. I'm saying that this is even more important when on the main page. Secondly, you managed to utterly change what I said. What I'm trying to say is that the case for fair use must be crystal clear. Yes, our polices are stricter than fair use. I'm trying to make it clear that if we are to have this on the main page, in addition to our normal polices, the fair use analysis must be extremely strong. I'll admit my wording sucked, but I've no idea how you can't understand what I'm going for by this point. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

15. Wholehearted Support. It's high time we put an end to this foolishness. It has been high time, in fact, since we adopted this misguided draconian free-image policy back in 2006. It does very little to "promote free content", if anything. Everytime its defenders are asked to provide concrete evidence that it has advanced the cause of free culture in some way, they retreat to tired platitudes. Meanwhile, The general public understands the intricacies, much less the virtues, of freely-licensed images even less than it did back then.

    However, the policy has been a roaring success at one thing: discouraging new editors. I can't remember the link now, but I found it really interesting that a while back, when Mr.Z-man did a script study of new editors and how they fared by namespace, not one new editor whose first edit was to file namespace came back for another edit. Obviously it isn't the only explanation for all of those, but I'd be pretty certain that a lot of them innocently uploaded some image that they thought would be perfectly fine for an article, because it was anywhere else on the Internet as far as they knew, only to be met with some deletion message telling them that, in effect, how dare they sully the holy space of Wikipedia with this foul-smelling excrement called copyright. It would be perfectly reasonable for them to have concluded that this weird rule (which not even many Wikipedians understand properly, for all the exaltation it receives from the faithful here) was really a way of pulling the rope back up to the treehouse so that the cool kids could have the place all to themselves and the heathen unenlightened masses be kept in their place. And don't think they didn't pass the word on ...

    I know right now it's only just this one little corner of the policy, but it's a step, and any step is a useful one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    As much as I respect you Daniel, that doesn't make any sense. You are arguing, in essence, that our principles are bunk and not worth sticking to because it's too much effort. —howcheng {chat} 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    You're being a little too reductionist. The only clear statement of principle we have is one of the five pillars: "promote free content." How we do that is open to interpretation. I certainly don't think "go on a search-and-destroy jihad against all content that can even remotely be argued as 'non-free' and scare off any new users who oh-so-innocently decide to start their Wikipedia careers by uploading an image" is the only one, or even a plausible one. In my opinion we were doing pretty well promoting free content before the summer of 2006.

    And if no one wants to edit anymore because of this, well, then, there won't be much to do to promote free content, would there? Some people are content to feel the alpine breezes of principle upon their cheeks; the rest of us have to deal with the negative externalities. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

16. Support per arguments by Daniel Case. — RockMFR 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
17. Support. Sure, use a free image in preference to a non-free one, but if there is no good free image, that's the entire point of fair use. SnowFire (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    We don't use fair use considerations on WP. We use a stronger bar of non-free content. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    I am familiar. How high to set this "bar" is a matter of debate, however. SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    Or, for a longer answer, since that's inherently asking how people feel about copyright... there's a meme among some parts of the free culture community that fair use is somehow bad. Yet fair use promotes exactly what we should all want: a world where copyrights are not a big deal. When Congress allowed for Fair Use, it precisely was so that entities like newspapers or, uh, encyclopedias would not get dragged down with worrying about if something is under copyright, and the wisdom behind that guides my support of using fair use more aggressively. (To be clear, yes, I'm in favor of having the "higher bar" be not as high.) If I was somehow in charge of US laws, I'd push this even further - people could mark "copyrighted" on something, and that's fine, but it wouldn't mean a lot, and it'd only matter for the most commercial of uses, and pretty much any other use would be fair game. Which is kind of reality on the Internet, even if copyright holders unfortunately have more power than what I described elsewhere. I'm rambling, but the point is I consider it entirely possible to both be a fan of free culture and to be willing to use fair use copyrighted images precisely in those cases where they literally can't be replaced, because the subject is a movie / novel / game / whatever. No reason to let the copyright "win" and accept defeat when the system explicitly gives us an out! SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    Fair use is' bad in the eyes of the Foundation because that represents content that is not under a freely-redistributable-for-any-purpose license. Their entire mission is based on making educational works that can be freely redistributed. Fair use inclusion harms that, though they recognize that limited inclusion of non-free material can help the educational purpose. So that is the only acceptable position to start from, not that "fair use is fine, we can include it". This is one of the core principles of the entire project, and many of the supports here are seemingly ignoring it for sake of a pretty front page. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

18. Support, with proviso that non-free image only appears on main page, and not main page derivatives, e.g. WP:Main page/tomorrow, etc. (this should be achievable using a template to check the page where image is to be shown). An optimist on the run!   12:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
19. Support. If it satisfies the NFCC, then we should be able to use it at TFA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Being used on TFA fails the NFCC. --MASEM (t) 03:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Invalid argument. We are talking about changing that aspect of the policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it's still invalid, failing, at minimum, #3a (minimum use) and #8 (significant coverage). You cannot prove these are met when the image is used on the front page TFA blurb. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Masem: a) We're talking about changing NFCC to allow these, so stop pointing out that it's against NFCC as currently written. That's irrelevant. b) There's no need to comment on every single support !vote, repeatedly bringing up the same points as in your oppose !vote. Modest Genius ^talk 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Where people are supporting based on a clear misunderstanding of non-free usage, I think Masem has every right to point that out. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Daniel: Whether these meet the NFCC is precisely what's in dispute, as you point out. Ssilvers's argument, therefore, says nothing. I think every one of us, for or against, could say "If an image meets the NFCC on the main page, it can be used", we just disagree about whether any image does. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If an image meets the NFCC on the main page, it still should not be used on the main page. The main page is for highlighting things we're proud of, and we shouldn't be proud of allowing non-free content on Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • We should be proud of any high quality encyclopaedic content. Maybe even more proud of freely-licensed content, but that doesn't disqualify fair-use content from pride. Modest Genius ^talk 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Except, by definition, non-free content is not the work of anyone on Wikipedia; it is someone else's work. Finding the perfect non-free media that meets NFCC as well as being an excellent educational aspect to an article - great, but that's hardly something to be proud of in comparison to what we actually produce in free content. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • How is that relevant? It doesn't matter one bit whether the content was created by Wikipedia editors or not. By that logic we would exclude all public domain works of art or images created by the US government. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The goal of the Main Page is to highlight the best bits of the encyclopaedia, not the 'community' of Wikipedia editors. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
20. Absolute and Unequivocal Support - Just because it's on the main page, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to the same policies that apply to every other page. Enhancing the look and aesthetics of the Main Page is the best thing that can be done to increase our reach. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

    And "[e]nhancing the look and aesthetics" of any page is exactly what the policies you refer to tell us non-free content absolutely and unequivocally can not be used for. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

21. Support-Yes. So, so yes. Our goal, first and foremost, must be to be the greatest encyclopedia possible. Every other consideration must be secondary to that. Yes, when a freely licensed image is available, we should give preference to it, but when it's not, any distaste for non-free content must take a backseat to our goal of educating.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can see the argument against using cruddy or tangentially-related images just because they're free, but that's an issue of editorial common sense. Especially in regards to the "teaser" nature of DYKs and TFA, I don't think that the non-free images used there could ever meet the requirements we'd put on them in the articles themselves per WP:NFCC. I only skimmed the linked discussion so if there's a comment that specifically relates to my concerns I'd be happy to entertain it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   Hi, wouldn't NFCC #8 address this? "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is the sort of thing we would be talking about here, so it would encompass logos and other pieces of completely irreplaceable content. I'm attempting to propose stricter standards than the normal NFCC guidelines so that we can re-add TFA to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, where it was listed until 2007. Last, note that I don't think DYKs could ever rise to the level of needing non-free content. TFAs get the equivalent of a lead section. DYKs get a sentence and your choice of six articles' images. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   There's potentially ambiguity as to what "the topic" means. What is the "topic" of the main page? This is not empty pontificating- when assessing whether an image is needed, we have to ask whether the topic of the article can only be understood with the use of the content. It's not the topic of the text/section in which the image appears which is important (otherwise, for instance, album covers would always be justified in well developed articles on musicians if they are on album articles), so we couldn't simply say "the topic is whatever the topic of the FA is". J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Which is why I'm proposing a narrow, case-by-case basis for TFAs only. I'm not saying we should allow it for every instance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   That's not really a solution to the problem. There's an ambiguity as to what is meant by "topic" if we use non-free content once or a million times. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Per the above, WP:NFCC#8 addresses this: removal would not be detrimental to the understanding as you could formulate the text better so that the image isn't needed. Besides, what you choose to display is an editorial choice. Today, there are for example six statements listed under the headline "Did you know..." and only one is illustrated as there is not enough space to include an illustration for all of them. If not all statements can't be illustrated because of space limitations, then why not choose to illustrate a statement for which there is a free image available? That is more or less what WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS states: don't use more non-free images than necessary. Also, WP:NFCC#9 prevents the use of non-free images on pages such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2013 as the page is outside the main namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   Note that (a) this is for TFA only, not DYK (b) I'm proposing to re-add a TFA exemption to NFCC, because obviously NFCC#9 prevents it at the present time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

3. We are mandated to minimize the use of non-free content on the project per The Resolution and should only use it if absolutely necessary. In most cases the non-free images would be displayed out of the article context which is implicitly necessary for satisfying WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose, Simple question why is it required to include a non-free file on the main page? If you cannot give a strong reason for this that isnt a vague generalization, and summed up by "because it makes the main page more visually appealing" the change in policy shoulnt even be on the horizon let alone being discussed. Werieth (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   No. The non-free image will serve the same function it does in the article, because it will be displayed next to a summary of the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, this is false, if the non-free image is being used right in the article. Per the Foundation and our NFCC, non-free images are used in context of the article as to augment the text (NFCC#8). When used on the front page, that context is immediately removed because we have a a short blurb that is a trimmed version of the lead. Any context for non-frees of images in the body of the article are lost. One could argue then that non-free infobox images would be okay (since these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article) but as most of these fall under cover art or logos, that could be seen as advertising on the main page. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I think it's almost always the infobox image. I don't have statistics if most would fall under cover art or logos, but I know there are articles about events (Hurricane Debbie (1961)) and articles about deceased people (Adrian Boult). Are you basing the advertising thing on some policy? You know displaying the article on the main page it self can be seen by some as advertising. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, that's how it's taken. Coming from the video games project, its nearly inevitable that when a video game FA hits the front page, visits will complain about why is this being "featured". I'm sure the same would be true for television, modern films, etc. It's not so much a policy aspect but moreso the impression we're giving to readers. (But this is also in addition to my earlier comment about flaunting the "free encyclopedia" when we use a non-free image right then and then, top left next to that logo. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Sure some critics will complain about "the free encyclopedia featuring non-free images on its mainpage", but hey who cares? Article also have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and we use non-free images there. The way I see it, since this is not in contradiction with any policies or laws, why should we hold it back? (as historical discussions show, we used to do that before 2007). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   And then the Foundation issued their Resolution to restrict non-frees to exceptional uses for all Wikimedia projects as their purpose is to build a collection of free-to-reuse reference works. So what happened pre-2007 does not apply here since we're bound by that resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The resolution you are referring to is WP:NFCC, which allows for certain exceptions, like the practices carried on pre-2007. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The Resolution Masem is referring to is this one. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Well that's even better, because I've already refuted that argument in my opening. The licensing policy was issued to direct projects to create a non-free content policy if they chose to host them. There is no specific provision there that applies here, other than a general direction to limit non-free content where possible, with exceptions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The aesthetics argument seems validated, but this is basically taunting the free content mission of the encyclopedia when this would happen. I can imagine there may be an IAR case in some very remote chance, but it shouldn't be formalized in policy. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
6. No. The main page is supposed to show the best of what we can do; images that are free and available for anyone to use for any purpose are part of that best. Jheald (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't agree. Featured articles are supposed to be the best of what we can do, yet some of them have non-free images. In this case we are specifically talking about featured articles that have no free images. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   There are also categories, references and section titles in featured articles. The mere fact that something is in a featured article has little bearing on whether it's suitable for the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing how is this related to the above. I urged that our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among our best, thus they shouldn't be disqualified from being featured on the main page on the basis that they aren't among our best. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Apologies, I misread what you said. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No prob. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

7. Obviously oppose. There seems to be no good argument in favour of this, and Ed, I disagree that it was uncontroversial before Jimbo said it was a bad idea. I hate the idea that we are saying "Hello, and welcome to a free content encyclopedia. This is the finest thing we have for you- something that isn't free." You might as well say "Welcome to an online encyclopedia. This is the best thing we have for you- it's offline. Head down to your local library to see it today!" J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The same could be said about our Featured articles that have non-free images (all articles have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). The only difference is level of exposure and perhaps the distance between the image and the "free encyclopedia" thing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I disagree- the articles exist to inform, not to display our finest content. The main page is there to display content, and hopefully encourage people to go to the articles so that they can be informed. I disagree with the use of non-free content on pages that exist to display our finest content- Featured content lists and categories, portals, Signpost articles and, yes, the main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I find this argument very similar to the above, that non-free images are not part of our finest/best content. If they weren't, why would they be part of some FAs? (unless of course you think these FAs are lower grade than 100% free-content FAs). Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I do not think that, I just think that the main page and the article page have different purposes, as I explained. I do not think the purpose of the main page is furthered by non-free content, while the purpose of the article is. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

8. This proposal contradicts NFCC #9, which says that non-free images may only be used on articles. The main page is not an article, it is really a portal in article space. Plus, the non-free image would not be discussed or contextually significant when only accompanied by the lead. Also agree with the argument that we should only feature free content on the front page. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   But the proposal is to "re-add an exemption for TFA to NFCC (per WP:NFCC#9)". To paraphrase Masem, the non-free infobox images can be argued to be ok, because "these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article". So there you got the context. As for wanting the front page being free content only, you didn't explain why. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose - this is a free content encyclopedia and, though we tolerate fair use some places, the content we showcase should be free content. --B (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose Basically word for word what B said. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
11. No - fair use images should be limited to where they are necessary for the understanding of an article, and I'm not convinced that they can fulfill this purpose as part of a "teaser" lead on the main page.  Sandstein  11:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    This is actually the closest thing to a reasonable oppose I've seen. I would be willing to work with a compromise that primarily limits the use of fair-use TFA images to articles on subjects where most of the available images are likely to be copyrighted ... i.e. fictional works in primarily visual media like movies, TV shows, comic books/graphic novels, video games etc. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Masem. Wikipedia should be as free as possible, especially the main page. --John (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    "An idealist is one who, upon noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, assumes the rose would also make better soup." – H.L. Mencken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

13. Oppose The front page should be Wikipedia at its best. It's a bit of a laugh if it says "the free encyclopedia" and then right there on the page is something that isn't free! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Per Andrew, J Milburn and others. Plus, this is a solution looking for a problem; the blurb for TFA is carefully scripted so as to make the topic clear, it doesn't need a non-free image image to make it clearer. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I agree with pretty much all of the arguments for opposition above, most especially the argument that the TFA teaser should embody Wikipedia at its best. Readers who want to better understand the content can easily follow the link to the actual FA, where all the images are available. Also, I'd like to point to WP:NFCC#2 (and #3A), which haven't yet been discussed here. I don't think that the proposal actually violates the letter of #2, but please consider how it reflects on the spirit of it. For every non-free image, there exists, somewhere, a copyright holder who has not licensed the copyright to us. By putting that image, for Wikipedia's use, on our main page, which is one of the most widely viewed pages on the Internet, we are diluting whatever interest the copyright owner might have in the copyright, to a much greater extent than what is permitted by our existing non-free file use policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just as a comment on the last point, US Fair Use law specifically gives users that allowance (though we are specifically more stricter than that), so it's not that the nature of copyright dilution is a direct driving force here (though arguably that is implicitly built into Wikimedia's free content mission). That said, the use of a non-free image on the main page as to make it visually appealing - the primary point of the proposal - could be argued as not meeting US Fair Use law, since we'd be using the nice image to draw eyes in and potentially that is outside fair use allowances. I doubt we'd be sued on that, and the other reasons given are much stronger for why we don't allow this practice, but this is one thing to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with you on all of that. As I said, this is about the spirit, not the letter. And it seems to me that, in putting forth Wikipedia at its best, it's entirely appropriate to consider the spirit. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Oh sure, no worries. I just stress (as the confusion comes up often) that while NFC is considered a legal policy, we don't enforce it (outside of copyvios) as if WP would be in legal trouble or under threat of lawsuit, to make a distinction from, say, BLP where huge legal ramifications can exist for event the smallest slight. The Foundation will tell us if anyone puts forth a challenge to our use of NFC, so arguments from the legal perspective should be avoided if discussing NFC issues. This issue on NFC in TFA is definitely more about the spirit of what fair use means and how we should treat non-free media. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

16. Generally oppose for the reason given by many: fair use requires there to be a clear and indisputable context to justify it. It's hard to see that this would apply to extracts of articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose It's pushing the boundary of IP law a little too far to justify an image simply because it makes the TFA summary look nice. If it were up to me then I'd scrap chunks of the copyright restrictions placed on us, but they laws are there for a reason, whether we like it or not, and I think it behoves us, as a mature organisation, to stick to the spirit and letter of the law as far as possible. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    As noted just a few comments above, our fair-use policy is in no way dictated by U.S. copyright law. It is, in fact, purposely much narrower.

    This is another long-term problem I have with it. Far too many editors think that we're somehow legally mandated to do this—we are not. Of course those who propagated this policy have been in no great hurry to clear up this confusion ... they know they win a great many deletion arguments with ignorant users (particularly new ones) through this misunderstanding.

    And what might be the logical end to this? Perhaps one of the big copyright holders like Disney will push to have U.S. copyright law amended to be identical with policy. After all, if it's OK for Wikipedia and Wikipedia says it's about promoting free content, well, who are we to argue. So, instead of promoting free content, it will wind up having precisely the opposite effect. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose. The Main Page is not a pig to be given lipstick just for the sake of aesthetics...especially when that lipstick is non-free. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose In the main, I believe the reason not to show fair-use images on the main page is an ideological one. Blind ideology is bad. But a little ideology is good. This is an example of a little ideology. So, the status quo has my support. --RA (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    See my comments in the section directly above. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Back to supporting. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I understand that non-free content has a limited but necessary role on Wikipedia, and why some people want this on the main page. But the Main Page is a show-case of what's best of Wikipedia, and part of that is our terms of use (we're the only major encyclopedia where you can freely use most content). We should take the opportunity to clearly show that we are a free (libre) encyclopedia. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose - non-free means non-free. I understand the mainpage is a showcase of what is best on Wikipedia, but that also means we have to make sure that, especially, that page is complying with all policies and guidelines. Change 'non-free image' for any other subject where there would only be really illegal images and then you would make the same consideration? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
22. Support only if, at the same time, we change our motto to "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", removing the word "free" and any reference to free content. Otherwise, oppose. --MuZemike 19:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    I was actually thinking the very same thing just a few months ago. You've stolen my train of thought! :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 19:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

    Changing the goal of being a free encyclopedia is a much more fundamental change than allowing non-free content on the main page. My understanding is that you're not actually calling for this fundamental change, but using the same "free encyclopedia" argument as many opposes above (and to which my response is below). Am I right? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

23. Oppose I know that I'm never going to win over the other side, but in my opinion having fair use at all on this project is a serious issue, and allowing it to appear on the main page would just make a bad situation worse. Read Wikipedia:Veganism parable. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
24. (Qualified) oppose. From a nasty old NFC radical like myself, it may come as a surprise to some that mine is not actually a much stronger oppose, but I am actually not completely moved by the "showcase" argument ("Front page should be a showcase of our best achievements; if we didn't manage to treat a topic without the help of a non-free image, then somehow that's a failure and we shouldn't show it"). If a topic really really needs such an image, I see nothing radically more wrong in showing it on the mainpage than in showing it in the article itself. However, this proposal states that it wants to allow such images only on a "limited basis", but fails to specify what those limits would be, and so far nothing in the preceding comments and votes has clarified any possible set of such criteria. Personally, I could live with allowing images in cases of creative works such as paintings or statues, where the work is the topic of the article and the image directly and completely represents that work. If we were to showcase our article on Guernica (painting), we could have Guernica on the main page. I would draw the line at everything else: none of the cases of routine "identifying" uses; no cover pages (their "identifying" function is hardly ever necessary enough); certainly no logos; no movie or TV screenshots （they typically don't really "represent" the whole work in any obvious, non-arbitrary way, and ought only to be used to support individual passages of analysis in the article, but not as generic "identifiers", and so on. However, since the present proposal fails to guarantee any such strict limits, and since experience shows there is a strong slippery-slope problem, where even a small window of exceptions is almost certain to invite inflationary misuse, I have to reject the proposal as it stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose Per Andrew, Sandstein, J Milbourne etc. Having considered this before in Main Page discussions, I'm also with Fut.Perf. in that if I were to change my mind and agree to inclusion, the cases should be strictly limited and would not generally include things like TV series, games, movies etc but only special cases like paintings. Even then, as I've said before I'm not convinced there's good reason in most cases as the thumbnail, whether on the main page or even in the article is actually often not enough to sufficiently convey the important information. (And unlike Tony, I don't believe we should have massive thumbnails.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose per J Milburn, who above points out the obvious flaw in the proposal, which is that by opening up the Main Page TFA slot to non-free images, the same argument can be used for portal FA slots as well, and there is certainly no consensus to permit non-free images anywhere else outside of article space. —howcheng {chat} 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Can we avoid slippery slope arguments please? Back when this policy was adopted those of us who warned that it was intended as but a step towards the gradual emulation of the German and Spanish Wikipedia's policy of permitting only free media were hit over the head with that particular trout. We are discussing only permitting the limited use of fair-use media in the main page TFA blurb here. Nothing more.

    If someone wants to have that discussion, they can, and I might actually agree that the Main Page is one thing while the portal pages are another. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not saying slippery slope: that's an argument saying that if we allow a thing for a certain reason, by stretching that reason we end up allowing other things. No, Milburn's argument is that the same reasoning can be applied to article summaries in portals: if using a non-free image with shortened text is allowed in location 1, why shouldn't it be allowed in location 2 when the circumstances of its inclusion are exactly the same? —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Howcheng, thank you. Daniel: "If someone wants to have that discussion, they can, and I might actually agree that the Main Page is one thing while the portal pages are another." They could assert it, sure. What no one has managed to do is identify a relevant difference between main page use and portal use such that the arguments in favour of MP use would not also apply to portal use. The point is this- unless we're going to be completely arbitrary, I can see no way of permitting MP use without permitting portal use. We agree that portal use is not acceptable, and so, by extension, we should disallow MP use. That's not a slippery slope argument. That's got nothing to do with a slippery slope argument. Either you misunderstand me, or you misunderstand what a slippery slope argument is. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

27. Oppose - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". That argument is valid for article space, but not for a blurb on the main page. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose I do not see the arguments put forth in favor of scrapping this policy to be compelling enough to discard the "minimum use" doctrine currently in place. --Jayron32 21:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I agree with the oppose arguments. We should try to restrict fair use images as much as possible, while encouraging free images. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
30. Oppose The homepage is in my eyes primarily an advertisement for wikipedia itself. It's hard to conceieve of an image for which a fair-use rationale exists for both an article and for an advertisement for wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose. The mission of the project is to create a free encyclopedia. The Main Page showcases the project and should mirror its core values. The licensing policy requires that the EDP is minimal and all non-free material is used to the minimum extent possible. Any necessary image the omission of which would be detrimental to the understanding of the article should be included in the article, but there is no good reason to include it in the teaser on the Main Page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
32. Oppose On the same grounds as Eleassar. I think that the use of non-free images on the Main Page runs counter to the core values of Wikipedia. Non-free media of all sorts should be minimized as much as possible. We certainly don't want it on the Main Page. Zell Faze (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
33. Oppose because WP:NFCC#8 needs the usage to be critical to the understanding of the prose, and if the summarizing blurb on the front page requires NFC for readers to understand it, then the blurb's been badly written frankly. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
34. Oppose cam ehere because of a request for closurer was placed at the notice board, but after reading thru the discussion I felt I had another view in that I sit both sides of the fence but to me what tips my opinion is that the changes proposed include the use of logo's.. I have no issue with fair use photographs but logo, album covers, video games type subject I'm unsupportive of it as it'll only encourage a "commerialisation" by stealth of the mainpage and further encourage the PR propoganda machines. Also that such a dramatic shift on the main page should be decided by a larger community input than just 60 editors, Gnangarra 02:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would caution against using fair use images where we don't need to use them. This lessens our chances of getting free license images. I created File:Copyright information image.png for this reason. We technically can't host an image of the Oscar because we have four in FOP countries: List of Academy Award trophies on public display. I recently edited Help:Contents to get us more free license images from readers. It was reverted within minutes. So far only the reverter and I are discussing it at Help talk:Contents. I created File:Visual consent image.jpg and File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png to license images easier without emailing the backlog at OTRS. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors is another project that should get off the ground soon, hopefully. I have had great success emailing the subjects of articles to get images for them or replace lame ones. Most didn't know they are allowed to provide images which is why I edited Help:Contents in the "I want to report a problem with an article" section. I feel my edit should also go on Wikipedia:Contact us which is another page that readers and subjects may turn to if they wish to provide better images. We should be trying to get more free license images instead of using fair use ones in more places. When readers see our fair use images they probably assume that they are free license and won't try to provide any because we have them already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image depicting custom FA image (simplest)

• TFA criteria: I was reading Jimbo's 2007 edit. That edit and specially the next few edits where one after another image was tried and was rejected and it seems Jimbo's image was deleted on the same day for some reason. Anyway, a TFA criteria can be added that an article must have at least one free image. In case an FA can not collect a free image anyhow, another option might be creating a custom image (artistic creation). The simplest might be just make a graphic of the title with some nice colours, fonts and effects! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's completely unfair. There may be article topics that can be featured but there is no possible free image that could be made. Or, as part of the initial discussion that I think this discussion stemmed from off of WT:TFA, there may be a free image but it is disconnected from the bulk of the topic (common example: a picture of a person that may have been critical behind the scenes of a published work (the topic of the TFA candidate) but has no obvious public recognizition such that it would seem like putting a random photo next to a topic. In the body of the article it would make sense but wouldn't work with a blurb. In such cases, the image should just be omitted. But if you then restrict TFA to only those with "related" free images, you're basically making the TFA a very exclusive club. That just won't fly. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, most of the FAs have free images. Very rarely an article like Mother India does not have it. I basically oppose the idea since on the main page it is clearly written "The Free encyclopedia" and right below that we are posting a non-free image!! :-O Now, in my post above, I attempted to explain the alternatives of Non-free image when and free image can not be found too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. To not appear to be badgering opposes, I'll reply here to some arguments raised above.

1. Wikipedia should be as free as possible. By this logic we should delete all non-free images used in articles. This argument and WP:VEGAN essay make no difference between using non-free images in articles and in TFA; they're opposed to both.
2. It's a bit of a laugh if it says "the free encyclopedia" and then right there on the page is something that isn't free!. The same could be said about our Featured articles that have non-free images (all articles have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). The only difference is level of exposure and perhaps the distance between the image and the "free encyclopedia" thing.
3. The front page should be Wikipedia at its best. Our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among part of our best, thus they shouldn't be disqualified from being featured on the main page on the basis that they aren't among our best. If non-free images weren't among our best, why would they be part of some FAs? (unless of course you think these FAs are lower grade than 100% free-content FAs). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among our best". No, they're not. They merely pass NFCC. Our best images are our Featured Pictures, which are all free images. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But I didn't say they are our best images. Let me put it like this: FAs are among our best content. Some FAs contain non-free images. Thus those non-free images are part of our best content (and removing them would reduce the quality of the article). Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's FAs that have free images that are not considered our best content but a free image nevertheless to represent the topic at hand. It's a fallacy to say that because an article has passed FA that all media on the article are also considered "featured" quality. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we don't dismiss those free non-featured images because they are not the best/finest (actually this is a better argument than the one I used originally). I agree that "[i]t's a fallacy to say that because an article has passed FA that all media on the article are also considered 'featured' quality" and I'm not pushing in this direction. What I said is that they are part of our best articles and shouldn't be dismissed on the basis they're aren't our best (re-reading the last sentence of my own argument above, I can see where the misunderstanding stems from). Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free-content advocacy organisation. The use of freely-licensed content is a means to an end, not the primary goal of the project. If people (both readers and editors) want free images, they can go to Commons. Modest Genius ^talk 10:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't see why fair use images can't be used used on the mainpage/today'sfeaturedarticle if fair use images/media/quotations/etc. can be used in other articles.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The main page isn't an article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's debatable. It's within article space, and TFA at least is effectively just the lead section of an article. Admittedly the MP isn't considered an article for the purposes of e.g. WP:LAYOUT. But either way, whether or not it qualifies as an article is irrelevant to the question of whether we should allow fair-use images on it. Modest Genius ^talk 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It's debatable whether the main page is not an article? You're on shakey ground there. I was replying specifically to Curb Chain's claims, I was not meaning to say "It's not an article, therefore...". J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thus illustrates my point fair use images are not iniquitous.Curb Chain (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No one's claiming that they are. Even if they were, why would the main page not being an article have anything to do with that? J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, thus fair use images should be used on the main page.Curb Chain (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Non-free images aren't iniquitous and whether or not the main page is an article is irrelevant, therefore non-free images should be able to be used on the main page"? How on earth does that follow? J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TFA blurb whitelist proposal

Per my response to Sandstein, and Future Perfect's !vote, I would like to propose a whitelist of sorts of for fair-use content in the Main Page TFA blurb, based on WP:NFCI (a/k/a the old fair-use whitelist).

I would make four general statements as matter of guidance:

• The fair-use media in the blurb must be used in the article. No exceptions.

• The general bias of this whitelist is in favor of blurbs for FAs about creative works under copyright in the U.S., echoing the fair-use whitelist (now WP:NFCI). There are a couple of other likely exceptions that I will deal with below. Outside of that, it is always possible that there could be some other situations where they would be likely, but I wouldn't bet on them coming up even infrequently. It would have to be a case-by-case thing (ahem).

• We should also avoid fair-use images that have the copyrighted work of others that is probably not relevant to the subject of the article. For example, if we had an article about a magazine or website with a fair-use logo, it would be much preferred to use that logo by itself instead of a cover or screenshot, which is likely to contain third-party copyrights.

  However, by contrast, a book cover's copyrighted art is usually specific to that book, so it could be used.

• Lastly, having a fair-use image in the FA blurb should never be seen as mandatory. If it is desired by whoever proposes the article for the main page (which, to be fair, is often whoever developed it to that point and guided it through the nomination process) that it use a free image even if it otherwise meets the criteria here and there are better fair-use images in the article, the community should give that wish its usual deference.

Now, to specific types of these subjects and what sort of fair-use media might be acceptable in the TFA blurb:

• Books: The cover art (which might not even be copyright-eligible anyway).
• Comics/graphic novels: The title page or cover.
• Magazines: The logo, as I outlined above. Unless a cover that's otherwise copyright-ineligible can be found.
• Albums: The cover.
• Individual musical works: Perhaps an audio file of a well-known passage, such as the chorus of a song (especially if the title's clearly used).
• Visual art. A picture of the work (come on, wouldn't it have been nice to have seen a picture of Cloud Gate when that article was on the main page?)
• Moving-image media. A cast photo (if inclusive enough). Or perhaps a brief video clip of the title sequence?
• Software or video games. The splash screen (or, with most newer software, more like the splash box, which usually has minimal copyrighted content anyway).

The non-copyrighted subjects where a fair-use image might frequently be desired:

• Deceased people, where no free image or video exists nor is likely to prior to legal expiration of copyright.
• Living people whose notability derives from a past era in which their appearance was vastly different from what it is now and of which no free media exists or likely to be created and/or individuals whose notability is in part due to their appearance and no free media exists or is likely to be created of that appearance (however, if that appearance invokes a third-party copyright, that would be a deal-breaker. Example: Should Adam West be developed to FA status and reach the Main Page, we would not want to use a picture of him in his Batman mask).
• Fictional characters who have not been portrayed by a recognizable real person like Master Chief and other video-game characters
• Iconic photos strongly associated with historical events like this image for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Please discuss below here to avoid breaking up the bulleted lists. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact you keep using "fair use" means you have no concept of why we have NFCC policy. We do not operate under fair use principles. We operate to minimize non-free use per the Foundation's request. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual wording of the resolutions is '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.' That's not the same thing as 'minimize non-free use'. Modest Genius ^talk 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Masem, I'm fully aware of why we have it: because just enough users to secure consensus on it chose to interpret "promote free content" that way. That's the only reason. Any other claimed basis for its existence is reading too much into the past.

And I continue to refuse to use this politically correct "non-free" terminology because I strongly suspect that it was coined to deliberately obfuscate the underlying issues so as to allow maximum interpretation of the policy to remove fair-use media that otherwise met the criteria, and thus keep the number of new editors to a tolerable minimum. In fact, when this whole policy was adopted seven years ago, the term "non-free" was not used in the debate. It wasn't even introduced after the Foundation resolution.

Know why it was introduced? I had a conversation at a meetup with someone I'd argued with frequently here who was a pretty strong advocate of the policy at first, but grew disillusioned when some of his comrades admitted to him, over one issue, that the goal was to effectively discourage the use of any fair-use media by making it impractical and difficult to justify doing so even where the file in question easily met the criteria (so yeah, my ability to AGF here is a little hampered). He told me that "non-free" was coined simply in response to people, usually new editors, who didn't understand the whole "free as in speech vs. free as in beer" thing. That's all.

So, instead of doing the hard work that we all should do even though it takes our time and explain this so that those new to the concept would understand, they chose to change the terminology instead, leaving it to the new user to be even more confused and decide the hell with this Wikipedia thing.

By the way, given the emphasis you put into your sentence casting doubt on my understanding of the fair-use policy, I can only conclude that willful disrespect was intended and thus I consider it a personal attack. Whether you agree upon further reflection and strike it through and/or apologize is entirely up to you. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Such EDPs must be minimal.". Don't see how else that can be misread. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is not the reading of the sentence; it's the scope of "minimal." Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, how can that not be taken (in context) as "approaching zero"? --MASEM (t) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there's another word for that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the legal term "fair use", and the more philosphical term "non-free". We only use the latter because of the fact that if a piece of media is "tainted" by copyright ownership that restricts its redistribution or reuse, we can't call it "free" and must mark it so. As the Foundation requires use to only use those in exceptional cases, we must minimize our use as such. "Fair use" on the other hand is a legal phrase that allows people to use copyrighted materials without license under a limited, but generally broad set of uses. It is a completely different concept that our NFC policy, nor the Foundation's resolution, considers short of the fact that by meeting either, we're pretty much assured we've met the US requirements for fair use law. Continuing to ask for "fair use allowance" on the front page will not fly, even if you think the term "non-free" is bad; the point is that "non-free" is the accurate term we use in resolving all issues with otherwise not-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad; I know it is. We would be fully justified in using that distinction if, and only if, we followed the German and Spanish Wikipedias in allowing only Richard Stallman-certified free content ... and if we didn't even allow quotes from copyrighted work in our text, for that matter. As long as we do allow media under some aspect of the traditional concept of fair use, however much we choose to narrow it for our own ends, the term "non-free" will remain purely propagandistic IMO. As I've said before, if we use that, we might as well call those media we do allow unrestricted use of "Media From Friendly Socialist Countries." Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But it's important to recognize in light of the Foundation's resolution that "non-free" is the proper term. They want us to promote (Stallman)-freely available media; that's their mission in the first place.

Let me put it another way. We have no really good idea what the number of images we would need to include to reach a level where we might start falling in trouble with US Fair Use Law, but certainly I think it's safe to say that it is much larger than the number of non-frees we have right now (450,000-ish IIRC). In other words, we could easily "fill to the brim" of fair use content and be completely legal and not worry about the Foundation getting in trouble. The problem is that that's counter to the non-free Resolution and goal of a Stallman-free encyclopedia. Thinking about the inclusion of non-free images as "well, its within US fair use law, there's no problem" absolutely fails at considering the resolution and NFC policy; it hurts it when no additional thought it put in place. There's a reason why we ask for rationales, why we avoid decorative uses of non-free, and a whole bunch of other things that far exceed what would be needed to demonstrate meeting fair use law. We want editors to think before blindly using non-free media as if it were fair use at a Wikia or blog or even in academics. We're on the Foundation's playground and we need to follow their rules, so trivializing the nature of where the "non-free" term came from and substituting "fair use" is pretty much ignoring those rules. In the case at hand, I totally agree that we'd be able to use such images on the front page under fair use laws, but it is pretty much thumbing our nose in the Foundation's face in terms of ignoring the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted, prior to 2004 or so there was pretty much no limit on where fair-use images could or couldn't be used, and they were all over the place. When I started editing near the end of that year the process of taking them out of userspace was beginning; later we moved them out of all non mainspace pages (with some exceptions. And I don't argue with that decision; nor the May 19, 2005, limitation on the types of licensing and fair use.

What I do take issue with was the adoption of the current policy in summer 2006. Yes, before then there was a lot of indiscriminate fair-use in article space. But it is one thing to encourage users to think carefully about our image-use policy and another to penalize them even when as far as they know they have done so by deleting the image. And completely confusing them in the process, like this person clearly is (click it while you can). And, if that doesn't work, biting them by confusing our fair-use policy with the law and accusing the uploader of ... theft.

Wikipedia existed before the Foundation did; it is inaccurate to characterize the relationship as "on their playground" IMO (I'd love to see how that would go over on the chapters mailing list ) In any event the Foundation does not make the specific rules for us; the resolution in question strongly guides us to preferring free content but is also specific that individual projects can decide for themselves what minimal fair use they will allow.

I'm sorry if describing the origin of the "free/non-free" dichotomy as I understand it seems to "trivialize it" by suggesting it has nothing to do with the Foundation's dictates. But that's hardly unique in history; we make many things sound nobler years after the fact. And if you think "fair use" has no place in the discussion I suggest you remove the language invoking fair use from all our templates justifying third-party copyrighted media used that way. But ... oh! The Wikimedia Foundation Counsel might have something to say about that! Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the Foundation now owns the servers that hosts the content that en.wiki is on, they are in every right to set rules. You are completely free to grab a copy of everything on en.wiki (the open source in fact allows you to do that) and run on a separate server with a less restrictive non-free content policy. But as for right now, right here, we start with the Foundation's resolution - which is involved by en.wiki's switch from a fair use approach to a non-free approach. Now, this is getting off track, but I will admit that there are some in non-free enforcement that are harsh, and we're still trying to come to grips with how not to do it from the BetaCommand stuff. That said, understanding why we have a non-free media policy and what it means to image uploads is also not trivial and while I'm open to trying to help newbies, this is simply one area that you can't just click a few buttons to upload any image. Handling NFC content uploaded by newer users will seem harsh but only because this is a case we do expect editors to RTFM before they hit "upload". We simply can't make it simpler. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

""Since the Foundation now owns the servers that hosts the content that en.wiki is on, they are in every right to set rules." But they are wise not to make such specifics. As for the semantics we have been arguing about, I will say that from my perspective, "fair use" and "non-free" have the same denotation, but different connotations, and that is the root of my objection.

Enforcement: It has been six or seven years since BetaCommand ... and we still haven't figured this out? As someone actively involved in enforcing the username policy, I freely admit that it's not the only arcane policy we don't explain sufficiently to newcomers before bringing the hammer down on them. But if we expect new users to RTFM (and please remember what the "F" stands for in this context; it's inherently bitey), then we ought to have some sort of more realistic M for them to read once they click on Special:Upload and choose non-free content (a concept no one outside of Wikipedia uses, so it needs more explaining even there). Something that asks more specific questions about the image in question, with illustrations (yes; we'd have to use fair-use images there to make our point), maybe taking the user through several screens, and explains why we like these media licensed this way and how it helps Wikipedia. Above all we need to explain how we define replaceability (And I will grant that the distinction between replaceable fair use and irreplaceable fair use is the one that matters for the use of "non-free.").

At the very least we should link to this page instead of the main NFC page. Its lede sentence is the one new image uploaders of a possible replaceable fair-use image need to hear, and what we need to tell them. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, we have to make the clear distinction between "non-free" and "fair use" as in dealing with copyrighted files, they have two vastly different means (which I've explained above). You may think them similar, but that goes against how we have been asked to handle non-free. Basically, there's a lot of stuff that I'd be the first one to agree that we could use as fair use, but fail under the Foundation's non-free policy, and by conflating the terms, it makes it difficult to explain the difference. As for newbie biting, there have been a lot of attempts to improve the upload process via the "Upload File" link at the left bar (Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard )- it pretty much gets the uploader to answer all the NFCC questions and assure that the red tape is at least satisfied (there may still be problems but all the facets like replaceability are explained out), but unfortunately, editors that use Special:Upload are bypassing that helpful guide. However, I still argue that WP, while built around "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", still expects new users to RTFM (in the broad sense) for all aspects, including but not limited to NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this list differs from the general practice of what is allowed in articles. In other words, Daniel, you are basically saying that any non-free image used in an article can also be used on the main page? If you want to present this as "per ...Future Perfect's !vote", you must have misunderstood something. This is absolutely not compatible with my position, which explicitly excluded all but one of the case groups you list. I'd suggest you strike your reference to me in your intro, and please count me as among those who will strenuously oppose this proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with the specifics or scope of your position, just the general thrust of it that some more specific guidelines/limitations were necessary (Would this clarify things enough?). It is narrower than the fair-use whitelist in that I would not allow the use of a fair-use file in the blurb just because it's justified in the article—I would agree with you that it has to be something that expresses the entirety of the subject (such as a title card or drop for a TV show, as opposed to a still or clip).

For example, it is my fond hope that someday I will be able to sit down and improve Anna Wintour and/or perp walk to FA status. Both of them have fair-use images that are fully justified and adjacent to sourced commentary in the accompanying text. Yet I wouldn't allow them on the Main Page as they relate to specifics within that text and not the entirety of the subject, for which more appropriate free images already exist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I try to cut through the arguments about whether or not the words "non-free material" are OK or not, I think this proposal is an effort to define certain classes of non-free images as so difficult to replace with free images that we should carve out an exception for them on the main page. I don't see what good this would do. It's not like some kinds of non-free uses are "fairer" than others, either in the letter or the spirit of what the Foundation has said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We established what is now WP:NFCI a long time ago as the fair-use whitelist recognizing that some fair-use images are more suited, indeed "fairer", in certain articles than others. We can have a reduced-res picture of the album cover or website screenshot in the article about the album or website, that has never been in dispute, but it requires a lot more justification (and commentary specific to the image in the adjacent text, and some sort of consensus that we aren't ruining the rights holder's commercial opportunities (the idea that, say, if we have a good-quality free image of a celebrity that gets widely reused, we are depressing the market for future copyrighted images of said celebrity and thus disrespecting the commercial opportunities of people who make a living doing this goes unmentioned and unexamined in the debate)) to use in, say, the article about the designer of those images.

And as for free vs. non-free, hey, if it works for you here, go ahead and use it. I'm not going to stop you. But if I feel those terms are laden with an agenda and critique them at length, and that critique makes someone uncomfortable enough to lash out at me in response ... well, that's not my problem, really, is it? Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't think that I was lashing out at you! That's fair enough (no pun intended). I just don't believe that we need to create a new level of criteria for admitting images to the main page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I must say that Daniel Case's grasp of what non-free vs fair use is completely off base and incorrect. The term "non-free" is not a political term, rather a delineation of what we consider free media and copyrighted material (which may or may not be used under the guise of fair use). Wikipedia refuses For Wikipedia only and cc-sa-nc and similar licenses as we consider them non-free since everyone cannot use the file. There are countless files that could be uploaded under the non-commercial clause of creative commons, which we refuse but could freely use without worry. There are multiple degrees of copyright that play into this equation that determine where a file falls on the free/non-free category on wikipedia, but might not be under a copyright where the term "fair use" could be applied. There are cases where a file might be out of copyright in specific regions but still under it in others, and that factors into it. Wikipedia could easily use the non-commercial licensed files under creative commons and those are "free" for us to use, however re-users cannot. The usage of non-free media on the main page is just eye candy, and decorative as it can be replaced with a link to the article where the file is being used and which covers the topic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Several hundred words of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We can call it whatever we want to call it for whatever reasons we want if it works for {most of} us. But the underlying body of law that allows us to use, under the limits we have chosen for ourselves, is still widely referred to outside Wikipedia as fair use, as it has been since long before Wikipedia existed. Why else would we have templates with names like {{Non-free fair use}}? Why else is "fair use" cited in every single one of those rationales? Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are license templates, half of the requirement we need on all non-free articles. These are saying , effectively, that we know the work is copyrighted by a non-free statement, and thus we are using them here under a claim of fair-use. As that template says, that doesn't meet our policy or the resolution's requirement because one still must justify the use with a rationale that explains how NFCC is met. And no, we can't go switching language around to suit our whims. "Fair use" has a specific legal meaning, and within context of the Foundation's goal of free content, "non-free" has a specific meaning. Attempting to waive those meanings to argue for more use is completely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My complaint with those terms has never been to argue for more use; that's a separate argument for me. My complaint has always been that they make something that is complicated enough to begin with even more complicated. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 12 June 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.