Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62→Archive 65

Please add the Graphics labs to...

Please add the Wikipedia:Graphics lab and it's workshops (i.e. subpages) to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions as most often it's useful to display thumbnails/previews of images that have been proposed for editing or are currently being worked on by graphists. This includes such things as posting requests to shrink non-free images so that they better comply with guidelines for article use. I'm assuming that it was simply an oversight to not have already included the Graphics lab pages.

Thanks for your time, attention, and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg should be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.– While y'all are at it, it seems reasonable to add Category:Wikipedia_non-free_file_size_reduction_requests as well. Seems graphists —visual thinkers— are more likely to address files that have been displayed in a thumbnail gallery rather than just as text filenames. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wont happen on either issue, the need for violating WP:NFCC#9 isnt justified. Werieth (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Werieth, please expound on why and how "it's not justified" for image editors to see what they're working on? And describe explicitly how you would modify the Photography workshop's request display template code to better suit your interpretation of the guidelines? --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Usage on Graphics labs fail WP:NFCC#1, 3 , 8, and 9. Linking to the file while it may add a small inconvenience, doesnt violate any policy requirements. Werieth (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, a thumbnail in a editorial display asking editors to reduce an image so as to make it better comply with the very guidelines that have been tossed around not only does no harm, but actively serves to reduce an existing risk.

I noticed that you used the term "wikilawyering" in a comment you made in another thread. I've come to wonder if you've fully grasped the concepts expressed by the term.[1] As I understand it it, it deals with giving thought to whether applying 'the-letter-of-the-law' in any given instance (i.e. context) actually serves to further the spirit of such 'law'. The intent. This involves taking a moment to appraise whether and/or how much risk is presented and weighing it against the benefit to be gained.

I thought that posting a thumbnail in a Photography workshop request-for-editing display to draw attention to an image both tagged with {{Non-free reduce}} and currently being used in an article would clearly, unambiguously, be seen as an attempt to positively improve the present state of the wiki. An intent to address the {{Non-free reduce}} tag was explicitly stated alongside the image. Display for a short time in a somewhat arcane subpage of Wikipedia in order to improve guideline compliance of an image used in main-space—where a copyright lawyer might actually (realistically) stumble across it— seems perfectly reasonable to me.

As I see it, rigid bureaucratic orthodoxy being applied in this case will only lead to Graphics lab editors simply avoiding posting such requests to the display in the future. Hence leaving more oversize non-free images in main-space for longer periods of time and exposing the wiki to a much more plausible risk scenario. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Has it been a problem up to now? Given that you're asking for the exemption, that implies that these categories were still not showing images, and the Graphics Lab seemed to work fix. If nothing's broken, then this won't change that. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I fully parse your comment, Masem, but I'll try to answer according to my interpretation. Are you asking if not being allowed to post non-free image file thumbnails has been a problem up to now? And proposing that if not, then where's the problem?
It depends on how one defines 'a problem'. First one needs to understand the context. Please take a look at the Anonymous requests display and how it is being used on the Photography workshop page. This display is used as a means to draw the attention of skilled image editors to images flagged as needing editing. One of the lists from which suggestions may be drawn is Category:Wikipedia_non-free_file_size_reduction_requests. Until recently —for whatever reason— it has apparently been customary to simply pass over such and promote images from other categories. There was a stretch of mostly just {{watermark}} issues getting posted for awhile.
The display is refreshed manually by whomever happens to take interest in doing so. In recent weeks that has most often been me. To both better engage graphists with a range of skills and interests and to address a broader spectrum of the backlog of images tagged for editing I made the effort to browse and draw from a variety of categories. And to mix it up week to week. This led to a few images with {{non-free reduce}} tags needing attention being introduced recently. The de facto practical pragmatic reality of the situation is that visual artists are much more likely to address requests which contain visual preview thumbnails than those which do not. And editors refreshing the display are much more likely to include files which don't require adding additional steps to customize an entry to work around non-free display issues. Please recall that the clear and explicit intent of briefly displaying such thumbnails is to facilitate their being edited so as to better comply with the non-free content guidelines on which so much importance has been placed.
So, it seems to me the question comes down to is it more of a problem to have files tagged with {{non-free reduce}} sit idle in a neat and tidy orthodoxly compliant category page for long periods of time or to have them briefly displayed as thumbnails on a page administered by graphists so that they may be edited to conform to guidelines thereafter. Especially relevant to such images as are in active use in articles.
There's not a huge number of such files to be addressed at this time but as past conflicts have arisen over how editors from outside the Graphics labs have swept in, broken requests posts and moved on without making an effort to clean up after themselves (or ask for help in doing so), it seems to me that it's worth hashing things out a bit further this time around. Of course one solution would be for editors with a passion for enforcing non-free content guidelines to show a greater degree of sensitivity, patience, and consideration to their fellow editors with a passion for visual editing. To ask for things to be corrected by someone able to do so without breaking things rather than sweeping in and out without examining context and consequences. If such had been done so in the past we likely wouldn't be having this discussion now would we? >wink< :  }
Anyway, it seems to me that one lasting way to settle this would be to simply add the Graphics labs' pages to the exceptions list— (perhaps with some sort of 'as needed to...' qualifiers to keep things from creeping too far in the future. Please recall that we as well are trying to get work done. I don't think anyone is aspiring to placing licensed Justin Bieber images on a banner at the top of our page or other such dumb shi... err.. anyway, having some qualifiers seems reasonable and likely best in the long run) —and hence allow the labs to make exceptions as needed to facilitate the prompt editing of images. It would systematically work to stave off future conflict cycles. Editors who've choose to focus on non-free content guidelines would be welcome to drop in and make suggestions or to place reminders on talk pages as they see fit but would be systematically encouraged not to act unilaterally without consulting or informing editors active in the labs.
At the very least I would like to see some sort of resolution that explicitly facilitates non-free concerns to be addressed without breaking things. It would be nice if such also specifically took into account the unique mission/work/responsibilities of the Graphics labs as well.
Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure {{non-free reduce}} is the best example, because in that case you don't actually need to see the images beforehand to know exactly what you're going to do to them. Apart perhaps from making a judgment call as to the smallest level of detail that still needs to be visible in the reduced image, and so just how far it should or should not be reduced, apart from that it's a pretty automatic, mechanical process; so really a list of filenames gives all the information you need to know what is going to need to be done.
On the other hand, it does seem to me that there might be a case for some other types of image issues. For example, the work needed to de-watermark an image can vary massively from one image to another, and people may specialise in images that are amenable to different techniques. For that type of work I can see that there might be a real advantage in being able to see the thumbnails, so that one can see at a single glance which images are going to need what sort of work, to choose which images to work on; rather than having to laboriously click through each entry on a list. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Jheald's right on the non-free use category: it should a mechanical and easily accomplished step with no skill, just willingness to complete, so it's probably not a great example. Considering something like watermark removal, I go back to my question - I'm assuming that watermark removal has been done in the past without any problems and most importantly without seeing the images in a single gallery to select which ones? If that's the case, nothing technical has changes, it's the matter of participation, and following Jheald's I can start to see a rational for allowing it, but I'm not convinced yet. I don't know how big that category is or how fast things move in it, historically. If watermark images linger forever in there and due to editors can't tell complexity from the start, that might be a reason to allow it, but I would think it would be better to make it more a pipeline, FIFO with a table of requests so that things don't linger as much. But I would need to know more how that operates to make a fairer assessment. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not so much in the realm of what's possible. I agree it's possible to select things from a text list of filenames. I had to do so to post the images to the requests display in the first place. It's an issue of what's practical and plausible in a promotional context. Advertising without images doesn't fly very far in the 21st century. "The de facto practical pragmatic reality of the situation is that visual artists are much more likely to address requests which contain visual preview thumbnails than those which do not." It's a matter of getting things done.
I think it helps to ponder questions like: Is it more important that non-free guidelines get strictly/rigidly applied in the Graphics labs or that non-compliant images get edited so as to better comply? I remind folks once again that the goal/primary_mission/funcion of the Photo workshop (and the rest of the Graphics lab) is to bring images up to Wikipedia standards and beyond. Connecting editors with graphist 'skillz' to images in need of assistance is the primary day-to-day function of the lab. My basic premise is that if we make it easier for the lab to connect such editors to such files more will be accomplished. Would it be beneficial to the wikis if files currently uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons which lay outside of non-free guidelines in their current state get prompt attention or is it better to let them sit on a category page list until someone stumbles upon them at random who happens to have both the skill and inclination to fix 'em? --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Note...

...for other editors who might like to give the requests above some consideration:
It seems some tension may have developed amongst Werieth and I stemming from an edit made to the Photography workshop's requests display. Likely best if we're both taken with the proverbial 'grain-of-salt' at this point. This talk page thread has some relevant links and discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
p.s.— Personally, I'd appreciate input from editors other than myself and Werieth on both this thread and the one I linked to above. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images of each single card of a set from a card game

Considering WP:NFCI#3 and WP:NFLISTS#6, would it be acceptable in a list article, such as List of Pokémon TCG Base Set cards (see Pokémon Trading Card Game and List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets for more info) to add a non-free image of each card to that card's entry in the list? (Such a list would likely be in tabular format). Of course one could simply list the card name and attributes in the table, but I guess illustrating the entry for each card with an image of that card might be be justifiable under fair use in that case. I am interested to hear what other editors think of such uses and whether they would satisfy fair use and our policies and guidelines on non-free content. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly also NFCC #2 problems, if you're reproducing essentially the entire intellectual content of the game. Seems problematic to me. Unlike, say, banknotes it's hard to argue for an overriding real-world significance outside the game, plus these items were deliberately created to be sold as a key part of the game content, rather than (eg with banknotes) the original function for which they were created (and for which they were originally sought after and used) being essentially independent of the designs. Jheald (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The only place a single card image should be used - barring other exceptions - would possibly be in the gameplay section for the game and even then the appearance of cards in general would need to be the subject of sourced discussion. In other words, there's no free passes here and in fact game elements are one of those in NFC#UUI. Further, a key point to remember is that we are not a game guide WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, and such lists may not be appropriate, and certainly not to the level of duplicating all the details on the cards. (With Pokemon, a list of introduced characters per set would seem okay only due to the cultural background on that). --MASEM (t) 14:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
@Jheald Re NFCC#2 problems: Thinking about it, I agree that such a list might be problematic under NFCC#2. In order for the images to satisfy NFCC#2, they would possibly have to be of such a low resolution, that they would become useless. Otherwise it might constitute the creation of lots of derivative works of the cards, which is problematic given the copyrighted nature of the cards.
@Masem I agree that such a list would introduce NFCC#8 problems. If one made such a list, the card attributes could certainly be presented without using copyrighted elements (if that were desirable).
In addition to the above, there might be notability concerns. Each single card might not be notable and the list as such might also not be notable (though I suspect there exist sources (such as magazines) discussing those specific card sets). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images Werieth (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Automated NFC rationale bot -- input requested

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 20. Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It's the end debate on the presence of WP:NFCC policy on this project. If the bot is approved, no one will ever need a reason to upload non-free content again. They can just do it, and the bot will take care of it for them. No more mindfully written reasons for including non-free content. All that annoying sensible still will just wash down the drain. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it isn't going to happen, the request was denied. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for voicing their thoughts; I learned some more about WMF policy, which is always good! :) Theopolisme (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Input requested regarding NFCC task

As part of the NFCC task I perform I came across File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png in this state. Since I only enforce 10c in my task, I tagged the file as such. However, in a sense that feels inappropriate, since the main issue here is NFCC#8. This creates a number of problems:

  • I won't enforce NFCC#8 on the file, so I cannot resolve that issue myself (I could do it, theoretically...)
  • normally I bring NFCC#8 issues to WP:NFCR, but that page is already highly backlogged

I would appreciate some advice on how to handle such cases. Yes, I think bringing it to NFCR is theoretically the way to go, but we would need to handle the cases there more quickly. That's generally not possible, however, since discussions are supposed to remain open at least 7 days. I would prefer to shorten that to something like, say, 3 days. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy doesn't let us push it faster than 7 days, nor would it be appropriate to do so. I would still add it to NFCR even if the page is backlogged. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, hat seems to be the way to go. My main concern is the backlog. I am not saying that the backlog is inherently a problem, but we need to make sure that the cases are dealt with eventually, one way or the other, as otherwise some of them, especially the controversial ones, will be sitting there for months. On a second thought, I am not even sure whether the 7 day deadline is really the issue here, I guess it isn't. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations

There was a discussion at WP:CQ#Bible quotations concerning whether or not Wikipedia articles should be allowed to quote from non-free Bible translations (such as the New International Version) when free or PD versions (such as the American Standard Version) already exist. It was suggested that an RfC should be started. The primarily concern is the use of non-free translations in cases in which parallels (comparison of different translations) are not being discussed. What should Wikipedia's policy be on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To re-iterate the position I stated there: if the text needs the support of a version-agnostic Bible quote, it is preferable to use one of the PD translations (ideally those available at Wikisource) than any copyright-laden version. However, short snippets (eg, at the scope of one verse from one chapter) from copyrighted versions, properly sourced per citation policy, are not a problem under free content as they would fall into the allowances that CC-BY licensing has for fair use text. In other words, presently there is likely no rush to strip copyright Bible translations out of WP; however, it would be for the best for all future Bible quote additions to come from the free versions. Clearly when the translation is important, this is a different story, but the number of pages where this should come up on a tertiary encyclopedia will be few and far between. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that refers to whole books, as I understand it for verses they are subject to the law and fair use. Quotations from the NIV can be cited on the net, just like any book under fair use. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is: Is using NIV fair use when there are PD/free versions available? Wikipedia:NFCC#1 states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
NFCC does not apply to text or quotes. The intent, however, of using PD over copyrighted versions, is still a smart thing, but when we're talking text snippets that would otherwise be considered fair use, there is no major directive that we need to go out to replace. It is highly preferably to stick to PD versions in the future, but it's not like an issue that needs to be handled aggressively. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)US Fair Use law overrides any such clause that a copyright owner may say about their product: that is that last line is pretty much ignorable if we are using brief, cited quotes in context of an educational work, even though we aren't using it for "personal" uses. (That is, US Copyright Laws prevent companies from interferring with fair use allowances). That said, this is a reason to preferably avoid quotes from that version simply because they do want to limit its use, when we have other versions that no such limitations at all exist. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the guideline at WP:Non-free_content#Text applies, but that guideline does not say it's acceptable to use non-free text when there exists free text that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, and I don't think it is in line with our principles to do so. – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
And I disagree. Short, cited plain-text quotes are treated differently than images and songs for a reason. To be clear and to address some of the digressing discussion below, this is the wrong forum to propose a "preferred" translation of a religious text, and citing this discussion to support any change of version in an article would be wildly inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem here is why we would pick any given translation for use. The NIV has strong conservative Protestant associations, just as the NRSV is associated with mainline Protestants and the JB is Catholic. I can understand a desire to avoid plainly obsolescent translations, but that's going to cut off pretty much any PD translation. Also, I would probably (if I were the publisher) tend to interpret the NIV 500 verse limit as encompassing all of Wikipedia; and if it because our primary source for scriptural quotations, I would assume that we would rapidly transgress that limit. Ideally I think we should pick one PD and established translation. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it is legal for us to reprint NIV verses without the title-page-credit they request, I think it goes against our principles to use non-free text when there is free text available that will serve the same purpose. For usage such as in Parable of the Sower or Jacob's Ladder, any accurate translation will convey the same encyclopedic information, so we should only use a free translation. Now if the specific wording of a non-free translation is discussed in the article (and is important to the topic) then a brief quote may be necessary, but it should be like what we do at the discussion of "that we may know them" at Sodom and Gomorrah#Judgment. But in general, we should not be quoting sections of non-free translations when there are several free versions to choose from. – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We've had discussions on the text aspect before, and it is generally agreed that there is no equivalent of NFCC#1 (replacing non-free with free if available) for text, hence why NFC doesn't apply to text. (One can argue that if it did, then almost no quotes could be used at all save for famous ones like MLK Jr's speech). I fully agree that we should nearly exclusively use PD Bible translations on our encyclopedic treatment of Bible/Christianity topics, but we can't enforce that to a degree which we enforce NFCC (requiring rationales, etc. etc.) I would fully support an consensus-based effort to remove non-PD translations in favor of PD ones where the translation doesn't matter, but there's nothing in policy that requires us to do that, assuming all such quotes otherwise fall into standard fair use practice. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - see WP:RS. This started as a (wrong) question about copyright. That has now been solved. These "free" versions are "free" for a reason. They are low-quality, non-reliable, non-WP:RS compliant translations. I use "reliable" in the wikipedia sense. I'm aware the NIV technically is not brilliant. SBL and academic usage generally uses copyrighted RSV or NRSV, where there's no context to use Catholic or Jewish versions NRSV is probably nearest to "encyclopedic" style. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is as worthless as mine. It is 1901, my impression is that it isn't used much in academic writing. What do SBL papers use? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The ASV is going to come across as eccentric (e.g. its preference for "Jehovah" is way out of the mainstream now). It's not bad, but its scholarship is quite dated. If we're looking for the best compromise version, probably that would be the RSV Common Bible, but I don't know what the NCC's terms are like these days. I know that some years back they forced UVA to take down its on-line RSV copy. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (echoing In ictu oculi). People get very sensitive about different bible translations. See Bible_translation#Differences_in_Bible_translations and links from there for some of the issues -- eg doctrinal differences; different balances between word-for-word vs dynamic vs paraphrastic translation; other issues include choices of which out of different often incompatible source variants to prefer. Different bible translations have different resonances in terms of religious politics; and also different calibres of scholars on their translation committees. The best known, most widely used translations tend to be known quantities in these regards: people know the sort of processes the translations have come out of. Less known translations are much more uncertain quantities -- are they reliable? what positions do they reflect? how consistent are they in the positions they reflect, and their approach to translation? who were the scholars involved? do you trust them? Preferring one set of translations over another is a political act, in a sensitive arena. It's not just as simple as "free" vs "non-free" -- there are other dimensions to take into account, other potential side-effects, if we consistently start to shift to some translations over others. I think the question isn't as simple as some people seem to be presenting it. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Speaking strictly from the idea of a secular encyclopedia, the differences between how different translations present information should only come up if we are discussion those differences in an encyclopedic manner, meaning that we have additional (non-Bible) sources that are analyzing those differences for us. Otherwise, it's original research to say "this translation is better than another". I am aware that different translations will have slight change in details as to emphasize certain beliefs, but 99% of these translations are telling the same thing from the POV of writing educational articles on what the Bible, it's various chapters, and the various people and events that it contains - ergo if quoting is needed to support those, any of the PD versions will do. The details of what one translation emphasizes over another is likely beyond the scope of WP's work unless it is facets discussed in depth by theologists and the like. (without those sources, comparing versions would fall into the realm of WP:TRIVIA like comparing the events of a movie from the book it's based on). This is why it actually should be simple to default to a PD Bible translation unless it is the matter of a specific translation in question that needs to be explored. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Not so. The issue of translations may well be an issue we want to keep in mind, whether or not we actually comment on it in the article. For example:
        • WP aims to be seen as an NPOV encyclopedia. Our present eclectic use of translations chimes quite well with that; moving away from that, to a limited number of 'blessed' translations, which may each be associated with particular agendas, risks being seen to be moving away from that neutrality, particularly if we seem to be disproportionately promoting lesser known versions.
        • If we feel its worth actually quoting a particular verse, rather than summarising it, the reader deserves to have some signpost as to intellectually where that translation is coming from. Is it likely to be word-for-word, or more dynamic? traditional, or more likely to weigh less traditional alternatives? (And editors deserve some flexibility to make the choice that reads best, is scholarly accurate, and best fits the context).
      • Finally, it's worth pointing out that WP:OR has a very specific meaning on WP. It refers to article text making a particular novel conclusion or point or thesis. On the other hand, questions such as how to best present material; what to include and what to defer or leave out; what quotes to include; which references to present on a particular point -- these choices are not OR, they are the normal editing, part of the normal (inevitable) editorial business of article creation, discussion and improvement. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm just saying that for most of what our coverage of the Bible (as any religious work should be), the general description of the events is not going to depend significantly on the translation - Genesis 1 is still about the world being created in seven days in all translations, for example, so in that type of article, the specific translations doesn't matter, and thus we should use the "free-est" version that we know is reliable (eg those at WIkisource, and, for example, the King James Version is a well-known version, not some esoteric version). Now, I am well aware that there are differences in translations and that does lead to differences in the various branches of Christianity and other related faiths, and thus there, in describing the differences we likely need to cite the other copyrighted versions, which is fine. But I stress again: we are a tertiary encyclopedia, and excessive inclusion of quotes, even from free versions of the Bible, is probably a sign of undue weight - these articles should not be written towards readers of a faith but in an agnostic way. Quotes will still be used in the encyclopedic, no question, just not at the "density" that I've seen Christianity teaching texts uses. (This is a benefit that we have at least 6 full translations at Wikisource that we can direct the reader too). --MASEM (t) 00:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • additional neutral-to-version comment I don't see how use of the NIV text simply to quote scripture can fall under fair use. We can only make fair use quotations, it seems to me, when it is specifically their text that is the subject of the passage. Therefore it seems to me that our use of their text is largely going to fall under their willingness to license those five hundred verses. That same logic would apply to any other modern copyrighted translation. My comments above are germane to this because we really need a reason to use any particular version; if we didn't care, we would be using the KJV for which the Deuterocanonicals are available as well. We do not do this because of the general consensus in the scripture-quoting world that a 1600s translation is too dated for our purposes. Likewise, the obvious reason to prefer a modern translation is to get something that reflects currently accepted translation principles and sufficiently up-to-date language. the catch there, beyond copyright, is that we need something that is in fact widely accepted. Whatever we pick is going to be a compromise unless we can get the publisher of one of the really widely-accepted versions to license us for some extensive use of their text. I don't think we will stay within the NIV's 500 verse limit. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: We need always to be clear when we're talking about a religious issue and when a practical issue.
(Religious issue) Actually, In ictu oculi, Jheald, and Masem all make good points (imo). I agree that generally most versions will do because the differences of translation will not often affect the encyclopedic content. Then it only makes sense to choose from the best standard translations, and RSV or NRSV are certainly prime candidates (also well recognized); a good free source might work if their translation of a passage is the same (and an editor can check it out), but WP:RS only, and that should be firm. However, there are places where discussing a sensitive issue and the differences of perspectives among groups of Christians is the crux, and in that context the Bible translation might be critical. How that is handled simply requires editorial discretion, and issues about that can be raised on talk pages. But that is the correct venue, because it is only in dealing with each specific context that such a decision can be weighed. An oversimplification of general policy can create just as many disagreements over an article and is just as likely to generate textual inadequacies. Particularly in religious matters, it really is necessary to work sensitive issues out individually, because that is the only way to ensure encyclopedic accuracy in describing a viewpoint. And we need whatever tools we need to come to that end.
(Practical issue) Mangoe's comment about copyright is perfectly sound. But that's a practical issue to work out regarding each translation, and needn't be decided for all translations in a bundle. We may not get what we need for our purposes in all cases. So then the discussion turns to whether or not "we really need a reason to use [the] particular version", as a practical matter rather than a religious one. And an editorial workaround can be sought. For example: "[quoted verse from a free version]". Such-and-so group understands "wordB" as a better translation than "wordA" because [...]. Messy? Maybe, but if that's the practical alternative, it can serve to focus a discussion on how much it's really needed.
When these considerations are separated, conclusions may come more easily. Evenssteven (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any significance to whether or non our non free content policy speaks directly to snippets or not, it does state that whenever there is a free version available to use, we use that. That is a part of our Non free content criteria. If the use of the translation is specific and relevant to that translation itself it would be a vital part of understanding the subject. However, if you are simply using a specific, copyrighted translation of a passage from a source because it is closer to what you believe the information is saying without a clarification and proper attribution....then that would constitute original research and a copyright violation. Translations of a document or book the age of the bible...the first book ever published.....seems incredibly easy to find a free translation. If your need is specific to a new translation, it's only encyclopedic value would be as critical commentary within a discussion of the subject of differing translations. To simply use a non free text snippet of a translation simply because it is preferred over another free version is not appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely...no.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "not entirely". But let me clarify "open to interpretation". In sensitive contexts where choice of translation impacts a vital understanding of the subject, not all translations are "equivalent". Also, each editor must, in drawing upon sources, do a certain amount of synthesizing simply in order to summarize or support the encyclopedic content. Yes, WP does not allow "SYNTH" or "original research", but these are boundaries along a continuum, because we all actually do research for creating article content. There is no intellectual pursuit, including the creation of encyclopedias, from which this is entirely absent. When one editor calls another on use of "SYNTH" or "OR", then there is a claim that someone has exceeded the permissible boundary. Similarly here, one editor could call another on the need for a certain translation, claiming another is "equivalent". Then a talk page discussion ensues and the editors need to try to find a consensus. THAT is the interpretation that "equivalent" is open to, not (necessarily) a claim of a single editor (unless other editors look and agree by not objecting, which is silent consensus). I am saying that interpretation is not an option; it is required, not by us, but by the nature of the activity of editing. And the WP way of finding consensus is the tool we have for coming to resolutions of interpretation. It would be a mistake to try to apply any policy in a way that does not permit a necessary interpretation; but we have the tools to cope. Evenssteven (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Short answer: Yes you can quote snippets...it's called fair use, and we do it all the time with copyrighted books and articles. No, you shouldn't be quoting large portions, but I don't see why you'd want to do that in encyclopedia articles anyway. I personally tend to gravitate toward the KJV which is old enough to be free and fairly widespread, but it all depends on what you're using it for. ~Adjwilley (talk)
People, the NFCC explicitly do not apply to quoted text. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm. I didn't say NFCC, I was referring to US fair use laws.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the legal standard of fair use and not the more restrictive Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:NFCC), then you should note that the legal concept of fair use does not actually concern itself with whether free equivalents are available. The standards for judging fair use are based on the extent and nature of the use and the degree to which allowing such use harms the interests of the copyright holder. The question of whether I could have avoided using your material by doing something else is largely irrelevant. The standards under which fair use is judged, legally, don't forbid the use a direct quotes simply because it might be possible to say the same thing in one's own words. Similarly, if two books say essentially the same thing but one is in copyright and the other isn't, then fair use still allows you to take short quotes from either. As a free content community, Wikipedia generally has a preference for works that are copyright-free, but as a legal doctrine fair use doesn't restrict one to only things that are irreplaceable. Dragons flight (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's put it another way: as long as the quoted material falls within fair use laws and cited appropriately, then whether it comes from free or non-free does not matter for the Foundation or en.wiki (which using US fair use laws). That said, we can always assure that we will never have to worry about how long of a quote we use or the accidentally un-cited source when we pull quotes from free versions. The last is more towards issues with copyright issues - we do frown when editors forget to cite direct quotes of copyrighted material and something we take seriously. So basically, using free Bible versions relieves a lot of the possible issues with quoting copyrighted material, but there is nothing legally, within the Foundation requirements, or our own policy (short of adding a citation) that differentiates between fair use quoting of free or non-free Bible translations. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dragons and Masem are correct as far as I know; fair use doesn't care if there are free alternatives available or not. NFCC (the one that does care about free alternatives) is a Wikipedia thing, and applies to images, audio, etc., but not text. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see, so we are encouraged to use free versions of the bible, but not required. Am I getting this right? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
From the legal/free content standpoint, yes, as long as we are talking text snippets that would reasonably fall within fair use laws. Preferred, but not required, and certainly not when the copyrighted versions are themselves the source of discussion of the article. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why free versions would be preferred. If it's legal to quote, and NFCC does not apply to text (per Adjwilley), then we should use the best translation regardless of copyright status. --JFH (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Because there is still a limit of how much of a work we can use under US Fair Use law - and unfortunately what that amount is is not set in stone. One of the convos on this pointed out that one of the copyrighted versions technically allows for up to 500 verses to be used in a non-commercial manner. If we used that version without impunity, we may exceed that and the copyright owners may take the Foundation to court on that aspect. It is better to exclusively use the copyrighted versions when those versions in particular are the subject of discussion. When we are otherwise talking about the Bible in general (again, Genesis 1 being about the creation of the earth in 7 days) which should be, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, version-agnostic, we should always use copyright-free versions. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see reason, especially since many poor articles have way too much quotation, to push free translations there, though the people who engage in such such over-quotation are likely not going to be aware of such a preference anyway. But I think saying we "prefer" free translations overall could lead to the appearance that we think these translations are best, and that's clearly not the case. This conversation started in reference to Jesus, a very popular Good Article with definitely no over-quotation issues. Looking at all the scholarly reference in that article, and then seeing the ASV, I'm lead to believe that the ASV is considered appropriate for scholarly work, and it certainly is not. --JFH (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The idea is certainly not to canonize any version as more official than the others. And you'll have to forgive me that I'm nowhere close to the depth of understanding between the various versions, though I am aware that various sub-faiths of Christianity will be based on which translation is used and this can be important. Again, we have *6* different free translations floating over at Wikisource, and there may be more out there. Any of those six should be used preferably over any copyright-laden one as long as the quote being used is faith-neutral. Again, where there are differences that are critical in the larger scheme about the various faiths, I would fully expect that these have to be accompanied by secondary sources (else we're engaging in OR), and while it can be useful to provide comparative quotes, we can also relegate to the secondary sources too. I stress: we are not denying copyright-burdened translations, nor saying that one uses the preferrable free versions as a mean to canonize those, just that as long as we have a well-established translation (ala King James), and we're not talking about an aspect of the faith that varies between translation, we should use the free versions. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If we are quoting the Bible to communicate, this is what the Bible text says, just as if we were quoting any other text, we're in a faith-neutral zone. There are reliable, non-religious sources out there on what the text says and means. Sure, there are also beliefs of religious communities, who may use various translations to justify their beliefs, but that's a separate issue. There are scholars who study the biblical texts, and they have preferred translations based on biblical criticism and translation philosophy, (though of course they read the original language as well), and if we are trying to convey the best sense of what the text says we should follow them as a matter of presenting the best information we can. I get that we're not trying to canonize a translation, but we're unnecessarily obscuring the information we're trying to convey if we use outdated translations, and we're subtly conveying an erroneous notion that these free translations are good ones. They are not, there are reasons beyond the outdated language that they were replaced. --JFH (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the translation's outdated and improper? That is WP:OR. Further, and this is the point I argue about above, we are an encyclopedia, and deep analysis of the Bible from any translation is likely inappropriate, unless it is part of the secondary and summary coverage about a branch of Christanity; otherwise, in just reiterating the events of the Bible, it shouldn't matter which translation is used as long as it has been accepted by biblical scholars as reliable. Now, this does lead to the idea that when we are simply quoting or referencing chapter and version of the Bible, it might make sense to have the citation link take to a landing page like we do with ISBN numbers, with links to various sources. In this case, we can point to the Wikisource translations as well as any other external translation, so the reader can choose the translation of interest they want. Quoting should still preferrable be done from the free versions. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
JFH, "faith-neutral" and "non-religious" are not the same thing; in fact, non-religious is sometimes a euphemism for anti-religious or anti-faith. Also, "religious communities" do not uniformly "use various translations to justify their beliefs". By "biblical criticism and translation philosophy" we can also mean many things, but hopefully what we're shooting for is something with honest scholarship behind it. Scholars can have vested interests too, with careers to make. These tags and this outlook can lead to bias just as effectively as the others you mention. And let's face it, a "non-anything" is always at a disadvantage for understanding the "anything", so one has to at least ask the question about competence (of a source). I think we all recognize that there is a lot of religious bias out in the world. It's not possible for us to eliminate that bias; we are all subjective creatures by nature, and objectivity is largely a modern fiction. What even we biased people can do is to write neutrally, descriptively. To do that, we must also do our best to write from understanding of a bias, so that we can write accurately. But achieving a WP:NPOV is our job, not our sources'. They can help us in that job, not replace us. We aren't simply scribes, but it doesn't take WP:OR to do the job. Hey, it's not so easy, but that's what the editing community can help with too. Let's just be honest with ourselves in how we deal with the difficulties. The issue discussed here is small; the perspective required to solve it is not. Evenssteven (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Masem, I understand that it would be OR for me to say the ASV is unreliable, which is why I think the best course it to use the translations our RSes are using. I don't think you will find any using the ASV or any other free translation, and I think anyone who knows anything about these translations will find it curious that we are using the ASV. I also agree that we shouldn't be doing serious analysis of the text, and in most cases it will make little difference which translation is used. I think the signalling issue, given the number of bible quotes out there on WP, is a more serious matter. An uninformed reader is lead to believe whatever translation we use it a good one. I also heartily agree that if we are going to link bible refs in-text, something like the ISBN page is needed.
Evensteven, I'm not entirely clear what you're arguing. I just mean that there is a difference between saying, "the text says such-and-such," and saying "the Baptists believe such-and-such, based on such-and-such a reading of the text." I know there are biases out there and everything, but I think it's possible to approach the first question without reference to religious belief. I assure you I am not saying that religious belief would disqualify a scholar from being a reliable source on such a question. --JFH (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, there's basically two broad categories where Bible quotes will be used on WP. The first is in the non-interpretative description of the events of a specific chapter, person, or the like. At the level of a non-secular encyclopedia for which we would cover these topics, the broad details of the Bible will not be affected by which translation is used. God still creates the Earth in 7 days; Moses still rescues his people from Egypt and gets the Ten Commandments, etc. If sourcing is needed, we can use any translation (as long as the translation is recognized as at least credible), and thus point to the preference on free - though since we are giving Chapter and Verse for these, the reader is completely free to go to another version and review the details there (hence considering the option for a landing page to help the user decide which version to use) The second broad category is coming from the analysis of the Bible and more towards the variations of translation. This is where we go with what you state, using secondary sources. Ideally, we're probably going to quote the secondary source in the first place, using occassional quotes (within the context of an encyclopedia) to demonstrate what the secondary sources are going on about. And yes, here if the secondary sources specifically quote to a copyrighted version and we want to use that as an example, we'll quote the same version, and the use of the copyrighted quote is fine. I'm stressing the use of free translations only in the first case, and not the second. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


  1. The NIV is to my knowledge more of a populist text than an academic work, so IMO will have little general interest to Wikipedia editors.
  2. The NASB (1995) according to our article is "widely regarded as the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations."  So this is good for academic work such as an encyclopedia, but usage comes with copyright entanglement.
  3. The ASV (1901) is out of copyright.  IMO it should be recommended to Wikipedia editors as a default choice for neutrality and avoidance of copyright entanglement.
  4. The RV (1870) is similar to the ASV.  "It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Bible."  IMO it can be generally recommended along with the ASV for the same reasons.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Imo, having a recommended list, like this or like any other, is just what we should avoid. Perhaps having a descriptive list (pub dates, id of translators + circumstances, public recognition like "most literally translated") of the free translations available on WP would be beneficial. Recommendations for a given purpose, no. I'm with Masem's latest above (19:28, 30 June 2013). Evenssteven (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see why we shouldn't have a single recommended version. We have lots of expertise here, and there's really no reason why we can't pick one or two versions which represent our best compromise with free text and more up-to-date language. I would tend to prefer the RV over the ASV because of the "Jehovah" issue, but that's just me. It'll be a lot easier on editors if we can just say, "quote the Example Standard Version unless you need to discuss specific issues concerning a particular translation." In any case the fact remains that we have a very small set of versions to work from which are actually free, complete, and have some scholarly respect; we cannot use any of the modern copyrighted versions for quotation unless we are discussing their translation of a specific passage. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the point raised above about standardizing on one version (free) is akin to canonizing it, which we shouldn't do. There are plenty of free versions out there and as long as editors aren't engaging in their own OR in citing the Bible, it shouldn't matter which one is used short of avoiding copyrighted ones for reasons I've stated above. And important, yes we can use non-free quotes for any purpose as long as they are cited. It's not a "cannot". It's just we'd want to shuffle editors to pick free references if they have to include a cite. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Mere storytelling shouldn't need quotes. On the other hand, when we do give quotes, we need to be aware that choosing one quote over another comes with baggage, and wilfully being blind to that isn't helpful.
You seem keen on Genesis 1 as an example. But even the first word -- Bereshit -- comes with issues. "In the beginning" is how it is very often translated. But there's actually no "the" in the Hebrew. Which makes a difference if someone finds this verse on WP and bases an argument on it, because the beginning of what is the verse talking about? The beginning of time? The beginning of God's process of creation? Some translations even make their choice explicit "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth." [2].
That's just the first word, but already there are theological issues flowing from it. Fortunately in this case we have an article (Genesis 1:1) which start's to discuss them -- albeit that Rashi's reading that I've just quoted doesn't even appear. But it starts to show the issues.
If we give a quote, we need to be aware of the choices, and (potentially) we may need to choose carefully. Going into detailed discussion may often be inappropriate and undue. But should we prioritise how a verse was understood at the time of Jesus and/or formative Christianity (eg in translations that typically forllow Septuagint or Vulgate readings); or how it was understood by possibly more careful Jewish medieval grammarians and commentators, such as Rashi; or what modern scholars think might have been a plausible Hebrew original, later corrupted? Do we follow translations that typically prefer highly "conservative", traditionalist lines (for a particular choice of 'tradition'); or others that are open to alternatives (but not so open that their brains appear to have fallen out)? Do we prefer a rigid word-by-word translation; or one that aims to better put over the contextual sense?
It's very seldom that we'll want to stop the article to discuss these choices. Normally, we'll just choose one version and go with it. But there may be some quite real editorial factors lying behind making that choice appropriately. Which is why I am slightly wary about setting out to tie editors' hands too much. Jheald (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
At the level of detail where we as WP editors do not engage in OR in describing the events and people of the Bible - eg the mere retelling - it should not matter which version is used. In describing the book of Genesis and specifically its first Chapter, all that matters is the world was was created in 7 days by God, period . That's the level of detail we can summarize. What translation/version of the Bible we use should not matter for that purpose (and thus push towards the free-er versions if we are pulling quotes). The level of details on noting the strong variation in the creation story between the various verions of the Bible, that requires secondary sources (which we have) to avoid the OR, and those sources will guide on the proper versions to use if quotations are needed. If we as editors are writing about the Bible or a related topic and recognize that how a statement will be taken will depend on which translation we use, then continuing without engaging a secondary source will be original research, and a reversion of what we're writing for WP needs to be done to avoid it and/or incorporate a secondary source. (This would be true as well if I were writing about a scientific topic that has multiple possible theories and wrote to a level that would favor one theory over another - hence requiring the secondary source to avoid OR). As I note, the description at Book of Genesis seems prtty high-level and rather secular as it should be treated, and thus if we need provide citations at that level, any translation (ideally the free ones) should be used. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem I'm seeing here is well-represented by the question originally asked: we have to tell people that, no, unless you need to discuss its wording, you cannot quote from your favorite modern translation. So people would naturally ask, "well, what can we use?" I disagree that we would be canonizing the RV (to pick an example) if we suggested it as a preferred translation; and I think we do need to give a list of translations that can be used. I'm also bothered by the rather open-ended appeal to a need for other versions: in particular I'm sensitive to everything that Jheald says immediately above, but I don't know how we're going to solve those problems by choosing among the versions that we can actually use. Except for a few eccentric versions, the old PD versions we have available all fall within a pretty narrow KJV-based tradition.
It might be useful to look out how the biblical text is being quoted now. I'm tending to agree with Masem to the degree that most discussion of scriptural detail is going to have to eschew quotation in favor of analyitical/theological works. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A possible idea but I am not in a position to answer it: assuming we're talking a translation that includes Old and New Testament, then if I give any Book/Chapter/Verse by name + number, that irregadless of version, I will be at the same "place" in any translation? For example, randomly pulling here, I jump to Exodus 6:6 (where the Lord instructs Moses to take his people out of Egypt, at least in the NIV, will Exodus 6:6 be effectively the same thing in other versions, free or not? If it is, then we can do something like what happens when you click on the ISBN number for a book, and get to a gateway page that provides direct links to the translations on Wikisource, and to any external cite that allows the chapter/verse number to be passed to land on a specific quote (eg I just pulled from [3] which has URL encoding parameters.) Thus when we just need to point to chapter and verse but not version, we can use this type of approach to avoid putting any weight on any specific version and avoid the free/non-free aspect all-together. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is typically the approach used in footnotes and in-line verse citations, using {{bibleverse}}, though typically a preferred version is specified using that template. (eg JPS 1917 with side-by-side Hebrew for Old Testment topics with a particular Jewish significance, etc.)
On the other hand, where a quote is needed to "significantly add to the reader's understanding of the topic" as NFCC #8 (which is not applicable here) puts it, then that quote ought to be included in-line. Our articles should be as self-contained as reasonably possible, because significantly often people may be reading printouts off-line, rather than accessing the pages online. Jheald (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not worried so much on the copyright issue when pulling a quote from a preferred version, as long as there's a reason to be pulling a preferred version (like, being the version mentioned by sources), to avoid the issue of original research that one version is better than another in a specific area. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It can be a legitimate editorial call to decide that one version is better than another. That choice of what to present -- which may be entirely on aesthetic grounds, as to what flows or scans better; but may reflect caution about particular sensitivities -- is a routine part of page writing. Jheald (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I don't buy that this is a copyright-neutral action. I simply can't believe that a judge would be fine with any work that used thousands of verses from a copyrighted translation without permission. (The possible exception would be a work railing against the NIV, as that would be critical commentary.) I think a judge would find that an encyclopedia that chose to quote very extensively from a single Bible translation; we chose to use that copyrighted translation for its distinctive expression, and the people who created it get paid for it. It's like using a copyrighted picture of a person when we have free ones; it's very hard to defend as fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
In a corporation, if somebody or something (like WP) could be subject to a legal liability, a question would be referred to the legal department for advice. How do we get that done on WP? Evenssteven (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Imo: I think we're rehashing some of the same stuff repeatedly. There are useful observations, but I doubt that we want all of them to be resolved into policy. Policy in general is for establishing what to do in normal or standard cases, somewhere above 90% of the time (hopefully 99%+). But every policy needs to make room for exceptions. We can't see everything coming in advance, including the impact of policy. So we need some flexibility in the special cases, and inflexibility in a policy that affects a sensitive issue just causes arguments and problems. We can't foresee every case where quoting a non-free translation is desirable, though we've mentioned a couple above. We do need a situation where an editor can make a decision to use some chosen translation without being told the choice automatically violates policy. So I say, no hard and fast recommended translation, no universal decision about which translation is better for all purposes. There are too many things to consider for "one size fits all" (and the discussions above reveal a bunch of them). The proper mode of action is to take the special cases one by one to the pertinent article talk page (when needed). It's the only thing that will allow decisions to be made in a manner appropriate to their context. It's work to get consensus there. We need to step up to that work, because a rigid policy (or a rigid interpretation of policy) will create even more work. We can't solve every problem here. But I do think there are substantial agreements in the above discussions, if we can just distill them, and allow for the case-by-case settlement of a few details. It's more efficient to pick off the details one by one. Evenssteven (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the point as it applies to non-free/copyright is that as long as one is using a text snippet that would be within typical fair use allowances in terms of size, and appropriate attribution is given, it doesn't matter which translation of the Bible is used. We'd prefer it if you could use a free version (and there are several cases that I believe this can always be done, where the events/people are being discussed in broad terms), but from a policy standpoint we can't slap people's hands if they proper cite a copyrighted translation - there's simply no policy to back up strong enforcement of that. Text is not subject to the same non-free content rules that other media is based on so there is no means to force Bible quotes from copyrighted sources to be replaced with free translations under any policy - only that we'd like it if you could. The next question of when to use what translation then starts to float into the OR territory and has little to do directly with copyright aspects. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Folks, it's Point 1 under non-free content use: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Excepting a few Orthodox canon books, there is always a free equivalent available, namely, the KJV translation. Anyone can therefore replace quotation of a modern translation with impunity unless the wording of that particular translation is the subject at hand. It is not true that text is not subject to this policy, or that it is not a rigid policy. If there are special cases, they can be dealt with by ignoring all rules; but right now the discussion is leaning into "every case is special, and we can use whatever translation pleases us." That's just not how it is: there is a small pool of largely similar translations which may be drawn from in nearly all situations. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • NFCC does not apply to text. Period. Text copyright policies are covered by what CC-BY-3.0 and the GFDL allows, which follows fair use law. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think anyone has implied "every case is special, and we can use whatever translation pleases us", and if so, I agree it would be a mistake. The free-use translations are fine for many/most purposes. But I'd hate to say any policy is "rigid", because we're not supposed to treat any policy that way, per WP:IAR. That, and consensus, are where we get the flexibility to deal with special cases; I agree. Let's not misunderstand or argue when we agree. There's only one point of contention I see here, regarding what WP:NFCCP says. I'm in Masem's camp on that one, though I see Mangoe's point. But if Mangoe is right about the policy, then the policy has a problem, because "free equivalent" does not absolutely rigidly mean the same thing in all cases when applied to text. Let's please review what the principle is behind the policy (per WP:IAR) and see if we can agree on that. Then maybe we'll know how to state the policy in an improved way. Evenssteven (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The policy part of this page states, "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law."  So it is not correct that we follow fair use law, we are more restrictive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. With focus on "minimize", by "limiting", not disallowing. I think the question is mostly about the degree and circumstances of limitation. The whole thrust of my argument has been that minimize-and-limit is the way to look at and interpret WP:NFCPP, that this way is not rigid, and that overly strict interpretations of the policy (especially "disallowing") are not in order. Moreover, that the special cases where non-free text is used (or proposed) are, well, special, and should be handled by consensus on article talk pages if there is a question. In other words, if this is the way we agree to approach the policy, then the policy as it stands is fine. The critical thing to resolve is then the understanding of the community of editors, because policies do not enforce or interpret themselves. In the end, it comes back to us, one way or another. After all of that, when we allow non-free use, then we do follow fair use law (quoting length limits, citations, etc). Evenssteven (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • For me, it's fairly simple. If you're performing critical analysis of a particular translation or otherwise require that specific wording, go ahead and use it. Otherwise, don't when free alternatives are available. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Mountain out of a molehill syndrome? This same question can be asked of ANY ancient text where the choice is between a pre-1923 (or, if we are lucky, modern "free" translation) and a more modern, typically more understandable (no "thee" or "thou") translation. My interpretation (and take this with a grain of salt) of existing Wikipedia rules and guidelines is that if the copyright holder's existing license (e.g. "free up to X verses" with no license-incompatible restrictions) is compatible with one of Wikipedia's free license, it's not an issue. If the Wikipedia license is incompatible with the publisher's license but is in the same spirit then the issue should be handled on a case-by-case basis or perhaps on a version-by-version basis. If the version is "very tightly controlled" with no provisions for "don't bother asking permission, it's granted" for low-verse-count usage, then we should treat it the same as quoting from, say, a modern translation of Chaucer whose copyright owner was similarly "tight" with regards to permissions. In any case, if there is no "free" translation which would substitute in the context then "fair use" applies. Bottom line: The use of non-free Bible verses should be discouraged in favor of free ones but not prohibited. Any removal and reversion should result in a discussion of that particular use, not an edit war or one editor saying "you have to use the free version, per guideline/policy." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Your guideline is "the use of non-free Bible verses is not prohibited as per fair use."  No, we are more restrictive than fair use.  Not only are we more restrictive, we are so much more restrictive than fair use in our wp:copyvio arena that the editors there don't want to talk about fair use.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, I stress: NFCC does not apply to text. Text use is guided by US fair use laws. The only thing we have that may be stronger than US Fair Use when it comes to text is the requirement for an inline cite right where the fair use text is used. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And again, I stress that a court may not look kindly upon the use of tens of thousands of words from a work. It's not comparable to any other text, since we aren't likely to use tens of thousands of words from the Canterbury Tales.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
At which point, that becomes an issue at COPYVIO. Again, all we can do is urge editors to use free translations when a non-specific context is acceptable, but we can't force them. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. And with respect to copyright violation or its possibility, what is needed is expert legal opinion, as I have said above. The guidelines and policy imply that copyright law is not entirely clear or predictable when it comes to actual court cases. I don't know where in the WP organization this issue should be promoted to, but the community of editors is probably not competent to handle it. I certainly am not. Evenssteven (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We would approach the Foundation to ask about that. However, unless someone has counted up and determined how many verses we use from each of the various copyrighted translation and are at numbers we could consider a problem (say, 500?), I think forcing the issue is not worth their time. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems rather simple to me: if the underlying work is PD, then you should normally use a PD or freely licensed translation. If none exists, you can translate the text yourself. I think that this is the usual procedure if there is no prior English translation of a text (neither a free one nor an unfree one). If you describe any of the historical events in the Bible, then it would usually not matter which translation you use (caring about the differences would often mean going into too minor details), so using a free one is better. If you discuss any particular translation, then you have no choice but to use that one. Some religious groups (for example Jehovah's Witnesses) have a preferred English translation, and in contexts related to any of those groups, it may often be appropriate to use the translation preferred by the religious group. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

I made a proposal for a new WikiProject. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Patrol. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice?

Howdy folks! I'm really not sure where to post this but I just wanted to get some general advice on some likely non-free images and couldn't think of an appropriate venue. Feel free to ship me off to the right board/talk page/etc. I'd like to add a title screen-shot to the article The Antics Roadshow for illustrative purposes. I've uploaded non-free corporate logos before but this seems different and I thought it would be worth clarifying. The second (more challenging) case is Princess Hijab. Would it be okay to upload a not-necessarily-free sample of the artist's work for illustrative purposes as I think we allow for artwork articles? Is it different if we're talking about an anonymous artist's BLP? Feel free to respond here, on the relevant talk pages, on my talk page or not at all. Stalwart111 13:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For the first case, it is reasonable to have a single title card/frame as the "cover" of a notable published work, under WP:NFCI#1 as an identifying image, so that should not be a problem. On the latter, given that there is discussion about the artist's style (adding veils to images), and that in France that there's no FOP for street art meaning that any such image will remain copyrighted to the graffiti artist and thus non-free here, one representative sample is reasonable since you are describing their work in the article. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks for that. For the second, there are plenty of examples online. Would I be better off finding one on Flickr, the artist's blog or a news site like The Guardian? Stalwart111
To explain, consider that we are going to have two copyrights to worry about here: the copyright of the graffitist, and the copyright of the photographer that photographs the grafitti. We'd want an image with the least burden as possible. Thus the two most ideal cases would be of one that the artist themselves took and posted to their blog (Assuming you have reasonably strong assurance this is the case) as that would burden to only one copyright holder, the graffitist. The other case would be a flickr (or equivalent) image taken by anyone else but licensed in CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. This image will still be non-free with the graffitist's art (as France does not have any allowance for freedom of panorama), but removes the copyright burden of the photographer. If neither of these can be found, any other source will work, but it is highly encouraged to try to get someone to freely photograph an example to make an image that meets the second case. Again, all these cases are still non-free, we're just trying to minimize the number of copyright issues that are involved. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to add to what Masem said, please do not use a photo from The Guardian or any other news source. These are often valuable images that they charge for the right to use, and it definitely violate our policies to upload those, when other images are available. It's much better to photograph the work yourself, or find a freely-licensed photo or Flickr, or find a photo made by the original artist. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, cool, great advice. I might try to find one, upload it and show you here before adding it. That way if I've managed to get something wrong it can be deleted before it causes any trouble. Thanks for the quick responses guys! Stalwart111 14:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've added images to each article. My plan had been to run them past you here but I had to agree (which I hadn't remembered) that they would only appear in those articles and nowhere else. Wasn't sure if posting/linking here would breach that. Anyway, they are there now - please let me know if there are problems with either of them. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Those both look fine to me. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you. Much appreciated! Stalwart111 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Status of pre-filled FUR templates

In regards to the above bot request that was denied, for purposes of tagging cover art/logos used as infoboxes when they lack rationales, the closing admin noted that "This request, along with templates such as {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are indicative of how out of step practice is with the spirit and wording of the NFC policy."

There is definitely a point here, in that when users upload images they are asked to write the rationale themselves, the onus on them or those that want to retain the image. I supported the bot request as to make it easy when it is forgotten but the points made are extremely valid - this is not meant to be a trivial aspect where a bot can do the work the uploader should have done in the first place. This thus begs the question (as the closer suggest): are the templates like {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} enabling a poorer application of NFC, or does NFC need to be corrected for such?

I certainly hope it's not the latter, but if it were the former, it doesn't mean these templates are bad and need to be removed. But they enable one to just drop one into a non-free file to meet NFCC without considering the end use of the image. Deleting the templates (after going through and doing template substitution so that existing files using it aren't screwed up) is one solution but may be too extreme.

And of course, is there really a problem? Was the request closed more at the fact a bot was going to fill in rationales, moreso that the templates exist? That the task, while trivial but otherwise time consuming for a human editor do to, should still be done with a human check to make sure it is fine?

I don't have an answer, but it is something that begs for further discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will use quotes so that it is clear what specifically I am referring to:
"... are the templates like {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} enabling a poorer application of NFC, or does NFC need to be corrected for such?"
I think WP:NFCC#8 should be clarified in such a manner that it is clear from the policy that the uses of NFC that significantly increase a readers understanding of the topic and whose omission would be detrimental to readers understanding aren't the only acceptable cases of NFC usage. I would suggest to get rid of non-free use rationales for things like album covers alltogehter and instead simply use a generic template explicitly articulating that the image is being used for identification at the top of the article. Having people write extensive rationales for such cases is just a waste of time if there is a general agreement that such uses are acceptable. A template explaining this and containing a link to the relevant policies or guidelines justifying those uses should be sufficient. The narrow limits where such uses without a rationale are acceptable need to be clearly defined. I would prefer to have very specific cases for such uses, like movie poster for identification in a film article and then give that specific case a unique identifier/number (like WP:Accepted uses #7). The template would contain this identifier and a wikilink, so that the reason for justification does not need to be written out on the file page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"And of course, is there really a problem? Was the request closed more at the fact a bot was going to fill in rationales, moreso that the templates exist? That the task, while trivial but otherwise time consuming for a human editor do to, should still be done with a human check to make sure it is fine?"
The main problem for me is that we have a policy that clearly places the burden to provide a rationale on the users wanting to use non-free content. I will not support something (like Theo's Little Bot 20) that would work counter that policy. I DO support FIRST getting a consensus to change the policy and THEN making a bot that works compliant with that changed policy. I DO NOT support a bot working counter WP:NFCCE, may those cases be as standard as they want. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I do want to be clear that I believe that the way the bot was to be set up and programmed - while doing that by the letter of the "law" what should only be done by humans and ideally the onus on the uploader/enduser - it was meant to take out some BITEY aspects of how we handle NFCC; the cases it would tag, including the limits on being a single-use image, and only located in an infobox at the top of an article, and the only image in that infobox - had a very slim chance of a false positive (where the image shouldn't be tagged); they would also be cases that if we followed the procedure to the letter - sending the image lacking rationale to FFD - that we (NFC enforcers) would be yelled at for not doing simple rationales. I can understand that NFC rationale creation is the last thing we really want a bot without human oversight to do, but the cases that were carved out would be ones of trivial allowance and would appropriately grease the wheels in dealing with NFC and editors that forget the rationale. I do agree, on the other hand, that it could lead to an attitude of laziness - "oh, a bot will add it" - so there is a balance needed. I do believe that the idea wasn't totally wrong - if that same bot request was turned into a tag-into-human-reviewed category, then we would be able to perform those additions (even if just the template rationale) with a human check. I've asked the bot operator to see about doing that, since he's got the logic for checking the conditions down, but just needs the go-ahead to tag for a category.
But again , this comes down to avoiding the pragmatic enforcement of NFC (which doesn't work) even though it is a core and rigorous policy like BLP. There's a balance here, and we know pushing too hard in enforcement will be a problem, so identifying opportunities to grease the wheels, per se, would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I support this tag-into-human-reviewed-category method, though I see a problem. How do we avoid that this places a disproportionate burden on the reviewers? How do we avoid that it results in a discussion like Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:PBS idents, that pretty much boils down to this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The bot would not be tagging those. Again, it was limited to the case where: the image was used in a single article and used within the first (X kb/X %) of the article that would be indicative of a infobox or header image. The images of the PBS idents wouldn't be touched by the bot becuase of them being too deep in the article, and that would remain a case to be resolved by human discussion. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding getting rid of non-free use rationales for things like album covers, if other editors agree, I would suggest to drop Maggie (or someone else) a note and ask whether the WMF would consider this as compliant with The Resolution or whether this would be a problem. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of dropping rationales for them that was questioned, it was the "free" templates that took any thought of thinking of proper rationales that was in question. Non-frees have to be given a rationale for use, the question is is if standardization for common uses should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It's perhaps worth noting that Kat Walsh for the Foundation clarified in August 2007 [4] that the Foundation does not require pre-written rationales, just that somebody could provide a rationale if the image was challenged. The requirement for pre-written rationales is en-wiki's own control mechanism.
Secondly, we should note that the appropriateness of templated rationales was heavily discussed when they were first introduced (July 2007) and they were upheld. The whitelisting for an album cover in the infobox of an article about an album goes back at least eight years, and was recently overwhelmingly affirmed at RfC, as linked to by the footnote to NFCI #1.
To me it makes perfect sense to have a standard rationale (written by a real-life copyright lawyer) for a standard use. This rationale (or something very similar to it) now gets auto-generated if somebody ticks the right boxes in the upload wizard. It is also routinely inserted by NFC criterion enforcers, using WP:FURME. I would far rather see a central quality-controlled lawyer-written standard rationale being used for a standard use, than some of the hand-rolled rationales that were often frankly embarrassing in their mis-statements and even positively dangerous to Wikipedia, both legally and potentially reputationally, in their apparent authorisations of misunderstandings of copyright law.
It seems to me that this bot was doing no more than NFC enforcers already do when they use FURME.
To be sure, it is highly important that the bot produces no "false positives" -- no justifications for images that should not be justified. Also there was some very sensible limitations and adjustments to its function, suggested by Sfan00_IMG: such as not working on images uploaded in the last 30 days, and being sure to put a nag message on the uploader's talk-page every time it fixed a rationale.
The bot has the potential to take a little of the heavy load off NFC enforcers, by dealing automatically with the simplest and most straightforward cases, releasing human enforcers from having to spend time on them, instead freeing them up to spend more time on the more complex and challenging cases requiring genuine human judgment.
I believe the right way forward with this bot should have been to give it a further limited run, including Sfan00's suggested adjustments, with its output scrutinised like a hawk to make sure it was making absolutely no false positive errors.
Instead, it appears discussion has been prematurely closed on the basis of the closer's personal view of NFCI #1 and of standardised rationales, rather than the settled view of the community. That should not be acceptable, and I believe the close should be sent for review. Jheald (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that removing the pre-filled FUR templates will bring any positive benefit? Why make the uploader fumble around for the "special magic words" that suddenly make that image legitimate? (And you know this will only affect novice editors, because experienced ones will have a script or some other workaround.) The objective should be to streamline and simplify, not impose unnecessary burdens.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  12:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Change Criterion 1 to allow uses where no free equivalent could be created reasonably

The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy says the following: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Does "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" warrant a change to criterion 1 to allow cases of fair use where we cannot reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose? The modified text would be "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created reasonably, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

An example of why this is needed is a variant species of bat in Hispaniola has only one picture of it on the internet. It has little known about it. An image of it was deleted at File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg because a free version could be created, no matter the unreasonableness of finding it and taking a picture of it. The reasonableness wasn't even considered. Surfer43 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Note: This text was changed a little from the original to clarify. It still is saying the same thing. The old version can be found in the revision history. Surfer43 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Change

  1. Change(moved to No need to change) - "Free content" policy should not get in the way of building an encyclopedia. We should be able to reasonably use non-free images until a free alternative exists. The modified criterion still does what it sets out to do: if a free alternative exists, it must be used. The other nine criterion also rigorously limit the use of non-free images. Also, this is on top of existing fair-use law requirements. Surfer43 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am confused as to exactly what this RfC is suggesting. Your main paragraph appears to suggest exactly how WP:NFCC#1 is currently used, whilst in the paragraph above you write "We should be able to reasonably use non-free images until a free alternative exists.", which would suggest that we should use a non-free image purely because we don't currently have a free one, even if one could easily be created. I would oppose the latter, whilst the former does not appear to make any change to existing policy. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I too don't seem to understand what is being proposed here. The example of the bat would be a case that would fail criterion 1, because someone can go there and take a picture of it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, the bat example is a reasonable one, where it would be immensely difficult to create a free image; however, NFCC1 already allows for this, and these examples are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is why I was confused as to what was being suggested. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for your support of reasonable uses of fair use. However, you are mistaken if you think that NFCC1 does not need to be more specific or more specifically allowing cases like described above. I again cite File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg, where the photographer wasn't using this commercially, and probably just went with the default "all rights reserved". Surfer43 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Well, before doing anything else, my first port of call would have been to contact the photographer and ask them to release it. You'll find that very often they will if their image is not going to be used commercially. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    But releasing it under one of the free content licenses allowed on Wikipedia does mean that "non-commercial only" is not allowed. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't mean an NC licence - I meant that if photographers understand that the image's main use will be in Wikipedia, then for images such as this with limited commercial value then they tend to be amenable to releasing it under an enwiki-friendly licence. Black Kite (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I would challenge the assertion that in the bat example we were dealing with a reasonable exception and that creating a new photo of this bat would be "unreasonably" difficult. Somebody out there was able to take such a picture and put it up on panoramio [5] (that's the – non-free – source of the pic that was uploaded here). Nothing in that picture or its description suggests that the photographer had to invest an exceptional amount of effort in doing this, over and above what is commonly involved in doing competent nature photography. He didn't have to use a million-dollar device to dive into the deep sea. He didn't have to climb Mount Everest. It's not a vanishingly rare, barely documented species. It's not exceptionally secretive, exceptionally dangerous, or exceptionally small. Nothing suggests that finding and photographing one is substantially more difficult than finding and photographing other species of bats. It's simply endemic to one island in the world. You'll have to go to Haiti or the Dominican Republic. As our article about the bat suggests, the caves in which these bats live are visited by tourists. You can go there. This is exactly the type of case our replaceability rules are meant to cover. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    Just curious, Fut.Perf., how many bats do you think the average Wikipedian encounters in his/her lifetime that sits still long enough for them to take its photo? And would the average Wikipedian know what species it was?  —Grollτech (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's irrelevant if it's easy to do for the "average Wikipedian". What matters is that some people, among them some Wikipedians, have the ability to do this. Just go to commons:Category:Chiroptera and see how many people have managed to take high-quality photos of how many different types of bats. Then go to any other nature category and see how many photographs of wild birds, butterflies or fish we have. I personally would be at a total loss if I were to try to create a photo of any of these myself, as I suspect would be most other people. And yet, we do wait until somebody comes by who manages to create such a free photo, and in all these other cases that has happened. Again: what do you think is significantly more difficult about getting a photo of this specific bat, compared to photos of all those other animals? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    There is consensus that photos of unreasonably hard to find species should be allowed, so we should also believe that criterion 1 should state just that, what the resolution says. In the case of the bat, the rule was used as it is currently and the arguer with me over whether the file should be deleted didn't care about the reasonability of taking a picture of the bat, just that it was quite possible to do so, as is with almost anything. If these should be decided case-by-case, we should agree the first criterion should state that with "or could be created reasonably". I would be fine with specifying what is reasonable and what is not, but it needs to be stated in the rule. Anything could be created. Surfer43 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    If we all agree on what is meant by "unreasonably hard", which, of course, we don't. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    From User_talk:Surfer43:
I think it's clear that reasonable people (ha) could disagree about what is meant by "reasonable". I'm just intrigued to test your intuitions. The following two articles were written by me.
  • Gymnopilus maritimus is an indistinct mushroom only known for certain from one location in Sardinia. It is likely of no interest to anyone but specialists with an interest in coastal fungal species and/or Gymnopilus species. The only pictures of it online were published with the original description of the species, which is copyrighted and non-free. Attempts to secure a free release have failed.
  • Nauru Reed Warbler is a small bird found only on the isolated island of Nauru. There are some pictures of dead specimens in peer reviewed journals and sketches of the species in a few places online (such as have appeared on stamps). Attempts to secure free images have come to nothing.
Would you be inclined to say that these two articles should be illustrated by non-free content? Both are now featured articles, and I have little doubt that they would have failed to pass at FAC if they were illustrated with non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to take a picture of the mushrooms because there is so much information about how it looks. It can be adequately described by words. I also think it would be reasonable to get a picture of the warbler because there is much information on its population, which probably means it can be sighted relatively easy. I really like how you used free pictures of similar species, and in the caption just noted the differences. Free pictures of similar species should probably also have a role in deciding "reasonableness". In my case, if there were free pictures of Natalus stramineus, which can be found in Mexico or nearby Cuba, it would be reasonable to use pictures and describe the "minor" differences. Some books considered them sub-species or even the same. I just found a free image of it on flickr(edit:already on wikipedia). I will probably use that one. That's my intuitions(can you say it like that?). Nice job getting the articles to featured status even with little sources. Surfer43 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not from talk page:
I still think we should change in some way because there still are cases that should be allowed Surfer43 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is only an illustration for the similar species, not any photos that are fully free, but some non-commercially free.I should be able to use the photo, because although there are many photos of the simmilar species, they are all non-free or partially free. This shows how much of a spread there is for non-free compared to free images. Surfer43 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The lack of an existing free image does not preclude the possibility of one being created, and non-free is not to be allowed as a replacement. Scouring the internet to find a free image is a good step, but that doesn't mean anything if we can still generate a free one. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, these may be suitable targets for requests. People are often quite open to releasing their content if asked in the right way. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I also point out that there are dozens of sources about the bat. I'm now surprised and a little worried that anyone thought that non-free content could be justified in this case. Comparing to my examples above (which Surfer has admitted should not be illustrated with NFC) the bat's less isolated than the Nauru Reed Warbler, far more common and easy to identify than Gymnopilus maritimus, and seemingly better known than both. There are a comparable number of pictures on the internet of all three, and the bat is far closer in appearance to its closest relative than either the mushroom or the bird, it seems. I really can't see why people are so keen for this bat to be illustrated- to make clear, it is simply false that the image used was the only image of the species on the internet. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Change. Cases such as File:SonyPlayStation4.jpg and File:Xbox One Logo.jpg which are quite obviously fair use but due to one person's misinterpretation of this clause they are currently up for deletion despite easily meeting all WP:NFCC criteria and being clear cases of obvious fair use. One of them is even under a CC licence for god's sake! This clause needs to be changed to prevent deletionists from abusing it like in the cases above! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Note: Since making this comment, PantherLeopard has been topic-banned from image-related and NFC-related matters on WP. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please stop mischaracterizing Masem's position. He was supported by numerous editors, and his interpretation of NFCC#1 was viewed as clearly correct by all uninvolved editors.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence to support that deletionist claim? PantherLeapord (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    The results of the NFCR you opened as well as the FFD discussion would tend to support my claims.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Stop being so strict. A games console is not a rare species of animal. They are mass produced by the thousands. A rare animal is not mass produced, and you could probably count the remaining number of a certain species on your hands. The fact that these devices were intentionally displayed in a somewhat public setting means that it was meant to be photographed. The fact that just about anyone (in this case, who is a member of the press who is lucky enough to allow free licensing) could get a picture of it means that it would be reasonable to make a free photograph of it. And that means its not NFCC 1 compliant. Also, images marked as Creative Commons Non-commercial/No Derivative Works are treated on Wikipedia as if they are fully copyrighted. We do not bend rules for "semi-free" images, they're either free or not. No questions asked. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Er, how do both of those images not fail WP:NFCC? The first one (now deleted) was clearly replaceable, and the second one only needs to be the logo - which would probably pass NFCC - because the rest is superfluous, and replaceable. And CC/NC/ND images are not free. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. I think that any image that (a) we can lawfully use and (b) enhances the encyclopaedia should be used, and I'm confused and bewildered by the fact that some Wikipedians think otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Then you think we should do away with the NFCC? The NFCC are deliberately far stricter than law, and so will exclude much that we can legally use. If this is your view, then so be it, but that is very much a minority view, and you really shouldn't be bewildered that most do not share it. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    What I think is that the NFCC were written, and are enforced, by people who're interested in and focused on free content to a much greater extent than the mainstream encyclopaedia-builders are. I think the NFCC should be rewritten by the community at large.—S Marshall T/C 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am not of the opinion that WP:NFCC should be removed ENTIRELY. Just that criteria 1 either needs to go completely or be majorly rewritten to take a more inclusive stance. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Marshall- Yep, people like Masem and I have nothing to do with encyclopedia building. You've got our number. Look- if you want an "everything that's legal" position, you want to do away with the NFCC, and, frankly, ignore the Foundation. The Foundation has always demanded a more strict position than "merely legal", and, by extension, so have the NFCC. You're in a fringe position, and really not one that is at all friendly to Wikipedia/the Foundation's central goals. No number of vague appeals to "the community" are going to twist your view into one that may be adopted. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    OI! No need for the personal attacks mate! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Are you talking to me? Marshall's the one trying to vaguely declare anyone who opposes his extremist position not a "mainstream encyclopaedia-builder". All I've done is pointed out how far his own position is from the current policy and the Foundation's mandate. Where's the personal attack? J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    That's a mischaracterisation of what I said, and I would like to de-escalate this by inviting close scrutiny of exactly what I did say.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    You believe that "mainstream encyclopedia builders" (for whom you have declared yourself able to speak) disagree with the enforcement of the NFCC? I'm just wondering where it leaves people like Masem and I who are both actively involved in policy enforcement and encyclopedia building. If I don't understand what you're trying to claim, please, tell me. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Well, no, I've been careful to use the first person singular throughout. With all due respect it's quite obvious from what I've written that I'm speaking for myself. You're taking a great deal of umbrage, which to an extent I understand, because my message is hostile towards strict interpretation of the NFCC and that cap clearly fits you well; but there are things I did not say. I did not say "nobody interested in NFCC ever builds any content". I did not say "I, personally, am a prolific contributor of high-quality content". My comments are about the way editors are attracted to policy pages based on their own opinions and interests, and the distorting effect this has on policy pages because on Wikipedia decisions are made by a consensus of whoever shows up.—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    That, in principle, I can agree with. I just don't think your view about non-free content use is as widely shared as you might think, and (though I am happy to accept that you did not mean to insinuate this) I certainly object to the notion that people enforcing this or any policy are necessarily destructive types with no interest in encyclopedia building. Sorry if I've come across as a little grumpy, here. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. Okay, I actually wouldn't mind the word "reasonably" be added to NFCC 1. I've seen consensus in previous RFU discussions that imply that this is the case, despite the unbelievably strict interpretations that some editors here (not naming names) seem to be exhibiting. It adds clarity and common sense. And to add some examples of my definition of reasonable, it would be reasonable to obtain a free image of a product being exhibited at a trade show (because they're meant for this type of display and exhibition to the press), but it would be unreasonable to find a picture containing a rare animal as long as it respects NFCC 2 and 8. I'm not trying to be inclusionist or deletionist here, but as long as this is handled as a clerical change and not a major change in practice, I'm fine with it. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. I think the pendulum has swung too far and we are now far to conservative on using non-free images. If it's legal to use and significantly improves things over the best free alternative, we should use it. Example: we shouldn't have pictures of 80 year olds to illustrate articles of folks famous due significantly to their looks when they were 20... Hobit (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    Invalid argument. That is completely against the Foundation's requirements. You'll need to get them to change before we can implement this here. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think the example was not as relevant(this isn't about using pictures where there are lesser alternatives available) and is being labeled as "invalid". Could you supply another argument? I do see your point. Surfer43 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    The Foundation has set an example bar in the resolution: that we should not be using non-free imagery of living persons on the assumption that a fair use image is possible - which implies irregardless in the world that person lives or the like. We've come to carve out extremely limited case-by-case uses where non-free may be the only way to show who that person is, but that's a tiny fraction of cases. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. Change. Adding 'reasonably' to NFC#1 better describes current community practice and is in line with the WP:IAR pillar and with how rules are interpreted in Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    "Reasonably" is far too vague. More sensible than changing the NFCC would be clarifying what is meant by NFCC#1 on NFC page. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    "could be created" is far to absolute. We could define reasonably with examples and decide case-by-case like we do now. Surfer43 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you're happy that it's how we do things now, why are you fighting so hard for change? "Could be created" is not "to[o] absolute" in the vast, vast majority of cases. There are a very small number of cases in which, while a free image could (as in, it is physically possible) be created, we are justified in using non-free images. Your bat example is not one of them- further digging has revealed that a lot of the assumptions you made (rare, poorly known, "only one photograph on the Internet") were simply not true. Further, details about its similarity to other species has revealed that an image isn't even all that important. I wonder how typical this experience would be? My point here is that listing examples is not easy- that's the reason that they have to be decided case-by-case. When you're already being too liberal with what could be considered irreplaceable, I dread to think how loosening the language would effect the non-free images being uploaded... J Milburn (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  6. Change, (I personally would go somewhat further. We are indeed way too far in our interpretation of NFCC, and it hampers the communicative abilities of the encyclopedia. Our primary purpose is not promoting the use of free licenses, but building an encyclopedia. It is already accepted that on otherwise free pages not all the images my be free, and the distinction is clear to re-users. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  7. Change Our primary purpose is to create an encyclopaedia, not to promote an idiosyncratic version of what is a free license. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  8. Change I agree with DGG. I've seen WAY too many NFCC images get tossed where the criterion was unreasonably followed to the smallest nit of the NFCC policy. Reasonable would be reasonable to add.  —Grollτech (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Change "Reasonableness" is a standard used all the time in law, and it's not considered "too vague" there. Certainly there is some room for interpretation, which can be worked out over time as a consensus builds on what constitutes reasonableness in different areas. There is no doubt in my mind that more flexibility is needed in the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to change

  1. We already have reasonable exceptions for NFCC#1 in where one might consider the possibility of getting a free image is non-zero, but the likelihood in terms of rarity and the like makes it effectively near impossible. A photograph of a singular species of bat not in captivity in a remote and small area of the world would be a reasonable case where while one could be possible, we know it is likely near impossible, so as long as all other NFCC points are met, a non-free of a bat would be allowed. This is akin to the case of notable people known to be recluse or wanted from the law - we have near zero expectation that a free image can be had without special conditions. Ergo, there is no need to change, only recognize what allowances we already allow within the bounds of NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think you would be convinced there is a need for a change if you read File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Nope, that doesn't change anything. The argument to keep the NFCC is basically "I can't find another picture on the Internet, thus no free image exists". But that's not the bar we use, it's if it could be created. Given that Hispaniolan greater funnel-eared bat is listed as only "near threatened", it means that it is very reasonable a free image can be created for that. The free replacement doesn't have to exist for NFCC#1 to apply, and this is a clear situation as such. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's EXACTLY this kind of STUPID deletionist logic that proves that this needs to change as the current clause can easily be abused by deletionists like Masem to degrade the encyclopedia. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Do you understand that this is what the Foundation - the people that pay for this site's servers and bandwidth - require us to do? Their exact workds from m:Resolution:Licensing policy is "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." We have zero choice in the matter in cases like these. The exceptions that are built in already are based on "reasonably expect". If the species of bat was extremely rare in a remote location, we can't reasonably expect a free image. On the other hand, a non-endangered creature on a populated part of the planet is not an issue for "reasonably expect" free photos. So this is not a line of logic that can be followed. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Do expect us to fly to Hispaniola , pay hundreds of dollars, and become experts about the species just to get a free picture that will be available from locals in 5 years? I wrote the article and the reason they are near threatened is because they depend on highly fragile ecosystems, despite being widespread. Just because they are near threatened doesn't mean there is more than next to to no info about them and that they are reasonably easy to find. Surfer43 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    You personally don't have to do it, but it is very reasonable to expect an editor can, ergo, yes, we do expect a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    It is also very reasonable to allow a freely accessible photo to be used until another person happens to release the photo under CC-BY-SA license. Surfer43 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    To be clear, I find in this case you cannot reasonably expect an editor(someone) to fly to Hispaniola and go deep into humid caves. The resolution does not say any editor(anyone). This is about the interpretation of what the foundation expects us to do, so your argument four above isn't valid. Surfer43 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    No, that's counter to what the Foundation says. They want us (and all projects) to encourage users to create free content. Meaning in places where a free image can be reasonably taken, we don't use non-free as a substitute until that free image arrives. Case in point, we don't have an image on Kim Jong-un because a free image is reasonable to be obtained, even considering the difficulty of getting into North Korea and/or transmission of information to and from it. And actually, the Foundation says "anyone", meaning it doesn't have to be an editor, just someone willing to give us a free-licence photo. This is standard policy for a long time and what the Foundation built their resolution on. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    That's where I disagree. It would be nice to know where the foundation says that. Surfer43 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Consider that in the Resolution they basically say that one can always except a free image a of a living person to be possible, as the baseline. As long as it exists and known where to exist, and otherwise legal to take such a photo (eg privacy issues), we except free imagery. That baseline applies across the board. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. (moved to change)This is supposed to be a free content project, and the use of such content should always have priority over non-free whenever possible. But, I agree with the consensus described above; if something is super-rare and we can't get a picture of it by normal means at all, yes, its appropriate. On a related note, we had a war from some people (Masem should be familiar with what I'm talking about) who demanded that we put back a non-free image of a console in contravention of NFCC 1 just because the free image is of poor quality (with one editor going as far as saying that "Free image purism is a ridiculous endeavor, and overall a detriment to Wikipedia") ViperSnake151  Talk  20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    If you think this would be reasonable fair use, see File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. We already allow non-free content when free content is seriously unlikely to be forthcoming- certain very isolated species may be a good example of that. (For instance, see Amaranthus brownii- I reviewed this at GAC, and think it's a good example of when non-free content may be justified, even though the species may not actually be extinct.) Concerning the bat you mention, have you made any effort to contact the copyright holder? Alternatively, have you considered a drawing? We have biological featured articles illustrated primarily by drawings, rather than photographs. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm afraid we don't already allow for fair use in cases like the above. See File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    These issues are decided on a case-by-case basis- I have not claimed that a non-free image of the bat is clearly justified. Some of my featured articles of isolated species have gone unillustrated, so I fully appreciate that non-free images are not usually warranted in these cases, and I've really not got time to look through that discussion. Again, have you explored other avenues? Have you attempted to secure a free release? Considered a picture? J Milburn (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    It can't be decided on a case-by-case basis because criterion 1 states any picture that could be created ever can not be used. Surfer43 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    It is decided on a case-by-case basis whether a free image could reasonably be created. We do not decide on a case-by-case basis whether we're going to ignore policy or not... J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    If it is decided on a case-by-case basis whether a free image could reasonably be created, shouldn't that be mentioned in the policy? Surfer43 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    If we can find a way to do so which doesn't completely change the meaning of the criterion and/or open up the floodgates to large amounts of non-free content which should be kept out of the encyclopedia. Adding "reasonably" to NFCC#1 would probably do the latter. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. No need for change: You've disagreed with the interpretation of NFCC#1, but you don't seem to be proposing an actual change. You argument that it would be difficult for you to personally replace an image doesn't make the image irreplaceable.—Kww(talk)
    I'm sorry you don't think I want a change, but I do. The change is to allow some cases where it is unreasonable to find a picture. The current is if there is any possible way any picture could ever be taken of something, it is not allowed. Surfer43 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. The RfC proposal is so badly written that it's difficult to figure out what the proposal even is. But I think the idea is to delete the words "or could be created," from WP:NFCC#1, on the grounds of, essentially, WP:CRYSTAL – or, alternatively, to put forth more specific criteria as to how to determine how difficult it is to create a free alternative. It seems to me that this is just a proxy battle between those who want wider use of non-free content, and those who favor the status quo. If there's a proposal for more specific language to determine how difficult it would be to create a free alternative, then let's see that proposal, because it isn't here. Otherwise, the argument to delete "or could be created" is just another way of saying, "boo hoo, it's too hard for me to create a free alternative" instead of making a thoughtful argument that we have something like that rare bat, where there might be a rational basis for saying that a free alternative won't pop up. I actually agree with the long-standing consensus that it should be difficult to justify non-free content on Wikipedia – not impossible, but difficult – because I genuinely believe in our project mission as a "free encyclopedia". Oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I clarified it for you. I'm not proposing to delete "or could be created". I want it to be "or could be created reasonably". A picture of a tiger or polar bear would qualify as being able to be created "reasonably". Surfer43 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you. I still oppose, because I think that the word "reasonably" is far too vulnerable to Wiki-lawyering. One person can say something is reasonable, when another person can say the same thing in unreasonable. Of course, the solution is to have discussion, as at deletion review, but we already have that in the same way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. Perhaps you would support a similar propsal for more specific language or more examples? We need to at least mention that some cases are allowed where images could be created, but it would be unreasonably hard to do so. Surfer43 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's going to be difficult to think of cases on which we would all agree/which would always hold. "Very rare species", for instance, is a continuum, and while some highly rare and/or isolated species may warrant the use of non-free content, it's not necessarily easy to draw a line. Criminals on the run/in prison for life are possible examples of cases where free content is hypothetically possible, but in which we would probably assume NFC meeting NFCC#1. Ultra-rare chemical elements which exist only for a few seconds at a time in university laboratories may be another. Species assumed, but not proven, to be extinct, probably fall into the category of "free content could hypothetically be forthcoming but non-free content would probably meet NFCC#1." I'm just thinking aloud here. I'm all for clarifying that point, but we're going to have to be very careful to not open the floodgates. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Should we have another RFC on exactly how to clarify that point? Surfer43 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    RfCs are costly in terms of time and energy. It's still not particularly clear what this one is proposing, and yet we have a lot of people supporting change. I think more useful than changing the NFCC's wording would be adding a note in the applications section about what NFCC#1 actually means. We don't really need an RfC for that. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  6. I think reasonable people could disagree about the particular image which brought you to suggest this change, but I don't think it justifies opening the floodgates to allow editors to perform a cursory Google Image search and then throw up their hands and say "whelp, guess we have to use a non-free image." Take the individual interpretation to WP:DRV, but the broader principle is still a worthwhile one. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    The reason I am proposing this is to allow non-free images to be used if it is unreasonable to create a free image, which would allow a case-by-case decision. The way my case was treated was "If it is possible to create an image, you can't use a non-free image". Surfer43 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Which is pretty much the Foundation's statement on this. Yes, there is wiggle room in what "possible" is, but its a lot narrower than you're asking for. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's fair to say that's your opinion, not a fact. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    It's straight out of the Foundation's resolution, so it is fact. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  7. no need to change - an alternative picture can be taken, otherwise it will just become the subjective 'how unreasonable is it to think that a free picture can be obtained', which for all cases where there is no easy way going to be argued to be 'unreasonable' (and that is how case-by-case cases will be treated: argue that it is unreasonable in all cases). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  8. No need to change per J Milburn. In the case of organisms, if there is almost no information on a species, no free photos of similar species, not enough sourced info to adequately describe it by words, and only one or two pictures of it, then it would be OK to use a non-free picture. However, I see this is rarely the case and would be acceptable now according to many of the opposes. With my example, there is more information than I thought on the bat with plenty of description of how it looks. The illustration of an extremely similar species is being used, and that is enough. I think alternatives should be better emphasized like using free photos of similar species and contacting the photographer in the case of animals. Other cases are covered well enough. Surfer43 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  9. 'Oppose change, or at least this change. I'm not sure I'd object in the case of the bat, but I think "reasonableness" is too slippery for codification. Would the lack of a free image of that species make it more likely someone would go to the effort to take one? Quite possibly. That's part of the point of the NFCC, too. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  10. No. Apart from the excellent point that this will lead to the discussion 'how reasonably possible', this is a free project. People are free to copy whatever, to use for whatever they want. Having non-free photographs and other images is already pretty confusing to the end user (I tried explaining if you can use a picture on wikipedia once, it's not easy.) Muddying this up even more is a step in the wrong direction. This is not about what wikipedia can legally show, this is about what our readers can re-use and re-package. We are building a free encyclopedia. It should be free. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Essentially I don't think the policy should be "fixed" when there's no real evidence that it's broken. The example given was used as an example of why it should be changed, but I don't see anything there that indicates a need for change in any way. As an aside, "I am almost 100% sure the photographer would be fine with this" is a horrible rationale for keeping someone else's image you uploaded onto Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. This change is not needed, and would do more harm than good. – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Not needed. The example provided is a good example of being replaceable. Garion96 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. Oppose This discussion doesn't seem to be about whether the policy should be changed but about whether File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg satisfies WP:NFCC#1 or not. Individual files are better discussed at WP:FFD, WP:NFCR or WP:DRV. We already accept non-free files if it would be too unreasonably hard to create a free image. For example, you could create a free image of Mickey Mouse by buying 50% of the shares in the Walt Disney Company, but we still consider pictures of Mickey Mouse to be irreplaceable. The proposed change in the wording would not help anyone to tell when it is reasonable or unreasonable to create a free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. I thought we already went over this, but registering my opposition to changing the criteria as mentioned above. I for the most part agree with Masem, and especially with the "it's not broken, don't try and fix it" sentiment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • On a related note, I opened a deletion review on the image in question. Personally, I would like to request that editors in this discussion try to stay out of the deletion review, because I am going to be seeking opinions from uninvolved parties on the matter for the purposes of balance. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Quick notice - I have send an informal email to arbcom informing them of this RFC since I figured we may as well inform them now rather when they inevitably get dragged into this! PantherLeapord (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • After this and this I suddenly feel like that was a good call... PantherLeapord (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm really struggling to see what you find so objectionable about my comments. You're the one who thought it appropriate to start a list of active editors you considered detrimental to the project on your userpage... J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The major problem is that you are suggesting that a user wants us to decide if we should ignore policy or not. In the case of the so-called attack page nobody was suggesting such a thing. And it is my view that people who support deletion of images that are basically impossible to replicate based on the stupid interpretations above and below of WP:NFCC#1 ARE detrimental to the project! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • To be honest, per Masem's Oppose #1 above, I thought that what's suggested is how people already interpreted NFCC #1 -- ie reading "or could be created" to mean "could reasonably be created" rather than "could imaginably be created". The bat image should certainly have gone to FFD rather than been speedied: if an uploader disagrees with a tagger on a point like this, the way forward should clearly be to go to a process with wider input rather than for the speedier to impose their view as final. But I think that flexibility will usually be interpreted appropriately into the current wording (aberrations aside); changing the wording as suggested would I think cause it to be pushed too far and over-interpreted. NFCC #1 reflects a core objective, to build up free content wherever there can be free content. It would be a mistake to soften it. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then what's to stop people like Eeekster from interpreting it literally("or could be created") like he did at File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg? Surfer43 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Deletion review already solves this issue. It only takes two unique opinions to initially speedy a file - the tagger and the deleting admin - so it's possible sometimes for us to interpret policy in ways that will be overturned on wider scrutiny. If a consensus there still believes that the rule should be read as "imaginably created" rather than "reasonably created," then you won't have the answer you want, but you'd still have a more clear answer with broader suppport. In the past, though, the norm has been to allow uses such as this one. I would think it would be similar to our treatment of images of people who are still living, but because of reclusiveness or imprisonment, are unlikely to generate a free image. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree - FFD and/or DRV are the barriers to prevent an excessive interpretation of what "could" implies, letting consensus decide when the "could" is near impossible and a non-free is appropriate. CSD should only be used on the clearest violations (living celebrities, pictures of buildings and/or art where Freedom of Panorama allows for it, household objects, etc.); FFD should be used on edge cases like this animal. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, relatively new editors like I was won't know what the "norm" is when their photos get tagged. The info in the tag only told to place a disputed template on the page if you disagree. The policy should be more specific, or spell out the "norm" on the policy page so it can't be misused either way. Surfer43 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, we can't define the norm, there's only a few clear cut cases like living persons and standing buildings - but even then there are exceptions. The most accurate statement is what we already say in NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
              • We need to mention, somehow, that not all photos that could be created as a free photo fail NFCC#1. Surfer43 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
                • I'm really not convinced on the need for this. In all most all cases, "all photos that could be created as a free photo" do fail NFCC#1. That's what NFCC#1 is for. There are going to be very few exceptions to this- I'm certainly not seeing the advantage of changing the NFCC (which are deliberately kept short and snappy) for these few cases. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
                • "Could" is sufficiently open ended (per MoSCoW Method) that it allows for exceptions, so no further explanation is needed. We have a clarifying example over at WP:NFC#UUI#1. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • On a related note to the Xbox One/PS4 image war, I added the following as an example of an unacceptable use: "An image of a product from its manufacturer, used to illustrate its article because the only free images of it are low quality." ViperSnake151  Talk  22:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Please enlighten me as to how a low quality image is good for demonstration purposes. PantherLeapord (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Use of "an image at all" is not required. If there are no images that meet licensing requirements that are "good for demonstration purposes"...no image at all is a viable way to have an article. An image that is such low quality that it doesn't illustrate anything isn't useful need not be used, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to resort to using a non-free one. DMacks (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • About ViperSnake's addition to UUI: sorry, but I don't really think that is very useful in this form. I don't think the "low quality" counter-argument should be written into the description of the case; that's rather confusing and really covers only this very limited and specific situation that triggered the present kerfuffle. If at all, we could say: "a publicity photograph of a commercial product released by its manufacturer, if the product has already been sold or displayed to the public in such a way that free photographs of it could be taken". But then, I think this is pretty much already covered by the other entries anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

F7 review

" 7. A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. "

This may need a consensus review. We are legally allowed to use their images if cropped and/or reduced which doesn't threaten commercial value. Why should we hunt around for lame images in articles when the press and Getty have decent ones that we are allowed to use? Was there a broad and slam dunk consensus on this or should we review removal of it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no we don't. Because they are in the business of selling their photos as individual products, any use of their photos, when otherwise not for critical commentary, hurts their commercial value, even if we use reduced sizes. Contrast this to taking one frame of a movie, or the cover art from a CD, where the product is much more than just that single image. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Or more specifically, as US Fair Law includes the consideration of how much of the copyrighted work is used, when we use an entire Getty photo, even reduced in size, we've got a huge strike against us for Fair Use. If the image itself is critically discussed, then we're offsetting that within Fair Use law, hence why we have articles on the famous Iwo Jima photo and use that photo itself. But we cannot just use press images to illustrate articles if the photo specifically is not discussed. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Fair use is an exception to copyright law that allows only specific uses. By using it to get a decent image as opposed to a lame one for our articles would violate the spirit of the law. I will resolve this section and thank you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolved

DVD/Blu-ray covers on episode lists

Being discussed at Village pump, looking for more opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Another urgent request

Sorry to bother the experts here again ... and Masem, who responded last time, doesn't seem to be online at the moment. Can the Signpost use the Wikimania 2013 logo? The copyright info on the description page seems to be very fuzzy about ownership and usability on WMF sites. Advice appreciated; we publish in about five or six hours' time. Tony (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's good to use. It's a free logo (only clearly marked as a trademark of WMF but that doesn't impact free/non-free here). --MASEM (t) 13:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Masem. I've been nervous about using WMF trademarks. The page does talk about permission required in some contexts. I think the stock wording could be made clearer, don't you? Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It could be, but that's a template over at commons that would have to be improved. I think they are trying to assure that while it is a logo associated with the free work of the Wikimedia Foundation, that the logo still cannot be used willy-nilly and not in means to dilute the trademark (you can't take it for yourself, make the same named event, with no association with the WMF, and run one yourself). Using the trademark on a brief blurb to talk about the event in context is far from being an issue. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to know; thx. Tony (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair use (Help)

Hello,

I want to upload a picture of Naiza DU round (125 mm) on Wikipedia for this page: Al-Khalid tank (Section: Armament) and National Defence Complex (if possible for multiple articles).

Only a few pics of the round are available. One of them is here. I can't get it under a free license as the blog has been inactive for several years now. Can I use it as Fair use under the following conditions:

Purpose: To illustrate only .. (May suit research criteria also) ... The blog writer has shared some pictures of IDEAS 2002 (writers own work) here. Use of this work has No commercial purpose.

Nature: Naiza DU round 125 mm developed by National Defence Complex.

Portion to be used: Cropped (left part of this image only)

Low Resolution: Yes

Impact on Potential Market: No impact. Firstly, the quality of the image isn't that good. Secondly, this image is over a decade old and hasn't found commercial use anywhere. The blog writer hasn't shared it for commercial purpose.

So, can I upload the image on Wikipedia as Fair use. If yes, which template should I use ? ... And can I use it for the other page (National Defence Complex) also ?? --Maxx786 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It appears to me that this type of ammunition still exists. Remember that NFCC #1 doesn't only ask if free images exist today, nor whether you could get that particular image released under a free license, but if a free image could conceivably be created tomorrow. Also, for the two articles you suggest, the articles could have plenty of free replacements, such as images of the agency's headquarters (for the agency article) or the tank itself (for the tank article). That image would not be permissible because it is replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These rounds are still produced.. So, according to NFCC #1 this image can't be used under Fair use criteria ..

I just found another image of Naiza on International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons website here. And I have forwarded an email to request a free license. Hope they release it....

Thanks ... --Maxx786 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting a poem. Is a full stanza allowed?

I have quoted a poem at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 January 12. I was wondering how much is allowed as I have quoted a full stanza of an 8 stanza poem (9 lines out of 71) from here. I did this to put a query about a lines' meaning in context. --220 of Borg 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't have hard rules on text content (non-free policy doesn't cover that) and we have to consider US fair use laws for that, which of course there are no hard set numbers or metrics for this. ~10% of a full poem, in the context of discussion about it, is likely okay. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Masem. --220 of Borg 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Album Covers

This article specifically cite album covers as not OK when used in an informationnal-only works like a discography, yet I stumble a lot of them (like here) with a "fair-use" rationale. Is this remnants of a past era when covers where allowed ? Should these be removed or can I happily go on putting covers ? Although there is a permission for critical work, Wikipedia articles are informational only. Or am I mixing up Wikicommons and Wikipedia per se ? zubrowka74 18:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In that article, File:SlayerWORLDPAINTEDBLOOD.jpg (the infobox images) passed due to NFCI#1 as a image for identification, but that's the only "free" cover art an album gets; save for certain excepts made for alternate cover art that significantly varies for the album in other regions, any other cover art must be the subject of sourced discussion, which the other two images on this page do not have and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So the first cover for identifiationc purpose is ok ? Then the example on the the non-free content page are misleading. Thanks for the clarification! zubrowka74 19:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The first cover in the infobox is fine - this is what comes under WP:NFCI#1, "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". Since the album "World Painted Blood" is discussed in the article, an identifying image is appropriate. Can I ask what you think you find is misleading (as that probably implies a wording problem to be fixed). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The section Unacceptable use, Images, second item : "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above". Only, the item just above doesn't relate : "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Maybe it's just me. zubrowka74 20:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you're looking WP:NFC#UUI. World Painted Blood is not what we would call a discography, as it is only about a single album and its variants. A discography would be like a band's career releases, such as Pearl Jam discography. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#8

NFCC#8 in practice is a highly opinionated idea. here is the clause:

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would
significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would
be detrimental to that understanding

The idea of an image that will significantly increase readers' understanding to one editor often times is not so for another. In a current debate over the deletion of Non free images what is "significant" to one editor is not always so to another. Because NFCC#8 is a highly objective and opinionated idea, it should not be the only basis on which a non free content image is deleted. Esp when no one's interests are being compromised as is so often the case. It would also spare many editors from the opinionated bickering that is too often associated with the idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That would open the flood gates, NFCC#8 sets the bar high for a reason. Werieth (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see removing the clause either but it really needs to be admitted that it is often a quite subjective evaluation. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course its subjective, which is why a NFCC#8 violation can only be deleted through FFD (in fact, save for outright copyvios/improper licenses which can be speedied, all non-frees can only be deleted via consensus at FFD). We have also created the cases at WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI to help set bounds that are outside the grey zone of subjectivity where images can and cannot be used. There will still be many images that fall in between and hence the need for discussion, but NFCC#8 is critical to avoid images just being added for visual prettiness or just because one can. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, avoiding the "different for one editor" thing is why we have non-free content review discussions. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thirded. — fourthords | =Λ= | 13:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
How much of a difference would adding "per consensus" to the end of that line make? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus indeed. I have seen articles and images deleted because the "consensus" was no more than a couple of opinions submitted by a couple of drive by editors. (Excuse the characterization but that's too often the case.) If there are no policy violations, nothing abusive involved, no one's interests compromised, the consensus to delete should be substantial. IOW, if two editors disagree with one editor regarding NFCC#8, that by itself should not be enough to delete an image. There should be at least a 4 to 1 consensus to delete if NFCC#8 is the only issue regarding an image. The whole idea that a couple of opinions is all that's needed to delete an image is sort of ridiculous. There are already plenty of other clear reasons to delete images and articles. We certainly need rules to prevent abuse and misuse, but we also need something in place to protect articles and images from deletion based on the opinion of only a couple of editors, especially when these opinions are entirely debatable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is not about a majority, or a supermajority, or a 4:1 ratio, or unamimity. It is about which arguments better conform our our policies. In this case, the onus is on the persons arguing that non-free content should be kept to convincingly show that the content meets criterion #8 (as well as all the others). If they do not show this, the content is deleted. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : That is far from always true in practice. Again, images are often deleted for no other reason than the so called "consensus" of two editors opposed to one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how adding an arbitrary, easily gamed ratio is better than the existing system (which intentionally defaults towards deletion). Whether or not the word is in scare quotes, consensus is our primary means of decision making - a 2:1 !vote for delete can and should frequently result in deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
So, the question is, how do we adjust policy to reflect this idea? We could add something to the effect of "Non-free content is used only if there is a consensus that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", or adding something like "The deletion of a file under criteria #8 requires a strong consensus from multiple editors." under Enforcement? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
'Insert : Very easily. We stipulate that when NFCC#8 is the only issue in question, and when all other nine NFCC items have been satisfied, a four to one consensus is needed for deletion of the NFC image in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(Ec)Unfortunately, since NFCC is a copyright issue, which has legal ramifications for the Foundation, if 2 out of 3 people !vote at FFD (a typical number) to delete with NFCC reasoning, we will delete appropriately. (More often than not, the 1 "keep" !vote is rarely based on justifying FFD but more "it's useful", which is not appropriate.) It is not like AFDs where we're not worried about legal issues, thus a lack of strong consensus to delete will generally result in a no consensus keep. FFDs take 7 days, just like AFDs, and if this doesn't bring additional opinions of those wishing to retain the image, then there's probably a good reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. We are not supposed to take legal ramifications into account. This is a matter for WMF. As volunteers, this is not our responsibility and we must keep a clear distance from it. Consensus is the criterion, as it is everywhere else on Wikipedia. As it happens, I have had free images deleted. Despite its name, NFCC is not about copyright nor about whether an image is free. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Uh, what? NFCC is everything about copyright. No, our decisions to delete are not based on whether the Foundation will be used by others, but for being able to maintain their free content mission and all material to be redistributed. They, the Foundation, specifically say that content that doesn't meet our NFCC (EDP) should be timely deleted. And we have determined in the past that the onus is on those wanting to retain the image to show how all NFCC is met. If this is not demonstrated at an FFD then it is deleted. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Hawkeye7, but let's get back on track guys. The issue here is about using a couple of opinions regarding NFCC#8, by themselves, as the sole basis for deleting images when all the other nine NFCC items have been satisfied. Again, if there are no other policy violations, no abusive content, no one's interest's are compromised, NFCC#8 should only used as a basis to delete if there is a substantial consensus about NFC images that don't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". And once again, there are already other clear provisions in place for deleting images. We need something in place to protect images from being deleted because of a couple of opinions only -- especially when these opinions are entirely debatable, and especially when all other nine NFCC items have been satisfied. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Since NFCC can be uploaded by one person without any checks, we have to have the process where inappropriate NFCC deleted by consensus of a few. Again, keeping NFCC puts the onus on those that want to retain it, and if no one comes to the FFD where an image is up for deletion to defend it, then removal makes the most sense. This is standard and accepted FFD practice. Remember, NFCC is supposed to be exceptional, not common. We must be vigiliant to remove images of dubious use that no one else supports keeping. And most of the time, it is two people point out the NFCC failure, against one or two saying "But it's a good image!" and provide no policy. Consensus in that type of discussion, for any policy or guideline, will fall on the policy-based arguments. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"...Uploaded by one person without any checks"? Wrong. There are ten such checks: NFCC# 1-10. And your reference to "But it's a good image" is hardly representative of the reasons why such images are uploaded. In fact, one must explain in the fair use rationale why the image is being used on the one particular page in question. I have never seen anyone say "it's a good image" as their reason for uploading a NFC image. We need more than a couple of opinions that simply say the image doesn't "increase understanding", as once again, this is a rather ambiguous idea, esp since they are second guessing the "understanding" of people other than themselves. If there was such a degree of consternation for NFC images it would seem WP would not allow these images to be uploaded in the first place. We need something in place that protects images that pass all other nine NFCC considerations from a couple of fuzzy opinions about the "increased understanding" of other people. A substantial consensus should be required for #8 when all other nine NFCC items have been clearly satisfied. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no human process beyond faith in the uploader to make sure a non-free image meets NFC. There are a few mechanical checks (#9 and #10c) but the rest are all judgement calls, and there's no way we can implement a process that prevents uploading of bad images because of that. And while we expect uploaders to read and understand NFC before uploading, many don't, and we get bad image use, and since we have no process that manaully checks every image use, we have to have a process than weeds out the bad uses within fair discussion. FFD notifies the uploader and tags the image, so that anyone that wants to keep it can participate. And I have seen plenty of "keep" !votes that amount to "it's a good image" and don't try to argue on any NFCC points. We have the processes in place to make sure images are not deleted without discussion, period. If we weaken that, that wrecks the NFC policy and violates the Foundation's mandate. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are ten NFCC stipulations in place. You're suggesting that if we alter one NFCC item we knock the bottom out of the entire NFCC process, as if the other nine NFCC items don't factor in to the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I've decided that it is time to make a formal proposal based on the discussion above. There is a clear consensus here that NFCC 8 should be evaluated on a strong consensus, but only when it is the only criteria applicable in a certain case. Plus, these cases shouldn't be on FFD; Non-free content review is a more relevant place of discussion in these scenarios.

So, with that in mind, I propose that the following line be added under "Enforcement" in the Non-free content criteria:

If the use of a file is being disputed solely under criteria 8 (and all other criteria is satisfied), a strong consensus must be obtained before action is taken.

Secondly, I propose that we encourage said discussions to take place on the Non-free content review page instead of Files for deletion. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose and impossible to work under current Foundation requirements One significant problem is that if the NFCC#8 is determined to be wrong by consensus, it needs to be deleted and that requires admin action, which NFCR is not set up to do. Since deletion is a possible action, it has to go to FFD. But more importantly, it is rarely the case that NFCC#8 is the "only" problem, with typically NFCC#1 or #3a coming into play as well depending on how bad #8 fails by consensus. This also completely breaks down the fact that since it only takes one person to upload a potentially problematic (per the Foundation's requirement) non-free image, it should not take a "strong consensus" to delete. NFC is not meant to be used trivially and should always have strong rationals for inclusion, and if after FFD/NFCR there isn't one offered, it is to be deleted. Period. This is trying to game the system to allow more NFCC which is completely counter to the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Which NFCC item says anything about 'trivial'? This is yet another fallacious argument. Btw, the idea of "trivial" is yet another opinion. What may seem "trivial" to you may not seem that way to other editors. Many editors feel articles about video games are trivial and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Would it be fair to delete these articles if one or two editors came along and said 'hey!'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, never mind the NFCR part. But would you agree if a strong concensus were required to keep an image if NFCC 8 is involved at all? ViperSnake151  Talk  06:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Trying to qualify what the consensus might be is simply going to lead to gaming the system. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong agree for reasons stated and not addressed by the opposition here. Who said anything about trying to "qualify" consensus? All we need to do is establish what a substantial consensus is. Four to one is practical. The idea that any one or two editors can come along and have an image deleted based on their 'opinion' of NFCC#8 when all other NFCC items have been satisfied is flat out wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"establish what a substantial consensus is" is exactly trying to qualify consensus more than what is currently accepted. And there's zero problem with the recommendations of one or two people to remove an image that fails NFCC when only one person is needed to upload the image (The uploader themselves). --MASEM (t) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No it is not. It is merely asking for more than a two to one consensus. If a 'four to one' ratio amounts to "qualified consensus" then so does a 'two to one' consensus. Your argument is conjecture with no rational basis that distinguishes between the two. Again, the idea that one or two editors can come along and have an image deleted based on their 'opinion', when there are no other reasons for it, should have a substantial consensus -- not a token consensus. I have even seen cases where the nominator had an image deleted simply because no one else weighed in. This is BS and places too much power in the hands of one or two editors. This is clearly wrong and flies in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, it may only take one uploader to submit a NFC image to wikipedia -- but the image still has to pass ten NFCC conditions, so this objection is also a paper argument. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
An image can be deleted if there's a 1 to 10 !vote for delete, if the policy argument by the one outweighs the arguments of the 10 (though in such a case, I would likely suspect that those 10 supply no policy for their arguments, thus easily swinging the closer's decision.) That's why one has to remember, consensus is not about numbers, it is about strength of policy arguments. And the one thing to remember is that is very rare that if there is an image that is believed to fail NFCC#8, it, by default, will also be believed to fail NFCC#1 (free replacement with the understanding that no image is a free replacement alternative), if not NFCC#3a as well. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, mindless use of NFCC flies in the spirit of the free encyclopedia. This is why we have to be harsh on it. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There has to be a basis for consensus to begin with, and I have never seen one opinion outweigh a fair number of others, much less ten, when there are no policy issues involved. That is what we're discussing here. Also, "mindless use" is yet another opinionated idea. NFC policy is already harsh. There are ten conditions that must be met. If these conditions are met it would seem to cancel out "mindless use". Again, we need more than one or two opinions deciding the fate of ANY content here at Wikipedia. We should oppose ANY policy that puts that much power in the hands of one or two individuals. There are already plenty of WP policies for keeping "mindless" uploads out of WP -- so there is no need for any provision that allows one or two opinions to do this job. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No there isn't any policy that you claim prevents mindless uploads. I can go right now and upload a "useless" NFCC image by simply following the prompts in the Upload Wizard, applying some license and some nonsense for a rationle, and it will be kept until someone comes along to discover the problem - as long as it is used in main space, has a license template and mentions the article it is used it, the image can remain "valid" by all practical means we have to check on it. That's the problem. NewPagePatrol does not cover image use (this was a point we've discussed trying to expand in the last year) and outside of a bot that tags if a rationale is present, that's it. Nor do we necessarily want a bot to be doing any more since everything else about NFCC has to be checked by a human but we simply don't have a process for this, and attempts to make one falter, given that people that enforce NFCC are generally spat upon when they try to enforce it. This is why we have to be agressive - non-free content harms the mission, unless other content which is under free license and where we can afford to be wishy-washy as long as it is not copyvio or fraudulent. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong once again. Anyone can upload anything, no one and no policy can prevent that, and I never claimed there was any such policy that could prevent such uploads. What I did say however, is that there is plenty of policy for removing images if they are indeed "mindless" or otherwise in violation of WP policy. Please read what is written, not what you wish was written. You're becoming highly argumentative and at this point seem only to be arm-wrestling with an editor, not with the actual issue at hand. Once again, there are TEN NFCC stipulations that allow for the removal of NFC images. Once again, allowing one or two editors to use their opinion to remove an image that is not in violation of WP policy or the other nine NFCC stipulations is wrong, and places too much power in the hands of one or two editors. The present policy even allows one nominating editor with an 'opinion' about NFCC#8 to have an image deleted if no one comes around in time and says anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The onus is on the editors wanting to use the images to defend their inclusion. If no one comes by in 7 days to counter the claim that the nominator makes, and the closing admin (a last checkpoint) feels the nominating reason is appropriate for deletion, then by our policy and by the Foundation's requirements, deletion is appropriate. We can't cry over spilled milk of editors not doing their proper job in the first place to make sure that an image's inclusion met the NFCC requirements to start. Remember, all ten NFCC requirements have to be met, we cannot say "well, it meets 9 out of 10, it should be okay".
HEre's a fair question: point me to an FFD where only NFCC#8 was the matter at hand (I doubt you can find one), and where there was only "weak" consensus to delete in your opinion. I suspect that it is a matter of the common misunderstanding how strong the requirements for NFC use have to be and that the image deletion was proper. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This was deleted exclusively on the basis of NFCC#8. This one was specially hurtful, since the reviewer basically admitted that closing admins don't need to assess existing consensus on subjective concerns. There are shady things going on at FfD, and the balance of power is not governed by policy when admins are given "more leeway then normal" instead of following established procedures. Diego Moya (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the original discussion, no, there were more issues at play than NFCC#8. NFCC#1 was brought up, and the issue of animations (eg NFCC#3). So this is not a usable example but of the system working right. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And just to add to this - while I in no way endorse mass deletion runs that haven't had prior discussion - the issue of FFD, NFCC#8, and low participation has come up recently (Nov 2012) in the deletion of several Simpsons screenshots. There are a lot of threads you can find from that discussion relating to editing behavior (SchuminWeb's in particular and what I believe led to his desysopping), but the policy issues around NFCC back up the fact that NFCC#8 while subjective is a very high bar that should be met, and does not require a "strong consensus" to delete due to the NFCC policy and WMF mandates. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : The fact that there are ten NFCC items already makes for a "high bar", and if indeed the NFC image doesn't increase the reader's understanding of the topic in question we still can have the image deleted. All that is being proposed is that more than one or two opinions be consulted. The idea of "increasing a reader's understanding" is a subjective and ambiguous idea, since we are second guessing the reader's opinions -- many 1000's of them. On that note more than one or two editors need to be consulted, again, only when NFCC#8 is the only reason an image is nominated for deletion. I've put 'only' in bold lettering because this condition has been glossed over in some of the opposing arguments, several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Not glossing over it. NFCC#8 violations almost always are de facto NFCC#1 violations as well, and possibly NFCC#3a ones too. (note, importantly, NFCC#1 and #3a are still separate standalone criteria, but when talking about images in context of #8, these two are tightly related). No, the nom may not mention #1 or #3a when they claim #8 is a problem, but it can be considered implicit. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is deleting an image based on NFCC#8 -- only.. If NFCC#1 & NFCC#3 are issues, that is a different matter. You are demonstrating a point I made earlier: There are plenty of other provisions for deleting NFC images. Once again, if NFCC#8 is the only issue, as is so often the case, we need a clear consensus. i.e.Tried by a jury of 'one'? 'Two'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per the reasons discussed above. I also disagree with Vipersnake's assessment that There is a clear consensus here that NFCC 8 should be evaluated on a strong consensus. If you are anyone is serious about changing this, I suggest a RfC to get an adequate amount of discussion. Please consider setting up a new section with bulleted oppose/support and a discussion section below, to get a better sense of the level of involvement. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a sweeping and grossly inaccurate claim. No one wants to overhaul NFC policy as you're obviously trying to suggest. All that is being proposed here is that when NFCC#8 is the only reason an image is nominated for deletion that more than one or two editors be consulted. Again, there are too many cases where the nominating editor's opinion was the only deciding factor -- and plenty of others where only 'two' opinions (out of many thousands of editors here at WP) were the deciding factor. No one or two editors should have that much power when it comes to removing content. One or two opinions can hardly be called "consensus" -- and if consensus is not what decides the fate of an image then why do they even bother with a nomination and discussion? We need to bring rationality into the way NFCC#8 is enforced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that there is often only one person nominating a file for deletion and no one commenting on the rationale. If such a file violates WP:NFCC#8, then it must be deleted – and we can't force people to participate in the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit break)

If indeed. We need more than one opinion to determine that. Again, the nominator is speaking for 100s, perhaps 1000s of readers, claiming that the image doesn't increase their understanding of the topic in question. Common senses says we need more than one or two opinions to establish that. One or two opinions hardly amounts to a consensus. Again, there are plenty of other provisions to delete NFC images. If NFCC is the only issue, an opinion, we need a clear consensus. If the image is clearly in violation of NFCC#8 and there is only one editor proposing a deletion, then we can always go to RfC or an appropriate noticeboard if someone feels that strongly about the image in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
You are completely misunderstanding the seriousness that we handle NFCC. It is not free content - if it a problem and is on WP, it can hurt the free content mission. It has been upheld numerous times that those that want to use NFCC have the burden of showing NFCC is met. Again, I point out that we have admins that are well aware of the NFCC requirements and are only deleting images that has been shown by policy to fail. NFCC#8 is subjective, but most of the time where images are deleted at NFCC are when we're well outside of the subjective bounds (into NFC#UUI territory). We have DRV to handle cases where images are deleted inappropriately. Again, I ask: point out where you have seen FFDs that shouldn't have resulting in deletion in your opinion, but I suspect that all such cases are being deleted within policy. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : You have been asserting a lot of opinion, which is fine, but kindly keep it directed at issues, not other editors. I fully appreciate the NFCC process and I don't need you to recite the obvious. It is understood that the content in question is not free. Thank you. You keep glossing over the fact that there are already plenty of provisions for removing NFC images when called for. Once again, when NFCC#8 is the only issue, we need a clear consensus because we are dealing with something quite subjective. It is wrong for one or two editors, administrators included, to second guess the "understanding" of 100s or 1000s of other readers all by themselves. We need a clear consensus for that. You speak of good faith, but seem to lack it entirely when it comes to allowing other editors to establish a clear consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
But in that fashion you're assuming by bad faith that when an editor nominates an image under NFCC#8 issues, they aren't thinking about how NFCC#8 fails for the readers. They are not nominating it for deletion because they don't personally gain any special understanding with the image, but that they feel that for the bulk of readers this is the case. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not changing NFCC 8 at all, all I am really wanting to do is ensure that we have consensus in more complex scenarios. There is already a firm consensus that images which are purely decorative do not pass NFCC 8, and that position has been upheld on numerous occasions; that shouldn't change. In more complicated situations, it would be better to have multiple opinions. But still, you seem to be asserting that all NFCC cases must be dealt with as quickly as possible. I'm not saying they should take a month. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Which goes back to having good faith in the admin closers that they recognize a balanced consensus at an FFD that no deletion is done even if the delete !votes are slightly strong (this does happen). The cases that people get upset about is where NFC are deleted but they could argue little more about keeping the image beyond "its useful or interesting", which are NFCC#8 violations and are appropriately deleted. Also, this comes back that the most easiest way to show NFCC#8 is to show that there is sourced discussion about the image in the text (it is not the only way, but it is true for 99% of non-cover art, non-logo images), and most cases of NFCC#8 deletions are were no such text exists. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Where is your good faith for allowing more than one or two editors to establish a consensus? If there is a "sourced discussion" supporting the image, that is fine, if not, then we remove it for lack of citations. Again, there are not only 'ten' NFCC items, there is also plenty of WP policy for removing images and other content to begin with. If an image passes all other NFCC items and is not in violation of any other WP policy, we should allow other editors to establish a clear consensus. If other opinions are slow in coming, call for opinions on the appropriate talk page(s). WP is a community. Allowing one or two editors to determine the fate of an image based on one subjective idea (NFCC#8) is clearly wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We assume good faith that the one person uploading the NFC image is making the proper rationale and statements to conform with NFCC. We of course should then assume good faith that one person may find the image significantly failing established conditions where NFCC#8, and that the one admin closer agrees with that assessment. That is, specifically, that when a person nominates an image for deletion under NFCC#8, they are not nominating because it doesn't help them understand the article, but that it doesn't help the general reader understand the article within the general bounds we've set for expected image use. Yes, I have seen a very spiteful FFDs where the nominator is clearly targeting an image for non-good faith reasons but we have processes in place to deal with that. We know any deletion discussion (FFD, AFD, etc.) rarely gains more than a few people involved so hence why its not a numbers process but looking at arguments based on policy and guidelines. More importantly, if the people that want to keep the image can't bother to be involved, then that really speaks strongly to how much we need the image. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
All you're doing now is belaboring the idea of good faith while still showing a lack of it by your reluctance in allowing more than one or two editors to establish a clear consensus regarding NFCC#8, which is a highly subjective and opinionated idea. And you're still glossing over the idea that there is plenty of policy in place (NFCC#1-10, WP image policy, etc) for checking NFC images, carrying on as if a slight change in the way NFCC#8 is handled will undermine everything. It won't. Insisting on a clear consensus will bring more scrutiny into the process. This is a good thing and conforms with the idea of community. Again, allowing one or two editors to second guess the "understanding" of 100s or 1000s of readers is not the best policy. When NFCC#8 is the 'only' issue in question we should call for more than one or two opinions. If an NFC image clearly fails to increase one's "understanding" of a topic you won't have anything to worry about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And as I've said before, NFCC#8 is rarely the only issue an image fails, even if #1 and/or #3a is not implicitly stated. Yes, it is completely reasonable that one or two editors can judge how 1000s of readers will "understand" the image, because we know what the general shape of where allowable and unallowable NFC exists, and most images that are deleted fall in this unallowable region. You're not assuming good faith that established editors that work on NFC aren't aware of what is "understanding" within the bounds of NFCC#8, and you'll note that the fringe cases (like the Jedi Knight image) get to here where they are discussed in more depth. And finally, I will stress again: just like uncited statements of contention, it up to those that which to retain the image to do the diligence to prove it should be kept - if they don't bother to respond to an FFA, or can't provide policy based arguments we remove the image. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : You're asserting the same failed argument. If there are other issues besides NFCC#8 that is a different matter. Once again, the issue here concerns removing an image when NFCC#8 is the only issue. Please don't try to confuse and compound the matter any further. You've been doing this alot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. If an image is claimed to have failed NFCC#8 (and thus can be removed) that means implicitly it also fails NFCC#1 (free replacment - in this case, no image) and NFCC#3a (minimal use). The nom may not call these out, but these can nearly always be read when NFCC#8 is brought up. So it is very very rare that NFCC#8 is the only issue in question. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have missed no point, thank you. If NFCC# 1 and 3a are issues fine. The issue here, once again Masem, is NFCC#8, only. IF nfc images are "rarely" removed on that basis alone, fine. That's a different issue. Again, you keep dragging other things into the debate while glossing over much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, regarding the (yet another) opinion you asserted at the end of your last post -- if the person who uploaded the page doesn't get involved it is often because that person is unaware, doesn't log on much, or is simply under the impression that the nominator is some sort of authority that can't be argued with. Your claim, ...that really speaks strongly to how much we need the image, is your singular personal opinion, which here also, second guesses the thinking of other editors. reluctance to engage in debate can be due to any number of reasons -- and you are demonstrating why some matters need more than one, narrow, viewpoint. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Both of those arguments are related to any XFD process, and both are rejected as reasons to use within deletion debates. Again, the Foundation has given us a mandate to only use NFC in exceptional situation, we cannot pussyfoot around when their reason for inclusion fails our policy. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And to ask again: show me an FFD where an image that was only tagged NFCC#8 was "improperly" deleted in your opinion. If you can't show examples that show there is a problem, then there's no reason to change policy. You've claimed this, but that's not the same as evidence. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases where images have been removed based on the opinion of the nominator only. This also has been brought to your attention. Policy is not carved in stone. It has changed and improved numerous times before, and in spite of the foot draggers afraid of change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Saying there are and showing what they are are far different. If you can't provide evidence, the argument is moot. And actually, NFCC has been pretty static since 2007 so nothing has changed at all. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : (edit conflict) Thanks for yet another one of your opinions, and you have yet to show that all NFC deletions have never resulted from the opinion of the nominator, so your 'quick' response here carries little weight at this juncture. Anyone familiar with NFC deleted images knows better. Again, your approach flies in the face of consensus. No change since 2007? I'd say it's about time. We need to let a clear consensus prevail when NFCC#8 is the only issue.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, I have pointed out the recent ANI over Schuminweb where, while there are behavioral issues, the community upheld the fact that images can be deleted with minimal input. ---MASEM (t) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not an "improper" deletion, though. We can't make people take part in discussions, and if the deletion rationale is valid then the closing admin can do little else. I think Masem is asking for actual deletion examples where images were in your opinion "improperly" deleted per NFCC8 purely. Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of examples where NFC images have been deleted based on one or two opinions regarding NFCC#8. Look here for openers, and then look into other date/headings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any discussions on that pages where NFCC#8 was the only reason. Yes, there are ones with only a few editors giving input, but again I must stress that the community, within the last year, affirmed that FFDs can be closed as delete with low participation. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Look at the last example on that page. (I don't see how seeing this screenshot could possibly improve a user's understanding) Are you now saying that if I can come up with more examples then we should seek to improve NFCC#8? If not, then why do you even ask for such examples if you're going to ignore them? It seems you have little intention of being fair to this debate at all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The last example hasn't been deleted yet. So I can't judge how that results. But I will point out, again, that NFCC#8 is nearly always (not required, but you need a strong argument otherwise) met by having sourced discussion about the image or what the image shows in the article. TV screenshots have long been deleted commonly because there's no critical discussion of that scene. So it likely will be deleted unless a better reason can be shown. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a good example, as it's a clear failure of NFCC8 - a picture of two guys having a chat isn't significantly increasing the reader's understanding of anything. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, at this point it can easily be said there is a clear consensus to leave NFCC#8 just as it stands. I respect consensus. I'll part company here simply by asking that when NFCC#8 is the only issue to please make sure that the image in no way increases understanding for the reader before giving it the ediotor's axe. Thanks guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You are aware that NFCC#8 has two conditions: that the image does increase reader understanding (which almost always is the case) and that the reader's understanding is harmed by not having the image there, which is the point that is much more difficult to proof and where most images fail if there's not sourced commentary about the image. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The two are identical. If the image increases the reader's understanding, then it logically follows that the reader's understanding is harmed by not having the image there. As Gwillhickers says, when NFCC#8 is the only issue to please make sure that the image in no way increases understanding Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they are not identical, otherwise we won't not be repeating it. Adding an image will nearly always improve the reader's understanding (a picture speaks a thousand words, for example); however, if the topic can be understood without that image, then there is no harm, and this is more often the case if the image is not discussed in the text in any manner. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The question is not whether the topic can be understood without the image; the question is whether the reader gets such a good understanding of the topic without the image -- ie how much harm is done to the reader by not seeing the image.
It's not a different test to the clause of the first half, but it can be a usefully different perspective for looking at the test. Jheald (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong, because that makes the two parts equivalent, and can be effectively used to justify any non-free image inclusion if the image is related (the reader's understanding is improved - even by a smidgen - with the image, and by necessity, its removal would thus reduce the reader's understanding). The second part is a separate independent test that takes the hypothetical case of the image already present in the article and we consider what happens to the reader's understanding if it is removed/replaced with free content. If there is no loss of understanding, there is no harm done, and the image fails NFCC#8, even if on the first part of the test, its addition could help understanding a bit. It's a very subtle but important difference that the two parts are independent assessments and why it is spelled out in both directions (this was brought up when NFCC was being created). --MASEM (t) 20:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well you are of course welcome to your personal interpretation, but (as we've discussed before, and I don't intend to re-hash it out yet again here), I don't find it remotely convincing or logical. You may be able to square how "addition could help understanding a bit" can be compatible with "no loss of understanding... if it is removed", but I'm afraid that's a metaphysical step too far for me.
The fundamental question NFCC#8 asks the community to judge is whether they consider the difference in understanding to be significant (in practice, weighed against the degree and nature of the copyright taking), rather than, as you put it, contributing just "a smidgen". That seems to me exactly the right question: it tells people to focus, and discuss just what they consider the reader gains from seeing the image, and what would be the harm to the reader if they did not see the image.
I think that is the right question to ask.
But I do wonder whether sometimes in closing FFD discussions there can be an elevation of form over substance. I think there can be a danger that somebody who says what they think an image adds to an article, and then adds the magic words "and therefore it does add significantly to reader understanding, as required by NFCC #8", can get weighed more heavily than someone else making essentially the same point, but without the magic words. Indeed, without the magic words, I think the fear is that sometimes the contribution isn't weighed at all. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of looking for form instead of substance. You shouldn't need a wiki-lawyer in order to be heard. Jheald (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's absolutely right: NFCC#8 holds if the reader's understanding is improved - even by a smidgen - with the image, and by necessity, its removal would thus reduce the reader's understanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry that would completely break NFC and the Foundation's mission. It would make it impossible to delete any image if at least one person believes the image helps. The barrier is much higher than that. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There are other NFCC other than NFCC#8. The purpose is to exclude images that are purely decorative. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the purpose of NFCC#8. It goes farther than just "decorative" images. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A different idea

If this is essentially what NFCC #8 means, I think it really needs to be changed into more of a firm criteria;

Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only when it is the subject of sourced commentary demonstrating its significance, and its omission would be detrimental to increasing a reader's understanding of the commentary.

While it is almost identical to the current NFCC #8, its worded in a less subjective way that represents how consensus has interpreted the meaning of its current form. However, while it carries the spirit, it is also a little stricter, since it specifically requires sourced commentary. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this would immediately nullify images like cover art, where there's rarely discussion of the images. We do allow cover art as explained in the footnote for NFCI#1, but we expect other images, not for indentification, to typically have discussion from sources about the image. This is nearly always true, but there are exceptional cases too, and codifying it in NFCC would be rather bad. Ergo, this change doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I suddenly realized that I forgot about that. If this is the case, I think it needs to be divided into sub-criteria;

Contextual significance: Non-free content must be either:

  • A. The subject of commentary in the article that demonstrates its significance to the topic.
  • B. A primary visual identifier of the article's subject, when its omission would be detrimental to a reader's ability to sufficiently identify the subject
Now, "primary visual identifier" in this case, is defined as being something that is effectively a logo (such as cover art or a corporate logo). An episode screenshot is not a logo for the purposes of this definition, because usually the title is enough for a reader to identify a particular episode (as per the 2nd half of the criteria); hence infobox images would still need to be discussed in the article in order to be used. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I would also claify that it only allows 1 image per article for part B. Werieth (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Too many images is something that can be covered by a combination of 8A and the existing 3A. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the way to handle this. Primarily, to be clear, 99% of the time for images that are not for identification, we're expecting sourced commentary, but this is not universally true, and this would codify around that. Me and Jheld have had several debates on images regarding this, and its clear that we can't require sourced commentary 100% of the time. For most images, sure, but there's plenty of cases on the fringe where this new language would lead to unnecessary deletion debates. The other aspect is that in the formation of the NFCC, using cover art for identification was considered to be a case of contextual significance for the topic of the article, and ergo, only called out in the NFC guideline. Basically, I can see putting the idea of sourced discussion as a footnote as the most common way to show NFCC#8, but it would not be the only way, and codifying NFCC#8 any further could be rather dangerous. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose a compromise based around that logic, "the subject of commentary in the article that demonstrates its significance to the topic." But is the entire concept of trying to make NFCC#8 more rigid a good idea on its own to begin with? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has become a little convoluted. Viper, can you please briefly recap the problem, and how this different idea is likely to fix it? VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Recap: There was a concern that NFCC 8 was too objective and open to interpretation. Plus, there was also a concern that not enough people were taking part in deletion discussions that involved NFCC 8 in order to allow a wide variety of opinions so a consensus can be determined on whether something passes NFCC 8. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems unlikely that we can "force" the community to be more involved in NFC deletion discussions. However, Masem suggested a footnote as opposed to directly altering criterion #8, and I like that idea. How about keeping criterion #8 unchanged and adding a footnote as follows:

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.[1]

  1. ^ Common examples of materials meeting this criterion are album covers, which are primary visual identifier of the article's subject; and material which has verifiably been the subject of commentary demonstrating the non-free content's significance to an understanding of the article's subject.

VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't need that. That is called out in WP:NFCI#1. The footnote that would be appropriate would be something along the lines: "NFCC#8 is most often met by having sourced discussion ("critical commentary") about the media file or content within the media, as to provided textual significance for the media file. However, there are other ways that this can also be met, some which are documented at WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI." --MASEM (t) 06:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been quietly watching this discussion (without commenting) since it began, and I'm just not seeing a good way to change what #8 already says. I appreciate the desire to have more thorough discussion when it is cited as the reason for deletion, but that seems to me to be more of an issue for the administrator closing the discussion to be aware of, than for what the guideline here ought to say. I don't know whether it would make better sense to put a note to that effect at the deletion policy page, instead of at this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not free enough licenses should be marked

Licenses such as CC-by-ND, CC-by-NC etc should be properly marked. Without the creative commons license notice we are breaching the license. They do fall under Non-free content but they should also be marked properly with the relevant license as required by the license. This particularly applies to not free enough content from sites such as Flickr. Has there been any discussion on this before? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There are {{Non-free with NC}} and {{Non-free with ND}}. There are probably not many CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND images around, so I suggest that you use one of those two templates and additionally specify which CC licence it is in plain text. Also keep in mind that there is no point in mentioning any ND licence if Wikipedia hosts a modified version as the modified version isn't covered by the ND licence. For example, if Wikipedia hosts MediaWiki-generated thumbnails of the image, then it might not be covered by the ND licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That, and fair use overrides using it under the CC license too. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Adding extra cover arts in album and singles articles

I don't know if this or that place is the best venue. However, I discussed the issue there, so click above. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Burger King advertising

I tagged this for overuse a while back, but the tag was removed by an editor who appears to "oversee" the article. Anyone like to take a look and opine on which of the twenty-four non-free usages actually pass NFCC? (Incidentally, only six other articles in the whole of enwiki have more NF content). Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill take a look, however several of those fail TOO, and should be updated accordingly. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Running through:
  • There's zero need for the Burger King mascot logos on this page since there is a (reasonable) stand-alone page for the character, where is does seem to be reasonable use of those images there. But duplication here is inappropriate.
  • There is actually reasonable allowance for the 4 company logos (there's explainaions for the changes as they go along), but the internation logo are absolutely unneeded (there's a separate article for Hungry Jack which is fine there).
  • The Kids Club logo line is unnecessary. Unlike the changes in the corporate logo which are explained to why, these are just presented as logos. Maybe one (the most recent?) can be used here but that's it. Again, what happens in various national markets is not appropriate.
  • There seems to be no need for any of the characters from the Kids Clubs. They are non-notable mascots (unlike the Burger King character), and save for the Honbatz characters where there's some discussion of the design, the visual representation doesn't help here. (arguably there's also undue weight here too)
  • Again, the BK figure has a separate article so the Simpsons gag is not necessary.
So I can see 4-6 allowable images, but the rest are extremely extraneous. (And that's considering what's NFCC, as Werieth indicates, there's a few like the bun-based BK logo that may be under TOO). --MASEM (t) 20:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I did wonder about some of the logos. I vaguely remember there's been a discussion about BK logos and TOO before, but I can't find it anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick‎

Can I get some more input? Werieth (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Greece

I would like non-free images to be exempt from not being allowed to be displayed in the List of Prime Ministers of Greece article. The images are used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and removal of them impedes the quality of the article. There's no good reason for them not to be included. Kupraios (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Usage fails WP:NFCC 1,3,8, WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE. You can just link to the primary article on the individual where the image is already being used. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Choosing one of album and singles covers of a similar work

There are numerous different covers of a similar album, like Madonna (Madonna album), but using just one as usual is encouraged nowadays. If only one must be choosen (if any other image is insignificant to Wikipedia article), which one must be used?

If more than one is needed, which else must I include besides the main image? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. What is the album in question?
What we're looking for is the dominant cover-image that is associated with the album.
If, because of a later re-release, or territorial issues, more than one cover can be said to have been dominant at different times or different (significant) markets, then an alternate cover may also be appropriate. An original-release cover might come into that category; or if an album sold well both in the U.S. and in Europe, with different cover art. But it is rare that there would be still further 'dominant' covers. If the images associated with the album are so diverse, that probably suggests fewer are really significant, rather than more.
So what is the album here, that has so many candidate covers that you can't make up your mind which one (or maybe, just maybe, two) are the "main" cover? Jheald (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)For Madonna (Madonna album), there appears to be the original U.S. cover, and the 1985 cover for the European market ("Madonna - the First Album"). Both versions went multiple-Platinum in their respective markets. In such a case, I would use the U.S. cover as the first image, with the European cover in my view justified for the alternate cover. Those would seem to be the two dominant images associated with the work. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I would go with the cover which the publisher of the most well-known currently or most-recently available authorized release of the musical work is currently using to identify the work. If there are multiple covers for the same release, go with the most well-known or, if no one cover is much more well-known than the rest, pick one from all covers that are about as well known as the "most well known" cover.
HOWEVER, there are exceptions:
  • If a different cover was much more well known than the "current" or "most-recent" one, use it. This is frequently the case for re-releases of well-known/famous older material where a new cover is used but if you mention the song or album to people they will be much more likely to think of the original cover art than the current cover art.
  • Any cover art which is itself the subject of critical commentary may qualify as a WP:FAIRUSE image without the need to qualify as cover art. If the article on the musical work discusses a particular cover in this way, then that cover may either be displayed in the article outside the infobox, preferably near the commentary, or, based on local discussion on the article's talk page or a WP:BOLD edit by anyone, replace the cover art that is currently or was recently used by the publisher. Some Beatles cover art fits into this category. Some limited edition covers and covers which were the subject of controversy (e.g. partial nudes, covers that appear to glamorize drug use, etc.) also fall into this category.
There are likely other exceptions. The best bet is to 1) make sure the use of the proposed cover would not violate policy, particularly the non-free content policy, 2) become familiar with all relevant guidelines, and 3) make a case on the article talk page why you want to use such-and-such image instead of the existing one, either because the guidelines favor your proposal or in spite of the guidelines favoring the existing image or where the guidelines don't seem to prefer one image or the other. If the guidelines favor the existing image, your case will need to be very strong, and the lack of reply to your proposal should not be taken as WP:CONSENSUS. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
For books, standard practice is to go for the original cover, not the most recent -- that should also be a factor here: to show how the album was originally promoted. If the album has been given a very different current re-release cover, by which it is now most generally available, that should be shown as an alternate cover. Jheald (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As an exception though, if an album did nothing on original release, but then was huge on re-release (after the band had broken through with another album, perhaps), then it is the cover of the version that was huge that should be the lead picture in the infobox, with the lesser-known original cover lower down as the alternate cover. But that's an exception, not the usual case. More usually it will be the original release that made an album's name, and the re-release cover a less significant afterthought decades later. Jheald (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I will add the case of The Gray Race by Bad Religion which was release with nine different covers at the same time. The page features a montage of the nine variations. zubrowka74 19:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm . If that is indeed a montage, that's nine non-free usages for a single album - and the fact that it had nine covers isn't even mentioned in the article! Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking around, I think the 9 face image is actually one of the possible covers that the album came in, and not a user-created montage (which would be a facepalm and excess NFC). Working that this is one of the legit covers, this is also the best representative cover since (presumely) we can explain that the individual faces were used for other cover releases. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It appears it was released originally with nine different covers, but later versions had the montage. As you were, then. Great album, by the way.Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have so many albums to choose. I would pick In My Tribe and Touch (Sarah McLachlan album) as examples. We'll discuss others later. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

They both seem appropriate as they are, showing the original cover, and then a revised cover from one or two years later. Look fine to me. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, as you said above ("if an album did nothing on original release, but then was huge on re-release"), the In My Tribe covers should probably be the other way round - especially as the "second" cover appears to have been the one used for all releases outside the US (my copy certainly is). Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) The "In My Tribe" is not a good example. Though the picture is different for the rerelease, it is essentially the same - an old (likely PD) B&W photo of a group of schoolchildren shooting arrows with the same text identifying the band and album. I really don't think it is a good idea to promote the idea of a second allowable cover due to being republished by a different publisher, unless one can readily show that the subsequent republishing was miles more successful (and thus the more recognized cover art) than the first. Otherwise, this begs the same to be allows for book and film covers, which has never been allowed. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that the boys and girls from original and only boys from re-release won't make any difference? Even with different visual perspective? --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Clearly that's probably the reason for the change and if sourced would be reasonable to show both images to show how there was this change. But right now that's an observation and wouldn't be sufficient to require one to show both images. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I will nominate In My Tribe covers for deletion, so we can decide which to prefer. Once I complete the procedure, we'll leave that out of discussion, and then we'll either use Tron (soundtrack) instead, or discuss cover arts in general. --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you replaced the vinyl version of the original cover [6] with the cassette version [7], before nominating the cassette version for deletion ? The cassette version may be a cleaner, more harmonious design; but the vinyl version is more dissimilar (also with the band's crescent moon symbol). Jheald (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The crescent wouldn't make a difference, especially to administrators. I uploaded the original cassette because I like the wider cover. Unfortunately, Masem found two images slightly similar to each other (or not dissimilar enough). I wanted to nominate both of them for deletion, but I guess I can choose one instead. --George Ho (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The second Tron cover (eg the one associated with the remastered release prior to the newer film) isn't needed as the general feel of the cover still is obvious (if not the big TRON letters that take up a quarter of the space on both). It would be nicer if we could get a cleaner image of the first release, but that's not a requirement. Alternate covers should only be used if there is a radical departure in the alt cover from the original. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I will nominate the remastered CD cover for deletion if you want. But... if I stick to the vinyl, and people want the CD cover kept, then I can later remove the vinyl one. --George Ho (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I would not go rushing around deleting covers just because we here are saying "there's too many cover images". This is what either the talk page of the album in question or NFCR should be used for as to 1) assure that one or more images aren't needed and 2) which image should be used. In the case of the Tron one, I would almost keep the cleaner remastered version simply because it is a better quality non-free image, but that's my opinion. One or the other, yes, but I can't say for sure which one. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Since there were just two images, NFCR is too redundant for me. Also, you said that NFCR is a venue for people who don't want to nominate one file for deletion. However, I realize that NFCR doesn't always have a consensus; it has so-called experts on images. FFD is a venue for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, its more that NFCR should not be used to put up an image where the nominator firmly believes that the image should be deleted - that's where FFD is used. NFCR should be for any other cases, including where there is too much non-free but which images to keep or remove is unclear. You don't have to use NFCR for that, that's why the article talk page is fine to discuss that, but if you are certain that a specific image should be deleted with no question, then yes, FFD it. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Now we are reverting back to discussing images in general. For specific albums and singles, I can discuss them in WP:NFCR, but I'll say that NFCR is not sufficient enough to be a consensus. One say that a cover must be most recognizable, original or not. Another say that a cover must be an original, recognizable or not. I am now torn between two options. --George Ho (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential footnote clarification needed for #9?

There's a current thread at WP:MCQ#Association football team images in footer nav boxes regarding non-frees in templates. That issue is being resolved with no problems, but this does bring up a possible footnote to help clarify #9 or prevent mis-use of it, specifically considering templates.

First, clearly we're talking about template code and not a specific instance of a template (ala infoboxes). You basically can't hard-code a non-free image into the template: namespace, but you can provide an image parameter which on a specific instance in mainspace can be filled in with a non-free image.

But that got me to thinking that we I one to game the code (as suggested in the above discussion), I could make a navbox template with an image= parameter, code each instance of that to include the non-free image I want in the navbox, and then go and provide a rationale for every page that includes that templated instance. Technically this doesn't violate #9, but I doubt anyone would agree this is a valid approach (likely a #3/#8 violation). No one that I know has attempted this so this may be more preventative than normal, but it is a case that I can having a hard time to convince one that has found this route that this is wrong with the language we have currently. So it may not be a problem that needs fixing but I'm just wondering if it may make some sense to add a footnote here, or to add a case at NFC#UUI to showcase this as a bad use of non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I cant remember where I saw it, but they did game the system by using includeonly around the image. I just noticed it due to the number of uses the file suddenly had. Werieth (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing

This category is full of very big non-free files and some files have been tagged for several months. We have a bot which reduces images such as PNG and JPG, but the bot does not handle SVG, OGV and a couple of other file formats. Is someone working on these files? What should we do if a file isn't reduced for a reasonable amount of time? WP:NFCC suggests that we should delete all files which violate the WP:NFCC policy, and there doesn't seem to be any exception for WP:NFCC#3b. Should we simply delete the files if no one is interested in reducing them? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely foremost, they must not be deleted if the only problem is oversized or over-resolution; yes they fail #3b but they also can be fixed to comply, so that would be stupid to get rid of them (as opposed to a #1 or #8 vio). SVGs you can't reduce in resolution (that's the purpose of the vector format), so I don't know why they are in there in the first place (mind you, there are other issues with non-free SVGs that can be in play). For audio and video samples that exceed the allowable size (30s at most, IIRC), that really needs input from the page where they would be used to decide which side of the sample to use, otherwise, admins/users should be free to pick what they think is best or just the first 30s to bring into compliance. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition to that, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#3b are supposed to be under WP:NFCC#2. That is, they should be 2a and 2b. Their purpose is minimise the commercial impact. In cases where the image is "non free" simply because it is non-commercial or non-derivative, they do not apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As explained at Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format, "Fair-use SVGs shouldn't include more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at their current resolution." The SVG files in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing appear to include too much detail. For that reason, details need to be removed. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if they are there for that reason, that's fine, but I think we might need a separate sub-category since the act of minimizing those requires more knowledge/tools than just resizing an image or trimming a sound sample. Perhaps a sub-cat there for SVG images with too many fine details? --MASEM (t) 14:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's wrong, Hawkeye. First, our use of the word "non-free" means free as in thought, not free as in beer. If there are any IP issues with the reuse or redistribution of an image to any possible reuser, it is non-free for us, and falls under this policy. While #2 + #3 are related, they have distinct meanings. #2 applies to whether the image itself is something of significant commercial value regardless of resolution - eg press photos - which even a small resolution version would harm that commercial value, compared to using one screenshot from a 2hr long movie is not going to have the same possible impact. #3 is related to any image regardless of its commercial value, and borrows from fair use law's idea of how much of a portion of the original work is used; by limiting length and resolution, we assure we are meeting that facet. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy is tailored after the requirements for American Fair Use, which calls for minimising impact. However, when applied to a CC-ND licence we maximise its damaging impact if we deliberately create a derivative of the free image, and therefore we should not do this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't CC-BY-ND be violated simply by using a thumbnail generated by Mediawiki in an article as opposed to linking to a full-size copy? Is there any way to avoid violating CC-BY-ND if a CC-BY-ND image is uploaded to a Mediawiki project, given that Mediawiki resizes all images? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"CC-ND" is irrelevant when it comes to images used under the fair-use rules of United States copyright law - it must be treated as any other non-free image. It should be noted that the software automatically creates reduced-quality versions for display in thumbnails and, for large images, on File: pages. If I right-click on a thumbnail or a "fits to the screen" auto-resized version of a large image on a File: page and tell my web browser to "view the image" or "save the image" what i get is a derivative image, not the original. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New UUI item

Since Ive seen this brought up and argued, adding a Point about non-free screenshots of a music video in the article about the song, with no commentary on the contents of the image This is a random example, Hot_(Avril_Lavigne_song)#Music_video is just eye candy. Ive already done some of these removals citing NFCC#3 & 8. But having a UUI would clarify the issue and avoid the complaints. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd see if we can provided proper counterexamples (valid screens from recent FAs that use them) to show this. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Its a GA not FA but ...Baby_One_More_Time#Synopsis is a fairly good example where the look of the artist in the video is important. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's good (I'm looking at the controversy over the outfit that is discussed there to push it well into NFCC#8 acceptable territory). There's probably some Michel Gondry videos that would be fair too where the direction is praised or talked about. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Non-free screenshots of music videos often fail for the same reason as non-free screenshots of television episodes. Should we add some point which tries to address both at the same time? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I had considered that but because TV shots can be used for the infobox image (appropriately or not), that conflates the issue. On the other hand, grouping this with movie stills would be reasonable since the same ideas of when to include apply to both, and rarely used for identification. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Where a video wins a slew of awards including "Best Concept Video" and "Best Experimental Video", a still showing what made it thought to be distinctive is probably appropriate (eg Take_on_Me#Music_video). Jheald (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd be careful that just saying the video won awards is not sufficient for the image, but the fact the video has won awards means that there's a high chance of secondary sources to explain why the video is interesting and leading to why it won the award. I wouldn't rush to delete images like this since there's a benefit of doubt, but we would expect by the time we get to FA, that those reasons are included. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd also argue that eg Addicted_to_Love_(song)#Music_video should probably have a still, considering how it's been often discussed as iconic (even the make-up still inspires newspaper articles 17 years on [8] !), and referenced/parodied subsequently in other bands' videos (eg Bill Nighy in Love, Actually, Shania Twain, Britney Spears for Pepsi, several more...) Jheald (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
With Addicted, I would think that better documentation/sources are needed to establish that point before using a screenshot. Werieth (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Without scrubbing the hits, a google news search appears to have more than enough to identify the look of the video as iconic and thus appropriate for inclusion. More needs to be added to the article, but there's definitely support there. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Kylie Minogue's All the Lovers (2010) from which this video still was recently removed, is perhaps an interesting case. I've no idea whether the video could be considered 'iconic' -- not my era. But it could be said to be quite high-concept (even if not obviously ground-breaking in production terms); and we do have quite extensive sourced discussion of it. So where do people feel this one falls? Jheald (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Definitely an edge case. The concept of the video and its reception is discussed so I'd lean on keeping though by strict consideration, "Kylie Minogue at the top of a human pyramid of men dressed only in white underwear" is sufficiently descriptive too to meet NFCC#8. I would NOT use it as an example here as an edge case though. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
IMHO non-free screen-shots of videos of any type should be allowed for identification PROVIDED they meet this multi-part test:
  1. The screen-shot actually does identify the video, either directly, such as being part of a title sequence, or by strong association (similar to the United States case law regarding non-registered trademarks acquired through use),
  2. There is no free means of identification, such as publicity still released under a Commons-compatible license, that adequately identifies the video,
  3. There is no image in the article, free or not, which is being used for another purpose but which also serves to adequately identify the video
  4. There is no non-free means of identification, such as a non-free publicity still, which is a better image to use for identification purposes,
  5. No more than 1 image is used for identification purposes, AND
  6. All other non-free content criteria (e.g. minimal use, etc.) are complied with.
Screen-captures used for critical commentary, etc. are still allowed, but if any such image also adequately serves the purpose of identification, then no non-free image can be used "merely" for the purpose of identification.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with things like videos and episodes is that unless the producers/copyright holders have pulled out one shot as the identifying work, any image pulled by an end-user (wp editor) under the claim as "identifying" the work is engaging in original research. Further, this then starts begging the question of which image out of many is the most identifyable if no one else has commented on it. Thus, it doesn't make sense for trying to guess what this is. Your statements are completely the wrong way of approaching NFCC - we work on minimizing (going towards zero), not a maximum number ,even if that is one. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_60&oldid=1137428226"