Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

	Fair use (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 1 section is present.

I'm trying to track down the law (or rule or practice) that placed in the public domain images seized from the Nazis by the U.S. military after World War II. I remember reading about it on WP, but now can't find it. This is not connected to the recent debate about Holocaust images, by the way, but a separate issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, German copyrights were extinguished by the Enemy Property Act; see also here and part 2. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pieter, that's helpful. I assume there's something similar in the U.S. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK copyrights were revived by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (No. 3297), and by the ECJ judgment in Land Hessen v G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH (Case C-360/00), OJ no. C180 of 27 July 2002, p. 6. Physchim62 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of Price v. United States (corresponding license: {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}), but be careful to note that it relates only to certain works in a certain circumstance and is not a carte blanche for NS images. Эlcobbola _talk 16:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The image I have in mind (an early image of Hitler) wasn't actually taken by Hoffmann, but it was found by U.S. military intelligence in the Rehse Archiv für Zeitgeschichte und Publizistik in Munich and confiscated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the typical circumstance was that seized property fell under the authority of the Alien Property Custodian and/or (later) the US Attorney General. As the federal government can indeed hold transferred copyrights (it just can't create them itself), this was done, in part, to extract the licensing fees as reparations. Most seized copyrights were returned to the countries of origin in 1962, and their status in the US (independent from status in the origin country) is now generally subject to the typical considerations (e.g. compliance with formalities, if published; status after URAA; etc). If you want a headache, this circular goes into some detail. Эlcobbola _talk 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was foolishly hoping this might be a simple matter with a neat little image tag somewhere. :) Thanks for the link and the information. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Nazi images are not PD in the US, it's as simple as that. There are one or two exceptions (such as Hitler's paintings, for example), but it is naïve to assume that, just because an original print or negative is in NARA, the image is PD. Physchim62 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next questions: do you know who the photographer was? If so, did he or she die before December 31, 1925; if not, was the photograph obviously taken before December 31, 1925? Physchim62 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a school photograph of Hitler taken when he was a teenager in Linz, Austria, June 1901, photographer unknown. You can see it here in the German Federal Archives, and here in the Library of Congress. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1901? You're in the clear Slim, that's lapsed into the Public Domain. -- ۩ Mask 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the Tom Toles article is from 1970. He appeared in an episode of The Real World:DC back in March, but I'm not sure if screencaps are usable in this context. Can one be used in his article, or would a screencap only be permitted to be used in an article on that show? Can someone let me know? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is still alive, we cannot use non-free imagery unless it is very clear that the appearance in said copyrighted work is icon of that person. In this case, very doubtful. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Does this also include publicity shots? The Kiele Sanchez article uses an photo of her in character from the TV show Lost, as does the Richard Anderson article a screencap of a film he did decades ago. Is that permitted? (This is pertinent, because I'm going to be covering the Big Apple Con, where Sanchez and Anderson will be present, and in deciding who to photograph, I prioritize those whose articles lack a good pic.) Please let me know. Nightscream (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photos (presuming copyrighted) are a no go for living persons, though can be ok if the character portrayed has their own article. In the Richard Anderson case, due to the age of the work , the screencapture appears to be public domain thus a free image and ok (and also probably the iconic representation of that person). Most times. screencaptures like that do not work for living persons. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, publicity shots are generally under copyright, so not free use. If you need pictures of living celebrities, there are Wikipedia users who are especially good at getting high quality shots of them. The recently returned User:David Shankbone is known to get some good stuff. He may take requests. --Jayron32 06:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, David's pics are awesome. I noticed a few days ago that he returned, and expressed my satisfaction with that via an email to him. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does NFCC#7 apply to old versions of files? As in, if a file is uploaded over the top of a non-free file, should the old non-free file (which is no longer in use) be deleted? It seems fairly obvious to me that it should be, but, apparently, this is not uncontroversial. Perhaps it would be good to get a note on the guideline/policy page. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be clarified if people will be acting on it.

If I take a non-free file and make a non-trivial edit to it, then the new derived work has both the original non-free copyright, and a free copyright for my new work. It is still not free, of course. The issue is how we attribute the edits of the Wikipedians who have edited non-free files. I have always thought this is what the file history of the image was for: to give a record of who has edited the image, along with their edit summary. If we delete those revisions, we will lose that attribution history.

In general, despite following this page for years, I have never thought it was policy that a non-free image may only have one undeleted revision. So I have always thought that NFCC referred to a whole File: page, not to individual revisions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that the attribution issue may, in (very few) cases, be an issue. Let's take a couple of examples to consider this, though. If there is a non-free image of a dead person, and I upload a different non-free image to replace that one, the old one would be deleted, yes? But, if I upload it in the same place, it isn't deleted, and we continue to host the file on Wikipedia. How does that make sense? Alternatively, and it was in response to someone asking this question that I first requested the database report, assume we downsize a non-free image, and, for convenience, we upload it in the same place. When we still have the larger file, what's the point? Basically, in short, whether files keep the same name or not, we shouldn't be hosting non-free images that are not in use in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides in the above, it seems to me that, having a regard to the attribution and change history issues, it would be better if the bot (if it does get approved) were to substitute a placeholder image for the old image on the file page, rather than to outright delete it. That way, the history of the image, and potentially very relevant edit summaries, would remain visible, even if the old image did not.

It should of course remain possible for someone with the admin bit to get past this, to be able to view and/or restore the old image if appropriate; and also for an admin to be able to make both versions visible again, at least temporarily, if for example a discussion comes up as to which is to be preferred. Jheald (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that technically possible? I don't know how to replace an old image revision with a placeholder. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have seen it done. If it is possible to remove (or make invisible) a revision from a revision history, it should also be possible to add a doctored version in its stead -- effectively replacing it, at least with regards to what is visible. The process to do it might get slightly involved, but that shouldn't be a issue if we're thinking about automated (or semi-automated) code. Jheald (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bloody brilliant idea. How would we go about doing this? J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of bot-writing; and I've never sought an admin bit, so I'm not even sure what is the exact scope of admin powers and permissions in this area. So I can't volunteer any practical help. But I do think it should be very possible. Jheald (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, with regard to "replacing" the images with a place holder, it ain't that simple. Essentially, the images are still accessable if need be to undo erronious or malicious deletions. Replacing it with a place holder removes that ability. And "old versions" get removed for reasons other than "It isn't used". Lack of appropriate licensing, lack of sourcing, duplication of other existing files (a biggie with resized images), and the like. - J Greb (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made is that even if the "old version" gets removed for any of those reasons, it is important for the record of it in the edit history to be preserved. With regard to your first point, it seems inconsistent to argue against the milder step of replacing the old image with a placeholder for various reasons, and then to argue that actually it ought to be removed completely. Jheald (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the whole point of the policy to allow people to freely use WP articles? A file in the history of an image is not being presented to the public as a free image for them to copy. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can access file pages. Any editor can access the files listed in the file history at full size. If it is not free content, it should not be retained in the visible file history any more than the current file should be retained if it has been orphaned. - J Greb (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any image that does not comply with WP:NFCC should be deleted and if that includes all old versions of such files then so be it. We are not here to provide access to non-compliant images through the history links. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'm sensing that the general feeling is that placeholder images is not as useful as first appears, and may not be possible, but that old versions should be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I thought we already had a solution to this? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So did I, but I put in a botreq recently and people weren't happy. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-free reduced" does not apply to the full scope of the images in question. For example, if I take an NFCC-compliant image and edit it (not reduce it), and then someone edits my version, I need to be attributed in the edit history somehow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with respect to reduced images, images are quite often reduced excessively, even when there is a case for keeping a larger size (eg because relevant detail has been lost). So, even in this case, there needs to be an audit trail of the upload that there once was a larger image, which if necessary on request an admin should be able to make visible in the edit history if that would facilitate discussion. Also, copyright holers should be able to check up on us, and see the history of how WP has used their images in the past, when we are continuing to use them in the present. Jheald (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now deleted versions of a file can be accessed through the deletion log. Also, using File:Hulk 2003 film.jpg as an example, uploads, aside from the initial, are noted in the edit history even if the particular version is deleted. [1] and [2] for the file's full history. - J Greb (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get rid of the actual image but not the text of the revision without difficulty? I agree that after x months, old versions of in-use NFC should be pruned to the most recent revisions, but all of the edit history needs to stay intact. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any way to delete just the image part while keeping the upload summary publicly visible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The upload summary could literally be copied to the image page, if that's concerning you. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the "Policy" section implies that criterion #1 "No free equivalent" (along with the other criteria) does not apply to text. This conflicts with the relevant WMF policy which states that "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." No distinction is made by WMF between text and images,media,etc. I suggest separating the "No free equivalent" criterion from the rest, putting it before the list and making it clear that it applies to all non-free content. Evil saltine (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you see this making a difference in practice? Generally speaking, we already prefer to use article text rather than extensive quotations, as a matter of style if nothing else. Quotations are generally used only when the quote itself is somehow significant, and we've always discouraged direct quotes excessive in number or length. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to apply to the dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Radagast3_blocked_for_reverting_copyvio_removal. An editor was removing quotes from a non-free version of the Bible and replacing them with quotes from a free, but arguably less-relevant version. Evil saltine (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the policy contains the text "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose", but the policy's scope is not explicitly limited to files. This makes it somewhat confusing. Evil saltine (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the opening paragraph of the policy states "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." There is no call in there to ever replace "brief verbatim textual excerpts" with non-free equivalents. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm pretty sure that we don't consider the EDF as covering text - it covers other types of media, but text is expected to follow the standards for attribution and the like by US fair use laws. So an appropriate section of text from a non-free work, as long as its properly cited, means its ok. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the WMF policy doesn't cover text, or do you mean that our EDP makes an exception to that policy with regard to text? Evil saltine (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF says little about text as noted below. There is no need to consider "exceptions" per EDP for text quotes. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF talks about content. Content includes text. Evil saltine (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but text quotes, when cited and used in limited manners, do not carry any weight of copyright on them that the WMF/EDP applies to. The WMF is designed to apply to "files" which are the visual and audio works that are hosted by the project. This is a long-standing principle of how the WMF/EDP applies to en.wiki's NFC goals. -MASEM (t) 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "weight of copyright". Quotations fall under fair use ([3]). If the WMF policy is not intended to apply to text, then it should be edited to clarify that. Evil saltine (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't change the WMF, but if you read the wording, it is clearly talking about "files", and if you look at the version of the NFCC policy that existing that the WMF resolution passed which the WMF explicitly calls out as a good example (this one) it is clear it is about files too. The end result is that our NFCC says that text is treated under normal fair use laws, but all other files are the more demanding NFCC requirements. Hence, we can use text from non-free works in a manner that fits fair use. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, though they just mention files and don't say that the policy applies only to files. But if they gave our NFCC as an example, then they obviously meant for text to be treated differently. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, by "policy" in my last post I meant the WMF licensing policy, not en.wiki's policy. I am trying to say that WMF policy does demand that we remove non-free text that has a free equivalent, and that we need to change WP:NFC to match that. Evil saltine (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. This is the extent of the WMF resolution/EDF regarding text: Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Heh. Good luck with that windmill, Mr. Quixote. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem of "no free equivalent". In the case of biblical quotations, sectarian disputes may depend on the exact wording. An obsolete, substandard, or partisan translation such as the KJV or WEB is not "equivalent" to a respected non-sectarian academic translation such as the NIV. So even if the policy did apply to text (which seems dubious), it would still be acceptable to quote the NIV. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make a point here: The licensing policy clearly applies to text as well. The big deal here is that our EDP allows fair use under limited circumstances, and no one seriously argues that brief quotations violate the EDP OR the Licensing Policy as it applies to communities with an EDP EXCEPT in cases where there is both a copyright-encumbered text and a free text. That's only really possible in cases of translations (everyone's going to use, for example, the same text of Moby Dick as it doesnt need to be translated) and that means, to a large extent, this only applies to the Bible. I mean that. If there were a freely licensed draft of Harry Potter we would exclusively quote from that one except when comparing and contrasting textual differences. This is an edge case, the loop hole is wide enough to drive a truck through (any commentary on differences is enough to satisfy our EDP) and I'm ok living with that. We dont shuffle around policy we as a community are beyond modifying (the Foundation Licensing Policy) because it rustled up an ANI thread. We deal with edge cases and move on. The thread came to an acceptable conclusion, he found a freely licensed translation that achieved his ends, this is dead for now. -- ۩ Mask 09:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible be a good place to establish a consensus on which way to go for this edge case? Evil saltine (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it isn't an edge case. To use the copyrighted version the article body would have had to specifically comment on the contents of the copyrighted version to justify why it needed to be used as opposed to the free version. This article did not, so its use of the copyrighted material was out of bounds.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see for some cases that if we are using the Bible as a primary source and avoiding interpretation, a quote from a free version will be just as a good as a quote from a non-free version. However, and forgive me for my ignorance in this area, but as I understand it, various translations will choose a translation of specific words, or a restatement of words, as to slightly alter the meaning. This can make the free quote from one translation less powerful or important than an equivalent quote from a non-free version. Now, mind you, the only place I think that we would consider the quality of direct language from a specific work would be in articles about that version of the translation and amended by secondary sources that note the choice and impact of the language used. It is a situation that I think is safely assured to be unique to religious texts where the original work has far been in the PD. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Minor differences in rendering particular words or phrases into English form the basis for most interpretation disputes we'll be covering in en.wiki... There are several that hinge on Latin and Greek, of course, but the differences in translation aren't negligible, else people wouldn't create so many different translations. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article actually does a compare-and-contrast of the language, it becomes permissible to use brief quotes of the copyrighted version. The cases in question had no discussion of how the copyrighted translation differed from any other.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Actual NIV license...

(crossposted from ANI) Since I happen to have one handy, it says:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses, without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

No claim of fair use applies: any reasonable (as per above permissions) NIV quote in Wikipedia has the express permission of the publisher. The vast majority of other Bible translations have similar clauses. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."" is more restrictive then our license (licenses? We switched a while back from the GFDL, there might still be GFDL-only content) and that means we use it exclusively under a claim of fair use to allow ourselves to remain freely redistributable. We do not accept their license for their work for the same reason 'Educational Use Only' licenses are unacceptable even though we squarely fall under their grant. -- ۩ Mask 12:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, even though it has a nice license it still counts as non-free for our purposes just the same as CC-NC or CC-ND licensed content does. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The publisher's take reveals that, while the license is reasonably permissive, the acknowledgment citation that they require is at best imperfectly honored in our articles, even when properly cited. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's nonsensical, in that any content we use under that grant of permissions is also transferrable to any other user under the same terms. I get that it's not a blanket license, but fair use needn't apply since the license is granted to any potential Wikipedia downstream user as well. Xymmax, the attribution requirement wasn't reproduced in the 2006 NIV I consulted for the license I posted. Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: text is not treated in the same fashion as other NFC. Quoted text regardless of copyright is required to cited to the work it came from (per the GDFL), and at least for works which aren't PD, we consider the amount of text used as part of fair use evaluation. The Bible is a unique situation in that there are numerous variant of what arguably is the same text, but from the standpoint of WP, copyrights and all that, any version can be used for brief quotes with citations, regardless if there is a free-er version or not. (I also wonder what the age of the original text comes into play here, and the (in)ability of these publishers to claim copyright on essentially a derivative work of something clearly in the PD...) --MASEM (t) 15:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Masem, but at least at the moment the Wikipedia policy which governs the NFCC guideline reads "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s)." Give the explicit mention of text and the reference to NFCC, I think we must assume it does apply. I fully admit this position seems to have changed over time, but I do think that is current policy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that line is specifically about importing large quantities of text above and beyond fair use, usually whole pages from other wikis, into WP. Not inclusion of short sections of copyright text. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use any quotes from any non-PD source, which is the norm. It is important to stress that fair use inclusion of quotes, while a copyright issue, is not of the same level of concern as wholesale text inclusion, or that of media files. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we agree that NFCC 1 applies, I think we agree ;) I do think that the Bible is a case inasmuch as our usage parallels scholarly usage, we're probably OK. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we should even be thinking of using NFCC to consider text. We do encourage people to keep quoted text to a minimum, and paraphrase (free text) from the source. Technically, paraphrasing of a quote is always possible, thus if NFCC #1 was to apply to text, we'd never have quotes. But we don't do that, when a quote carries weight on its own, we use that instead of the "free" version. The issue of whether NFC applies to text has been considered in the past, and every time it is rejected, emphasizing fair use and the GDFL/CC-BY-SA allowances. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C does say that text contents must "meet the non-free content policy and guideline", but NFCC and NFC are pretty clear about text. The policy portion says, "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." (emphasis added). The 10 criteria, which are part of the policy, do not apply to text. Instead, we're pointed to the guideline which says, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." We can't just use it; we have to use it transformatively, in keeping with fair use. But if we were trying to meet point 1, we would never be able to use quotes at all (or hardly at all), as it's probably always going to be possible to create a free version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This conversation is getting sprawling, it seems! In regards to this specific subsection, I wrote at ANI: "I agree that we need to treat this text like any other non-free text content. The danger of operating under that permission, were we so inclined, is that we are not publishing one article, but a collection of millions of them, and the risk that we'll go above 500 verses seems high." While Jclemens weighed in there a belief that each page is a separate publication, I myself don't think so. I think we are a compilation, just like any other encyclopedia. (And in terms of practical reality, we are a single website, in spite of multiple subpages.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to pick it up here, but let's do a thought experiment: Is the NYT one publication? Each day, perhaps, but the NYT website has articles from every day in their archives. What about Lexis/Nexis: are they (or any other commercial content aggregator) one publication? Any large website will end up having quotes from various religious texts, which will aggregate to 500 or more total verses sooner or later. Religious-focused websites will likely hit that ceiling substantially faster. Do they suddenly become non-compliant? It doesn't seem reasonable to infer so. If Wikipedia were a paper encyclopedia, it might be more reasonable to assert that it consists of one publication, but the differences are greater than the similarities: Multiple authors may be common in paper encyclopedias, but instantaneous and asynchronous revisions to differing articles is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Each issue of the New York Times is one publication, with a discrete publication date. We don't have discrete publication dates, of course; instead, we are an aggregation of subpages into one entity: Wikipedia. The legal reality of that can only be established, really, by the judgment of a court. If a publisher finds substantial content copied across multiple articles, will he succeed in convincing a judge to consider the cumulative impact? I suspect he would, but in any event I would rather not be the website named as the defendant in that test case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That level of caution is more appropriate for one's own finances than for a collaborative effort with its own legal counsel. Seriously, a lot of "What if's" have to turn out in one particularly unfavorable manner for even technical infringing to be construed, and when was the last time you heard of a Bible version copyright owner suing someone else for infringement? The copyright holders broadly license reproduction of the entire translation as their revenue stream; suing Wikipedia is generally incompatible with that. Of all the non-free content issues that could possibly arise, the aggregate quotation of more than 500 verses across all of Wikipedia is somewhere between "quite unlikely" and "astoundingly unlikely" to cause problems for Wikipedia or the Foundation. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Or, as I've heard it said, unless its clearly a copyright violation (as the recent mass-scale CCI is revealing) we should not fear the development of WP over potential copyright issues until Mike Godwin says differently. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not fear the development of WP over potential copyright issues.... I'm not sure I follow you there. Unless there's a history of litigation here, so far as I can see, this policy is specifically about "potential copyright issues". Has it been established somewhere that using non-free images of living individuals is clearly a copyright violation, whereas using images of dead ones is not?

• J, I think "that level of caution" (as relates to the question of whether each article on Wikipedia is its own publication or whether the collective is one entity) is no more than we owe to our project and our reusers. Copyright infringement cases hinge on substantial similarity; if the work being evaluated is the collection of articles, the usage is likely to be considerably more substantial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I have no problem with you holding such a concern in good faith--I just believe that the opposite is the "reasonable man's" interpretation of what a publication is, and think it's a waste of time and a hindrance to the project to assume that everything will be going against such an interpretation. I concur with Masem, that until Foundation counsel specifically says that this is an issue (and I'd welcome you asking him), I just don't see it as one. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally, I try to bother Foundation counsel only when necessary, so he won't get sick of my bugging him when urgencies come up. But given the breadth of potential issues, I do think it might be worth asking him if we should regard Wikipedia as millions of individual publications or as a collection. I'll write him. (ETA: Have done. Will let you know if/how he responds.) Meanwhile, I disagree with you that it isn't an issue. It's simple enough to make transformative use of this text, as I suggested at the first (second?) (third?) conversation on this issue. We don't have to draw conclusions if we do that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Mike responds that he doesn't believe there is a decisive legal answer to this question, though he thinks some courts would evaluate the articles independently. We're on our own with this one. I think it still falls into the category of "The legal reality of that can only be established, really, by the judgment of a court." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

  Thanks for doing that. Of course, it doesn't resolve anything, but that's par for the course when you ask a lawyer. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a good idea to ask. :) You never know. There might have been a court case out there establishing precedent for this that we didn't know about and Mike did. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not versed in this area as well as others, but can this 1,296 × 2,304px image of a bottle of Yardley Talcum Powder really be entered into the public domain by an editor, given that it includes the logo of the company on one of his products? Wouldn't fair use be more appropriate than p.d., and only then at a much lower resolution? Just thought I'd point this out to those of you more knowledgeable in non-free image use. Nightscream (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottle itself is more functional than artistic (and therefore ineligible for copyright), while the logo would fall under de minimus, so it should be OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a question at WT:CP about the use of extensive quotations in Twilight Zone episodes. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Twilight zone episodes, please. We could use some conversation there, as it may help to shape the relevant project's guidelines, which currently recommend including the entirety of Serling's opening and closing narration. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's partially in quote form, however at some point, I'll probably convert it to prose. Anyway, comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In section Wikipedia:NFC#UUI, item #7 seems wrong to me. The way it's written now, technically the restriction only applies to the Barry Bonds article and card. Shouldn't this say something like "A baseball card, to illustrate an article about the player. However..."

Am I misunderstanding? On any other page I'd just boldly make the edit, but I've never actually edited a guideline page before.... Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if you made this change it would then only apply to baseball cards? Obviously not. The point of this section is to give some concrete examples which are illustrative of the more generally applicable principles. The specificity of this example does not take away from the principle it underlines; instead, in my view, it rather helpfully underlines the generalisable nature of all the examples in this section. Jheald (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then the section needs a clear introduction that specifically states that these lists are just examples--I actually read this as a specific list of prohibitions. Even still, I don't think using "Barry Bonds" is any more clear than "A baseball player." In fact, I'd argue it just creates an unnecessary link to Bonds. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Qwyrxian. john k (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added two statements to identify both acceptable and unacceptable example lists as non-exclusive lists. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know whether a U.S. passport photograph (i.e. an image from a passport) is PD? It's File:William Carlos Williams passport photograph 1921.jpg, a passport photo from 1921 of an American physician and poet. This is the source, where it shows that on the back it said "passport 1921". SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is PD by virtue of being a passport photograph, because for at least the last 40 years the photos were made by private photographers, not government employees. Maybe they were made by government photographers in 1921, but it doesn't matter. It is PD by virtue of having been taken in 1921; copyright has expired. I suggest {{PD-US}}. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the date of publication we need for PD, not the date taken, which is why I was hoping that passport photographs are PD because the property of the government, once they're in the passport. But you're probably right that the photographer retains rights. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does placement into a passport count as "publication"? Argyriou (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of passports are not distributed to the public, so they are not published. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though a passport photo could still be published by other means. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the particular passport photo *has* been published, as it's available from Yale. If use in a passport doesn't count as publication, then the remaining possibilities are that a) the photographer died before (today), 1940, or that the photo was not properly registered for copyright, or that copyright was not renewed. I strongly suspect that a passport photo taken back when active registration was required, and renewal was not automatic, is no longer subject to copyright. But I can't prove that. Argyriou (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently ran across a city article in es:wiki which has an infobox for the city, with blanks for the flag and seal. Poking around, the policy of es.wiki is to only use images on Commons. Commons only accepts free images. Does this section of the Paris Convention make flags, coats-of-arms, seals, etc., free images?

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_72#Copyright.2C_unfree_images.2C_and_flag_cruft which makes it seem that if the flag or seal is copyright, that use in "flag cruft" is limited. However, use for illustrating an article about the locality/country which is symbolized by the flag or coat of arms seems to be a different sort of use than identifying the nationality (or regional origin) of a particular person. Argyriou (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers galore, discography type article. I explained the issue to the person who uploaded all but one of the album covers that were orphaned when I removed them, but I was ignored. He's re-instated the images twice now [4][5], the last one claiming the images are legal. Anyone else like to take a crack at explaining this to him? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note on his talk page. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor continues to attempt to force the images via edit warring onto the article. Multiple people have explained the issue to him without success. I've placed a uw-vandal4 warning on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid an edit war

Original text before today was:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.

The text introduced by Peter Karlsen:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.

is being changed by SlimVirgin to read:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, with quotation marks if appropriate.

Having just seen a copyvio case where the primary fault was that the user failed to include quote marks around directly-taken text (no attempt to paraphrase) but with a citation (see [[6]]) I am pretty confident that we require some demarcation of text that is lifted directly from a source in conjunction with a cite for the course; whether this is quote-marks for in-line text, blockquote or {{quote}} or other templates for inset quote, or whatever, some type of separation from the WP editor text is mandatory, making the above "if appropriate" incorrect. The version Peter supplies is a better reflect of what we ask for. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The policy should reflect the general consensus that the inclusion of verbatim non-free texts without specific indicators of direct quotation is considered plagiarism and a copyright violation per se, even if the copying would have otherwise been considered fair use. Also, SlimVirgin's version removes the language "in accordance with the guideline", a reference to Wikipedia:Non-free content which I believe is necessary, since Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria itself doesn't spell out the conditions under which the use of non-free text is acceptable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but expect SV to explain her point ("not so -- we don't want articles to be quote farms. In-text attribution is almost always enough"). I was under the impression that "in-text attribution" for verbatim quotes is always not enough. East of Borschov 06:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When would it not be appropriate to use copyrighted text verbatim and not use it as a quote, with quote marks or formatting to show that is a quote? We should always use quote marks or make it clear in some way that an excerpt is a quote. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy ought to require formatting quotes from a non-free source in a way that makes quotation visually obvious. I don't know that policy ought to specify "quote marks", so long as the formatting is obvious and no reasonable person could believe that we are claiming original authorship of the quoted material. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When would it not be appropriate to use copyrighted text verbatim and not use it as a quote, with quote marks or formatting to show that is a quote?

— /ƒETCHCOMMS/

^Like that maybe? (Though this would be considered "formatting". I agree it's always appropriate to somehow denote in an obvious fashion that it's verbatim material - and a mere cite is not obvious.) –xeno^talk 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree wholeheartedly with the change. If we don't want articles to be quotefarms, the solution is not to quote...not to hide our quotes. In-text attribution is not enough even to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, much less Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I don;t thing this applies to NFCC only--or even to NFCC in particular,. the requirement should be to follow standard practice in publishing , and indicate by quote or otherwise (such as indenting) everything copied from outside text, free or not. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically we don't need this section because NFC doesn't cover in-line text (text contributions follow CC-BY-SA/GFDL), but people keep insisting we need to mention text here because we have images and other files here as well. But I would suggest we include a ref to MOS:QUOTE in Peter's version so that we don't have to explain the "how" here. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't always need quotations marks. You can write: "Masem argued that quotations marks are necessary," or "Masem argued that 'quotation marks are necessary.'" The point is that Masem has been attributed, which avoids allegations of plagiarism. I wouldn't want to see this page encourage the overuse of quotation marks, because it's a big enough problem on WP as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with plagiarism. This has to do with properly identifying non-free content as required by our copyright policy. If we are paraphrasing Masem, we needn't use quotation marks. If we are copying Masem, we must. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for that, please? It's incorrect in publishing and indeed unsustainable, so before we go any further I'd appreciate if you'd cite a source to show that someone else agrees with you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C says,

Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style).

Mind you, I wrote some of that myself (albeit quite some time ago), so that may not satisfy you. The only proof I have that others agree is that it has sat in policy for a long time. WP:REUSE says,

All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the "fair use" doctrine of United States law.... In such a case, the material should be identified as from an external source (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate)

WMF:Terms of Use says:

You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law...[snipping how to reuse] This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will strive to indicate clearly to you.

We cannot clearly indicate to them that the text is "fair use" if we don't mark the text that's "fair use." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean can you provide a reliable source, an external source, for what you're saying? I ask that because no publication anywhere in the world follows the rule you're suggesting, at least none that I'm aware of. So I'd appreciate seeing a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to find a reliable source, an external source, to document Wikipedia's policy? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even as Moonriddengirl says, you're asking for documentation of WP policy, I would suspect you can find something like that within any of the readily accepted Manuals of Style (I can see in the Chicago one a whole section about quotes but it's locked out to non-subs). --MASEM (t) 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, because you are writing a policy about how people should write, but you are not a specialist, and you are not citing any specialist, and you are suggesting something that would be nuts and that would produce very bad writing, and long lists of quotes, and that no other publication anywhere, ever, does, or would do, or would consider doing. So please provide just one reliable source that backs up your advice. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick. Though we may be talking at cross-purposes, what exactly are you asking about? –xeno^talk 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy was developed as it is, as I understand it, in part because Wikipedia's content was developed to be widely reused, even commercially and in countries where "fair use" allowances are very different than those of the U.S. Clearly marking content that is fair use enables our reusers to identify it and determine the legality of its usage in their own context. Considering our reusers is not secondary to our purpose here. Our mission statement is to enable the broad dissemination of our free content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, what do you mean "NFC doesn't cover in-line text"? If in-line text only followed CC-By-SA and GFDL, we couldn't use quotes at all, because our contributors can't release them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the arguments is that the incorporation of short snippets of copyrighted text as per fair use is an allowance within CC-BY-SA/GFDL (not just WP but anywhere); this is not a transformation of the original copyrighted work to the less restrictive allowance (which is what you're right that we do need to be concerned with). We, of course, are requiring cites to further assure we are meeting fair use. This is in contrast to the inclusion of files and images where we are using something that is above and beyond the minimum fair use requires, with our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, here's is what the CC FAQ says about this: [7]. Our treatment of the inclusion of brief snippets is basically to manage the included text within US fair use laws. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I find your mixture of license terms and fair use confusing. The liberties provided by fair use always exist in the United States, no matter whether a license exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't have anything to do with people mixing fair use content into their CC-released text; that has to do with the ability to use CC-released text under Fair Use, which is unaffected. In other words, they can't require people who use Fair Use quotations of CC content to release their own content under CC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably neither a point here or there, but I read that to also imply that CC works can include Fair Use (as well as being part of Fair Use in other works), as long as we are talking US Fair Use in this case. The point I'm trying to make is that the use of brief snippets is guided by US Fair Use laws (as stated by CC), with our only additional restriction being the demarcation and citation on the text. Files (images, sounds, etc.), we have more restrictive requirements beyond fair use that are summarized by NFC. Text does not fall under NFC, though this is a common misconception and why we need a line to mention this. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to disagree on that one. :) NFC refers to "non-free content". It seems to me sensible that this policy and guideline are the proper homes to document our handling of all non-free content; "fair use" text is "non-free content." It's fortunate that the policy for handling it is much simpler than that of images, but I don't think it's a misconception that NFC governs text as well as other media. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm saying that when people challenge that text falls under NFC, we're talking about meeting the 10 points from NFC - eg licensing, rationale, etc.etc. Copyrighted text is "non-free content" but it is not capital-letters "Non-Free Content" that requires special attention. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I agree with you wholeheartedly there and would support clarifying that if needed. I was recently in a conversation about the inkblot test (the actual name of which I can't be bothered to spell right now :D) with a contributor who argued that it did need to meet the 10 points. Text is non-free, but the inclusion standards are much simpler. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lifted text needs quote marks (or equivalent formatting) and a footnote. Period. End of story. The less ambiguity in this matter, the easier it will be for newcomers and casual content-creators to understand the principle. SlimVirgin's modified wording confuses the principle. —Carrite, October 8, 2010.
• Agree with Carrite. "If appropriate" is a clause begging for wikilawyering. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin said that 'no publication anywhere in the world follows the rule you're (Moonridden girl) suggesting' and 'you (Masem) are suggesting something that would be nuts and that would produce very bad writing, and long lists of quotes, and that no other publication anywhere, ever, does, or would do, or would consider doing.' While I would charitably suggest that this may have been down to a misunderstanding (in her example of Masem said that quotation marks are necessary, the phrase 'quotation marks are necessary' is probably not sufficiently creative to require quotation marks) if anyone is interested, here are some current references for using the formatting Elen said "not on your nelly" rather than Elen said not on your nelly, where the original source said

In fact, I'd go as far as to say, not on your nelly (Roads, Elen OT, Basiofundamental Principles, Wikipedia, 2010)

Writing for Psychology By Mark L. Mitchell, Janina M. Jolley, Robert P. O'Shea [8] p147 - "if it is under 40 words, you will use an embedded quote - you will embed the quotation within your own words but identify it as a quotation by using quotation marks."

The Canadian style: a guide to writing and editing By Canada Translation Bureau, Dundurn Press [9] p147 "The main purpose of quotation marks is to set off the words of a speaker or written source from the main body of text. The quotation may consist of one or more complete sentences or paragraphs, part of a sentence or paragraph, or even one word....Use the run-in format* where the quoted material is no more than 50 words long." *Example given in the text is The Minister said, "Prospects for growth are not good."

The Wadsworth Guide to Research By Susan K. Miller-Cochran, Rochelle L. Rodrigo [10] p252 Gives the following two examples for quotes that are less than four lines long:-

• Science fiction films "self consciously foreground their own radicality" of special effects
• Carl Freedman specifically criticises science fiction films for "self consciously foreground[ing] their own radicality" of special effects

It is perhaps worth noting that all sources counselling against what old schoolmasters described as 'writing essays with scissors and paste'. Mitchell, Jolley and O'Shea in fact recommend no more than 50 words of direct quote per 1000 words of essay. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'd like to have this edit reviewed. The images in question have been combined into one jpeg file (File:Notmyselftonight.jpg). I contend that placing two images into one file doesn't keep them from counting as two images. Having even one screenshot of a video seems questionable to me, and I can't see that there is enough risk of readers not understanding the nature of the video to even approach justifying two.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy agrees with you, I have give said user a very harsh warning about personal attacks and will be taking him to ANI if it continues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, user-created montages of non-free works count as the equivalent of the # of images it is incorporating. --MASEM (t)

Nuked it as F7, and warned the user about their language. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why was it an immediate F7? What was it mis-tagged as? Jheald (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F7 is "violates non-free policy" (well, the drop-down that appears on the delete menu says it is, and that's what appears on the delete rationale - but I see what you mean, it doesn't agree with WP:CSD). Hmm. Ah well, it could never be used anyway as it would automatically fail NFCC#3a, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Still, I'll undelete it if anyone really wants me to (and send it straight to FFD). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a large number of per season character list articles for the EastEnders series. See Lists of EastEnders characters for a complete list. A cursory scan shows approximately 100 non-free images being used in a per-character depiction usage on these articles. I've begun removing these uses per WP:NFLISTS, orphaning a number of images in the process. The issue has come to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_EastEnders#Images_in_lists_again. Those here may wish to participate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Unacceptable use of images lists:

An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.

I removed this from the list as this is presented as rule under Unacceptable use and i do not see any reason why it should be unacceptable to use images whose subject happens to be war? Why should it only be possible with the limited exception?

Someone reverted me with the edit summary: " an example, not a rule, and it's perfectly valid"

Could you please explain: Why you think that would not be a rule when listed under unacceptable use. Why should we have a rule not to use images that show war? 2) What do you mean by "perfectly valid"? Why should that be perfectly valid not to use images whose subject happens to be war or just limit the use to the stated exception? Thank you. - IQinn (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are misreading the page. This is a list of examples of times when using non-free images would be disallowed. So you could not - for example - place random non-free images of Vietnam War battle scenes in the article Vietnam War unless that image was specifically illustrating part of the text or was an iconic image in its own right (and even then you'd have to ensure there was no free equivalent). Look at the other examples in that list and you'll how they refer to the policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to further on that, if they were free images (public domain, out of copyright, as we could expect with anything pre-1900), this doesn't apply either and such images can be used without any issues. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed [11] individual images from this article per WP:NFLISTS, and note there is a cast photo at the top of the page covering most of the cast members. Another editor is forcing (see article history) one of the images back onto the article with the argument that this character is not in the cast photo. I've explained [12] the issue to the editor, but he put the image back in anyway. Some help please? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this {{FU-India}} and comment, whether it can be used here or not..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]