While policy is clear that appropriate articles are the favored location for non-free files, WP:NFCC#9 places this "subject to exemptions". I believe Portals that include a snippet of an FA article should be exempted to allow a depiction of the main infobox file provided they append an additional rationale at the files location; for the duration of its display. A category for interested Portals should be included in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions if this is not an affront to propriety and there is consensus to allow this. I extend hopes that it can be accomplished. 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The exceptions are only made for purposes of non-free maintenance. Portals are not that. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Support: Portals are really an extension of the mainspace. Just because it's called "portal" doesn't make it not part of the encyclopedia as put forth before our readers. Further, the NFCC #8 policy is, at best, loosely enforced now. "Violations" (they aren't really violations anymore) have been exploding for months with no end in sight. An unenforced policy is no policy at all. Why should some portals be allowed to do this and not others? Either enforce the policy or modify policy to reflect reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Support. As Wikipedia:Portal#What are portals? says, portals serve a similar function like the main page. If they can be displayed at the main page, I see no reason why not to display them there as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Last time I looked, they couldn't be displayed on the main page either. Has that changed? If not, oppose, basically per the reverse of Toshio's argument. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
When I asked that question at WT:TFA#Images and fair use the answer indicated to me it was a choice opposed to a policy restriction. 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Somebody told you, "we just don't", and that actually is the policy. Don't ask me where it's codified, but it's existed as well-known rule for a long while. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't doubt that's the more exact reason, but I also believe it is the case that we want to maintain the concept that we are a free encyclopedia and thus purposely avoid non-free content for materials that appear on the front page (TFA, ITN, DYK). --MASEM (t) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It says that pages in the exemption category "are used to manage questionable non-free content" (meaning deletion categories and similar). A portal page is not meant for managing questionable non-free content. Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format (currently in the exemption category) is not used for managing questionable non-free content either, so I assume that the SVG category should be removed from the exemption category. On the other hand, the template {{db-f1}} is a typical example of a page where <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions]]</includeonly> would be acceptable. Currently, it is a violation of WP:NFCC#9 to use {{db-f1|filename}} for non-free files because the {{db-f1}} template displays an image on the file information page where you're using the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As Masem said, exceptions are allowed for (non-free) image maintenance, but that should be all. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Portals are like specialised main pages, and there is a strong, long-standing consensus that the main page should not feature non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I certainly respect the enlightening comments provided above by esteemed colleagues I fully respect. I am satisfied that the current practice is likely the best practice and sufficiently dissuaded from seeking a Portal exemption. I therefore withdraw this RfC and thank all who have given their time to comment. 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Images from old newspapers
I want to put a picture of Lucy Hagenow on her biography page; she's been dead since 1933. The only image I have found of her anywhere is from 1925 articles in the Kingston (NY) Daily Freeman and New Castle (PA) Daily News; this was almost certainly an old wire service photograph; its source is not provided in any of the papers. Given Hagenow's age in 1933 and how old she appears to be in the photo, the photo in question is no doubt significantly older than 1925; my best guess is that it was taken prior to 1910. Also, given the quality of the image in question and the obscurity of the person, use of the image on Wikipedia would not hinder an ability of the author to pursue monetary gain from it.
Is this use allowable under Wikipedia guidelines? ChristinaDunigan (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
For works first published in the 1920s, it is irrelevant to know when a photo was taken; the only thing which matters is the date of publication. Under United States copyright law, the copyright holder had to renew his copyright in the 27th or 28th year after publication (i.e. in 1952 or 1953 in your case), or else the photos entered the public domain on 1 January 1954. If the copyright was renewed, the photo enters the public domain on 1 January 2021.
I checked the copyright renewals for periodicals for 1952 and 1953 and can't find any renewal for either newspaper, so I would guess that anything you find in those newspapers from 1925 is in the public domain and thus fine to use. Unless anyone else finds a renewal, it should be fine to use the photo under the licence {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If the copyright was renewed, it might still be possible to use the photo under fair use, but press photos are sometimes a bit problematic due to WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI 7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of the nature of images and text at the village pump
Hi folks. There has been an issue raised about how we treat text in an otherwise free image. Discussion is here at the village pump. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Exemption request
I'd like to request that File:Joseph Kony Face.jpg be given an exemption from the non-free content criteria. This is the image that would be given exemption; I resized it to 50% of its original resolution. As he's currently a fugitive that even international superpowers have been unable to track down, I find it incredibly unlikely that someone will randomly happen upon him, take his picture, and upload it to the internet under a free license. Therefore, I really don't think that criteria #1 applies here, as, unless he either gets arrested or dies, which may not happen for a long time, it isn't feasible to call the image replaceable. ❤ YutsiTalk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just given the image a quick crop so that only the subject's face is in the image (More appropriate for an image in an article about a person to just have that person in it) [1]. I would be willing to launch a DRV with that image. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Since it is a Getty or Associated Press photo, remember that the photo can't be used in an article unless there is critical discussion about the photo itself. It is not enough to have critical discussion of the subject of the photo. See WP:NFC#UUI §7. Compare with articles such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (an article about a photo). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't do exemptions. I don't think that should change. This is alsoSven Manguard 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A Call For The Removal of WP:NFC#UUI's First Unacceptable Use for Images - Living People
Recently, I've been editing a Wikipedia page for Karl Roelofs and David Marsh with the intent of using pictures of them to illustrate what they look like. I have every reason to believe that they are free use and permissible to be used on Wikipedia. However, I have been told that photographs of Living People are not permissible for use on Wikipedia, even if a Wikipedia page is about that person in question, as long as that person is still alive.
The first unacceptable use of Images on Wikipedia states:
"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. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."
This seems absolutely preposterous, as I am unaware of any copyright laws that prohibit the use of photographs of living people that are placed in publicly accessible places.
The excuse saying that a "Free Alternative" is available simply because he is still alive seems absolutely ridiculous. For starters, just because he is still alive does NOT mean that a "Free Alternative" photograph has been made, and is available, somewhere else. It would assume that I could contact this living person, which might not always be so easy, ask them for a free alternative photograph, and then get that picture of them from them. For all I know, the picture they want to be used for showing themselves in public might be the SAME picture!
Furthermore, if I want to take a picture of them myself, I would have to hunt them down, take my camera, take their picture, and in some cases, they may not want me to photograph them right there and then for whatever reasons they might have. I may have to travel across the world to find a free alternative if I live in the USA, and the subject of the Wikipedia page lives in Japan. This is an unacceptable expectation of Wikipedia editors.
So I'm going to request that this rule be stricken from Wikipedia's policies. I find it impractical, unrealistic, and ridiculous that a photo of a living person can't be considered fair use under any circumstances without explicit permission or license from the person within the picture. What if they aren't aware they even need to provide a license? That would require doing the leg work to track them down, speak with them, tell them what license options there are and/or are necessary, and then get whatever paperwork, statement, signature, whatever from them, then return to get this photograph re-uploaded.
This is a Wikipedia policy and a Wikipedia interpretation of international copyright law, which I find to be in error as I do not have reason to believe that violating the Wikipedia policy would also violate any law. I request this policy be removed.
You're absolutely right that under US Fair Use law, we'd be able to use that image. But, WP's non-free policy is specifically more strict than copyright law because we are trying to develop a free content encyclopedia, using non-frees only in exceptional cases and disallowing them where there's reasonable expectation of getting free images. Specifically, even the Foundation requires that we don't use non-free photos of living persons across all Wikimedia projects: 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. Just because there isn't one available, and it would take effort to get one, does not allow for non-frees. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Then what would they need to provide in order to permit the use of this photo? I've been trying to get this information for a while now and have yet to get an answer.
Absolutely correct; however a bigger elephant in the room is whether the person is even notable ... doesn't look like it to me. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
After searching in vain for anything else, I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And I am CONTESTING that AfD! It hasn't even been 24 hours since I submitted that page and I still have edits and revisions to make in order to expand content and provide the references and resources I have. The notability of his contributions to video games should be IRRELEVANT. He is the co-creator of Shadowgate along with David Marsh, and currently, the creation of Shadowgate, and in fact, much of the information regarding the MacVenture games is inaccurate and misleading. I am working to rectify that now that David Marsh and Karl Roelofs have started a new company to bring the ICOM Simulations properties back to modern platforms.
Also, the notability of a game developer is irrelevant if they are the creative director of ANY video game. I find your hastiness to delete the page appalling and disturbing to the Wikipedia work and information I am trying to provide. So I would appreciate if you would please remove the AfD tag and allow me to continue. I happen to have been lucky to contact both David Marsh and Karl Roelofs before for an interview, and if Wikipedia demands a certain license of some kind for photos, information, whatever, then I am willing to bet I could ask them and they could provide as long as someone informs me what license or whatever they need.
OtakuMan (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring any issues with the article, Masem summed it up pretty well. To further the response, the Foundation's resolution which was quoted also states "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." so if you want that part of the guideline removed, you'd have to go to the Board. We literally can't do away with it. VernoWhitney
Then to the board I shall go! This is maddening and was not present in the Wikipedia policies before when I was creating and editing Wikipedia pages. Lots of my contributions, edits, and work are still present on Wikipedia, and I intend to fight this policy tooth and nail. Just because Wikipedia has its own agenda of building up its own Wikipedia Commons database for its own self-serving purposes should NOT prevent the use of pictures of living people in their own Wikipedia pages. It's STUPID! If it doesn't violate any international copyright laws, then it should be fine. Isn't Wikipedia's purpose to provide an open place for the sharing of information, using a crowd-sourced pool of information and data?
Plus, if a free-to-use license for the picture is necessary, I can GET one more than likely. Should I reach him and inform him of this battle over the license of his own photograph, I bet he'd be willing to provide whatever license is necessary so that Wikipedia can freely use it. He and I would just need to know what license that is.
HOWEVER, some zealous person already deleted the photo AND the conversation! So if they responded, I don't know what they said, and I am VERY upset by that! Now, where do I find the Board of Trustees so I can scream and yell at them! I'll even go so far as to rally a protest against that policy if I have to!
OtakuMan (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
First, it is the Foundation's sandbox, they set that rule because they have a certain mission. You don't have to participate if you don't like that rule, but we here on en.wiki aren't going to change it. And yes, that was added by the Foundation in 2007 so things may have changed, but it was an issue they needed to addressed as non-free media started to become more common in use.
Now, if you think you can contact the developer, you can follow the instructions in WP:CONSENT to ask them to email Wikipedia as to release their media with a free license, assuming they themselves are the copyright owner. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm still going to participate, rule or no rule, but there's nothing that says I have to like it. If it can't be changed then it can't be changed, but there IS one thing that can be done. That link you sent me regarding how copyright owners (say a photograph of a person that was taken with their own camera, thus making them the total copyright owner of the photograph and themselves) is something I have been searching for! Thank you!
Now, if Wikipedia and the Board could do something to make this kind of information more accessible to people who are fine with X image or X content being used on Wikipedia, or who even WANT their media on Wikipedia, that would be a big change in what I think is the right direction. With this rule, it sets some very tricky limitations, and so I feel that if they made it easier for editors and copyright owners to know how they can provide media under these guidelines, it would be a huge help.
It wasn't until recently I was made aware of this change at all, and never found anything for rights release before. Maybe it means I still have a ways to go before I'm fully "savvy" to Wikipedia, or that I just missed the right spots, or whatever, but I want to make sure I do things right, and it's really frustrating when it seems like you try and do it right, and then everyone comes after you because they feel you did it wrong.
Know what I mean?
OtakuMan (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:NFG discussion
Hi. I would like to initiate a discussion on the WP:NFG rule on non free images in tables and galleries. I am assuming this is the right place to do it.
Non free images will always be a part of Wikipedia and editors will want to display them in an article. Sometimes you need more than one image and a gallery or a table becomes a useful tool in enhancing the look and feel of the page.
Unfortunately the WP:NFG forbids this - but it makes no sense. A table or a gallery is merely a way of presenting images. Although the policy says usually unacceptable some over enthusiastic mod/admins rapidly tag an image for deletion the moment it is put in a gallery.
How do I table a request to the board to re-look at this policy? Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that non-free images in galleries almost always fail our non-free image policy, not because they're in a gallery but because they fail WP:NFCC#3a (overuse) or WP:NFCC#8 (significance). Hence why the policy says "usually unacceptable". Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"enhancing look and feel" will never fly for using non-free media, as it implies that the media fails NFCC#8, part two, about harming the reader's comprehension if absent. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Rights of personality does not affect the use of images on WP - we're not advertising, promoting, or selling such. It impacts re-users of content and they have to determine if that's approprite for their use, but it does not affect what we can pick and choose for our use. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Album covers in artist articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as no consensus. I can't see any consensus has developed here. I don't see the point in de-archiving the section as that seems pretty obvious to all the participants. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello- opinions would be useful at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive2. There is a disagreement about whether the existence of critical commentary on an album in the article about the artist automatically justifies the use of the album cover. (See Noleander's image review and my responses at the bottom of the page.) While this is just one article, it could potentially set a precedent for FAC, so the discussion is an important one. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great if the WP community could clarify this issue. I've only done a modest amount of editing, but I've encountered this issue at least 3 times in my career - and it occupies a lot of time unnecessarily. The issue is:
Should the WP:NFCI guideline #1 be amended to suggest that non-free album/book covers should be used only in the article dedicated to the album/book; and they should not be used in the biographical article about the author/band unless (a) there is no article dedicated to the album/book; or (b) the album/book were especially significant in the author/band's career?
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. But as Milburn says above, we should clarify it one way or another so that future editors don't spend time re-hashing it. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we can make the clarification in a footnote in that there's enough possible exceptions that putting that language into the body of the guideline could be gamed. Eg: "This is typically allowed on stand-alone articles on the work itself, or in sections of related media where the work is discussed in detail. Re-use of covers on the author's, artist's, or creator's page when such pages already exist are typically not allowed unless they meet all 10 points of NFCC, such as if the cover is an iconic image for the creator." --MASEM (t) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, neither of your exceptions are sensible. You couldn't justify slapping album covers into an article just because no other article exists; they won't magically meet NFCC#8 just because there's no other article. So that's "a" out of the window. "b" is just as flawed- just because a particular work is significant, that does not mean that the cover is significant. The work and the cover are not the same thing- I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp. It's hypothetically possible that a not-so-significant work could have a highly significant cover; the archetypal example, Virgin Killer is probably not such a significant album for Scorpions, but the controversy its cover brought is highly significant. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The situation with album covers is not particularly complex; I think you're needlessly complicating it. A non-free cover, like any other image, may only be used if it meets the NFCC, including NFCC#8- it must add significantly to the article. There is a general consensus that an album cover adds significantly to the article about the album. This does not extend to other related articles. However, an album cover could reasonably be used elsewhere, like any non-free image, if its use adds significantly to the article in question for some specific reason; perhaps the article discusses the artistry of the cover, perhaps it discusses a controversy around the cover, perhaps the cover is cited as evidence of something and showing the cover can help present the issue neutrally. The significance of the thing the cover represents/whether that thing has an article has no bearing on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
NFCI #1 say "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." which means it can be used in other articles if they discuss the album, not the album's cover. If that is the case in an article about the musician/band, and if the album cover meets NFCC #8 (contributes greatly to the article) then it could be used in the article, true? --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Forget the NFCI. They're not important. If an album cover meets the NFCC, including NFCC#8, then yes, it can be used. We don't need an RfC to establish that. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
NFCC #8 reads "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 purpose of this RfC is to ask how that applies to book/album covers in biographical articles. NFCI #1 is already an attempt by the community to make that assessment, but #1 is apparently a bit incomplete. User Masem has suggested that only "iconic" books/albums may have their non-free covers included in biographical articles. What sort of evidence do we need from sources to establish iconic? Does "Dark Side of the Moon" meet the test for the Pink Floyd article? Would "The Wall" meet the test? Which album covers would fail the test? The purpose of the RfC is to see if that "iconic" rule is the consensus of the WP community. If it is the consensus, then the rule should be documented somewhere: either in NFCI #1, or in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You're trying to establish general rules where general rules are not appropriate. If an image adds significantly to an article, it can stay. The best way to demonstrate the significance of an album cover is to add sourced discussion about that cover to the article in question, rather than making vague claims about a cover being "iconic". Anyone can call something iconic. If it genuinely is iconic, we're going to have sources discussing it, and we're going to have discussion of it in the article. In such a case, adding a non-free image is going to be uncontroversial. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec)NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a are the two critical ones. The single use of the cover art in the article about the album, from a relatively recent past RFC, meets these in that it is a single use (meets NFCC#3a) and the album cover carries, at minimum, implicit branding and marketing information, thus meeting NFCC#8; in some cases, album art is discussed in detail in the album article which strengthens the rational, but just having a notable album has been determined sufficient enough. This is the basis of why NFCI#1 exists, and to be clear, NFCI is not the full extent of allowable images, just ones that, when used as stated, are generally always considered okay as long as the remaining NFCC criteria are met.
So when we turn to the second use of the album cover at a page not about the album, the previous community allowance no longer applies, because we're no longer in an article about the album so the implicit "branding and marketing" rational goes away. NFCC#3a is not well met with the second image, so NFCC#8 has to be addressed -does the album image add to the article and the reader's comprehension not harmed by its omission? In the current issue of the Pink Floyd band article permlink, most of the covers are just there alongside some development information about the album (eg such as in the case of "Wish You Were Here"). Per NFCC#8, I could remove that cover, and the article still is 100% comprehendable because there's zero discussion about the cover art; the art is only used there as a visual guide but not attached to the text in anyway. So those types of uses would be impossible to justify under NFCC#8. That's why the Dark Side cover has potential - the prism image is iconic symbol, and it can be discussed in that fashion while talking about the band. Omitting that image while taking about how that cover has become iconic would harm the reader's understanding, so NFCC#8 is met. Since this would be only its second proper use that is well-justified by NFCC#8, then NFCC#3a is met, and the image is acceptable there.
The only problem in the above analysis is that it is simply not as cut and dried as that. We default to not including album art in any other location besides an article dedicated to the album baring a few exceptions as, in general, the direct association of the album art is to the album, not the artist. When the association happens to go to the band/artist as well, then it makes sense to use there, but to give hard and firm rules to judge that association is impossible. But again, the default is we don't allow that second use, so when it is met, it is usually in exceptional places. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. We already do this all over the project in countless articles, with album covers and sound samples in artist' articles. That train left the station years ago. Fighting it now is a bunch of empty arm thrashing. While there might be some lofty notion of NFCC #8, in practice that isn't how we operate anymore. Allow the images. In the extremely unlikely event we receive a cease and desist letter from the artist, remove them then. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that the community has generally avoided the use of album covers in band articles in general (there's cases like this of course, but that's why "in general". The sound sample acceptance is different, however, and comparable to a few examples of a visual artist's work, because as to discuss the importance and critical nature of the band or artist, these are essential elements - it might help show the progression of a band's musical styling over time, or demonstrate the type of sound they are specifically known for. In all such cases, we expect that secondary critical sounds specifically identify which sound clips (or in the case of the visual artist, which works) are paramount about the band and thus use those. Album covers are 99% of the time a curiosity and rarely have direction connection to understanding the band through its history. Ergo they fail NFCC#8 nearly all the time. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The assertion "album covers are 99% of the time a curiosity and rarely have direction connection to understanding the band through its history" seems to be a judgement call. I daresay that many readers would take the opposite view: from the 60s to 80s, album covers were often a key aspect of the band's identity. I'm not saying your view is not legitimate: just that it is a value judgement, not a black-and-white WP policy. The outcome of that judgement call is what this RfC is all about: what objective criteria can we use to determine if an album cover is important to understanding a band's history? --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That's why I said 99% - there are exceptions, Dark Side of the Moon, or Rush's 2112 backcover, being examples. I think it is more the case that when you see a recognizable album cover, you don't make the connection immediately to the band, but to the album and then to the band - but this is me trying to read inside people's heads. But clearly, its fair to recognize that you will make connections to the album when you see its cover. But within the framework of NFCC, we don't just use the argument "for visual recognition" as an acceptable rationale, because for a reader that is not familiar with the album art, and is reading about the band's history, the album art does not help in any way (assuming the art is not discussed in depth) and fails NFCC#8. That's why I do support using Dark Side's cover art on the Pink Floyd album, because you can discuss the art in connection to the band as an iconic representation of them to a reader that's never seen that cover before, and same with Rush's 2112 Starman. But take something like "Wish You Were Here", which any PF fan immediately would recognize, but it doesn't have the same level of association with the band directly as the Dark Side prism image. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Allow the images. The artists aren't complaining, the deletionists are. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a requirement of the WMF to be proactive to remove unneeded and inappropriate uses of non-free media. And remember, we're not deleting these images, as they have one completely acceptable use on the page about the albums. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"Allow the unsourced libel. The subjects aren't complaining, the deletionists are." Pull the other one. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, you don't have to be involved with the site. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How does breach of copyright constitute libel? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the label "deletionists" which absolutely does not apply in this situation. (Further, arguing a breech of copyright is a slippery slope - I would say with high confidence that our use of album covers in band articles is well within US fair use law. But we're talking about the more restrictive non-free content policy to maintain WP's free content mission.) --MASEM (t) 20:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Martin, I think it's quite clear that I have not said that. As far as I can remember, I have not even made reference to "breach of copyright" in this discussion. You're putting words into my mouth, which is not something I take kindly to. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I had no intentions of putting words into anyone's mouth. You have certainly not said that. I was simply asking for clarification. It was my personal assumption that the underlying problem being discussed here was one of copyright. But I wonder, could you possibly please expand on how libel is relevant here? Thanks. And sorry for libelling you. Perhaps we can avoid callng our respective lawyers just yet?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that you have libelled me (if that's a word). Sorry, let's take a step back for a second. My comment with the imagined quote was merely intended to show how ridiculous North's argument was- it was said with my tongue some way into my cheek, but I think the sentiment is clear. I was meaning to imply that, if his argument made sense, then so would this imaginary one against removing libellous content. We know that the imagined argument is nonsense, so we should recognise North's as nonsense too. As for the question of copyright- I'm not a lawyer, and I've not really got any interest in pretending to be one. However, we're not trying to decipher legal text in this discussion. Instead, we're trying to judge the use of certain images against our non-free content criteria, which may or may not resemble US law- I gather they're somewhat stricter but, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Masem, if the WMF requirements were as you state, then we would not have nearly half a million non-free images on this site. We would not have articles with non-free images all over them like this, this and this. The WMF set out an ideal years upon years upon years ago, and then promptly abandoned it. They haven't cared in a long, long time. I see no reason why we should. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Until we have bots that can, 100% with no false positives, make the distinction on appropriate non-free use, the task falls to how fast that human volunteers can handle it. The metric to use is to consider what happens at when many human eyes are reviewing an article to judge image use (eg: at FAC), which upholds NFCC appropriately. Pages that use images that fail NFCC can easily be buried and not found for years, because we are otherwise human volunteers. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Which proves the point; if supposed "violations" can exist for years, then there is no violation. A unenforced law is no law. The WMF doesn't enforce it, the local project doesn't enforce it, why should individual editors care? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
WP has no laws. NFC is a strong WMF-backed policy, but it is not an absolute, and cannot be enforced automatically. There are 4 million pages and 450,000 NFC. With the inability to do this manually, we can only work at the rate of human volunteers. NFC is still enforced, when such violations are discovered, despite your denial. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
NFC is a weak, largely unpoliced policy. The proof is all over the project. You are focused on rebutting based on the idea that automatic solutions can't work. Forgive me, but that is the wrong focus. Automation is just one tool of many to solve the overarching problem. I'm not interested in throwing out the entire toolbox because the hammer doesn't look like a good solution for everything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not the point that automatic solutions can't work, but that the only solutions that do work are human volunteer based because of how much subjectivity there is built into NFC. We can't force people to police it, much less be aware of NFC when they become an editor, so management is at the rate of how much time human volunteers put towards it. Which, yes, is likely slower than the amount of NFC (both proper and improperly used) being added or re-used on the project. Which means there will be improper use of NFC all over the place but its stuff that we have no easy means to discover and automatically tag as a problem because an automated tool can't do that. The people maintaining BLP have the same problem. The people that try to maintain copyvio issues have the same problem. Just because there are cases that go against current policy doesn't mean current policy is null and void, it just means we haven't gotten to discovering them all yet. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with User:North8000. Surely there is also quite a difference between an abstract or "logo name" cover and one which clearly shows a group photo of the band members? And there is more likelihood of there being an article for the band itself than one for each of their albums. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album, with the exception of cases where a standalone article on the album also exists. We've had the ludicrous situation in the past where editors have argued that an album cover is fine in a standalone article, but if that same content is merged into the artist's article (with the same infobox and content) then using the album cover in that section would be unacceptable. How we organize content, i.e. combining or splitting articles, should have no bearing on whether these images are deemed acceptable. As long as the article in question contains substantial content about the album (e.g. not just a heading and a couple of sentences as an excuse to put a picture in the article), the requirement is met in my view. The general objective of avoiding duplication of content should mean that few, if any, albums will be discussed in such depth in more than one article. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album". If you believe that, then you believe that the non-free content criteria should be changed- the mere fact that an album is discussed does not mean that the use of the cover would add significantly to the article in question. That is currently required by the non-free content criteria. It's fine that you believe that, but at least make clear what you are claiming. Further, your position is clearly inconsistent. "They should be allowed in a section about the album in question which includes significant content about the album, with the exception of cases where a standalone article on the album also exists. ...[but]... How we organize content, i.e. combining or splitting articles, should have no bearing on whether these images are deemed acceptable." Did you actually read back what you just wrote? What you're saying would be funny if I wasn't terrified that a lot of people think in the same way as you... J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
A section about an album is the same as an article about an album as far as the NFCC are concerned. If you actually read what I wrote I did not suggest that the section would merely need to discuss the album. If we do have a section that is about an album and covers it in some depth as well as a standalone article that does the same about the same album, then yes, the requirement would be met in both, but we would normally aim to summarize the content of the article in the section rather than duplicate it. Is that clear enough? --Michig (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you're implicitly making the claim that, if an article discusses an album to some requisite level (what that level is is not clear) then, necessarily, the album cover would add significantly to that article, and so meet NFCC#8. I cannot see why you believe that this is true; this is the key question, and, aside from your weird inconsistency, is the challenge I am offering to you. Let me give you an example; one of my own articles, Faryl Smith, discusses, at a considerable length, two of her albums (ignore the fact that there exist separate articles on the albums if you believe that this magically makes a difference). Would adding the respective covers to this article significantly improve it? No, of course not. The album covers are of next to no significance whatsoever; they're just shots of her on a white background. The album is important, and so is discussed at length. The cover is not, and so is not, and does not need to be shown. Can you really not see what I am saying? Or do you believe that I am wrong not to include those album covers in this article? J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think you may be wrong. As far as vinyl albums are (were) concerned, the album cover, however "bland" it might look is, for me personally, an essential and undeniable part of the product, or the "whole work". But this is wholly subjective, I guess, not wikipedia policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I have been clear enough, however you choose to interpret it. --Michig (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If I'm interpretting wrong, please correct me. I hope I'm interpretting wrong, because the position I'm seeing (where covers are added to articles no matter how insignificant they are) is borderline ludicrous, and makes a mockery of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Pink Floyd might be a good example to consider here. The article obviously doesn't need to use an album cover as the main image. But is it justifiable for an image of the appropriate cover to be used in each of the sub-sections? At the moment some are and some aren't. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Clarification - There are currently 5 albums covers being used at Pink Floyd, not one in each sub-section. Also, what I think is getting missed here is that the artistic contibution of their covers is notable enough to justify inclusion in the artist page. Their cover art is needed to fully convey the artistic nature of their work. The covers are groundbreaking and influential and Thorgerson's involvement with the group for nearly 30 years is an important aspect of their history. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, quite so. Personally, I'd be happy to see a cover image for every album mentioned - even the mundane covers (if there were any, e.g. Relics) It might even be seen as more consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gabe, that's fine, and, if you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to write a convincing rationale, tying the particular image to the text of the article and explaining what the use of the cover is intended to portray, and how it does that. I'm of course not in principle opposed to the use of album covers on artist articles, I'd just like to see it minimised to those cases where the covers are genuinely adding something to the article. I should hope that that's not a controversial view; that's merely what's required by the NFCC. (Martin's view, on the other hand, falls well, well away from the requirements of the NFCC...) J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it's just "my view". Maybe I just want wikipedia to look more like many other, less stringent, group bio websites. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Question Also, how does this relate to sound files? I.e. why can I use a sound file from each album but not the album cover? ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This is good evidence of how this "discussion" is making things more complicated than they need to be. A sound file can be used when it meets the NFCC- most importantly, they can be used when they add significantly to reader comprehension of the article. If there is extensive discussion of a particular song, or of the musical style of a particular artist, then this discussion may sometimes be aided by illustration, through the use of a sound file. It's not as complicated as some people are trying to make out. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also surprised we have moved to sound files. But it is beyond my (admittedly, limited ) comprehension how "add significantly to reader comprehension" could be judged in anything other than a completely subjectively way in this context. How could (is) this be judged objectively? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Our metric for sound files in musician/band pages is nearly always the presence of secondary, critical sources that specifically mention the music piece and its importance to the band. This is typically more than an album refuse saying "This song is a good song". Usually it is a critical history of the band to show its progression. Again, it's not 100% requirement - there may be other reasons to include, or there may be reasons to exclude even with this information. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you meant album review. But I'd love to see some examples - at the soundfile page? or in the article as part of a quoted review? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Martin; we have to use our judgement, yes, but that doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all. As a comparison, film critics have to use their judgement when reviewing a film- there's no set list of what makes a good film. That doesn't mean that any answer's as good as any other and we should all just give up because it's "100% subjective". J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Arh, now, film clips... now they really would be a good idea! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
We do allow short clips of videos as well, but the thing with audio and video clips is that we are primarily a text-based, static page service. 100% (excluding the blind) can see our text and images, but less than 100% can hear the audio (excluding the deaf) or see a video, due to limited computer capacity, mobile devices, or whatnot. This is not a reason to disallow them but we expect more selectivity in their use for both non-free and free due to this. With images, we're more selective due to NFCC and not so much accessibility. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I think this is an interesting point when juxtaposed with the sound file issue. For example, anyone can access any album cover online, for free, but one cannot download 10% of a song for free. Why would we be more stringent with a good being sold (music) than a virtually unsellable one (album covers)? ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Album covers aren't unusable. Go to any college dorm, and it will only a few rooms to find a large poster of an album cover expanded to full scale. Cover art is a singular piece of artwork, and has potential value. Most don't, but there's a number that do. To that end, we can't cut down to only 10% of the image to make it usable, but we can enforce low resolution, typically 300x300 - enough to recognize it on screen, but of no commercial value. I am pretty sure that when you use album data bases (include Amazon, Google, and iTunes) the max size you can legitimately get the cover art is at 300x300 (after doing a spot check myself), so that's pretty much considered to be the fair use level across the board. There's no other steps we can do to back off a possible commercial reuse per fair use law. For sound files, there is two things we can do to back off on commercial reuse - the quality/resolution factor, and the amount of the sample. (These also apply to video). --MASEM (t) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
CommentWP:NFCC#7 and WP:FUR#2 are clear that a single non-free file may be used more than in one instance. This is applied equally; irrespective of perceived potential for monetary gain. J Milburn has iterated the distinctions rather well. I agree that the matter was resolved ahead of this RfC; whereas I see this discussion as more clarifying than necessarily deciding. IMO 76StratString da Broke da (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
NFCC#3amust be considered too. No one is arguing that the same piece of NFC can be used in separate articles, but once you go beyond that first use, each must show appropriate rationales to overcome the fact that #3a is being treaded on. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, though: For (a), we should require at least some sourced commentary dedicated to the album in the artist's article; and for (b), agree with Milburn, only if the cover itself is significant. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Question - It looks like there is agreement that album/book covers can sometimes be used in the article about the artist/musician. But one thing that is not yet clear is how to apply the NFCC #8 in that situation. (NFCC #8 is "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"). For example, say band B had album A which was a very major landmark in the band's history, but the cover art on A was not especially notable. Would NFCC #8 permit the album cover in the article on the band? Some editors stated above that the album cover would not be permitted in this circumstance because removing the cover art does not impact the reader; but other editors implied that the art could be included because it helps the reader visualize the album and hence better comprehend the article's text about the album. Personally, I have no opinion one way or another, but whatever the community consensus is, it should be documented in a guideline. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We do not use non-free images as "visual reminders", because those reminders only help those that actually have seen the work before which is generally assured to be a minority of the total WP readership. This is explicitly a point made when we agreed to remove images from discograhpies, episode lists , and other table-like presentations; while there will be some where an image does serve as a reminder, most readers will not have that ability, and ergo NFCC#8 (among others) is not met. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds fine. But then why does the community permit bland album covers in all articles that are devoted to albums? Removing bland, non-noteworthy album covers would not impact the reader's understanding of the article, true? --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me see if I can summarize the community consensus:
NFCC #8 is applied rather loosely to articles devoted to the album/book, and generally a cover can always be included in such articles (provided the other NFCC criteria are met, of course). For other articles (such as articles about the author/musician; or lists) NFCC #8 is applied strictly, and the cover can only be included if (1) the article/list contains critical commentary on the book/album; and (2) the cover itself is essential for understanding the article/list (e.g. the cover art was very famous, etc).
If that is the community consensus, that makes sense. But then NFCI #1 is puzzling. It says "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". It appears that #3 is intended to exclude the cover from lists & discographies. But #1 is misleading when applied to articles about the author/musician, because #3 gives editors the impression that the cover can be included in an author/musician article if that article critically analyzes the book/album. But that is not sufficient: the cover art itself must also be key to the author/musician's history. Wouldn't NFCI #3 be more useful to editors if it made it clear that " context of critical commentary of that item" alone is not sufficient? --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The words "the covers" should probably be changed into "a cover". If multiple cover images are added to an article about a product, the extra images tend to get deleted at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I changed "the covers" to "a cover". Do you think the text in the quote-box above is an accurate summary of the community consensus on album covers? What do you think of improving NFCI #1 to be clearer? --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
To be clear on the cover art on articles about the work itself, the community has asserted from an RFC I started a few years ago that it does pass NFCC#8 because it implicitly relates to branding and marketing of the work it is the cover of. (I don't fully agree with that but I abide by that). I quote from {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}: "The entire cover: because the image is cover art, a form of product packaging, the entire image is needed to identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image." That rationale only qualifies it on the article on the work. That rationale would not work on the musician's page, for example. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that is great information. What do you think of including that guidance within NFCI (either in #1 or elsewhere) to help editors that are working with cover art? --Noleander (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As I suggested at the start, I recommend a footnote to explain this one is pretty much only accepted if the cover art is used on the page dedicated to the album or work, but nowhere else; it doesn't mean it can't be used anywhere else, but the implicit reasons for inclusion (branding and marketing) aren't going to apply in any other context. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so it could go in a footnote. What do you think about clarifying NFCI #1 in another way: Right now NFCI #1 suggests that the cover could go into any article with "critical commentary" on the album/book; NFCI #1 could mislead editors that are not familiar with talk page discussions like this one. Could we add words to emphasize that NFCC #8 must also be satisfied, and that the "critical commentary" alone is not sufficent? --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The list prior to NFCI asserts that all NFCC criteria still must be met, even if the NFCI is met; the NFCI are supposed to be list of cases where from past history the use as described is likely not to cause issues once the file has all the appropriate NFCC elements in it and abides by it. The factors of critical commentary means that the cover art can't be used in trivial situations (eg discographies). In the present case of the band articles, this is where the confusion comes it, because certainly just name-dropping the album in a band article doesn't appropriate use of the cover art, but there are clearly cases where cover art can be used when the artwork itself is fundamental to the band's nature. It's very difficult to summarize the NFCC arguments here (namely NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a), and hense leave it as a footnote to explain that the nominal use of NFCI#1 is for stand-alone articles, and not when, in addition to the standalone article on the album, the album is critically discussed elsewhere, but there may be other good NFCC reasons to include it there. It is a lot of handwaving and non-affirmation for those trying to find that, but its better than nothing to explain its nominal use. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Allright, so you're good with putting text into a new footnote for NFCI #1 that (1) explains that a cover is generally acceptable in album/book articles even when NFCC #8 is not met because of the marketing/branding role of the cover [perhaps link to old RfC for reference?]; and (2) clarifies that the NFCI#1 "critical commentary" does not override NFCC #8, but rather augments it; therefore in articles other than the dedicated book/album articles NFCC #8 must still be applied to a cover. Does that sound good? --Noleander (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Also: can you clarify your comment: "the nominal use of NFCI#1 is for stand-alone articles [dedicated to the book/album]"? NFCI#1 looks to me like it's primary target is lists & discographies. Doesn't that marketing/branding issue you mentioned sort of make NFCI#1 moot for the dedicated book/album articles? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
First, NFCI#1 still requires NFCC#8 to be met. As I explained above, when an album cover is used on a stand-alone page about the album, NFCC#8 is met based on the argument that the image as used in an infobox there implicitly represents the branding and marketing of the work in addition to identifying the work, thus helping the reader to comprehend the article and would harm their understanding if it was absent. (And of course, this is a case specifically outlined by the Foundation in their resolution). Stand-alone articles on albums are those that are notable (requiring secondary sources) and thus are expected to have critical commentary about the album, thus meeting NFCI#1. That implicit argument does not exist anywhere else that the cover art is used, so a explicit NFCC#8-fitting rationale is needed. But one also must consider NFCC#3a on minimal use and while we do allow repeated image use, we expect a strong rationale based on good critical commentary to be used to counter that.
I'm reading that you're interpreting the NFCI as exceptions to NFCC which they are not. They are cases that the rationale factor for NFCC#8 is likely not going to be challenged as long as the image is used as listed out in NFCI. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@Masem: You write "the NFCI [bulleted list examples] ... are cases that the rationale factor for NFCC#8 is likely not going to be challenged ... "; and indeed the guideline states near the top of the NFCI text: "the following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia." But under those terms, NFCI#1 is not accurate: the vast majority of covers inserted in a non-stand-alone article are not acceptable even if they fully comply with NFCI#1. For example, if a band article includes a critical commentary about an album with a bland, non-notable cover, that situation satisfies NFCI#1 but would be successfully challenged, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that is what is being said several times already. NFCI#1 has, unstated, applied only to the case for the article about the album; you started this because that unstated understanding now is lacking clarity and we're looking to see how to clarify it. The RFC in question is Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC, which you notice that the closing admin pointed out that album art in an article on the album is acceptable w/o any explicit discussion of the album art. Given that people are reading NFCI#1 without knowing of this unstated understanding, we're talking about how to add that in to be clear that NFCI#1 primarily applies to album pages. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've read that RfC and it indeed covers much of the same ground as this RfC. The closing portion of that RfC says that a footnote will be added to NFCI#1 explaining the history/background, but I guess that was never done. Let's try to move on to specific wording for this NFCI#1 footnote. I think the following points are candidates to be mentioned (erring on the side of too many rather than too few):
A non-free cover requires that all NFCC criteria must be met, including NFCC#8
For stand-alone articles devoted to an album/book/etc, NFCC#8 is deemed to be met for the associated cover provided that the article contains critical commentary of that the book/album. This is because NFCC#8 is satisfied due to the marketing/branding role the cover plays. The cover may not be used for identification without critical commentary.
For stand-alone articles devoted to an album/book/etc, it is not required that the article discuss the cover art.
For articles that are not devoted to an album/book/etc, such as lists, discographies, or articles about the author or musician, critical commentary on the item is not sufficient, and the inclusion of the cover must expressly meet NFCC #8. Generally, this means that the cover artwork must be iconic, or especially noteworthy, or have played a key role in the history of the author/musician. The status of the cover must be supported by reliable sources.
Do those points sound correct? I'm not suggeting that the all above points are appropriate text for the footnote, merely that they are the underlying policies/practices that could be covered in the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The points appear correct, but I will remind that the section this is going to fall under is "acceptable uses", is not meant to be fully inclusive, and already under "must meet NFCC". I would have the text boil down to saying this is generally applied to cover art on the article that is exclusively about that published work, and all other uses, including, for example, cover art on the artist/writer/musician/group pages should be judged through NFCC, and point to that above RFC. Not that exact wording, but the shorter and less prescriptive, the better. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree it should not be too verbose. On the other hand, we're talking about a footnote within a guideline ... we shouldn't scrimp on words that could help rookie editors understand the situation. How about:
This acceptable use applies only to articles that are devoted to the item, including articles about albums, books, etc. This acceptable use does not apply to other articles, such as lists or articles about the artist, writer, musician, or group. Such articles must meet the non-free criteria, and critical commentary of the item, alone, in such articles typically does not satisfy the "contextual significance" criterion. Refer to Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC for additional background information.
for the footnote text? I suspect that you may not think the "... critical commentary of the item, alone, in such articles typically does not satisfy ..." text is essential, but it seems like it would help a lot of editors in the future. If that sentence is objectionable, can you think of an acceptable way to phrase it that would help future editors? --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The creation of a footnote summarizing that RfC's decision;
The creation of a footnote summarizing the history of NFCI#1; and
"Define specific cases where NFCI#1 is clearly ok .... For example, NFCI#1 could list out things like "book covers, theaterical movie posters, video game covers, tv show title cards".
As far as I can tell, none of these three tasks were implemented. The discussion above, after a long and winding road, has nearly arrived at a footnote for item (1). But items (2) and (3) still need to be done. Item (3), I suppose, could also go in a footnote. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding task #2 (History), here is some text to consider for possible use, most of which is copied from the older RfC:
In 2005, there was discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page and at the Non-free WikiProject to try to identify cases where images would clearly fall into US Fair Use law, thus making their use on Wikipedia unquestionably legal. For cover art, Wales and the editors used the case Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley which affirmed the use of cover images in articles discussing the work as falling within US Fair Use. The fundamental ten-point criteria were used as a basis by the Wikimedia Foundation to establish their Licensing policy for all Wikimedia projects, using the en.wiki's version of NFCC as an example of an Exception Doctrine Policy. Since 2006, neither the above section of WP:NFCI nor WP:NFCC have seen significant change outside of wording and clarification.
In late 2010 a dispute arose about NFCI#1, which covers the use of non-free images of cover art for albums, singles, movies, TV shows, video games, books, and other works, where the cover image is simply displayed in the infobox of the article for the work in question, and no other significance to the cover is provided. There was no dispute over the acceptability in articles where the cover art is discussed in some detail within the body of the article (eg, Abbey Road). Note that NFCI#1 only applies to articles devoted to the work in question, and not to other articles such as lists or articles about a author or musician. The dispute arose from what was seen as a conflict between minimizing non-free use and an established guideline for cover images. Some felt that WP:NFCI#1 cannot co-exist with WP:NFCC#8 - if the cover is being presented without specific discussion of the cover, it is decorative and fails the policy WP:NFCC#8; thus WP:NFCI#1 should be removed. Others felt that covers provide necessary identification information like branding and labeling that are implicitly necessary and significant to the article even without any commentary of the cover, and thus there is no conflict between these two statements.
An RfC was conducted in January 2011, and the outcome of the RfC was that non-free covers could be used in articles devoted to the item associated with the cover art, even if the article did not discuss the cover art. Thus, NFCI#1 was retained.
That is a bit on the verbose side, but it is a start. The first paragraph could probably be deleted without much loss of information to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
How about this for a footnote to satisfy task #2:
In late 2010 a dispute arose about NFCI#1, which covers the use of non-free images of cover art for albums, singles, movies, TV shows, video games, books, and other works, where the cover image is simply displayed in the infobox of the article for the work in question, and no other significance to the cover is provided. There was no dispute over the acceptability in articles where the cover art is discussed in some detail within the body of the article (eg, Abbey Road). Note that NFCI#1 only applies to articles devoted to the work in question, and not to other articles such as lists or articles about a author or musician. Some felt that if a cover is being presented without specific discussion of the cover, it is decorative and fails the policy WP:NFCC#8; thus WP:NFCI#1 should be eliminated. Others felt that a cover provides branding, identification, and labeling information that is essential to the article even without any commentary of the cover, and thus NFCI#1 did not conflict with NFCC#8. An RfC was conducted in January 2011, and the outcome of the RfC was that non-free covers could be used in articles devoted to the item associated with the cover art, even if the article did not discuss the cover, because NFCC#8 is satisifed by the branding, labeling, or marketing information that the cover provides. Thus, NFCI#1 was retained.
Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about the history, per se. Links to the past discussions are good references to include as "See: (link)", but be aware that NFCI#1 never changed as from that discussion RFC. You want to keep this short and simple:
This acceptable use is inferred to be for cases of cover art on standalone, notable articles exclusively covering that work. While the published work may also be critically described in other locations, such as on the band's page for an album, the reuse of the cover art is generally discouraged but can be used if the art is significant there. See:(past discussions)
This says what we have said is unstated by assumed by NFCI#1, doesn't disallow the reuse but puts it as iffy (forcing strong discussions on good rationales for it). The wording can be improved, but the message is there. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Approaching this as an outsider, with little knowledge of NFCC or NFCI history and nuances, I would suggest tweaking the wording to something like the following to help rookie editors:
This acceptable use applies to the use of cover art within articles exclusively devoted to the work associated with the cover. When the work is critically described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician, this acceptable use does not apply, and the NFCC criteria (particularly NFCC#8 "contextual significance") typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. See 2011 RfC on NFCI#1 for more information.
Also: Is there any objection to adding the words "In standalone articles ..." to the text of NFCI#1 (rather than that clarification only appearing in the footnote)? I ask because many editors reading NFCI will not bother to click on the footnote, so perhaps those key words could be inserted into NFCI#1. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This is where we start getting into tricky territory that its better to remain silent on unless we get a clearer consensus. There are cases of a non-musical work (film, tv show, video game) where there is also a released soundtrack that just barely meets notability guidelines and could have its own article, but editor decisions have considered leaving the soundtrack within the body of the non-musical work article. (eg: Armageddon (1998 film), Music of Portal 2). In association with that soundtrack, in most cases we do allow the cover art there to also be used. But there are cases where the album art is highly or exactly the same as the cover art of the main work, at which point inclusion of that second cover is pointless since the branding/marketing is already there. The problem is to try to spell this out in any short detail is near impossible, and it is better to detail with the cases that are fringe as they come up in light of the normal 10-point NFCC instead of trying to modify the careful wording of NFCI to force the case to work. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So it is better to leave the text of NFCI#1 alone. Any concerns about the wording of the most recent proposal (above) of the footnote text? Footnotes are not as binding as the text itself, so we can perhaps be more helpful in the footnote, even if we cannot describe every contingency. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No, not quite, but I see what's missing. We need to explain that NFCI#1 is based on the fact that the cover art on the article on the published work at minimumimplicitly carries marketing, branding, and identification information from the publisher that is important to have visually there on that article per NFCC#8 (as argued in the RFC) - hence why this allowance is easily met for the base case. Any other use needs to still meet NFCC#8, but there's no implicit argument and editors must explicitly give one. How to say that cleanly, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
How about this:
This acceptable use applies to the use of cover art within articles exclusively devoted to the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. This acceptable use does not apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article. See the 2011 RfC on NFCI#1 for more information.
Doesn't really work in cases where we start with a standalone article about an album (when use of the image is considered ok), but that content is then merged into the artist article (e.g. because both albums are short enough for this to make sense) with the same content as a section devoted to the album (when by the above it is no longer considered ok). Or the opposite situation, where because an artist has only released one or two albums, they are covered in sections in the artist article devoted to the individual albums (not ok), but when these are split into separate articles with the same content - now ok. Doesn't make sense, and just encourages people to creates stubby album articles so that cover art can be included. I think replacing 'articles' with 'articles or sections' would solve this, and this is the point I made above. Mimimizing use of these images would be achieved by only having the image in a section devoted to the album in cases where there wasn't also a standalone article about the album, which I also suggested above. Feel free to misinterpret if you wish. --Michig (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
My impression from the older RfC and from the discussion above is that the community consensus is standalone articles only, not "articles or sections". Can you point to some discussion or RfC where the "or sections" was discussed & approved? The Pink Floyd FAC also rejected the "or sections" approach. Maybe we could just use "articles" for now in the footnote (we are so close to finalizing it :-) and start a separate discussion dedicated to deciding if "or sections" is appropriate. Does that sound okay? --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Consensus on footnote?
Seeing no comments for the past couple of days, I added the most recent text (above) into the article as a footnote to NFCI#1. If anyone objects, feel free to revert or tweak the wording, and continue the discussion here. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have undone this change because I do not feel consensus here, at the Pink Floyd FAC, or in the previous RfC on cover art supports this move to modify the guideline. While I haven't looked over every last comment, I think you are misreading the discussion Noleander. Masem's "closing proposal" in the old RfC had no administrative authority and was simply that editor's own opinion about the issue backed up by editors with a similar view. Unless I am missing something, that discussion did not even address this specific issue of cover art in sections of an article that discuss the work. I am also not seeing where the "or sections approach" was rejected by anyone at the FAC but the two main campaigners on the matter. Obviously, Masem and JMilburn maintain a very strict interpretation of NFCC, but there is no indication provided in any of these discussions that the community supports their view.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The closer of that RFC was Hydroxonium , not me, so it was closed properly. This also extends from the use of non-frees in lists and galleries that have been around a long time. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree it was closed properly, and that close made no mention of this specific contention. Your opinion in that RfC was therefore simply that and should not be the basis of any claims about consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So you're ignoring the whole discussion above about coming to agreement on that? --MASEM (t) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I see a divided group of little more than half a dozen editors. The only one who seemingly is persuaded is Noleander, but Noleander's own comment about anyone being free to revert the addition of the footnote and call for initiating a discussion on inclusion in sections suggests that even that editor has not "approved" this change to the guideline. On the other hand, I see a discussion where this was never raised as a serious question and another where most editors seem to take no issue with such image use. Clearly you do not have consensus for this change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is important to capture a particular position in writing and go from there. The information in the footnote is a sensible guideline. It seems to have the support of a significant number of editors, and it errs on the "safe" side of discouraging the use of non-free images. The problem with deleting the footnote is that we go back to square one, where NFCI#1 is misleading, incomplete, and leads to repetitious and inconclusive discussions. At least with the footnote, NFCI#1 is now specific and clear. I think we should take it as a starting point and go from there. For example, if you have a particular change to make, we could start a new discussion on that specific change. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
For obvious reasons you are likely to find a significant number of editors supporting any given interpretation of core rules, but this does not mean there is a widespread community consensus. Above and in other discussions I have seen other editors raise arguments against this specific position. Guidelines and policies are generally meant to be fluid and nuanced to allow some consideration for exceptions that the community has not seriously considered. So far I have not seen an actual example given of where the community has decided one way or the other on this specific matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No it's not. Its about the extraneous use of non-free cover images. NFC#UUI#9 applies to the logic that comes out from here. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It is completely separate because that involves using the image for visual identification of the subject on the cover, not for visual identification of the work itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
And? It's the same issue. If a work is discussed as part of a different article that is not about the work, the allowance to use the cover is not immediate, unlike if it was an article on the work itself. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Except they aren't the same even in the manner of argument. A magazine cover depicting an athlete, for example, being used to identify the athlete is an obviously separate issue from using the magazine cover to identify the issue of the magazine when the issue is the subject of critical commentary. There are other criteria to consider so obviously the allowance is not "immediate" as would be the case with an article on the magazine issue, but it does not then inherently follow that it can only be allowed if the cover itself is discussed. You are not really allowing a middle-ground.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The middle ground is explained between the added footnote and the extra pieces on UUI#9. If its not an cover image for the article on the work itself, it needs critical commentary to be included, but importantly, its not that it can never otherwise be used, which is what you seem to be interpreting this discussion as. We recognize that some case (such as the biased coverage during OJ Simpson trial) magazine covers will be necessary. This applies for all other types of cover art. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Except even if you allow some exceptions, it is still not representative of a consensus view to say we "typically require" critical commentary on the cover art. You have not pointed out where there has been a consensus reached on that point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure where this is going. Can you give an example of an article where a piece of cover art is needed to significantly improve the reader's understanding on an article (NFCC8), where that work is not the subject of the article? Then we can talk about something concrete rather than abstract. Black Kite (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Basically any instance where the work is a cover would fit the bill, because visual identification on its own can greatly improve the reader's understanding. For example, if someone does not recognize the title of a work but would recognize the cover art it would be clearly helpful to that individual's understanding of the subject to illustrate what work is being discussed. If the work is significant yet obscure or has a similar name to another work it is also helpful to that individual's understanding of the subject to be able to identify the work being discussed. Mind you, NFCC8 does not say "article" but "topic" so it is not a matter of whether it significantly aids the reader's understanding of the text but whether it significantly aids the reader's understand of the overall subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
@DevilsAdv: I, like you, prefer to interpret non-free criteria liberally. I wanted the album covers included in the Pink Floyd article under NFCI#1. When I was challenged by other editors, I thought they were crazy because NFCI#1 plainly stated that any article with critical commentary could use the non-free cover art. Why did I change my mind? I looked at 20 articles on bands/musicians who were associated with famous cover art, and found only one band article that included the art. I then looked at 20 articles of authors who were associated with famous books, and found zero (0) articles including the cover art. At that point, it became clear to me that the WP community had discussed this very issue hundreds of times, and in each case came to the conclusion that NFCI#1 does not apply to band/author articles (instead, NFCC#8 must be expressly satisfied). The footnote simply captures this community consensus. There are exceptions, of course, and NFCC#8 is always the ultimate fallback. The only goal of this RfC is to assist future editors that may encounter Pink Floyd-like situations in the future: they should be able to read NFCI#1 and make a decision and move on, so they can spend more time improving the encyclopedia and less time scratching through the archives of this talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Use in other articles isn't really a reliable gauge. I know from personal experience that these editors go out and try to remove such images on the basis of their arguments. A determined group of editors can easily shape the appearance of Wikipedia in a way that might lead you to think there is a community consensus when there is really just one group imposing its view on the rest of the community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's say that there is a group of editors has been going around for several years removing cover art from band/author articles, even though there is some opposition. That establishes a de facto consensus by virtue of the fact that hundreds of discussions on scores of talk pages have always produced the same result. So let's start with that and move forward. If you want to propose a new rule (e.g. "cover art is acceptable within author/band articles provided that the work is discussed in detail") go ahead and start a new RfC and propose the rule and see if we can get it adopted. I might even support such a rule. All the footnote is doing is capturing the current practice within WP. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't establish a consensus at all because it is pretty easy for a determined group of editors to overwhelm the local regulars as there may very well just be one editor or none keeping an eye on the article. You don't even really need to have an overwhelming consensus to achieve the goal as the mere lack of consensus in the face of a determined opposition is enough. Also, I am not saying this is the only reason such articles don't include cover art. However, those reasons may vary from there being a plethora of free images to use to a simple desire to limit the number of images on the page. If you don't see such images often on good articles or featured articles, on the other hand, it is likely because these editors are quick to jump on any such incidence and make attaining such status essentially contingent on satisfying that position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
FACs are reviewed by a number of editors, not all who are strongly interested in NFC. If the zealous treatment actually hurts an FAC's chances, this will be pointed out by those non-interested NFC editors at FAC, and taken into consideration by the FAC delegate when promoting or failing an FAC candidate. Ergo the end result of passed FAC does represent a wider consensus than just those interested in reducing NFC. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Featured Articles, post 2008, are pretty much the standard in regards to how non-free imagery is used, there's even a well-written Dispatch on how NFCs should be reviewed at FAC. (2008 is when the Foundation issued their statement on non-free media and the founding of NFC as policy). So if a large series of FAs don't use imagery in that way, that's pretty much the bar for all articles on WP. Since using covers outside of their use in infoboxes on articles about them, or when attached with critical commentary are regularly discouraged at FAC, this is a consensus. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We do not use non-free imagery to help someone visual recognize a work they may be searching for, since that only helps those that may have seen that image before which is an assumed minority of the readership. Remember that NFCC#8 has two parts: it must help the reader's comprehension , and it's omission harms the reader's comprehension. Most extraneous cover art meets the first part, but nearly always fails the second unless the cover art itself is part of the critical commentary of the article. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh. No, in that case, the image fails NFCC8 outright. I was hoping for an example where NFCC8 actually might be passed, but clearly that isn't it, and would leave all our musical articles (as well as many others) free to massive non-free overuse. No. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For Black Kite, a counter example is the use of the "Dark Side of the Moon" cover on Pink Floyd's page (one of the images that started this discussion). Its inclusion is merited there as the prism image has become iconic for the band, and not just to identify that album in the article's history. Same with the Starman image for Rush (band) that appeared on the back of an album. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh indeed, and there's a few others, notably on controversial album art. The point I was making was to find out if Devil's Advocate was claiming that any use may be valid under NFCC8, and since that's what xe does appear to be claiming, that's clearly invalid. 17:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It is only invalid if you think NFCC8 is the only consideration for inclusion. Am I saying any time there is critical commentary on a work it should result in the work's non-free cover art being added to an article? No, because the result would ultimately violate other elements of the NFCC. However, it would satisfy the particular criteria of NFCC8 and there is no consensus for modifying that wording to state otherwise. Above we have at least three other editors who disagreed and I know there are others not commenting here, including admins, who also disagree.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But again, it comes back to understanding that NFCC#8 is a two part requirement, and that all 10 elements of NFCC have to be met (you don't get to pick or choose). The first part, aiding comprehension, can nearly always be argued. But it is the second part that is critical, if omission harms the reader's understanding. That's a case where it will almost always fail if it is not either a top-of-page infobox image nor having critical commentary on the art itself (not the work it represents) in the article. I could have a band article, where a whole section is devoted to their most critical, ground-breaking and influential album where in addition to the album's article, there's a good 3-4 paragraphs in the band's section, but none of it discussing the cover art in any way. Yes, the album is important to the band, but the album art is not necessary to understand that, failing NFCC#8 part two. If you take away the footnote, you'll notice that the NFCI section still requires all images to meet all parts of NFCC; again, the list is not a means of shortcutting out from NFCC, just cases where they are most likely able to meet NFCC. With just that wording, your argument for inclusion still fails since NFCC#8 is part of the requirement. The only reason to add the footnote is that editors tend to forget the lead part of that list about meeting NFCC completely and just focus on the wording of NFCI#1. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Except, there is a logical connection between visual identification and understanding that serves as the basis for including the cover art on album articles even when the art isn't the subject of critical commentary. You keep dismissing the idea of people recognizing the work from the cover art as not being the purpose of including the images, but that is one clear purpose for visual identification. Not everyone can connect a name to an image or vice versa, however together it can immediately spark recognition and that enhances the chances of a reader, not only understanding, but retaining the information. Just because someone has seen a work before does not mean they know anything about that work or the individual or individuals who created the work. When people recognize something in an article it helps to preserve the memory of that information in the reader's mind in part because it may get them more interested in reading about the work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
And we will keep dismissing any reasoning that's based on the images being used to help recognition because that only helps a small subset of readers, and fails the second part of NFCC#8. One example that points to this is the change that removed non-free images from lists and tables like discographies and episode lists. The only reason those images existed there were to provide recognition, but would not otherwise help those unfamiliar with the work, which we have to assume is the majority. Because of this, and working towards minimal free use, they were removed. Now, when we actually have an article on a copyrighted work, including the cover is there not to lead to recognition but, at minimum, to implicitly show what the marketing and branding is for the work even if that facet isn't discussed in the article. (If more can be said, hey, great). It is still not there to make the visual connection between the work and the art. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lists are inherently different from regular articles in several ways so how we treat non-free content there does not apply to articles. As lists are intended as a navigational aid to direct readers to relevant articles there is no inherent need for images at all, let alone copyrighted images. Recognition in an article is completely different as there is usually substantial content on the work that is aided by the recognition. It does not just help a "small subset of readers" as many readers go to an article because they are already vaguely familiar with the subject and simply wish to learn more about it. Not to mention that even if they did not already have some encounter with a work, they may encounter the work at a later time and so their understanding of the subject is subsequently aided by being able to connect the image with the commentary they found in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But again, how does this meet NFCC#8, about the omission harming the comprehension of the article? If there is no discussion about the cover art, the only people it helps are those that have seen the cover before, which is not good enough for NFC purposes. This whole "recognition" thing is not accepted as a rationale for images on WP. It would be nice to have if we didn't have a free content mission and could work under US Fair Use law, but within the framework of trying to minimize non-free media, it so easy to be abused that we avoid this reasoning. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Fair use" inherently means it can be used for free in the appropriate context. NFCC is in large part about insuring we are more conservative about non-free content than legally-required so that we don't tread the line of fair use, though there are also other reasons to minimize the use of any content free or otherwise that also factor into the equation. What we are talking about is not treading that line by any measure. Using cover art in the context of academic discussion of a copyrighted work, whether it is in an article devoted to the work or one devoted to the author or authors of the work, is a strongly-protected fair use exemption. It is an exemption based, in essence, on recognition, i.e. "visual identification", of the work. The wording is right there in the guideline.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
NFC is not a legal policy. It's designed around fair use law to help maintain it, but its goal per the Foundation resolution is to assure WP stays on its free-content mission approach. That's why we are specifically more strict than fair use. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
With there being about half a million non-free images on the project, such a claim is frankly absurd. We gave up on that mission a long time ago. Given that the Foundation has been approached about the serious abuses here multiple times and have chosen to do nothing about it, the message is clear; the mission has been abandoned. I fail to see any reason why we have to hold to it when the Foundation itself refuses to hold to it. As Devil's Advocate notes, as an educational resource we have wide liberty to use non-free content under terms of Fair Use law. There's really no reason not to do so anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you can get a free image that fulfills the same purpose just as well then obviously that should be favored. It is just that some situations, such as with cover art, there really is no suitable free replacement and it does significantly enhance the reader's understanding when there it critical commentary about the work. As to Masem's point, I was not saying it is a legal policy, but that one significant aspect is the question of copyright law. Encouraging free content is certainly another significant aspect, but it requires that there be a feasible way to use free content in the situation. Obviously, copyrighted cover art does not have a free replacement that can visually identify the work just as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I added a disputed tag to the footnote so that people won't get the impression that we actually reached a consensus. We just have a few determined editors shouting down everyone else and that is no basis for making such contentious and sweeping changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
But it has long term consensus. You're asking to include frivolous use of NFC images completely against even what the Foundation says in their resolution. NFC is supposed to be exceptional, you're asking it not to be. Any counter argument to that fails the Foundation's mission. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh please, what you are saying is not even remotely an accurate assessment of my position or this discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A wording comment, or two
Sorry to be late to the party -- various distractions IRL I had to be attending to.
Broadly I think the footnote is correct. One slight wording issue I wondered about was the use of "This acceptable use... " and "This acceptable use does not apply...". I just find that on a quick, superficial look the latter may shade a little bit too close to "Use B is unacceptable" (a misapprehension I think Noleander himself may have jumped to at one moment), rather than "Use B may be acceptable, but only if there is a good reason for it".
Can I therefore put up the following edit suggestion:
"This acceptable use applies to... " to become "NFCI#1 relates to..."; and
"This acceptable use does not apply... " to become "This rationale does not apply..."
Possibly "articles exclusively devoted to..." is not quite right either, since stray peripheral notes in an article would not invalidate the use of cover art. What we really mean is perhaps something more like "articles whose main subject is..."
Finally, for this discussion (though I don't see any need to add any explicit nod to it in the footnote), one other case where I think we'd accept that cover art could be pretty uncontroversial might be in an article on an illustrator, who was particularly associated e.g. with a particular series of books that they had done. In such a case there's a particular NFCC#8 rationale that showing a representative cover gives the reader a particular idea of what those covers looked like, and the style of the artist. In appropriate cases this might also apply to writer/illustrators who illustrate their own work. No presumption against that specific case should I think be inferred from the broader position on the use of covers in articles about authors or bands in general. Jheald (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on putting the text of the footnote (either in original form, or as amended as you suggest) in the body of NFCI#1 itself? --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to leave it as a footnote. IMO, it is essential for the various itemised guidance points in WP:NFC to remain as short as possible, if the page is to remain readable. Greenlighting a longer NFCI#1 would open the gate on the others to be similarly lengthened, explained, qualified, detailed, etc... Much better, IMO, to have a series of very short 1-line points, that can be rapidly navigated and assimilated, with expansions in footnotes if absolutely necessary -- especially now that the software can expand the contents of footnotes in place when the link is selected. Jheald (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
If nobody objects in the next couple of days, I propose to go ahead and make the changes above. Jheald (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Multiple non-free images in an article
What is the official position here on multiple non-free images being used in a single article. Specificallly, I'm referring to articles on music albums or singles where there is more than one version of the album sleeve in existance. This used to occur frequently in the 60s and 70s when the UK and US versions of a record would have different sleeves. I ask because an alternative sleeve was recently deleted with the requestor citing NFCC#3a, yet a quick browse through the discographies of bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, the Who, etc reveals many records where multiple sleeves are used. I assume this is more than just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I'm guessing many of those records have been Featured Articles at some point. Thanks. Robman94 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no restriction against multiple non-frees outside of recognizing we strive for minimal use per NFCC#3a. For alt album covers, the treatment varies. Technically, alternate covers should have to merit inclusion beyond the general allowance that WP:NFCI#1 allows for; that is, the alt cover art should be explained in detail with sourced commentary from the text. However, the music projects have generally argued that the various branding in different regions is sufficient to have alt. covers included under the same reason the first cover can be included per WP:NFCI#1. A semi-accepted (but far from documented) medium has been that as long as there's vast differences in the cover art, the alternatives are reasonable to include without comment. Differences that only amount to slight coloring changes, poses, text, etc that don't otherwise make it difficult to see the connection between albums are generally considered too small to warrant the alt. cover art. Its tenacious advice at the moment, and might help to see the examples you're talking about to consider. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Language that has been frequently discussed here in the past (see the archive search for this page), originating from a long series of discussions at WT:ALBUMS and reflecting the majority of decisions in this area at WP:FFD is
Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion.
This essentially reflects the point, that if we consider an album cover important to show, as informing the reader's understanding of how the album was branded and marketed and made into an identifiable object, so passing NFCC #8, that rationale also applies to an alt cover, if the one item cannot convey equivalent significant information (NFCC #3a) -- i.e. if the alt cover is also strongly associated with the album, and is very different to what the reader would learn from the first cover.
The previous wording at Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover appears to have been added unilaterally by Uniplex (talk· contribs) in October 2011 (diff), without discussion apart from a single exchange of edit summaries. Misleadingly, it is not something WP:NFCI#1 mandates, and contrary to Uniplex's edit-summary assertion, it does not reflect the run of previous discussion here, nor, as Masem notes above, the run of decisions at WP:FFD, or generally accepted practice. I have therefore changed the paragraph to the following (diff), which I now offer up for further discussion:
If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, per WP:NFCC#3 use of non-free content is to be minimal, and not to be used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion. Covers that are essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc, should not be included.
No doubt further tweaks and improvements could be made. Jheald (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal regarding the policy
I made a proposal here the people watching this page might be interested in. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Non-free content review
I would like to ask if WP:NFCR could be given an exemption for the use of non-free content. During a discussion, to put it very short, there was a discussion on an image over its use, because of its fair-use rationales and the inclusion of an identifiable person. Eventually I uploaded an entirely new image under a similar but different name, as I felt that the old name didn't comply with the source's guidelines on trademark use in names, and the new one did. To make sure that the wrong one wasn't deleted (i.e. the new one), I posted a thumbnail of the new image with the intention of informing users involved in the discussion of the new one to be kept and used in accordance to non-free content rules. However, the thumbnail was promptly taken down by a user.
If there are any future discussions in which there are queries over the status of multiple images of either a similar name or content, I feel that these non-free images should be allowed to be posted there for comparison sake, and for clarity. Optakeover(Talk) 07:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary. You can always link to images via the colon trick (eg [[:File:example.jpg]]). --MASEM (t) 08:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Boldly 100,000 pixels
Yes, 0.1 megapixels exists, but I say, let's stick to mainly integers.
it is not the most straightforward form of counting objects
to calculate in megapixels requires a division by one million, not detailed in the calculation instructions (nor should it be).
0.1 x implies less precision than 100,000 but we counter that with the modifier "about".
I've copyedited for clarity by removing excessive modifiers, and expressed the boundaries as limits of a range, right up front.
--Lexein (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Followup question: have we ever allowed 1 megapixel non-free images? Where? I suppose it would be good to get some statistics. I wonder if there's a tool which lets me see a distribution of file sizes AND image dimensions for non-free images. --Lexein (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Database reports/Large non-free files which lists the largest files in bytes. Files with lots of pixels would normally appear there. However, a file with more than one million pixels have not necessarily been allowed; they might just be undiscovered files needing reduction. Also, many of the files in that list are in other formats such as OGV which requires extra size. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! There are a few candidates for moving to Commons, too. --Lexein (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Free equivalent and loose interpretation
I'm literally afraid to ask this question. Every time I've asked about seemingly marginal policies enforced by zealous misinterpretation of them, I get flamed, and not helped to understand. So, I'm going to ask anyways. This is about photos (which are licensed as free by the photographer) of public works of art (copyrighted, but public, and used for educational and discussion purposes in the article).
People are interpreting "free equivalent" to mean "only some completely different work of art in some other country, which has freedom of panorama."
The essayWP:Freedom of panorama is an essay, being tossed around with the force of policy, and worse, lacks citations of reliable sources about this concept.
So I want an independent reliable legal source for this "interpretation". Why? Because it's resulting in the rather devastating removal of all public works of art in the United States from Wikipedia articles.
The arguments offered for deletion are specious, based on hyperbolic exaggerations of fears of some nebulous legal threat. Where is this feared threat coming from? Fair use is enshrined in law and has been supported in recent court cases.
No remedy is invited, such as get permission from the copyright owner. Nor, if such permission/license is obtained, is it respected. So: where is the solid foundation for deleting such photos? What.am.I.missing?
(As not a lawyer, I want clear guidance on this, and clear sources upon which that guidance is based. But I have not yet met anyone who is really qualified to discuss this in a neutral way: they're either copyright lawyers out to make bank on interpreting fair use as theft, or fair use defense lawyers out to make bank on interpreting copyright as theft from commons. I think we need some judges weighing in here.) --Lexein (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, there are different things here. The first is: Is the image free? -- i.e. are we absolutely certain that nobody anywhere could level a copyright complaint on any grounds at all for any use of the image in any way. WP is "the free encyclopedia", and a big part of what we're about is to be a free resource that people can freely re-use and re-purpose in other ways. So if at all possible, we want images that are free, not just at the level of "nobody would ever sue about that", but completely free, so that if somebody took the image and put it on a commercial postcard, or as an illustration in a commercial book, or reused it in any other way, they would be completely safe to do so. That is the bar we set for an image to be considered "free", and yes it is a high one, but it is deep rooted in the very goals of the project.
The second question is, if an image doesn't make that high bar of what we consider to be absolutely free of copyright issues, shall we use it anyway under the U.S. Fair Use doctrine. And this is where the NFC policy comes in. There are several principles that underly the NFC policy. Firstly, we still want maximum reusability. In particular, we absolutely want people to be able to reproduce WP articles verbatim, even if they are commercial entities working in a for-profit setting. So any claim we make under U.S. fair use law must be sufficiently solid that it could also confidently be made by a U.S. commercial entity, without having to rely on WP's educational or non-profit status. Secondly, WP's reputation rests on its community-sourced free content -- we don't want that tarnished by excessive use of high-value fair use material, even if it might (just) be legally justifiable, if that gave a sense that the tail was wagging the dog, seeming excessive and out of proportion to the weight of the free content in that article. Thirdly, and it seems this is what you may be particularly running into, we won't use non-free content if free content might reasonably be found (or be created) that could achieve the same encyclopedic purpose. The logic here is that what we're about is getting people to bring forward and pool free content. So even if there is a photo of a sculpture in a U.S. collection that is unlikely to be any legal fair-use problem for what we want to do with it, but is still nevertheless non-free because it is not completely free of copyright restrictions for all purposes, then we will not use it, if there is a chance that someone from Europe might come up with a picture of a sculpture by the artist that was covered by freedom of panorama, and therefore would be completely freely reusable. We want to encourage that European photographer to come up with a totally free image.
So, if you want to use a picture of a sculpture from a U.S. collection, that the sculptor still has a potential unreleased copyright interest in, then for our purposes, you must provide a non-free content rationale, explaining why only the picture of this sculpture (or only another similarly unfree picture) will do, and why no alternative completely free picture is possible, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. That's the policy, and I'm afraid it comes right from the top. Jheald (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
(Of course, if you can get a blanket release from the sculpture copyright owner, releasing their copyright interest in the photo for any and all possible purpose by anyone, and you can email a copy to WP:OTRS, then they'll put a nice OTRS sticker on the bottom of the image page, and that will be a rock-solid affidavit that the image is free). Jheald (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Correction When I wrote that, I hadn't seen this over at Commons. WMF is complying with a take-down request from the Oldenburg van Bruggen Studio regarding sculptures in Europe, where there is freedom-of-panorama under local law, on the basis that the hosting is in the USA, and the Studio's assertion that it can claim a copyright interest in the works in the USA, even though the photographs would be exempt from that copyright claim in the countries where they were taken.
If that is correct, then there would be no possibility of taking a photograph in Europe that WP could consider free, so WP:NFCC #1 would not apply. Select images therefore might well be usable here under our NFC policy, provided it could be convincingly argued that they "significantly add to reader understanding". Such rationales would need to be very well -argued and constructed, in the face of the Studio's apparent readiness to litigate. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, JHeald. The specific photo is File:Cupid's Span.jpg used in artist articles Claes Oldenburg, and Coosje van Bruggen (in which the work is discussed). The photographer does indeed release his work (the photo itself) as GFDL. The non-free, nested, rationales look good to me - what I did was a) resize it to meet the 160,000 pixel User:DASHBot limit, and b) list the actual owner/commissioner in the NFUR. (Oh, and I inquired about it at this user's Talk page, which triggered the IMHO too-hasty deletion request.) The alleged copyright owner filed a DMCA] notice against all Commons images by the artists, but against none hosted on Wikipedia - I wonder if this implies a respect for Fair Use.File:Cupid's Span (censored).jpghow about something like this for the DMCA'd images?
Based on your "we won't use it if any free replacement exists" - this straight-up excludes all U.S.-based works by these artists - that seems a ridiculous unintended side effect. This seems to mean even in an article about the work itself, right?
Smithsonian listing - it's actually owned by the City of San Francisco - based on what you wrote above, shall I add {{OTRS pending}} and contact GAP and the City of San Francisco about this?
Freedom of Panorama is better documented at Commons:Freedom of panorama with cites to specific country laws. For all purposes, while it may be an essay here, we do follow what commons says about free vs non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As a second note, the Foundation purposely set a bar stricter than fair use to encourage the creation of free content, and thus while some non-frees would easily fall into US fair use law, we have a stronger requirement for that. But as Jheald noted, the WMF did just respond to a DMCA takedown request so they have to follow that to avoid legal. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I notice the DMCA takedown is of Commons images, but no Wikipedia ones. Given their assiduousness, I read this as respecting fair use. --Lexein (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The DMCA is a law, nothing to do with fair use. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not what I meant. The copyright owner didn't DMCA the Wikipedia hosted images, only the Commons-hosted images (see @Commons, original). Because they could have, but did not, I read this as the copyright owners respecting fair use (which is also the law). --Lexein (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
DMCA doesn't allow us to second guess what the copyright holder intended (and likely why the WMF saught clarification here). We could interpret that they are respecting fair use uses, or it could be that they were completely unaware of en.wiki hosting. Until they say for sure, we have to assume a worst-case scenario. I would hope that their intention was to simply block use of the image under a CC license while respecting fair use (appropriate under our NFC) otherwise, but that's not a conclusion we can immediately use. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Until a DMCA notice listing this image arrives, we don't have to do a goddamn thing in re DMCA on this image. This fear based reasoning masquerading as certainty is dangerous, toxic, unreasonable, and inappropriate to apply to both Commons and fair use deletion discussions. You're sorta being pointy here - see my initial fears at the top of this post. --Lexein (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything about the en.wiki hosted images; as long as we treat them as non-frees as appropriate, we should be fine. I'm just saying that we cannot make any premature conclusions on the copyright holder's intent. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
To come back on one or two things:
(1) In an article on a particular work of art, I can't think of any possibility where we wouldn't consider an image of that work to be core essential fair use. A picture of a different work simply wouldn't convey the same understanding to the reader.
(2) If the Foundation thought strongly that a DMCA taketown request was groundless -- whether on fair use grounds, or others -- I am fairly sure that they would challenge it, off their own bat. They seem to have taken several weeks to consider this email from the Oldenburg Studio; the message on Commons seems to indicate that they are fully aware that some of the photographs were taken in Germany, and I for one would not be at all surprised if they have asked the Oldenburg Studio whether they really do mean the pics taken in Germany, and the Studio has said yes.
(3) Like Lexein, I think it is striking that it is the pictures on Commons, which were asserted to be free worldwide, that have had the takedown request, apparently not the pictures on en-WP that acknowledge the Studio as having a copyright interest, but claim Fair Use.
(4) While there are any serious grounds to think that there might be cause for legal doubt as to whether Commons can host the pics taken in Europe, then applying NFCC #1 against pics taken in the USA for which Fair Use is being claimed seems to me inappropriate. However, people must be very sure that those pics pass the rest of WP:NFC, in particular NFCC #8, NFCC #3 and NFCC #2. Jheald (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. So, for this image, should I bother with {{OTRS pending}} and asking the San Francisco Arts Commission (I can, no problem), or is this image doomed, in your best estimation? (And followup: what about in-file redaction of image files, rather than deleting them?) --Lexein (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with writing to SFAC is that they may own the object, but probably they don't own the copyright, which most likely is still with the artist and his assigns -- so the probability is that SFAC can't license reproductions, because it's not their copyright to license. (Of course it's not impossible that they specifically included a clause to transfer the copyright when they commissioned the piece, for the good of the people of SF, but it would be pretty unusual. Without some specific confirmation that it was their copyright to license, I think we would generally assume they did not have that power, even if somebody did write you an email saying that as far as they were concerned we could do what we liked with any pics).
As to whether that makes it game over, the question then becomes how you propose to use it, in some context where you feel it would be particularly enlightening to the reader. I see the article on Claes Oldenburg himself already has three images associated with the main text. In the context of those, I'm not sure that further images could really be argued to be "significantly adding to reader understanding" over and above what's already there. I also see that our article on Embarcadero (San Francisco) already has a general view of the Embarcadero which includes the sculpture (and apparently escaped the Oldenburg Studio's purge at Commons), so arguably that base is also already covered. Frankly it's miserable that this isn't covered by Freedom of Panorama, but unfortunately that is what seems to be the situation... I don't know what to suggest -- unless this work is thought sufficiently important that it would merit an article of its own, in its own right, rather than the perhaps more natural coverage just in passing in the Embarcadero article. Jheald (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I see the possible problem. But I'm going to go for it with the OTRS action, and ask SFAC and GAP about the copyright status that they have knowledge of, and for license for that photo.
Finally, what's your take on keeping literal [CENSORED] placeholders for DMCA taken-down images, or instead, literally-redacted images such as File:Cupid's Span (censored).jpg? --Lexein (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorely tempting, isn't it?
But there is a counter point-of-view, that I think was something particularly highlighted in the SOPA campaign. WP has things that collectively as a project we stand for: openness, freedom, accessibility of information. When those are threatened or diminished, as a project it is entirely consonant with what we are here for, for us to collectively stand up, make a noise, and campaign for them. But at the same time, we will not let our articles be skewed: they must remain anchored in WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
So while these blacked-out images are powerful (particularly if you have seen the original, and so have an idea what is blacked out), and while I would be thrilled to see them going viral across the internet, at the same time I think we must be cautious before adding a paragraph "Oldenburg image controversy" and illustrating it with a copy of a blacked-out image. My view is that we can report on how other people have reacted to this copyright assertion, but WP cannot be a pulpit for our own thoughts. Jheald (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response about activism. I agree about NPOV; that's why I'm not gung-ho about adding a text note which either references Wikipedia/WMF, or refers to the image as a Wikipedia/WMF asset, free or not. However, I'm still thinking some balance can be struck with the alternate image gallery I'm demoing at Coosje van Bruggen (see). The substitute image is totally negotiable: looking at it, I'd think reducing the text to 60% will be better. But note that there's a (currently faux) content tag by the image title which reads "DMCA takedown", and a citation of an independent RS for the DMCA notice.
But I have to admit, the redacted image is totally tempting. --Lexein (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
First we would have never allowed a gallery of non-free images. But even if we did, even leaving the text "DMCA takedown" is improper advocacy. Either we have an image we can use, or we don't. We don't leave placeholders like that. --MASEM (t) 07:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Krawatte Kronenhochhaus 1.jpgInverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]Inverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]
(examples added here to minimize impact on others' comments)--Lexein (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, non-free. but (look at the article history) all were free, save one (Cupid's Span). Then someone else stuck them all in a gallery. With permission, they're free, so the non-free issue goes away. "We don't leave placeholders" - that does not consider the special options for DMCA takedowns (OTRS request while deleted, and/or the [[commons:Village_pump#DMCA_Take-Down |WMF-suggested counter-notice]). The placeholder at commons, while image is deleted would permit logging OTRS pending, and DMCA counter-notice filing. "DMCA takedown", as the name of the !template, is no advocacy at all - it's entirely neutral and factual, and supported by an independent reliable source. If you prefer "DMCA removal" or "DMCA action", that's fine. Remember that DMCA actions in prose are blatantly top-templated on offending articles; something appropriate also needs to be done for images. And the proposed substitute image text is neutral too, but suggestions are welcome. ---Lexein (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Just showing an image and the mention of DMCA is pontificating on it as a problem - you're pointing out something to the reader that is a politically driven statement. It is better to simply wait out the process of counterclaim to get them restored and then readd them again, than to make the big deal of pointing out they were deleted by DMCA claims in the first place. As earlier indicated if there are reliable sources that did talk about how the photos were DMCA'd off commons that can be discussed in the article, but its otherwise not our place to suggest anything either direction to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
See Conventional PCI - top of page. Pontificating? Political? Sorry, I don't see it that way, and apparently neither does the WMF. It's a legal notice. Why should DMCA-action images not be treated the same as DMCA-action prose - in the articles affected? Maybe you explained that, but I missed it. But discussing the deletions in the article will be deleted summarily as talking about Wikipedia, and is less desirable, except as a standalone tag box template. But hey, we already have a box! I think my tag and inline citation on the image box caption is the minimal, most non-intrusive way. See examples (above): would reducing the substitute image text size help? --Lexein (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The DMCA notice is appropriate on the pages directly affected by the notice. In the PCI case , that's the article page itself since there were links in the article's references that proved a problem. In this case, the most appropriate pages are the image pages on Commons (which were the direct pages identified in the DMCA request). These pages on en.wiki about the articles are not directly included and thus mentioning an issue with the DMCA here is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point. How about recreating the images pages (without image) and putting a DMCA notice like with Conventional PCI. This would provide for the appropriate transparency for both readers, editors and googlers. It's not in your face, but if you look for it, you are confronted with the information. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at Commons (thanks, TheDJ, for your comment there). --Lexein (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
"Censored" is an admittedly bad idea - everybody ignored my alternative suggestion, and suggested nothing of their own. Discussion there is ongoing. --Lexein (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Remove "disputed" tag from footnote?
NFCC#1 is misleading, and it is easy to read it and think cover art can be included in articles on musicians & authors. There was a lengthy RfC two months ago about how to clarify NFCI#1, and the conclusion was to add a footnote (FN #1). That was done. Editor Devil's Advocate disagreed, and tried to remove the footnote twice, but was reverted by Masem and Black Kite. Devils advocate then added a "disputed" tag to the footnote. The disputed tag should be a temporary situation, and this issue should be resolved one way or another. We can either
Remove the "disputed" tag if there is consensus to do so; or
Re-open the RfC and have an admin formally close it.
So, does anyone object to removing the "disputed" tag from the footnote? And, does anyone object to re-opening the RfC so it can be formally closed? --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
We should have a formal closure of the RFC just to put it to rest. I believe that the dispute tag can thus be removed since the disagreement not a consensus view. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'll post a request in the Requests for Closure. I've never seen an RfC get formally closed after it is in the archives, but maybe that will be acceptable to the closing admin. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. The RfC was closed as "no consensus". I'm not sure that is right, so I've asked for a review of the decision here: Wikipedia:AN/RFC#Wikipedia_namespace. --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, a 2nd person says there is no consensus, and recommends a new RfC. I'll do that. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Bot for NFCC#10c enforcement
I (actually the idea for a bot is from another user, but I proposed something similar in the past) recently started discussing the possibility of a bot for NFCC#10c enforcement on some pages and would like to get some more input in order to prepare a proposal to be put on WP:VPR. See User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC Bot VPR proposal draft where I started drafting some stuff, mainly how the algorithm for such a bot should work. Another user agreed that 10c enforcement should be automated. This proposal is specifically for a bot that targets non-free media that is first used in an article and later added to additional articles without a non-free use rationale. The bot should probably leave a message at the talk page of the article and the talk page of the original uploader. I already made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 50#Bot to tag articles and files listed at NFCR but (after another user pointed out that might be problem which should solved first) I realized that further discussion is needed. Also I wouldn't make this proposal if I thought we had enough people to deal with 10c violations (I already proposed such a bot in the past, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 6#NFCC enforcement for a previous discussion. That discussion was perhaps made at the wrong time and poorly thought out).
The goals of this discussion are to research:
What were the problems with such bots in the past?
What to do in cases where an article was moved but the rationale hasn't been updated? How is the bot supposed to handle such a case?
What is the exact functionality expected from the bot?
What is the principle algorithm to use? (differs from the previous bullet point in that here the exact order of the operations carried out by the bot should be specified)
The overall goal is to be able to prepare a proposal for WP:VPR, so that a community consensus can be reached and then (pending the outcome of the VPR discussion) to make an explicit request at WP:BOTREQ. I think the more precisely we specify the bots functionality, the more concrete a proposal at VPR we can make and the more likely it is for such a bot to actually be coded. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The last time we had a bot enforce #10c was from BetaCommandBot, and that was after the WMF issued their resolution on non-free content. The bot was required to go through all the non-frees we had and assure that (among a few other checks) #10c was met. This bot did have community acceptance, but what started happening at the end of the day is that users that had uploaded a lot of images but without necessarily meeting #10c, or where pages have been moved without a proper redirect trail, were getting spammed with BCBot messages on their talk page and they started to complain. It wasn't this that would cause problems with BetaCommand and his bot later and why we lost this check, but it was a stink raised about image checks. However, now, the pool of images that likely fail #10c is going to be much much smaller, and I doubt any single uploader will be spammed about #10c. So there really wasn't any major issues with the bot checks before, just that no one has stepped up to take on that role since. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the number is rather larger now. During the peak of all the fuss over Betacommand, the number was hovering around 8-9k. It's now around 12k. To the general idea; you might get consensus for such a bot, but the person who writes it and (worse) runs it is committing wikisuicide. The whole 10c thing is a ridiculously stupid fiasco anyway. The requirement needs to be removed from NFCC for good. The Foundation isn't backing it up, and editors who enforce it are routinely dragged over the coals. Further, enforcement is completely ineffective anyway, bot or no bot. Isn't that right, Masem? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You may want to check that. That logo did get readded to two articles - with appropriate #10c rationales for each additional use, and none of the other stations have added it back yet. So yes, the system works regardless of your dismissals. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. The point is, post facto, as it has routinely been happening. I've pointed out plenty of examples to you Masem. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If the policy should be changed, then let the change occur first. As the policy stands, I support User:Toshio Yamaguchi working to get a bot in place to help assist with NFCC #10c violations. Also, where are you getting the 12k estimate from? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC Bot VPR proposal draft, I don't like the idea of automating posts to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I think the bot should either maintain its own list of 10c violations or tag the images as possible 10c violations for user review. I do support the idea of automated checking for NFCC 10c vioaltions. Also, Your pseudocode is hard to read. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The idea is for the bot to make a post at MCQ only in case where a file page includes neither a free license tag, nor a non-free file copyright tag, which is a case I believe the bot could detect but could do nothing to resolve. Regarding the pseudocode, I will try to rewrite it as soon as I find the time so that it will be better to read. Also please note that the algorithm is far from being complete yet and might need further work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Point 1 is faulty. It's not enough if an image has a free licence. Photos of non-free 3D artworks are supposed to have two licence templates (a free one for the photographer's contribution and an unfree one for the artwork). It may be better to check whether the image appears in Category:All non-free media.
Point 4.2 is also faulty. Files should only be tagged as orphaned if all transclusions are outside the main namespace. WP:NFCC#9 also says that non-free files can't be used on disambiguation pages, so I suppose that files can be tagged as orphaned if they only appear on disambiguation pages.
WP:NFCC#10c requires you to indicate the page title, but maybe not as a link. However, there's also another problem: many people list e.g. "John Doe" as article title, although the article might be called "John Doe (politician)" or "John Doe (singer)" whereas the article "John Doe" is a disambiguation page. Strictly speaking, the fair use rationale is faulty, but it might be too picky. Also, many articles use non-standard fair use rationales instead of the usual templates. I guess that you can only check whether the page title is mentioned somewhere on the file information page, but not whether the page title is part of a fair use rationale. Still, if the page title doesn't indicate the title at all, then the file has either no fair use rationale or a faulty one.
Also, it sounds like suicide to run a bot which performs this task, although it is definitely needed.
The idea of a WP:MCQ notice sounds bad: the page would probably be spammed with lots of images. If the file doesn't contain any licence template at all, it could maybe be tagged with {{subst:nld}}, or placed in some maintenance category for people to check. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
BCBot would not require a link, just a reasonable regex match of the text on the file description page of either the article name or a redirect to that article (I believe BC including de-accented variations as well). That is, if the image was used on "John Smith (artist)", the bot would require "John Smith (artist)" though this didn't need to be wikilinked, while "John Smith" alone would not be sufficient. As long as the exact behavior is spelled out of what the name matching is, it shouldn't be a problem to be tagging #10c like this. -MASEM (t) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the "John Doe" vs. "John Doe (artist)" problem; Betacommand was extensively (and sometimes brutally) attacked for not changing the target of the rationale from the former to the latter if the image was used on the latter and not the former but the rationale pointed to the former. Unless you have a plan in place to deal with the attacks that will happen as a result of a bot run like this, the failure of the bot will be epic in proportions. It will cause far, far more disruption than any notional disruption that is caused by not having a rationale. The reality is that not having a rationale doesn't cause a disruption. What it does cause is a failure of compliance with policy, which only a very few people bother to enforce. In exchange for 'fixing' this problem, we'll be causing thousands of articles to be stripped of images, thousands of talk pages spammed, and noticeboards to light up like a Christmas tree. Forgive me, but I fail to see the point, or any benefit worth the mass disruption this will cause. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This will be an issue, but its one that I think we address when a BAG request is made, specifically pointing to what happened in the past and how to make sure that policing policy is not attacked. It might require a #10c maintenance board where images tagged can be double checked for obvious typos/broken moves w/o redirects, and so forth, though that should not function as a board to create rationales where ones don't exist. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Policing the policy has always been attacked. It's a given. It is also a given there is precious little support for the people who do the policing. Rarely is anyone admonished for even the most verbally brutal assualts against people who police NFCC. Regardless, this 'solution' fixes nothing. As I made an analogy before, it's continuing to pick up the cow patties in the field and never wondering how the cow patties got there in the first place. Case point; User:Pjoef, with more than five years experience and 38k+ edits to this project fails to see anything wrong with adding File:MMFF LOGO.jpg to dozens of articles and doing nothing about adding rationales. Until serious efforts are made to stop the cow patties being produced (most especially by very experienced editors), I will not support any effort to clean up the cow patties. Cleaning up the cow patties isn't effective. It does nothing to fix the problem. All it does is (very) temporarily remove a symptom. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone inform him that he didn't add rationales when he added those images (which appears to be cut/paste operation?) Doesn't look like it, and that's part of the problem is that unless we have a bot to inform users of #10c problems, or change the Wikimedia software to immediately flag non-free image additions in some way, we simply can't stop users from adding non-free to begin with. That means its an education problem - since we don't have any requirements for editors to read any policy (much less NFC) before they edit, they can be completely oblivious to how to handle NFC. We can't do anything before that point. That's why a bot to do #10c is at least going to inform users of the problem and that will make them aware. Moaning and bitching that people are ignorant of NFC is not helping. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Masem, your tone in addressing me is becoming increasingly uncivil. You previously accused me of being "obstructionist" and a "petulant child". I disagree with your approach to NFCC enforcement. That doesn't constitute moaning or bitching or being a petulant child. I am asking you now for the second time to cease engaging in such uncivil dialogue. As to the points you raise, needlessly encumbered with insults; No you can't stop them from adding non-free content nor would we want them to. The point is that if after 38k edits and 5 years of experience an editor doesn't have any idea about the requirement for rationales, having a bot running around obliterating his work ISN'T going to help anyone. It WILL create acrimony. We've seen it before. There are other methods of handling this, without a bot. I've been trying for months now to get you to see this, without success. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Your other methods all appear to involve getting rid of the NFC policy because you claim can't be enforced, or that no one including the WMF cares about its enforcement. Why have you not proposed this in an RFC? Instead, you're sitting and moping and taking valuable time from actual discussion about how to proceed forward. You're disrupting the work of others, as long as WP:NFC remains policy. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Masem, this isn't the first time you've claimed I am disrupting the work of others for voicing an opinion. Please stop. I am no more disruptive in voicing my opinion than you are in voicing yours. I've outlined methods before. I've done so again below. One option, yes, is to get rid of NFCC policy. That's not the only option. It's the one I am in favor of, that is all. Please stop insulting me, claiming I'm obstructionist, disruptive, etc. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Stefan Regarding point 1: Is that a requirement? I checked some random images from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-free 3D art and found none that have a free as well as a non-free license template. Do you mind pointing me to an example? Also, is that a rule written down somewhere? I admit that I've never encountered such a case myself (at least not that I could remember).
Regarding point 2: I am not sure I understand your point here. 4.2 would return false only if there are no transclusions at all, otherwise 4.2 would return true. Do you mind clarifying what you mean, I don't seem to get it.
Regarding 5.1: Yes, indeed. Thanks for catching that. You are right that a wikilink is not actually required in the rationale, only the article title. So what is the bot supposed to do if a non-free image has a rationale without wikilink saying The Desert but the file is used in The Desert (film)? Maybe the bot could try to check whether there is a rationale that is similar in some characters or words to the title of the page the file is used on and not remove in that case.
Regarding the MCQ notice, your proposal of having the bot place such files in a special maintenance category sounds good.
Finally, regarding this being a suicide run, my opinion is that the only other option would be to trash the policy entirely, which of course would mean to delete all non-free media, which I believe isn't going to happen. Oh, and btw this being a suicide run seems to make it even more fitting for a bot, since contrary to a human editor it won't give a damn about what people say. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Point 1: See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Photo of art. A photo has two copyrights: the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright. I believe that the idea is that the photographer's copyright usually fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The article about a copyrighted sculpture is not specifically about the photo taken by Getty Images; any other photo of the same sculpture would serve the same purpose, and then you might as well obtain a free licence from the photographer. I think that this was discussed recently at WP:MCQ. You might find something useful in the archives to that page.
Point 4.2: Sorry, I misread the algorithm. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems we should be fine if we simply regard any file like File:Jupiter.SouthStation.agr.jpg as non-free and ignore the free license tag. Also, the algorithm, as currently written would correctly detect this file as non-free, because what matters is whether a non-free copyright tag is present, not whether a free license tag is also there. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
But, the person who runs the bot will be the victim. It's still a suicide run. I want to point out that some time ago I did a study regarding the success of notifying the article talk page where non-free media was used but failing 10c in terms of whether the image was corrected with an added rationale or the image was removed. The notifying the article talk page via bot (which was done before, by the way), was an abject failure in this study. Rarely were the images fixed or removed. A parallel study where the images were removed for failing 10c showed considerably more success (most images remained off the articles). The idea that if we simply notify the people in question the problem will be fixed is flawed. With decreasing manpower all over the project, it was a problem and will become a larger problem.
As to trashing the policy or not allowing non-free content at all; those are not the only options. One of the options is the status quo; 10c goes unenforced, the Foundation doesn't care, and only a very small handful of editors care (easily less than 20, probably less than 10). Another option is to develop better interface tools to handle the addition of non-free content into articles, such that compliance becomes remarkably easier to an editor. As is, an editor has no reason to have any knowledge of NFCC policy. You can be an editor here with years of experience, tens of thousands of edits, and not once have run into NFCC policy despite working with images on many occasions. Addressing this problem is another option, one that address the fact that cattle keep wandering into our field doing what cattle do.
Personally, I think getting rid of the NFCC policy is the best route. That's not the corporate line though, and it's blasphemy to speak it. Reality; in all the years we've tried to keep a lid on NFCC use, no one has come up with a solution that works to minimize non-free content and keep us focused on our mission. I.e., no one can solve it. Strongly related to that is the Foundation simply doesn't care. They've been approached about this on quite a number of occasions, and refuse to even discuss it. The last time it even came up at one of their board meetings was five years ago now. They simply don't care. They make millions upon millions per year, and there's no motivation to upset that income stream. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"the person who runs the bot will be the victim"
The victim of what? The victim of possible disagreement regarding the removal of a non-free image? If so, then what's the problem? Since I believe only an experienced editor and bot op would run such a bot that person should (hopefully) be able to deal with such a case in a meaningful manner. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
People who have attempted to enforce 10c have come under an excessive amount of hate and derision. The people who levy this hate and derision are rarely, if ever, warned or blocked for their hate filled attacks. Usually, over time, a large number of threads erupt on various noticeboards, and the person who runs the bot or does the enforcement directly is found at fault. That's the short of it. Please see my comments further above; having a bot do this work solves nothing. It just (very) temporarily puts a bandage on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The incidents that are most at the top of my mind are editors that complained to Beta and Hammer and others that were #10c enforcing in the past when the article name in the rationale was different from the article it was used on, expecting these #10c enforcers to "fix" the simple problems. Granted, some were simple typos, but I remember at least one case where there was a messed up move where a redirect wasn't left, and the editor complaining about the #10c notification complained that those enforcers should have gone back through the article history to correct it themselves. Granted, per BURDEN, the corrections should all be on those wanting to use NFC and thus they should fix the corrections, but these people were being chewed out for not doing "simple" fixes, though what was considered simple was broad and inconsistent. Thus, when getting approval for a new bot, it needs to be absolutely clear where the responsible and to what degree of responsible there has to be on the bot operator to fix "simple" problems (if any should be fixed this way). --MASEM (t) 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Also consider this page [2] (note that the page was later courtesy blanked); this was before anything with Beta and ArbCom, at the near end of the image checks requires by the recent WMF resolution passage. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, technically NFCC#10c is not a Foundation requirement. [3]. Not all EDPs require it. Jheald (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
So let's ditch it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that while it is not set in stone, #10c or something like it is necessary. The WMF resolution requires, per #2 "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users", and per #4 "They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content." Thus, the need for the EDP rationale to spell out where the content is being used is necessary to have a machine-readable format that demonstrates that the image is only being used with free content (in our case, mainspace). Of course, that's one way to read it; I know its not explicit, but #10c lets us satisfy those in the easiest way possible. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I interpret this to mean that there must be a common text or template on all non-free files so that a computer can determine that the file is non-free, but that the machine doesn't have to be able to tell why it is used under the EDP. In our case, the resolution is satisfied if the file is a member of Category:All non-free media. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not expecting the machine to understand the rationale (in fact, that would be bad if it could). However, the Resolution does require a rationale for an image, so no, just being in the non-free media category isn't sufficient. Where we possibly differ is that we've asked for a separate rationale for each use of the image, which is clearly above and beyond the requirements by the Foundation. Arguably , one of the biggest points of contention in #10c is when users re-use a non-free over and over without adding separate rationales, even though each use, outside of the article, is for the same purported purpose. Barring other issues that are subjective (is this overuse per #3a?, is #8 met? etc.) are we being too anal retentive about a separate rationale when the use is effectively the same? #10c is by far the easiest requirement to met, and perhaps if we allowed for a single rationale to serve multiple articles, as long as they were all named, that might help downplay any complaints on the process. Of course, that said, if we go that route, we need to have different discussions when reuse is appropriate (case in point is the example Hammersoft gives of a logo repeated on 20+ instances of the same film festival) - not a problem for this #10c to even attempt to solve. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
While Hammersoft does a brilliant job pretending Betacommand was a victim, he is right about one thing: If you go on a massive run of deleting images, you're going to have a pile of angry editors at your doorstep. Such a bot has to be mindful of not only the NFCC policy, but the fact that human beings are on the other side of the discussion. That, ultimately, was BC's failure. He not only had an overzealous attitude towards NFCC enforcement, but he behaved like an ass about it and dug his own grave as a result. There are, in my view, several ways that it could be done better this time:
The truth of the matter is, our image policy is confusing as hell. People tend to be angry about potential deletions because they don't understand what the problem is. So when tagging, you need better and more polite messages. Messages that not only explain the problem, but also the solution. If there isn't one already, build a FAQ or workflow on how to do a proper FUR for various common image types - logos, album covers, movie posters, etc.
Notification. Getting Betacommand to do this was like pulling teeth with tweezers, but having him put a message on article talk pages saved hundreds of images. My suggestion: Learn from the unsourced BLP fiasco and create lists relevant to Wikiprojects and leave notifications at those projects before you even begin tagging for deletion. I can assure you that several projects would follow through on the list.
It shouldn't be hard to list images that don't have valid article targets due to moves to or from disambiguation titles. It may be impractical to go through the entire history of an article to see if it was moved to a wildly different title, but this much should be doable.
There would ultimately have to be runs of tagging to delete images that nobody can or will apply a proper FUR to. I'd keep the number of images so tagged each day relatively small. There's no reason why this has to all be fixed tomorrow when taking some time will accomplish the same goal with less overall drama.
Just some thoughts from someone who got stuck wasting a hell of a lot of time back in the day because of BC's methods. Resolute 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I will thank you for not attributing thoughts to me that I did not have. I barely even mentioned Betacommand, and that is directly intentional. While Betacommand is one person who has enforced 10c in the past, he is _ONE_ person. I refer generally to all the people who have done extensive 10c enforcement. There's not a one I know of who has not come under attack repeatedly, and without anyone stepping forward to support their actions. Notifying, not notifying, being nice, not being nice, none of it has made a bit of difference. We are years down this road and despite the best efforts of everyone who has tried, we are in a worse position. We would be performing a serious disservice to ourselves to think this prior effort was somehow all Betacommand's fault, and we can somehow do a better job. Not to mention that such a stance completely ignores the efforts of many editors who tried and failed to fix this. There are lessons to be learned from how Betacommand handled 10c enforcement. But, they are very, veyr far from being the ONLY lessons. For that, I'll continue to return to the point that 'fixing' this problem does not involve picking up what the cattle are leaving in the field, but rather figuring out a great way to keep the cattle out of the field in the first place. Solve that, and there is no need for this bot. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of other policy-mandated aspects (WP:V, WP:NOR, BLP) where we cannot act before the deed is done - we can't force editors to read any policy, nor can the software catch these problems until after the edit button has been clicked. It is completely unreasonable to expect NFC to be "special" in any way. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to change the user interface to take into account changes where images have been added. That is one of the options. Special? Yes, it is special, and deservedly so if our mission means anything anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Which requires a change in the Mediawiki software, which likely means that the WMF has to support it. Given the indifference you've found with them on talking about it, I don't expect that to happen. However, the next best thing is a bot that patrols all such edits shortly after they are added and deals with problem images near-immediately (lets say, within 24hr of the edits), which can be set up irregardless of the Foundation's indifference. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how useful it is to send an automatic msg to the original uploader. He/she could possible help adding the rationale's or remove the images from the article. But it's not really that editor concern about the use of his uploads on other articles. Some editors could be swamped with msg's then. Garion96(talk) 14:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
When a non-free is added to an article, the bot should check for whatever compliance it can that is objective (primarily #10c). If a #10c problem exists, the bot should notify the uploader (who supposedly created the initial rationale), the editor adding the image, the page the image was added on, and the file page. Yes, in the 2007-2008 image compliance run, people were swamped with such messages and boy, did they complain. I believe that the conclusion there was that BCBot was the only immediate option to reach compliance in time, but in the future care for messaging users (including opt-out mechanisms) would need to be in place. The reason to include the original uploader is that I've seen some editors take the original rational and change the article name to get their second use of the image appropriate, but now invalidating the original use. Yes, a new bot would have to check each existing use of the image when one new use is added due to something like this. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
#10c would be fine if the rationale indicated the pages the image would be used on, not contained the name of the page the image would be used on. This, then, could not be enforced by a bot, leaving the question of bot enforcement moot. As has been pointed out many times, the requirement that the rationale contain the name of the page makes innocent actions cause images to be deleted when someone keeping track could have maintained the rationales.
E merges an article A into A' (foo), and creates a disambiguation page at A
A bot or a passing user notes that Image:A.jpg is used in A' (foo), but there is no rationale for that page. (A smarter bot might notice that there was an rationale pointing to a page on which the image was not used, but yet another bot might remove that.)
Image:A.jpg is deleted from A' (foo), per #10c.
Image:A.jpg is then deleted, per #7.
The regulars at article A' (foo) may have been informed, but probably not editor E, nor would E necessarily know what to do even if informed. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe better to read the article history & notify the user who added the image to the article instead? In many cases, this will be the original uploader, but not always. If you tag {{subst:nfurd}}, the file remains as-is for a week. Should the bot add a dated template and then wait for a week before removing the file from articles? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is why I don't think this bot can automatically remove images, because of situations like this. Tag them and put them into a maintenance category for a last human check before being removed from articles (with a chance to catch such errors)? Sure. But I don't think we can have a bot automatically remove such images. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Which is effectively useless. We had notifications by themselves for a while at one point. It failed to provide any significant improvement in compliance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
With a BAG-approved task w/ wide notification that its going on, and messages on the uploader, the editor that added the image to the article (based on diffs), the article talk page where #10c isn't met, and the file page all within 24hr of adding, and a final human check before the removal enforcement, any editor that complains about images being removed via #10c simply have no legs to stand on. But this point (re: attacking the bot or bot operator) needs to be stressed in the BAG. Given that #10c is objective and one of the allowed exceptions of 3RR, we're basically covering our basis. Someone will still get upset, I'm sure, but really, that's basically likely complaining after your power gets turned off after getting numerous notices at your door that it was going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, learn from the uBLP mess. The zealots who wanted a scorched earth approach fought me over the idea of project-based lists. When they got implemented anyway, most projects tackled the issue with a will. Dashbot continued to run this task for over a year and a half, and most projects responded to new additions within days. You want a method to not only clear the backlog, but to pen new additions? Do the same thing. Given 10c lacks the same push that uBLPs had, I don't expect the results to be as dramatic. But give me a list of images used on Canada or Hockey articles, and I expect there would be more than a couple of volunteers to address the problem. I think you would find the same of most active projects. You will always have better success with central notification targeted at interested editors. Resolute 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixing these would rectify 0.23% of the 10c problems on the project. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll address that list at some point today. I would add this reinforces my point. A giant list of 10,000 is pretty much unmanageable. A small list of 20-50 (or in some projects, more) is easier to deal with. The hockey list might only be .23% of the backlog, but multiply by 100 projects, and you start to put a big dent in it. If you can, place a list related to The Canada project at either my talk page or WT:CANADA, and I'll see if it can be dealt with as well. Resolute 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I go back to what I've been saying before. Fixing these is just a bandaid. It addresses the symptom of the problem without paying any heed to the problem itself. We can make these lists all day long, but a year down the road we'll be in the same place; an excessively long list of images not complying with 10c. Many editors have been hammering at the 10c issues for years, with no improvement in the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My point all along has been continuously updated lists. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs, as an example, is already watched by several editors. If Dashbot or Toshio's proposed new bot were to implement a task that adds a continuously updated list of images failing 10c, then you stand a far greater chance of mitigating or preventing that list from growing. You're right that giving me a list of what needs work in these project today only solves today's issues. Give me a list that continuously updates, and I can do my part to solve tomorrow's as well. Resolute 16:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Coming up with a better bucket to bail the boat with fails to address the problem of why the boat is filling with water in the first place. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As long as WP maintains the goal of being an open wiki with minimal barriers for people to start editing, we are always going to be filling with water from new editors that take no effort to understand the processes required. As this is a fundamental goal of WP, it's a waste of time to consider how to stop that and instead figure out how best to education new users as fast as possible. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That same defeatist attitude followed the uBLP opponents as well. "Can't win, don't try" was not the attitude that saw a 70,000 article backlog reduced to the present total of 487. Resolute 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
<scratching my head> Perhaps I'm not articulating my position here very well. I keep trying to bring home the same points, and it's like I'm describing a tree and others are discussing a car. Maybe we're not speaking the same lingo or something. I'm at a loss here. I never espoused a "can't win, don't try" attitude. Ever. I also do not consider it a waste of time to identify and address root causes of this problem and seek the best ways to solve it. This is a fundamental principle in problem solving. Yet, I can't seem to convey this. There are multiple different ways in which the root cause(s) can be addressed. Yet, to a person, every one of you is absolutely sold on the idea of a gold plated bucket with extra widgets and an automatic digital logger of how many buckets have been bailed. There's ~10 other people in this thread, and not one of you is interested in root causes and addressing them. So, the problem must lie with me; I must be wrong because I think repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insane. I give up. Go ahead and have your pretty little bucket. We'll be right back here a year, two years, three years from now with the same problem, and every one of you will still be dreaming of a day when we have an even better gold plated bucket, this time not operated by <insert person who did it wrong last time>, maybe this time with a Mr. Energy attachment that allows distributed computing world wide to deal with the problem. You can't fix Niagara Falls with a pipe wrench, people. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(Aside: Why do all these indentation codes have a "*" in them. It seems to violate WP:TALK, but I'm not going to reformat a controversial discussion in which I'm involved). This section is about #10c enforcement. NFC education is another topic, perhaps appropriate for this talk page, but not appropriate for this section. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
NFC maintenance and education go hand in hand. We can't launch a #10c bot without being assured users knows what fulfilling #10c is. You can't discount that issue. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
@Masem: I seem to recall prior consensus that 10c enforcement is NOT exempt from 3RR. At best, it's a grey area. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
For #10c, you either have or you don't have a rationale with the name of the article the NFC is used in. It is, per 3RR , "unquestionably" violating NFC, if it doesn't have it. Of course, we don't have to be jerks about it and to avoid that, we give warnings and enough times to get it fixed. But if after 4 messages and 7 days and a human check that the image is removed by lacking an objective requirement, people edit warring to keep it back in are violating 3RR. (The last time the NFC/3RR came up that I can recall was over currency images, which is not "unquestionably" a violation.) --MASEM (t) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the currency article (still extant) situation. From the mass rancor I've seen happen, I wouldn't in my wildest dreams violate even 2RR to enforce 10c. Not that I enforce 10c anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Going back to an earlier subthread: Notifying the user who added the image to the article was not (always) done by the bot. Notifying a user who renamed the article was not done by the bot (if it were done, the bot could change the name in the image rationale, and we wouldn't have lost images by rename.) If those were done, and the bot notified the last few editors who added the image or renamed the article (especially editors who renamed the article away from (an) article named in the rationale), I would have fewer objections to the bot.
I object to #10c because it's not at all necessary to track a challenged rationale, but only to support bots; and, further, because it was considered by at least one bot run by a now-banned editor to require a wikilink to the article, rather than just naming the article.
There are several ways an image can get into an article other than an editor specifically thinking it belongs there.
Rename; could be mitigated if the bot was properly written to track renames of the article the image is now in, as noted above
Split (if the image were properly in the original article, then it's likely appropriate in the split article, if relevant)
Merge (not as obvious, but an image might be appropriate in the merged article — however, see album covers in discographies, if the albums originally had separate articles)
Reverting "blanking" deletions or vandalism (in which the editor adding it might not be aware there might be a problem); could be mitigated if previous editors who added the image were also notified.
If a bot were to track all of these which can be tracked by a bot, and the notification provided a template for the notified editor to notify the appropriate editor if it's not a case where the bot can track the appropriate editor, the bot might be acceptable, as far as I'm concerned. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
First, BCBot never required a link. It looked for text in the rationale to match the article names or any redirects to those in the text. So this is a fallacy as #10c doesn't require a link (though its encouraged).
As for notification, the way that would be best to run the bot is to do it based on reviewing all edits that have modifications involving "file:" links so that the one that did the edit can be messaged, along with the uploader and affected talk page. (previously, it was based on running through images and looking for the lacking rationales, meaning that whomever added the image was left out of the loop) A bot can only do so much forensic work and that's why the bot can only tag and place images in a maintenance category to be reviewed by humans before deletion. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it humorous how far down the tracks this proposal has already gone in terms of all the bells and whistles this bot must have in order to meet requirements. God help the contortionist code writer who has to come up with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily see a problem with that. I don't think anyone has ever said that only the person actually doing the code writing has to come up with the entire functionality him-/herself. Also I am sure one could find ways to make it possible for several coders to work on the bot code (since nowadays we have things like Dropbox and other stuff). Also, since I do not expect the person coding the bot would run it without prior getting back to the community, the coder simply cannot be held responsible for it alone if the bot is running amok. The bot getting approved means other people (who hopefully would be able to understand the bot code) have seen it and approved it. In the end it shouldn't matter who codes and runs a bot at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Regarding files where the rationale could be simply fixed by changing the article name in the rationale, perhaps the bot could leave those cases (if they can be detected) as is and track them in some special maintenance category for humans to check. This would mean all those cases would get detected, but it would avoid the epic brouhaha a removal might cause entirely. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
All images tagged by this bot need to end up in a human maintenance category; if it could tag those that are "close" name matches to a sub-cat of that, that would be great as that's an easier job to fix, but irregardless a human has to check before the images are removed from offending articles (and then if this makes them orphans, we let the existing processes take care of that). The bot cannot remove images itself, unless the mechanism used is to have image uses that have been reviewed by a human and tagged as failing #10c to have the bot run through and remove those - but again, this has to happen after the human check. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If this bot isn't supposed to remove cases lacking a rationale entirely, then I begin to wonder what exactly the purpose of this bot is. I thought we are discussing a bot that enforces 10c by removing image transclusions from pages where the file page does not contain a rationale and that we just have to make sure images where a rationale is present that closely matches the name of an article where the image is being used are NOT being removed. If that is not the purpose of this bot, then what exactly is it? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If you tag with {{subst:nfurd}}, you get a week to fix the problem. I suppose that the bot could do something similar: tag files with some template which says that the file seems to lack a FUR for article Xyz, and then place them in a dated maintenance category. After a week, a human checks all files in that category, possibly fixes any errors and then tells the bot to solve all remaining WP:NFCC#10c violations by removing images from articles. To avoid abuse, only trusted users should be allowed to tell the bot to remove images from articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It won't replace it, because we should assume that editors unintentionally create #10c violations all the time (reusing images, bad page moves, etc.) But the bot will formalize a process that initiates a 7 day (minimum) "fix or it will be removed" stipulation on images that fail #10c. The hope is that with the bot messaging the uploader, the file page, and the article where #10c isn't met, someone will fix it within that 7 days, minimizing the "work" needed by the human editors in reviewing the maintenance category; though editors may be able to fix a few more and only a few exceptional cases fall through the cracks. A bot helps to maintain this ongoing tasks, and with the notification of end users affected by it. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this pressure the bot would be generating seems to be exactly what we need without militarizing the processes, so I am supportive of implementing it that way. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Policy regarding former versions of articles that were copyright violations?
The page currently located at Uta monogatari violated copyright in its initial version up until September 11/12 of this year. The page was a near carbon copy of the Santa Fe Poetry Broadside"A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose" by Jeffrey Woodward. It saw only relatively minor edits until User:Bagworm and myself basically overhauled it, and at least until that time entire sentences were still copied verbatim from the Woodward piece. I moved the page, and changed the subject (the original topic was not notable, and assuming good faith I guessed it was meant to be about uta monogatari, which I later found out was unrelated). Therefore, some of the text may still resemble the Woodward article, but in a completely different context and entirely by coincidence. However, I recently found out that on Japanese Wikipedia past versions of pages can get completely expunged if they are revealed to be copyright violations. This seems logical, since the offending material still exists in Wikipedia even if it has been removed in the current version of the article. Is this also policy on English Wikipedia? If so, is there a "past-edits for deletion" page I should consult? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The content should be RevisionDeleted, while leaving the usernames and edit summaries intact. Note that the old method (deleting and then undeleting) is itself a copyvio if there are good intermediate edits, because it would be removing their attribution. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thing is, attributing edits to particular users doesn't seem to be valid in this case, since the previous version of the article bears a closer relationship to <noredirect>Tanka prose</noredirect>. The history of both articles is complicated because I initially took AGF too far and completely altered the article to conform to quality standards and reliable sources, without realizing that the original article had been an OR/SPAM mess based entirely on primary sources; I then recommended a "compromise" in which the redirect I created be replaced with a new OR/SPAM mess. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm just saying, if it's possible and legal to preserve as much as possible, why not? :) King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course! My point was merely to ask if there was any way to move past edits in this context. Honestly, now that they are hidden, it doesn't really matter. However, the very first edit (can't give a diff, not only because it's been hidden but because it is the first) still includes the edit summary "Created page with 'Tanka prose, like haibun, weds two...", which is still two-and-a-half sentences of plagiarism -- are we allowed that much? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the writing style in those two sentences is very formulaic, it may not arise above the threshold of originality, but IANAL. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Revision delete, I agree, but it would be helpful to add to the Talk page top blocks some sort of standardized notice that content from some particular source was a copyvio problem in the past for this article. I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{oldafdfull}} but specifically for removed copyvio content, or inline citations which previously linked to copyvio content. Is that just crazy talk? --Lexein (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe that the below quote from this policy
“
Anything published in other countries and copyrighted there, is copyright in the United States.
”
is misinterpretted in relations to ineligible non-U.S. images, like ineligible logos. This matter has been discussed in village pump and WP:MCQ. How shall we reword it? --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Because the cases when this doesn't occur are difficult to enumate easily, it is best fixed by adding "typically", eg "... is typically also copyrighted in the United States." We can footnote what appropriate laws they can review, but I don't think we can spell this out easily. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That might be good enough. Maybe also something like "...unless expressly ineligible for copyright under U.S. law." postdlf (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I tagged the album cover of Introspective, a Pet Shop Boys album, as non-free. Shall tagging one as non-free be optional or required? --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
When dealing with threshold of originality issues, if the answer isn't clear we should always assume non-free. It does not hurt to tag what really is a free image as non-free, but can be a legal problem in the reverse. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of exceptions where the above statement doesn't apply and where a work is in the public domain in the United States without being in the public domain in the source country. Some examples:
Works first published in the European Union in 1922 and made by a person who died in 1950. Different countries have different copyright terms.
Works which are ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in the source country (e.g. Edge logo). Different countries have different thresholds of originality.
A painting from the European Union with the image caption "I, the painter, hereby release this painting to the public domain". In some countries, such as the United States, copyright protection is optional. In other countries, such as all European Union countries, copyright protection is mandatory.
I suggest that we don't make the text more complex than it needs to be. Just change the wording to say that works usually are copyrighted in the United States, and possibly add a link to some page which lists all exceptions. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Something more useful in practice (and grounded in case law) is commons:COM:TOO. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 12:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Noticed this from WP:AN/RFC. I don't think there is enough discussion to really make a binding consensus close of the above discussion, but there does seem to be support for clarifying. I've gone ahead and used the typically language proposed by Masem. I would consider it an edit within the purview of WP:BOLD subject to reversion and additional discussion if anyone strongly objects. Monty845 20:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the discussion would also support some footnotes of specific examples, but I'm not 100% sure if the ones from the discussion are the best examples. Monty845 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd appreciate some advice / assistance. I uploaded a low-resiolution image of a journal cover here and am getting a warning about the associated journal page not existing, except it does. What have I done wrong? I plant to upload the covers for Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B and Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C, but I'd like to get the existing image sorted out first. Also, have I got the NFCC rationale right? It's my first try at a fair use upload. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, nice to meet you. The problem was that you included brackets for the article parameter. I removed them and everything's fine. In the future, you can bring questions like this to WP:MCQ. RyanVesey 04:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I read the instruction not to include the square brackets, I'e somewhat embarassed that I didn't catch that error. And, sorry for posting at the wrong place. Anyway, I'm glad it was a simple fix. EdChem (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
User-owned content
If a user owns the rights to a photo (e.g. because they took it) and they upload it to Wikipedia, do they automatically license it under CC-BY-SA/GFDL, or does that have to be done explicitly? And if they do not do so explicitly, but their photo contains copyrighted content (e.g. album covers among non-copyrighted scenery), do they need to provide a fair use explanation for the image? And if they subsequently remove that fair use explanation, is that grounds for removal of the image? Are they allowed to revoke any rights Wikipedia may have to the image? (This line of questioning inspired by File:Beatlescoll2.jpg.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
We expect all user created content to be licensed CC-BY (and variants) or PD. If there are copyrighted elements within it that are beyond de minimus usage, then the user's image still would be CC-BY/PD but the image would be non-free due to the copyright on the element photographed.
Barring obvious copyright problems, once a user uploads an image as CC-BY/PD they cannot revoke that right. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the current non-free content upload form, and the history of the image, It does not appear anywhere that the uploader is granting those rights. I cannot speak to the form used at the time of upload. This should probably be fixed. Monty845 17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, they appeared to upload as non-free, and thus have no "rights" to the image, so requesting its removal is completely fine. A file tagged CC-BY/PD (assuming that that is a proper tag) is basically "the cat's out of the bag" once published, and can never be revoked. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying though, is that under the current upload form, what ever rights the uploader may have are not being licensed CC-BY or otherwise. So the image would be entirely non-free, and would ironically fail NFCC 1, because a more free image could be uploaded that licensed the photographers rights, and only relied on fair use for the copyrighted elements they took the photo of. Monty845 17:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
True, I see what you're saying but at the same time, we would really never ever use that user-created photo montage. That's just too much non-free use that is unjustified (showing the covers that appear in a box set that otherwise replicate all the original albums covers), so even if the user tagged his photograph CC-BY, the photo would be unusable for having far too much non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough as to the specific image, this just brought the broader issue to my attention, and wanted to know if I was wrong about it. If not, we will want to do something to correct it. Monty845 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right. If I took a photo of a 3D work of art in a public location in the US (which has no freedom of panarama here), and wanted to use that photo on WP, it would be expected that I release my photo as CC-By or PD, with the understanding that the photo is treated as non-free due to the subject being non-free. In this manner, when the copyright on the art goes away, suddenly, we have a free image we can use because of my CC-BY or PD allowance. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Now, checking that image, that is a HUGE copyright violation. The album covers are the focus so one can't claim de minimus. And since each cover is a separate copyright, that's about 12-13+ different copyrights right there. Effectively, this is a "user created montage" and strongly discouraged (particularly for just album covers) and would not be allowed as non-free. Tagging for deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Critical commentary
What does Critical commentary mean? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Generally it means discussion of an image that originates from other sources that comments in an analytic or critical manner on the image or media file. There's no exact definition but it generally any article text that helps to support NFCC#8 in regarding the comprehension of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Masem, first of all thank you for your quick answer. What does NFCC#8 stand for? Do you mean the bit about "Contextual significance" ? Azylber (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Cast photos are used in numerous TV articles, including some, like Friends, that are GA. I can certainly understand using free content in lieu of non-free where it's available or where it's possible to create a free equivalent, but non-free cast photos have been allowed to remain in numerous articles. I'm wondering why a cast photo, used to identify ll members of the cast is suddenly completely inappropriate at Dance Moms, as two editors claim. The image was added to the article in February, and remained there until yesterday.[4] Are cast photos permitted, or should they be removed from all articles for consistency? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
(Please note that I restored the above question after AussieLegend removed it, desiring no longer to worry about the article in question, but I felt the issue of cast photos was significant to include).
Non-free cast photos of a TV series are generally okay - while it is likely possible to get individual free images of the entire cast individually, getting a single free image of the entire cast is going to be a matter of luck (something fortunate that we had at Fringe (TV series) but rare for most other shows. Since there's no reasonable expectation of a free cast photos a non-free can be appropriate (meeting NFCC#1) That doesn't necessarily allow all cast photos - the question becomes if it is necessary to have such and meet all other NFCC requirements. Here, in the specific example, a cast of a reality show is far different from a cast of a scripted show - the cast of the scripted show would likely be in character for these cast shows and that can implicitly relay information. For reality TV, the cast shot may be just to identify the contestants/actor-wanna-bes and may not have the same subtle implication. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Just make sure they're not depicted in a scene which is described and discussed in several reviews, which also include the very same image. Because then it could trivially be described in text, hence not meeting #1. Or wouldn't (subjectively) "significantly" increase understanding of the subject. Right? I sense serious inconsistency here. --Lexein (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Umm... cast photos... I don't know. I did use one The Golden Girls publicity photo, but that turned out to be highly valuable in finance because it appeared in Getty Images. So I used the screenshot to illustrate the cast. Cast photos are not easy to find, especially one cast member is dead. Look at Cheers photos. --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Cast photos used on the show's main page or list of characters carries implicit information about looks and variety of the characters that typically can help understand the overall show's premise, casting, and characters - hence its appropriateness on series pages or on a list of characters from that show. That information is not needed at episode-level articles. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between cast photos in tv show articles and those for (one-off) movies. We are usually more leinent of the former while the second needs the critical commentary that David alludes to. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Each image has a non-free media information and use rationale – non-free album cover for the article. They are similar though, but the second would clearly deserve its own copyright under US and Canadian laws. Would the use of both contravene any rationale here? I could potentially see 3a, but it's not entirely clear that this is the case. The rationale for the record company to have similar album covers appears to be to indicate that the content of the album is very similar to the previous album, but has some variation, hence the similarity between the covers. The same can be said for many other deluxe edition covers. I could also see that a reader wanting to know why their cover is different than the one displayed in the infobox would increase understanding of the topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, without any critical commentary on both covers, only one is free for use within an album article per WP:NFCI#1 (in this case, as you state, NFCC#3a is being violated when both are used.) If there is a very significant difference, then the alternate cover may be appropriate but I believe the Albums project has appropriate advice on this. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
How so? They are sufficiently different. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I was notified of this discussion at the talk page of the above article, after I removed that extra deluxe cover. Well WAlter Gorlitz, can you explain how the two covers are sufficiently different? The standard cover is used in the main infobox, how is the deluxe so different that a separate non-free content is needed? All I see is the same image of the artist in both pics, with the album name on top of it in a red hue. You are missing WP:NFCC#8 as I stated in a previous edit of mine, that anything, expressable by words alone do not need a non-free illustration and WP has always been strict about it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's the same photo of Swift, and while the text placement/usage is different, its clearly the same album. Inappropriate to use both. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's the same photo, but it's not cropped the same way. It only shows 90% of the previous cover image. It is clearly the same album, but adds new material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason we allow album covers (or any other cover art) for infobox use on a notable published work when the cover art is otherwise not discussed at any length in the article is because there is implicit branding and marketing information contained within the art that does not have to be discussed, it is just assumed to be there. This is an allowance extended to exactly one cover image; any other cover image has to be discussed in depth by sources in the article, or be considered a very significant deviation from the original cover for release in another market (not just being a deluxe version). The deluxe version art here fails every point ; slightly different cropped or different text arrangement is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Using both would be against WP:NFCC#8 and #3a. If the red overlay on the deluxe version is important to note, you can write in the prose that the deluxe version's cover art contained a red overlay. Having the extra cover does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the album. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.)
Under what conditions can non-free soundtrack covers be used in articles about films, video games, or other media where non-free cover art has already been presented (as per WP:NFCI#1)?
This has come up in a few places so I'd like to affirm what I believe is practice by an RFC.
This is to specifically the address articles on films, video games, and any other media where there will be a published soundtrack. Arguably this can also be applied to where an article on a specific published medium has a tie-in work of a different form that is discussed in the article but otherwise does not have a separate standalone article (due to notability or editor decision); eg like a film with a novelization or the like. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Background
In most cases where this occurs, there is the main infobox use of the "cover" of the published work, which per NFCI#1 and past consensus can be used without specific discussion of the image. When the soundtrack is then mentioned (regardless of how much can be said about the soundtrack), most will use an infobox here as well. The question is specifically on the image used in that infobox or otherwise a standalone image in conjunction with this secondary media. There are two primary issues at play here:
First, most often, there is little discussed about these soundtracks - the infobox has primary data (data of release, publisher, etc.) and the soundtrack list will be included, and that's fine as content for the article, but the problem comes in when a non-free cover is used. Our use of NFCI#1 would suggest that the cover art would not be appropriate if there is no significant discussion of the soundtrack. That is, if it would otherwise be impossible to have a standalone article on the soundtrack due to lack of notability, we don't have enough info to support an NFCI#1 use of the album cover image. This would make them decorative images and fail WP:NFCC#8.
Second, even if the soundtrack album is discussed, many times the cover of the soundtrack album is nearly or exactly similar to that of the film. (An example would be File:The Breakfast Club poster.jpg (film poster) and File:Breakfast Club Soundtack.png (soundtrack) both presently used in The Breakfast Club.) Even if the soundtrack can be discussed in a notable manner (as shown in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megamind&oldid=525104541 this earlier version) of the Megamind article, but after which the soundtrack has been split off into a notable soundtrack article.) but the soundtrack cover is nearly exact to the movie poster, the soundtrack cover is a problem. Nearly exact covers would fail WP:NFCC#3a since the two images duplicate each other.
Note that this assumes there is no discussion of the soundtrack cover art at all; if the cover art can be discussed (and as separate discussion from main cover art), then NFCC#8 likely applies and the image can be kept (barring other considerations).
Again, I believe this has been the norm, but its unstated directly in any NFC policy. It's implied by NFCI#1, but when I've pointed editors to this and NFCC#8, some editors don't understand the history of these and complain that the soundtrack cover should be used.
I would like to make sure there is (or remains) consensus on these points and add language either to WP:NFCI#1, or as a new clause for WP:NFC#UUI. Further, I would want to encourage the appropriate wikiprojects to look to removing offending images, assuming this is found to remain true.
The template {{Infobox album}} can be used for the score or the collection, although WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article. The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous. If an album is notable enough for a stand-alone article (see WP:NALBUMS), one should be created, and an album infobox with a cover image can exist in the new article.
I think these guidelines correlate with the above arguments about the soundtrack cover being a secondary image and usually similar to the film poster to boot. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that unless the cover art's artwork is discussed in the main article then it does not pass NFCC#8 and should be removed. I think we should add another WP:NFC#UUI to make this explicit, similar to the discography one. Also, your discussion doesn't cover notable soundtracks discussed on the main article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That is a good separate point to continue, and one that is not as easy or with assured information. If the soundtrack is clearly notable and could support a separate article, and sport a different soundtrack cover image than the film, but editors have agreed to keep the soundtrack coverage in the film article (perhaps for better comprehension of the overall article of avoid duplication), and work on the assumption that there's no discussion of the soundtrack cover. I would argue that in such cases, as long as the soundtrack image is unique from the film poster, that we would allow its inclusion, as if the soundtrack details was put to a separate article, it would certainly have the soundtrack image. Near or exact-matches of the soundtrack images to the film poster (like Megamind) would not qualify here. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Soundtracks meet NFCI#1, its note, and NFCI#8 if they also meet the 'Non-free image use in list articles' as each video game article meets this criteria because they "consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic".
The image represents multiple elements of the game, the vocal acting, audio and cues, sound effects, music, and soundtrack. A sample of the music such as 'New Age Retro Hippie' suggested would only represent one of these features while the soundtrack represents all these features in one image.
The cover art, and it's contents are discussed within the article, with references.
An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article.
If it doesn't duplicate another image.
It doesn't represents a living person.
Minimal usage of the image, shouldn't appear in more then one article, or be a duplicate of the box art. (Floppydog66 (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC))
If "The cover art, and its contents are discussed within the article, with references." then I think no one would contest that it meets WP:NFCC#8. The problem is that most of the time the cover art's contents (i.e. artwork) are not discussed. Additionally, I feel you are misrepresenting some things in your argument. For example, images can not possibly be representative of voice acting as they are different mediums (one is visual and the other is auditory). And our policy on minimal usage is not satisfied by using an image on only one article (see WP:NFCC#3). --Odie5533 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I want to stress that NFCI#1's allowance is assuming you have a published work that would meet our notability guidelines in that we can certainly write more about the work than just its existance and basic primary information (this being soundtrack list for albums, plot and cast for films, etc.); we're excepting a work where some of the creation, development, critical reception, and legacy factors are included. What the image then does is provide, per the consensus argument, implicit branding and marketing information about the work, even if the cover image is not discussed directly. Technically that allowance could go to any published work, but because it harms non-free, we restrict it to notable works, which falls in line with the Foundation's resolution on non-free: "or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Hence if you have a non-notable soundtrack as part of a film article, the consensus as it seems would be that there's no immediate allowance to use the cover as an identifying work. That's not to say that it could meet NFCC with additional commentary on the cover art itself, but this is rather rare where the soundtrack isn't notable but its cover art is. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
And to provide an example, I found Dexter's Laboratory to have such a case. The "Hip Hop Experiment" soundtrack has sources that I would consider it notable and could have had a separate article, but it is much better in context about the show itself. But the soundtrack image is far different from the show image (TV show title card). I'm not saying this is the best example, but it is a practical example to consider. There is also a second soundtrack mentioned ("The Musical Time Machine") but itself is not a notable soundtrack , and as given, is lacking an image (which fits in with my description of what I believe consensus is). --MASEM (t) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No. I always remove these if I find them. They almost always fail WP:NFCC#8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic") because the topic is the film, not the soundtrack. If the soundtrack is independently notable it should have its own article; if not, it doesn't pass the criteria. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The presumption that everything notable will have a separate article is incorrect; there's a recent RfC here describing cases where editors can decide to cover notable topics as part of larger articles (for example, as a list of notable soundtracks). In such case it makes sense to keep the image; even if it's not relevant to the article's "main" topic, it's relevant to the secondary topic that was merged into it, so it can pass WP:NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
RfC format: FYI: the RfC bot copies the topmost part of this section's text, up until it finds a signature. There was no signature, so it was placing a large block of text in the RfC summary pages. I've tried to remedy that by placing Masem's signature after the first 2 paragraphs. Masem: if you are not the originator, please let me know so I can change the signature. Also, the time stamp may be incorrect. Apologies in advance if this causes any problems. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Black Kite here. There is no need to have the soundtrack cover in the film article, unless for some reason it (the cover) is particular noteworthy and subject of sourced commentary. This stands regardless of the notability of the album/the existence of another article. Nowhere in the NFCC does it say anything about the use/non-use of the image in question elsewhere; we must judge the uses in articles on their own merits. For that reason, I have no time for the "album is notable but does not have its own article"-type arguments. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If we had a notable soundtrack article with a cover image and editors decide to merge it with another article for concerns of layout and context, your argument would cause the image to be removed. This is placing a style guideline in front of the notability policy; I can't agree with that line of reasoning. Diego (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't the policy but the references of the articles. The problem is the references and the significance of the subject of the image, as mentioned above and on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Secondary box arts/soundtrack covers talk page. For audio, if there is vocal audio on a album then the album also represents that audio, such as if a song is sung, that vocal arrangement or spoken audio is as much of the audio and the music. For images of soundtrack albums, Featured articles, A-Class and Good articles do have these features and do work better as a whole because they don't break the subject into two separate articles. Here are just two example of the featured articles.
People going to other articles and then deleting images that they don't like or feel don't meet their idea of 'significant' and 'notability', and such, and then claiming that it's a policy issue doesn't address the issue. Other times, like the examples already mentioned, the information could be moved to it's own page for just the album. If not then it is a 'notability' and ect., issue. If there is a consensus that soundtrack images not be used for games, television, movies, novels (yes even novels have soundtracks). Then that consensus needs to be meet, then pointed to, and not people randomly claiming unfair image use, and policies that don't address the problem. That only leads to repeatedly trying to change policy to stamp out what some people don't think is relevant and other people do. The policy could be rewritten a thousand times and and would probably meet the same fate, more footnotes, and arguments about what should and 'shouldn't be allowed'. (Floppydog66 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC))
The Mummy's article is a good example of the problem. A scan of the text shows no outright discussion of either poster or soundtrack; for those poster, that's okay, as it is the representation of the film, and per NFCI#1 and past discussions, meets NFCC as implicit understanding of the brand marketing. Including the text on the soundtrack (despite being notable) on the same page is also completely acceptable, but now lets look to the image. This would fall into the case of being nearly like the poster. As such , there is no new marketing/branding information that can be learned from it. It duplicates the film poster, and thus fails NFCC (specifically on minimal use). --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
(Also, for reference, the Mummy was promoted in April 2008, predating the more stringent FAC image requirements following the resolution) --MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Floppy, this was The Mummy when it was promoted to Featured status. The soundtrack cover image was added afterward. I doubt that the editor who improved the article to Featured status would have endorsed including this image. I'll be removing it. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The image for the soundtrack is completely different to the film poster, so its branding and marketing values are not the same as those of the poster; so I can't see why it's a problem to keep both - the image is adding new branding and marketing information. It's the same case as with Dexter's Laboratory above. Diego (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This seems pretty straightforward. If the soundtrack is (a) notable enough for its own section within the film, (b) for some reason does not have its own article, and (c) has recognizable cover art substantially different than the film poster or other image used to identify the main article, then it should be permissible to use within the film article to identify the album. If any of these conditions fail, then the image is unnecessary fails in one or more categories from NFCC, e.g. being necessary to inform the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon and also some of the points Floppydog made. I think the view that a soundtrack can only be notable if it has its own article is bogus. Where things are naturally closely associated, it can make very good sense to treat them together. The view that a soundtrack album cannot have an image because it doesn't have its own article seems to me inappropriately formalistic. The question we should be asking is: does seeing how the album was presented and marketed add something of value to reader knowledge and understanding in the general context of the subject. The answer to that, to me, shouldn't depend on whether we have split the material into two articles, or whether we have treated it all together in one location.
Obviously, if the album cover basically just recapitulates the main poster or dvd design, then there's little added by its presence and it could be expected to fail NFCC#3. That is probably the situation for the clear majority of such covers. But if we have quite a section about the album, including eg a full track-listing, and its cover is not just a re-iteration of other marketing material, then it seems to me that we would do our readers a service by showing it, and it's justified for the same reasons which justify NFCI#1. Jheald (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
See, the problem is, if all we have about the soundtrack in the film article that is only primary details (which include dates of release, publisher, and soundtrack) and states absolutely nothing else about the sond track, then the statement "how the album was presented and marketed add something of value to reader knowledge and understanding in the general context of the subject" has no relavance, because there's nothing to go on. I'm not saying that the data about the soundtrack shouldn't be included, but our reasoning of NFCI#1 is based on the fact that the work itself was the subjection of discussion and thus by association the marketing/branding of the cover art works along with this , even if there's zero discussion of the art or marketing to start. You simply don't have that if the soundtrack is listed but not expanded upon in the article. NFCI#1 is already a tenacious application of NFCC#8 (though affirmed by RFCs), but in this type of case, it flat out fails. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Partial Consensus There seem to be four different cases which are being discussed: 1) the soundtrack is not notable on its own and its cover is similar to the film's 2) the soundtrack is not notable on its own and its cover is different than the film's 3) the soundtrack is notable and its cover is similar to the film's 4) the soundtrack is notable and its cover is different than the film's. Aside from these four is the case where the soundtrack's artwork is discussed in the article which is clearly covered by the WP:NFCC#8, but might not pass #3 if it is similar to the film's cover. There appears to be consensus that the cover art should not be shown for cases 1 and 2, where the soundtrack is not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the line of reasoning that "non-notable soundtrack" comes from? I haven't seen where that consensus emerged; policy only talks about "significant" content. My position for case 2) is that if the soundtrack is discussed in detail (i.e. with "critical commentary") and it's image is substantially different from the film, it can have its own image to illustrate its branding. Unless someone can point me where in the guidelines the consensus for notability was developed, I think we should discussing about significancy, not notability. I agree with Masem that images without any significant coverage don't need an image, and with Wikidemon and Jheald in everything else. Diego (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I guess there is no consensus on anything. Regarding case 2, I do not agree with you because it violates WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCI#1 branding exception is for the main image in the top right of the article and does not extend to other images. I do not think the addition of a cover "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". One can understand a topic without seeing the cover. If the fact that the soundtrack had a cover is important then the readers can simply be told that the soundtrack had a cover without needing to see it. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
None of situations we have is currently described anywhere in policy, it is extrapolations to get there. The reason I bring in notability is that this would imply a separate standalone page for the soundtrack , and ergo by NFCI#1, the allowance for an image; however, if an editor chooses to keep the notable soundtrack within the article on the film, then there is no reason that NFCI#1 should not still apply except if the soundtrack image is not fundamentally different from the movie poster. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
One reason that a consensus probably wasn't reach, and that others seem to want to change the polices repeatedly, seems to be that they want to delete that content from the up and coming articles and ignore the already reviewed articles with such content, which wasn't an issue at the time. The newer articles check the Featured, A-Class and other such to see what is missing from their article to meet the same standards. This leads to having soundtracks covers on older Featured, Good articles then, when the new articles are being made they are told that isn't allowed, not because it doesn't have enough references, but because one line in a policy. While other pages with the same reference system are Featured articles. If a consensus is reached it should be retroactive as well as just knocking down newer articles. As with the Mummy my argument from the beginning still applies, the album is referenced the image is of the same as the movie cover, so what, be polite and change it, or ask them to, most soundtracks have alternate covers that aren't the same as the image that is at the top of the page, The Mummy has at least 4 other soundtrack album covers. Presumable they choose that one to match the lead image making for a firmer connection between the two, if that it isn't 'acceptably' by a consensus then they should be told and asked to provide another. Hardly any entertainment media is released solely in one country, and even in the USA there are almost always different covers and posters. But instead of thinking about that, there is argument even between the people that don't want the image there, as to what policy the 'current' image is violating. Having people go to articles they haven't contributed to, then deleting content, and point vaguely to a policy without mentioning what part of that policy was disputed, is just rude. (Floppydog66 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC))
A fallacious argument because it implies that policies, guidelines, and article quality standards shouldn't evolve. The reason why you see content now deemed inappropriate on older Featured and Good articles is because the removal of content from Featured and Good articles is far more difficult a task than it is for up and coming articles. Soundtrack covers should only be included if the soundtrack itself is notable as a separate product, not notable by association to the primary product. It does not need to have its own article to be notable. However, at the same time, if that notable soundtrack's cover art is a duplicate of the cover art for the primary product, then it simply doesn't need to be there. That it is similar to the image presented in the lead tells readers all they need to know about how to identify it. To use a contentious article as a case, Paper Mario switched from a duplicated cover art to an original; however, while it is not a duplicate, it is not particularly noteworthy. It is simply Japanese text and the Japanese game logo, neither of which are particularly identifiable or difficult to discuss in the article's body. Good image selection for an article needs to consider more than the status quo or including images because old FAs have similar images, or because you see it happen in other articles; we have to ask ourselves how much harm comes to the article without a particular image. - New Age Retro Hippie(talk) (contributions) 11:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I beg to differ. When I read Paper Mario, I ultimately understood the soundtrack by looking at the orange image. I wouldn't identify the soundtrack by text alone; it still needs an image. By the way, I've changed the rationale. --George Ho (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is getting a bit too specific; 99% of soundtrack cover artworks are never discussed in reliable sources. I think the decision for Paper Mario is best left for its talk page. As I outlined above, there are four generic cases which I think are most important to consider. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Saying that those type of images are against policy, and it doesn't matter that Features, A-Class, and others articles have them is hypocritical. If they are against policy they no longer meet the Wikipedia standards for the content they now have. It's just lazy editing to make a policy/consensus that is only half enforced, to then go to other pages and try make changes to them and ignore the sources of the problem. As for 3), and 4) the soundtrack is audio within the media. Just like a screenshot shows the art, structure of the game, or movie set, whether they built the landscape of cubes, and game play, shading, and such things as the player riding a horse, while shooting an arrow. The only feature the screenshot doesn't represent is the audio. When the audio is discussed with proper references, my suggestion is with at least five references, it has become a main topic within the game and there should be a representation of that feature. The only other suggestion for this has been a audio clip of one song. Which might work, but my concern is that it doesn't represent the entire audio as a whole. It seems that this is why the images of the soundtracks were originally used to represent this audio as a key feature of the entertainment, with the audio featured being properly referenced. As 'New Age Retro Hippie' pointed out in the WikiProject Video games discussion, the soundtrack is significant due to its audio. Which is what most reviewers discuss about the game. As in "soundtrack is excellent", or "a game’s soundtrack can enrich the experience like nothing else and make a game" [5] and then go and discribe the game's audio, whether they are describing the album or just the audio, it is these contents that are being discussed, and the image is an overall depiction of the audio as a whole. Something the text alone does not do, and a audio clip would do only in part. (Floppydog66 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC))
One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, we look at what happens now not in the past. Second, the only mark that is of any use for image evaluation is FA, as that requires a high degree of consensus for inclusion. Third, and more important, is that FA underwent a significant re-evaluation of its image use evaluation after the Foundation's resolution on non-free media came into play, roughly mid-2008. FA's passed before them were reviewed for images but far from the rigor that we use now to evaluate images, so you will likely encounter old FAs with images that would not past muster today. We don't penalize those old FAs, though recognize that in time the offending images would likely be removed. This is why you may argue it's half-enforced, it's just an artefact of how the processes have developed.
There is no requirement how many sources discuss the soundtrack, as the number can easily be less than one. All we are looking for is the same type of coverage that would equate to notability - significant coverage in secondary sources - typically talking about critical reception and perhaps composition. Most soundtracks - film, game, whatever - just don't get this; sources aknowledge it exists but more often than not it is the scored background music that sets the work apart that isn't on the soundtrack. But even if the soundtrack is discussions, the image of the soundtrack cover rarely provides any other understanding of the work itself; if the images is not discussed at all, it has a high chance of violating NFCC#8. Remember, our goal here is to minimin non-free work and encourage free media additions. Just because we can use a cover image for a secondary work attached to a film or video game doesn't mean it is appropriate to do so. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's nice to see that 'WikiProject Film' actually, made a policy/consensus first and then enforced it even on the 'Featured' Mummy article, and their project as a whole. With their 'Manual of Style' they actually try to change things when it no longer meet those conditions. Instead of discussing about what policies may or may not be broken, what the procedure should be and how to represent such a feature, should be. These things don't seem to have ever be addressed on the,
If we consider the MOS:FILM section about soundtrack images, and apply it to 'WikiProject Video game' then besides the image of the soundtrack, there are several other ways that it and its content can be represent within a game's article such as;
To represent the game's music, a short excerpt from the game can be included as a .ogg file. A good example of a properly referenced audio clip would be for a song or theme mentioned within the text, as in;
the composer Yuka Tsujiyoko, described the music as "basic point of the music was making [it] without interrupting the original "Mario" music." or
a reviewer stating that it is, "mostly uplifting... bunch of remakes of older Mario songs."
With an sample of the music that incorporates this feature, such as a new remake of a classic Mario Bros. theme.
Another way to represent this is with a audio trailer, of the soundtrack. Similar to the one provided for Aquaria (video game).
The audio can also also be represented in a video format showing the special features of the game and it's sound effects/music as in Pac-Man_(Atari_2600). Where the flicking of the characters, minimal use of music, sound effects, and general gameplay as different then the arcade game.
So far there seems to have only been two partial consensus'. 'Ok we'll use the soundtracks cover art to represent the music/soundtrack', then another partial one made without changing the MOS, or Policies decided that 'Nah that was a bad idea, then try delete them in some of the articles, and do nothing about it in others'. As with a 'picture can tell a thousand words' the game's audio described by text alone doesn't always encapsulate the essence of what the music is, or how best it can be presented. How it is represented is just as important as, how it shouldn't be featured, until both issues are dealt with the problem isn't resolved, only pushed off till later.(Floppydog66 (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
But the key is, non-free media is only included for topics where there is sourced discussion to support the inclusion. A film or video game may have a great soundtrack (by personal standards) but if nary a word is stated in sources critically commenting about it, a sound clip nor the soundtrack cover is going to help the reader. We can state it exists, but our non-free content policy required more than just verification for image inclusion - everything requires that the topic or media be the subject of sourced discussion to merit the use of non-free media. This is long-standing policy. That's why when a soundtrack is part of a film/video game article and only included because it is known to exist but without comment, cover art for it is never appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
That's why the examples above have the words 'properly referenced'. If you object to the examples and their references now is the time to do it, but not to vaguely say 'well what if there aren't any references'. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC))
Well to built of Masem's comment, we include non-free content only if its absence significantly harms the article as well. A comment that the soundtrack was good doesn't merit a sound clip inclusion. Something about "Reviewers stated the soundtrack was Y; the song "X" and its unique musical properties were nominated for Z award" has a much stronger case for requiring a non-free clip as a frame of reference. It's still a case-by-case basis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
To point out something, I see zero problems with the inclusion of the soundtrack album cover for Final Fantasy Tactics. The text on that page about the album is sufficient to make it a notable standalone article (there's development and critical reception), but clearly its better covered in the game for better cohension of text between game and the soundtrack. (so point one: the soundtrack is notable, is passed). The cover art is also far different from the game's cover, so point two is passed. This would thus be a case I could justify the inclusion of the album cover.
I do see that someone recently split off the Mummy's soundtrack to a separate article, which is just barely notable enough to justify the separate page (eg no need to AFD), and thus "validating" the use of the soundtrack image. I'd love to say something about trying to merge when it makes sense in efforts to reduce non-free content, but that's far from a point to even try to establish here. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
InfamousPrince (talk· contribs) has uploaded many soundtrack cover images that he makes an effort to keep. He created the soundtrack article for The Mummy to keep the soundtrack cover image. At Disturbia (film), there were two unnecessary soundtrack cover images before that I removed, and he created Disturbia: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Disturbia: Original Motion Picture Score. I think it's an odd modus operandi, to add value when the images are threatened with removal. As far as I can tell, it seems to be an okay way to proceed. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is something questionable about doing that (creating a new article just to use/retain use of non-free media), but I would strongly recommend that not be part of this discussion, as it is a much more contentious issues (read: at what point does our NFC policy outweigh our notability guidelines where, if one notable article can reasonably be merged w/o loss of information into a second while reducing non-free image use, should that be done? I can tell that would be a lively discussion.) Of course, if the soundtrack articles being created are barely or not notable at all, that's a different issue but again outside the bounds of this discussion. I'd rather focus on the existing cases of soundtracks embedded in film/video games and equivalent cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the 'Mummy' soundtrack section was re-installed to the main movie page, and that it was moved to the new article was to save a album cover. I uploaded one of the other cover images to it and placed it back in the infobox on the movie page, where the original was. As the album itself is discussed within the article and shows it's 1) 2) notability. And as MASEM shows with his comment about 'Final Fantasy Tactics' there doesn't seem to be a consensus of if the album cover art needs to be mentioned as long as the album itself is notable. While when re-installing the infobox Odie5533 also left a empty { |Cover =} section. The discussion seems to still be about if the album's image is needed even when notability has been shown, if policy should be changed, and if so would that supersede the consensus made at the MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Until those things are decided the images shouldn't be removed so contributor's to this discussion can see what the differences of opinion are, and how they work or don't work to the various articles. Also to keep the original uploaders desire for a album to be present within the article, until it has been proven by consensus that it should or shouldn't be there.(Floppydog66 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC))
For the Mummy, the biggest thing, irregardless of notability of the soundtrack, is that the movie poster and the soundtrack poster are "identical" in terms of branding and marketing. If the soundtrack is discussed on the movie page, irregardless of how notable it is, it is duplicating the poster and needs to be removed per NFCC#3a (minimum use). The FFT article is different in that the game cover and the soundtrack cover are very different and, with the soundtrack (as a published soundtrack, mindyou) being notable, the cover inclusion is appropriate there. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Does locating a soundtrack cover that is not identical to the film poster count as a loophole? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I would argue, yes. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It would seem to admittedly fail WP:NFCC#8 and #3a. If a cover is so decorative that it could be easily replaced with another, then clearly neither are needed. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The flaw with that is, that it is a referenced subject of discussion within an article. Just like if it were a image of a screenshot being used, there are many screenshots that could be used. What matters is what the image/screenshot is of, and that it is mentioned within the article. And it has references to support its being mentioned within the article. It is an image of what is being discussed at that point in the article. (Floppydog66 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
The artwork of the soundtrack cover is not mentioned in the article, whereas the content of the screenshot is. Your argument does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
By that reasoning the 'artwork' of the screenshot should be the only reason a screenshot should be used. Mario's stylized hat, enemies in the shape of a mushroom, industrial pipes sticking out of the ground. The error in that is, the 'contents'. Like the contents of a screenshot, the 'contents' of the album are discussed. From the image 'Licensing' tag; "The image is of an audio recording", thus being a representation of its contents as a whole. That is something that, even a screenshot doesn't always do, because one level of a game can look completely different then another level, and it's artwork change from place to place. It meets #8 by being a significant topic within the article, and having references to back up that claim. If it wasn't, there would be no need for the soundtrack to be mentioned, and there would be no references for it. Just like a screenshot, its contents are discussed whichever artwork is used, because the album, like a screenshot represents it's contents. (Floppydog66 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
A screenshot is used to help readers understand something said in the article about the subject. The screenshot is not something that must be there, it's simply there because readers need it to understand certain elements, such as the HUD, graphics, perspective, abilities, etc. The screenshot's purpose is not to show a level, so it's irrelevant that there are a number of differences between each level. As for meeting #8, it is only as significant as everything else said in the article. The cover art of the game represents the game's contents. The cover art for the soundtrack represents the game's contents, not the contents of the soundtrack. - New Age Retro Hippie(talk) (contributions) 11:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Picture of an audio recording
Floppydog: Contents refers to artwork (Mario's hat, etc.) The contents of the soundtrack cover is its artwork. In your rebuttal you have removed the word cover. At right is a picture of an audio recording. A soundtrack cover is not a picture of an audio recording. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To step back, most cover/film art used in the main infobox on the page about the work is never discussed in the article, but per an RFC, the allowance for this is an implicit, unstated method of showing how the notable work was branded and marketed that otherwise meets NFCC#8. But you only get one image that gets this "free ride", to speak. Any subsequent alternate cover art for the same published no longer gets an implicit allowance to be there. This doesn't prevent alternate art from being used but in those cases the art or cover has to be discussed - they just have to show meeting NFCC#8 (and all other NFCC) explicitly. (cases I know are Okami where the Wii cover got f'd up, and Ico where the NA cover got shafted - both pointed accompanied by sourced text in their articles). When we extend this to soundtracks of films or games on the same page as their film/video game, and the soundtrack isn't notable, there's no free allowance to talk about it's branding or marketing, so the only case where we would allow the image is 1) if it was very different from the film poster/cover, and 2) the art or presentation of the soundtrack cover art was the subject of sourced discussion in the article (but if the soundtrack's not notable, this is also likely not going to be the case).
Note that screenshots of video games have no free passes: they have to be able to show NFCC#8 like any other image. As others pointed out above, this is usually used in discussion of gameplay elements so this is typically easy to, but again not a free allowance. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Odie5533's comment doesn't hold up when you read the rest of the 'Licensing tag'. He claims 'soundtrack cover is not a picture of an audio recording' misunderstanding what a cover is. As that tag states the image is "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". And with Final Fantasy Tactics, the album's cover isn't mentioned, but as MASEM said earlier 'soundtrack (as a published soundtrack, mindyou) being notable, the cover inclusion is appropriate there.' So the question doesn't come down to policy but references and how notable the soundtrack is, and not on it's artwork, nowhere on the 'Licensing' or Policy pages are there any requirements for artwork. (Floppydog66 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC))
Clarification
As there is some confusion above, I want to clarify how I'm seeing this.
There are four cases, in which information about a distributed soundtrack is included in an article about the associated film/video game. (This can apply to other similar case, such as a novelization of a film; I'm using film + its soundtrack as the most obvious example). All these assume that there's no direct discussion of the soundtrack cover art in the article.
Case 1
The soundtrack's significance is not discussed. This means that the only things mentioned about the soundtrack are primary details like the music distributor, publication date, track listing, etc. In such cases, we would never include the soundtrack image.
Case 2
The soundtrack lacks notability. I want to clarify this being different from the significance factor, even though the result is the same. There may be one or two lines from a source or two that describe how the soundtrack was constructed or perhaps even some critical reception (eg we have some significance), but it would be clear that if this was put out as a separate article, its notability would be thrown into question and likely deleted if no further sourcing could be found. In such cases we also should not have an image of the soundtrack. The reason to separate this from significance (which as pointed out is the normal standard for image inclusion) is because someone's going to game this and game this hard if we only left it as significance: they will include one non-primary fact and claim that an album cover is thus needed for the soundtrack. Notability is a stronger measure that assures that, per NFCI#1, gives us "critical commentary of that item" so that the cover art can be justified without having to have the image itself be of significant discussion.
Case 3
The soundtrack is notable (could be spun out to a separate stand-alone article) but the cover art is nearly the same as the film poster. While NFCI#1 is met by notability, NFCC#3a demands that only one of the images is necessary, and ergo in this case the soundtrack cover would not be included.
Case 4
The soundtrack is notable and the cover art is significantly different from the film poster. In this case, the soundtrack cover can be included, since NFCI#1 and NFCC#3a are both satisfied. (It is not required if the author so chooses to not include it, of course).
Of course, if the soundtrack cover art itself is given significance by sources, irregardless of the soundtrack, that's reason enough to include it per NFCC#8. However, I can't imaging the case where this would happen without the soundtrack being notable, and where if the art of the soundtrack was similar to the film poster, where the soundtrack's art would be singled out from the poster. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is the references are still the problem and not the policy. And it assumes the soundtrack is mentioned and not referenced. If there isn't any references for the soundtrack, just like any other information on the page the information shouldn't be there regardless of an image. #2 says it 'lacks notability', and then a few lines later says, that even with 'critical reception' of the album, it isn't a 'significance factor'. While you said earlier, for sources that 'number can easily be less than one', but both those comments aren't correct. The Significance factor is judged by it's references that discuss the album, and, or, critical reception about the album. In that case there is only two things; (1.) It doesn't have references, or (2a.) It has references, and if it does, (2b.) one of the album's covers can be used as long as it isn't a duplicate of another image on the same page. With (2b.) Being the only real disagreement. Everything else is a referencing issue, and not a policy issue. (Floppydog66 (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
If it's not referenced, we shouldn't have the information, that's right. But you can reference it without significant discussion of the soundtrack - a link to a vendor page that showed the fundamental details of the soundtrack works fine, but falls into #1. In case #2, I'm talking about when there may only be one source providing critical reception, where notability requires "significant coverage". Adding the source with critical reception shows significance of the soundtrack, but not notability. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Masem on cases 1 through 3, per your policy-based arguments re NFCC #8 in cases 1 and 2 and #3a in case 3. I think we should try to form a consensus at least regarding some of these cases. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think C1 and C2 are nearly the same but with a reference something like this [6] which is basically the album's catalog number and publisher info. Which fills in some of the basic infobox for a soundtrack. Such things usualy show the number of CD's, length, track listing and infobox stuff, for C2 that information is properly sourced and it can stay. It is basically like the movie profile of Internet Movie Database. Without any commentary on the album itself. There are a number of sites that offer such information. Usually it takes two references to fill up the infobox with 'style', 'publication date' and things like that.
Then up to C4 there are already usually about two references about the album. From here onward there are the sites, and publications that give ratings for the soundtracks, and, or reviews, and interviews. Most stand alone soundtrack Wikipedia articles, and album article use these as their main sources, including the Aggregate/Reception scores. Then after listing at least one or two of these there are 3 or more references on one album. Then like the overview of the game or movie itself, the soundtrack information gives a overall view of the music before the music itself is discussed, how many musical pieces were recorded and so on. Giving details of the most popular songs or themes of the game/movie ect., then reviews too. Showing if reviewers of the game, or its soundtrack thought the music was too slow, and so on. (Floppydog66 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC))
I also agree with Masem on cases C1, C3 and C4. On Case 2 (non-notable soundtrack with significant commentary) there are two sub-cases:
2a) the soundtrack image is similar to the film poster and
2b) the sountrack is essentially different from the poster.
I agree that case 2a) should not have an image because it's against WP:NFC#3a (repeated images for equivalent purpose) but not for case 2b). In that case, having critical commentary should be enough to have an image provided it's not too similar to the poster; I don't see as a problem the situation you described as undesirable (finding third-party sources that show significance beyond a mere listing of content); on the contrary, this is allowed by the wording of NFC and thus not "gaming the system". The strongest requirement for notability of the soundtrack is placing limits beyond the very strict NFC policy limits, as NFC#8 is worded around significance. To show significant coverage we should have more than mere verifiability (i.e. not only primary sources, and not only album tracks and statistics) but not as much as notability.
I think we should encode in a guideline the consensus we have for some of the cases you listed; and let the others be decided one by one according to the differences between images and quality of references. Diego (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Notability is significant coverage, and the logic for your case would allow more images than appropriate. Again, if the soundtrack could never have gotten its own standalone article, the allowance for cover art failsWP:NFCI#1. This is unacceptable. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem isn't the image, but what the users want on the article such as;
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Soundtrack
and the article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (soundtrack)
which basically has it's ratings, track listings referenced and all the other stuff was mainly on the movie page, and some references are used for both. No reviews of the music on it, or what style type of music it has or what people thought of it because some users thought it was more needed on the movie page instead of on the album's.
Another good example is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#Audio and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (original soundtrack). Instead of talking about the album and it's music and how the game's music and album were received the subject is broken up into three separate sections in two articles that list the same information, and are about the same thing the music and album of the game. It only leads to people not wanting to contribute to the soundtrack page because that information will be taken and brought to the game page, or the other way around. The basic this page, that page argument.
If it's a score of a film or game, I think Final Fantasy Tactics#Audio did it better then Zelda and Star Wars. It'd be better with the score tracks listed as one collapsed sortable table of all tracks, discs, and disc versions. As the reader is about to, or has already read about the music of the game, movie, and album. Zelda has 'Requiem of Spirit' listed three times but no way to compare the titles of track order, the different versions aren't compared, and the reader is left to guess and search if one musical piece is on the other releases, or discs, when one sortable table makes the information more accessible. While if they were actual songs then it should be listed as the Soundtrack's numbered listings. (Floppydog66 (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC))
Discussion - Arbitrary break uno
In response to this thread, I filed File:TheFullMonty Soundtrack.jpg for deletion. You may go to that discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been leaving a friendly note on the article's pages, about those images as follows, hopefully that will help the articles:
There has been a request for the the deletion of the soundtrack cover here
Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:---
As the discussion stands so far you'd need the Soundtrack cover to be different then the lead film infobox, it could be a new lead image, or you might get here a different soundtrack cover from a differant region or alternate cover.
But the information about the soundtrack would still need to be referenced more. With interviews, and, or reviews, and reference like music aggregate scores. Here are some of the websites that might help; But it's up to you if you want to do the work and it still might get removed, but whether the information is here or in a article of it's own that information being referenced would help create a better article over all.
![[1]](http://i.imgur.com/9hs0H.jpg){kind=link}
