Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

"any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia"

The above is from a conversation that I have been having with Stifle on my User Talk page. Regarding this image, it has been contended that a free example of this image can either be found or cobbled together (presumably as some odd sort of montage). the promotional image in question is the only ensemble image to be found, and it was significantly altered so as to be usable in Wikipedia.
Stifle contends that the image violates WP:NFCC #1, and that a free equivalent is available somewhere. I would submit that the image is in fact not a violation of #1. No free equivalent is available. No other image depicting the cast ensemble is to be found. the image has been altered sufficiently so as to not threaten the copyright of the holder.Forgive me if this topic has come up before. i did take a cursory look through the archives without success.
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Could I get some input? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that as long as it is being used to identify the characters with respect to the show, and certainly not for the purpose of identifying a person (which is where #1 does come into play), then that image should be ok, particularly given that its a montage that can be used to identify several characters at the same time. --MASEM` —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, basically. Sure, it's a picture of living people, but it's living people portraying fictional characters, and the image is used to identify those characters. Unless NBC has released a free license cast photo there is no free alternative to that, and the possibility of there ever being one is very low. Due to that it passes WP:NFCC #1 just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A free photograph could be taken of them which would serve the purpose entirely satisfactorily. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you obtain access to the studios where the series is filmed. And manage to get a camera in there and get them all in one place, in costume, and take a photo without anyone noticing. You could take separate pictures of the actors, but if they are out of costume, the pictures will only be suitable for the actor articles, not the article about the TV series. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that such an image may not be used on Wikipedia, as it would be in clear violation of WP:NFCC #2. If a publicity photograph exists, a free one may not be used in its place. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How in the world can a free image violate WP:NFCC? Stifle (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the California Civil Code (Section 3344) prohibits the unsanctioned use of the "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on or in products, merchandise or goods" of any person. So the image created in the way described above would still fall under fair dealing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia is housed in Florida, and thus follows Florida state laws. Also, it's very hard to identify WP as a "product, merchandise, or good". --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that an equivalent law exists in Florida, so that really doesn't negate the issue. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a standard personality rights law. It's not part of copyright, and doesn't apply to us. --Carnildo (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a concise statement of current policy. No fair use images of living persons. Whether or not another image could reasonably be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct; it strongly depends on context (otherwise, any non-free image involving live actors would be disallowed, which... is a lot.). You may not use a non-free image of the person in conjunction with talking about a living person, unless there is a strong sufficient reason (such as a large critical section that involves an iconic appearance) to include a non-free image (I forget the example case for this, it is some older actress, but the only non-free image is a iconic movie role she was in). However, when an image is used to talk about a character in a series or movie that that person plays, then a non-free image is usually appropriate to show what that character is. (Mind you, if there is a free image of the actor and the character is not much difference in appearance, I would defer the additional non-free use and simply refer to the free actor, but that's not because of the issue at hand, just a general reduction in NFC content). Since the image in question is being used to describe characters of the show Heroes, and not describing the actors, it is a fair non-free use. This is extremely common amoung media articles with live actors, so as long as the line between talking about the person and talking about the character is made clear, there is no conflict with the NFCC. --MASEM 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I've already been through this with Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 23#Image:Liz_Cosson_(MAJGEN).jpg. Even though it was conceded that no "free" image could be created, that the image had historical significance, that the image increased the reader's understanding of the topic, User:Quadell ruled that there could be NO fair use of images of living persons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That case appears to be of a non-actor person. That, Quadell is completely correct: a non-free image is inappropriate. But we're talking a TV show character which is portrayed by a person. If we're talking about the actor, then the non-free character is inappropriate, but if we are talking about the character, then an in-character shot is appropriate, even if the actor is living. --MASEM 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the way I see it: a character is not a living person, so the prohibition on living persons does not apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree we can use nonfree images to illistrate a fictional character where there's a clear obvious difference between "in-character" and "out-of-character" images. But it seems, a lot of images used in Heroes character articles would work equally well with a free photo of the person in "street" clothes. As an example, look at Image:Claire Bennet Season 2.jpg. We have a free image at Image:Hayden Panettiere 2007.jpg. Tell me, what encyclopedic value does the nonfree one have, the free does not? The show's creators plausably have a copyright to any image of somebody dressed "in-character", or doing something explicit to indicate they're "in-character"; but that's it. We aught to be able to do something like es:Claire Bennet, which uses a free image for the "character". --Rob (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia" is not a correct statement of policy. The policy has ten criteria and you would have to evaluate images on a case by case basis as to whether they're replaceable, minimal use, add substantially to the encyclopedic value of the article, etc., etc. There is a guideline comment that most images of living people fail the test, which is true. Groups less so if the group no longer exists or is inaccessible. A free photo is always better than a publicity shot, everything else being equal. I agree 100% with Rob's analysis above, btw., and emphasize that even if someone looks different in character, there has to be a real need to show them in character. Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason we don't use individual images like the one of Panettiere alone is that the article would quickly take on a cluttered look (much like the the current Jack the Ripper article). this image shows most of the cast (which has somewhat expanded, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another non-free case for a living person - extremely non-visible people?

I've been asked by someone to look at Image:Masato kato.png which is being used in Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is currently undergoing a FAC. The image is of the developer for the game, taken from a magazine article. The developer is still alive, but 1) is not notable to have his own article and 2) (based on what I've been told) is not someone that you will likely be able to see as to take a picture of. I'm a little torn on this: by good faith, one can assume there is no likelihood of a free replacement if this person is not that visible so a non-free replacement seems ok, but then again, we do have a restriction in place in general, even if this is about the game the person developed and not the person himself.

Any suggestions here? Nix automatically or interpret being ok by #1 due to the unlikeliness of a non-free replacement? (Also, I would argue that there may be a failure of #8 here -- the picture of the developer doesn't help much to understand the article). --MASEM 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement of this picture to have failed #8. Sancho 05:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm pretty sure the level of "unlikely" the criteria is talking about is the chance of being able to see Howard Hughes in his later years. If the guy isn't reclusive then there's not much of a case to be made for inclusion of the image. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos#Modifying logos for display? about adding a provision to current Wikipedia policy on logos. Comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

problem at Irish immigration to Puerto Rico

Can someone else familiar with policy visit this article? I believe the infobox images violate policy, but another editor disagrees. Thank you, Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all theree infobox images look good. Two are PD, one on the commons and the other has just been moved there. The 3rd has a CC 2.5 license. ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually those are the ones I put in, which have been reverted again to three of four nonfree. Don't worry too much about it though, I'm working with the main author to dig up some others and things seem more cooperative now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

strategy for requesting free content

I requested that a photographer change the flickr license of one of his photos of William Styron, who is now dead. (The photographer has a flickr profile but is a professional and has published books of his work, etc. His are also the only photos on flickr of Styron.) I used the standard form letter that says NC isn't okay, but he switched the license to BY-SA-NC. How hard should I push? Do I ask again for a commercial release, or should we just be satisfied that there is at least one photo available this freely, and include it with a non-free rationale? (And then do we have to use low-resolution if our use is within the permission granted by the photographer?) I don't want to be a jerk when I'm dealing with someone who actually could be making money off this picture... By the way the portrait in question is http://flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/928648907/in/set-72157594292673645/ . Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Replace "critical commentary"?

Based on the discussion at "Critical commentary", is there any objection to replacing "critical commentary" with "commentary" or "facts or commentary" in Images - 1. Cover art? — AjaxSmack 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not the term "critical commentary" come from copyright law (with the note that the law does not expand on exact what this term means)? Even though we shouldn't be invoking copyright fears, it does help to say that this is the original of the term, and I wouldn't see a problem adding in clarification that this term generally means "facts or commentary" regarding the subject of the image. --MASEM 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to that discussion, "critical commentary" does not derive from USA or other copyright law. Here's is what was posted by User:Tyrenius there:

According to section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 :

The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[1]

If an image is used for non-profit purposes, this factor is noted as relevant by the Act.

Tyrenius (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:NC needed

I have been engaged in a slow revert war with another user over use of multiple fair-use images in several articles.¹²³⁴ I have tried to get clarification of WP:NC (in the latter portions of this other discussion) to determine how to use fair-use images in these cases and remain within guidelines but there has not been any response from parties opposing use of fair-use images despite my entreatments for clarification. I am trying to gain input here on these related questions:

1. In reference to "the use of non-free media in...discographies...is usually unacceptable for failing the test for significance", what is the definition or content threshold of "discography" that is referenced here and what is "usually unaccepatable"?
2. If fair-use images are acceptable in conjunction "critical commentary," "commentary, " or "facts or commentary" (see above discussion), what quantity or quality of content is necessary for inclusion of these images.

Please also refer to previous discussion of this in the archives and postings at Hammersoft's talk page. — AjaxSmack 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to copy content from another talk page rather than provide a link? changed to link The quibbling over what is and what is not a discography is silly on the face of it. The articles you're insisting are not discographies are lists of albums. How in hell is that NOT a discography???? Several users have told you you're in the wrong, yet you insist on pushing these images back onto the discographies. This has been debated ad nauseum before, with the result being that fair use images are removed from discographies. That's why the guideline is written the way it is. I'm deeply sorry you disagree with the guideline, but your disagreement does not constitute a reason to ignore our policy. Enough of this. Album covers are not permitted in discographies. Period. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such images should be removed from discographies but I don't know what the line between a discography and a standard article is. Many articles dealing with multiple albums carry multiple fair-use images (e.g. Jay Chou) so I'm just looking for a definition or charactersitics of a discography that would separate obvious lists from "critical commentary" articles. Your outrage and anger at my questioning may be well-placed but please dispatch my questions with answers rather than attacks.— AjaxSmack 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be blatantly obvious how different Jay Chou and Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums. I'm not attempting to attack you. I'm just tired of having to debate this forever and ever. You've been told the pages you want to have images on are discographies, and you continue to press for answers more to your liking when you've already been given answers. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the four pages that you listed should not have images. β^_command 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I say they should. Doesn that mean we cancel each other out? I'm trying to get answers to the questions above to determine if there is a policy basis for any of this.— AjaxSmack 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you saying they should has been enough for you to continue to force them into the articles when several people have told you they shouldn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The policy states that a use that would almost certainly not satisfy the requirements of non-free use is "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." The Oxford English Dictionary defines Discography as "A catalogue raisonné of gramophone records; a list of the recordings of a single composer or performer; also, the study of recordings." The articles you mention are lists of albums per that definition. Therefore, non-free images may not be used in them. As to the question of "Doesn't that mean we cancel each other out?" I believe Hammersoft, Betacommand, and I agree on this interpretation of this situation. Decisions are made per Wikipedia:Consensus, which while not a straight vote count, would seem to indicate that three users following a dictionary definition of a policy, would form a consensus. Of course, there are mechanisms through WP:DR that can be invoked to gain wider views of consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed that and other definitions of discography and, while helpful, they do not sufficiently clarify how to apply WP:NFC to particular articles. If the articles in question here are discographies, why is an article like Jay Chou not? It is less comprehensive than many catalogues raisonné and yet it and other articles like it carry multiple fair-use images. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, that article has 2 images, 1 free image, and 1 fairuse image. The Free image is used to identify the subject of the bio and the fairuse image is used to illustrate and add context to his first (therefore significant and major) directorial position. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There were several fair-use images. Evidently this post tipped off the WPolice and they were deleted moments ago.[2][3][4][5] — AjaxSmack 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And despite my inclination to assume good faith, actions such as this deletion coming only after I mentioned the article as an example make it seem as if the question of discographies has nothing to do with these type of edits. Rather there is a general oppostion by some to use of fair-use images that is not supported by policy. I am loath to use resorting to WP:DR but you may have a point. — AjaxSmack 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I removed those images, they dont meet our NFCC policy for inclusion. our goal is to create a free encyclopedia, not a pretty one. β^_command 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is "our" and where is the policy that relates to the images on Jay Chou? This is why I was hoping for some constructive input which is still not forthcoming. The Jay Chou article had far more commentary about each album thatn stubs like these: 1,2, 3. Does separate article status have a role in WP:NFC? If so, that should be made clear. — AjaxSmack 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our" is The Wikimedia Foundation, and by virtue of performing edits towards its "free content" mission, anyone else that edits WP, per their non-free fair use resolution. As specifically to discographies, which I will define as "any list of albums", part of the reasoning I see is that nearly every album from a notable artist is likely to be notable (per WP:MUSIC), meaning that the individual albums will have a separate article. Because the separate article will be about the album, the use of the album cover there makes sense; however in the discography which is usually a part of the main artist's page, which should be about the artist specifically and not directly about the published albums, the use of a album cover in the near majority of cases is purely then decorative since it does not directly relate to visually identifying the artist. This also points to the fact that the image of the album even when used on a album page is typically only done to help identify what the cover is, but in no way is the album cover actually discussed (There are cases, such as Dark Side of the Moon, for example); basically, we recognize that most of the time, the non-free album picture is merely a decorative element, and as such its use needs to be strongly limited, thus we allow it for identification when talking about the album, but not as part of a discography.

So obviously, Beta's right that the Jay Chou uses are bad, but I do note the albums each have a page, and the album cover is there. I have noted before that the approach you are doing with the Jimmy Buffet is very odd. You are suggesting there is a common theme of these albums which is why you are grouping them together but, really, I don't see anything that says that one needs to consider, say, Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night, as a trilogy of works, but just namely three albums that share a common title and a common performance setting though at different times and locations. There is no evidence or the like that these albums should be grouped as such, and this edges a bit into WP:OR (who says these should be treated as related albums?). It makes much more sense to 1) create separate album pages for each album, allowing each to have a full infobox and a album cover, and 2) describe the common album themes on the discography page. That way, you get your images and avoid such issues in the future. --MASEM 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• And Ajax continues to force these images onto discographies. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The sniping is a little unpleasant to wade through so I won't. But the articles Down to Earth and High Cumberland Jubilee compilations and Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums, which Hammersoft points to, are exactly the kind of "discography" we all had in mind when the policy and guidelines on the subject were written so as to exclude album cover images. You could agree or disagree with the policy (there was some disagreement at the time), but it did gain consensus, so there you have it. Wikidemo (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:Masem for your input. Unlike nearly many of the other commenters, you have presented a well-thought case that takes an important step toward clarifying when fair-use images can be used and have convinced me as far these cases are concerned. I hope your example will influence other users such as User:Hammersoft who are contemptuously unwilling to even discuss the guidelines and help users like myself who are genuinely unsure of their application. I will follow your suggestion and cease trying to include fair-use images in the articles in question and will create individual articles where appropriate.

I agree that creation of thematic articles dealing with multiple albums bordered on O.R. but I felt that, although they may have been individually notable, their commonalities lent them to being dealt with better together to avoid repitition or confusion. I was guided by articles such as Unearthed which includes My Mother's Hymn Book for similar reasons as well as other similar collections of non-music media or topics. Considering all of the grief it has caused me, it was probably an unwise decision.

Having said that, for the sake of any future questions and the hapless editor who might run into the wall of self-appointed WP:NFC enforcers who feel it beneath their position to explain their decisions, I still want to pursue a clarification of WP:NFC on two points. First, the quality or quanitity of content required under what is now termed "critical commentary." It appears from others' input here that "critical commentary" has no basis in USA copyright law and questions concerning its meaning are periodically raised. Please discuss possible changes above.

Second, I would still like clarification on exactly when and how much fair-use content can be used in situations that often arise at Wikipedia. For example, it appears that such content is allowed on individual album pages no matter what their content. And it is not permitted in discographies. But what about articles dealing with a performer who has albums of significance that are dealt with in the text of the article? If the argument is that any album of significance should have its own article, this should be elucidated in the guidelines. (User:Masem's comments seem to suggest this.) — AjaxSmack 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I was quite contemptuous and felt it beneath me to explain the policies to you. <roll eyes> What is it you want from me? Do you want an ArbCom case so I can roll out how you badly abused this policy, ignored consensus, input from multiple administrators telling you that you were in the wrong and yet you still chose to violate the policy????? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[6]

No, I want only what is stated above: clarification of current guidelines. But, I've given up that you might have anything constructive to add. I still don't know if I was violating policy because it was never made clear how it is applied in these cases. My questions were directed at other users who might want to engage in discussion. — AjaxSmack 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist Channel images

I have seen several images from the Buddhist Channel used in various WP articles, but to my reading the site's copyright release is not free enough, because it says nothing about derivative works. [7] Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually never mind, upon searching it only turns out to be one image (Image:Norodom Sihamoni.jpg). I've nominated it for deletion so if anyone wants to comment you can chime in on the IFD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)