Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 62

Someone, in an FFD discussion, asserted that it is an NFCC 9 violation to have subtitles on a non-free video, because its page in the TimedText namespace (i.e. TimedText:2001_space_travel.ogv.en.srt) embeds the video outside of article space, which is not allowed. However, I think this is a clear exception due to our limitations and how this particular namespace functions. Anyone agree? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This was brought up before elsewhere, and it's clear that nothing can be done about the TimedText namespace without changing the media wiki engine - the namespace automatically puts the video on the page. So the exception "exists" in so far as our hands are tied in trying to do anything about it. We probably should footnote this somewhere. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned that TimedText problem at FFD because there also was another problem with the same file, calling for its deletion for the other reason. In my opinion, pages in the TimedText namespace shouldn't use non-free files, but this would have to be solved at software level. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a footnote on the NFC page to explain the TimedText issues so that NFCC#9 issues shouldn't be a problem there (there would be other reasons to delete, as Stefan alludes to, however). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be any TimedText exception; the software should be corrected instead. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that's something outside of our control, so while it remains that way, might as well note it as such. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We can do something about it: we can just delete every TimedText page for non-free files until the software is fixed. As the TimedText pages do not even mention the copyright status of the file (and do not even contain a link to the file description page), I don't see how the use of the file there is even within the Foundation's permissive rules for non-free content. If TimedText does not adhere to our policies, it must not be used, it is as simple as that. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Find an article with a non-free image in it. Click on the image. Voilà, you've reached a non-article page where non-free content is embedded. —rybec 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. However, unlike the TimedText page, the file description page tells me that the file is non-free, and where and how it may be used. So I don't understand your point. —Kusma (t·c) 10:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The big different here is that no editor is purposely adding a non-free file to the TimedText page, as they would have to do to add non-free to a user-space page or elsewhere. The software is doing that. Yes, that is out of our control, and it is something that the software devs should be aware of. But unlike when someone goes out of their way to add non-free to a non-article space, no one is purposely doing this here. Hence why removing the TimedText page because the software devs did not consider this aspect is not a smart idea. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(just thinking out loud) But people could deliberately link to this page, which is carrying a work in violation of its copyrights ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It has to be fixed in the software, and I dunno if a bug report has been filed yet. And to our hard NFC rules it would normally fail. But it is a legal concern? Under US Fair Use defense, assuming that the media file is otherwise good on its article-use space, it meets the respect for commercial opportunity, and the amount of copyright-taking in terms of size and length. The biggest concern is the use of the file in an educational manner, but Fair Use would not consider the fact it is separated from the text that uses it to be a major problem as long as elsewhere on our work we're tying that file to content about it. Further, even without TimedText, it is still possible to provide a direct link to the file without the WP front matter, and that deep link wouldn't be in violation. So legally, we're in no danger due to TimedText page compared to whatever else we do with non-free. Thus, I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater by deleting non-free TimedText pages is a needed step. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that TimedText pages should be deleted as long as they show the non-free media without clearly noting that the media is non-free. Would it be possible to adapt some of the pages in the MediaWiki-namespace so that the TimedText namespace is transcluding the whole contents of the non-free-image-description page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be considered as an accessibility issue as well. If you forbid this, you're basically saying that no non-free video can be made accessible. Which is kinda not-cool. SamBC(talk) 16:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What? No, non-free media needs a description of its use in mainspace, and should not, never, be used outside of that. This violates that, either we need a way to make sure we say it is non-free, or it should not be there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is being far too pedantic. No one has purposely put that nonfree file on the TimedText page. Yes, this for all purposes breaks the Foundation's resolution, but as the software developers are under them, that is their issue to fix as they created that problem. We should make sure they are aware and either ask them to remove the media from the TimedText page appearing automatically, or add flags to let non-free media not be displayed, or specifically comment that they don't consider this a violation. We have nothing to do here for this. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason for no non-free content is both legal and moral; so is the argument for maintaining accessibility. Legally, in various jurisdictions, there is a requirement to at least attempt to allow people with any sort of impairment (or disability, if you prefer) to access content on an equal basis; in the US there's the ADA, in the UK there's the Equality Act (which I know more about for obvious reasons). Morally, well, Wikipedia is for everyone, not just people with the conventional level of sensory acuity. So why does the non-free concern override everything else? SamBC(talk) 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The ban on free content is also to allow Wikimedia to use the pages for commercial purposes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

AIUI, the reason that it's allowed in mainspace, and mainspace only, is because non-free content can be acceptable, but only for encyclopaedia content. The occurrence of things (technically) off mainspace here is an incidental and unavoidable consequence of using them for encyclopaedia content, caused by features to make videos accessible to users with hearing impairments. SamBC(talk) 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not an unavoidable consequence .. this is a situation that needs to be handled appropriately. Either non-free media should not be displayed on those pages, or we need to codify this as a very specific exemption in the policy (or, for the time being, delete the pages until this is solved). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd go along with codifying this exemption. Can you open a new discussion with proposed new wording so we can discuss it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly find to call it out as an exception, but noting this is assuming that the non-free film is on there because of the software issue. Purposely adding the non-free media to that page by hand is a no-no still. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But codifying the current practice of doing what we are doing now purely because of technical limitations, explicitly stating that the exemption is narrowly focused, and explicitly stating that the exemption goes away when the software is improved to the point that the exemption is no longer needed, is a good idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No need for a separate discussion, this heading perfectly covers the load. One could start a sub-section for proposal for a specific wording change. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unavoidable given the current limitations of the software, is what I meant. Only avoidable by not using accessible videos, given how the software presently works. In any case, codifying a narrowly-drawn exception with clear reasons and 'for the time being' maintains both moral positions perfectly well. SamBC(talk) 17:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Do note that I did insert footnote 3 on this page a while ago to explain this exception/issue. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Note that this problem also exists in the Special namespace. For example,
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 15:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Use common sense here; in my opinion, NFCC should only be a factor when non-free files are being intentionally embedded in a page by an editor in a content area (this covers articles, Wikipedia space, Category space, etc.). You shouldn't need an explicit exemption for pages that are used to administrate content, or are dynamically generated (i.e. anything in Special. They are technically not articles, but follow the naming conventions for consistency with other areas, and so they can be linked to in wikitext). I also, per this opinion, do not consider the TimedText namespace to be "content", but to be metadata that is effectively part of the file itself, even though they are technically different namespaces. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The text in TimedText

Subheading it here as I think this is related - we are talking a non-free movie here, in other words, we do not have copyrights here, but we use it under 'fair use'. That means that what is being 'said' in the movie is also copyrighted (like the lyrics of a recent song) - just asking: is writing out in TimedText what is being 'said' in a 'non-free movie' a copyright violation in itself? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use (if it is fair use) is never a copyright violation. It is a lawfully permitted exception to the general right that a copyright holder has to control copying. It is wrong to regard fair use as a copyright violation that the courts will overlook. It is not an infringement of the copyright holder's rights, it is a limitation on them. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I said. What I meant is, is writing out the, say, lyrics for a recent song, for which someone else still has the copyrights, in the TimedText namespace a copyright violation, as would be true for publishing the same lyrics on your personal website. Showing the file may be fair use on a certain page, but is that also true for writing out the lyrics? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In other words: we make 'fair use' of copyrighted material when displaying the material (if we follow the rules), but do we make 'fair use' of the copyrighted 'text' if we publish it in TimedText? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We're fine in fair use, assuming that the video is reduced in both res and size to our requirements. If we were ever legally challenged, the use of the film would be considered within the entire context of WP, so its use on a technical aspect on TimedText would be negligible as long as elsewhere the film is used in an educational context (direct sourced discussion). The individual use on TimedText would not be an issue, unless for some reason that was the only use of the file. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am talking here about the publication of the lyrics of copyrighted material, not about the (part of the) movie/track itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If we had a short clip from a film in relation to an article where the clip was relevant, let us suppose that was fair use. However, if the clip contained the entire lyrics of a song, then I can imagine that recording the text would likely not be fair use. I suppose, but don't know, that to have the audio of the entire song in the clip would not be fair use either. In any case, I can't imagine any court would delve into "TimedText", it would look at the overall effect. Thincat (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed about what I mean. And even, if the use of a part of a movie on a mainspace page is fair use, is writing out all of the 'spoken' content of that whole part that we host on MediaWiki servers 'fair use' (that that timed text is used then on the mainspace-transcluded clip is fair use, but the text as written out on the TimedText page itself)? Or is that written text in itself then automatically 'fair use'? Or does it need to be subject to certain rules (the written-out text should be part of commentary)? What if the clip is mainly a visual piece of art, with some spoken elements - and it is notable and used under fair-use on a mainspace page mainly because of the visual element? If the clip is fair-use on two mainspace pages, is the text then also automatically fair-use on both pages (the reason of it being fair use can vary between two pages - fair use is very dependent on how it is used)? Etc.? (I am just playing the devil's advocate here, not advocating any direction here, but maybe this needs to be codified in the policy, maybe it can just be caught by a simply note, or maybe we don't have to care at all). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this all comes down to how little of the whole work the clip is using relative to the full work. For example, take the case of a music video. I would expect that the video would have the same "10% or 30s, which ever is smallest" limit that we use for audio clips from songs. For all songs, that's barely enough time for a full stanza or chorus, much less more. So if there are lyrics put to TImedText to accompany the clip, it will be within fair use. This is probably the case where the text is critical since lyrics to songs are often a different copyright from the visuals of a music video or even the music itself (the same does not exist for movies and spoken dialog, they have one and the same copyright). I would say that such situation can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis but as long as the clip is short in length we aren't likely to have a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments are invited at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC on whether or not to include File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg, an RfC on whether a particular non-free image is required in an article. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not an image is "required" of "needed" is a completely false premise as it can logically be argued under the policy that no images at all, free or non-free, are ever "required" or "needed" as the purposes of images is to illustrate or augment understanding of an entry. The logically appropriate criteria are really is an image "relevant to" and "illustrative of" the topic. Centpacrr (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent proposal to fix the grammar of NFCC#1 which didn't get very far. Here though, I'm looking at its overall verbosity. There shouldn't be any need for the "ask yourself" stuff if the intent of the clause has been clearly conveyed. Can it be made more concise as follows?

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is not used where freer content (text or media) is available, or could be created, that would serve the same educational purpose.

(Using the m:mission word "educational" over the current "encyclopedic".)—Aquegg (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, so I think we need to stick to that over "educational", on the presumption that what is considered encyclopedic is automatically educational, but what is educational may not always be encyclopedic. That still aligns us with the mission. As the explanatory text, I still really think we need to include, at the guideline NFC, how each criteria is practically applied so that language you removed here would be appropriate there. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right on the first point; so:

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is not used where freer content (text or media) is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Not sure where best in NFC to incorporate the explanatory text, though.—Aquegg (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I may be going against the flow, but he whole sentence is inaccessible both to a native speaker or a second language speaker- for instance, how does the sentence expands on the bolded No free equivalent.. I object to the comparative 'freer', - 'free- more free - most free' being the correct forms- this could be a case of ENGVAR, but it is best to avoid it totally if in doubt. Non-free content, is not naturally language but legalese- I submit this is fine in the legal bits, but to be avoided in explanations. As one who falls into the trap of using German grammar structures while writing English- I see that here. So what can be done:

1. No free equivalent. Copyright restricted content should not used where other content is available. This may be existing text or media, or equivalent encyclopedic content that could be created.

The concept of levels of copyright restriction needs to be explored elsewhere- maybe as a {{efn}} -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Copyright-restrictive" is a bad term. Stay with "non-free". On "freer", let me back up to what I think we need on NFC (not NFCC) is a "How do I meet these criteria" section, point by point, similar in nature to the Dispatch article that is linked in the See Also lists. As such, in a section about #1, this is where we can explain how "freer" applied, specific with the example of a photograph of a 3D work of art in a country without FOP for art; we would want a photograph that has been licensed freely even though it also is a derivative work and has copyright for the art, over a non-free licensed photo. We don't need to have this NFC section added immediately but it is something desparaetly needed. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Clem, I don't disagree with your 1st two points, but had let them lie on grounds of not changing the wording too much in one go (and perhaps inadvertently changing a nuance). Not keen on changing from "non-free content": it use seems well established here. I don't think your suggested split into two sentences quite works, since the 1st sentence on it's own is not true (as content that could be created is not necessarily available at the moment). As for modal auxiliaries (should, may, etc.), we don't tend to use them; not sure why though. Masem, a "How do I meet these criteria" section in NFCC sounds good indeed.—Aquegg (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to make sure it's clear that I mean that "How do I meet..." should be in the NFC guideline (since it will be advice and practical application) leaving NFCC as strictly policy. If we tried to put that in policy, I can see a lot of negative feedback to it. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my typo; struck.—21:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting closer, but I'd go with:

1. Irreplaceable by free content. Non-free content is used only when a free content alternative cannot be created or found that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. This includes when the subject could be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text instead.

This directly uses the term "free content", replaces the ambiguous "equivalent" with "irreplaceable" instead, and explicitly includes the possibility of text as a replacement. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to be flipped a bit- the second one mixed when with where. But what does it actually mean that hasn't already been said?

1. Irreplaceable by free content. Non-free content is used only when a free content alternative that serves the same encyclopedic purpose, cannot be created or found. This includes situations where the subject could be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs)

"Or found" is a problem. A lot of people go "Well, you're tell me this non-free can't be used because a free image could be taken. But I've looked high and low for a free one and can't find one." I know the structure you have is meant to prevent this next logic mis-step, but I know there will be editors that read that and will so "So since I can't find a free alternative of something that I could get a free alternative, I get to use non-free". Also, the change of the rule by-line is problematic as the "equivalent" is a core part of this. A so-out-of-focus free photo of a deceased person would not be equivalent to a clear non-free photo of them. In general, I really don't think we should be touching the first part of NFCC#1, but clearly accept moving the more advice part to another location once we figure that out. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

One more time...

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only when it cannot be replaced by a free content equivalent that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. This includes when a free equivalent is available or could be created, and when the subject could be adequately conveyed by sourced text instead.

I brought back the original wording, pretty much, except gave it the more concise style we have been aiming for. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the guiding text to the guideline, where it can be reorganised/expanded as we see fit.—Aquegg (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we need some clarification as to what this means exactly, or how editors should determine if images meet this standard. As it is, some people think that any image depicting an important event in the life of famous person is iconic and/or historical. Perhaps we should add some language that explains that these terms can only be applied to non-free images if several reliable secondary sources are shown to describe them as such. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say an image is "iconic and historical" if there are sources discussing the image itself as opposed to discussing what the image depicts. A classic example would be Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. --Carnildo (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why this text-string:

Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously.

ViperSnake151, what situation is this caveat addressing? Why would there be an "iconic and historical image" that is not discussed in any secondary sources, and how are Wikipedia editors going to determine with any accuracy or agreement which images are and which aren't iconic and historical if they are not discussed by reliable secondary sources? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point; but I interpreted it as meaning, if it's like a historical picture of a band, but the commentary is more about their clothing than the image itself. But I changed it to just

Images that are themselves an iconic or historically significant depiction of the subject, where there is critical commentary from multiple reliable sources in the article that is specifically about the image itself or its contents, are generally considered appropriate. They still must meet all aspects of

contextual significance

.

ViperSnake151  Talk  02:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This string is right where it should be on NFCI. As per the above section, we should avoid getting into any specific cases on NFC policy, leaving it to the guideline to define practice. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this? 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: for commentary on how or why an image achieved such status. As for "several sources", I think that's covered by DUE. It would be beneficial though, if we could provide NFC readers with a couple of good examples of images that fall into this category.—Aquegg (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the previous text, not because I'm necessarily against change, but because I don't think changes should be made on the fly while discussion is still ongoing.

It should be remembered that the current NFCI #8 was adopted as a compromise after a long and somewhat bloody discussion a couple of years ago. It's also important for the community that guidelines remain reasonably stable, and don't change from day to day. There needs to be consultation and deliberation and consensus first, rather than people taking a flyer.

Finally it's worth noting that NFCI #8 is not meant as a carbon copy of NFCI #9. As I understand it, it's meant to cover situations where in the community's judgement what adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article is what is shown in the historical photograph, rather than the particular historical photograph itself. An example might be the photograph of the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics recently discussed; or various Second World War photographs; or (ISTR) a photograph that showed the scale of the welcome home given to a returning nuclear submarine after the Falklands campaign. The question to be considered, per NFC #8, is: what does the photograph add to reader understanding of the topic, that would not be gained without it. The current wording to NFCI #8 was thrashed out to try to reflect that (and also remind about NFC #2 etc). Jheald (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Or to offer a second case, many of the images on the

Holocaust page; almost none of the images are iconic themselves, but are needed to show well-described conditions and treatment that occurred during that. I agree I#9 has to be considered separate from I#8. --MASEM (t

) 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially a blank check that opens the door to

WP:OR, because there is nothing in the guideline that suggests how editors will determine if an image is iconic and/or historic? 1) How can an image be iconic if its not been the object of discussion in secondary sources, and 2) how will Wikipedia editors find agreement regarding the iconic status of an image if they are not required to demonstrate that multiple secondary sources discuss the image, not just generally, but in the context as iconic and/or historical? What if I declare that an image is iconic and/or historical, but no secondary sources describe the image as such? Who will determine if I am correct and how? Also, judiciously is a wildly subjective word. Does that mean that if its the only image from the event its okay, or that if its only one of four such images used in the article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs}

) 16:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions like the above, and more generally of significance for

WP:NOR is about introducing new theses in article space, not value judgements made on talk pages. Or as Wikidemo puts it in the discussion I've just cited, "NOR applies only to encyclopedic content, i.e. text in article space. It doesn't apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy discussions, etc." Jheald (talk

) 17:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR, if its added because two or three editors declare the image to be historical. Case in point: File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Some are arguing that this image is iconic and historical, and others disagree. Who breaks the tie? If we aren't going to require sourcing, then its just a !vote, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs}

) 17:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's for whoever closes to decide, based on what they consider the consensus of opinion to be, in the light of the policy requirements.

Regarding

WP:NOR

:

• Somebody makes a map showing their personal view of the origin and spread of the original Indo-Europeans, and tries to put it in an article -- that is something that falls in the scope of the
  WP:NOR
  policy.
• Somebody states on a talk page that they believe an image makes a contribution they personally consider important to reader understanding because A B and C -- that is not in scope of
  WP:NOR
  , and is part of the spread of legitimate views the closer should consider in trying to assess the consensus of the community.

I presume this is all about the Jimi Hendrix mugshot picture. Now that may or may not add something significant for readers -- that's what's being discussed on the talkpage. But the image itself is a verifiable, historical fact. Merely showing it is not advancing a new thesis or proposition, so it's not

WP:OR. Jheald (talk

) 18:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that historical applies to all known images? If not, then what kinds of pictures aren't a verifiable, historical fact? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

We can prove easily that 1) that's a real photo and 2) a real photo attached to the arrest. Ergo, it's no question (the type that would need citation) that its historical. On the other hand, to present the Monterray burning guitar photo as "historical" is fine without sources (again, the proof is easy), but to present it as "iconic" requires sourcing. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, so then all known pictures of all dead people are historical, but what about a picture of Philip Seymour Hoffman from three days before he died? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To simply matters - yes. Note, of course, that doesn't mean that it is immediately justified, as particularly for things that just recently happened or changed, there is a likely good change of free media being there that does the same job, making the NFCI#9 claim fail against NFCC#1. We had a recent discussion that if a notable person passes away and we didn't immediately have a free image, we suddenly cannot put a non-free up but give a reasonable period of time for a free image to be identified (a few months). But that's a different discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I'd just drop "iconic" because that has to be a word that comes from sources. On the other hand, "historical" is easy - is it an old photo? If yes, it's historical. I'm not sure how to adjust the last part, but removing "iconic" would clear up the obvious paradox in the statement. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How old is old? To a 15 year-old, an image from the 1970s might seem historical. Or how about a caveat that for editors to present images as either iconic or historical that they need to provide reliable secondary sources that actually describe the image or event depicted in the image using either or both words? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If they have to define iconic or historical, then #9 remains a paradox or an unattainable situation (since there are always sources). But "historical" basically means "anything in the past", and more specifically, any situation or the like where due to whatever the situation the creation of a free image is impossible (the person died, it was a one-time event, the building is knocked down, etc.) It's a common sense definition that then makes #9 makes sense to require sources to describe that aspect that is in the past. It's an objective test. Compared to "iconic" that really needs a secondary source to work out. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are defining historical as "anything in the past, and especially where the person or thing that is depicted no longer exists." By this definition, all pictures of dead people are historical. Is that an accurate statement? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "significantly aid in illustrating historical events"

Who defines what a historical event is? Is the arrest of Jimi Hendrix in 1969 really a historical event? How about the arrest of Morrison, Joplin, Lennon, McCartney (5 times), Jagger, Richards, etcetera? If historical event is defined similarly as historical image, then every event in the history of human existence is historical, right? Isn't this a distinction without a difference? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "illustrating historical events" clearly relates to the subject of the article in which an image is placed and thus this image would qualify in the Hendrix article as this arrest, which led to Mr. Hendrix being under threat on incarceration for seven months, certainly illustrates an "historical event" in his life as would similar images in the articles about these other individuals. Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Centpacrr, would you say that a yearbook picture of Hendrix from 1948 is historical? Why, or why not?GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It could be depending on the circumstances. I assume, however, that at the time Mr. Hendrix graduated from high school he was not a public figure and one's high school graduation in the absence of some other events would not be unusual or noteworthy. However the arrest of Mr. Hendrix at the time he was a high profile public figure leading to his being charged with a felony which resulted in considerable disruption to his all too brief career, and his being subjected to seven months of legal process ending in a multiple day trial with a potential penalty if convicted of incarceration certainly is an "historic event" in his life. Since Mr. Hendrix is the exclusive subject of the WP entry in which this image appears as the only available contemporaneous illustration directly related to that event, it is certainly would qualify as an "historical" image in that context. Centpacrr (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that statement about the mugshot is that it wasn't a 7 month trial, it was overall, given the arrest and bail, the scheduling hearings, and the trial, a matter of 4-odd days. The arrest weighed down on Hendrix for those 7 months between arrest and the verdict, but let's not pretend that the trial itself was that significant a time frame. (This is why I have suggested, the story about him and his drug use and withdrawing from that and the subsequent clearing of charges seen by Hendrix as a validation for going drug-free is much more encyclopedic than focusing so much on the details of the arrest and trial). --MASEM (t) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding definition of Iconic and historical images:
  • If the image does not meet WP:Notability in its own right, it's extremely unlikely to be "Iconic and historical" and should not be used without discussion. Any discussion should start off with the presumption that it is not iconic and historical and work from there.
  • Once the image has been determined to meet WP:Notability, editors should consider either making a stand-alone article about the image or a section discussing the image in a relevant article. If the article the section belongs in happens to be the article that the image is currently in under criteria #8, it will "moot" the need to rely on criteria #8.
  • Images which are "Iconic and historical" may be used as described in the guideline. In particular, there does not need to be any discussion of the images in the article in which they are used under criteria #8.
• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

davidwr, is it accurate to state that images that are not the object of any commentary in reliable secondary sources are not notable, and therefore not iconic? Also, historical to the subject, or historical to the world? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very likely accurate, but not necessary to spell out since everyone can read WP:Notability for themselves and since there may be an image out there that meets WP:Notability but which is not the subject of any commentary in any reliable secondary source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be making a mountain out a molehill here, if people don't mind me saying so. The fundamental test we ought to be keeping our eyes on is NFCC #8. That is the actual policy, the question which is set up to be the focus of the community's assessment.

The NFCI are intended as some useful examples, not a closed list, nor a fundamental set of requirements. At the end of the day, what the community is asked to judge is not whether the image is 'iconic', but whether seeing it adds something significant to reader understanding of the subject. The image is plainly historical, but what has to be assessed is whether as a historical image it has an importance in the context of the topic of the article that is sufficient to justify its inclusion. That's the question the community is asked to present its views on, in the light of the NFC policy, and the reasons underlying the NFC policy. Jheald (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is with the vague language, IMO. We wouldn't be making a mountain if we had clear guidance. What I hear from you is that as long as you have enough editors !voting the right way any image will be kept regardless of what the sources say about its iconic status, which sounds a lot like a democracy. How can an image be said to be iconic if no reliable sources even acknowledge that it exists? Is an image judged to be iconic because me and 9 of my Wikibuddies want to include it, because in practice that's what happens. Why not require that the image be described as iconic by a reliable source? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not right. As Jheald said, NFCI are examples, and in the past we've allowed images of (at least) historic importance to be used without the specific image being the subject of discussion as long as the image is presenting something of significant relevance to the article. I would classify nearly all the non-frees on

Holocaust to fall into this category. But if the images are challenged, we have to consider not NFCI#9 as being the allowance, but whether NFCC is now all met, and primarily here being NFCC#8. And for example, it's very hard to argue against inclusion of many of the Holocaust images because they demonstrate the deplorable conditions and situation that are discussed in text, and thus removal would harm the reader's understand. The discussion is not !vote counting but on strength of the arguments of whether NFCC is met or not. And that's why these types of deletion discussions occur at NFCR or FFD , where global consensus is gained and not just local one (where there is a de facto bias generally to keep). --MASEM (t

) 21:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's why DDD's close confused me, because IMO the rationales for keeping based on the assertion that readers need to see a mugshot to understand that Hendrix was arrested is absurd! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear - BDD's closure (as I read it) was based a procedural call - that there needs to be more discussion that FFD would allow on a specific aspect that the image could support. Without that possible direction to explore, I would have hoped it would have closed on a more conclusive manner. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but that's the issue. They closed it in such a way that we were given no direction except "keep trying" to justify inclusion. Now forum shopping is an issue, but in a sense DDD set the stage for that by suggesting a discussion at the talk page. I just don't see how "keep until justified" is supported by our guidelines. Why not "delete until justified", which seems infinitely more logical to me, if we are actually trying to minimize non-free file use. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Again "need" is a meaningless standard as no image (either free or non-free) is actually "needed" on WP because that is not their function. Instead the purpose of images is to illustrate and augment what is in the text, not to replace it. "Need" therefore is basically a red herring no matter what NFCC#8 says. It is a false standard. Centpacrr (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If one is discussing something that has a visual element, the first question to ask is if there is a free image that can show that visual element, as then inclusion of that is not going to be an issue. Assuming no free exists or could be created, the next question that should be asked is if describing that visual element - in context of the text of the article - would be much easier to do via a non-free image itself instead of trying to describe it out textually while retaining the encyclopedic value. It is often the case that to describe it out textually would be excessive, while "a picture is worth a thousand words" and so that would be a case where the image is "needed". However, at the same time, the concept may be simple enough to explain in words or duplicative of other free or non-free media already present, or several other reasons, and so it is not "needed". No NFCC enforcer believes that every non-free can be replaced by text and keep articles "efficient" at communicating information. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

With respect, sir, you are still missing the point. "Need" is a false standard because it is not an objective one as you imply but a subjective one and thus subject to being determined not by fiat but by the consensus editorial judgement of the community. The basis on which the editorial judgement to include an image -- any image -- is whether or not it helps illustrate and augment the text and/or subject, not because is "needs" or "requires" it "to be understood" but instead because it helps to aid, augment, and/or illustrate the material in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And what's important to note is that nowhere in NFCC does the work "need" show up. You're right its not an absolute, but this is also not what is practiced. However and the point that is missed often as you do above, is that NFCC#8 has two parts. You're addressing part one about aiding and illustrating, but we also have to consider the second part that asks about the harm of no including, and in practice (that is, at FFD/NFCR discussion and at FACs) this is where most non-frees fail. It may be an image that aids in understanding but if it can be removed and understanding of the topic unaffected - and this is assuming that no massive chuck of replacement free text is needed - then the image fails. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as an equally false tautology. If there is no "need" for any image in WP then all images could be said to be removable from the project without causing any "harm" to it. Therefore as far as I am concerned both parts of NFCC#8 are fatally flawed as being so broad to be constructively meaningless standards. Centpacrr (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's worked quite well for 6 years. There are sometimes stumbling blocks in practice (the Hendrix mug shot is an example) but most of the time there's a clear understanding when, for what it amounts to, a non-free image is "needed" or at least sufficient satisfies the criteria as to not be considered unneeded. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it, "need" (a verb meaning "to be under a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation") is an absolute thus making it an unachievable and therefore essentially meaningless standard. In my experience NFCC#8 has not worked well at all and this false standard has led to quite a few protracted image disputes. Centpacrr (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, all articles should be readable for blind people (see e.g.

Stefan2 (talk

) 23:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. The appropriate standard is an image's relevance to the topic being related by or discussed in the text. The purpose of any image is to illustrate and/or augment the text, not replace it. Centpacrr (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A reminder is that the word "need" never appears in NFCC, save for "needing" to provide a proper rationale, but that's not the context you're arguing against. NFCC#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Nothing absolute in that sentence to imply "need". --MASEM (t) 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

NFCI#8 as written is of very limited use when compared to all the other NFCIs. For all the others, there is little subjectivity in determining if an image falls into the class described, and thus getting a 90+% chance that at least one such image is acceptable. The first part of NFCI#8 doesn't say anything that isn't in NFCI#9 (so you're 90+% good if it applies to your image). The second part, on the other hand—"significantly aid in illustrating historical events…"—paraphrases NFCC#8 in a way that's at least, if not more, subjective than the original, and the only given qualification "if they meet all aspects…" applies across the board, so there's nothing here that an editor can latch on to and gain the high levels of confidence associated with the other NFCIs. This one blunt tool in the box does more harm than good: people assume it's sharp then run into problems trying to use it. Given that recent attempts to turn it into something useful have not delivered, I suggest we just strike it.—Aquegg (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - so just use non-free media where we can, not where we need it? We are trying to write a free encyclopedia here, per our pillars. oppose - we are supposed to minimize non-free material used on this encyclopedia, and excluding material that is not necessary is perfectly in line with that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Aquegg's proposal related to NFCI #8, not NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes

WP:NFCC#8, basically those things are transcluded - I may be unclear on what we are talking about, but then the redirects etc. do not point in the right direction. Can you show me the difference between NFCI#8 and NFCC#8?) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Should be

WP:NFCI

#8 -- "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."

Your link got confused, because it went to the first '#8' on the page, which belongs to

WP:NFCI. Limitations of redirects and html. Jheald (talk

) 11:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment this does not happen because we actively discourage the use of free material. Overly-strict interpretation of NFCI#8 is one of the biggest obstacles to the use of free material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Showing a need is indeed an obstacle to the use of non-free material (NFCI#8 is not applicable to free material). I believe that there should be some obstacle of this kind, one should be able to show the need - how strict it should be, or how strict it should be interpreted is an editorial decision, but removal of the requirement is not the solution. I am against a 'lets use non-free material, it is fair use anyway, even if we don't need it' - and this is then one of the hurdles to overcome. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 - I don't follow what you mean. How can NFCI#8 be an obstacle to the use of free material when it only applies to non-free images? And how do you feel we "actively discourage the use of free material" - granted we could do more to encourage it but not without cost (e.g. the de.wiki solution). CIreland (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it applies to free images as well. I have lots of free images that I took myself, that I cannot use because of their non-commercial status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that these images are not free, at least not in the way that Wikipedia means. By definition, if an image is free in the Wikipedia sense of the word, NFCC and NFCI do not apply. If you took an image yourself, the only reason it might not be free is 1) you haven't release enough of your rights for the photo to be "free," or 2) you took a picture of an item that was under copyright and the copyright "carried over" and turned your photo into a derivative work, such as photos of copyright-encumbered artistic works and the other copyright holders have not released enough of their rights for your image to be "free." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The core of the present NFCI #8 was created by Masem in August 2011 diff (see also the half a dozen diffs either side), after a long and heated discussion about whether or not images of historical importance must be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use, a question which had led to considerable dissention and edit wars.

Before this, the NFCI had previously given historic and iconic images a free pass. Then someone tried to re-write the clause to demand commentary directly on the image itself. This met with push-back and considerable acrimony.

As so often, Masem crystallised effective wording that summed up the centre ground of the ensuing discussion -- that such images can be used even if they are not the subjects of commentary; but in any such cases there must be very considerable care that all of the NFCC requirements are met.

Given that this issue caused so much acrimony in the past, I believe it is worth keeping the present NFCI #8 clause as a record of the view that the community came to after a deeply committed discussion. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the background. It's the lumping together of a situation that requires considerable care with those that are practically black-or-white (Is it cover-art? Is he dead? etc.) that's the problem. We have a section for probably acceptable, and one for probably unacceptable, the careful consideration stuff should be present in NFC, but separated from the clear-cut stuff.—Aquegg (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Gee I forgot I even added that :) But re-reading that definitely fell out of discussion of using historical Holocaust images that individually none were no more significant over the others, but clearly were appropriate for illustration. A strict reading of NFCC and NFCI at that time (before the addition) would not allow many of the images that are on there now, and this is where common sense had to override over pragmatic application. An article on the Holocaust without any of the known historical documentation via photographs that occurred would be completely inane. But I also point out this is the unequivocal example. Not every historical event has the need for such illustration even if there exists a body of photographs for that where none are of critical commentary themselves. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the current wording of
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 15:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's fine. Using a photo in educational context where the transformative use is describing the events around the photo works within US fair use defense (our phrase "critical commentary" is an extension of the fair use defense law that uses vague terms "critique" and "commentary".) This assumes the other NFCC factors are also met. -MASEM (t) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Are lossless video game screenshots less acceptable for fair use on Wikipedia than a comparable JPEG at the same resolution? Anonymous-232 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Per

Stefan2 (talk

) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If your screenshot is of eg an old 8-bit game, where an important part of the design creativity was often how to work within strict limitations on the screen resolution and colour palette, please use an exact PNG at the original resolution to allow the reader to assess this, rather than an approximate JPG. If it's a modern high-resolution game where none of this applies, use a JPG reduced to an appropriate size for Wikipedia, because it's likely to be rather smaller than the PNG for essentially equivalent information. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I regularly use PNGs for all video game images, for a simple reason: Mediawiki's scaling is often atrocious on JPGs, and I avoid some nasty artifacts by using a lossless image. As the screenshots are reduced heavily from their initial sizes, any copies made from a lossless PNG here are still inferior to that of the original 480, 720, 1080, etc image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This - we already should be used reduced-sized images, so at the point of lossy-vs-lossless formats (now both unburdened by IP), it really doesn't matter. That said, if the original source image is JPG, it makes no sense to reduce and then save as PNG, you've already lost the data. If you are generating the screenshot like in PNG in the first place, I'd used JPG for true video (movies, TV) and PNG for anything otherwise digitally created, but that reduction should take of the "minimal use" and fair use factors. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a simple criterion to follow: JPG is for photography (i.e. analog images in origin), PNG is for linear drawings and schematics (i.e. pixel-based images). The technical requirements of each format were created for a very specific purpose, and one should not be used for the other kind of content. When each format is used for its intended content, scaling it down is OK and should yield adequate results when reducing the resolution. Diego (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Use the minimum resolution necessary. If the screen-shot is a "title screen" or equivalent image where the details do not matter, then a sub-100KB 300pixel-wide image is usually more than adequate (consider using an even less detailed image if possible). If it's highly-detailed image that is the subject of commentary, and the details are important to the understanding of the text, then it should be as highly-detailed as necessary. Where anything less than a full-frame uncompressed image is necessary only because part of the image contains details which are important in the context of the article consider using two images: A compressed image of the full frame, and an uncompressed crop of the details that are important in this article. Of course, only do this if both images meet the non-free content criteria as used in that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on several recent discussions and FFDs, I wonder if we should change the wording of NFCCE and whatever else needs to be changed upstream that closes on FFDs should never come to "no consensus" closes - either the rationale works or it doesn't. If this means that more closes are closed "keep", that's fine - I'd rather have an admin-based close that might counter to what I believe show happen than the perpetual state of an image's questionable use (and using DRV for bad decisions). The idea here is reflecting practice, in general - that the onus on keeping non-frees is on those wanting to keep it, as described at NFCCE, and that the Foundation requires prompt attention to non-frees that fail. We do not say explicitly that images that have no consensus to be kept or delete are generally deleted , but this is practice at FFD most of the time.

I want to be clear - this would not prevent an FFD to close "no consensus" but there has to be a good reason from the admin for further discussion/improvement on the rationale that would be out of scope of the FFD, and that this would not prevent people from placing another FFD relatively soonish (a few weeks or so) after the previous FFD to re-challenge if the rationale is not sufficiently improved.

What needs to happen is, per current NFCCE and the Resolution, to keep non-free media out of circular flight paths of "no consensous" retention; whether NFCC is met or not is really a binary state, and either the rationale is suitable or its not. It's fair to give time out of an FFD discussion to get improvements, but this can't be used to indefinitely extend a file's lifetime.

Along side this, I would stress that FFD is meant if you personally are 100% sure there's a problem, and that if you think there might be a problem and the talk page where its used is not helpful, NFCR is the place to go.

Note, I'm not suggesting we make this change based on discussion here alone - this would need global consensus to change first and thus a separate RFC. I'm looking to the regulars on this page if this idea even makes sense before setting the question to the larger community. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it is possible to get rid of "no consensus". Some criteria such as
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is that while practice of NFCCE and FFD is to close "no consensus" as delete, it is not documented anywhere, and so some think that a "no consensus" allows an image to be kept, and thus as long as "no consensus" outcomes keep happening, the NFC should remain. I'd rather see admins determine if the subjective criteria have or haven't be met and keep or delete than indefinite cycles of FFDs. (Note - I should point out this only applies to non-free FFDs) Consider that BLP policy keeps questionable material out of articles until there is clear consensus to include, we should be documenting the same approach. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • See
      Stefan2 (talk
      ) 19:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I think closing FFDs as no consensus and then deleting the image is completely consistent with the "burden of proof" issue in the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Referring to that previous discussion which appears in line with deleting images that have "nACo consensus" to keep, what I want to point out is that while we have the subjective measures of #8 and others, a "no consensus" is appropriate if it is clear as the FFD discussion goes that there's routes to better justify the image but that need time and discussion outside the scope of the FFD to consider. If, instead, all the discussion in the !voting is "this meets NFCC#8, period" and "this doesn't meet NFCC#8, period", with no obvious solution how one side can be swayed, the admin should make a binding decision based on their reading of the consensus and NFC policy, keep or delete. I'd rather see an admin firmly close NFCC in the "wrong" way when there's no way that additional discussions will change anyone's mind, than to have the image floating around in a perpetual state of unsureness for meeting NFCC. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I would- this could mean that one "wrong" closure could then be used to justify dozens of other images used in a similar way. Also, if there's no clear consensus, that's a good reason to hold up a GAC or FAC, for instance, meaning that those care about the article have a good reason to work to find a decent solution. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• The instructions at
  WP:FFD
  says "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised" -- which would imply that no consensus => no deletion.

This is also the position of the

deletion guidelines for administrators

: When in doubt, don't delete.

The long discussion in 2009 was interpreted by one admin as follows:

The question at issue is whether no consensus defaults to delete where NFCC-related discussions are concerned. Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete.

This is also a position that has been upheld several times at Deletion Review.

So Masem statement that "no consensus" = delete is not just "undocumented" as he puts it, but it actually goes against the policy guidance that is documented.

As for

WP:AAFFD essay discusses this some more. In law this is essentially a separate issue to the issue of e.g. how many jurors you need to agree to secure a conviction. Jheald (talk

) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable analysis. I do feel that the NFCC are quite clear, and I do think defaulting to delete is the sensible option in this case, but I can't really argue with that- I'll not offer any further opinion at this time. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me restate this, as there are really two issues I'm presenting:

1. Should we have FFD closers adopt a firmer stance in closing FFDs where there is no clear way of going forward (no side has provided arguments to convince the other side), and saving "no consensus" for cases where more discussion is needed (where there has been a possible option forward presented)? This is primarily to address non-free that stay indefinitely in a "no consensus" state, and rather have firm closes that might even be the "wrong" way than to have endless FFDs cycles.
2. Assuming "yes" to the above, what type of close should a near equal !vote favor? It makes no sense to answer this before #1 is answered. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming "yes" to question 1, does this mean that we will have lots of old FFD discussions that no one dares to close? --

Stefan2 (talk

) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is why before making the change I would want global consensus so admins can confidentially act without feeling their actions can come back to bite them, by pointing to the consensus (should that happen). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I'd like to ask that you gain consensus for each of your changes to the guideline. You have taken a rigid view of non-free content, which you try to enforce to the point where it has almost become an editor-retention issue. This guideline is cited in support in discussions, but you are changing it to suit your views in those discussions, and now reverting when challenged. I think this is problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If I could add that both of you need to stop edit warring? That being said, I would also like to see evidence that these changes have consensus. Resolute 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just noting here (having looked at the page history) that I inadvertently reverted more than I intended to; it seems that Masem and I were editing at the same time at a couple of points. Masem, I can't see how you can justify retaining your changes over an objection without discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So we're addressing my changes and not the changes that Aquegg has done (which all have been in practice and policy?) Isolating one editor's contributions is hard to take in good faith. Irregardless, these are non-contentious points that have been established in practice.

1. Coin images - All that was being added is saying that the front/back pair of images for coins are the equivalent of cover art when it comes to images for identification. It doesn't say any more or less than that (whether more images could be used or not).
2. "Freer" works. Standard practice is that we want freely licensed photos that are otherwise considered derivative works of copyrighted material (eg photos of 3D sculpture). Again, this is standard practice.
3. Montages. Again, standard practice; user created montages are counted as multiple non-free and thus are generally avoided.

None of these points are contentious and have clear consensus from NFCR/FFD results as well as past discussions. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because I feel that you take a view of non-free that is extreme and not representative of editors as a whole. That's why I'd like to ask that you gain consensus for changes, so that the guideline isn't constantly tightened to the point where it becomes difficult to use any non-free. For example, you've added that coins apply, even though that discussion hasn't closed and is going against you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's assuming bad faith on your part. I'm well aware that it is bad form to edit guidelines to "win" an argument, and it is not something I do at all. Specifically, on the coin issue, the section edit has absolutely zero bearing on the discussion at hand. It is about what can be used for article identification images, with the front/back pairing for coins equivalent to cover art. There is no attempt to say anything about the appropriateness of any other images as in the current NFCR discussion, nor was that change meant to have any influence on that. I will accept that if my wording might implicate something there, it should be fixed, but my intent was an issue completely orthogonal to the NFCR issue. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are including coins in the guideline, in a way that fits your argument (that that section applies to coins), while the discussion is taking place. That's best avoided.

I'm sorry if it seems like ABF. It isn't intended that way. It's just that you take an unusually strict view of non-free, then spend much of your time on WP enforcing that view, based on this guideline. So if you're also changing the guideline without consensus, and reverting when someone objects, you can see where that leads.

As I said, it has almost become an editor-retention issue, because people are having to spend hours (and even days or weeks) arguing about sometimes very basic issues. The non-free position is important; I do understand the reasons for it. But common sense is important too and what we need is a balance. So I think it's important that this guideline not be taken further in one direction without consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is bad faith to target just my additions then, under that same logic. I might take a stronger view of NFCC, but if you actually read what was there, none of those points, including the point that front/back images are considered appropriate for identification, are contentious, and follow practice. I would not be arrogant enough to change the guideline to "win" the NFCR point. (I will note that I opened discussions on the talk pages to suggest if we need changes in relation to these discussions, but that's complete in line) And the reason to keep adding more to this is to make it clearer so that we avoid having the excess discussions about non-free by making it clearer when it is reasonable and when it is not as to avoid people uploading unjustifiable non-free to begin with, which is the core problem. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you not see the difficulty of adding that coins fall under this – "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion" – just as you're in the middle of a discussion about that point on Wikipedia: Non-free content review? Anyone closing the discussion might look at the guideline to see whether it specifically mentions coins, and now it does.

Are you willing to agree to gain consensus for additions in advance on talk from now on? I think that would help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Coins" was added at that point by Aquegg, but had it as a "single image"; Jheald removed the word on on the basis "normal to show the front and back of banknotes and coins, because the design is such a fundamental property of the object" (which is correct, we allow both sides). So I added back in that front and back is generally appropriate, all for the "identification image" (which most of us read as the infobox /top of page image). Now, yes, it should be clear we're talking the infobox image and nowhere else; additional covers or coins images may or may not be used, but that's not a statement to be made in the section about "identifying image"; this could be fixed by wording but has no impact on the NFCR. This is what I meant that if the wording (but not the concept itself) was a problem, that can easily happen.

And you'll have to understand that there is no way I will accept having to require consensus to add material to this guideline if I'm the only one under that restriction. (I would accept a global restriction but that's not likely not going to fly given this is only a guideline). Again, you need to assume good faith that when I make edits to this, it is with consensus and obvious practice of NFC. There's lots I'd love to add to this to make NFC enforcement stricter and easier (like the present discussion about strengthening NFCCE), even some points I could justify with very flimsy evidence on claims that it could be practice, but no way am I going to boldly add those without checking first, I'm not that arrogant to believe they would fly. But points that I'm 99% sure are global consensus, as all three above - that's completely in line with development of guidelines and policies, and I would expect that anyone that is pro NFC usage (that is, anti-heavy NFC enforcement, the counter to my position) are free to modify and change this without consensus as long as the changes also reflect consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case will you accept that you need to gain consensus for an addition or omission if there's an objection (not counting tweaking language for the purpose of improving the writing)? That's the usual thing with guidelines and policies. It's not that you're being singled out for a special restriction.

Re: coins again. It just isn't a good idea for you to be adding anything to do with coins in the middle of the discussion about coins, especially when it looks as though it's going against you. That was my only point. I think you should reverse yourself and leave the issue of coins until after that discussion has closed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If the removal has some fair reason to remove, then yes, that's reason not to readd until consensus is gotten via BRD. I would expect still some good faith assumptions here that what I am adding is not an attempt to influence an ongoing NFCR/FFD issue or that isn't something that should be an obvious point of consensus. But if something I added or changed is reverted without comment or indication of comment forthcoming, that's not a fair revert. In terms of the coins, under the same issue, Jheald shouldn't have removed that since he's also involved in that discussion. But as Jheald pointed out, the original text's part about coins is flatly wrong, so clarifying the point is not an issue. So there's no reason to call out on that point since it's unrelated at all to the NFCR. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm just as perplexed. Since currency is treated differently to books etc., Jheald rightly corrected what I had written earlier and explained the reason in the edit comment, so we had consensus. Masem captured the sentiment from Jheald's edit comment as an additional few words for the guide—useful to prevent others from repeating my mistake—so we still have consensus, as far as I can tell.—Aquegg (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't only coins. It's also:

Another consideration for "no free equivalent" are "freer" versions of non-free media, typically which include derivative works. For example, a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work. We would use a photograph where the photographer has licensed their photograph under a free license, retaining the copyright of the derivative work, instead of a photograph that has non-free licenses for both the photograph and work of art.

And:

In considering the ability to take a free photograph, it is expected that the photographer respects all local property and privacy laws and restrictions. For example, we would not expect a free photograph of a structure on inaccessible private property that is not visible from public locations.

And:

Montages consisting of some or all non-free images created by a user should be avoided for similar reasons. Within the scope of NFCC#3a, such montages are considered as multiple non-free images based on each non-free image that contributes towards the montage. If a montage is determined to be appropriate, each contributing non-free item should have its source described (such as File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg). A montage created by the copyright holder of the images used to create the montage is considered a single non-free item and not separate items.

These were all recently added [4] and restored [5] by Masem. Do they have consensus? It just seems to me that with every edit we are tightening the screws, as it were, and these points are then used in non-free discussions that often end up driving people mad. So I'd really like to see consensus for additions to this guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you those reflect frequent discussion past and present with images (the first and second point, for example, came up in regards to getting a picture that may only be possible by access to a closed construction site). The montage advice falls directly out of NFLISTS for the same reasoning. And to stress - these are still guidelines and applied with common sense. And again, you're focusing on the small amount of text I added compared to the larger chunk of material that Aquegg added (which again, I see nothing wrong with what he added) which again is a large indication of assuming that my edits are in bad faith. Focus on why you feel these are bad, not just because these are my edits. Do you have a true issue against how any of these three points are, knowing what you know NFC policy and guidelines currently sit? That's a fair point to start discussion, instead of just questioning them because I added them. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that {{Non-free review}} has been changed to no longer be used on articles, do we have a template to tag articles where NFC in the article is under review at NFCR? If yes, which template is it? I think it is useful to also tag the article where the files under discussion are being reviewed, especially if there are multiple files in the article being under review. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally see no reason why we can't regain consensus to use that template on article space, but at minimum we can talk about a talk page tag and/or preloaded section block for such articles which would probably be less contentious. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not that I personally need the ability to tag an article with this template. I mainly used it in cases where there is an article with multiple non-free files that might affect each other with regards to

WP:NFCC#3a. In such a case it is (in my opinion) not useful to start a separate section for each file, as the article should be treated as a whole with all non-free files it contains. However it might be sufficient to just tag all the files separately. I don't actually care whether consensus points in one direction or the other. If people don't need it, I won't use it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi

19:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of case we need a means to "tag" an article (at minimum, alert the editors via talk page) due to the #3a issue. Tagging individual images is excessive in that it may not be the uploaders that created the #3a issue and may be unaware it even exists. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, can we reimplement the article tagging ability of the template again, then? Do we need a VPR discussion or just a section in this thread to gain a consensus (possibly with a link to the discussion on this talk page on VPR)? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing that without an RFC/consensus manner would likely be rejected since an RFC determined the change to do that was invalid. I'd rather see a template that can be subst'd on talk pages to point editors to VPR so that all you have to do is drop that the talk page (it's just a matter of evoking the right template magic words to make the linkage happen correctly). This, at minimum, cannot be considered disruptive and is likely the best solution that doesn't need consensus since we're not changing the main article page. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I still do not see how tagging an article with a template indicating NFC on the page is being discussed at another board is disruptive in any way. In which way is it better to not inform people of NFC problems and have a lot of discussion when the NFC is being removed after the NFCR discussion has been closed? Furthermore, if cleanup templates can be on the main article page, why can't this template be? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it was either, but the RFC that others initiated to remove that functionality of the template showed that if we added to back and used it without gaining consensus, it would be considered a POINTy move. We pointed out the normal use of maintenance tags, and they complained this was completely different. (And it was closed by an uninvolved that removed the function, so its not like this was a open-ended RFC) Mind you, I think most that were complaining were from the visual arts project where the tag was being used on several of their articles at their time so I don't think it was a fair consensus but it was one that we should abide until we can gain a new one (wider than just this page, since that is what happened when we did initially add the page-notification function to it was out of a small discussion here). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to start a proposal at VPR to add the functionality back. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We do. {{Non-free}} ViperSnake151  Talk  00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That template only tells that there is an inappropriate use of non-free content in an article. It doesn't tell that there is a discussion on this page. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 00:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It says the talk page may have more details. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I made a proposal to add the article tagging functionality back to the template at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Reimplementing functionality to tag articles with Template:Non-free review. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This "map" exclusion is being used here: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_23#File:Sectional_drawing_of_Hulsebos-Hesselman_engine.jpg to exclude a technical drawing of an obscure 1930s engine. No examples of this exceptionally rare engine are likely to exist, so redrawing such a drawing is impossible (let alone the aspect that design drawings aren't the same as sketches of the finished product).

Is this technical drawing a "map", thus excluded from NFC under that example? This seems, to my mind, a ridiculous extrapolation. Whatever the thoughts on whether this image meets NFC, or not, for any other reason, it's not because technical drawings are now to be considered as maps!

Incidentally, the drawing (and the rest of the content from that book) meets PD-UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's just PD-UK and not PD-US, we have to treat it as non-free. So from that point of view, the point being made at the PUF is that it is a technical drawing - creative effort was made to assemble the drawing in the past, but the concepts of the engine cannot be copyrighted and it should be possible for someone to make a comparable drawing with a free license - maybe not with the same details but enough to show the concepts behind hit; this thus fails NFCC#1. The reason it is compared to a map is that in nearly all cases, map and geographic data can be recreated in a free manner ; only if the map included "creative" analysis such as the suggested example in UUI#4 about a contested border or the like would that may it impossible to recreate as a true free image. It is not a map, but the situation - where the picture is illustrating otherwise uncopyrightable information - is the same. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The image File:GoingUnderScreenshot.jpg is currently used under a non-free use rationale for the article Going Under (2004 film). One of the actors who appeared in that film is Roger Rees who also appears in that image. Would it be stretching the fair use rationale to use that image in his BLP? We would ensure, of course, that it is properly credited as a screen-shot from the film but does it create issues that cannot be resolved with proper crediting? Stalwart111 12:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It would violate

WP:NFCC#1, as he is still alive. Werieth (talk

) 13:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Even where the "equivalent" could only be gained by camping outside his house with a telephoto lens? I'm more than happy to accept your interpretation, I'm just wondering how "available" the alternate has to be. Stalwart111 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are scores of images on flickr from the last few years, demonstrating that this argument is just silly. He's an active performer, not J. D. Salinger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We can use those? That'd be great! Any chance you could point me toward a particular one? To be clear, it's not really an "argument" - I genuinely don't have a great understanding of these things and very rarely have anything to do with images. I didn't want to just go ahead and insert something for fear I'd get it wrong. Seems that fear was well-founded. Appreciate the advice either way. Stalwart111 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't use those; none have an appropriate license. But they show that it wouldn't be so difficult for someone who wanted to create a free photo to take one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Seems the best option is to wait for someone to do exactly that. Thanks for the advice! Stalwart111 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Should be easier to take a photo of this guy than to take a photo of
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 23:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've removed the image from the film as it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the film enough to warrant using as a non-free image in that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We at

No. Werieth (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Make collaborating on Wikipedia difficult. So the only way we can use the logo is if it is CC BY SA? We can use the Wikipedia copyrighted logo on collaborative pages. Makes it a little lopsided doesn't it?

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why must you display a logo at all? it looks like decoration to me. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two main organizations collaborating in this effort WikiProject Medicine and Translators Without Borders. Many of the people coming to this page are none Wikipedians. Images help explain who is working on this project.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The exact same thing can be done with text, which means its a violation of

WP:NFCC#1 Werieth (talk

) 00:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a text issue as one can paraphrase that.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Werieth means that you could write, in plain text, "We are collaborating with an organization called Translators Without Borders", rather than writing that and putting their logo on the page. Which is true, but of course the same claim could be made for almost all fair-use logos in corporate articles: the first sentence identifies the subject, so why bother putting the logo in the infobox? Answer: because it makes it easier to see, with a brief glance, what the page is about. That answer applies in a collaboration as well, although not quite so perfectly: adding a logo makes it possible to see, with a brief glance, which organizations are working together. Whether that is good enough according to the community is beyond my ken; whether it is good enough according to the NFCC regulars (who tend to be stricter than the typical community member) is something I doubt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The disallowance of logos on non-article space extends from the Foundation's policy and translated here as NFCC#9. We are only to be using non-free in conjunction with educational purposes, and showing collaboration with a third-party organization is not appropriate. You could use just the wordmark, which is uncopyrightable due to threshold of originality, but the graphic logo cannot be, in any way. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So if the legal team at the WMF stated it was okay than we could do it?

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Werieth (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Per "The disallowance of logos on non-article space extends from the Foundation's policy" Which policy is this exactly? And if we changed the policy than we could.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[7]. And to be clear, we do make some exceptions on en.wiki but they are strictly for admin issues around non-free images. If we make an exception here to use a non-free outside mainspace, people will jump and ask for exceptions everywhere. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP's logo is licensed CC-BY-2.0, so anyone can use it with attribution elsewhere. The fact that this other group doesn't want to license theirs in the same way is what creates the problem, not us. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? It does say CC BY SA 3.0 here [8] however when we used it on a poster for a talk I gave about about Wikipedia and Medicine at UCSF legal complained. I wonder if they know this? This version says "all rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." [9] which more matches my discussion with them. Will ping legal.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh, you're right - at least all the logos at Commons are tagged with a non-free copyright license - I suspect the one I looked at that's here at en.wiki is presently incongruent with those. I do note that on the foundation wiki there's a page that explains that while it is copyrighted there are a number of situations they give free-to-use permissions without question but most have to do with direct WP-related events, and not by-association things. (This also looks a relatively recent change too) --MASEM (t) 07:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal said they would take a look in a bit. It has always been like this as far as I am aware.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they give permission - our non-free policy is not there to worry about fair use considerations - we're specifically stronger than that so that we never have to worry about being in a fair use issue. We're developing a free content work and the goal is to minimize non-free to where it is only the most needed. To use a logo of an organization on a WIkiproject page to show a connection, this is not a required use of non-free in conjunction with educational content, so no exception can be made. If they really don't want to release it under a CC-BY license that's too bad, we just have to use words to show that. End of story. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay realize that is your position. Feel free to add it below. Using logos can further a collaboration and many collaborations improve Wikipedia. If it is legal it is also a reasonable exception if not in mainspace. For example the collaboration I am working on have generated dozens of Good and Featured Articles in different languages.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not saying you can't do anything collaborative, but as work that is aimed to free content, we have very strict rules about using non-free - very specifically off main space - and you don't need to use non-free image to show off and describe the collaboration. For example, again, you can use their wordmark (which would be a free image) to showcase the collaboration. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes good point. I still consider a logo important. We simply have different opinions. Will clarify community consensus and we can both abide by whatever it is.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So this happened. I don't think anything is likely to change quickly, but is there anything that needs to be said on the page? __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change anything directly - they want to use a version that embeds the image so that clicking on it takes you to Getty's - so these are going to be still treated as non-free. However, there are two direct consequences here:

• In terms of NFCC#2, Gettys images that would be under this "free to use" aspect for social media would likely no longer fail NFCC#2. This isn't all Gettys as the article states. However, this I would ask a WMF lawyer to double check before we clear it here.
• Someone - ideally the Foundation - should reach out and ask Gettys if they would give WP a blanket allowance to use Gettys stuff under a free CC-BY-SA (attribution kept), even if this has to mean that we have to credit Gettys in image captions directly. Or there are other ways that they would not be true free licenses but would be "freer" than they are presently.

This would affect worldwide projects so I definitely the first step is to get WMF on board for how this affects image policies. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Getty still requires people to pay for commercial use of the images, and you also have to pay if you can't use an iframe. Wikipedia can only accept fair use claims if they also work for commercial reusers, and Wikipedia can't use iframes as it would be against the privacy policy. Getty also decides the pixel size of the image, and the only allowed pixel size generally seems to be too big for Wikipedia articles. It therefore changes nothing with regard to Wikipedia's abilities to use Getty's images, as Getty still demands you to pay for the image in all other contexts.

I would say that there are three kinds of image users out there:

1. Newspapers and similar services: These pay for Getty's services and will have to continue to do so.
2. Users who do not understand copyright law and who just Google for images and insert those on pages: These get fines for violating Getty's copyright, and these users will likely receive fines in the future too as they won't understand that they need to include the HTML code which includes Getty's iframe with the credit line.
3. Users who understand copyright: These do not use Getty's images but instead use freely licensed images from Commons, Flickr and other services and by attributing the source advertise for websites containing free images.

I'm guessing that the problem for Getty is the third group of people. Getty knows that it can't get any money from these people and are also worried about the advertisements for Commons and Flickr. If the first group of people becomes aware of freely licensed images, this means less money for Getty as these users may use other people's images for free. If freely licensed images start popping up in Google Images searches, then Getty won't be able to send as many fines for copyright violations to people as it currently is doing, again meaning less money for Getty. Therefore, I guess that Getty wants to prevent advertisements for freely licensed sources (to make group one less aware of them) and limit their use (so that group two doesn't find those images instead of Getty's images in Google searches).

This thing seems to be directed to people in group 3: Getty knows that these people won't pay Getty any money, but is hoping that this feature will make some people in the group use their images, thereby reducing the exposure to freely licensed images for people in groups 1 and 2.

Also, it seems that only some images are available for free iframe use. For example, this one allows iframe use, but this one does not. --

Stefan2 (talk

) 14:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why I'd like to have a WMF legal input on this matter before we make changes. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan totally upriver as usual his point 3 (he just makes it up as he goes along, doesn't he?) Of course it's exactly as Getty says. For more than a year I've been looking for free image of Reeva Steenkamp to use on Wikipedia. There just aren't any. But go to any Facebook tribute site devoted to her and you will find dozens, all of them copied from commercial sites. And several international Wikiprojects carry local images of Reeva (Russia, Italy, Turkey ...). The truth is it really can't be policed. Presently (I mean right now) you can rent a 433 pixel image (i.e. about twice the resolution of our 0.1MP Fair Use standard if square) image from Getty to use for three month on a social media or editorial website for about $50. I doubt they make money on the offer, but of course it marks out their commercial interests, and as Masem points out the "embedding" policy doesn't change that. I agree with Masem. Let WMF apporoach Getty Images and see what sort of deal can be reached with them (the truth is that they're a rather enlightened bunch for all their hard-headed business models). If it means a watermark, that's fine with me even if does put Stefan out of a job (life, whatever it actually is with him) lordy lor. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add here - I did email Getty Images about renting an image of Reeva Steenkamp as follows:

Name [redacted]

Username [redacted]

Email address [redacted]

Type of assistance Sales

Comments I'm an editor at Wikipedia (i.e. just an ordinary user with no official affiliation).

Can I purchase an image to use for 3 months on a Wikipedia page. The image I have in mind is gty.im/161658209 to use on the Wikipedia article on Reeva Steenkamp at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeva_Steenkamp. I assume Wikipedia is classified as a social media site and on that basis I found a price of £39. Is that so?

Thank you.

[redacted]

and got this reply:

Hi [redacted],

Thank you for your email.

Please see link below -

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Creative/Frontdoor/embed

You may use the new embed feature.

Regards

[redacted]

Customer Service Associate

101 Bayham Street London NW1 0AG

direct tel: [redacted]

freephone: [redacted]

e-mail: [redacted]

e-mail: [redacted]

web: www.gettyimages.co.uk |web: www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk

from which I infer that they envisage Wikipedia using this feature (of course presently you can't as it doesn't recognise embedded code). I would indeed have been able to embed the Reeva Steenkamp image I wanted (correction: actually not all iamges are available for embedding and I didn't check the Reeva image as it comes at the end of a 19 page catalogue I could find no obvious way to search effectively). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So for all practical purposes, I'd argue this means Getty images remain non-free for us (if they require use to embed, that's not using it inline with free distribution, even if we had embed support on WP, and that we should, for all purposes, consider Getty still falling within #2. Again, it would be nice if WMF could approach Gettys to get a clearer allowance but without that, we're sorta screwed. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I think I would be conflicted about using embedded images from Getty. Of course it would be wonderful to use all their images but I do think it's too big a departure from Wikimedia's free mission. Certainly support your suggestion WMF approach Getty to see what might be offered.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk

) 21:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that. Although not a huge Facebook fan, I have seen discussion in the press about these letters. I think it's rather a shame Getty gets its reputation for being copyright attack dogs merely because it protects its interests in this way, especially as we know it in fact adopts an enlightened attitude to making its images available. Where I differ from you in your post above is that its motives for this latest initiative is anything other than what it says it is - that it's impossible to police. I don't know what your attitude to Wikipedia embedding these images is: I take it you would be negative from a foundation point of view and you might well be right to say it would also conflict with Wikipedia's privacy policy: as I say I'm sympathetic to that point of view. But note social media sites such as Facebook would then be competing advantageously with Wikipedia. Risker has said that bottom line here is we're just an encyclopaedia, I would go a little further in the reduction and say that we're just a social media site building an encyclopaedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that each time you embed an image from Getty on a web page, your visitors are told to download a page from Getty. By doing this, your visitors reveal their IP address to Getty, which image they are looking for, the protocol used (HTTP or HTTPS) and various

Stefan2 (talk

) 21:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In reviewing the archives it is clear this issue has been discussed here many times. It is occurring again in another venue and it is only fair that those who might have a vested interest or experience in the discussion have a chance to air their concerns.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Citation of first line — a proposal to edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lyrics to allow lyrics in articles about songs. I thought this may attract copyright concerns, so I posted this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 March 5 to draw this to the attention of the WMF copyright team but have now been advised this may be the more appropriate forum. —sroc 💬 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been addressed at meta:Wikilegal/Fair use protections for posting music lyric excerpts and translations, with thanks to Mdennis for following this up. —sroc 💬 22:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sroc:, would you agree (from my read) that the WMF legal statement is basically saying lyrics should be used very sparingly in articles? I think we could add a statement under this guideline's "Unacceptable uses"/"Text" to call out on extensive lyric quoting and citing that WMF legal page? --MASEM (t) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@

MOS:LYRICS already links to WP:NFC, I'm not sure linking to the WMF statement really adds much more, but I'm not opposed to including it, perhaps as a footnote? —sroc 💬

00:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be good for NFC to actually also link back to MOS:LYRICS as a reminder too. I'll figure out something, if just to note lyrics are a more touchy subject (it is easier to take a larger portion of the overall work compared to other traditional works), and MOS:LYRICS provides appropriate examples of such. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? MOS:LYRICS is specific to a particular use and defers to WP:NFC which is broader in scope. There is no need to link from WP:NFC to MOS:LYRICS as this would be irrelevant for most readers. If the reader is specifically looking for guidance on reproducing lyrics, they'll find it. —sroc 💬 03:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose we allow Non-free images in Draft:, in AFCs (whether in AFC space or tagged with AFC template) subject to the same fair use provisions as Articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

This has been brought up before and rejected, simply because unless the draft is promptly moved from draft or AFC to mainspace, we can have non-free pictures lingering in non-article space for months and years, and that's not acceptable under policy. There's ways to placeholder images (free ones of similar size aspect ratios) if one is looking towards appearance. Once the article is moved to mainspace, it just takes a few moments to upload the non-free at that point assuming the non-free to be used has already been identified. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this makes it difficult to take a page and move it into the draft space and work on it there, which is the whole purpose of the draft space. It seems that your reasoning here is "there is no reason for it, it's policy". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It really doesnt make it harder to work on, you can either use placeholder images or just have the images commented out. Unless a page is in the article namespace it shouldnt contain non-free media. Including such media just makes enforcing a complex policy even harder. Werieth (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see special allowance for when a mainspace page is brought back to draft or userspace to be worked on as to keep the non-free that has been previously used in mainspace with the article, but that is going to have to be timely (something no more than two weeks or a month), again to avoid the issue of stale non-free use in non-mainspace. But adding new non-free should only be done once the article is back in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. NFC isn't the only thing which a draft article shouldn't have- mainspace categories should be removed, too. I draft in my userspace a lot, and I simply add the categories and non-free content once I've moved it. I don't think it's too big an ask, and it prevents NFC lingering in drafts for excessive periods. I agree in principle that having NFC in a draft for a couple of days isn't too problematic, but when that stretches to weeks or months (especially if we're talking about a half- or fully-abandoned draft) there is clearly a problem. Much easier, from a practical perspective, not to allow NFC in drafts. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Many photographers and retired photographers (and even Museums) are obviouslly willing to donate some of their old copyright pictures for uncommercial purposes, such as Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that we make uploading and "tags" simpler, in such cases. The current copyright holder only needs to add their e-mail (and webbsite if such exist). So we can check if picture actually is Ok. Maintained copyright with a possibility to donate the photo(s) for use at Wikipedia only. And their names must be credited, at picture and at image text. This would make many Wikipedia articles better. Boeing720 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For wikipedia use only is grounds for immediate deletion. Werieth (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What ground ? I'm not talking about Wikimedia Commons, but "fair use" Boeing720 (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"For WP use only" would mean the image is non-free, so the use of the image first has to pass all 10 NFCC. If they don't pass (such as the idea of a repository where the images are just there waiting for editors to use them) this would fail NFCC#9, and we'd delete them. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"For uncommercial use" then. The photographers/museums mainly asks for a credit. It was also ment as a suggestion to change the current rules. And if a copyright holder agrees - why not take the benefit of it ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Noncommercial licensing really harms the re-usability of wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose to make an 11th NFCC for donated photo's that, improves an article. I strongly reject the idea of "Noncommercial licensing really harms the re-usability of wikipedia", it's just a subjective thought, without any further explination. Boeing720 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And why having the other 10 NFCC's then, if it's harmful. I try to see the things from the perspective of Wikipedia readers. Boeing720 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually its not subjective, nor a thought. Its a verifiable issue. One random example is having a town use their wikipedia article as tourism pamphlet, right now for the most part they can just print it out and use it. If we start having to deal with commercial and non-commercial licensing it causes further hurdles. In regards to NFCC we have those points because it is understood that some topics cannot be covered without the usage of copyrighted materials. However if we are getting material donated/released it should be done in accordance with wikipedia's mission which is to provide free content both in regards to access and licensing of the material. Werieth (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Boeing- adding to the NFCC will just making it harder to upload images, as all non-free content must meet all of the NFCC. What you seem to want is a rule meaning that a certain class of content can simply ignore the NFCC. While you're correct that a lot of copyright holders would be willing to release content under only non-commercial licenses, at the same time, many are happy with free licenses- licenses which allow unconstrained reuse and modification, even for commercial purposes. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK , I see. But what about introduce some kind third possibiliy then. I realize that if people that today make their uploads at Wikimedia Commons, might begin to misuse my suggestion, then nothing is gained from my proposal. But I'm mainly thinking of older photos. Analoge pictures with either negative or DIA-positive as original image. We do have a certain "picture-gap" regarding pictures related to articles from around 1945 to the third Millenium. Of cource external links may be a solution, but not a very good one. Example - a photographer has an interesting photo from some Super Bowl before 1990, and agrees to let us use that photo in the article of the winning team, or the super bowl itself. He just wan't it not to be used by a third part, and get this name attatched to the picture somehow. I fail to understand the harm that such photos would cause. I'm not saying "it must be in this way , or in that way". I mainly want to bring the matter to attention. As long as nothing becomes illegal, it must after all be up to us to decide the rules of what can and cannot be regarded as fair use. Boeing720 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content. Just about every license requires attribution so thats a non-issue, If we are going to request a license release we should do so under the guidelines set forth by the founding principles. Jimbo Wales actually made a good point back in 2005-2006 when the issue of NC files was decided, usage of non-free media may be legal but it goes against what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. non-commercial release is the same as full copyright for how we treat said media. We have two classes of media free and non-free in the free class you can do just about as much with it as you want. With non-free media the usage is very restricted as it violates the mission of Wikipedia, and actually a lot of wikis dont use non-free media at all. (see dewiki for example). If we are going to ask for a release, instead of settling for a NC release we should explain why we want a full release, and clear up any misunderstandings there are with a free license. As few people actually understand the differences between them. Werieth (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with You about the mission of Wikipedia. And I do not really want to change any guidelining principles, but as we so to speak "already cheets" with the NC-files , one could possibly regard non-free pictures as "premature use" (since eventually all copyrights expires someday), but whithin limits. Today most people uses digital cameras one way or another. But we cannot get back in time. And in my experience many archives [photographers, museum and others] seem willing to help. Their only demands are "mentioning in the picture text and that no commercial use". They are afraid that others may benefit economicaly from free pictures, I suppose. And I can understand that argument aswell. But if limiting such (copyright) photos to "analogue shots before 1995" , then in my humble opinion the the fundamential guidelines of Wikipedia will not be more damaged than what already is the case. I mean a Coca-Cola logo is OK, but a shot of any spectacular event during the 1950's to the 1980's isn't. That is a little bit difficult to comprahend. Although I in general agree with the fundametic guidelines. Thanks for Your explainings, by the way Boeing720 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If the event is significant enough that made a visual impact, we will usually allow it under NFCC - eg our article on

Holocaust uses a good deal of non-free images due to the fact that was a very tragic event and shows excessive cruelty to humans. But we have very careful allowances for that, and hence why are do not allow things like non-free repositories or pre-loading for non-free. --MASEM (t

) 17:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's in the nature, any decision of what is and what isn't significant enough, always will become a subjective question. Now, please don't misinterprete me, the Holocaust was of course very different and indeed horrific. However a Spanyard may think a certain bull-fighting during the 1970's was very importaint, for instance. I'm only attempting to make a point. What is significant in one nation or even a city may be next to unknown elsewhere. Also within the English-speaking world. I didn't suggest any repository at Wikipedia. I am mainly thinking of a slightly more liberal interpretation of the NF's. Where Wikipedia-editors may ask an archive or other copyright owner of they may allow a certain (analogue based) photo(s) (from before 1995) to be shown in a relevant Wikipedia article. And if there is no objection from the copyright owner, it may be shown [rather than published] in that article - as fair use. I've become aware of that this is against the original fundamential guidelines of Wikipedia, but I still cannot helping thinking that Wikipedia actually would benefit from such a temporary compromise regarding these questions. ("Temporary" in a historical sence, as the copyright expires someday).

By only allowing such pictures taken before 1995 and analogue based only (requiering a negative or DIA-positive), the uploads to Wikimedia Commons will not become affected. (If in doubts, the time border can be set to 1990 instead) For the purpose of filling the "picture gap" during primarily the second half of the last century. I fail to see the importance of helping possible third party commercial users, and putting that aspect ahead of English Wikipedia of becomming the best possible, the optimal encyklopedia ever. Perhaps my point of view in this matter may resemble visit a wasp's nest ? But it's not overwhelming changes I actually am asking for. But sooner like adding one new category to the ten existing NFCC's. Perhaps You all could think about this little proposal, which of course must be thoroughly thought through, if You may change Your minds. I wish You all very well, I thank You all for listening to my proposal, and also for all Your detailed answers and explinations. I appriciate Your opinions and share most of it, in general. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple enough proposal: Instead of "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", I would suggest:

#8: Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only

#8a: If its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic

AND

#8b: Its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Too many people miss that #8 is a two prong test. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that's the issue. The point people miss is that if the image is replaceable by text, it fails 8. People seem to view point 1 solely in terms of whether another image could replace it, and that isn't the point at all.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. I have seen many editors completely skip over the second part, thinking they met the first part are in the clear. NFCC#1 (text as free replacement) is an associated problem, but this is a separate concern from that. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary; 8b implies 8a, i.e. it's a strictly stronger statement. Actually, if you think about it, its presence increases understanding if and only its omission decreases understanding. The only thing that keeps this from being a tautology is the degree; "detrimental" is a stronger word than "significantly increase." Perhaps emphasizing the omission part via other means would be effective, but we shouldn't have a criteria (8a) that will never be violated without another criteria (8b) being violated as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

They are two separate tests and have nothing to do with a tautology. I can prove nearly any image meets the first test without problem (visual aids nearly always help), but the second is when if we never had the image in the first if the reader would have a hard time understanding the topic. Two different logical thoughts need to go into this. I do agree that 8a is almost useless since if 8a fails, it also means independently 8b fails. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If 8a is almost useless, then 8b should be (reworded and) presented as the primary statement.—Aquegg (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I say "almost useless", because I have not put a lot of thought of a case where #8a may fail but #8b may be met. I think #8a is important to point out that we don't add random imagery to an article, but this also technically fails #8b too. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's try a single statement: "Non-free content is used only when its omission would significantly impair readers' understanding of the article topic." Do we need to say any more than this?—Aquegg (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I think it should be possible but I can't yet dismiss if #8a could be not met while #8b could be. It is best to keep as two for the time being. (I know historically #8 started off with the #8a part language, while the omission part was added to provide the opposite extreme for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per King of Hearts above. Masem's "Hard to understand without the image" is not what #8 says, and it's not what #8 means. #8 is supposed to focus discussion hard on what the image brings to the article, which can be made in all sorts of ways, to ask whether we believe it is significant enough to justify the degree of the copyright taking. If Masem genuinely believes that there are images which would have made a significant contribution to reader understanding, but have been removed because they don't satisfy his new test, then I would be grateful for a list so that such images can be sent for deletion review -- because if images genuinely do add something to reader understanding, that (per King of Hearts) readers are not getting without the images, then they absolutely ought to be included here. But I suspect any such list would be short, because I suspect images have been judged, as they should have been, for the contribution they make in the round. Jheald (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me go further. There are a slew of classes uncontroversially ruled okay by

WP:NFCI "for identification", in view of what they bring to the article and the slightness of their copyright taking -- for example media cover art, stamps, logos, etc -- and WP:NFCI is not a closed list, merely a set of correct examples of the application of WP:NFC. In none of these cases is the article "hard to understand without the image", rather, we have them per King of Hearts: because the images are bringing something additional to understanding that is significant, that the article wouldn't convey without them. Jheald (talk

) 08:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To Masem's point about contextual significance, he seems to be conflating literary controversy per se with contextual significance. Let me use stamps as an example.

There is no policy requirement for a literary controversy over the visual medium as the sole criteria before using the stamp as an illustration. There is only policy at

WP:FREER, that including the image enables the reader to "identify an object" such as a coin "front and back are normally used". In the case of USPS nfc stamps, the reader cannot identify the stamp without seeing it. To identify a specific stamp, the front would be normally used unless the watermark were distinctive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk

) 12:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Jheald, it is not a new test. The working of NFCC#8 is nearly the same as it was since July 2007, specifically that the second part about omission was added via consensus discussion. Clearly this shows this is a separate consideration from the first part. And if you want a list of what's been deleted, pick a random FFD that closed "delete" and 9 times out of 10 they would have closed due to NFCC#8 problems. I've said over and over, you give me a random but relevant NFC image for a topic, and I can weasel out language to show how the reader's understanding of the topic is enhanced by its inclusions; that's nearly a non-test in considering many humans are visual learners. But is it required for reader's understanding? That's what the second test was put in place for, and a much more thoughtful and difficult question to answer. Note that NFCI cases are not "uncontroversially ruled okay", that you can just drop one in and say "done"; as the text there says, all NFCC criteria still apply to any NFCI cases so they can still be challenges. NFCI just represents common classes of images where NFC is often used.

@

WP:DRV

.

If #8 was meant to say that an image was to be required for reader understanding, it would say so. But it doesn't; and such a reading would fly directly contrary to many of the example use-cases given at

WP:NFCI

-- including NFCI #1, the justification for which as you well know was considered at length, and confirmed, in the WT:NFC discussions cited on the policy pages.

As to newness, the wording of NFCC #8 is not new, but your proposed re-interpretation would be -- as evident from its manifest incompatibility with many of the NFCI use-cases. Jheald (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Read where NFCC#8's rewording was discussed. It was clear they framed it around the "requirement" of the image for the article, specifically howcheng's comments, which stemmed out from [10] that spun out this version. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To add, in those discussions they make it clear how cover art for notable articles (NFCI#1) is meant to be covered in the new langauge but not to be used in discographies. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To add further, while an image can enhance a reader's understanding (making the connection faster, for example), if the removal (not omission) of the image simply removes that enhancement, making the reader spend a bit more time to read the text or click a link, that would fail NFCC#8, since that specifically talks about harm. Removal that removes the enhancement but doesn't affect the core experience is not harming the understanding. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Early July 2007 was a busy time. BetaCommandBot had just gone rampant, nominating vast amounts of material at incredible speed if it didn't have a written rationale (which arguably until that point hadn't necessarily been needed). There was a firestorm as to whether generic rationales could ever be appropriate (eventually cut through by @

album cover fur}}, which established facts on the ground that they could). And, quite closely entwined with that, discussions over the proper requirement for #8. You've cited Howard Cheng's addition diff; but what to me is more germane is the reversal of that text for going too far, per DHowell and Wikidemo in this discussion, which deliberately struck out the words "It should be the case that if the article is lacking the image, it significantly impairs the reader's ability to understand the topic", and led to the present wording (12 July) diff

, a mild underlining of the existing language, rather than Howcheng's proposal, which would have been very difficult.

Believe me, I was there at the time. If @

album cover fur}}), I would have fought against it tooth and nail. Instead we have Wikidemon's (IMO, then and now) very sane text, which says essentially: "Compare the article with and without the image, and ask: Is it worth it?" Jheald (talk

) 17:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is why they compromised on what is the present line, using "omission", still keeping in mind about the concept of "required" images and considering the "harm" and not the lack of "enhancement" of understanding due to the missing image. That's why these are two very different tests and what I've described is the common practice at FFD. This is why we stress the need of critical commentary so that there is clear harm to understanding that commentary with omission of the image. And this has been practice for years, so saying "well, no, it should have been this" is far too late, you had time to address it. (Also to note, no, BetaCommand wasn't an issue at that point in 2007, it was close to and following the year-after date, March 2008, from the Foundation's resolution enaction date when Beta started to go off the rails and requiring intervention; we had problems with people complaining about the forced action of reviewing every non-free but that wasn't, at the time, due to Beta's mis-actions) --MASEM (t) 17:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BCBot had suddenly, for the first time, tagged a massive number of images for deletion, in a completely unthrottled way -- far more than anyone could realistically fix by hand. That is why there was suddenly so much focus on whether you could have generic rationales for generic purposes -- and even whether there could be "generic purposes" at all, including a huge debate on a subpage of WP:AN. Which in turn led to edits like Howard Cheng's to NFCC #8 to try to establish that there couldn't -- images would have to be needed for the text to be understood at all. But it was volatile. The sheer quality of Wikidemo's {{

WP:NFCI

.

I don't know what may or may not have been taking place more recently at FFD. But I say again, if you genuinely do think that there are images which have been removed on the grounds that, because there was no commentary, there was no harm to reader understanding of that (lack of) commentary; but which nevertheless you believe would have have made a genuinely significant addition to reader understanding of the topic, then please cite them, so we can take them to

WP:DRV. A recent discussion that I do remember was WP:Non-free content review/Archive_22#File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, and that was kept. Jheald (talk

) 18:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BCBot was a agreed-upon mechanism to, within the year from the date of passage of the Foundation's resolution, bring about all 300,000-some non-free images at that time into basic compliance with NFCC#10a (citing the article that the image was used in). Nothing else. (It was after the fact that BetaCommand used the bot to try to enforce more than that). So, no, that wasn't the issue at the time. Yes, there were other discussions about generic rationales, but that was separate from Beta's bot work. And the text reflects more on the "required" nature of images, not what you are stating. It's clear what the original intentions were of NFCC#8 and they remain that way today. That is how it has been practiced at FFD for ages, and how admins have handled the matter (you'll notice this is why I don't do direct admin work on questionable NFC use to avoid being judge, jury, and executioner, but have been told I should be doing more).

Here's the most recent closed FFD example of an image deleted solely on an NFCC#8 claim: [11], here's the next more recent. [12]. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BCBot's activities weren't a problem? Read the archive from the time, from one of the sub-pages, and from WP:AN itself. The reason that there "was an agreed upon mechanism" by 2008 was because that mechanism was thrashed out in 2007, in the face of an irresistable wave of deletions.

The archives also reveal the huge contention that there was at the time about generic rationales.

Howcheng's proposed change to NFCC #8, that would have prevented generic rationales, was backed out; leaving something much closer to the original form of NFCC #8 [13], where "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" was one way given in which an image might "contribute significantly to the article", but was not a requirement. Importantly, the text of NFCC #8 adopted was compatible with NFCI as it already existed -- it did not demand that the image be "required" to understand the text.

Finally, what I'm asking for from you is not just any old deletion on an NFCC#8 claim, but a deletion on an NFCC#8 claim that was made on the basis that the image was not required to understand the text, even though you believe that it would have have made a genuinely significant addition to reader understanding of the topic. Preferably where there was some discussion, so that the policy framework presented was actually tested, but that is not essential. Jheald (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BCBot - as a approved bot - wasn't the problem, it was the suddenly realization that most editors had to learn that NFC is a real thing that had to be enforced, and several uploaders with numerous problem images were finding their talk pages flooded with warnings. It was effectively a trial by fire for many. But that wasn't because BCBot was doing anything wrong, it was a symptom but not the cause.

On NFCC#8 FFDs, if its nominated for NFCC#8, its always implicitly that the image isn't essential; rarity does the nominator state the language you put. If anything, go to NFCR and look for such discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BCBot was blocked, then radically throttled. The consequences of how it was initially being operated were unacceptable.

As for NFCC#8, it's you that is asserting that we should be requiring images to be "essential" to understand the text of the article, rather than making a significantly contribution to reader understanding, per policy; and it is you that is claiming that this is already being applied. So let's see an example of an image that you believe has been deleted for not being "essential" to understand the text of an article, that you believe would have have made a genuinely significant addition to reader understanding of the topic (per policy as written). Jheald (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've given you one, the South Park one. The image (A screenshot that I've copied from the deletion logs and put here for discussion [14]) was used on Scott Tenorman Must Die, a decent sized episode article, clearly shown to be notable. The image aids the reader's understanding that we see who Scott Tenorman is (the central redhair character), as well as the way that the members of the band Radiohead are depicted in SP style (the five people standing up behind them). This would clearly enhance the reader's understand to visually demonstrate some elements of the show in a way that using text only would make difficult. But there is zero discussion of these elements in the article that necessitate the visual. South Park has a unique show style described elsewhere so it doesn't take much for on, knowing whom the members of Radiohead are, to envision their transformation to South Park's style, nor is the character of Scott discussed in any way to require seeing what he looks like to under. The image enhances understanding but done not harm it with its omission, and ergo fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to identify the stamp if the stamp is not notable. We do the same for album, books, and other works - we only allow images of these if they are notable, or if in the rare case the published work is not notable but the cover image is discussed. The reader can understand all the details about the issuing and reasons behind the issuing of a stamp without seeing it - their understanding is not harmed one iota by not seeing the stamp failing NFCC#8, just as they can understand the existance of a non-notable published worked without seeing the cover. This is why the second part of NFCC#8 exists to assure only required images , not helpful ones, are included (as described in the original buildout of NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The stamp is notable when it is issued to the public in the millions with significant visual information. Your previous characterization of a stamp as a scrap of paper with a monetary denomination sounds like a postage due stamp, without any distinctive art and absent any connection to cultural-historic significance.

When the publicly issued stamp which is therefore notable, is commemorating an event resolved as important by a Congressional joint resolution, which is notable, is placed in historical context, it is notable. There is a need to identify visual information related to a visual topic with a visual representation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question Why do we actually need those two parts anyway? Why not just

#8 Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic

If the NFC's presence satisfies this, then it is irrelevant whether a removal would be detrimental to readers understanding, as the latter is not possible without the former. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely not right. Note that the word in the second test is "omission", not "removal". This means the test is to consider that if the image was never present to begin with. It's a very different test and the one most NFC that are delete fails. It is nearly always possible to say that a relevant NFC image helps reader's understanding, hence why the second test is needed. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the difference between "omission" and "removal". Either NFC does significantly increase a readers understanding or it doesn't. If it does, then per that logic a removal or omission (regardless which of the two) would be detrimental to readers understanding because the significant increase in understanding caused by the images presence doesn't happen or would be removed. The end result is the same: the significant increase in understanding isn't there. Why does it matter whether it isn't there or isn't there anymore? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference. Any random but relevant non-free image, I can describe as being helpful to the inclusion in the article. Once included, I can easily demonstrate removal would be harmful, for the same reasons to include. As such, if the second part read "removed" rather than "omission", it is creating an equivalent test, and that's clearly not the intent that was there when the phrase was added. "Omission" here means absent from the start; we have to envision the case that the reader never saw the image at any time, would they be able to understand the article in question? In other words, how essential or required is the image to understanding the text? It is the other bound of considering how helpful the image is. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Omission" just means "not including". It might mean not including from the start, or it might mean adding and then no longer adding. There's no obvious reason to think it can only mean the first -- in fact linguitically here I would have thought the second reading is the more natural. Jheald (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's very different from "removing". (I know they weren't pulling any specific dictionary definition then, but omission is generally defined as "not doing" something, as opposed to "removing or deleting". --MASEM (t) 18:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary: wikt:omission: 3. "something deleted or left out"; wikt:omit: "to leave out or exclude." Jheald (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if there might be a difference technically (in one case we are talking about not including an image in the first place, in the other case about removing an image that is already included) I don't see the need for such a distinction. NFC is either appropriate or it isn't. If it's appropriate it might be included, if it's not appropriate, it shouldn't be included. I have also never really seen the need for such a distinction in discussions at NFCR, for example. We are discussing the appropriateness of an image (whether it satisfies NFCC#8, i.e. whether its inclusion increases readers understanding and removal would harm readers understanding). NFCC#8 is subjective, so in most cases discussion needs to take place anyway. And I believe people will be adding images in violation of NFCC#8, regardless of whether this change is made or not, so discussion needs to take place in any case (unless we plan to start enforcing NFCC#8 without discussion, which is obviously possible per policy, but which I myself for example have been avoiding per the discussions we already had (that a single person cannot judge the appropriateness per NFCC#8 alone and enforce it single handed)). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support removing it entirely. It's always been highly subjective. It is by far the most controversial part of NFCC, generating enormous problems for the project. Further, it's not mandated by the Foundation. Ok, yeah, it's a test to keep a lid on NFCC. However, it's a miserable test and does nothing to help the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is fairly clear that regardless of what the community concensus is those that "own" NFC will ensure consensus is thwarted.
  Saffron Blaze (talk
  ) 13:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Please do not joke or troll this discussion. This is a very severe issue that people who don't understand the importance of the "free" part of "Wikipiece, the Free Encyclopedia" is, and NFCC#8 is a reasonably fair test to allow exceptional use of non-free where appropriate and allowed by the Foundation. Without it, there is no end to NFC inclusion and we basically fucked the Foundation's mission. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• When do you plan on observing the fifth bullet point of
  WP:WIAPA
  policy? Simply because you do not like my opinion does not give you the right to belittle me and make accusations against me. I'm sorry you disagree with me. I really am. But, I will not be silenced by you. You proposed splitting #8 in two. Are you trolling for making such a proposal? Of course not. Neither am I for making a counter proposal. If you don't want people to make good faith counter proposals to your good faith proposals, then don't post them. If you seriously think that I am trolling, then I urge you, I even beg you to make a report to an appropriate noticeboard. Your behavior in attacking me here is not isolated. You obviously feel you have a case to make. So go make it. Regardless, I have asked you before to stop such behavior. If you can't see through to submitting a complaint to a noticeboard about me, then in the very least you can stop making accusations against me when I am involved in a discussion.
• As to the topic, I agree it is a serious issue. As I noted, WP:NFCC #8 is very arguably the most divisive NFCC issue we have. It is NOT working. It is a failed test that causes far, far more problems than it has ever solved. The test should be abolished because of the destruction it is causing to the project. Splitting a failed test in two will produce two failures. The whole test needs to be abolished. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support rewriting or removing #8 altogether, as this highly subjective policy has been the cause of a lot of unneeded bickering, almost always initiated by the same couple of editors who seem to have appointed themselves wiki-cops over NFC and the Foundation. I would even advise that we have a special provision or waiver for USPS images as the USPS openly grants permission to use stamp images for educational purposes. For purposes of Wikipedia, these images should be considered Free Content. The idea of an NFC image causing "harm" to the Foundation when there is no free equivalent is ridiculous and I'm seeing the same long winded irrational conjecture being spouted here again to justify that opinionated stretch. Not only do we need reform or removal of #8 we need to have a wiki-counselor or some other higher up advise these self appointed wiki-cops to get a life and involve themselves in other areas of Wikipedia. I'm sorry about being so frank here, but at this late date I feel such commentary is warranted, as this has been going on for too long. As various edit histories will reveal the bulk of their time and effort show them trolling around making image deletions and hounding and arguing with other editors about images that in most cases are not causing anyone trouble or compromising anyone's interests. They are driving away editors. I too have stopped trying to use NFC stamp images because of all the needless grief associated with their usage here. Most of the trouble here is almost always initiated by the
  same couple of editors pushing their opinion on whether an image is "needed", or if the commentary is "sufficient". -- Gwillhickers (talk
  ) 17:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Given our goal is to make a free content encyclopedia, losing editors that do not have that interest in mind, or who want to use the images and do not spend the time to understand the nuances of copyright and why we have a NFC policy in place, is no lost to the larger picture. Using non-free without any considerations is harming the Foundation's goal and missions, and we don't need those people mis-contributing towards that. I've found most that are serious for participation will learn and understand and ask questions about proper NFC use rather than give up. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"...no lost to the larger picture..."?? Thanks for that revealing comment. Obviously you could care less about driving away other editors, contributors, most of whom did "ask questions" and debated points, but finally gave up when they were faced with your never ending and opinionated take on matters. You seem to think that by endlessly repeating yourself you can get over in these debates. Sorry, that's not working any more.
Using an NFC image when there is no free equivalent brings no "harm" to the foundation. There is no policy that outlines this idea specifically, or even comes close to expressing that idea. All we have is your distorted opinion about the "nuances of copyright", and the meaning of NFCC altogether. Kindly

not regurgitate the same failed ideas roundly objected to and already addressed by other editors. You have and continue to fail to show how any "harm" comes to the Foundation when an NFC image is used when there is no free equivalent, still. All your long winded and repetitive conjecture doesn't hide that glaring reality. -- Gwillhickers (talk

) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) Gwillhickers, not sure what hallucinogens you are smoking, but there are several examples of where using non-free media harmed the project's mission, Jimbo cited a case where a photographer was attempting to upload free pictures of basketball players and was refused because we had "better" versions that where non-free. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My experience are those serious newbies that want to contribute will ask the right questions about copyright, and learn about NFC. Those that are here to say "I must get this picture on WP and I don't care how" are not the contributors we want. And the harm is to the Foundation's reputation and mission. By promoting the idea that they are developing a free content work, frivolous use of non-free (even if it falls squarely in fair use provisions) is hypocritical and paints the Foundation and the project in a negative light. It also harms the ability of downstream reusers of the content, particularly in countries where there are more restrictive and/or no fair use provisions. So there is harm but it is on the opposite side of the picture from what most people think of, that being the copyright owners. (Again, I've pointed to VEGAN, it's remains perfectly applicable here) --MASEM (t) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The interesting thing about

WP:VEGAN

there is no point in trying to be "more vegan" in the way you are advocating. The thesis of that essay is that such an idea is incoherent and pointless -- according to WP:VEGAN, vegan is something you (and your lunch) either are, or are not. According to WP:VEGAN there should be no NFC policy because there should be no NFC at all. But that is not and has not been the view of the en-wiki community.

@Gwillhickers: NFC can potentially harm Wikipedia, (as I set out when I asked Jimbo for a steer on the pound coins article, here; in some ways a rather similar case) -- if there's legal risk, or damage to our reputation, or damage to our content re-usability, or damage to the prospects of actually free media being uploaded. (Though @Werieth: to be fair to Gwillhickers, he did actually specifically excluded that last possibility, specifically only addressing his remarks to the case "when there is no free equivalent")

But I do think Gwillhickers has a point here. There is no danger to our article reusability for these stamps, given the waiver that USPS grants for educational use. Even without which, the images would be considered legitimate for review in every country that's signature to the Berne Convention. So there really is no impact on reusability here; nor are the images replaceable; nor would the images be being used frivolously, so I really don't see even any remote danger to WP's reputation here. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

VEGAN is pointing out the harm that if we say "this is a vegetarian pot luck" and everyone brings something non-vegetarian without checking with one another, the entire idea of the vegetarian pot-luck is ruined. NFC allows for some exceptions but not with the reasoning "oh, allowing this won't harm the free content mission, its just a little bit". There has to be strong balance on the educational/encyclopedic aspects to make the strong case for the exemption and not the slow slippage that VEGAN warns about. And yes, there is still damage with the stamps because we are considering all reuses, not just educational; commercial educators would not be able to use these pages, for example. And yes, there are replacements for the stamp images, that is zero images and using text and links to explain they exist. That is a completely valid allowance. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Commercial reusers can't rely on the USPS waiver. On the other hand, they can rely on the Berne Convention and U.S. Fair Use law. The point about stamp images, used in the contexts we're talking about, is that we're completely solidly confident that such fair use would be upheld in the context of one of our articles, whether or not the reuser was commercial.

With respect to replacement, the issue of real concern is any inhibition of fully-free alternative media being brought forward, which would be a real loss; the inhibition of a less integrated, less self-contained, less easy-to-integrate-in-one-go text and links only alternative is less of a concern, because why should we want such a thing, if we are confident that the original page is going to be fully reusable?

Finally, re WP:VEGAN, WP:VEGAN is not warning about "slow slippage", WP:VEGAN is warning about the presence of non-"German" NFC at all. But the view of en-wiki is we don't want a completely "vegan" encyclopedia - we don't see value in it, simply as a dogmatic position for its own sake. Jheald (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Making others rely on Berne or their local fair use basically makes the free content approach laughable. Some places cannot rely on fair use at all. That's why every inclusion of non-free hurts the encyclopedia's value. At the same time, if the academic inclusion of the non-free is clearly required and important, then the value that adds to the encyclopedia outweighs the harm. That's the balance we have to play with, and that's why it's important to look for "required" and "essential" images that if they were omitted we would be harming the reader's understanding, clearly showing the value added. That's the point about VEGAN that's important - it's not about the tainting of the free project NFC (a better analogy for that would be a drop of benzene in a train-tanker full of potable water making the entire water non-potable), but the slippage of non-free inclusion concerns without remembering our larger purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So what? We force re-users to deal with all kinds of complicated issues like personality rights and trademark law... so why not fair use? BTW, who is this "we" Masem keeps referring? I get it's a royal kind of we, but who is it exactly?

When I use "we" in discussions like this, unless otherwise, I am implying every editor of Wikipedia. "We" all have to do our part to maintain NFC under the Foundation's guidance, for example, though only a very small subset are very active in it. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit presumptuous given we don't agree with you all the time? Regardless, why should we be so careful about NFC when the rest of the world seems to be able to handle it well enough? On second thought, don't answer that. I have read your comments on this matter before and found the arguments lacking and rather dogmatic.

Saffron Blaze (talk

) 01:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the Foundation requires us to. You are on their playground and thus must work under their rules. You're not required to edit here if you don't agree with the free content mission - in fact you can duplicate the playground and run it the way you want elsewhere, but on this playground owned and operated by the Foundation, we have to go by what they want, and that is encouraging free content and minimizing non-free content. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

'Agree with Saffron Blaze Masem is being quite dogmatic and carries on as if the Foundation is "harmed" or "trivialized" any time an NFC image is used. If there was no real need for NFC images, the Foundation would ban them outright. Notice they have not and have even gone so far as to provide us with a rationale for using them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I, and the few others that follow NFCC, have to be dogmatic because too many people show little respect for the free content and the allowed use of exceptional NFC for meeting the Foundation's goal of a free academic work. Without us, the Foundation would have every right to close down en.wiki for violating the mission with excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• There you go again, being over dramatic about the effects of NFC use. The WMF would never close en:WP because of NFC use, but they might actually ban its use outright or put a stop to this ridiculous over restriction "we" apply. Then we would truly have a free encyclopedia.
  Saffron Blaze (talk
  ) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do you want the Foundation - who have full control and the last say on all matters here - to come in and say "Well, since en.wiki is unable to limit NFC, the project is barred from using NFC?" I don't want that. Outside the Non-Free resolution, they haven't said anything so we've been doing a good job, as best as well can tell, so we have to keep that up in the way that's been practiced for the last 6-7 years. Note that they cannot pull any restrictions and leave this a "free" encyclopedia, that would be completely counter to it. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Of course this business of the royal "we" is the heart of the problem, compounded by a certain lack of self awareness by the owners at NFCR of their own shortcomings in their appreciation of copyright and wikilaw (nor averse to pulling the NPA card when undeniably trumped). I've made my position clear on my Talk page. NFCR is not protecting the community, it's harming it. Period. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think there is a danger of trying to out-Foundation the Foundation. It seems to me that they have been consistently pragmatic, trying to build up as much free content for our readers as possible, regardless of whether that free content is also accompanied by some non-free content. That's why (IMO) replaceable fair-use was such an issue for them -- much more than anything else in the NFC area ever has been -- because that was something that was directly standing in the way of replacement free media being found and added.

But even on that question, if you look at the recent discussion of eg pictures of Kim Jong-un on Jimbo's talkpage, the approach has been concrete and pragmatic, rather than abstract and dogmatic: can Jimbo, with his outstanding connections, secure an image?

Other things I think also reflect that the Foundation are not the hawks they are sometimes portrayed. In terms of fair use, and copyrightability, I believe they see U.S. law as the right standard, which it is not a bad thing for WP/WM to follow, even as a lesson to other countries, eg the position statement they gave upholding the principles of Bridgeman vs Corel, and that such images should be included on Commons, even if they would almost certainly not be free in some originating countries.

I'm also thinking of their recent position on URAA images, which are almost certainly not free in the United States: namely, wait for the take-down notices. (Perhaps on the basis that if an image has become PD in the rightsholder's home country, this may be the predominant way they come to think about the image, and so it may only very rarely be that they will assert rights that may continue to exist in the United States). Pragmatic, yes, "courageous" one might even think, (in the full

Yes, Minister

meaning of the word: Sir Humphrey: "That was a very courageous decision, Minister" Hacker: "Was it? Was it? I had no idea" & proceeds to go into wild panic), but not the actions of a copyright hawk.

Or Jimbo's recent view on the pound coins, where I invited him to say that they should be removed, "because that's what the Foundation wants", but he said that, no, he thought they were okay.

There's a history of people who want a much more aggressive line against NFC jumping on Foundation comments, and the Foundation then having gently to row them back. For example, the Licensing Resolution was originally presented by some as intending to make a drastic change to the way NFC was being used on Commons, until Kat Walsh popped up and said no that wasn't the intention, the intention was to identify what en-wiki had done as best practice, and make it universal. Similarly, the Resolution was presented as the Foundation now requiring written rationales, until the Foundation clarified that no, its requirement was that a rationale must exist, but if en-wiki wanted to require written rationales, that was fine.

So I think there can be a real danger of trying to out-Foundation the Foundation, and of becoming convinced that actions are required in its name. In some cases it may be worth actually checking, rather than forthrightly assuming. Jheald (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Split NFCC#8 into #8a and #8b (2)

• your partner have still failed to point out how using an NFC image when there is no free equivalent "harms" the foundation. Now please review the title to this section, and try to stay on track. -- Gwillhickers (talk
  ) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• protect your turf and maintain your assumed authority over it. Easy to see Masem. This is not a video game where you have unlimited lives to fart around with. Present your arguments and when they fail don't go on assuming you can get another life and repeat the same unresponsive nonsense all over again. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk
  ) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, I wasnt mistaken the issue was we had non-free images in place, and a friend of jimbo was trying to donate free files but was repeatedly reverted because the users thought that the professional non-free files where of better quality than those being donated. (I havent researched the case Im taking Jimbo at his word.) The RFC isnt about USPS stamps its about wide general usage of stamps regardless of the source. Werieth (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rrrright. We're discussing cases of NFC images being replaced with free content, so your story doesn't even pertain to begin with. Post 1978 USPS stamp images can't be replaced by free content for the simple reason that they don't exist. There is no "better quality" images to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I completely disagree that VEGAN can be written off. It is used frequently to show how NFCC is a balancing act to prevent dilution of the free content mission while still serving the goal of being an encyclopedia. If we don't balance that and allow NFC use without any reason, we are wrecking the Foundation's mission. That is the harm -- we hurt the Foundation by trivializing their goal by aiming towards a free content - minimum non-free content - work. It's not financial, it's not legal, it's not civil, but it is something of value that we shouldn't at all be toying around with, given that they are the ones paying for the servers we use here. Your argument show very little respect for this. Remember, this is still a grand experiment to try to develop a free content encyclopedia, and we can do so much better than what we have now to meet that, recognizing that we can't outright remove all NFC and make this still a useable encyclopedia. We have to be so much more careful than most people arguing against NFC's current rules seem to want. Too many "I like it"-type arguments. We have to stay to the hard lines and remove and reject non-free uses that do not aid greatly in the academic purpose, which still leaves a lot of room for good NFC use, but gets rid of edge cases like these stamp images that have yet to be shown critically important to an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• You're simply reiterating the same failed idea. NFC images do not "harm" the foundation, esp in cases where an NFC image can not be replaced with a free image. Quite to the contrary, NFC images can help the Foundation when it can't provide a free image, esp in cases involving USPS NFC images. The idea of the Foundation being "trivialized" is your notion, an opinion. I see the glass of water half full, not half empty. Again, USPS images can not be replaced by free content images -- so how is there any "harm" or "trivialization" to the Foundation occurring? Our first concern should be building an encyclopedia. Where we happen to get our pictures from is a trivial matter in cases where there is no legal considerations and where no one's interest are compromised. You've made a religion out of the Foundation and now it's getting in the way of Wikipedia and the many editors trying to contribute -- all because of your notions of "harm" and "trivialization" to the Foundation. This is getting ridiculous -- and kindly don't accuse me of not having respect for matters because I don't go along with this nonsense. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "No image" (read: text) is a free replacement for a non-free image, if it serves the same educational purpose and no free image exists. And your comments show zero respect for the efforts that the Foundation has set out to do. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet another one of your disjointed opinions. No harm is effected to any entity or person when a NFC image is used when there's no free image to substitute for, and you have failed to cite policy to support this notion or even explain otherwise, still. Respect? Pardon me while I hold out for a second opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[15] was written by the people at FA for non-free evaluation, and I point to their section on NFCC#1: "After reading an image's purpose, as articulated by its rationale, reviewers should consider whether an equivalent "free" image exists or could reasonably be made to exist that could instead "serve the encyclopedic purpose". Alternatively, reviewers should consider whether prose could fulfill the purpose. " So no, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, this is practice at the top level of WP. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You are asking the wrong question. It doesn't matter whether there is any "harm" suffered. We either have

chat

} 05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The USPS license used by WP explains the NFC use in the United States on WP, and warns the same educational use may not be lawful elsewhere, or even at WP if it is used for the stamp image, not the stamp itself.

Use of the stamp as visual information is necessary when the contextual significance criterion is met before admitting the stamp as an illustration, there MUST be a) sourced description of the cultural-historical significance; --- this is what we would expect from an encyclopedia article versus a stamp gallery --- THEN optionally --- b) postal usage (rate, printing, numbers); optionally c) the unique art of the stamp itself, such as the designer, etcher, or printer; optionally d) any literary controversy surrounding the stamp or its art.

The idea that all visual information in art articles since 1978 must be suppressed is as untenable as saying all visual information in stamp articles must be suppressed since 1978. The USPS license explains the educational usage on the United States servers used in the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. and precedent in NFCC#3. As there are no changes to the wording, not sure why it even needs discussion. Suggest that other proposals should be discussed separately.—Aquegg (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• unresponsive opinion any further. If you can cite the policy that supports your notion of "harm" please do so, otherwise we can only conclud that you're once again merely stacking the same load of empty boxes as if they actually amounted to something. -- Gwillhickers (talk
  ) 17:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I can't point to policy because this is what the Foundation has said on their pages about their mission and goals. And it is common sense that if they want to promote a free content encyclopedia that non-free is completely counter to that mission. They've said that some use of non-free is necessary to meet their educational goals, but they specifically want us to treat non-free use as exceptional. If we don't do that, we are harming the Foundation's goals and missions. I can't make that point any plainer or clearer. I could argue further that donators and others may take or refuse to give more money to the project if the free content goal is ignored by editors, but that's a very "what if" scenario and unnecessary to justify the need to be strict and vigiliant on over-zealous non-free use to make the Foundation's reputation untarnished. By actively editing here, you are working for them (as outlined in the Terms of Use).
• NFCC#1, whether a free equivalent is available, is based on the academic nature of the material. You are 100% right that there is no free equivalent of the image of a non-free post 1983 US Stamp. However, the image itself may have no academic nature; in many cases, the academic nature arises from knowing the history of the stamp and the purpose of it. And in this case, there are free equivalents for that instead of just showing the stamp, which can include just talking about the existence of the stamp. No, this is not free-for-all "no NFC is needed since it can be replaced by text" as you claim. The presence of sourced discussion about the image makes the image more academic than just being there, and in such cases replacing the image with just text or no image altogether would not be academically equivalent since the additional commentary resides on seeing the stamp inline. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Masem, yes indeed, as you point out the Foundation has said "that 'some' use of non-free is necessary to meet their educational goals, but they specifically want us to treat non-free use as 'exceptional' ". Isn't that what we're doing in cases of NFC images when there is no free equivalent?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, or at least, not alone. Assume NFCC#8 did not exist; without that, I can justify the inclusion of nearly any non-free media that lacks any free media and/or text academic-equivalent, which is nearly always the case for images from contemporary works of media. Articles on these contemporary media would be flooded with irreplaceable non-free that would be difficult to remove once added (barring the line of NFCC#3a). NFCC#8 is what is needed to limit irreplaceable non-free use to the exceptional that needs to be there to make the topic still comprehensive and comprehended in the academic sense. That is the only one of the criteria that asks how essential the NFC is to the understanding of the topic, which is a subjective measure but it has clear bounds outside the grey subjective area. This comes back to the idea that sometimes, a non-free image can be removed - or replaced with zero content - without losing academic information. #1 and #8 are very closely linked in the interpretation but together, along with #3, are the core of maign sure that we are using the barest amount of non-free to make sure the topic is understandable, and ensuring that we drive the creation of free content when it can be done. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers; If you will, an abridged history; the Wikipedia project was founded on the idea that we were going to create a free content encyclopedia. Over the early years, a number of non-free images moved into the project. At one point many years ago, there was a great pull back as it was realized the mission of the project was heavily compromised.
  WP:VEGAN highlights. The few remaining adherents fight to reduce the amount of chicken in our vegan meal and claim this furthers our mission of being a free as in libre project, when it hasn't been such for many, many years. This is a fight that has been happening for a very long time (see this discussion from 2004
  for an example). The remaining adherents are few in number now. It will take a few more years before the last few give up and face reality.
• Regardless of the above, please, we do not need to disparage adherents to the old, failed mission in responding to them. I would appreciate it if you did not speak ill of Masem or any of the few remaining libre adherents. It does not help your position and in fact harms it. Please keep it civil. Disparaging an argument is one thing, and acceptable if done in a civil manner. Disparaging a person is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Hammersoft, thanks for your comments. Having to read the same unresponsive stuff over and over, with requests for policy citation per "harm" to the Foundation ignored over and over, I must admit I've assumed a hard line, as have at least one of my objectors, referring to me smoking hallucinagens. To Masem's credit, he has not gone that far. You are quite correct, my sometimes hard line can be unproductive. Thanks for the check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Until the

chat

} 21:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• The pursuit of that goal has utterly failed. The gratis reality is just that. Fighting against that reality is spitting into the wind. I gave up a long time ago because it is utterly hopeless. It does not matter how 'right' the people who strive for it to be libre feel they are. They are completely wrong by the sheer weight of reality that is against them. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Everyone breaks the speed limit so we should all ignore it." B-fing-S. That passive-aggressive stances is completely detrimental to any type of policy building, for or against. NFC is still practices and enforced by a large majority of contributors, so it has not failed, even if you think it has. If you have, then nominate NFCC for MFD to remove it as policy, but don't stand there and disrupt the process on either side. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Masem this is yet another misrepresentation. Hammersoft is correct and your speed limit analogy leaves out something important. i.e.In several parts of the country the speed limit used to be only 55 mph, causing many people to pass others who 'religiously' never went over that speed, often causing more accidents than would occur if the speed limit was set to something that was practical and not restrictive to most folks, yet wasn't dangerously high. Compare this idea to all the fighting and discord among many editors who were left wondering why their image was ripped out of their article when it wasn't causing any "harm" to anyone. If anyone has been disruptive, it's been those who troll around and delete images on the basis of some unfounded notion like "harm" to the Foundation, "not needed", etc and who apparently felt their role was more important than those of all the editors who actually write and build articles for Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The harm that excessive NFC does to the Foundation has been explained numerous times by several editors to you and you refuse to accept the straightforward reason and, succinctly, the reason Wikipedia was started, to promote a free content encyclopedia. That attitude shows complete contempt for the project and the Foundation. We have these limits in place purposely to balance the use of NFC with educational content as protect the mission of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Masem, this is merely and yet another one of your misrepresentations piled on to the previous. You are the only one claiming some sort of "harm" by using any sort of NFC usages. It wasn't my intention to use "excessive" NFC images, this is yet another one of the distortions you've been using in place of honest discussion. Given your last and slanderous retort it's rather obvious that you've long since lost any objectivity in these discussions and reading some of the accounts of other editors about your involvement and your narrow perspective only confirmed this. Fine. If you insist in your unyielding manner then please quote the policy that outlines in no uncertain terms that using NFC images when there is no free equivalent "harms" or "trivializes" the foundation. Policy please, not some unrelated passage with your usual BS piled on top. The only "harm" that has been brought to Wikipedia is not from editors using NFC images when there is no free equivalent, it's obviously from the self appointed petty dictators who have a long history of engaging and fighting with editors over some perceived notion of "harm" or putting a "stain" on the Foundation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've told you that it's not any en.wiki policy that is going to describe this harm, it is what the Foundation has on their mission statement and on their non-free resolution that demonstrate that their goal is to generate free content educational works, with the understanding that exceptional use of non-free may be necessary at times. This implicitly by common sense says that excessive non-free is a problem for them and is harmful. There is no other conclusion from that that can be made. And to that end, we have to work with the basis that one NFC media use contributes towards that but if its education purpose far outweighs the harm as outlined by the non-free resolution, then it should be okay. There's still some harm done to the free content part of the mission, but the balance and gains in educational purpose offset that. That's how we have to treat it. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hammersoft:. Thank you for these usefully conciliatory comments, which I think is the most conciliatory thing I have ever read from you.

But I think your take on history is off.

As I understand it, en-wiki never set out with the aim to create a free-content-only encyclopedia. For example there's discussion from 2002 on fair use at m:Wikipedia_and_copyright_issues, and a seminal discussion in January 2004, where the Foundation were put on the spot as to whether NFC was compatible with the free-content requirements of the GFDL, and gave the view that it was, because the non-free content was severable ("m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?"), thus rejecting the "benzene in the water" view of nfc.

Nevertheless, there were certainly people like Angr (

WP:WPFU

, originally as a replacement for the haphazard use of often not-very well crafted Fair Use Rationales.

The Foundation's biggest issue wasn't the use of fair use material generally, but the fear that fair-use (and limited-permission) material would inhibit the upload of alternative genuinely free media. (Now part of NFCC #1). This the Foundation took a very hard line on, against a lot of flak from some of the community, and drove its view through. Having sorted this issue out on en-wiki (and also with the formalisation of WP:NFCC here, and the work that had been done by WP:WPFU), it was the NFCC #1 issue that in my view was the main driver for the Foundation then adopting the licensing resolution, to require comparable policy structures on all other wikis, if they used NFC.

I don't know whether Hammersoft is right that the group that object to all NFC on WP has dwindled (as opposed to those, like myself, whose position is based on trying to realistically assess whether there are negative effects of particular NFC); but he might be. I think the bottom line is that the NFC policy has been in place, pretty much unaltered, for seven years now, and people have got used to the idea that this is the line that en-wiki draws: we create free content, and with it we sometimes include non-free content, where that genuinely makes a contribution that is significant and relevant, and couldn't be made by alternative non-free content. For all the disagreements, WP:NFC has worked: we have a framework which we are comfortable is legal (and allows major commercial reusers to also reuse our content legally), which strongly encourages people to find and upload free media, and which has given WP a (very valuable) reputation for using fair-use material thoughtfully and judiciously -- far less than we could probably "get away with". Jheald (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging by this list there seem to be a fair few people opposed to NFC.

talk

) 17:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, I don't think anyone would have seen @

chat

} 18:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, support the proposal, since there is no change in wording, just in how we present it to the user. —
  chat
  } 18:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Personally, I've always understood the two clauses in NFCC#8 as meaning precisely the same: "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding" means that there is more understanding with the image than without it, and "omission would be detrimental" means that there is less understanding without the image than with it. Absolutely the same thing. I can't really follow Masem's logic in constructing a difference between the two. Thus, I must oppose the proposal to split them into two sub-criteria, because that would imply a meaning difference where there really is none, and that would make the text even more confusing. I'm not too keen on removing the second clause either though, because it's still useful: the second clause serves to explain and clarify what the first clause means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • They aren't, though - the second part was added as a different approach of qualification. I've linked the points in the history when the second part was added; NFCC#8 started out as only the first part ("used when they would significant increase reader's understanding"), and the problem they were having is that people were using that to justify NFC use on things like discographies. They had a handful of iterations to find the current language to make it clear that there's a "neccessary/essential" bound to NFCC use. It is a second, definitive test - as I've noted, a good wikieditor can easily justify that any random but related non-free image would meet the first part (tl;rd: visual aids always help), but its the second that significantly more thought. Part of the problem is that the first part does not address the "essential" nature of the image addition, only that if it could help, when really we should be considering the type of help that it provides. A visual that is being discussed direct in the text is nearly always required, while an image simply showing a person or thing where that is being name-dropped is visually interesting but not essential. NFCC#8's goal is to make that distinction and that's why the second test is a different entity than the first. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I see your argument, but I still think it's not logically compelling. The thing is that the standard of "better" understanding against which you have to compare what is "impaired" (less good) understanding is of course always the optimal achievable state, and that implies the state with the image and whatever increase in understanding it promises. In that perspective, the two clauses still describe the same thing, a simple "more-versus-less". The question is not whether there is a difference in quality, but whether that difference is "significant". The second clause thus isn't introducing a second, independent criterion, but serves to clarify what this "significance" threshold is. "Impaired understanding" is not a logically different thing from "absence of increased understanding", it just clarifies how serious that absence is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The problem is that "significance" is super-subjective (just knowing that some people are visual learners for example means that attaching any visual image to text will significantly help them, even if it doesn't help others). This was the situation back in 2007 when the second part was added; prior to that addition and with various copyedits, the language [16] used to be "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." They found that that was still letting users argue in inclusion of images otherwise not really essential because of how subjective "significance" was. The omission part was added to make readers think about the necessity of inclusion, and that remains the test today. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)