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

Archives

Appears to be an extensive gallery of non-free images at List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited. Thoughts? (see Category:Mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited and it's talk page- as well) Hmm... one is up for deletion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's massive overuse. The use needs to be deprecated. Also see at List of mills in Shaw and Crompton. Contrast List of mills in Longdendale and Glossopdale. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that most of the images in the Shaw and Crompton list are in fact free, taken by their various uploaders.

This is actually a fabulous resource - these are major local landmarks, and important industrial history. Of course it's harder to get images of mills that are no longer there. What Clem has found is potentially a wonderful resource, if we could get copyright clearance to freely redistribute scans of a particular resolution. The problem is that it's damn close to being an orphan work. There's a reason those mills aren't there any more. The company that produced the booklet is now defunct, as is the company that took over what was left of it, as is the company that was formed from what was left of that. But who knows: if we could find somebody to own these photos, and waive their rights to a set of low-resolution scans, that would be a great result. Jheald (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed some, more need to go. I've also notified the uploader about the issue. Jheald; yes it would be wonderful if we can get clearance. Great images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, first may I assure you that I fully intend this to be a cool dispassionate debate. There are five issues at stake

• Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
• The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
• The guidelines and the way they are laid out
• how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
• How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

Since uploading these images, I have amassed a lot of insight into the end user experience, and have started giving advice on commons to the effect of 'Fair-use--don't bother'.

A little history: I have had the said promotional book on my shelves for forty years, my mother was presented with a copy when she left LCC in 1950. I haven't seen another copy anywhere. The company which in 1950 was a quasi- governmental organisation was privatised and merged out of existence. For about two years, I had considered whether the images were important enough to upload, which they are and whether they were deemed fair use. I have continued to look at the description of fair use and concluded that a strong case can be made. So I uploaded. Firstly, without the fair use statement. I then added the 10 part fair use statement. Each was catted into Category:Mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited and built into the list- List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited. The mills page contained a statement of usage, and its talk page a model fait use template. With the illustrations, it was possible to locate and geotag each mill- often this had to be done by using old maps and deducing the foot print of the mill from the photo, and finding a black splodge on the map- that was just labelled 'mill'. More detail was then Googled, to try and give a complete description of a building that was pivotal in the developement of a community but now is lost. Often the architect could only be deduced by looking for known detailing in the photo. Still a work in progress. In some cases the detail gleaned is approaching the level where it could be a stub article in its own right- but I have yet to establish whether they satisfy, Notability. There is a talk page on the category, and there is a talk page on each image, and there is a talk page for this page.

• Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.

Firstly, the page is advisory but contains a statement of policy. Each image satisfies each of the 10 conditions of the policy (though fails 7 if the image is removed from this list page).

Looking at the lead. There is a nutshell guide- which page and images satisfy.

Looking at the lead.It states- "However, there are exceptions. The policy allows projects to adopt an exemption doctrine policy, allowing the use of non-free content within narrowly defined limits." Which says to me, that there must be a flexibility of interpretation- and that limitations are restricted to the published policy.

Looking at section ==Non-free image use in list articles==.

In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.

i.e. They should be used prudently- which they do. It is even advocating their use.

Even if you look at ==Non-free image use in galleries== you will see from the wording that

The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.

which would justify these images- because of their unique nature.

Andrew c refers to these as a extensive gallery. I considered this- but could find no policy reference to this term. It is interesting that he refers to this as a gallery.

Hammersoft refers to this as a 'massive overuse' but I cant find a policy reference to this either. I can understand and respect the fact they are are trying to police an important policy- but all I find is an advisory statement, which says they should be considered on a case-by-case basis and in the light of exceptions should be very well-justified.

Please could you detail what is wrong with my interpretation.

• The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.

Ideally, this gallery/list should be marked that it has been considered by the fair use team and stands as Exception, that due to x, y, z falls within the guidelines. The tag could then be used by bots members of the team to award a semiprotected status to the page. Hammersoft good faith intervention last night but 15 items on my watchlist - that and the time that is needed to respond each time a challenge is made is keeping me away from image creation and editing.

There needs to be a process where images can be uploaded and quarentined while they are discussed by experienced editors- sometimes the result will be no, sometimes another expert will obtain copyright clearance see Jhealds comment, sometimes the project or the uploader will be provide a justification that will satisfy the fair use team. A quarentine system would save a massive amount of keyboard time.

That was a proposal for consideration.

• How warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected

Perhaps it is personal, but I do believe that talk pages should be used, and this is the correct way to address contentious issues with fellow experienced editors. I was watching this talk page, because I had run a contribution check on Andrew c, so was aware of his post. I stayed quiet, waiting to see where it led. If I hadn't, I would have been rather surprised this morning to discover Hammersofts deletions- and his PM to me. Sure, I zap contributions by 'fools and bairns' like the best of them, but before I change the work of an experienced editor I do a contributions check, and discuss with him the problem on his talk page. In this case, if I hadn't responded within a few days, I would have contacted WP:Greater Manchester to ask for their assistance.

Thanks to Hammersofts for the PM- but a RFC would have been more appropriate. As this article had other contributors, it would be correct to discuss the problem on any of the 55 related talk pages. While the matter may have be fully aired here by the Fair Use team, unless the information is disseminated on the pages that a user watches- then it is pointless, and consensus can never be claimed.

That was a proposal for consideration.

• The guidelines and the way they are laid out

It is my opiniion that the ==Non-free image use in list articles== is confusing and needs references. What do I mean. The first sentence means. Images should be used prudently in lists. Instead it says:

• In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.

confusion between judiciously/injudiciously, judicially/injudicially -see dictionary.

sentences should be grammatically simple: Here we start the sentence with a subordinate clause of place modified by conjunction with prepositonal phrase of possession modified by ... the subject is 40 words into this gobbledegook.

Next, the rest of the advice note discusses television and media, and is totally unhelpful for lists of concrete (excuse the pun) objects. This is the advice that the fair use team is trying to follow and the end user with a list of mills is trying to comply with. It needs to be:

researched

referenced to policy

rewritten with a footnote to examples from media.

It seems to me that the guidelines were specifically put together to protect WP from the copyright lawyers at Disney, and are useless outside the world of media.

I am proposing the advice note to be rewitten.

• How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

Accepting that uploading 53 "Great images"(cite Hammersoft, 12.2.2009) has used an unexpected and inordinate amount of time, how does the Fair use team propose that it should have been done? What processes did I do wrong? Was there a quicker way? Should there be guidelines written to explain how one shares a resource of 53 images from 1950 with the community? Who has the expertise to apply to a defunct company for a copyright waver? How is it done?

I am proposing an advice note to be written and widely publicised.

Postscript: I have reinstated the page while these discussions continue- I do hope that my actions are sanctioned, and the whole experience leads to a better set of guidelines and procedures so we can take a robust line with genuine abusers. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the fair use of these images - that part is assumed. We are talking about non-free content that hurts WP's mission of free content. That's what the NFC policy sets out to do. In this article, the use of numerous images from the book violate two parts of NFC:

• 3a - minimal use - We strive to use as little non-free content as possible. A picture representation of every element in a related list, without any additional qualifications of why that picture is relevant beyond showing what the buildings look like, is not minimal use. Furthermore, to me, a layperson in mills, the various differences in the buildings means zilch to me, they all look like warehouse-like buildings. That is, once you've shown me one, the others I can envision. Thus, that's another problem with minimal use.
• 8 - significance - Non-free content must help with the comprehension of the written text. A simple picture of a building stating "this is it" is not sufficient reason to have that picture. Was there something unique about the design? Did the building's look impact the surroundings any way? We need more than that to justify it. Barring the free images, one image to show what a mill building looks like as part of the lede is reasonable in order to put the list in context.

There's also some violation of 1 - no free replacement, as at least one element of that list has both a modern free image and a non-free, and that immeditaely means the non-free image has to go. For what it's worth, this list clearly falls into the list advice #3: using one example image instead of several. --MASEM 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exactly like a cast of actors - you can't gather them together for a group shot. :-)

More to the point, the reason WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 exist in the form they do, and with the guidelines we have, is to make sure that our criteria are basically aligned with the criteria a U.S. court would apply to a U.S. commercial republisher of our content.

I do think certainly the best way forward would be to try to find a copyright owner, and try to get them to waive their rights to a set of low-resolution scans.

But I also think we need to ask, for images like these in view of their low resolution and negligible commercial value, if there is no prospect that a court would find against any republisher of our content, then is there a single identifiable soul on the entire planet that our removing them actually helps? Jheald (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, yes, NFC aligns with fair use doctrine as to protect WP. And FWIW Mike Godwin in the last 6 months noted that a gallery of non-free images used via fair use is likely not going to get WP sued. That still leaves us the disconnect with the free content mission on WP. While still a technical issue with copyrights, it it done for a very different purpose - making sure WP can redistribute its content - than what fair use compliance is meant to do. --MASEM 15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is just my point: if there is no prospect that a court would find against any republisher of our content (even a commercial one), then a page containing these images can be redistributed. This is the line we try to protect. Jheald (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't apply our fair use policies based on a presumption that the copyright holder won't sue. That's an invalid argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we apply our fair use policies to test that if a copyright holder did sue, we (and importantly any verbatim reuser, even a commercial one) would win. And in this case, that seems a fair assessment. Jheald (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the material copyrighted? Yes. Therefore, there's only _one_ way it can exist on Wikipedia. That's under terms of fair use. WP:NFCC is the guiding policy, and 50+ fair use images could never be construed as minimal use no matter how you shake it, no matter how little legal exposure one pre-supposes there is. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free content, as outlined by the GFDL, is not meant to be about legal issues. It is a philosophy about sharing knowledge unburdened by intellectual property law (but unfortunately, due to IP law, has to be written in terms of it). We want to minimize the use of anything that burdens that goal, and that's why there's the NFC policy (which also helps to protect WP for legal and fair use issues). --MASEM 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what we can share freely, we do. But WP:NFC is about non-free content, which we recognise is also valuable to the world, and which we accept so long as it is not edging out alternative free files, and provided it meets criteria designed to make sure it meets the legal requirements for fair use, not just by us but also by any commercial redistributors. Jheald (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to imply how important the free content mission and the impact of non-free content is without separating copyright issues from it, but at the end of the day, it is about who "owns" the material here. Free content says no one does, as everything we right falls into the public domain to be reused without any barriers. A non-free image, while it can likely be legally distributed and all that without any problems, has immediate restrictions for reuse because of that ownership which may not affect all end users but will affect some. That's why we want to minimize the extent of non-free content - we want to minimize the size of the group of those that cannot repurpose the content due to IP restrictions. That's not to say we can't use any as we've recognized that non-free content is sometimes necessary to explain an aspect of a topic, but we still need to strive to reduce when and how much is used on WP as a whole. That's part of why we have NFC guidelines.

(As a side note, I will state that I think there is a fair use problem here, because if, based on the images' description, they are basically all the images of the mills from that company from its promotional book (in other words, a significant fraction of what that book had), that's severe overuse that could land WP in hot water. That's not my place to judge, and consider that entirely separate from the issue of the free content mission.) --MASEM 16:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at any of the key writers on free content, the bottom line that they return to again and again are the freedoms of people, rather than the freedoms of content. And that is why I think my take is different.

If you ask what maximises the freedom of people, that's what seems to me drives WP. For replaceable content, clearly the more free it is the better for our readers - and WP quite rightly insists on nothing but. But for non-replaceable content, it seems to me that what best empowers people and frees people is to present content if we and our redistributors can, so we give the access to it, and then they the readers can benefit from it and decide what in turn they can do with it.

There's also an important difference between WP and software. Software is such that most software users don't have the time or ability to take it apart and put it back together again. So restrictions on any part of the software become restrictions on the whole thing.

But WP is not like that - knowledge is what WP is providing (and I suppose text), which any of our users can take it apart and put it back togther in a different way. That's why it doesn't make sense to think of non-replaceable non-free content "tainting" WP in the way that it genuinely might "taint" a software package; because it is easy for any WP user to remove for themselves anything non-free, and still be left with all the value of what is left.

And that's why I think it's worth reflecting on how WP presents its key goals - they always talk about maximising what we do provide, never maximising what we don't. The law of course requires that we use no more content under fair use than serves a given purpose; and certainly it's the free content in Wikipedia that we can provide that is our core mission. But that is to maximise what we can offer the world, not to minimise non-free content for its own sake. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your conclusion, that we can host what content we will, and defer the decisions on copyright to other holders has been debated before. It's failed before. It fails now. If it were a valid argument, we could include as much copyrighted work as we felt like, and not worry about the consequences. The bar here is set considerably higher. You are quite in error. We most emphatically do maximize our limitation on non-free content. Failing to do so undermines our mission. We must, can, and do minimize fair use as much as possible to the point where removing it any further would significantly impair a reader's understanding of a topic.
• Showing 50+ images of cotton mills that, to a lay person, look largely the same...big, many windows, stack, industrial looking, does nothing to improve a reader's understanding of the subject. If the image was historically significant, say the mill on fire or some such, or there were architectural details that set it apart and were notable enough to be worthy of discussion then maybe a case could be made for inclusion. But, including 50+ images purely for illustrative purposes is extremely far in excess of our purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. The fair use test in U.S. law is no pushover. We certainly can't host whatever content we will. That is why NFCC are written the way they are, to make sure that we and our commercial reusers stay on the right side of it.

What depresses me is that despite what must be two years of hearing you quote slogans, I have never heard you say who you think your line is benefiting - and every time I have asked that question you have always shied away.

Policy recognises that good use of non-free content can be entirely complementary to our m:mission, and is an important part of helping the world nearer to our m:vision. Jheald (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing all the images may be more than needed to improve reader understanding of what a cotton mill looks like. But it certainly improves understanding of what these cotton mill looks like. For example, I have ancestors who were connected with the Waterside Mill at Disley in the 1820s (a little to the south of these ones). I would be hugely interested to know what it looked like at that time. Similarly, these mills were the major employers in their areas. Whole towns sprang up around them. To somebody who lives in that town, who is interested in its history, this article with its detailed pictures is fantastic. A picture of a completely different mill in the next town simply isn't a substitute. So, if we and our reusers can host these images legally, we should, because to somebody who is specifically interested in the cotton mills of say Shaw and Crompton or wherever, the images do add very significantly to their understanding of the subject they're specifically looking up -- in a quite different way to a generic picture of a generic mill. Jheald (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who benefits? Every single person on the planet who is forbidden from obtaining access to the sum of human knowledge because it's locked up behind copyrights, subscription fees and purchase costs. You would have this project encumbered with so much non-free content as to make it impossible to distribute the content. Wikipedia:Veganism parable. Your stance is flatly wrong. If your stance were correct, and how a building looked in the 1920s is fundamentally important to reader's understanding, then every time the outward appearance of a building changed an image should be included. We wouldn't even do that with free content much less non-free, in an article such as this. If the changing outward appearance of a building were notable for some reason and we had a separate article on that subject then maybe, but not in passing in an article such as this. Show many any article on Wikipedia with 50 fair use images that passed muster and is accepted as being minimal use. Any. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have this project encumbered with so much non-free content as to make it impossible to distribute the content. Do at least read what I have written. The test exists exactly to draw that line. The non-free content we allow is that which we are confident can be distributed in our articles, even by our commercial redistributors.

As for Angr's parable, it was roundly rejected when he first presented it, and it still doesn't make any sense. Enwiki is not a free-content-only project, and has never set out to be. Our m:vision is about people sharing in all knowledge, not just free knowledge. The comments of Wikidemo and Duae Quartunciae are particularly on point in that discussion.

And there I must leave it for the weekend. Jheald (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowledge, as in fact, is not copyrightable. As to the parable, you discount it. Yet, Jimbo Wales, our Founder, seems to think rather highly of it [1]. I'll follow Wales' banner rather than yours. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to "how it should have been done". In the case of notable mills such that the mill would have its own article, a fair use image could be used if no free license alternative was available or could be created. In the cast of mills that do not have their own article, and instead appear only on a list, the use of a fair use image to depict the mill is not supported. We do not support list articles (or really ANY article) containing 50+ fair use images. This use must be deprecated. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see how much we do agree on. The debate seems to be about the interpretation of WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#1 is easily dismissed as there are no other images available of the working mill. If, WP:NFCC#8 is aproblem at the moment for any mill-that needs to be flagged so the text becomes a little more pointed- but the article really is only at 'c' quality, and as it progresses to FL this will be addressed in any case. It is a chicken and egg situation, it is only with the image in place that you have enough information to place certain mills- for instance you ascertain whether a mill is a ring or mule mill by the height of the floors (that can be taken from the photo). This takes editing to time- there are plenty of references to remembering that articles are a work in progress when making assessments. WP:NFCC#3a seems to be the contentious issue, and flicking through the archives it seems that there is a well rehearsed argument that is used here. I have spoken elsewhere about the policy, and en:wikis interpretation of it, put it does seem that this needs to be clarified elsewhere, before it is applied to concrete objects (other than media related artifacts where it is my POV that the interpretation is correct).

I am in conversations with Courtaulds to see if we can get a copyright waiver statement- though this may not be forthcoming and may take some time.

In my post I identified these five issues, are little has been said about the other four. Has anyone any suggestions

• Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
• The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
• The guidelines and the way they are laid out
• how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
• How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

--ClemRutter (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether a resource is unusual or no, it does not affect acceptability on Wikipedia. We accept images under either fair use terms or a free license. There's no inbetween on this. It is a great resource; I don't dispute that. But how great it is does not influence how we accept the content. It simply has no bearing.
• As told, the guidelines and policy would never permit an article to have 50+ fair use images on it. That's far in excess of acceptable standards.
• Your concerns regarding warnings and deletions may have some merit. I've not considered them for reply because they are a separate issue. If you'd like to raise them as a separate topic on this page, or perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• There's no "team" for fair use. We're all independent editors. There's a fair use project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, but it's barely active (if at all). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the photographs at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be something here about text? People include copyrighted lyrics, poems, translations, etc., in articles, and justify it as fair use. I'd like to know the policy on that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something here about text. :) Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. Also helpful in determining policy, though, is Wikipedia:C#Using copyrighted work from others and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Quotes in context are fine- we can't have an encyclopedia without quotes. Full works, even when public domain, are not appropriate for style reasons (well, perhaps the exception of nursery rhymes or something- extremely short works are obviously an exception). Full songs/poems, or even random lists of quotes from them, should be deleted on sight if non-free and removed if free. Is this in response to a particular incident? Where have you found this to be a problem? J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the section on text. I was actually at WP:NFCC and stopped when I got to 'For the purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license.' That sentence probably needs to be changed. Anyway, silly of me to get to the full article and not to realize it was different.—JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidelines, too. This came up at Mikhail_Lermontov#A_sample_of_Lermontov.27s_poetry, which used to have Vladimir Nabokov's translation. I replaced it with one of my own. Understandably objecting to the ineptitude of my translation, people have twice restored Nabokov's translation, and I've reverted both times.

As for having the complete poem there, I'm in favor, not only to show what Lermontov's poetry was like, but also because as a citation shows, it's his correct prophecy of his death. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there seems to be a potential policy conflict. WP:NONENG says, "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." On the other hand, the idea that we should avoid fair-use material implies that we should prefer our own translations to outside ones. (I prefer "prefer to" to "prefer over".) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When translations published by reliable sources are free, there's no conflict. We may use all that may be appropriate of Charles Eliot Norton's 1892 translation of The Divine Comedy, though we can't use Dorothy Sayer's version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right—I should have limited to my comment to the situation where the source is free but no acceptable translation is. There are many examples: Kierkegaard, The Dream of the Red Chamber, etc. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.larryelmore.com/faq.htm says "Q. Can I use your images?

A. You can use the images. All I ask is that you give me credit and make a link back to my website. Thank you for asking!" - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Template:Attribution, but it may be best to e-mail the person and ask if derivative work and commercial work is allowed. Since this is a commercial illustrator/artist, I'd be surprised if this artist was actually releasing all images on the webpage under a free license.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of these are things like Dragonlance cover art and DnD cover art, which was probably commercial work sold to TSR and Wizards of the Coast and other companies. That leads me to believe that those companies probably own the copyrights to those images (while Elmore may have retained rights to show the work in a portfolio setting). It seems almost implausible that it'd be possible for us to take say the cover of Time of the Twins (which is available on the webpage) and post it under a free license here on wikipedia where someone could then use is commercially.... -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use the image of this person from this biography page? It states that press release photos are not necessarily free to use, but the Fed is sort of a government institution. Thanks 161.150.2.55 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres06.htm[reply]

The images on that website are not automatically public domain- it would not be covered by this template. A brief search has not found any copyright info, but we have to assume that things are copyrighted until proven otherwise. Posted yesterday, but forgot to sign. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this one

I nominated the Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson article for GA and a reviewer isn't sure whether this image meets the non-free criteria. I have always thought that it did, but I could be mistaken (I am still pretty new to wikipedia so please pardon my ignorance). Any opinion on the issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. Bad intentionz (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with it. A NFC rationale is provided, and it seems pretty appropriate to the article's subject.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to use an image like this, exactly where would it fall on the non-free/free scale. Is it free because it's a personal image of a person's arm? Is it non-free because there is not label clearly releasing it to the public? If it's non-free, exactly what license would I use?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without anything to explicitly say it has a free license for use, we'd need to assume a non-free license; it's also artwork (a derivative of a derivative work) so there's no way it would be free without a free license explicitly stated. (You may wanna try flickr to see if there's a similar image and has been put to CC license). --MASEM (t) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Masem, I'll do just that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you use fair use images in userspace? Fangoriously (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're using others' copyrighted images effectively saying that "we really need to use this image because (a) it's very important to understanding this article and (b) I can't get a libre-licensed one to fulfill its same purpose." There is no need for illustrative copyrighted worked outside of articles, so we don't allow it to prevent overuse of copyrighted material. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the cast section of the article Law & Order: UK, I'd originally used libre-licensed images to illustrate four of the six characters' actors, while leaving the other two blank until such time as I could find free imagery for them (said version). Redfarmer (talk · contribs) replaced all the libre images with a non-free photo of the entire cast, replacing the free images as well as the lack thereof (said version). Should I leave the latter alone until I can find 100% free imagery? Should I crop the new image or find non-free for those actors solely and replace the libre imagery? I'd appreciate the advice of those who frequent this discussion, as I'm endeavouring to maintain this specific article as free as possible. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use non-free images just to "complete a set" of images, if the subject can be illustrated by free licensed images (wich I'd say it clearly can in this case) we don't allow non-free ones as "fillers". Personaly I'd say any use of non-free images in that section would fail the significance criteria even if there had been no free licensed images available as it's just a cast list. Both the actors and characters have their own seperate articles. I would not in most cases object to prefeering a "in character" image over a photo of the actor in an article about a spesific character, but this is a list of cast, not characters, and even if it was a list of characters any non-free images should be in the individual articles and not the list itself. --Sherool (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, there are no articles on the chracters themselves, but that doesn't rely change anything. Even a single group cast photo is not rely nessesary to understand the article or section since there is only maybe one paragrap on each character and nothing about their apperance on the show that needs an image to illustrate it. No image would be fine, but we have some free licensed images that are far better than nothing. --Sherool (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gray area. (1) Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles advices to use cast shots instead of single character images, so the non-free cast shot isn't wrong. (2) Some editors believe that costuming and make-up are important aspects of characters / of the show that (usually) cannot be replaced with images of the actors; other editors would disagree. (3) I have never seen a FAC for a (long-running) TV series where the article was opposed for using a non-free cast shot. Since Law & Order: UK is not long-running at the moment and since the characters do not look much different than the actors, using only the free images would be an admirable role model for future TV show articles. But current wiki-practise would not find anything wrong with the non-free cast shot either, and there is no policy or guideline to "force" the non-free cast image to be removed. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases an image is clearly not replacable; the person is dead or the ship has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. In some cases an image is clearly easily replacable, like a photo of a building in New York. What I wonder about is: if an image is in theory replacable, but to do so would be expensive or difficult, should it be deleted immediately? There are two possibilities: the fair use image is deleted right away, or the fair use image is deleted only if and when its free replacement is eventually uploaded. Here are a few hypothetical examples of "expensive or difficult to replace" cases:

• A person or object to whom access is severely restricted. For example:
  • A recluse who never goes out and rejects all visitors;
  • A rare diamond or painting stored in a vault that is only revealed to prospective buyers;
  • An underground bunker of the CIA that requires high security clearance to access;
  • A deep undersea cavern that requires expensive robotic equipment to photograph.
• A person or object that is very difficult to locate. For example:
  • A fugitive who has been hiding from police for 10 years;
  • A stolen diamond that is being sold on the black market.
• A photo that one would have to endure hardship to reproduce. For example, it may require trespassing or violating a museum's photography rules to reproduce.
• A photo that can only be reproduced by first constructing an expensive artifact. For example, if there are no free photos of a particular type of rocket that no longer exists, you could in principle build such a rocket; but this is extremely expensive.
• An image for which you could in principle purchase the copyright from the legal copyright owner, but only at enormous cost.

You get the idea. I argue that we must necessarily place limits on what we consider "replacable"; I raise the discussion of what those limits should be and how they should be codified, or whether images should be treated on a case-by-case basis (and if so, according to what guidelines). Dcoetzee 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the CIA bunker may have CIA-produced photographs that are in the public domain, and the recluse may have a non-copyrighted photograph in his high-school yearbook. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Considering that WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use#Images makes this note: However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable., I think Dcoetzee's examples of what should made exceptions for the use of non-free images in articles should apply. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Carnildo that treating them on a case-by-case basis is appropriate; however I also think it would be helpful to have a guideline specifying general principles to consider when doing so, so that we are consistent about how "easy" or "difficult" replacement ought to be. Also we should separate the issues of "difficult of replacement" from the very different issue of "informational value" addressed by the "disbanded groups" comment. Dcoetzee 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding museum items, we don't care about the violation of the museum's rules here; that's an issue between the uploader and the museum. As to the exception that Crackthewhip775 notes above, the appearance of individual(s) must be notable in and of itself. Weird Al Yankovic is a good example; his nerdy glasses were part of his shtick, but he got laser surgery for his eyes, and we can't go back in time to get a photo of him back then. An example of an image that doesn't qualify is of someone who was prominent some years ago (politican, sports player) but has since retired, although is still making public appearances. The physical appearance was not central to their notability, so a non-free image is not warranted in those cases. howcheng {chat} 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My actual concern about the museum is the "endure hardship" aspect: if we already have a non-free photo of a museum piece, and a person must get ejected or banned from a museum in order to procure a freely-licensed photo of the same piece, can we reasonably ask them to do that? It seems that by asking for a replacement this is exactly what we're doing. Dcoetzee 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created this article about a guy who used to run in some pretty distinctive clothing (hospital shirt, gold suspenders and swimming trunks!). At the time he made the front cover of Sports Illustrated. SI have a version of this on their site - [2]. What chance do I have of adding a version of this pic to the article? If so how do I do this?The Hack 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to find a normal photograph of Meriwether in his running gear rather than a magazine cover but I would say there would be a strong case for permitting the use of a non-free image provided: (1) No free image of him in the relevant attire can be found (2) His unusual choice of running attire has been the subject of independent commentary. (3) It can be explained why a text description of his clothing provides insufficient information. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given we're talking early seventies the amount of online image content is a bit limited. There is though some contemporary news coverage of his attire. There's also the fact that his appearance in SI inspired a novel.The Hack 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last May I uploaded File:Air Nunavut logo.jpg to Commons. Now it seems to me that if fair use images of living people can't be used, something I don't have a problem with, why is it OK for File:Airnunavut.jpg to exist? It would seem to me that if the image on Commons is a valid free representation of the logo why is there a need for fair use logos in Wikipedia? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed to consider your commons image to be "Free"; it's a photo of a 2D work of art, and thus derivative of copyright and thus non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Commons image for deletion. Dcoetzee 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered about that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, under commons:Commons:FOP#Canada it might be permissible, although that is debatable since we don't know where the picture was taken, and FOP doesn't work in the USA. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken here at the airport but I just thought of something else. Does the copyright derivative rule not then make images like File:Fabregas newcastle emirates.jpg non-free? The Arsenal F.C. logo is quite clear there. I'm asking before I take more aircraft pictures and not because I want to go on an image deleting spree. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under commons commons:Commons:De minimis policy, and would be permissible. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re MBisanz: My impression is that FOP does not apply here (regardless of nation), because the plane tail is not "permanently situated" anywhere. Images that include logos as a minor element are de minimis, but straight-on photos where the logo occupies the entire frame are another matter. Dcoetzee 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you on the logo as the main element part, but the "permanency" of objects is something that still confuses me. I usually just send to COM:DR and let them figure it out. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I think there was another one where I got just the tail. I'll have to check. And of course I have yet another question. Can/should File:Air Nunavut.jpg be used to replace the fair use logo? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes. (from a non-free standpoint, the "damage" is done to represent the company (that is, a non-free is required here), but it's a much better logo in quality, so it should be used instead.) Above I thought it was the clean logo. As for that being a replacement image, it's possible, but I think that we can accept the use of the non-free logo over the free image of a plane to have a better picture of the logo for the identification of the company. You can certainly use that free image of the plane to talk about its fleet, but not really for the logo. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody for the answers. I now have a better idea of what to focus on when trying to get more aircraft images. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara is a song, and its lyrics are included, apparently in full, in the article (in both Croatian and English). I've previously provided a third opinion that including the lyrics in full is unencyclopaedic, so I have some bias here, but I'd be interested in comments on whether it represents fair use. References have been provided for both the Croatian and English version, and it's been suggested that because the song is a "hate crime" that copyright doesn't apply.

So... can lyrics be included in full? Is it correct that hate crimes are exempt from copyright? How do we determine if a song (or other text) constitutes a hate crime?

I'm looking for comments, really - I have no intention of getting involved with the article as, frankly, most of its editors scare me!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not ok and I've removed the lyrics myself. I'm sure others here will back me up. There's that whole free encyclopedia thing we have to worry about. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I suspect that the lyrics will find their way back sooner or later, but that's good to know. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]