Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65

As that commenter said, should we keep large versions of non-free vector images since they can be scaled to any size? Hop on Bananas (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• All files should satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. Note that the default display size is just an arbitrary number of little importance, so the 'size' of an SVG file needs to be determined in some other way. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• A user removed the {{non-free reduce}} tag (which I originally added) from File:Green Party logo.svg for obvious reasons. It seems that there are several users who agree that large non-free SVGs do not need to be reduced since they can be reduced or expanded to any size, including an acceptable non-free size. Are they right or not? Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, that was the same user who originally made the comment on the file's talk page. But still, are they right? Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• • It has been previously established that if we can legally acquire the logo vector directly from the company that owns the logo (off their website, off a PDF document they have , etc.), that that is an acceptable non-free, and because vectors are resolution-less , it is difficult to apply 3b to them. What we don't allow is the recreation as a vector of a non-free logo (in other words, no user-created non-free SVGs are allowed), and of course, if the only version available are raster images, these have to meet #3b. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Now, I've always assumed that the ban on user generated SVG versions is because they have too many copyrights attached to them, making them violations of the WP:FREER/NFCC#1 principle ("When using non-free media, the ones with the least restrictive copyright terms should be preferred").Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • There is that too, though arguably if the user recreates the non-free logo and then says "my SVG code is CC-BY", that's an "equivalent" free-ness as if the image is directly provided by the company that owns the logo (which covers both the graphical representation and the SVG for the most part). The main reason to avoid user-recreated non-frees is that they may not always be accurate at the small detail level, which can mis-represent the entity. It avoids derivative work issues related to that. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

While I didn't know why we didn't allow user-created SVG non-free logos before reading those comments, this discussion is about WP:NFCC#3. Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a way to formulate a "minimal usage" standard for vectorized images? For regular images low size and low resolution are the definition of "minimal usage", but if vectors don't play by the same rule we need a vector-appropriate standard.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

For the NYC Wikimedia chapter as follow up to events and as part of the event page clean vector logos from the partner organizations should be able to be used. The benefits are clear: Using the partner logos is professional, gives the pages graphic elements (which are sorely lacking), and if the logos are coming from the Commons, cross-usage should be encouraged. Specifically, the policy should not have to apply to logos of GLAM partner institutions shown on Wikipedia-space meetup pages and talk pages for new editors. This policy needs to be re-considered. BrillLyle (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• To clarify; BrillLyle is wanting to use File:Queens Library.svg on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/Press. For an example of intended usage, see this. I've explained that such usage violates WP:NFCC #9 and can not be allowed, and further that if he wants to use the logo in this manner he needs to seek an exemption from the policy here at this talk page. Thus, why it's come here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The significant point here is that GLAM partner organizations desire to be identified by their logos, as the Wikipedia namespace is de facto also sometimes an event-organizing platform. While logos should not be used gratuitously in non-article space, I can only think it is appropriate to show the logo of a partner GLAM organization on a particular project (this is very different, for example, from someone showing off their favorite brand on their user page).--Pharos (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Even if it weren't for NFCC 9, I don't see how it would pass 8. There's no pressing need for the logo, the name would quite suffice. Might be a "nice to have", but that's textbook decorative use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The more basic question I would ask is: Why do we have this overarching policy in the first place? I would say it is for two reasons, (1) For article pages, to encourage the creation and replacement on non-free images by free images and (2) for non-article pages, to prevent the proliferation and miscellaneous use of non-free images that might be be violating copyright, or that would make third party use problematic. In this case, neither justification really applies. The use of a GLAM logo on a meetup page is not preventing the creation of free images, it's not violating copyright, and it's not endangering third party use in any way. Really, the meetup pages are not part of the encyclopedia itself (such rules are never applied to identical pages on a Wikimedia chapter website), and should be treated differently.--Pharos (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    • We have that policy because this is a free content project, and so we use nonfree content only sparingly, only to enhance educational article content, and only when it's clearly necessary. In an article about a company, the logo is a core part of the identity and branding of many companies, so use of the logo is necessary. As a decoration for a meetup page, it's not, so it's not allowed, since a text list of organizations would suffice to convey the information. What chapters do on their own websites is of course up to them, but all pages on Wikipedia must follow the NFCC rules. Perhaps if you really want to use the logos, you could consider having a chapter host it and linking to that page, that would be perfectly fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is inconsistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which indicates that nonfree content may be used only to enhance article content. The proposal doesn't seem to be well thought out at all, since BrillLyle's comment above suggests that partner logos from Commons can't be used on meetup and talk pages, even though it should be obvious that they can be. Moreover, having taken a quick look at the proposed use, I don't see why someone couldn't extract the "Queens Library" typography, which is recognizable without being copyrightable. That would be more consistent with the other logos displayed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No exceptions are allowed by default and the only exceptions allowed by request are non-article space pages "that are used to manage questionable non-free content" (WP:NFEXMP), and the page described in this request surely isn't one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps one should encourage these partner organizations to license their logos - I find it unlikely that a logo would need more than attribution and trademarks to serve their purposes. Sort of a NFCC#1 concern this one - instead of accepting non-frees in metaspace, encourage the licensing thereof may be preferable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How should non-free TimedText be handled? I can't find anything about it. Apparently a non-free use rationale can't be added directly to the TimedText page. Does the rationale on the related media file suffice? Or should a rationale be placed on the TimedText Talk page? —teb728 t c 19:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page would be acceptable. It's a fair around the technical limitation. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

How does WP:NFCC#1 apply to articles about recently deceased individuals? For example, an individual who meets WP:GNG and is fairly well-known has recently died. A Wikipedia article is created about them and a non-free image of them is used in the infobox. A newly taken freely licensed photo, etc. is no longer possible for obvious reasons, but that does not necessarily mean that a previously taken freely licensed photo of the person, which serves the same encyclopedic purpose, cannot be found or that someone may someday decide to freely license such a photo. Is using the non-free image considered to be acceptable, as sort of a placeholder, until a free image is found? Does it make any difference with respect to non-free use whether the article was created before or after the person died? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the article was created. Generally, for a few months after the death of a person, there is a good chance that free media could be found uploaded as a result of the death (by those that had photos of the person from before the death). After some months, about 3 to 6 months, if these photos haven't matetialized, then a bonfire can be justified. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 27#File:Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-2.jpg.

So far, the only thing that has become clear from this discussion is that NFCC#1, as it stands, lends itself to the extremely narrow-minded and, in my opinion, shortsighted and extremely counterproductive interpretation that a copyrighted image (in this instance a dimensional drawing of a locomotive) has to be deleted because someone, somewhere, someday, might get it into his or her head to draw a reproduction and upload it into the public domain on Wikimedia.

If that is the way that NFCC#1 should be interpreted, so be it. If the intention with NFCC#1 should be more constructive with regard to the dissemination of knowledge by Wikipedia, it needs to be revised, or at least reconstructed in a manner that will not allow interpretation so suit individual agendas. - André Kritzinger (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's the exact intention of #1. If a free file exists or could be created, we don't use a nonfree one, to encourage free content. This is a free content project, so nonfree content should only be used when absolutely no alternative exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly right, and its clear in this case that a free image can be created. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The link attempts to go to freedomdefined.org but the link isn't working for me. I've tested a number of other Wikipedia links and other websites from my computer, so perhaps it's not my issue.TheCensorFencer (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It works here. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, firewall setting. Sorry about that.TheCensorFencer (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

About that Philippine government copyright template {{Non-free Philippines government}}, it is up for discussion here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing. I invite all of you to comment. George Ho (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(Head note, I've WP:IAR aborted all of these MFD's and venue moved them to this discussion board - a clear consensus on the legal and policy implications of these types of files is needed and individual MFD's are not the best place to ensure there is proper involvement. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

A batch of timed text files have been considered for deletion, but on fair use violation claims. As copyvio's are speedy candidates, I've aborted the following MFD's in process to centralized the discussion here. (more to come shortly). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Prior participants pings:

  @Moonriddengirl: @Winkelvi: — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Only: @Brustopher: @MaranoFan: @Finnusertop:. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Finnusertop: @Stefan2: — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Teb728: — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Noticeboard pings to Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations, Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and note left on WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Can you restore TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt and add it as an example too? --MaranoFan (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping to deleting administrator @JamesBWatson:. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• File list (current examples)

1. TimedText:Like I'm Gonna Lose You.ogg.en.srt
2. TimedText:Dear Future Husband.ogg.en.srt
3. TimedText:Title.ogg.en.srt
4. TimedText:Charlie Puth & Meghan Trainor - Marvin Gaye.ogg.en.srt
5. TimedText:Better When I'm Dancin'.ogg.en.srt
6. TimedText:WIF & Meghan Trainor.ogg.en.srt
7. TimedText:Adele - When We Were Young Clip.ogg.en.srt
8. TimedText:All_About_That_Bass_by_Meghan_Trainor_(sample).ogg.en.srt
9. TimedText:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt
10. TimedText:Adele - Hello Clip.ogg.en.srt
11. TimedText:Sample of "Jealous" by Nick Jonas.ogg.en.srt
12. TimedText:Lady GaGa-Just Dance.ogg.en.srt
13. TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt

(Head note, I've WP:IAR aborted all of these MFD's and venue moved them to this discussion board - a clear consensus on the legal and policy implications of these types of files is needed and individual MFD's are not the best place to ensure there is proper involvement. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

A batch of timed text files have been considered for deletion, but on fair use violation claims. As copyvio's are speedy candidates, I've aborted the following MFD's in process to centralized the discussion here. (more to come shortly). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Prior participants pings:

  @Moonriddengirl: @Winkelvi: — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Only: @Brustopher: @MaranoFan: @Finnusertop:. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Finnusertop: @Stefan2: — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Teb728: — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Noticeboard pings to Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations, Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and note left on WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Can you restore TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt and add it as an example too? --MaranoFan (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping to deleting administrator @JamesBWatson:. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• File list (current examples)

1. TimedText:Like I'm Gonna Lose You.ogg.en.srt
2. TimedText:Dear Future Husband.ogg.en.srt
3. TimedText:Title.ogg.en.srt
4. TimedText:Charlie Puth & Meghan Trainor - Marvin Gaye.ogg.en.srt
5. TimedText:Better When I'm Dancin'.ogg.en.srt
6. TimedText:WIF & Meghan Trainor.ogg.en.srt
7. TimedText:Adele - When We Were Young Clip.ogg.en.srt
8. TimedText:All_About_That_Bass_by_Meghan_Trainor_(sample).ogg.en.srt
9. TimedText:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt
10. TimedText:Adele - Hello Clip.ogg.en.srt
11. TimedText:Sample of "Jealous" by Nick Jonas.ogg.en.srt
12. TimedText:Lady GaGa-Just Dance.ogg.en.srt
13. TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt

Apologies if this is a bit longwinded. @Marchjuly: has opened a number of Files for Discussion that I believe follow the same basic rationale. Rather than pointlessly repeat the same points- which I've already had similar discussions about- I'd rather open a more generalised discussion here in the hope of getting more feedback and opinion.

The issue is that of "fair use" screenshots within videogame articles.

• WWF_Wrestlemania_1991_Ocean_game.jpg
• Zool_snes.jpg - This is the most typical example; please see this for the simplest illustration of the issues
• Xenon_II_Megablast_in-game_screenshot_(Atari_ST).png
• Wishbringer_screenshot.jpg
• File:Zork_screenshot.jpg

Taking "Zool_snes.jpg" as the most typical example, the reasoning used is that the screenshot "is not itself the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so usage fails WP:NFCC#8".

I disagree with this. It's the only screenshot in the article, and in such cases, a well-chosen screenshot is generally the closest one can get to a representation of the subject itself (#1). *Of course* it's been discussed, it's the subject of the article!

The referenced NFCC#8 says "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."

Now, I appreciate that "understanding" is open to interpretation in this context (#2), but given that it's impossible to accurately convey the appearance of a visually-oriented arcade game using text alone, I'd say that it's almost a given that a single representative screenshot will almost inherently improve "understanding" of what a game is like!

This applies whether or not the screenshot is the "primary identifier" within the article.

As I commented in a similar discussion regarding a TV programme, rules are always open to interpretation, but if there are (e.g.) two interpretations, one which would leave things broadly as they are, and the other which- if applied consistently- would result in the rejection of the majority of currently-accepted fair-use images, then the former is more likely to be the one implicitly accepted by the community! (And the latter should be discussed as a general policy rather than on an inconsistent case-by-case basis).

I think this is a similar case here; Marchjuly's argument against the Zool image would- if applied consistently- probably result in the deletion of most "fair use" videogame screenshots.

In short, I'm not convinced by Marchjuly's general interpretation of NFCC that seems to underly a lot of these Files for Discussion entries. Is there any previous discussion that can clarify this matter?

(#1) No, the box/packaging isn't the subject; the software is. I dislike the prioritisation of box art over screenshots for this reason, but that's a separate issue at this point.

(#2) Something I already went into in this older FfD, in response to similar arguments from Marchjuly, albeit regarding a TV programme rather than video game.

Ubcule (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a bit of bias here since I'm involved with the VG project, but it is generally the case that one non-free screenshot of a video game is acceptable to go along with (what should be sourced) gameplay discussion, to demonstrate what the gameplay is like. This also serves to implicitly show the art style and other factors associated with the game, though it should not be considered a free pass in the way we do for cover art (which itself is used for marketing and promotion, so it is a different situation). The reason here is that unlike the bulk of live-action TV shows, where we have reasonable expectations of what real life looks like, video games are nearly always more abstract between art style, game play, UI elements, and so on, so they do need visual representation alongside their gameplay (at minimum) to help the reader to understand and would make it hard for the reader to understand without. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree.

@Marchjuly: Per policy, the question to focus on is: what does this add to reader understanding?

Showing a "primary means of identification" or being "the subject of sourced commentary" are good reasons for keeping an image; but they are not requirements. (Look up eg Graham vs Dorling Kindersley in the archives of this page ).

Of course, if commentary can be found of the visual style, art elements, user interface, gameplay etc compared to the state of the art at the time (eg from contemporary reviews), that is a definite bonus. But for the reasons Masem gives above, especially for early games, which were often very different from each other, perhaps all the more so because of the primary colour limitations of the time, a visual representation of what the game actually looked like really does add hugely to the article. Jheald (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was pinged, but not sure if it's appropriate to discuss individual files here and repeat arguments already made in ongoing NFCR/FFD discussions. Those [my] arguments were made based upon my reading of WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion and how NFCC#8 has been applied in various NFCR/FFD discussions. Requiring that a non-free image be the subject of sourced commentary when it is not being used as the primary means of identification seems to be the general consensus (according to archived NFCR/FFD discussions I have seen) when it comes to non-free images, regardless of whether it is a former logo, cover-art, a photo, or a screenshot(perhaps among screenshots, video game screen shots are treated differently). The fact that many non-free images are being used in such a way does not necessarily mean that all such usages are automatically NFCC compliant; it could simply mean that their usage has gone unnoticed and their respective non-free use rationales have yet to be evaluated. Anyway, like many things about the Wikipedia, there's quite a bit of room for interpretation so any discussion that helps to clarify the NFCC is most welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC) (Note: This reply was meant in response to Ubcule's original post and ping. I was not aware of Masem's and Jheald's responses while I was editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

@Masem: @Jheald: You're points are well taken. However, Masem seems to be suggesting that game play discussion should be sourced whereas Jheald seems to be suggesting that is not necessarily always the case. What about articles where there is no discussion, sourced or otherwise, of the visual representation, etc. of the game? Would the usage of a non-free gameplay screenshot satisfy NFCC#8 is such cases? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the VG project, the gameplay section should be sourced, and is required for GA/FA. It is nearly always the case that as long as the game is notable, the gameplay has been described to some basic detail in those sources that assert its notability. Even with that, the game is a primary source for the gameplay if that can't be met, but again, it is very much exceptional that a game will not have sources from third-parties to describe gameplay.

In the case where the gameplay is just presented and no one talks about graphics, etc. the case does start to become weaker for the image but I would still argue that it is reasonable to include only to distinguish from infinite possible art styles and the like. There might be a case by case for this where one might not really find a good reason to use a screenshot, but I think in general this is reasonable. (See comment below about software and website screenshots). --MASEM (t) 01:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we clarify whether this discussion about the usage of screenshots in general or video game screenshots in particular? The responses of Masem and Jheald seem to be directed more to the latter, while Ubcule has also mentioned a TV programme screenshot in their OP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this specific discussion is limited to video game screenshots, and potentially general software and website screenshots with the same logic that you get one "free" non-free to use to describe the features of the software/website is needed. (but this should still all be sourced). Other screenshots which are primarily otherwise television and film, that's a different beast with different logic to validity. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Though as I think about it, there is some similar logic that applies to a television screenshot for the show's page to show the ensemble cast in their roles, as this usually gives some idea of the characterization, show setting and other factors that are also implicit in understanding a long-running show. (eg File:Main_characters_of_Lost.jpg does convey the idea of stranded people and hostility and other character elements that are not directly talked about on the Lost (TV series) page. Similarly File:ST_TNG_Season_One_Cast.jpg gives us character and setting depictions without being necessarily discussed in text on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members) But again here, it is one non-free image that is loosely allowed; any further non-frees must be better justified. It doesn't apply to episode (singular) pages, nor to films, though at the same time this doesn't prevent specific non-frees that are discussed at length to be included. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Masem. For reference, I have no problem with an non-free ensemble image being used as the means of identification in an article about the characters of a TV program. I think this is allowed per WP:NFLISTS. I can also see your point regarding "one cover art/one screenshot" in a stand-alone article about a particular video game when there is some commentary (ideally sourced) about the gameplay, etc. within the article. However, I'm not totally following how such a screenshot might be considered acceptable per NFCC#8 when there is no such discussion at all. I guess that might have to do with how I am defining "gameplay". To me, "gameplay" should not simply be a sort of "plot summary" of what happens in the game or what you can do in the game, but it should also include some mention of the technical aspects of the game itself, such as the graphics, etc. I realize this definition may not be the one commonly held when it comes to such articles, but it seems when nothing at all is written about such things that usage tends to be decorative. I am also not sure about how this "One infobox image/one screenshot" principle applies to articles which are not stand-alone articles about a video game or TV program. For example, there are three non-free screenshots (File:Doom ingame 1.png, File:Billdoom.png, and File:Doom gibs.png) being used in Doom (1993 video game). For the sake of argument, let's assume the first one in the "Gameplay" section is acceptable per the "one-and-one" principle. The remaining two screenshots then must be the subject of sourced commentary (which I think they are) to satisfy NFCC#8, right? So, the NFCC usage in "Doom (1983 video game)" seems fine. What about, however, the usage of the same screenshots in the other articles where they are being used? Two of the three are being used in more than one article (FWIW, I'm not trying to open a FFD here about these files. I'm using them as an example to try and gain a better understanding of what is being discussed here) and their usage does not really seem, at least to me, to be NFCC compliant. Each usage is provided with a non-free use rationale, but that doesn't necessarily me they are valid rationales, does it? The "Main characters of Lost" and "ST_TNG_Season_One_Cast.jpg" you referenced above may indeed be considered acceptable for a stand-alone list article or a stand-alone series article. Would their usage, however, be considered acceptable in articles about the TV networks which aired the show or thematic articles about the genre of the show, etc. where the shows themselves may be mentioned, but the screenshot/image itself is not really the subject of any sourced commentary? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Doom screenshots in other articles, I would immediately say there is no automatic allowance there - there needs to be sourced commentary about the images to be used anywhere else outside of the game article. Same thing with the character shots - their use outside the show or character list page, such as a genre article, must be supported with sourced commentary. Basically, it comes down to the fact the screenshot of a game only has the reasonable allowance to be used on the article about that game, on the presumption that the gameplay is discussed in a manner to make the screenshot useful, and any other usage will need strong justification. In terms of the first part of your comment, sometimes the graphics or other visual elements are described (a game noted for cel-shading or for using tilt-shift imagery for example), but often just showing the screen can be a way to illustrate the type of graphics used without having to say what they are. It's more that the screenshot with its caption should help orient the reader to understand the nature of the gameplay they are reading about, which is more difficult if there are no visual cues for that (eg omission would harm the reader's understanding of NFCC#8) --MASEM (t) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: To clarify, this is primarily about "fair use" video game screenshots.

The TV programme link was used because- despite the different subject matter- many of the same principles and arguments applied and I'd already made them there.

In particular, this is an issue because:-

(i) I don't want to have countless near-identical per-file discussions going over the same basic issues; that's obviously unworkable.

(ii) NFCC rules- and their interpretation- should be applied *consistently* to all articles in the field.

(iii) In fact, interpretations of rules should be applied consistently *everywhere*. That is, if a *single* representative example of the appearance of a TV programme (a primarily visual medium) or arcade video game (again, a primarily visual medium) isn't inherently justifiable, then what is the justification for (e.g.) having a "fair use" image of Alistair MacLean when its inclusion arguably adds nothing to understanding his importance as an author- i.e. the reason for his notability- or understanding his literary work? His appearance is irrelevant to that. This strikes me as inconsistent.

So, what I want is some consistency and clarity regarding the use of videogame screenshots because I want to contribute without rehashing the same issues every time.

However, if people are going to argue that their use (in general) isn't justified, then I'd also like to see contradictions like the one above addressed too. Ubcule (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Failure: I read Zool#Gameplay (note: I've never played nor even heard of Zool) trying to see what additional information the screenshot might give me that the prose did not. The only thing that perked my interest was the description of the prime character as a gremlin ninja. Of course, that imagery is clearly depicted on the box art. I fail to see anything else the screenshot gives me. There's no discussion anywhere of what we are seeing in the screenshot. This is an abject failure of WP:NFCC #8. So, the only way to include this image would be via a free pass arrangement. This would need to be outlined in WP:NFC. We can't do this per-article. The debates would never end. The line being danced about there being an automatic allowance is too fine of a point. Really, if we accept these images we need to modify WP:NFC to indicate there is an allowance of one non-free screenshot per game article under a 'free pass' arrangement as box art has. Of course, if we do this we're going to have to grant an allowance of one free screenshot per TV episode too. Oh the slippery slopes we tread. To the OP; the idea that we should default to the former case of yours, where we allow lots and lots of non-free content in this case, is false. The default case on Wikipedia is to NOT allow non-free content. We make special exceptions, which are governed by policy and some of which are outlined in guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • An issue is that the gameplay in Zool is far from what is normally expected for a video game article of quality. It can be improved (though I have not played it so I can't do that myself) to describe what actions the player takes in the main game, which would better justify the use of the gameplay image. Now arguably, that should be done now since the file has been flagged, because key again is that these screenshots should be associated with a sourced gameplay section, and this clearly is not. But it is also something that should be fixed, and when fixed to standards we expect, it should be okay, so deleting it presently for purposes of lacking the necessary quality is a problem. And no, this doesn't translate to television episodes, as most television episodes are live actors doing mundane or easily described things that do not have a unique art style or interactivity. Some episodes are unique to that extent, but that's exceptional, not the rule. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • To the last point first; most (all?) television episodic series have art directors. Those directors create a feeling of a universe in which the characters are depicted. This extends to every facet of their environment; clothing, transportation, accommodations, offices, other places of interaction. Thousands of people make their livelihoods developing such environments. If one could make an argument that a screenshot is necessary to depict gameplay, it is equally necessary for episodic series. Any eloquence that would permit prose to describe a scene in an episodic series such as this from Big Bang Theory is equal to the task of describing a game. As to allowing the image pending improvement of an article; with no comment directed at anyone, much less you, such a notion is absurd. Huge numbers of articles languish for years pending improvement. Shall we create another sub (or sub-sub) directory of Category:Wikipedia articles with content issues and hope that someday, somewhere down the road, somebody will improve Zool (a game made for platforms where the most recent was discontinued 13 years ago) to support the image? We do not include non-free content pending the creation of free content that could be created. We should not be in the business of supporting non-free content in the hopes that free content prose will come along to support it. If and when free content prose is created to support it, then a non-free content could be included to support it. Until such time, absolutely not. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've argued elsewhere, arcade video games (and other ones to a more debatable extent) are primarily a visual product, and generally- as Masem stated- have their own distinct style. It hinges on one's interpretation of the word "understanding" in NFCC, but I think it's clear to say that one can't "understand" the appearance and style of a game from textual description alone.

One can describe it in words, just like one can describe almost any painting in words. And, just as with the painting, I don't think it's arguable that text alone- regardless of how well-written- can convey what a single visual example does.

This- I believe- is what makes (at least) a single, representative example justified in most cases, regardless of whether or not the screenshot itself is the subject of "sourced commentary".

Specific to the "Zool" example, I don't feel the need to seek a "free pass". I think it's clear that one would have a weaker impression of the game even without that virtually-uncommented screenshot, which justifies its use as "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". The box art shows the character, but nothing else about the game.

Ubcule (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between a television series article, and a television episode. Everything you said about the art production of the television episode is really what applies to a TV series overall, and not necessarily to specific episodes. Hence, one non-free image to help express the art style of a TV show on the TV show's article is completely reasonable, but that does not apply to the episode since it is established in the show's article. An individual episode may be of not for its unique art direction, but that's where I would expect to see unique art styles the subject of sourced discussion to explain why the episode is unique and requires a screenshot. Episodes are one of those things that we have refused to allow a free non-free without justification as we do with cover art.

Also do note that with emulation and the like, it's hard to consider a discontinued game having no importance. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Came here linked from WT:WPVG) Pardon if I reiterate something from above, but my understanding of NFCC was that for video games contextual significance is basically "gameplay". There is no way to explain gameplay (and sometimes art direction) in prose without an aid of a screenshot for virtually any game. The gameplay is always at least sourced to the game itself, but almost always there is at least basic description in sources (or it wouldn't pass GNG anyway). Even an in-depth gameplay description fails to convey what a single screenshot can. Therefore, such a screenshot gives a lot of context to what an overview description is talking about. In practice, many video game article are terribly underdeveloped and don't explicitly describe the content of the screenshot. Is this a question that WMF's legal should be answering or is it up to us to interpret and apply NFCC? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• As someone who has written many video game articles, a screenshot is very helpful in illustrating the concept of a game's gameplay. I'm very much so of the same mindset of Masem. The problem isn't so much the images here, but rather, that the video games targeted here are in rather poor shape. Perhaps what we're saying would make a little more sense upon reading some GA's or FA's. Something like Golden Sun, where its got a good caption and good gameplay section, to better demonstrate how its supposed to be implemented. The answer is the improve the content, not delete it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Guidelines regarding fair-use images within videogame articles: Originally intended to cover general issues popping up repeatedly in multiple individual Files for Discussion (specific screenshot for specific videogame) and to achieve clarification on existing policy. However, this has resulted in significant discussion including a "Motion to modify WP:NFC" and further input and opinion on this would be valuable. See Clarification_regarding_general_legitimacy_of_video_game_screenshots. 21:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Based upon the ongoing discussion at WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight, I am wondering if there is a way to clarify the wording of templates such as Template:Di-fails NFCC so that it's easier to see who is allowed to remove such templates and what are the acceptable reasons for removal. It also might be helpful to add something about Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed (or a similar template) that can be used by those wishing to contest/challenge the initial tagging of the file. Part of what came out in the AN discussion is that administrators may not check the file's talk page for comments prior to deleting a file (even though the template's wording instructs them to do so), so I think it will be helpful if a way can be found to alleviate such concerns so that templates are not prematurely removed. On the other hand, if such templates can be removed by any editor, then this should be clear as well. Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale is another template which may also need a bit of clean up as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the way forward here is that if an editor removes such a template, they should be encouraged to notify the person who added it.

Then if there is disagreement, the two can take it to FFD. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It would be useful to warn admins to check the talk page. {{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{imbox|text=Note that there is some text on the talk page:<br>{{ {{TALKPAGENAME}} }}}}}} or some variant thereof could be added to all deletion templates. I don't know if admins regularly check file talk pages when deleting files. Most file talk pages only contain a wikiproject template if the talk page exists at all, so maybe some admins think that it is a waste of time. If my proposed wikicode is used, then the talk page will be automatically transcluded by the deletion tag, so the admins won't have to click on an extra link. This is maybe more useful in the file namespace than in other namespaces.

It would also be useful to have something like {{hang on}} for all DI tags. Maybe we could just redesign and rename {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} so that the same template can be used for any DI tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's unrealistic to expect admins to check the talk page -- they haven't in the past, particularly when there's a backlog to resolve; and also given that they may be using semi-automated tools.

Also, there are a number of issues where there are simple formalities to fix, where the user may well be able to fix them, and then removal of the tag may be completely appropriate.

If there is a genuine disagreement about the image, then it should go to FFD, rather than having a countdown to automated deletion hanging over it. I would regard this template as very similar to a WP:PROD, and it seems to me the same rules should apply. Jheald (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that {{di-fails NFCC}} only should be used for obvious violations of the non-free content criteria but that the admin who processes the tag should be the one who determines if it is an obvious violation or not. If it is not an obvious violation, then it's better to list the file at FFD, but it seems unnecessary to list files at FFD only because the uploader doesn't understand the non-free content criteria. When a file by a new user is tagged as replaceable for violation of WP:NFC#UUI §1, the user sometimes adds a template disputing the violation, and the admin will then only delete the file if it is an obvious violation of the criterion, but listing lots of those files at FFD would fill up FFD with too many files. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Stefan2's suggested of transcluding the talk page sounds interesting, especially if it helps admins see that the "di" template has been disputed. Also, think that one template for all for all contested NFCC speedy deletions sounds like a good idea. Personally, I'm not sure why {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and {{di-fails NFCC}} are both needed since they both seem to deal with the same thing, don't they? If a particular usage of a non-free file fails one of the NFCC, then a valid non-free use rationale cannot be written for that usage, right?

As for removing the templates, I realize that sometimes they are added/removed by vandals and other times in good faith. Even so, I don't think they should be simply removed without any good faith attempt at discussing the reason(s) why on either the file's talk page or the page of the user who added the template. Perhaps this could be done by a template, such as is done for {{Deprod}}. If there is still disagreement about whether the problem has been "successfully" fixed, then the discussion should be moved the FFD. Right now, the current wording of "di-Fails NFCC" seems to imply that only an administrator should remove the template (which is why I re-added the templates discussed in the above-mentioned AN thread), whereas "di-disputed fair use rationale" seems to suggest that anyone may remove the template. If it's acceptable for anyone to remove either of the two, even in bad faith like it is for PROD tags, then perhaps they should be similarly worded to reflect that a template should not be re-added once it has been removed (for any reason) and that any outstanding concerns about the file should be discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} means that someone argues that the fair use rationale is invalid. A valid fair use rationale should specify why the file satisfies all non-free content criteria. If the file fails any criterion, then the fair use rationale is by definition invalid since it doesn't provide a valid rationale for that criterion, so the templates seem to duplicate each other to some extent. The main difference is that {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} requires the user requesting deletion to write in words why the file fails WP:NFCC, while {{di-fails NFCC}} requires the user to specify which criterion the file fails. There is also {{di-missing article links}}, which I tend to use if there is a fair use rationale but the fair use rationale either refers to more than one article or only to articles which do not contain the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about "di-missing article links" and have never seen it used before. At first glance, that seems unnecessary since it is a fairly minor fix to check the "What links here" and fill in |article=. However, I guess even that could be not so simple for the reasons you give. Anyway, the language in that one seems to imply anyone can remove the template if they "fix" the problem which again seems a bit different from "di-fails NFCC". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If the file was uploaded for the purpose of being used in Article A and it has a FUR for Article A but it currently only is used in Article B, then the FUR typically needs to be completely rewritten as the purpose and use of the image doesn't match the new article. This situation is more like {{subst:nfurd}}. {{Di-missing article links}} doesn't mention any notification template. Not finding anything better, I typically use {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} when tagging files with {{di-missing article links}}.

There's also {{di-missing some article links}} which is used in a lot of situations where a file has a fair use rationale for some articles but the file also is in use in other articles for which there is no FUR. It would be necessary to go through all those files and either add FURs or remove files from pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting comment from Jimbo (diff) in a conversation Philosophy of free culture at the WMF on his talk page:

Here's the way I think about this issue - I wonder if you disagree. When fair use competes with free images, we should strongly prefer to avoid fair use. When no free image is possible, then we "should make maximal rather than minimal use of Fair Use". What we don't want to happen is to have free culture contributors disheartened when their perhaps slightly less-good image has to compete with a fair use image of slightly higher quality. And we don't want to say "Well, there's no free picture of X, so we'll grab one and claim fair use" when it would be easy enough to get a free picture of X.

Fair use is a really important principle that we should like to see expanded. Just because someone owns a copyright to something, does not give them absolute and final authority over every possible use - and we should be clear about that. At the same time, a too easy reliance on fair use can harm incentives to great free stuff. So balance is required.

Jheald (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo's opinions on the matter, whether they are pro or con, have as much bearing as the Foundation's at this point (i.e. none). The project is overrun with non-free material. Neither the community here, the Foundation, nor Jimbo are willing to do anything to curb that. Given this circumstance, the status quo is that WP:NFCC is void, and people may use non-free content...to quote Jimbo...maximally. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  If we accept the use of non-free content in the Mobile apps (the Search function and some other features at least on Android currently use non-free images for navigation and decorative purposes) we could indeed allow a lot more non-free content here. Or we could remember our principles, reduce non-free material here and complain to WMF developers until the Mobile apps conform to our policies. —Kusma (t·c) 14:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Foundation's previously been approached about the overburden of non-free content on this project. Their response has been silence, except for one instance where their legal counsel chimed in that we had wide liberty to use non-free content under fair use law as an educational resource. Though not intended as a statement of policy about the use of non-free content, the juxtaposition of this response with their silence on other fronts leads one to conclude it is a defacto policy statement about the use of non-free content in general. Few care anymore about limiting non-free content. There were never enough that cared to be a strong voice supporting free content. The few there were have been demonized, and many have been forced off the project, retired from the project, or if still here don't enforce it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• The statement part "Just because someone owns a copyright to something, does not give them absolute and final authority over every possible use - and we should be clear about that." is actually contrary to US copyright law, which we have to follow. The copyright law gives exclusive authority to a work by the copyright owner. Fair use is a defense, not a right or privilege, to allow limited use of material without having to gain the copyright owner's approval for educational purposes. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Masem: Courts tend to construe fair use historically as an extension of the 1st Amendment, so very much a right. The actual statute (see Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors) is quite explicit: "the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright." So Jimbo is quite right, it is a limitation on copyright -- copyright does not give the holder absolute and final authority over every possible use."

The line "it's only a defense" is sometimes used as a rallying cry by the larger rightsholding organisations, like the MPAA and the RIAA, to try to delegitimise fair use in the minds of the public or politicians. But it doesn't reflect either statute or case-law, and should be resisted. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To add: here's the 9th circuit rejecting the "only a defense" argument: ; see also "Myth: Fair Use is only a defense, not a right" on page 16 of this from Berkeley. Jheald (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't read either of those contradicting the "defense" aspect. The court ruling says that copyright owners should be aware that there are clear fair use defenses that a user can readily claim as to avoid sending frivolous takedown notice (eg don't waste the court's time with obvious cases), and the second frames it from the standpoint of education use which automatically meets one of the four fair use considerations, but still remains a defense. Fair use is always been an exception to the standard copyright law in the US, and you do not have the automatic right to use others' work. I do agree that in practice it is considered a right for some users (educational ones) but if it came to a court case, its on the fair use user to prove they met the defense of fair use, whereas if it was a right, it would be on the copyright owner to prove harm from that right. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair use does arise procedurally as an affirmative defense which has burden of proof consequences but it is grounded in Constitutional rights expressed in the Copyright Clause and perhaps to some extent in the First Amendment. So, you are both right. I like being able to say that in a discussion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC) The Ninth Circuit in Lenz v. Universal Music (2015) (decided on statutory grounds) is on point:

Universal’s sole textual argument is that fair use is not “authorized by the law” because it is an affirmative defense that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. Universal’s interpretation is incorrect as it conflates two different concepts: an affirmative defense that is labeled as such due to the procedural posture of the case, and an affirmative defense that excuses impermissible conduct. Supreme Court precedent squarely supports the conclusion that fair use does not fall into the latter camp: “[A]nyone who ... makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use." Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433 (1984).

24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, Jimbo's statement is consistent with Justice Stevens's language, writing for the majority, in Sony Corp. v. Universal City, 464 U.S. 417, 432-33 (1984):

  [Copyright] protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work.[13] Rather, the Copyright Act grants the copyright holder "exclusive" rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies. § 106.[14] All reproductions of the work, however, are not within the exclusive domain of the copyright owner; some are in the public domain. Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.

  24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• One problem with non-free content is that non-free content makes it prohibited for reusers to use a lot of Wikipedia material outside the United States, although the idea is that reusing Wikipedia material is supposed to be permitted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• That's a very passé idea at this point. While there are many efforts to republish Wikipedia material, most of them have not a care in the world as to the copyright of the material they are reusing. Several of them strip references to Wikipedia intentionally, which in some cases violates the rights of copyright holders of cc-by material here. Many of the efforts to reuse our material have been rather less than successful, and none are anywhere near as popular as Wikipedia itself...which undermines the idea that reusing it is somehow distributing it any better than Wikipedia can itself. So, the whole notion of Wikipedia as reusable is, in practice, a failed concept. Given that, there's really little motivation to not use non-free content to the "maximal" extent allowable under fair use law in the United States. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Jimbo's point about using a less good free image, where one exists, rather than a better non-free one still speaks to the desire to have freely distributable content. He doesn't appear to be advocating having fair use swallow the idea of replacing with free images where possible. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to play the role of Captain Obvious here and say that shifting from "minimizing fair use" to "maximizing fail use" is a seismic shift in approach and one that seems, as Hammersoft points out above, to make the NFCC seem a bit pointless now. Such a change would pretty much make all of WP:NFC#Unacceptable use irrelevant, wouldn't it? It would also seem to make WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 irrelevant as well. Quite a number of files which have be removed or deleted for NFCC reasons, probably would have survived under the goal of maximization. Mroeover, if the common practice in recent years has been to use non-free as much as possible and the WMF now seems to be in favor of such an approach, then maybe the time has come to put the NFCC out to pasture in favor of something more workable and something which more accurately reflects how the community uses non-free content. After all, NFCR was merged into FFD, primarily because the community felt it's time had come and was no longer needed. Maybe the same can now be said of the NFCC? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think Jimbo's statement makes it pretty clear that in the absence of readily obtainable free content we should be using non-free content maximally. I.e., NFCC#1 remains important, but other aspects except those having to do with fair use law are void. Perhaps it's time to place NFCC for merging with Wikipedia:Image use policy. Policy is supposed to reflect good practice. Common practice on the project for years now has been to use NFCC maximally. Jimbo's comments make it clear that practice is not only common, it is now 'good' practice. Policy needs to be amended to reflect that, and allow maximal use of non-free content when free content can not be "easy enough" to obtain. This will allow album covers in discographies (we stopped patrolling for that at least half a year ago), per character images on list and thus vacate WP:NFLISTS (we stopped patrolling for WP:NFLISTS violations a long time ago; more than 50 list articles are on the overuse list now, unpatrolled), codify the enormous overload of currency images, allow per-episode screen shots of TV episodes, allow non-free images that have articles about them to be used liberally in other articles (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima image), non-free images in galleries (WP:NFG/WP:NFTABLE goes away), etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Except 1) Jimbo is not the WMF, which set the resolution NFC is fashioned after, 2) Jimbo doesn't set en.wiki policy, either. Further, as I note, his statement really is perhaps an ideal for a free thought arena but doesn't follow with current law, which per the WMF we're required to follow. Unless Jimbo is actively proposing NFC change here, this is just comments and have no impact on the language of NFC here. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• On consistency with US copyright law, see above re: Sony. Agree with respect to policy and language of NFC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I would say out of the 10 NFCC, nos. 1, 4 (maybe), 5, 7, 9, and 10 probably could still be applied to some degree, but anything involving context or minimal use would be almost impossible to enforce. Same goes for WP:NFC#UUI nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17 since these also seem to be related to NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 more than any of the other NFCC criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Masem's objections aside, I think we can get wide consensus to move as we suggest. There aren't enough voices left to oppose such a move now. Proof of that is above. Perhaps a stepped process is what we need here. First, RfC to eliminate NFCC#8, then #3. Once those are removed, we then modify NFC#UUI as you suggest, as the underpinnings for those points will be gone by consensus. Then, remove WP:NFG and WP:NFLISTS. With that done, the floodgates will finally be open to allow maximal use. I don't think we can do all of this in one fell swoop. As you note, it's a seismic change. People resist change, even if it's obviously good and right. The vast majority will want this, but may resist changing it even so. So, we have to do it bit by bit to get people acquainted with the idea. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• We can't change NFC as long as the WMF resolution still remains in place, but we also have to further recognize that the extent that NFC applies is still subjective, and most people are satisfied with how NFC works. While there may be more than 500,000 non-free images on WP, that still represents only around 10% of the total article count, and that percentage hasn't significantly changed over the last several years. In other words, people are still respecting a limited use of what would otherwise be fair use images. It could be lower, absolutely, but we can't force it not enforce that with a heavy hand. That doesn't mean NFC is broken and needs to be abolished, just that its subjective application is not as strong as some would like. But it's also not as liberal as others would like as well. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, we can change NFCC/NFC as we feel the need to do so. If the WMF has an objection to it, they can raise the objection. But, it is highly unlikely they will do so because (a) Jimbo's statement and (b) they've refused to engage us on these points before. I disagree with your statement that most people are satisified with how NFC works. The proof of that being the lack of patrolling now for obvious violations of policy and guideline. Understand, policy is reflective of what happens on the project, not the other way around. What is happening on the project is the usage of non-free content very much in line with what Jimbo states, which obviates the need for NFCC#3 and #8. Your objections to this move ring very true with how things were...five years ago. They are no longer valid. What will you do if we hold an RfC and the consensus is to remove NFCC#3? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Obvious violations" is subjective - for example, you brought up the list of denominations for a country's bills and coins which frequently use nonfree images in tables. NFLISTS is not an absolute, and while I believe there are better ways for using NFC, I'm also fully aware that its also a reasonable approach that satisfies the core nature of NFC that generally has consensus. Does this mean NFLISTS is invalid and we should allow images in discographies? Absolutely not, as the money lists are the exception, not the rule. What I do think we have to be aware is that editors are hostile to the idea of non-free images being "patrolled". While clear violations are found they should be dealt with, and questionable images taken to FFD, no question and that doesn't seem to be the problem, it's when we take a police-like attitude towards these (especially since we are talking subjective criteria) that editors become hostile with the idea. And if NFCC#3 was put on the table for removal, we can't since that is hardcoded into the WMF resolution. Even if NFCC#3 disappeared, we would still apply the WMF resolution to keep minimal use of non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• And one last point to stress: Jimbo has no direct say in policy matters or the like. His word is not the word of God. If he wanted to have NFC changed to reflect his opinion, he would have to go through the same channels to do an RFC or the like for that, or would have to have the WMF board to reissue a resolution towards non-free media, but he alone could not do that. Further, he is speaking to an "upper limit" of usage, but does not speak to any lower limit, which we are free to decide for ourselves as long as it does not exceed what the WMF requires. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Masem, with all respect I think you're missing the point and are still referencing a stance that was valid five years ago, but not now. The time for all the fence sitting that has happened in the past in an attempt to craft a middle road of acceptance has passed. Nuanced answers aren't acceptable anymore. You don't have to quote passages to me from the bible of NFCC. You know full well I was an avid proponent in years past. I know the schpiel. It just simply isn't valid anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that the situation is as dire as you make it. Yes, there are fewer people that directly spend time going through NFC to find where some may be violating, and there is probably a need for a bot or two to address the mechanical aspects of NFCC (eg #10). But when you look to all editors overall, there is a healthy respect for NFC, with the loudest complaints coming from newer editors that aren't familiar with the policy in practice (which is true for any policy). I believe it could be stronger (read: less non-free) but there's a balance that editors overall still keep. The projects that deal with works that are frequent uses of non-free (primarily all contemporary publishing like music, books, TV shows, etc.) all have guidelines in place to recommend reducing non-free usage, and the two article quality projects, FA and GA, also respect NFC requirements when evaluating articles. It's just that there is harsh resistance when there is proactive enforcement of NFCC rather than reactive. While proactive enforcement assures fewer non-free, it also sows a lot of ill-will. I saw it before with the whole notability inclusionist/deletionist war, and once people started treating notability in a more reactive manner than proactive, conflicts pretty much died out. For NFCC, this might mean there will exist a good number of images that clearly fail NFC that won't be discovered for some time before they are removed, but that's going to happen anyway, patrolled images or not. I think we are on the middle road, with enough leeway to discuss both additional tighten of non-free usage in some cases, and looser allowances in others, but still all staying on this acceptable and conflict-free middle road that is otherwise not raising any red flags with the WMF. This is a good place to be in terms of NFC as a policy, even if some of us feel we could be better. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conflict free???? It's about as conflict free as the Pacific Ocean is dry. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• As per MASEM, let's not fall into WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Jimbo's minimal/maximal language is very loose and open to a number of constructions. A considerably more limited interpretation might suggest loosening NFCC#1 to: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This change would allow us to make minimal use of non-free images where no free alternative currently exists but would still favor free images created later, serving the Foundation's stated purpose of supporting freely distributable content. A more modest change like this would also allow us to see how it works in practice before just chucking most of the policy. I would consider still disallowing "almost all [non-free] portraits of living notable individuals" to track the Foundations specific language in the authorizing resolution. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• In considering the NFCC#1, I think we need to have some type of time frame on "could be created". A good example is a notable building that is in the process of being constructed; once it is built a free image clearly could be created but at the present it can't be, though architect draws do exist. If the building is not to be completed for, say, three or more years, there's fair allowance to use the artist rendering. But if the building is only a few months out from completion, that would be a fair argument to avoid using the non-free and just wait for the building to be completed. It's just a matter of figuring out that reasonable time frame, which I think is going to be on the order of 6 to 12 months. But that's a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that this is a separate discussion. The major point was that Jimbo's general statement is not a detailed policy proposal. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• We're long past the days of "Jimbo speaks and that's the policy." Jimbo is, of course, welcome to provide his input, but he's just one more member of the community. In this case, there's also the WMF resolution to consider; we can't make "maximal" use of nonfree material, because it explicitly specifies the use must be minimal. We'd have to first convince the WMF to change that global policy, and I would not be in favor of attempting to do so. Right now, what we do largely works. We use a few nonfree images where it's crucial and makes sense, but don't splatter them all over list entries, tangentially related articles, articles where free replacements could easily be come by, and so on. As to "nobody cares anymore anyway", just look at the recent flap over Gather, which there's an overwhelmingly supported call to deactivate since it's splattering nonfree images all over its user-created lists. Yes, people do care, and clearly a lot of them as evidenced by participation in the discussion about it. A lot of them may not watch this page, but they do support the principle. That's also certainly evident by the number of inappropriate nonfree images flagged for deletion, and the number of admins who help in deleting them. "Free as in speech" absolutely does matter here, and absolutely should continue to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  I haven't been able to get anybody interested in the fact that the mobile apps use non-free images in search results. See phab:T124225. —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  I didn't even know about that. (I don't use the mobile interface, I've had "desktop" set on mobile for some time). But just tried it, and you're quite correct. That certainly needs to be fixed; if they can't exclude nonfree images the results need to be text-only. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  Agree. It's hard to protest about something if the feature is unknown. The mobile version has no edit button, so I'm always forced to use the desktop version instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  In response to the Gather feature, I suggested there should be a magic keyword we can set on a per page basis that lets us specify an image, so that for pages that only use non-free we can use a free icon or similar replacement (eg for video games using the VG project free icon), which should also apply to the mobile version approach too. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• To cite our cliche of a slogan, we are the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Encouraging the creation and dissemination of free content is fundamentally what we are about. Yes, I agree with Hammersoft that in actuality, we're just 'sort of free' (just as we have, with various user right restrictions in place, always been the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit, but not really anyone '). This proves that we are, and have been, in the middle of the road, and have not passed some critical marker after which it's impossible to maintain that we are both free and inclusive yet practical.

In particular, we should avoid the mistake of thinking that "opening the floodgates" makes it easier for NFC issues and patrolling. Quite the contrary. If a larger share of our images become non-free, we have more and not less images to check against NFC. Remember, we are going to have a NFC policy in one form or another. Even if (at minimum), our policy was to simply comply with what the law says about fair-use, we'd have a surge in cases to patrol and check. And checking against the law is not a walk in the park in comparison to our policy. WMF has lawyers to take care of such things. That's how nuanced it is to "simply" comply with the law instead of our "puritan" NFC policy.

The way I interpret Jimbo's "When no free image is possible, then we 'should make maximal rather than minimal use of Fair Use'" is that every article about a book should have a picture of its cover, every album and film too, every company article should have a logo if one exists. It's an ideal like this that our NFC already provides us tools for, but people are hesitant to go ahead and add those legitimate non-free images, because quite frankly, our policy is so daunting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the interwiki links from the pages WP:NFC and WP:NFCC a bit confusing.

WP:NFCC is the exemption doctrine policy of English Wikipedia. Some of the interwiki links go to the EDP's of other projects. For example, there's an interwiki link to zh:維基百科:非自由內容使用準則, the EDP of Chinese Wikipedia. There is also an interwiki link to ja:Wikipedia:フリーでないコンテントの使用基準, a failed proposal to create an EDP for Japanese Wikipedia. However, some projects have pages which are specifically about English Wikipedia's EDP, for example ja:Wikipedia:英語版におけるフリーでないコンテントの使用基準.

WP:NFC is a guideline, and some projects do not have separate pages for both a guideline and a policy. For example, our guideline WP:NFC links to fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur, the French EDP. Also, our guideline is mapped to a Japanese page about English Wikipedia's NFC guideline, ja:Wikipedia:英語版におけるフリーでないコンテント, which thanks to Wikidata now is incorrectly mapped to the French EDP.

Shouldn't the pages WP:NFC and WP:NFCC link to pages which discuss non-free content on English Wikipedia instead of linking to pages which discuss non-free content on the local project? For example, it would seem more natural if WP:NFCC links to ja:Wikipedia:Usage criteria for non-free content at English Wikipedia instead of ja:Wikipedia:Usage criteria for non-free content. However, we wouldn't want ja:Wikipedia:Usage criteria for non-free content at English Wikipedia (a Japanese page describing English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria) to be mapped to it:Wikipedia:Non-free files (an Italian page describing Italian Wikipedia's non-free content criteria).

How can we clean up this mess? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is currently ongoing at WP:BLPN#Why not fair use photos of living people for leads? I know NFCC#1 has been discussed many times before on this talk page, but I'm just adding the link in case anyone more familiar with the rationale and origin of NFCC#1 would like to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like User:Iridescent has already dealt with it pretty well. Worth keeping an eye on, but unless the topic gets any more comment, probably best to let it just fall into the archive (IMO). Jheald (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

An interesting problem has come up at Redirects for discussion; since it's likely this will come up again, I thought I'd bring it here. Please see this discussion for background. A non-free file is in use on an article (a logo representing the article's subject), and that article has been selected as a "selected article" for the front page of a related portal. As such, the image is being displayed on the portal page as well, but no non-free content criteria is available for the portal. Presumably the portal displayed a different article yesterday and will display a different one tomorrow, so the non-free image is only visible on the portal today. Is this use violating the non-free content criteria? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes, I think this is a violation. An easy fix is to add <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to the article so that the image is not displayed. Most portals, though, only display an edited copy of part of each article, and do not try to display the whole thing. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:NFCC#9, you may not use non-free files in the portal namespace. It would be nice if the infobox template somehow could detect non-free content automatically and thus automatically hide the image whenever someone copies an article to a sandbox or transcludes it on a portal page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, well that's pretty clear then. Is it possible we could make non-free images automatically wrap with <noinclude> tags? Or is that a WP:VPT question? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It is easy for a template to display one image in the article namespace and another image if the same wikicode is placed in a different namespace by using {{main other}}. However, I don't think that it is possible for a template to detect if a file is unfree or not. We'd only want a namespace switch to hide images which are unfree. Someone could maybe answer the question at WP:VPT. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

An annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing.

It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

http://www.fairuseweek.org/

See the introduction, and then the daily round-ups on the site, for links to blogs and other info-pieces being posted this week, mostly from university libraries across the United States, as to what is and what is not fair use, and why it's important.

There's some good stuff there! Jheald (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice find, Jheald. They even cite our logo policy as exemplar fair use! (on their brochure) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx. The credit is due to Slowking4 however, who dropped a passing mention to it on the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Jheald (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I have a question I'd like y'all input on. I'm currently doing a major reworking and cleanup of an old FA of mine, Myst. In addition to archiving old refs and changing the date formatting I've been pulling in a lot of new references and such. The current non-free situation is that there are four images—one illustrating the gameplay, and then three showing the game in its various incarnations as its graphics have been reworked. I was thinking that at least one of these images could definitely go as it has a weaker rationale (File:Myst-library and ship.jpg), but I think I've got enough current and new references to support the three comparison images once I'm done. With that said, I'd really want one of these images up in the gameplay to serve as an illustration of what is being talked about there, but I'd also like to keep the comparison images clustered together. To my knowledge I've never seen non-free images utilized multiple times in a single article—is there any precedent on this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The only immediate one that comes to mind is the symbol Prince used and on the Love Symbol Album, but only used twice, establishing the title in the infobox and then once in the lede; however, this is a vastly different situation. If you are going to use the image twice (and I'm not saying this is necessarily allowed), I think we'd need separate rationale for both uses on the same page (noting the section it is used in). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think using the same non-free image twice in the same article is possible but you need a lot of commentary to go along with the images.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC#10c requires a FUR for each use, so if the file is used twice in the same article, then you need two FURs for that article. Also, if the same file is used twice in the same article, then one of the uses would almost always violate WP:NFCC#3a as you could easily refer to the other section where the image is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)