Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

RfC: fair-use images on the main page in TFA on a (very) limited basis

Several arguments have been put forward for scrapping the 'no fair use images' on the main page rule that we have enforced since 2006. This would be put forward only on a limited basis, and running TFA without an image will be preferable to an indirect non-free image. Should this get enough support, the exact restrictions can be decided upon by the closing administrator (if there is a clear consensus) or in a subsequent RfC. Please note the following common misconceptions:

• This is not a case of "we've always done this". Fair-use images running on the main page was completely uncontroversial until Jimbo Wales removed one in 2007 because "I think such images should be strongly avoided for the homepage of Wikipedia." This sparked changes to NFCC that have survived to this day.
  • Discussions surrounding these changes can be read here, here, and here.
• Putting such images on the main page is not illegal or against any of the WMF's core policies (some have pointed to the licensing policy, which doesn't seem to cover this and in any case was created to address a very different problem, ).
• While TFA is transcluded on various user pages, it would be trivial to add code that allowed it to show only in the mainspace, i.e. only the main page.

Folks, we aim to be a free-content encyclopedia. Sometimes those goals conflict. I personally believe that our encyclopedic mission should come before our free culture goal, but that's just me, and I may well be in the minority. Happy discussions, and let's keep this civil. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that this would apply only to TFA, not DYK, and that it is a proposal to re-add an exemption for TFA to NFCC (per WP:NFCC#9). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 21:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
3. I'm unimpressed by opposes. How is it fine for an article to have a non-free image, but when a summary of it (TFA) is displayed on the main page, then somehow it doesn't satisfy the NFCC anymore (ex: If NFCC#8 doesn't apply to the summary, then how come it applies to the article?). Don't confuse this with DYK or ITN sections, this is only about TFA. (i.e. a single article per day, some of which don't have a free image such as video game articles, so we end up having no image for the summary despite the article itself having a non-free one). Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   NFCC#8 requires "contextual significant" meaning that the article text generally needs to talk about the image. TFA blurbs are condensed lead sections and will very unlikely contain that contextual significance, so the use on the front page fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Masem, as you say they are blurbs written based on a condensed lead section, wouldn't it be just as easy for the person writing the blurb to be mindful (we surely don't have mindless people writing these, do we?) and make sure in the first sentence to include "... as pictured here ..." which then makes the entire blurb about the picture and therefor meets WP:NFCC#8? That just makes simple common sense here, and to be honest, that phrase should be used regardless of if the picture is free or non-free in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   That's not ideal writing, though. It's certainly not how we write articles- a lot of the arguments in favour of non-free content hinge on the claim that FA blurbs are like mini-articles, unlike (say) DYK hooks. J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Nor does that put it in contextual significance - we'd not allow that in articles as to support NFCC#8, we'd not allow it here. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Masem, I like your explanation below about "non-free infobox images would be okay (since these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article)". Do you think we can expand on that? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   See also WP:NFC#UUI §6. If the article mentioned on the "today's featured article" page has its own article on Wikipedia, then WP:NFC#UUI §6 prevents us from using the image on the "today's featured article" page as linking to the article would be enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I didn't fully understand the guideline, but it seems to me that WP:NFC#UUI only applies to uses outside of the exceptions noted in the above section (i.e. WP:NFCI). Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   NFC is a guideline that can be considered a casebook for the application of policy of NFCC - it doesn't cover all cases but outlined established ones. NFCI are cases where the use of images in those context is nearly always appropriate when all other factors of NFCC are met. NFC#UUI are specific types of examples where non-free may not be used, barring exceptional cases. So NFCI and NFC#UUI should be considered established points on either side of the fuzzy line of NFC for proper and improper (respectively) use. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Exactly. If the use meets any point under WP:NFCI, then it is usually appropriate. On the other hand, if it meets any point under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually not appropriate. If it meets points in both sections at the same time, then things are unclear and need a closer discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Mohamed, precisely the same argument could be used for summaries of articles posted in lots of places- portals, list articles, album details in musician articles, Signpost summaries and so on. We do not use non-free content in any of those places, and that is uncontroversial. Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the fact that NFCC#8 is met on an article does not necessarily mean that NFCC#8 is met in a summary of said article. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   This one made me think about it. I think the suggestion here is that we add an exception to the NFCC#9 to allow non-free images to into the TFA section, so it wouldn't apply to other places. Since as you say it's uncontroversial, then we shouldn't be excepting other people to want more exceptions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Of course this is assuming we manage to agree on Masem's explanation that non-free infobox images satisfy NFCC#8. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't think you understand what I am saying. We all agree that NFC shouldn't be used in those other places (portals, Signpost, lists)- if your argument could be used to show that we should use it in other places, as I claim it does (as it applies to them as much as to the MP) then there is clearly a problem with your argument. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   There was a RFC I personally started about 2 years ago on the use of cover art in general. It was closed with consensus saying that cover art in infoboxes is accepted as meeting NFCC#8 as it helps, even implicitly, identify the branding and marketing of the work as the publisher desires. So yes, that is established. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, J Milburn. But then Portals, the Signpost etc won't pass NFCC#9, because they aren't articles and they don't have an exemption. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The main page is not an article and does not currently have an exemption. You're trying to argue that it should. If the argument holds for the main page, it would hold for those others. I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Because as you stated above, it's uncontroversial not to use non-free content there, whereas the situation in the front page is different. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   This is my point. If it's uncontroversial that content should not be used on these pages, there is no way we should be endorsing any argument which would equally allow us to use content on those pages. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Are you arguing that this could be a slippery slope, J? Because I find it hard to imagine any scenario where non-free content is allowed on user pages, portals, the Signpost, etc. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, I'm not offering a slippery slope argument. I'm obviously not making myself clear. I am saying that Mohammad's argument is not a solid one, as the same argument could be used to support non-free content in places we know it shouldn't be. I'm asking what the relevant difference between the main page summary and the Signpost summaries are- I don't necessarily see one. Let's say I propose an explanation for the sky's being blue. It seems like a potentially reasonable one. However, someone comes along and says "look, if that explanation were correct, then there would be no ozone layer in the atmosphere". As we know that there is an ozone layer in the atmosphere, we can conclude that the offered explanation is false. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Support - Mohamed's logic makes sense to me; TFA should be treated differently than portals and the Signpost. TFA is far more analogous to individual articles. Lacking an image of Darth Vader in a Darth Vader TFA blurb is detrimental to the understanding of the blurb, and there is no free replacement for such an image. Non-free images are never necessary, even on articles, in the absolute sense that many of the opposers seem to require. Neelix (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Why should it be treated differently? What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   Because there aren't many FA articles that have non-free images, so this is going to be very limited. I don't have statistics, but I think it's less than 5%, maybe 1% of all FAs. That's 40-200 out of ~4000, so maybe we'll feature one of them once a month? Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   What you've just said is completely unrelated to my question. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

   In what sense does Mohamed's answer not relate to your question? In addition, I would argue that TFA blurbs are more like articles than more internal areas of Wikipedia because average non-editor users are familiar with TFA blurbs, but are not familiar with, for example, the Signpost. Neelix (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Neelix, you support non-free images on MP article summaries, but oppose non-free images on SP or portal summaries. Mohamed asserts that very few FAs have only non-free images. This has nothing to do with the opposition to non-free images on Signpost or portal summaries, as there are portals which summarise only FAs, and the featured content report on the SP summarises only FAs. Why are we justified on using those non-free images to illustrate the summaries of FAs on the main page, but not justified on using those non-free images on summaries on portals or on the Signpost? As has already been established, you cannot appeal to NFCC#9, as it is precisely NFCC#9 which is in dispute. (You say that TFA blurbs are like articles- sure they are, they're like very short articles, but they're like very short articles on non-article pages. The main page is not an article, whether it's technically in the article space or not.) J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

   Is this theoretical or you can actually provide an example for such content that would satisfy all NFCC except for 9? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   I can provide examples which meet the NFCC just as much as TFA blurbs- that is, examples where if TFA article were justified in using non-free content then they would be too. Portal:Video games/Featured article gives a few dozen article summaries of featured articles, almost any of which could easily and meaningfully be illustrated by non-free content. The summary style is identical to the summary style of the main page; if TFA was permitted to carry non-free content, how could we justify removing non-free content from those portal pages? J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   You're linking to the wrong page. Portal:Video games is the portal page, the one you linked is just dozens of summaries to be chosen from randomly. I wouldn't mind having non-free images in portals such as the latter, since the situation is very similar to TFA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, I'm not linking to the wrong page. That listed the summaries which would be illustrated. I know how portals work, I've created several. It'd also be nice if you could work out what you actually support. Earlier you said how "we shouldn't be excepting [sic] other people to want more exceptions [than the main page]", yet now you reveal your true colours- you actually do want non-free content to start proliferating outside of the article space. You're welcome to believe that, but don't try to pretend that your position is a Wikipedia-friendly one. (Also, as far as I can see, the full extent of your participation in the featured article candidates procedure is a single nomination, which was shot down. I'm surprised you're taking such a strong position on this issue when you have previously had so little involvement with featured articles. On the other hand, I've written featured articles which, under this proposal, would probably end up illustrated on the MP by non-free content.) J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm not experienced as much as you are, but that doesn't mean you got to question my motivations (or mock? my contributions). It is these discussions that make one learn the details of Wikipedia. P.S. I tried to start a chat on your talk page, but you never replied. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not meaning to mock your contributions or suggest that your views should hold less weight than any other- I could have probably phrased it in a better way. I'm just unclear on why you feel so strongly about this issue- especially when you hold such a minority view. I also wonder whether you might have a different perspective on the subject had you experienced more of the featured article process. (Of course, I am not meaning to suggest that you would definitely feel differently if you have more experience in the area- Ed has plenty of experience with FAC, but he feels that NFC belongs on the MP.) And sorry, I didn't realise you were wanting to start a conversation- I thought it was just a quick note that you'd listed the discussion on the CD template. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

   It's alright. I was going to raise the white flag as soon as you brought up the portals and Signpost argument, but I though maybe I could explore this from another angle. You know when I first joined Wikipedia, I though what "the free encyclopedia" meant is that it was simply accessed without subscription. If anything, this discussion has served to further my understanding of Wikipedia policies, and as I have expressed on your talk page, I enjoyed it :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Support I see no reason to not use a fair use image on a featured article of a person on a WP:TFA, even if it is a summary, per se, if the article uses the same image.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support: This "free" ^<cough> project has about 500 thousand non-free images. This silly charade that we are somehow "free" is a joke. It's time this joke ended. "We're free because we don't allow non-free images on our main page!! woohoo! It's as laughable as the Veganism Parable. End the hypocrisy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
7. support yes, end the hypocricy already. "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." how else do you propose to freely share copyrighted knowledge other than fair use and fair dealing? non-free out of sight out of mind? if you want to raise the drawbridge, or overturn the NFCC then gain a consensus, do not act arbitratily or capriciously, as was done here. if you want free culture than change the law. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
8. I support this. Wikimedia Commons is the repository of free content. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia. We should use anything that we're lawfully entitled to use to enhance that. I do support creating, supporting and using open/free content, but not at the expense of our main goal.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   Our main goal mandated by being funded by the Foundation is to generate freely redistributable educational content to the world. Not to make pretty encyclopedia pages. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

   You know as well as I do Masem that that goal was abandoned long ago in favor of non-free image use in overwhelming numbers. I know what you'll say in response, but it's just part of the charade I mentioned above. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

   I believe that's a misstatement in any case. I believe our mission is to be an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

9. I'll probably get hammered by everyone else here for saying this, but I personally consider anything covered under fair use to be de facto free content. From a legal standpoint, such material is protected by copyright, but the only time anyone ever gets into trouble for violating fair use is if they step beyond the permissible boundaries of the term (eg. uploading a full song, publishing the complete text of a novel online for free). How often do companies sue people for using their logo; when does a music artist file a lawsuit over the excessive public usage of an album cover? They don't, because it does not infringe on their ability to profit off of their intellectual property, which is the whole point of having copyright laws.

   But that's beside the crux of the issue. Most editors and administrators regard it as dishonest to call Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia" while simultaneously featuring what is legally considered copyrighted material — and I would actually be inclined to agree, were it not for my perspective towards fair use. But it is still a permissible recreation of somebody else's work — thus, for all intents and purposes, it is free. Some would call my views unethical irrespective of the legal ramifications for doing so because they view it as a fundamental form of theft. I completely disagree, but your mileage may vary on that point.

   Now, I say all of this knowing full well that it is an unpopular opinion and would never be accepted by the broader community, or the Wikimedia Foundation for that matter. I promise that I will not act against policy if it conflicts with my own beliefs. Nevertheless, my stance is known. I support a liberal interpretation of fair use policy. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   That's not even a valid position, given that the Foundation has set the bar higher than fair use. This position cannot be supported in the context of the Foundatin's free content goal. Plus, as stated over and over, NFC is not in place to protect the Foundation legally. We know fair use exists and if there were problems with exceeding that, the Foundation would let us know. So its not a legal question of use. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry, what? I'm not even sure what you're saying there, Masem; perhaps you misunderstood what I had said? Let me reiterate this crucial point: "I say all of this knowing full well that it is an unpopular opinion and would never be accepted by the broader community, or the Wikimedia Foundation for that matter." Another thing to bear in mind, I specified the "crux of the issue" as being our mission to provide Wikipedia's readers with free content, not the legal ramifications of using non-free content. I hold an unpopular opinion that fair use ought to be considered "free" for all intents and purposes. Yes, my perspective on the matter is moot, because the WMF would never permit it.

   I guess I should make my actual position on this topic clear — I personally have no issues with fair use images being used on the main page. I will however accept the consensus that showcasing them there contradicts our espoused goal to provide readers with free content. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   Your definition of considering fair use media as "free" is completely at odds with what "Free" means from the Foundation's standpoint. "free" is free as in thought - no restrictions on distribution or reuse. Anything else is considered non-free, including works used in what would normally fall under US fair use law. You can't redefine "free" as you are trying to suggest - that's like calling night "day", in terms of policy application. I recognize where you're coming from in terms of the balance of fair use and educational purposes, but I strongly recommended avoiding thinking like this because it is not consistent with how we use the terms and moreso not just against popular opinion but against how the Foundation sees the term. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   I know that, which is why I acknowledge that it'll never happen. I am very well informed on copyright laws; I can explain what constitutes fair use, what would be considered public domain, etc. I can practically recite most of the Creative Commons licenses off by heart. I guess this was not a good place to express my opinion of certain copyright provisions (specifically fair use in application). In any case, it doesn't really matter. The broad consensus established here is that fair use should remain off the main page. I can definitely accept that. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

   On second thought... yeah, probably best not to have fair use images on the main page. I mean, I have my own qualms with regards to copyright policy, but I am unwilling to push the boundaries of permissible fair use so long as the laws themselves remain strict on the matter. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

   You know what? I'm going back to supporting. I mean, come on! Really? Do you think anyone who reads Wikipedia will care that we used an album cover or a logo on our main page? Wouldn't that be what they are expecting? I also agree with Daniel Case below, and I stand by my original comments. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

10. Support. The proposal sounds reasonable to me. Cavarrone 11:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
11. Support-- sometimes fair use images are the best-- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If the best image from a FA is a fair use one, so be it. If we wanted to go 'full free-content only' on this, we should amend FA criteria so that articles containing NFC cannot be considered FA. But when our dedication to promoting free content is in conflict with our duty to be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia is the one that wins. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
12. Strong support. There is simply no good reason (legal or otherwise) to exclude the article summaries appearing on the Main Page from the normal usage of images under the doctrine of fair use. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia; that goal is clearly furthered by the use of fair use images. TFA is supposed to highlight some of our best articles, in a way which a) is informative, b) is visually appealing, c) encourages readers to open the full article and d) fits in with the rest of the Main Page. All four of those are hurt by excluding fair use images. There are entire classes of article (e.g. those on artworks, films etc) which by their very nature are impossible to illustrate without a fair use image. If those images are considered suitable for the article, there's no reason why they wouldn't be suitable for the Main Page. To counter two arguments presented below: 1) Wikipedia is not a free-licence advocacy organisation, so the only reason to prefer such images is that they make it easier to create a good encyclopaedia; actively damaging the encyclopaedia by avoiding fair-use images is counterproductive. 2) Jimbo's opinion counts for nothing if he doesn't enter this discussion, and for no more than any other user even if he does - WP:AAJ applies. Modest Genius ^talk 14:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Addendum: use of fair use images on the Main Page was policy for a very long time, with a specific inclusion on what is now WP:NFCC. It was removed (years ago) with no proper discussion or community involvement. See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Use_fair_use_images for more background. Modest Genius ^talk 14:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Except our policy is not based on fair use, it is based on non-free concepts, a much higher bar. There's zero question if our policy was only as strict as fair use that using images on the main page wouldn't be an issue, but we have a higher bar. The main page does not provide sufficient contextual significance to meet the requirements of NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    We're talking about modifying the policy to explicitly allow this. So whether or not it currently meets our existing criteria is utterly irrelevant. The RFC isn't asking whether the existing policy already allows this, but whether the policy should allow it. Our only constraints are operating within the WMF resolution and US law on fair use. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Drop the fair use part - the WMF resolution is stronger than that, and that's the minimum bar (eg we are always going to be within fair use by following the WMF resolution). I stress this because the "its fair use" argument has been used over and over and over for image discussions and that is simply not applicable. Keeping to the free content mission is the goal of this project, not staying legal under US law (though by nature, we of course need to assure we comply with it) --MASEM (t) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, the WMF resolution is stronger than the law. But it also allows us to decide exactly what criteria to apply. It does not require us to, for example, ban fair use images from the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 17:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Also to add "there are entire classes of articles that are impossible to illustrate without a fair use image" is the wrong way of thinking of this - it is whether there are possible free images that can be used to illustrate it (alongside non-free), and in most cases that is likely yes, such as a picture of the actor, director, painter, etc. which can always serve as the main page image. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    Most of which utterly fail to illustrate the concept. These have been discussed at length and using e.g. a photo of one of the producers has been found very unhelpful, to the point where we're forced to run with no image at all. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    And unless you can show that having no image at all verses having an unhelpful but free image verses having a relevant free image makes a significant factor on the educational goals of Wikipedia, it's window dressing, and not appropriate to break NFC policy to add. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    That's just your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. My opinion is that small changes to WP:NFCC are justified (and beneficial) if they help improve the encyclopaedia whilst staying within the requirements of the WMF resolution. Modest Genius ^talk 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

13. If it's fair use, then its fair use...and let's make the front page look GOOD. The people opposing this have a fetish of free media. If it's legal and if it is the better choice for communication, then we should use it. Not some freikultur slant.TCO (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

    Non-free images are absolutely not used for visual appeal. They are for contextual significance, which is not present on the front page.

14. support While it should be rare, there are times it is the right decision. In particular when we've got no free image and there is a non-free one that fair use is clearly reasonable (not harming anyone's income) and is useful/helpful. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    Starting from a "fair use" argument is invalid. Our requirement set by the Foundation is stricter than that. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    Correct, but as I stated fair use is a bar that must be cleared. So starting there is required, not invalid. Oyi. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    But fair use is not sufficient to meet the Foundation's requirements, hence it is a waste of time trying to argue on that ground. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Agreed. You'll note I did no such thing. I stated what I think would be reasonable rules for allowing non-free content. It needs to generally meet our NFCC guidelines. That it is on the main page, makes the bar higher IMO than in an article. We'd need to be darn sure the image is both useful/helpful and that this extremely high-profile use doesn't harm anyone's income. I could have been more clear, but I've no idea how you reached the conclusion that I felt fair use was the only bar...Hobit (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    NFC policy is not based on "harming anyone's income", that's a facet of fair use. NFC, and the Foundation's resolution, is based on the fact this is supposed to be a freely redistributable work and non-free use must be exceptional and used in context. You infact did say "that fair use is clearly reasonable" which can never enter into these discussions. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    OK, first of all, WP:NFCC does specifically list "Respect for commercial opportunities" (i.e. harming someone's income) as a guideline for when non-free images can be used. I'm saying that this is even more important when on the main page. Secondly, you managed to utterly change what I said. What I'm trying to say is that the case for fair use must be crystal clear. Yes, our polices are stricter than fair use. I'm trying to make it clear that if we are to have this on the main page, in addition to our normal polices, the fair use analysis must be extremely strong. I'll admit my wording sucked, but I've no idea how you can't understand what I'm going for by this point. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

15. Wholehearted Support. It's high time we put an end to this foolishness. It has been high time, in fact, since we adopted this misguided draconian free-image policy back in 2006. It does very little to "promote free content", if anything. Everytime its defenders are asked to provide concrete evidence that it has advanced the cause of free culture in some way, they retreat to tired platitudes. Meanwhile, The general public understands the intricacies, much less the virtues, of freely-licensed images even less than it did back then.

    However, the policy has been a roaring success at one thing: discouraging new editors. I can't remember the link now, but I found it really interesting that a while back, when Mr.Z-man did a script study of new editors and how they fared by namespace, not one new editor whose first edit was to file namespace came back for another edit. Obviously it isn't the only explanation for all of those, but I'd be pretty certain that a lot of them innocently uploaded some image that they thought would be perfectly fine for an article, because it was anywhere else on the Internet as far as they knew, only to be met with some deletion message telling them that, in effect, how dare they sully the holy space of Wikipedia with this foul-smelling excrement called copyright. It would be perfectly reasonable for them to have concluded that this weird rule (which not even many Wikipedians understand properly, for all the exaltation it receives from the faithful here) was really a way of pulling the rope back up to the treehouse so that the cool kids could have the place all to themselves and the heathen unenlightened masses be kept in their place. And don't think they didn't pass the word on ...

    I know right now it's only just this one little corner of the policy, but it's a step, and any step is a useful one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

    As much as I respect you Daniel, that doesn't make any sense. You are arguing, in essence, that our principles are bunk and not worth sticking to because it's too much effort. —howcheng {chat} 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    You're being a little too reductionist. The only clear statement of principle we have is one of the five pillars: "promote free content." How we do that is open to interpretation. I certainly don't think "go on a search-and-destroy jihad against all content that can even remotely be argued as 'non-free' and scare off any new users who oh-so-innocently decide to start their Wikipedia careers by uploading an image" is the only one, or even a plausible one. In my opinion we were doing pretty well promoting free content before the summer of 2006.

    And if no one wants to edit anymore because of this, well, then, there won't be much to do to promote free content, would there? Some people are content to feel the alpine breezes of principle upon their cheeks; the rest of us have to deal with the negative externalities. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

16. Support per arguments by Daniel Case. — RockMFR 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
17. Support. Sure, use a free image in preference to a non-free one, but if there is no good free image, that's the entire point of fair use. SnowFire (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    We don't use fair use considerations on WP. We use a stronger bar of non-free content. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    I am familiar. How high to set this "bar" is a matter of debate, however. SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    Or, for a longer answer, since that's inherently asking how people feel about copyright... there's a meme among some parts of the free culture community that fair use is somehow bad. Yet fair use promotes exactly what we should all want: a world where copyrights are not a big deal. When Congress allowed for Fair Use, it precisely was so that entities like newspapers or, uh, encyclopedias would not get dragged down with worrying about if something is under copyright, and the wisdom behind that guides my support of using fair use more aggressively. (To be clear, yes, I'm in favor of having the "higher bar" be not as high.) If I was somehow in charge of US laws, I'd push this even further - people could mark "copyrighted" on something, and that's fine, but it wouldn't mean a lot, and it'd only matter for the most commercial of uses, and pretty much any other use would be fair game. Which is kind of reality on the Internet, even if copyright holders unfortunately have more power than what I described elsewhere. I'm rambling, but the point is I consider it entirely possible to both be a fan of free culture and to be willing to use fair use copyrighted images precisely in those cases where they literally can't be replaced, because the subject is a movie / novel / game / whatever. No reason to let the copyright "win" and accept defeat when the system explicitly gives us an out! SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    Fair use is' bad in the eyes of the Foundation because that represents content that is not under a freely-redistributable-for-any-purpose license. Their entire mission is based on making educational works that can be freely redistributed. Fair use inclusion harms that, though they recognize that limited inclusion of non-free material can help the educational purpose. So that is the only acceptable position to start from, not that "fair use is fine, we can include it". This is one of the core principles of the entire project, and many of the supports here are seemingly ignoring it for sake of a pretty front page. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

18. Support, with proviso that non-free image only appears on main page, and not main page derivatives, e.g. WP:Main page/tomorrow, etc. (this should be achievable using a template to check the page where image is to be shown). An optimist on the run!   12:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
19. Support. If it satisfies the NFCC, then we should be able to use it at TFA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Being used on TFA fails the NFCC. --MASEM (t) 03:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Invalid argument. We are talking about changing that aspect of the policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it's still invalid, failing, at minimum, #3a (minimum use) and #8 (significant coverage). You cannot prove these are met when the image is used on the front page TFA blurb. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Masem: a) We're talking about changing NFCC to allow these, so stop pointing out that it's against NFCC as currently written. That's irrelevant. b) There's no need to comment on every single support !vote, repeatedly bringing up the same points as in your oppose !vote. Modest Genius ^talk 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Where people are supporting based on a clear misunderstanding of non-free usage, I think Masem has every right to point that out. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Daniel: Whether these meet the NFCC is precisely what's in dispute, as you point out. Ssilvers's argument, therefore, says nothing. I think every one of us, for or against, could say "If an image meets the NFCC on the main page, it can be used", we just disagree about whether any image does. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If an image meets the NFCC on the main page, it still should not be used on the main page. The main page is for highlighting things we're proud of, and we shouldn't be proud of allowing non-free content on Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • We should be proud of any high quality encyclopaedic content. Maybe even more proud of freely-licensed content, but that doesn't disqualify fair-use content from pride. Modest Genius ^talk 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Except, by definition, non-free content is not the work of anyone on Wikipedia; it is someone else's work. Finding the perfect non-free media that meets NFCC as well as being an excellent educational aspect to an article - great, but that's hardly something to be proud of in comparison to what we actually produce in free content. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • How is that relevant? It doesn't matter one bit whether the content was created by Wikipedia editors or not. By that logic we would exclude all public domain works of art or images created by the US government. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The goal of the Main Page is to highlight the best bits of the encyclopaedia, not the 'community' of Wikipedia editors. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
20. Absolute and Unequivocal Support - Just because it's on the main page, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to the same policies that apply to every other page. Enhancing the look and aesthetics of the Main Page is the best thing that can be done to increase our reach. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

    And "[e]nhancing the look and aesthetics" of any page is exactly what the policies you refer to tell us non-free content absolutely and unequivocally can not be used for. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

21. Support-Yes. So, so yes. Our goal, first and foremost, must be to be the greatest encyclopedia possible. Every other consideration must be secondary to that. Yes, when a freely licensed image is available, we should give preference to it, but when it's not, any distaste for non-free content must take a backseat to our goal of educating.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can see the argument against using cruddy or tangentially-related images just because they're free, but that's an issue of editorial common sense. Especially in regards to the "teaser" nature of DYKs and TFA, I don't think that the non-free images used there could ever meet the requirements we'd put on them in the articles themselves per WP:NFCC. I only skimmed the linked discussion so if there's a comment that specifically relates to my concerns I'd be happy to entertain it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   Hi, wouldn't NFCC #8 address this? "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is the sort of thing we would be talking about here, so it would encompass logos and other pieces of completely irreplaceable content. I'm attempting to propose stricter standards than the normal NFCC guidelines so that we can re-add TFA to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions, where it was listed until 2007. Last, note that I don't think DYKs could ever rise to the level of needing non-free content. TFAs get the equivalent of a lead section. DYKs get a sentence and your choice of six articles' images. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   There's potentially ambiguity as to what "the topic" means. What is the "topic" of the main page? This is not empty pontificating- when assessing whether an image is needed, we have to ask whether the topic of the article can only be understood with the use of the content. It's not the topic of the text/section in which the image appears which is important (otherwise, for instance, album covers would always be justified in well developed articles on musicians if they are on album articles), so we couldn't simply say "the topic is whatever the topic of the FA is". J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Which is why I'm proposing a narrow, case-by-case basis for TFAs only. I'm not saying we should allow it for every instance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   That's not really a solution to the problem. There's an ambiguity as to what is meant by "topic" if we use non-free content once or a million times. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Per the above, WP:NFCC#8 addresses this: removal would not be detrimental to the understanding as you could formulate the text better so that the image isn't needed. Besides, what you choose to display is an editorial choice. Today, there are for example six statements listed under the headline "Did you know..." and only one is illustrated as there is not enough space to include an illustration for all of them. If not all statements can't be illustrated because of space limitations, then why not choose to illustrate a statement for which there is a free image available? That is more or less what WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS states: don't use more non-free images than necessary. Also, WP:NFCC#9 prevents the use of non-free images on pages such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2013 as the page is outside the main namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   Note that (a) this is for TFA only, not DYK (b) I'm proposing to re-add a TFA exemption to NFCC, because obviously NFCC#9 prevents it at the present time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

3. We are mandated to minimize the use of non-free content on the project per The Resolution and should only use it if absolutely necessary. In most cases the non-free images would be displayed out of the article context which is implicitly necessary for satisfying WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose, Simple question why is it required to include a non-free file on the main page? If you cannot give a strong reason for this that isnt a vague generalization, and summed up by "because it makes the main page more visually appealing" the change in policy shoulnt even be on the horizon let alone being discussed. Werieth (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   No. The non-free image will serve the same function it does in the article, because it will be displayed next to a summary of the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, this is false, if the non-free image is being used right in the article. Per the Foundation and our NFCC, non-free images are used in context of the article as to augment the text (NFCC#8). When used on the front page, that context is immediately removed because we have a a short blurb that is a trimmed version of the lead. Any context for non-frees of images in the body of the article are lost. One could argue then that non-free infobox images would be okay (since these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article) but as most of these fall under cover art or logos, that could be seen as advertising on the main page. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I think it's almost always the infobox image. I don't have statistics if most would fall under cover art or logos, but I know there are articles about events (Hurricane Debbie (1961)) and articles about deceased people (Adrian Boult). Are you basing the advertising thing on some policy? You know displaying the article on the main page it self can be seen by some as advertising. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No, that's how it's taken. Coming from the video games project, its nearly inevitable that when a video game FA hits the front page, visits will complain about why is this being "featured". I'm sure the same would be true for television, modern films, etc. It's not so much a policy aspect but moreso the impression we're giving to readers. (But this is also in addition to my earlier comment about flaunting the "free encyclopedia" when we use a non-free image right then and then, top left next to that logo. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Sure some critics will complain about "the free encyclopedia featuring non-free images on its mainpage", but hey who cares? Article also have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and we use non-free images there. The way I see it, since this is not in contradiction with any policies or laws, why should we hold it back? (as historical discussions show, we used to do that before 2007). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   And then the Foundation issued their Resolution to restrict non-frees to exceptional uses for all Wikimedia projects as their purpose is to build a collection of free-to-reuse reference works. So what happened pre-2007 does not apply here since we're bound by that resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The resolution you are referring to is WP:NFCC, which allows for certain exceptions, like the practices carried on pre-2007. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The Resolution Masem is referring to is this one. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Well that's even better, because I've already refuted that argument in my opening. The licensing policy was issued to direct projects to create a non-free content policy if they chose to host them. There is no specific provision there that applies here, other than a general direction to limit non-free content where possible, with exceptions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The aesthetics argument seems validated, but this is basically taunting the free content mission of the encyclopedia when this would happen. I can imagine there may be an IAR case in some very remote chance, but it shouldn't be formalized in policy. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
6. No. The main page is supposed to show the best of what we can do; images that are free and available for anyone to use for any purpose are part of that best. Jheald (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't agree. Featured articles are supposed to be the best of what we can do, yet some of them have non-free images. In this case we are specifically talking about featured articles that have no free images. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   There are also categories, references and section titles in featured articles. The mere fact that something is in a featured article has little bearing on whether it's suitable for the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not seeing how is this related to the above. I urged that our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among our best, thus they shouldn't be disqualified from being featured on the main page on the basis that they aren't among our best. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   Apologies, I misread what you said. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   No prob. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

7. Obviously oppose. There seems to be no good argument in favour of this, and Ed, I disagree that it was uncontroversial before Jimbo said it was a bad idea. I hate the idea that we are saying "Hello, and welcome to a free content encyclopedia. This is the finest thing we have for you- something that isn't free." You might as well say "Welcome to an online encyclopedia. This is the best thing we have for you- it's offline. Head down to your local library to see it today!" J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   The same could be said about our Featured articles that have non-free images (all articles have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). The only difference is level of exposure and perhaps the distance between the image and the "free encyclopedia" thing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I disagree- the articles exist to inform, not to display our finest content. The main page is there to display content, and hopefully encourage people to go to the articles so that they can be informed. I disagree with the use of non-free content on pages that exist to display our finest content- Featured content lists and categories, portals, Signpost articles and, yes, the main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I find this argument very similar to the above, that non-free images are not part of our finest/best content. If they weren't, why would they be part of some FAs? (unless of course you think these FAs are lower grade than 100% free-content FAs). Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   I do not think that, I just think that the main page and the article page have different purposes, as I explained. I do not think the purpose of the main page is furthered by non-free content, while the purpose of the article is. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

8. This proposal contradicts NFCC #9, which says that non-free images may only be used on articles. The main page is not an article, it is really a portal in article space. Plus, the non-free image would not be discussed or contextually significant when only accompanied by the lead. Also agree with the argument that we should only feature free content on the front page. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

   But the proposal is to "re-add an exemption for TFA to NFCC (per WP:NFCC#9)". To paraphrase Masem, the non-free infobox images can be argued to be ok, because "these are usually used in context of representing the topic of the article". So there you got the context. As for wanting the front page being free content only, you didn't explain why. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose - this is a free content encyclopedia and, though we tolerate fair use some places, the content we showcase should be free content. --B (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose Basically word for word what B said. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
11. No - fair use images should be limited to where they are necessary for the understanding of an article, and I'm not convinced that they can fulfill this purpose as part of a "teaser" lead on the main page.  Sandstein  11:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    This is actually the closest thing to a reasonable oppose I've seen. I would be willing to work with a compromise that primarily limits the use of fair-use TFA images to articles on subjects where most of the available images are likely to be copyrighted ... i.e. fictional works in primarily visual media like movies, TV shows, comic books/graphic novels, video games etc. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Masem. Wikipedia should be as free as possible, especially the main page. --John (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    "An idealist is one who, upon noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, assumes the rose would also make better soup." – H.L. Mencken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

13. Oppose The front page should be Wikipedia at its best. It's a bit of a laugh if it says "the free encyclopedia" and then right there on the page is something that isn't free! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Per Andrew, J Milburn and others. Plus, this is a solution looking for a problem; the blurb for TFA is carefully scripted so as to make the topic clear, it doesn't need a non-free image image to make it clearer. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I agree with pretty much all of the arguments for opposition above, most especially the argument that the TFA teaser should embody Wikipedia at its best. Readers who want to better understand the content can easily follow the link to the actual FA, where all the images are available. Also, I'd like to point to WP:NFCC#2 (and #3A), which haven't yet been discussed here. I don't think that the proposal actually violates the letter of #2, but please consider how it reflects on the spirit of it. For every non-free image, there exists, somewhere, a copyright holder who has not licensed the copyright to us. By putting that image, for Wikipedia's use, on our main page, which is one of the most widely viewed pages on the Internet, we are diluting whatever interest the copyright owner might have in the copyright, to a much greater extent than what is permitted by our existing non-free file use policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Just as a comment on the last point, US Fair Use law specifically gives users that allowance (though we are specifically more stricter than that), so it's not that the nature of copyright dilution is a direct driving force here (though arguably that is implicitly built into Wikimedia's free content mission). That said, the use of a non-free image on the main page as to make it visually appealing - the primary point of the proposal - could be argued as not meeting US Fair Use law, since we'd be using the nice image to draw eyes in and potentially that is outside fair use allowances. I doubt we'd be sued on that, and the other reasons given are much stronger for why we don't allow this practice, but this is one thing to consider. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with you on all of that. As I said, this is about the spirit, not the letter. And it seems to me that, in putting forth Wikipedia at its best, it's entirely appropriate to consider the spirit. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

    Oh sure, no worries. I just stress (as the confusion comes up often) that while NFC is considered a legal policy, we don't enforce it (outside of copyvios) as if WP would be in legal trouble or under threat of lawsuit, to make a distinction from, say, BLP where huge legal ramifications can exist for event the smallest slight. The Foundation will tell us if anyone puts forth a challenge to our use of NFC, so arguments from the legal perspective should be avoided if discussing NFC issues. This issue on NFC in TFA is definitely more about the spirit of what fair use means and how we should treat non-free media. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

16. Generally oppose for the reason given by many: fair use requires there to be a clear and indisputable context to justify it. It's hard to see that this would apply to extracts of articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose It's pushing the boundary of IP law a little too far to justify an image simply because it makes the TFA summary look nice. If it were up to me then I'd scrap chunks of the copyright restrictions placed on us, but they laws are there for a reason, whether we like it or not, and I think it behoves us, as a mature organisation, to stick to the spirit and letter of the law as far as possible. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    As noted just a few comments above, our fair-use policy is in no way dictated by U.S. copyright law. It is, in fact, purposely much narrower.

    This is another long-term problem I have with it. Far too many editors think that we're somehow legally mandated to do this—we are not. Of course those who propagated this policy have been in no great hurry to clear up this confusion ... they know they win a great many deletion arguments with ignorant users (particularly new ones) through this misunderstanding.

    And what might be the logical end to this? Perhaps one of the big copyright holders like Disney will push to have U.S. copyright law amended to be identical with policy. After all, if it's OK for Wikipedia and Wikipedia says it's about promoting free content, well, who are we to argue. So, instead of promoting free content, it will wind up having precisely the opposite effect. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose. The Main Page is not a pig to be given lipstick just for the sake of aesthetics...especially when that lipstick is non-free. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose In the main, I believe the reason not to show fair-use images on the main page is an ideological one. Blind ideology is bad. But a little ideology is good. This is an example of a little ideology. So, the status quo has my support. --RA (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

    See my comments in the section directly above. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Back to supporting. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I understand that non-free content has a limited but necessary role on Wikipedia, and why some people want this on the main page. But the Main Page is a show-case of what's best of Wikipedia, and part of that is our terms of use (we're the only major encyclopedia where you can freely use most content). We should take the opportunity to clearly show that we are a free (libre) encyclopedia. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose - non-free means non-free. I understand the mainpage is a showcase of what is best on Wikipedia, but that also means we have to make sure that, especially, that page is complying with all policies and guidelines. Change 'non-free image' for any other subject where there would only be really illegal images and then you would make the same consideration? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
22. Support only if, at the same time, we change our motto to "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", removing the word "free" and any reference to free content. Otherwise, oppose. --MuZemike 19:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

    I was actually thinking the very same thing just a few months ago. You've stolen my train of thought! :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 19:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

    Changing the goal of being a free encyclopedia is a much more fundamental change than allowing non-free content on the main page. My understanding is that you're not actually calling for this fundamental change, but using the same "free encyclopedia" argument as many opposes above (and to which my response is below). Am I right? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

23. Oppose I know that I'm never going to win over the other side, but in my opinion having fair use at all on this project is a serious issue, and allowing it to appear on the main page would just make a bad situation worse. Read Wikipedia:Veganism parable. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
24. (Qualified) oppose. From a nasty old NFC radical like myself, it may come as a surprise to some that mine is not actually a much stronger oppose, but I am actually not completely moved by the "showcase" argument ("Front page should be a showcase of our best achievements; if we didn't manage to treat a topic without the help of a non-free image, then somehow that's a failure and we shouldn't show it"). If a topic really really needs such an image, I see nothing radically more wrong in showing it on the mainpage than in showing it in the article itself. However, this proposal states that it wants to allow such images only on a "limited basis", but fails to specify what those limits would be, and so far nothing in the preceding comments and votes has clarified any possible set of such criteria. Personally, I could live with allowing images in cases of creative works such as paintings or statues, where the work is the topic of the article and the image directly and completely represents that work. If we were to showcase our article on Guernica (painting), we could have Guernica on the main page. I would draw the line at everything else: none of the cases of routine "identifying" uses; no cover pages (their "identifying" function is hardly ever necessary enough); certainly no logos; no movie or TV screenshots （they typically don't really "represent" the whole work in any obvious, non-arbitrary way, and ought only to be used to support individual passages of analysis in the article, but not as generic "identifiers", and so on. However, since the present proposal fails to guarantee any such strict limits, and since experience shows there is a strong slippery-slope problem, where even a small window of exceptions is almost certain to invite inflationary misuse, I have to reject the proposal as it stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose Per Andrew, Sandstein, J Milbourne etc. Having considered this before in Main Page discussions, I'm also with Fut.Perf. in that if I were to change my mind and agree to inclusion, the cases should be strictly limited and would not generally include things like TV series, games, movies etc but only special cases like paintings. Even then, as I've said before I'm not convinced there's good reason in most cases as the thumbnail, whether on the main page or even in the article is actually often not enough to sufficiently convey the important information. (And unlike Tony, I don't believe we should have massive thumbnails.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose per J Milburn, who above points out the obvious flaw in the proposal, which is that by opening up the Main Page TFA slot to non-free images, the same argument can be used for portal FA slots as well, and there is certainly no consensus to permit non-free images anywhere else outside of article space. —howcheng {chat} 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Can we avoid slippery slope arguments please? Back when this policy was adopted those of us who warned that it was intended as but a step towards the gradual emulation of the German and Spanish Wikipedia's policy of permitting only free media were hit over the head with that particular trout. We are discussing only permitting the limited use of fair-use media in the main page TFA blurb here. Nothing more.

    If someone wants to have that discussion, they can, and I might actually agree that the Main Page is one thing while the portal pages are another. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not saying slippery slope: that's an argument saying that if we allow a thing for a certain reason, by stretching that reason we end up allowing other things. No, Milburn's argument is that the same reasoning can be applied to article summaries in portals: if using a non-free image with shortened text is allowed in location 1, why shouldn't it be allowed in location 2 when the circumstances of its inclusion are exactly the same? —howcheng {chat} 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Howcheng, thank you. Daniel: "If someone wants to have that discussion, they can, and I might actually agree that the Main Page is one thing while the portal pages are another." They could assert it, sure. What no one has managed to do is identify a relevant difference between main page use and portal use such that the arguments in favour of MP use would not also apply to portal use. The point is this- unless we're going to be completely arbitrary, I can see no way of permitting MP use without permitting portal use. We agree that portal use is not acceptable, and so, by extension, we should disallow MP use. That's not a slippery slope argument. That's got nothing to do with a slippery slope argument. Either you misunderstand me, or you misunderstand what a slippery slope argument is. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

27. Oppose - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". That argument is valid for article space, but not for a blurb on the main page. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose I do not see the arguments put forth in favor of scrapping this policy to be compelling enough to discard the "minimum use" doctrine currently in place. --Jayron32 21:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I agree with the oppose arguments. We should try to restrict fair use images as much as possible, while encouraging free images. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
30. Oppose The homepage is in my eyes primarily an advertisement for wikipedia itself. It's hard to conceieve of an image for which a fair-use rationale exists for both an article and for an advertisement for wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would caution against using fair use images where we don't need to use them. This lessens our chances of getting free license images. I created File:Copyright information image.png for this reason. We technically can't host an image of the Oscar because we have four in FOP countries: List of Academy Award trophies on public display. I recently edited Help:Contents to get us more free license images from readers. It was reverted within minutes. So far only the reverter and I are discussing it at Help talk:Contents. I created File:Visual consent image.jpg and File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png to license images easier without emailing the backlog at OTRS. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors is another project that should get off the ground soon, hopefully. I have had great success emailing the subjects of articles to get images for them or replace lame ones. Most didn't know they are allowed to provide images which is why I edited Help:Contents in the "I want to report a problem with an article" section. I feel my edit should also go on Wikipedia:Contact us which is another page that readers and subjects may turn to if they wish to provide better images. We should be trying to get more free license images instead of using fair use ones in more places. When readers see our fair use images they probably assume that they are free license and won't try to provide any because we have them already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Image depicting custom FA image (simplest)

• TFA criteria: I was reading Jimbo's 2007 edit. That edit and specially the next few edits where one after another image was tried and was rejected and it seems Jimbo's image was deleted on the same day for some reason. Anyway, a TFA criteria can be added that an article must have at least one free image. In case an FA can not collect a free image anyhow, another option might be creating a custom image (artistic creation). The simplest might be just make a graphic of the title with some nice colours, fonts and effects! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's completely unfair. There may be article topics that can be featured but there is no possible free image that could be made. Or, as part of the initial discussion that I think this discussion stemmed from off of WT:TFA, there may be a free image but it is disconnected from the bulk of the topic (common example: a picture of a person that may have been critical behind the scenes of a published work (the topic of the TFA candidate) but has no obvious public recognizition such that it would seem like putting a random photo next to a topic. In the body of the article it would make sense but wouldn't work with a blurb. In such cases, the image should just be omitted. But if you then restrict TFA to only those with "related" free images, you're basically making the TFA a very exclusive club. That just won't fly. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, most of the FAs have free images. Very rarely an article like Mother India does not have it. I basically oppose the idea since on the main page it is clearly written "The Free encyclopedia" and right below that we are posting a non-free image!! :-O Now, in my post above, I attempted to explain the alternatives of Non-free image when and free image can not be found too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. To not appear to be badgering opposes, I'll reply here to some arguments raised above.

1. Wikipedia should be as free as possible. By this logic we should delete all non-free images used in articles. This argument and WP:VEGAN essay make no difference between using non-free images in articles and in TFA; they're opposed to both.
2. It's a bit of a laugh if it says "the free encyclopedia" and then right there on the page is something that isn't free!. The same could be said about our Featured articles that have non-free images (all articles have "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). The only difference is level of exposure and perhaps the distance between the image and the "free encyclopedia" thing.
3. The front page should be Wikipedia at its best. Our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among part of our best, thus they shouldn't be disqualified from being featured on the main page on the basis that they aren't among our best. If non-free images weren't among our best, why would they be part of some FAs? (unless of course you think these FAs are lower grade than 100% free-content FAs). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Our best articles use non-free images, thus those non-free images are actually among our best". No, they're not. They merely pass NFCC. Our best images are our Featured Pictures, which are all free images. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But I didn't say they are our best images. Let me put it like this: FAs are among our best content. Some FAs contain non-free images. Thus those non-free images are part of our best content (and removing them would reduce the quality of the article). Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's FAs that have free images that are not considered our best content but a free image nevertheless to represent the topic at hand. It's a fallacy to say that because an article has passed FA that all media on the article are also considered "featured" quality. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we don't dismiss those free non-featured images because they are not the best/finest (actually this is a better argument than the one I used originally). I agree that "[i]t's a fallacy to say that because an article has passed FA that all media on the article are also considered 'featured' quality" and I'm not pushing in this direction. What I said is that they are part of our best articles and shouldn't be dismissed on the basis they're aren't our best (re-reading the last sentence of my own argument above, I can see where the misunderstanding stems from). Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free-content advocacy organisation. The use of freely-licensed content is a means to an end, not the primary goal of the project. If people (both readers and editors) want free images, they can go to Commons. Modest Genius ^talk 10:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't see why fair use images can't be used used on the mainpage/today'sfeaturedarticle if fair use images/media/quotations/etc. can be used in other articles.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The main page isn't an article. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's debatable. It's within article space, and TFA at least is effectively just the lead section of an article. Admittedly the MP isn't considered an article for the purposes of e.g. WP:LAYOUT. But either way, whether or not it qualifies as an article is irrelevant to the question of whether we should allow fair-use images on it. Modest Genius ^talk 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It's debatable whether the main page is not an article? You're on shakey ground there. I was replying specifically to Curb Chain's claims, I was not meaning to say "It's not an article, therefore...". J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thus illustrates my point fair use images are not iniquitous.Curb Chain (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No one's claiming that they are. Even if they were, why would the main page not being an article have anything to do with that? J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, thus fair use images should be used on the main page.Curb Chain (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Non-free images aren't iniquitous and whether or not the main page is an article is irrelevant, therefore non-free images should be able to be used on the main page"? How on earth does that follow? J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TFA blurb whitelist proposal

Per my response to Sandstein, and Future Perfect's !vote, I would like to propose a whitelist of sorts of for fair-use content in the Main Page TFA blurb, based on WP:NFCI (a/k/a the old fair-use whitelist).

I would make four general statements as matter of guidance:

• The fair-use media in the blurb must be used in the article. No exceptions.

• The general bias of this whitelist is in favor of blurbs for FAs about creative works under copyright in the U.S., echoing the fair-use whitelist (now WP:NFCI). There are a couple of other likely exceptions that I will deal with below. Outside of that, it is always possible that there could be some other situations where they would be likely, but I wouldn't bet on them coming up even infrequently. It would have to be a case-by-case thing (ahem).

• We should also avoid fair-use images that have the copyrighted work of others that is probably not relevant to the subject of the article. For example, if we had an article about a magazine or website with a fair-use logo, it would be much preferred to use that logo by itself instead of a cover or screenshot, which is likely to contain third-party copyrights.

  However, by contrast, a book cover's copyrighted art is usually specific to that book, so it could be used.

• Lastly, having a fair-use image in the FA blurb should never be seen as mandatory. If it is desired by whoever proposes the article for the main page (which, to be fair, is often whoever developed it to that point and guided it through the nomination process) that it use a free image even if it otherwise meets the criteria here and there are better fair-use images in the article, the community should give that wish its usual deference.

Now, to specific types of these subjects and what sort of fair-use media might be acceptable in the TFA blurb:

• Books: The cover art (which might not even be copyright-eligible anyway).
• Comics/graphic novels: The title page or cover.
• Magazines: The logo, as I outlined above. Unless a cover that's otherwise copyright-ineligible can be found.
• Albums: The cover.
• Individual musical works: Perhaps an audio file of a well-known passage, such as the chorus of a song (especially if the title's clearly used).
• Visual art. A picture of the work (come on, wouldn't it have been nice to have seen a picture of Cloud Gate when that article was on the main page?)
• Moving-image media. A cast photo (if inclusive enough). Or perhaps a brief video clip of the title sequence?
• Software or video games. The splash screen (or, with most newer software, more like the splash box, which usually has minimal copyrighted content anyway).

The non-copyrighted subjects where a fair-use image might frequently be desired:

• Deceased people, where no free image or video exists nor is likely to prior to legal expiration of copyright.
• Living people whose notability derives from a past era in which their appearance was vastly different from what it is now and of which no free media exists or likely to be created and/or individuals whose notability is in part due to their appearance and no free media exists or is likely to be created of that appearance (however, if that appearance invokes a third-party copyright, that would be a deal-breaker. Example: Should Adam West be developed to FA status and reach the Main Page, we would not want to use a picture of him in his Batman mask).
• Fictional characters who have not been portrayed by a recognizable real person like Master Chief and other video-game characters
• Iconic photos strongly associated with historical events like this image for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Please discuss below here to avoid breaking up the bulleted lists. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact you keep using "fair use" means you have no concept of why we have NFCC policy. We do not operate under fair use principles. We operate to minimize non-free use per the Foundation's request. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual wording of the resolutions is 'Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.' That's not the same thing as 'minimize non-free use'. Modest Genius ^talk 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Masem, I'm fully aware of why we have it: because just enough users to secure consensus on it chose to interpret "promote free content" that way. That's the only reason. Any other claimed basis for its existence is reading too much into the past.

And I continue to refuse to use this politically correct "non-free" terminology because I strongly suspect that it was coined to deliberately obfuscate the underlying issues so as to allow maximum interpretation of the policy to remove fair-use media that otherwise met the criteria, and thus keep the number of new editors to a tolerable minimum. In fact, when this whole policy was adopted seven years ago, the term "non-free" was not used in the debate. It wasn't even introduced after the Foundation resolution.

Know why it was introduced? I had a conversation at a meetup with someone I'd argued with frequently here who was a pretty strong advocate of the policy at first, but grew disillusioned when some of his comrades admitted to him, over one issue, that the goal was to effectively discourage the use of any fair-use media by making it impractical and difficult to justify doing so even where the file in question easily met the criteria (so yeah, my ability to AGF here is a little hampered). He told me that "non-free" was coined simply in response to people, usually new editors, who didn't understand the whole "free as in speech vs. free as in beer" thing. That's all.

So, instead of doing the hard work that we all should do even though it takes our time and explain this so that those new to the concept would understand, they chose to change the terminology instead, leaving it to the new user to be even more confused and decide the hell with this Wikipedia thing.

By the way, given the emphasis you put into your sentence casting doubt on my understanding of the fair-use policy, I can only conclude that willful disrespect was intended and thus I consider it a personal attack. Whether you agree upon further reflection and strike it through and/or apologize is entirely up to you. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Such EDPs must be minimal.". Don't see how else that can be misread. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is not the reading of the sentence; it's the scope of "minimal." Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, how can that not be taken (in context) as "approaching zero"? --MASEM (t) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there's another word for that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the legal term "fair use", and the more philosphical term "non-free". We only use the latter because of the fact that if a piece of media is "tainted" by copyright ownership that restricts its redistribution or reuse, we can't call it "free" and must mark it so. As the Foundation requires use to only use those in exceptional cases, we must minimize our use as such. "Fair use" on the other hand is a legal phrase that allows people to use copyrighted materials without license under a limited, but generally broad set of uses. It is a completely different concept that our NFC policy, nor the Foundation's resolution, considers short of the fact that by meeting either, we're pretty much assured we've met the US requirements for fair use law. Continuing to ask for "fair use allowance" on the front page will not fly, even if you think the term "non-free" is bad; the point is that "non-free" is the accurate term we use in resolving all issues with otherwise not-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad; I know it is. We would be fully justified in using that distinction if, and only if, we followed the German and Spanish Wikipedias in allowing only Richard Stallman-certified free content ... and if we didn't even allow quotes from copyrighted work in our text, for that matter. As long as we do allow media under some aspect of the traditional concept of fair use, however much we choose to narrow it for our own ends, the term "non-free" will remain purely propagandistic IMO. As I've said before, if we use that, we might as well call those media we do allow unrestricted use of "Media From Friendly Socialist Countries." Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But it's important to recognize in light of the Foundation's resolution that "non-free" is the proper term. They want us to promote (Stallman)-freely available media; that's their mission in the first place.

Let me put it another way. We have no really good idea what the number of images we would need to include to reach a level where we might start falling in trouble with US Fair Use Law, but certainly I think it's safe to say that it is much larger than the number of non-frees we have right now (450,000-ish IIRC). In other words, we could easily "fill to the brim" of fair use content and be completely legal and not worry about the Foundation getting in trouble. The problem is that that's counter to the non-free Resolution and goal of a Stallman-free encyclopedia. Thinking about the inclusion of non-free images as "well, its within US fair use law, there's no problem" absolutely fails at considering the resolution and NFC policy; it hurts it when no additional thought it put in place. There's a reason why we ask for rationales, why we avoid decorative uses of non-free, and a whole bunch of other things that far exceed what would be needed to demonstrate meeting fair use law. We want editors to think before blindly using non-free media as if it were fair use at a Wikia or blog or even in academics. We're on the Foundation's playground and we need to follow their rules, so trivializing the nature of where the "non-free" term came from and substituting "fair use" is pretty much ignoring those rules. In the case at hand, I totally agree that we'd be able to use such images on the front page under fair use laws, but it is pretty much thumbing our nose in the Foundation's face in terms of ignoring the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted, prior to 2004 or so there was pretty much no limit on where fair-use images could or couldn't be used, and they were all over the place. When I started editing near the end of that year the process of taking them out of userspace was beginning; later we moved them out of all non mainspace pages (with some exceptions. And I don't argue with that decision; nor the May 19, 2005, limitation on the types of licensing and fair use.

What I do take issue with was the adoption of the current policy in summer 2006. Yes, before then there was a lot of indiscriminate fair-use in article space. But it is one thing to encourage users to think carefully about our image-use policy and another to penalize them even when as far as they know they have done so by deleting the image. And completely confusing them in the process, like this person clearly is (click it while you can). And, if that doesn't work, biting them by confusing our fair-use policy with the law and accusing the uploader of ... theft.

Wikipedia existed before the Foundation did; it is inaccurate to characterize the relationship as "on their playground" IMO (I'd love to see how that would go over on the chapters mailing list ) In any event the Foundation does not make the specific rules for us; the resolution in question strongly guides us to preferring free content but is also specific that individual projects can decide for themselves what minimal fair use they will allow.

I'm sorry if describing the origin of the "free/non-free" dichotomy as I understand it seems to "trivialize it" by suggesting it has nothing to do with the Foundation's dictates. But that's hardly unique in history; we make many things sound nobler years after the fact. And if you think "fair use" has no place in the discussion I suggest you remove the language invoking fair use from all our templates justifying third-party copyrighted media used that way. But ... oh! The Wikimedia Foundation Counsel might have something to say about that! Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the Foundation now owns the servers that hosts the content that en.wiki is on, they are in every right to set rules. You are completely free to grab a copy of everything on en.wiki (the open source in fact allows you to do that) and run on a separate server with a less restrictive non-free content policy. But as for right now, right here, we start with the Foundation's resolution - which is involved by en.wiki's switch from a fair use approach to a non-free approach. Now, this is getting off track, but I will admit that there are some in non-free enforcement that are harsh, and we're still trying to come to grips with how not to do it from the BetaCommand stuff. That said, understanding why we have a non-free media policy and what it means to image uploads is also not trivial and while I'm open to trying to help newbies, this is simply one area that you can't just click a few buttons to upload any image. Handling NFC content uploaded by newer users will seem harsh but only because this is a case we do expect editors to RTFM before they hit "upload". We simply can't make it simpler. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

""Since the Foundation now owns the servers that hosts the content that en.wiki is on, they are in every right to set rules." But they are wise not to make such specifics. As for the semantics we have been arguing about, I will say that from my perspective, "fair use" and "non-free" have the same denotation, but different connotations, and that is the root of my objection.

Enforcement: It has been six or seven years since BetaCommand ... and we still haven't figured this out? As someone actively involved in enforcing the username policy, I freely admit that it's not the only arcane policy we don't explain sufficiently to newcomers before bringing the hammer down on them. But if we expect new users to RTFM (and please remember what the "F" stands for in this context; it's inherently bitey), then we ought to have some sort of more realistic M for them to read once they click on Special:Upload and choose non-free content (a concept no one outside of Wikipedia uses, so it needs more explaining even there). Something that asks more specific questions about the image in question, with illustrations (yes; we'd have to use fair-use images there to make our point), maybe taking the user through several screens, and explains why we like these media licensed this way and how it helps Wikipedia. Above all we need to explain how we define replaceability (And I will grant that the distinction between replaceable fair use and irreplaceable fair use is the one that matters for the use of "non-free.").

At the very least we should link to this page instead of the main NFC page. Its lede sentence is the one new image uploaders of a possible replaceable fair-use image need to hear, and what we need to tell them. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, we have to make the clear distinction between "non-free" and "fair use" as in dealing with copyrighted files, they have two vastly different means (which I've explained above). You may think them similar, but that goes against how we have been asked to handle non-free. Basically, there's a lot of stuff that I'd be the first one to agree that we could use as fair use, but fail under the Foundation's non-free policy, and by conflating the terms, it makes it difficult to explain the difference. As for newbie biting, there have been a lot of attempts to improve the upload process via the "Upload File" link at the left bar (Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard )- it pretty much gets the uploader to answer all the NFCC questions and assure that the red tape is at least satisfied (there may still be problems but all the facets like replaceability are explained out), but unfortunately, editors that use Special:Upload are bypassing that helpful guide. However, I still argue that WP, while built around "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", still expects new users to RTFM (in the broad sense) for all aspects, including but not limited to NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this list differs from the general practice of what is allowed in articles. In other words, Daniel, you are basically saying that any non-free image used in an article can also be used on the main page? If you want to present this as "per ...Future Perfect's !vote", you must have misunderstood something. This is absolutely not compatible with my position, which explicitly excluded all but one of the case groups you list. I'd suggest you strike your reference to me in your intro, and please count me as among those who will strenuously oppose this proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with the specifics or scope of your position, just the general thrust of it that some more specific guidelines/limitations were necessary (Would this clarify things enough?). It is narrower than the fair-use whitelist in that I would not allow the use of a fair-use file in the blurb just because it's justified in the article—I would agree with you that it has to be something that expresses the entirety of the subject (such as a title card or drop for a TV show, as opposed to a still or clip).

For example, it is my fond hope that someday I will be able to sit down and improve Anna Wintour and/or perp walk to FA status. Both of them have fair-use images that are fully justified and adjacent to sourced commentary in the accompanying text. Yet I wouldn't allow them on the Main Page as they relate to specifics within that text and not the entirety of the subject, for which more appropriate free images already exist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I try to cut through the arguments about whether or not the words "non-free material" are OK or not, I think this proposal is an effort to define certain classes of non-free images as so difficult to replace with free images that we should carve out an exception for them on the main page. I don't see what good this would do. It's not like some kinds of non-free uses are "fairer" than others, either in the letter or the spirit of what the Foundation has said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We established what is now WP:NFCI a long time ago as the fair-use whitelist recognizing that some fair-use images are more suited, indeed "fairer", in certain articles than others. We can have a reduced-res picture of the album cover or website screenshot in the article about the album or website, that has never been in dispute, but it requires a lot more justification (and commentary specific to the image in the adjacent text, and some sort of consensus that we aren't ruining the rights holder's commercial opportunities (the idea that, say, if we have a good-quality free image of a celebrity that gets widely reused, we are depressing the market for future copyrighted images of said celebrity and thus disrespecting the commercial opportunities of people who make a living doing this goes unmentioned and unexamined in the debate)) to use in, say, the article about the designer of those images.

And as for free vs. non-free, hey, if it works for you here, go ahead and use it. I'm not going to stop you. But if I feel those terms are laden with an agenda and critique them at length, and that critique makes someone uncomfortable enough to lash out at me in response ... well, that's not my problem, really, is it? Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't think that I was lashing out at you! That's fair enough (no pun intended). I just don't believe that we need to create a new level of criteria for admitting images to the main page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I must say that Daniel Case's grasp of what non-free vs fair use is completely off base and incorrect. The term "non-free" is not a political term, rather a delineation of what we consider free media and copyrighted material (which may or may not be used under the guise of fair use). Wikipedia refuses For Wikipedia only and cc-sa-nc and similar licenses as we consider them non-free since everyone cannot use the file. There are countless files that could be uploaded under the non-commercial clause of creative commons, which we refuse but could freely use without worry. There are multiple degrees of copyright that play into this equation that determine where a file falls on the free/non-free category on wikipedia, but might not be under a copyright where the term "fair use" could be applied. There are cases where a file might be out of copyright in specific regions but still under it in others, and that factors into it. Wikipedia could easily use the non-commercial licensed files under creative commons and those are "free" for us to use, however re-users cannot. The usage of non-free media on the main page is just eye candy, and decorative as it can be replaced with a link to the article where the file is being used and which covers the topic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Several hundred words of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We can call it whatever we want to call it for whatever reasons we want if it works for {most of} us. But the underlying body of law that allows us to use, under the limits we have chosen for ourselves, is still widely referred to outside Wikipedia as fair use, as it has been since long before Wikipedia existed. Why else would we have templates with names like {{Non-free fair use}}? Why else is "fair use" cited in every single one of those rationales? Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are license templates, half of the requirement we need on all non-free articles. These are saying , effectively, that we know the work is copyrighted by a non-free statement, and thus we are using them here under a claim of fair-use. As that template says, that doesn't meet our policy or the resolution's requirement because one still must justify the use with a rationale that explains how NFCC is met. And no, we can't go switching language around to suit our whims. "Fair use" has a specific legal meaning, and within context of the Foundation's goal of free content, "non-free" has a specific meaning. Attempting to waive those meanings to argue for more use is completely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My complaint with those terms has never been to argue for more use; that's a separate argument for me. My complaint has always been that they make something that is complicated enough to begin with even more complicated. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

UUI #14

Werieth (talk · contribs) has suddenly began commenting out images from several hundred articles under this ruling, which I've honestly never seen enforced or heard of until he began doing so. So does this rule truly and completely forbid using one non-free logos on multiple pages?—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It not "multiple pages", I am removing files that are used repeatedly in season and yearly event articles. I am leaving the file in the main subject article when it is used there. Werieth (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You've done this on several hundred articles concerning their yearly iterations and in places where it isn't a yearly iteration but simply a related article. I would like to get a wider opinion on what is really done here rather than you simply going off of one NFCR request.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There are other NFCR's along with discussion in the archive of this talk page when #14 was added. Werieth (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's approach is correct. Logo reuse just because the event happened against (yearly or otherwise) when there is a main page for the event where the logo is unquestionable appropriate, is inappropriate reuse. The logo is allowed on the main event page because it is implicit branding for the event overall, but when it comes to specific iterations of the event, that reasoning breaks down. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

One of my main issues with his approach was his removal of images on articles that weren't yearly events but general topics (example here), or, in the cases of File:The Amazing Race 2 logo.jpg and File:The Amazing Race 18 logo.jpg, he removed them from The Amazing Race 2 and The Amazing Race 18, simply because they are used on The Amazing Race.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting me when you have no understanding of WP:NFCC. this edit clearly is a violation of #1,3, & 8. It can be replaced with File:ASUinterlock.gif but you refuse to listen. Werieth (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't brought up that idea until now so how was I supposed to know anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps read the link that I used and if you still have questions ask them before you start blindly reverting. NFCC default action unlike most other things on wikipedia is to remove first, then get consensus for re-inclusion. Werieth (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's correct though - while the logos may have been introduced in those respective seasons, there is no uniqueness to those seasons to require the logo reuse. (Contrast this to File:The Amazing Race Family Edition.jpg from the Family Edition where there is a unique logo for that season.). --MASEM (t) 03:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So simply because they're used on the main article they're not allowed to be used on any other articles? I find it difficult to understand why they cannot be used once particularly when it was at that time they started to be used to identify the program.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not "any other articles" only where the logo is being used and the use is not on the primary article for that entity, take a look at File:Arizona State Sun Devils trident logo.png I left in on Three other articles where it is the primary identification for that group. Werieth (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been a few days but I've been busy. Basically, because I've been dealing with an IP editor blindly enforcing this rule after he removed every single non-free content rationale template from the two images in question, I would like something other than the dozen free images I and other editors seasonally scour from the Commons and Flickr for these pages. In the past, non-free images from the program were denied under the NFC criteria because the free images were so prevalent and because there was no reason why these particular images were chosen over the others from the program. Is there any alternative that can be implimented?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of alternative do you mean? Different images? Different rules? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A possible alternate non-free image to be associated with the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That, I'm afraid, is based on a false presupposition: that the article ought to have an image for the sake of having one. There is no such expectation. If there is something in the article that is in need of illustration to be adequately understood, we can talk about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So there's nothing that can be done to have an identifying graphic as with every single other television show simply because this one uses a title card that does not change over long periods of time?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Most other TV shows end up having DVD covers become the per-season identifying image, which could work here. Another option would be, as these are reality shows, pre-show press that generally includes a group shot of the cast which is a reasonable way to individually identify the seasons. But just repeating the show's title card per season isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The former seems feasible. However, over the years we've collected free images of most of the cast individually.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation just demonstrates that your whole approach to the question is wrong. You want an image for the sake of having an image. That never works. As soon as you find yourself asking: "I want some image for this article, so which one am I going to use?", there is never a correct answer except for: "none at all". The only justification for an image is if one particular image is actually needed, and if that is the case, it will be obvious from the start which image that is, and you'd never even think of asking the question like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There was previously no need to ask this question because said image was always the title card. And now because that's out of the question there's nothing to adequately identify the individual seasons anymore, as title cards were generally an exception to the rule.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What "identification"? The title card didn't "identify" the topic of the article either, because it wasn't even specific to it. The topic is "identified" by its title and series number; what else do you need? Be honest: what you want is not identification, but a spot of colour at the top of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to note that there has never been an allowance for identification of a TV season (show, yes). We generally do accept DVD/home media covers for seasons if released in that fashion, but the per-season identification has no immediate UUI allowance and some stronger rationale than just non-discussed infobox identification is needed. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for citizen journalists

Citizen Journalists are everyday people armed with smartphones who document violence around the world. A contemporary example is the on-going protests and police response in Turkey.

Citizen journalists share their images globally through social media. They are non-commercial content providers who do not want to be paid for their work, they want to have their images shared as widely as possible, often making explicit requests for the images to be widely distributed.

We can do no commercial harm to an image that is already being globally shared. The producers of the content are non-commercial, and are actively sharing images globally without profiting from the images. The images are evidence of violent crimes or human rights violations, so we have a clear 'journalistic' claim of fair use.

It seems to me we should have a rationale for the narrow case of non-commercial individual citizens actively sharing photographic evidence of violence/human rights violations with the global internet community in an attempt to generate awareness of the events depicted.

If no one else does it, I'll take a stab at it, but I suspect experts in NFCC could do a far better write-up than I. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. I have faced the same problem with photos from Bahrain where protests started in February 2011. What I did is talk to every photographer I know about including the word "CC-by-sa" and asked them to tell their friends. I also posted several threads in opposition forums teaching them the importance of Creative Commons licenses and how to use them. The result of my efforts was limited success, not because people don't want their images to be re-used, but because they couldn't bother. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What Mohamed says is right. Hector, if these individuals are willing to share the images in the way you say, then, I suspect, they'd be willing to share them under free licenses. This doesn't mean that we should assume that we can use the images freely, it means we should make an effort to secure a release. There's no way that there can be some kind of blanket "yes, this meets the NFCC" for certain kinds of images- that doesn't make any sense. The NFCC necessarily relate to particular usages, not just particular images. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify-- individual rationales would still be needed on a per image bases, but we need to make writing those rationales easier. Consider that if I want to use a commercially produced movie poster owned by a for-profit corporation, it's still easy to create a rational for that -- we have a template for Non-free logos and a firm understanding that their use is allowed. We have a lot more of those kinds of tags-- such as Template:Film poster rationale and Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot and many more. But we don't have such a tag these sorts of images, and we need one.

It's inappropriate that it's currently easier for WP users to justify using a promotional for-profit movie poster than it is for us to justify using a globally-shared non-commercial image of human rights violations. That's what we need to fix. No, we shouldn't just assume that the image are free-- but we should recognize that their use is a fair one and make it easier for editors to justify the use of such images is legal.

Obviously, when possible, it's ideal to just get explicitly CC-by-SA permission, but as Mohamed CJ mentioned in his own experience, that's not always possible. There are language barriers, cultural barriers; photographers are often anonymous / pseudonymous and fearing govt reprisal-- tracking down the photographers and making them say the magic words is the best solution, just like it would be ideal for every movie poster we use to be released under CC.

The question is, in those cases when CC permission cannot be obtained, what would a good fair use rational look like for images of this type? --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Templated rationales are generally a bad thing because it takes any thought into why we need the image and what it could be replaced with out the question. We have templates for movie posters etc. because the community has decided that such cover art is appropriate in the infobox for an article about the work, specifically noting that there is branding and marketing that may not be discussed that is associated with the poster. As such, a standard templated rationale is available that is primarily the same for these types of images, though users are encourages to provided better rationales than what these templates provide. On the other hand, citizen journalists photos do not have automatic allowance in WP per NFC. Users need to consider for these if all 10 parts of NFCC are readily met (particularly here, NFCC#1 on free replacement and NFCC#8 on contextual significance) and thus they need to put thought into a rationale to strongly back the use of these photos. A template to simplify that would be very harmful in allowing too many of these to be believed to be acceptable. Remember, we're not about fair use - we're about freely redistributable content, a much higher barrier to inclusion. No one would question our use of citizen journalists photos under fair use law, but we are specifically more demanding to promote free content. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, this higher barrier did help promote free content. From my own experience, Bahrain Centre for Human Rights has sent an e-mail to WP:ORTS allowing us to use all images they own, similarly Al Wefaq political party have changed all their YouTube videos into Creative Commons. For citizen journalists (mostly unknowns or anonymous), the case is harder as they often don't respond (if they had a Twitter account). My idea about this suggestion is that we should lower the inclusion criteria for images that are obviously intended for mass distribution. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed: There is already a lower level, in some ways, because these images will not encounter NFCC#3 problems. So, for instance, while an image from Getty of a protest would fail NFCC#3, an image from a citizen journalist almost certainly would not. However, creating a class of "not free, but not totally not free" images is a terrible idea. It's binary- we can use free images freely, but non-free images may only be used if the usage meets all of the NFCC. Hector: Part of the reason these templates work is because the usage is identical in each case. With photographs from citizen journalists, the usage will not be identical in each case. That's why there can't be a template rationale. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another consideration is that judging from what I've seen of these images from citizen journalists, they end up being rather "generic" images. For example, not to in any way understate the events happening now in Turkey, most of the images that have come from that (due to lack of national press coverage) are from citizens but are just (and I'm not trying to be insensitive here but coming from our NFC policy) rioting and wounded and/or dead bodies. There's little context that separates those images from any other documented rioting elsewhere in the world, nor has any photograph necessarily been promoted as an important historical image. As such to use their works as non-free to show "hey, there's rioting" is failing NFCC#1 since it doesn't take much to envision that. If they were truly free (CC-BY-SA) we'd have no problem. A similar case can be argued for the recent 2013 Moore Tornado. Torandoes are tornadoes and damage from such, while tragic, is predictable as well. Fortunately there we have free media taken by the OK National Guard as well as other contributions under free license to document it better. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 3

We can play the "No" game all we want, imagining cases where it would be inappropriate-- and certainly under NFCC1, cases where a free image would serve the same purpose is one of many scenarios where it would be inappropriate.

What I'm not hearing, yet, is how we can improve the user experience to help people craft fair use rationales for images like this. I'm thinking of editors with moderate English literacy but low "wikipedia" literacy. If those people want to upload a highly non-free image of a movie poster, they can do that. But if they want to upload a citizen journalist image, they need a wikilaw degree.

I suppose one argument could be "we don't want those sorts of people uploading images"-- only dedicated wikilawyers should have the freedom to upload non-free images. If you don't see any problems at all with the status quo, then it's easy to just say "nah, nothing can be done"-- but what does that get us?

My suggestion for how to improve the user experience was to make a template and eventually, with consensus add it to the upload form along with other the other NFCC tag, but I'd suspect brighter minds than mine could find better solutions. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that if one uses the "Upload File" link on the left side of the screen and run through the file upload wizard, when they get to the point where it asks "what type of copyrighted file is this?" the wizard doesn't call out to any specific category that citizen journalists photography would fit into , outside of a catchall "I believe this is fair use". The problem is that the restriction on the use of journalistic photos doesn't give way to make them easily classifyable. I could argue that we could possibly create a selection radio button there for cases of "non-press photos of current events" and make sure the uploader is aware that these are highly scrutinized. The problem boils down to is that we don't generally allow for such image to be used, certainly not to a point a catchall rationale template can be made for them. Of course, what are allowable images is spelled out all over that space there, and we do expect uploaders to be aware of this before uploading. We have nothing against these types of photos except for the fact that more often that not, they will fail a combination of NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hector, the point is that we can't make a template for images like this, as you're talking about a very wide class of images which are used in a very wide number of ways. With album covers, the image, usage and provenance are always basically the same. It's a 300 by 300 square album cover, copyright probably owned by the record label, available in a variety of places around the web and released by a particular individual/band (or their representatives) to represent their work. We use the image in an article about the album as a visual representation of the album. With shots from citizen journalists, all of these things could be different every time. The images are "released" from very different places and different people, they show any number of things, and we use them in a variety of ways. Each rationale is going to have to be carefully tailored to the image and the way it is used- no template is possible. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(de-indent)

Replying to "you're talking about a very wide class of images which are used in a very wide number of ways."

Well, I'm talking about a class of images that basically share a set of common answers to NFCC 2-7,9-10. So, certainly, points #1 and #8 will need per-use customization at the article level, with editorial consensus being used to determine if the claims of no free equivalent and contextual significance are met.

So, "citizen journalist" images could share the bulk of their rationales.

No free equivalent is an easy test to understand-- obviously if there were a free equivalent, we would use it.

The 'dicey' area, where I agree things will never be as simple as album covers, is #8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We often do have free images of "generic riot"-- so I think we'd need to limit it only to cases where the events depicted are actually discussed in text, and where the photograph is the only known photographic evidence of the event. "generic rioting images" won't pass #8, as Masem points out.

So, perhaps we need something that helps uploaders give a good rationale for all but point 8, and leave it to the uploader to assert (and defend) the increase in reader's understanding, with the understanding that failure to achieve a consensus for that point would lead to the image being removed?

The point is-- see how complex this is?? And that complexity is an unnecessary barrier to editor participation. If I, native english speaker with a firm understanding of US law who's deeply invested in WP, and I still don't know how to write a good NFCC rationale. I imagine myself in the position of a newish user with only moderate english literacy, and realize it would be impossible for me digest all the complexities of NFCC and successfully write a rationale.

In the general case, there's nothing we can do about that. But in specific cases, like albums, we can reduce that barrier. We can 'help start them off" on a rationale. In this case, perhaps we can help "start them off" with answers to most of the criteria, and help the uploader focus on the most-pertinent questions-- namely NFCC #8.

Mohamed CJ suggests we should have a lower barrier for these kinds of images, and Milburn points out that, of course, in our policy, we actually DO have a lower barrier, since they meet so many of the NFCC point automatically (eg, no effect on commercial providers). I guess what I'm looking for is some way to easily communicate this "slightly lower barrier"/"already met some NFCC critera" to uploaders at upload time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful, #3 is not automatically met with use of a template. If the image is non-free, we can't use a high-res version of it if the same effective details can be seen at a lower resolution. Further, this would allow for 10 non-free images from the same event when only one would do. The comparison to album covers is really not there because of the fact there is a standard practice and allowance for covers that simply is not there for these photos. And also, our upload wizard already does start them off with a rationale - it asks them enough questions to try to address all 10 points of NFCC. The answers they give may not be the best means of answering or even at times inappropriate but they are asked and cannot complete the upload without a minimal number filled in. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful, #3 is not automatically met with use of a template. If the image is non-free, we can't use a high-res version of it if the same effective details can be seen at a lower resolution. Further, this would allow for 10 non-free images from the same event when only one would do. The comparison to album covers is really not there because of the fact there is a standard practice and allowance for covers that simply is not there for these photos. And also, our upload wizard already does start them off with a rationale - it asks them enough questions to try to address all 10 points of NFCC. The answers they give may not be the best means of answering or even at times inappropriate but they are asked and cannot complete the upload without a minimal number filled in. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NFCC#1 isn't as easy as you make out ("No free equivalent is an easy test to understand-- obviously if there were a free equivalent, we would use it")- some non-free images, for instance, could be replaced by text or diagrams, or could hypothetically be replaced by free media later (in on-going conflicts, for instance, or in situations where large numbers of images are surfacing- one of the authors of the many images may be able to release content). It's not just a case of making sure there isn't free content, it's a question of judging whether there could be free content that could do the same job as the image you wish to use.

"I think we'd need to limit it only to cases where the events depicted are actually discussed in text, and where the photograph is the only known photographic evidence of the event." That's not what the NFCC#8 requires. The criterion requires that an image add significantly to an article, and that reader comprehension be significantly diminished if the image is not used. Yes, an would almost certainly need to be discussed for this to be met, but the mere fact that it is met would not be sufficient. That there is only one picture of that event is neither here nor there, really (but it would be an important, though not decisive, factor with regards to NFCC#1).

So, you suggest we improve things how? hehe Clearly, the current system is meeting all your needs. Unfortunately, your experience isn't universal-- most users don't have this talk page on their watchlist, most users don't even know it exists. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is all pretty difficult; that I accept. If in doubt, we shouldn't be uploading. Having a few too few non-free images is probably better than having a few too many. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an improvement to limit uploading on non-free images to admins, then. If the unwashed masses don't understand NFCC, let them leave it to the special people who do.

It's a lot harder to swallow that when we consider that Wikipedia is now the most popular reference source and that our image choices literally can save lives, in areas of humanitarian crisis. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Replying to "Remember, we're not about fair use - we're about freely redistributable content, a much higher barrier to inclusion. No one would question our use of citizen journalists photos under fair use law, but we are specifically more demanding to promote free content."

I think this hits at what I'm getting at-- images that are clearly LEGAL for us to use, and where there's some "moral force" argument for us to being less insistent on free content. As I've said, it troubles me that we'll allow NFCC images to promote movies, but not to protect lives. So, for example, if an image like File:Nguyen.jpg had been taken by a citizen journalist and there were no free equivalents, it WOULD meet NFCC, yes? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really not our job to take sides. We're not going to be more lax with the NFCC just because you happen to think we're using images which support the good guys. As for that particular image, as has been explained, there is not a class of images which "meet the NFCC". Certain uses of certain images pass the NFCC. No answer can be given unless you explain how the image is being used. (As a partial answer, though, I can't see how the image being taken by a citizen journalist as opposed to anyone else would have much effect. If its use is justified when it's from a press agency, it would almost certainly be justified from a citizen journalist.) J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason that photo is important (and in fact the only two uses of it on WP) are because it was was led to a Pulitizer Prize for the photographer, with Nguyen gaining notability being the result of the victim in that famous photograph. It is not used to illustrate the larger events that led to that. This is where we talk about "historically significant photographs" - that clearly is one because of its award but not so much about the political aspects of it directly. It is not that citizen journalists cannot also gain such notarity for their photos in the same manner but that's something we can't presume. So it is very hard to extrapolate here. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See, this my point-- I'm trying my hardest to understand all the details, and I'm failing. Speaking in generalities is confusing, but when I ask a hypothetical, and even the NFCC experts can't give me a straight answer. Suppose the Nyugen image was taken yesterday, the event was widely covered in the media (along with the image) and we wanted to use it in an article that discusses the event. Would we want to allow that usage or forbid that usage? I had thought that would be a slam-dunk "yes", but apparently not? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Repling to "It's really not our job to take sides"-- well, yes it is. It's not our job to take sides in article space, to be sure. But in terms of simplifying user interface-- I'm on the side of "Let's make this easier whenever possible". There's nothing neutral about Wikipedia-- we're revolutionary. Our articles are NPOV-- our existence is not.

I mention the 'moral force' issue because it what's drives me to find improvements for wikipedia in this case. We've set up a system that is very impenetrable for lay readers, I thought I had a great understanding of it, and Masem has corrected me on dozens on specific points.

When the non-free image is something unimportant, like a tv-show screenshot, I don't care so much that our system is difficult. But when the non-free image is globally important, I feel a duty to help WP "push the envelope" of user interface simplicity and reducing the barriers to users uploading successfully. That's not "taking sides" as much it is feeling especially compelled to streamline things for new users. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify-- I don't argue for us "to be more lax with the NFCC just because you happen to think we're using images which support the good guys"-- for me, it's not about laxness or shifting standards-- it's about improve the user experience user interface and user communication-- NOT policy change.

As an empirical question, for example, I wonder what the rate of deletion is for non-free content uploaded by non-admins with under 1000 edits or so. Based on what I'm hearing, I would expect a near 100% deletion rate for non-free images uploaded by new users? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's nowhere near 100%, but it's still quite high. About improving the uploading interface, I personally have worked hard on that (the current upload script is largely my work), but I've grown rather pessimistic. People keep uploading things with bad rationales, even for those case groups where we do offer more or less standardized FUR packages. Looking at the barrage of images that get uploaded with blatantly misused, falsely applied standard rationales, I've become convinced that this is happening not because people don't understand the instructions – in the relevant case groups, they are really not that hard to understand, and I see little room for making them even easier – but because people don't want to understand them. Our rules are not difficult to understand, they are difficult to accept. Any instruction that boils down to "sorry, in this case, you really can't upload this image" will simply be ignored, not because people fail to understand it but because they can't be convinced we really mean it.

As for offering a new set of semi-standardized rationales for this specific case group you're talking about, I'm similarly skeptical as Masem, for several reasons:

• The number of cases where such a case could be legitimately invoked is quite small.
• The case group is difficult to define. What is a "citizen journalist"? Anybody who publishes snapshots about anything? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of political events? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of events that involve social violence? Only somebody who publishes snapshots of political events that are otherwise dangerous to go to or inaccessible to official media? Where's the line?
• Except for NFCC#2 (commercial), none of the other important NFCCs are trivial and predictable for this case group:
  • NFCC#1: it will often be difficult to make a convincing case for non-replaceability. If one person was able to take a photo of a demonstration yesterday, why would it be impossible to find another person who not only also took a photo but is also able and willing to provide it under a free license? Or why couldn't another person take another similar photo of a similar demonstration tomorrow, and license that one? I'm not saying such a justification might not be possible on a case-by-case basis, but it's nothing we can provide a ready-made standardized argument for.
  • NFCC#3: as open as with any other non-free image; always needs individual discussion.
  • NFCC#8: as problematic as with any other historic photograph. Very often, people will be tempted to add images because they feel it "proves that something happened", or because they feel it adds a sense of immediacy that helps the reader empathize with the participants of the event (and that, in turn, will often be motivated by an urge to support their cause). Neither of these are good NFCC#8 justifications. If I want to prove that policemen were beating demonstrators, what I need is a reliable source that says so. I don't actually need an image to understand that it happened (we all know what it looks like when policemen beat demonstrators). So, again, there may be a justifiable argument on a case-by-case basis, but there's nothing standardized we could offer.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment here but under your NFCC#1 argument: "If one person was able to take a photo of a demonstration yesterday, why would it be impossible to find another person who not only also took a photo but is also able and willing to provide it under a free license?" - that is not a consideration of NFCC#1. Yes, it may have been a very public but one-time-only event and one widely photographed, but we make no presumption if other people photographed that event at the same time, nor that they will be willing to make free images. The NFCC#1 replacement is typically based on the hypothetical aspect of any WP editor being able to get that free image somehow, not the public at large. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this type of issue has repeatedly been discussed here. NFCC#1 does imply an obligation on the part of the uploader to demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts at finding free alternatives, including – where feasible and appropriate – trying to contact third parties that own such images and might be willing to license them. Also, "replaceability" does not entail an assumption that replacements should be readily createable by any random WP editor (otherwise our general ban of non-free images of living persons would make little sense), so yes, we do take into account the possibility of creation by members of the wider third-party public. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not true, as that raises an extremely high bar for non-free. At least, it's not a cut-and-dried assumption. Yes, if there's an event that we can expect that a lot of public photography can be taken that there's a good chance one person will put those images out for free, but that is not a 100% guarantee as required by NFCC#1. Nor is the possibility that one person can be convinced to relicense their photos for free. These efforts should be made in good faith of course, and in some cases, if we know that one photographer has put out photos under a free licence before, they will be willing to likely do it for a different event. But that's about the extent that we can assume. The reason we consider what a Wikipedia editor can do is that all Wikipedian editors are expected to contribute only free media as part of their participation. Remember that WP editors include all WP projects, so there's editors all over the world that can get photos, and hence why that applies for our restriction of non-free on living persons - we assume that by contacting an editor in the area such a photo can be obtained. The problem and the assumption you're making is that we can force third-parties (non-WPians) to comply with free license. That simply cannot work. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems we are going in circles here, as I remember we had this exact same discussion just a few weeks ago. I can only continue to wonder where you get that bizarre idea about "100% guarantee" and about "forcing third parties" from. Sorry, but that's an utterly bizarre non sequitur and red herring, and a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I can find little else I could add to this at this point, as I hate to say I'm really mystified seeing an intelligent person like you stuck in such an absurd line of reasoning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me describe the hypothetical case of a major sporting event (like say, the World Series), attended by 10,000s, where not only do we have the media taking photos but a large percentage of the spectators. There is a moment in the game that is later considered as a critically important moment and sufficiently discussed that if we had to rely on non-free media to show it, we can (say, the series-winning home run, or a botched play, or the like). Now, the question is in terms of NFCC#1. We obviously can't go back in time to get the image ourselves, so that option of course is not there. So now the question, per NFCC#1, is if "no free equivalent is available". Obviously, the media will only have non-frees, so now the question is whether 1) any of those fans captured the moment in question, 2) whether they publish it in a manner we can discover it and 3) whether they have used a free licence or are willing to put it as a free license (I'm not even considering sthe quality here). Those are 3 major "ifs" that likely do not hold true, even with 100,000 spectators. The chance is non-zero, certainly, but NFCC#1 does not work on the chance, it comes into place if it is assured that it is the case - that is, we are fully aware of a free equivalent. All the steps to contact photographers and get free images are good, but we simply can't work NFCC#1 on the idea that we can convince non-WPian editors to change their minds on licensing. So this would be a case that assuming all other parts of NFCC are met, then a non-free image from the media could be used for illustration and NFCC#1 is passed. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here, weight my opinions accordingly, but my instinct lies with Masem. "a free image could someday exist" doesn't work as a standard-- we can't look into a crystal ball. "a free image does exist" is what violates NFCC#1, not the theoretical possibility of such an image emerging in the future. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

deindent

Fut.Perf., I'm quite pleased to read your response above about "the barrage of images that get uploaded with blatantly misused, falsely applied standard rationales" and how you've "become convinced that this is happening not because people don't understand the instructions – in the relevant case groups, they are really not that hard to understand, and I see little room for making them even easier – but because people don't want to understand them."

I see hope in that you recognize NFCC isn't a part of wikipedia that is working well, but it a 'problem'.

As someone in the trenches, I can accept easily that you've become 'stuck' and skeptical of how, and whether, the system can be improved. We've all been in situations like that, and you'll note I don't have any easy answers either.

The primary argument I've made is that there's a problem with the NFC upload system, and I think we see eye-to-eye on this. You look at it more as a "defense of the wiki" issue, I look at it more as a "confusing instructions". I have uploaded a few NFC images in my time, all in good faith, and I've found it very difficult to predict which usages will be accepted and which won't.

The argument I'm making isn't really about citizen journalist per se.

What I'm arguing is that we should look kindly on images that are:

• Globally distributed free of charge on the web, via systems that allow embedding.
• Where no known rational commercial claim exists, and especially where the content owner has called for widespread sharing of the content.
• Where there exists a 'moral imperative' to sharing the content, such as human rights violations, local censorship, etc.

I know that "moral imperative" sounds way too emotional, but we already recognize a similar duty when we delete encyclopedic content for the sake of WP:BLP. In similar vein, I want to make the case that we should consider the intentions of sharer when deciding what images to include, and where their intentions can be described as "wanting maximal exposure", we shouldn't just pretend it's another commercial copyright holder image.

I have to admit, I started this discussion without an example image in mind to discuss. I was editing an article about a protest, and realized that even if somebody tweeted evidence of a murder with a plea for the image to be widely spread, I still wouldn't know how to write a good fair user rationale for it.

I know we strongly prefer free content, and I do too-- but it seems we're taking NFCC to a bit of an absurdity when it stops someone who is intentionally sharing content globally. I worry we're adhering to closely to the 'letter' of the law (requiring the magic words "CC-BY-SA") when really then spirit of the law is being ignored ("PLS RT!! imagelink).

There is a big gulf between "what we're legally allowed to do" and "what NFCC allows us to do". Usually, I never notice it-- but on "really important articles"-- articles about on-going injuries and deaths, it's much for harder me to morally justify our using sub-optimal images, overlooking images that we're legally allowed to use, exclusively because of our "radical free-content evangelicalism" agenda. (and in general, I love our radical free-content agenda-- just not when I consider it stopping me from showing the best image on a very important article)

End wall-of-text. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are raising two different issues here. The one is about the "moral" legitimization of certain politically sensitive images. On this issue, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree: a moral imperative of the type you propose cannot become a criterion for NFC use. What is one man's "moral imperative to share knowledge about human rights abuses" is another man's "blatantly tendentious POV-pushing". The NFCC#8 criteria for such images must remain strictly the same as for all other historic images, if for no other reason than to prevent opening the floodgates of political agenda editors trying to maximize coverage of their favourite political victim group by plastering articles with unnecessary images of them, using the more direct emotional appeal of images compared with text as a tool to further their ideological cause (there is already a very strong temptation for agenda editors to try just this.)

The second issue is the more general one of improving NFCC processes for uploaders. I think this, too, can be subdivided into three logically independent sub-issues:

1. Good-faith uploaders who may not be sure about our policies might not know which images are likely to be accepted or rejected.
2. Uploaders who have objectively unacceptable, blatantly unsalvageable images will try uploading them anyway, contrary to clear instructions.
3. Uploaders who have objectively good images may feel intimidated by the process and may find it difficult to write good rationales for them.

About point 1, I agree this difficulty about potential borderline cases exists, but I don't think we can do a whole lot about that, without putting uploaders through the information overload of having to study a whole bunch of precedents. We can of course offer such information to them, but we can't make people read through months of FFD records to get a feel for what's likely to survive. When people upload stuff without first developing an advanced understanding of our policies, they will just have to be prepared to have their uploads challenged (and as long as they have demonstrated they have made a good-faith effort at complying with our policies, such challenging should be done gently and politely).

About point 2, this represents by far the bulk of the problematic cases we currently have. This is the type of case I've become so pessimistic about: no matter how clear and simple we make our instructions, a large number of people will ignore them anyway. These people are not making a good-faith effort at complying with the policy. They may still be making a good-faith effort at improving the encyclopedia, but they can't bring themselves to accepting the idea that we actually want certain types of images to be excluded, so no matter how often and how clearly we tell them that, they will still try to sneak them in.

About point 3, this is where I disagree there is much of a problem. If you have an objectively good image, writing a good rationale for it is not difficult at all – you just write two or three sentences, in your own, simple words, about what you want to do with it. The only thing that's difficult is writing a good rationale for a bad image (which, unfortunately, is the situation most new uploaders are much more likely to find themselves in.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding that absolutely agree on Future Perfect's first point: Wikipedia and the Foundation have no motive or mission to publish images of "moral imperative". The situation in Turkey is a strong example here: we know there's civil unrest going on in Turkey, and we know that some citiizens there have published images showing the violence that is being employed that may not be published in otherwise free sources. But we are building an encyclopedia that is clinically insensitive to that plight, and we can't loosen our NFCC requirements just because of the moral imperative to show these images. It doesn't prevent us from using NFCC rationales to justify them, we just can't publish them as freely as this proposal wants us to. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional event posters as identification

We've recently had some cases come up at FFD (and ensuing DRVs) concerning posters which were made to promote events - in this case, boxing matches. These images are being used on a fairly common basis as "identification" of the matches in question. I have closed a couple of these discussions as "delete" on the grounds that the images can be replaced by free images of the fighters (more like the way we typically do articles on a particular election) and that the posters, unlike book covers or other media, do not serve to functionally identify the event in as central a fashion. I'd appreciate some broader input on this, as there are a lot of such images currently in use.

Some examples of images: File:Douglas vs Holyfield.jpg, File:Pacquiao vs Bradley.jpg, File:Holyfield vs Lewis 2.jpg. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Such uses are inappropriate under WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. I agree that this is not the same case as cover art. It would fall under WP:NFCI#4 (other promotional material), which is only appropriate for critical commentary. That's not what those posters provide. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would generally agree these are not appropriate. The only clear cut allowance for identification when it comes to events like this are logos (ala how the Super Bowl tends to have a new logo each year), but promo posters aren't the same as logos, and in all three cases , look more like advertising materials than not. I'd not call it 100% but those three examples are certainly inappropriate as ID images. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• While I understand the veneration in which NFCC#8 is held, I take the view from 30,000 feet and it's not at all clear to me how deleting these images helps us build an encyclopaedia. Removing images that (a) it's lawful for us to use and (b) nobody outside the encyclopaedia objects to us using seems utterly unconstructive and wasteful.—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither of those views apply to considering when to make exceptions for non-free use in a free content encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "images helps us build an encyclopaedia" - well there's your problem, the project is to build a free encyclopedia, so keeping the use of non-free content to a minimum is certainly helpful to that goal. And if you want to argue about that, please go ahead with the foundation "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"" --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's true as far as it goes, but it says nothing about the balance to be struck between "free content" and "encyclopaedia". As far as I'm concerned producing an encyclopaedia is a much more important part of the task than handing out free content to scraper sites and image re-users. Removing these images looks like a WP:HERE issue to me.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The first goal of the Foundation is to create freely redistributable educational material, even if that means its being scraped and reused improperly. That takes precedence over making a pretty-looking encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• NFCC#8 applies: there's nothing about a match that isn't understood without seeing a poster.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I could not disagree with ESkog or any of the users who feel that the images should be deleted more. Why would we replace the official fight poster with a photo of a smiling Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield when those images have nothing to do with the event. For whatever reason, these posters become the image most commonly associated with the fight and to delete it would cause an overwhelming amount of harm to the article. Do any of you guys suggest we replace the movie poster for Mission: Impossible with a photo of Tom Cruise staring into space? Or should we replace the book cover of Catcher in the Rye with a photo of J.D. Salinger sipping lemonade? It just doesn't make sense. These images are being used correctly and should remain on this site. It would be a complete travesty if they do not. Beast from da East (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Cover art is used to market and brand the published work. These are simply promotional ads, and since it is the event itself of discussion, they don't help to understand the event. If there is unusual marketing used that is the subject of discussion, then it can likely meet NFCC#8 and be used, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • These posters illustrate the promotion's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not possibly convey. Some of the poster are also sources for the official fight names, for example "Repeat or Revenge" for Bowe vs. Holyfield II. These images being used the same way movie posters are, to illustrate the subject. Beast from da East (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
      • But in the case of the events, simply showing the photos does the exact same job. Movie posters carry aspects of the narration and story for the film that simply isn't present for fighting bouts. Further, while I agree some fights will have catchphrases, this is easily described in text and requires no visual representation. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree with some of my fellow editors when it comes to the "official poster" of the event. Such posters should be treated the same as a movie poster of a movie that was only aired one time, a play that was only performed one time, or a TV show or TV series which was only aired one time. In any case, if there is more than one "official identifying graphic" - be it a logo or promotional poster - available, only one should be used and ideally we would pick the "most official" or "most commonly used" image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• That logic seems to be based on "we have to have an image, so let's pick the best one." We don't need to have an image at all. The purpose of the covers of albums and books is supposed to be that there are readers that won't be certain they are in the right article without the reassuring presence of the image. That's a pretty weak argument even for books and albums, but for fights? Do you really envision a reader that won't be certain that he really wanted to be reading about UFC 1139 unless there's a poster that says "UFC 1139"? Doesn't sound at all likely to me.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I aree with the principle that davidwr states, namely that an "official" poster is appropriately used under a fair use claim, similar to the way we treat movie posters on movie articles. For example, we wouldn't replace File:The Hangover Part 3.JPG in The Hangover Part III's infobox with free images of Ed Helms, Zack Galifanakis and Bradley Cooper. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 03:15, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
• I don't really see why anyone would use advertisements or programme covers for identifying a sports event. In normal cases, the event is identified by naming the combatants (say, "the fight between X and Y") or by the year and type of competition (say, "2013 World Cup"). There might be exceptional cases where a certain programme or advertisement is particularly noteworthy, but in those cases, the images would presumably usually violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the article about the event. Do articles about specific washing machine models contain a photo of the box art for identification? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at PlayStation 4 and Xbox One

I was able to find flickr-posted free images of these two units as on display at E3 taken by a user that marked them CC-BY-SA, and best as I can tell , are the user's own photos (not flickrwashed). I've uploaded both to Commons and cropped sections and replaced them in these articles but now editors are reverting that to the non-free image against NFCC#1. I won't deny they aren't as professional as the clean non-free images but they do the job of showing the hardware as required by NFCC#1. Note that both non-frees are at FFD and where I've since ID'd these free versions as part of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Urgent request for advice

Colleagues, can anyone tell me (soon) whether there's a problem if the Signpost uses File:PRISM_Collection_Details.jpg? The documentation doesn't seem entirely clear to us. Tony (talk)

Technically it is the work of the US Gov, so it appears to be PD, and Free, and free images have no restriction on use in WP. I do have concern, however, that with the image logos of the companies involved, themselves not free, that while the presentation is PD, it doesn't cover those logos and thus shouldn't be considered free , however that's something to be figured out at commons (there may be a de minimus argument here). --MASEM (t) 05:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And, I see the commons image page says de mininus so yes, the work can be treated as PD for using in in the singpost. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Masem! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Change Criterion 1 to allow uses where no free equivalent could be created reasonably

The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy says the following: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Does "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" warrant a change to criterion 1 to allow cases of fair use where we cannot reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose? The modified text would be "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created reasonably, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

An example of why this is needed is a variant species of bat in Hispaniola has only one picture of it on the internet. It has little known about it. An image of it was deleted at File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg because a free version could be created, no matter the unreasonableness of finding it and taking a picture of it. The reasonableness wasn't even considered. Surfer43 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This text was changed a little from the original to clarify. It still is saying the same thing. The old version can be found in the revision history. Surfer43 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Change

1. Change - "Free content" policy should not get in the way of building an encyclopedia. We should be able to reasonably use non-free images until a free alternative exists. The modified criterion still does what it sets out to do: if a free alternative exists, it must be used. The other nine criterion also rigorously limit the use of non-free images. Also, this is on top of existing fair-use law requirements. Surfer43 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   I am confused as to exactly what this RfC is suggesting. Your main paragraph appears to suggest exactly how WP:NFCC#1 is currently used, whilst in the paragraph above you write "We should be able to reasonably use non-free images until a free alternative exists.", which would suggest that we should use a non-free image purely because we don't currently have a free one, even if one could easily be created. I would oppose the latter, whilst the former does not appear to make any change to existing policy. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   I too don't seem to understand what is being proposed here. The example of the bat would be a case that would fail criterion 1, because someone can go there and take a picture of it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, the bat example is a reasonable one, where it would be immensely difficult to create a free image; however, NFCC1 already allows for this, and these examples are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is why I was confused as to what was being suggested. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for your support of reasonable uses of fair use. However, you are mistaken if you think that NFCC1 does not need to be more specific or more specifically allowing cases like described above. I again cite File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg, where the photographer wasn't using this commercially, and probably just went with the default "all rights reserved". Surfer43 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Well, before doing anything else, my first port of call would have been to contact the photographer and ask them to release it. You'll find that very often they will if their image is not going to be used commercially. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   But releasing it under one of the free content licenses allowed on Wikipedia does mean that "non-commercial only" is not allowed. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   There is consensus that photos of unreasonably hard to find species should be allowed, so we should also believe that criterion 1 should state just that, what the resolution says. In the case of the bat, the rule was used as it is currently and the arguer with me over whether the file should be deleted didn't care about the reasonability of taking a picture of the bat, just that it was quite possible to do so, as is with almost anything. If these should be decided case-by-case, we should agree the first criterion should state that with "or could be created reasonably". I would be fine with specifying what is reasonable and what is not, but it needs to be stated in the rule. Anything could be created. Surfer43 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Change. Cases such as File:SonyPlayStation4.jpg and File:Xbox One Logo.jpg which are quite obviously fair use but due to one person's misinterpretation of this clause they are currently up for deletion despite easily meeting all WP:NFCC criteria and being clear cases of obvious fair use. One of them is even under a CC licence for god's sake! This clause needs to be changed to prevent deletionists from abusing it like in the cases above! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Please stop mischaracterizing Masem's position. He was supported by numerous editors, and his interpretation of NFCC#1 was viewed as clearly correct by all uninvolved editors.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence to support that deletionist claim? PantherLeapord (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   The results of the NFCR you opened as well as the FFD discussion would tend to support my claims.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Stop being so strict. A games console is not a rare species of animal. They are mass produced by the thousands. A rare animal is not mass produced, and you could probably count the remaining number of a certain species on your hands. The fact that these devices were intentionally displayed in a somewhat public setting means that it was meant to be photographed. The fact that just about anyone (in this case, who is a member of the press who is lucky enough to allow free licensing) could get a picture of it means that it would be reasonable to make a free photograph of it. And that means its not NFCC 1 compliant. Also, images marked as Creative Commons Non-commercial/No Derivative Works are treated on Wikipedia as if they are fully copyrighted. We do not bend rules for "semi-free" images, they're either free or not. No questions asked. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Er, how do both of those images not fail WP:NFCC? The first one (now deleted) was clearly replaceable, and the second one only needs to be the logo - which would probably pass NFCC - because the rest is superfluous, and replaceable. And CC/NC/ND images are not free. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

3. I think that any image that (a) we can lawfully use and (b) enhances the encyclopaedia should be used, and I'm confused and bewildered by the fact that some Wikipedians think otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Then you think we should do away with the NFCC? The NFCC are deliberately far stricter than law, and so will exclude much that we can legally use. If this is your view, then so be it, but that is very much a minority view, and you really shouldn't be bewildered that most do not share it. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   What I think is that the NFCC were written, and are enforced, by people who're interested in and focused on free content to a much greater extent than the mainstream encyclopaedia-builders are. I think the NFCC should be rewritten by the community at large.—S Marshall T/C 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   I am not of the opinion that WP:NFCC should be removed ENTIRELY. Just that criteria 1 either needs to go completely or be majorly rewritten to take a more inclusive stance. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Marshall- Yep, people like Masem and I have nothing to do with encyclopedia building. You've got our number. Look- if you want an "everything that's legal" position, you want to do away with the NFCC, and, frankly, ignore the Foundation. The Foundation has always demanded a more strict position than "merely legal", and, by extension, so have the NFCC. You're in a fringe position, and really not one that is at all friendly to Wikipedia/the Foundation's central goals. No number of vague appeals to "the community" are going to twist your view into one that may be adopted. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   OI! No need for the personal attacks mate! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Are you talking to me? Marshall's the one trying to vaguely declare anyone who opposes his extremist position not a "mainstream encyclopaedia-builder". All I've done is pointed out how far his own position is from the current policy and the Foundation's mandate. Where's the personal attack? J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   That's a mischaracterisation of what I said, and I would like to de-escalate this by inviting close scrutiny of exactly what I did say.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   You believe that "mainstream encyclopedia builders" (for whom you have declared yourself able to speak) disagree with the enforcement of the NFCC? I'm just wondering where it leaves people like Masem and I who are both actively involved in policy enforcement and encyclopedia building. If I don't understand what you're trying to claim, please, tell me. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Well, no, I've been careful to use the first person singular throughout. With all due respect it's quite obvious from what I've written that I'm speaking for myself. You're taking a great deal of umbrage, which to an extent I understand, because my message is hostile towards strict interpretation of the NFCC and that cap clearly fits you well; but there are things I did not say. I did not say "nobody interested in NFCC ever builds any content". I did not say "I, personally, am a prolific contributor of high-quality content". My comments are about the way editors are attracted to policy pages based on their own opinions and interests, and the distorting effect this has on policy pages because on Wikipedia decisions are made by a consensus of whoever shows up.—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   That, in principle, I can agree with. I just don't think your view about non-free content use is as widely shared as you might think, and (though I am happy to accept that you did not mean to insinuate this) I certainly object to the notion that people enforcing this or any policy are necessarily destructive types with no interest in encyclopedia building. Sorry if I've come across as a little grumpy, here. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to change

1. We already have reasonable exceptions for NFCC#1 in where one might consider the possibility of getting a free image is non-zero, but the likelihood in terms of rarity and the like makes it effectively near impossible. A photograph of a singular species of bat not in captivity in a remote and small area of the world would be a reasonable case where while one could be possible, we know it is likely near impossible, so as long as all other NFCC points are met, a non-free of a bat would be allowed. This is akin to the case of notable people known to be recluse or wanted from the law - we have near zero expectation that a free image can be had without special conditions. Ergo, there is no need to change, only recognize what allowances we already allow within the bounds of NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   I think you would be convinced there is a need for a change if you read File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Nope, that doesn't change anything. The argument to keep the NFCC is basically "I can't find another picture on the Internet, thus no free image exists". But that's not the bar we use, it's if it could be created. Given that Hispaniolan greater funnel-eared bat is listed as only "near threatened", it means that it is very reasonable a free image can be created for that. The free replacement doesn't have to exist for NFCC#1 to apply, and this is a clear situation as such. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   It's EXACTLY this kind of STUPID deletionist logic that proves that this needs to change as the current clause can easily be abused by deletionists like Masem to degrade the encyclopedia. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Do you understand that this is what the Foundation - the people that pay for this site's servers and bandwidth - require us to do? Their exact workds from m:Resolution:Licensing policy is "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." We have zero choice in the matter in cases like these. The exceptions that are built in already are based on "reasonably expect". If the species of bat was extremely rare in a remote location, we can't reasonably expect a free image. On the other hand, a non-endangered creature on a populated part of the planet is not an issue for "reasonably expect" free photos. So this is not a line of logic that can be followed. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Do expect us to fly to Hispaniola , pay hundreds of dollars, and become experts about the species just to get a free picture that will be available from locals in 5 years? I wrote the article and the reason they are near threatened is because they depend on highly fragile ecosystems, despite being widespread. Just because they are near threatened doesn't mean there is more than next to to no info about them and that they are reasonably easy to find. Surfer43 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   You personally don't have to do it, but it is very reasonable to expect an editor can, ergo, yes, we do expect a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   It is also very reasonable to allow a freely accessible photo to be used until another person happens to release the photo under CC-BY-SA license. Surfer43 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   To be clear, I find in this case you cannot reasonably expect an editor(someone) to fly to Hispaniola and go deep into humid caves. The resolution does not say any editor(anyone). This is about the interpretation of what the foundation expects us to do, so your argument four above isn't valid. Surfer43 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   No, that's counter to what the Foundation says. They want us (and all projects) to encourage users to create free content. Meaning in places where a free image can be reasonably taken, we don't use non-free as a substitute until that free image arrives. Case in point, we don't have an image on Kim Jong-un because a free image is reasonable to be obtained, even considering the difficulty of getting into North Korea and/or transmission of information to and from it. And actually, the Foundation says "anyone", meaning it doesn't have to be an editor, just someone willing to give us a free-licence photo. This is standard policy for a long time and what the Foundation built their resolution on. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   That's where I disagree. It would be nice to know where the foundation says that. Surfer43 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Consider that in the Resolution they basically say that one can always except a free image a of a living person to be possible, as the baseline. As long as it exists and known where to exist, and otherwise legal to take such a photo (eg privacy issues), we except free imagery. That baseline applies across the board. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2. This is supposed to be a free content project, and the use of such content should always have priority over non-free whenever possible. But, I agree with the consensus described above; if something is super-rare and we can't get a picture of it by normal means at all, yes, its appropriate. On a related note, we had a war from some people (Masem should be familiar with what I'm talking about) who demanded that we put back a non-free image of a console in contravention of NFCC 1 just because the free image is of poor quality (with one editor going as far as saying that "Free image purism is a ridiculous endeavor, and overall a detriment to Wikipedia") ViperSnake151  Talk  20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   If you think this would be reasonable fair use, see File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

3. We already allow non-free content when free content is seriously unlikely to be forthcoming- certain very isolated species may be a good example of that. (For instance, see Amaranthus brownii- I reviewed this at GAC, and think it's a good example of when non-free content may be justified, even though the species may not actually be extinct.) Concerning the bat you mention, have you made any effort to contact the copyright holder? Alternatively, have you considered a drawing? We have biological featured articles illustrated primarily by drawings, rather than photographs. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

   I'm afraid we don't already allow for fair use in cases like the above. See File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg. Surfer43 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   These issues are decided on a case-by-case basis- I have not claimed that a non-free image of the bat is clearly justified. Some of my featured articles of isolated species have gone unillustrated, so I fully appreciate that non-free images are not usually warranted in these cases, and I've really not got time to look through that discussion. Again, have you explored other avenues? Have you attempted to secure a free release? Considered a picture? J Milburn (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   It can't be decided on a case-by-case basis because criterion 1 states any picture that could be created ever can not be used. Surfer43 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   It is decided on a case-by-case basis whether a free image could reasonably be created. We do not decide on a case-by-case basis whether we're going to ignore policy or not... J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   If it is decided on a case-by-case basis whether a free image could reasonably be created, shouldn't that be mentioned in the policy? Surfer43 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

4. No need for change: You've disagreed with the interpretation of NFCC#1, but you don't seem to be proposing an actual change. You argument that it would be difficult for you to personally replace an image doesn't make the image irreplaceable.—Kww(talk)

   I'm sorry you don't think I want a change, but I do. The change is to allow some cases where it is unreasonable to find a picture. The current is if there is any possible way any picture could ever be taken of something, it is not allowed. Surfer43 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

5. The RfC proposal is so badly written that it's difficult to figure out what the proposal even is. But I think the idea is to delete the words "or could be created," from WP:NFCC#1, on the grounds of, essentially, WP:CRYSTAL – or, alternatively, to put forth more specific criteria as to how to determine how difficult it is to create a free alternative. It seems to me that this is just a proxy battle between those who want wider use of non-free content, and those who favor the status quo. If there's a proposal for more specific language to determine how difficult it would be to create a free alternative, then let's see that proposal, because it isn't here. Otherwise, the argument to delete "or could be created" is just another way of saying, "boo hoo, it's too hard for me to create a free alternative" instead of making a thoughtful argument that we have something like that rare bat, where there might be a rational basis for saying that a free alternative won't pop up. I actually agree with the long-standing consensus that it should be difficult to justify non-free content on Wikipedia – not impossible, but difficult – because I genuinely believe in our project mission as a "free encyclopedia". Oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   I clarified it for you. I'm not proposing to delete "or could be created". I want it to be "or could be created reasonably". A picture of a tiger or polar bear would qualify as being able to be created "reasonably". Surfer43 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you. I still oppose, because I think that the word "reasonably" is far too vulnerable to Wiki-lawyering. One person can say something is reasonable, when another person can say the same thing in unreasonable. Of course, the solution is to have discussion, as at deletion review, but we already have that in the same way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks. Perhaps you would support a similar propsal for more specific language or more examples? We need to at least mention that some cases are allowed where images could be created, but it would be unreasonably hard to do so. Surfer43 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   I think it's going to be difficult to think of cases on which we would all agree/which would always hold. "Very rare species", for instance, is a continuum, and while some highly rare and/or isolated species may warrant the use of non-free content, it's not necessarily easy to draw a line. Criminals on the run/in prison for life are possible examples of cases where free content is hypothetically possible, but in which we would probably assume NFC meeting NFCC#1. Ultra-rare chemical elements which exist only for a few seconds at a time in university laboratories may be another. Species assumed, but not proven, to be extinct, probably fall into the category of "free content could hypothetically be forthcoming but non-free content would probably meet NFCC#1." I'm just thinking aloud here. I'm all for clarifying that point, but we're going to have to be very careful to not open the floodgates. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Should we have another RFC on exactly how to clarify that point? Surfer43 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

6. I think reasonable people could disagree about the particular image which brought you to suggest this change, but I don't think it justifies opening the floodgates to allow editors to perform a cursory Google Image search and then throw up their hands and say "whelp, guess we have to use a non-free image." Take the individual interpretation to WP:DRV, but the broader principle is still a worthwhile one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   The reason I am proposing this is to allow non-free images to be used if it is unreasonable to create a free image, which would allow a case-by-case decision. The way my case was treated was "If it is possible to create an image, you can't use a non-free image". Surfer43 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Which is pretty much the Foundation's statement on this. Yes, there is wiggle room in what "possible" is, but its a lot narrower than you're asking for. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• On a related note, I opened a deletion review on the image in question. Personally, I would like to request that editors in this discussion try to stay out of the deletion review, because I am going to be seeking opinions from uninvolved parties on the matter for the purposes of balance. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Quick notice - I have send an informal email to arbcom informing them of this RFC since I figured we may as well inform them now rather when they inevitably get dragged into this! PantherLeapord (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • After this and this I suddenly feel like that was a good call... PantherLeapord (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm really struggling to see what you find so objectionable about my comments. You're the one who thought it appropriate to start a list of active editors you considered detrimental to the project on your userpage... J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The major problem is that you are suggesting that a user wants us to decide if we should ignore policy or not. In the case of the so-called attack page nobody was suggesting such a thing. And it is my view that people who support deletion of images that are basically impossible to replicate based on the stupid interpretations above and below of WP:NFCC#1 ARE detrimental to the project! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• To be honest, per Masem's Oppose #1 above, I thought that what's suggested is how people already interpreted NFCC #1 -- ie reading "or could be created" to mean "could reasonably be created" rather than "could imaginably be created". The bat image should certainly have gone to FFD rather than been speedied: if an uploader disagrees with a tagger on a point like this, the way forward should clearly be to go to a process with wider input rather than for the speedier to impose their view as final. But I think that flexibility will usually be interpreted appropriately into the current wording (aberrations aside); changing the wording as suggested would I think cause it to be pushed too far and over-interpreted. NFCC #1 reflects a core objective, to build up free content wherever there can be free content. It would be a mistake to soften it. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then what's to stop people like Eeekster from interpreting it literally("or could be created") like he did at File_talk:Hispaniola_greater_funnel-eared_bat_in_Los_Haitises_National_Park.jpg? Surfer43 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Deletion review already solves this issue. It only takes two unique opinions to initially speedy a file - the tagger and the deleting admin - so it's possible sometimes for us to interpret policy in ways that will be overturned on wider scrutiny. If a consensus there still believes that the rule should be read as "imaginably created" rather than "reasonably created," then you won't have the answer you want, but you'd still have a more clear answer with broader suppport. In the past, though, the norm has been to allow uses such as this one. I would think it would be similar to our treatment of images of people who are still living, but because of reclusiveness or imprisonment, are unlikely to generate a free image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree - FFD and/or DRV are the barriers to prevent an excessive interpretation of what "could" implies, letting consensus decide when the "could" is near impossible and a non-free is appropriate. CSD should only be used on the clearest violations (living celebrities, pictures of buildings and/or art where Freedom of Panorama allows for it, household objects, etc.); FFD should be used on edge cases like this animal. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, relatively new editors like I was won't know what the "norm" is when their photos get tagged. The info in the tag only told to place a disputed template on the page if you disagree. The policy should be more specific, or spell out the "norm" on the policy page so it can't be misused either way. Surfer43 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Again, we can't define the norm, there's only a few clear cut cases like living persons and standing buildings - but even then there are exceptions. The most accurate statement is what we already say in NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
            • We need to mention, somehow, that not all photos that could be created as a free photo fail NFCC#1. Surfer43 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)