Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 25 January 2009

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Keep up the good work, everyone!

Indeed, I have stopped disliking Misplaced Pages's policies on fair use and have come to see that they are absolutely necessary in order for Misplaced Pages to succeed in its goals. After all, we all know that the most important thing about any article is that no element of it might possibly be copyrighted. Having a possibly copyrighted image of, say, a deceased former British prime minister that is already all over the internet would be a disastrous blow to Misplaced Pages's credibility and to its wonderful mission of creating a free content encyclopedia. It is much better to not have any picture at all for several months, until somebody finds and uploads a not very good image from the US government which we will then be forced to use for all eternity - assuming there are any. If not, the best possible solution is clearly not to have an image in that article. I'm glad we sorted this out! john k (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. If someone is deceased, then a free image cannot be obtained now. If no known free image exists, then we are up a creek and can only use a non-free, fair use image. Should a free image turn up later, we should remove and delete the non-free image post haste. A 💕 is not the only goal of Misplaced Pages; quality is also a goal and they must balance out. Please realize the government doesn't have pictures of everybody...or do they...? — BQZip01 —  05:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi BQZip - I see my sarcasm was too subtle. I fully agree with you - I've just gotten frustrated about this and let out some of my irritation in the form of a sarcastic post. I think deleting the image of Douglas-Home was stupid, and would like to upload a new one, but I can't find any guidelines for how to get such an image included within the current guidelines. john k (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's no free image available for a passed-away person, a non-free is allowable (on the reasoning that it is impossible to create a new free image of a dead person). But if there is a free image, it aught to be used instead. --MASEM 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But, of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove, a priori that there are no free images of Douglas-Home. Can we use a free image until a non-free image is found? john k (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted was because no source was given. Canis Lupus 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But sarcasm is still very helpful to discussion, really it is. Seraphimblade 06:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the nature of the "source" requirement? Can I find a picture on a website and just say "taken from http://picturesofbritishprimeministers.com/douglashome," as long as I provide a real fair use rationale? Or do I have to know who the copyright holder is? Because the latter is just a totally onerous and unnecessary requirement - a fair amount of the time, nobody even knows who the copyright holder of a particular work is. john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just incidentally, it also had one of those nonsensical, blatantly wrong boilerplate pseudo-rationales ("... photo and its historical significance are the subject of the article..."). Why do people insist on making a mockery of the system by filling rationales with utter crap? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be in response to people who insist on pushing nonsensical interpretations of policy that are utter crap? Wiggy! (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty lame rationale, admittedly, but the fair use rationale is obvious - a picture of Douglas-Home has basically no commercial value, we have not yet discovered a free equivalent, and it substantially improves our article about the man. A bad rationale when a good one can be devised is a pretty weak reason to delete. john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No commercial value? Sounds like we're just dying for one to illustrate our encyclopedia here because, as you say, it would substantially improve our article about the man. How's that no commercial value? Haukur (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

British prime minister so will likely have met the president of the united states (so PD pics likely exist from that) and was a fairly seniour politician more than 50 years ago (crown copyright expired). I'd say there is a reasonable chance of a free pic existing.Geni 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reasonable chance, certainly. If such a picture is not already on the internet, is it really our policy to require that there be no image until somebody finds, scans, and uploads such a picture? john k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable conclusion. Our policies are intended to encourage the discovery of free images. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can make a free drawing. Just make sure you don't base it on any one particular photograph. Works for Edmond Jouhaud. Haukur (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Errrr, that's very potentially bad for two reasons. First, more importantly, if you are using non-free works to create the drawing, it can be considered a derivative work, and thus would still be non-free, even if you based it on multiple sources. That doesn't improve the non-free issue in the first place. Secondly, it looks bad - not in terms of your art skills - but its not a fair representation of the person. If the person is still alive, a photograph is likely possible; if dead, then a non-free image can be used, but having to resort to hand-drawn images is just a poor solution, and also smacks a tad of "original research" (just a tad, that's not the significant problem here). --MASEM 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Drawing a person based on multiple independent sources on how they looked is not a copyright problem. Copyright doesn't give anyone a monopoly on information, just on a tangible fixation of a work. 2) It can look okay, a decent drawing is better than a bad photograph. Mostly, it takes more skill and time to make a good representational drawing than to make a good representational photograph. 3) Free images are better than unfree images. The law says nothing about photographs of dead people being in any way exempt from copyright - it's just one of the Misplaced Pages-specific criteria for when we may be willing to consider unfree images. Haukur (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for Alec Douglas-Home a free image could be created. There's a statue of him in Coldstream and a photo of it would not be licensed to the sculptor but rather the photographer under UK FOP law. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a picture of a statue of Douglas-Home is not an adequate replacement for a photograph of him? Also, nobody has yet taken a free picture of that statue or drawn a picture of him and released it without copyright to wikipedia. These kind of substitutes are just a joke. And, yeah, images drawn by users are original research. Why on earth should we trust that User:Rama has made an accurate depiction of General Jouhaud? Looking at what pictures I can find of the man online, I'm not convinced that it is a particularly good likeness. john k (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You kind of answered your own question there - you can check the accuracy of Rama's drawing by looking for pictures or video of the general. I don't see a problem there. Haukur (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem with drawn images, with only a very few exceptions. This is one of them- not a single image exists of this military figure, and so we have an award winning historian draw one, basing the likeness off a descendent, and basing the uniform off the notes in a contemporary source. If we have a reasonable belief that no free images exist of a subject and there is no chance that one could be created, then using a non-free image is the best option. A publicity/first party photo, or a photo used around the web (preferably with copyright holder known, and preferably without any ties to a specific publication) would be the best option on that front. I think the question of a statue is interesting- it is clearly acceptable to use a painted portrait, and statues are used for a lot of articles (Boudicca springs to mind...) but could an image of a statue be considered acceptable when photos exist? J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For people with no surviving representations, an artist's impression is of course fine. And if the artist wants to base his impression on a great-great-great-grandson that's fine by me. But I don't think this sketch is in any way superior to the General Jouhaud sketch by Rama. If no free images of a person are available, then sketches or artworks are appropriate. In an unusual case, we have free paintings of Halldór Laxness and Steinn Steinarr by a fairly well-known living artist. Those are good likenesses. Haukur (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Portraits from life by professional painters are one thing. Portraits derived from photographs created by wikipedia users are quite different. At any rate, there has as yet been no guidance as to what to do about Douglas-Home. Given that we do not know if any free images exist, can we use a probably-not-free photograph of him? Beyond the question of what we can do about Douglas-Home under current policy, I'd like to reiterate how stupid our policies are. There are various images of Douglas-Home all over the internet. These are probably technically copyrighted, but it is quite clear that whoever the copyright holder is, they are not making any effort to enforce their copyright. And this is true of a vast amount of photographic material. We're not even allowed to use copyrighted promotional pictures which are basically released in order to be used in the way wikipedia would use them. I understand the desire for Misplaced Pages to contain as little non-free content is possible, but there's a large amount of technically copyrighted content which is effectively free, in that nobody is ever going to make any attempt to enforce copyright on it. And even if they did, we could plausibly make fair use claims for a large percentage of it. The current policy is basically cutting off our noses to spite our faces - Misplaced Pages has, on its own initiative, decided to drastically reduce the number of images available for use, and it really serves no conceivable purposes beyond a fetishistic attachment to "free content." The current process results in completely absurd things like our article on Dean Stockwell being illustrated by a picture of him from 60 years ago, when he was 13. Or that ridiculous line drawing of Jouhaud. Or the fact that an article about a British prime minister doesn't have a photograph attached to it, and people are seriously proposing that we put a photograph of a statue in place instead of a photograph. The current rules are an embarrassing failure. They make wikipedia looks absurd and amateurish (well, more absurd and amateurish than it looks anyway). The whole thing is a farce. john k (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If people would spend less time bitching about policy and more time looking for photos, we would make a lot of progress. Flickr has two free images of Dean Stockwell that have been available since 2007. How come no one has ever looked there? (By the way, I'm adding one to the article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent. I'm glad my whining has prompted some useful result. john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're intentionally denying ourselves lots of content we could get away with using. Encouraging the creation, discovery and awareness of free content is ultimately more important. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems to be the attitude that Misplaced Pages has taken. It's worth noting that this is a matter of opinion, and that I am not obliged to agree with it. john k (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorically exclude a non-free image here, but without a proper source it won't work anyway. The original deletion that sparked this was undoubtedly correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here:

• Legal: contrary to what many people think (apparently including the initiator of this discussion), Fair Use is not a blank check to snatch anything you like. Fair Use is similar to the right of citation: using Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima as a fair use image is OK because it is the precise image that is being discussed, and no other image can replace it for critical discussion. This is very different from some random photograph of a figure, where portraits are interchangeable.
• Practical: there are instances in which not having a portrait for a figure incited relatives to contribute theirs. Presenting fair use images is not only of very dubious legal validity, but also hides the fact that we still need Free images. That a figure is dead does not excludes that photographs are left lying in a drawer somewhere; of course they might be less good than professional ones, and finding them requires some work, but our encyclopedia articles also go through stages where they are drafts, and they also require work to write. Rama (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no fact that "we still need free images" except insofar as Misplaced Pages policy demands such. Beyond that, while fair use certainly isn't a blank check, your description of how it works is, so far as I understand it, completely wrong. There is absolutely no requirement in fair use law having anything to do with whether a copyrighted image is replaceable. Beyond that, again, worrying about whether this stuff is fair use is beside the point. There's a huge quantity of stuff where the copyright holder doesn't care about enforcing their copyright. Stuff like the deleted picture of Douglas-Home, already found all over the internet, is almost certainly among that. It seems to me that it would be a perfectly justifiable policy to claim fair use as broadly as possible, and then remove material if the copyright holder complains. In the vast majority of cases, we're never going to receive any complaints from the copyright holder. This is obviously not what the policy is, but I'm not sure what good results arise out of the current situation. john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On an somewhat tangential note, there's a public domain video that includes footage of Douglas-Home in the National Archives. http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=28498 Someone just needs to go in person and get a screenshot. This is what frustrates me about these discussions. People assume that there's nothing out there, but it just takes some effort to find it. Often the problem isn't really policy, it's people's laziness. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And also http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=95230, http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=95209, http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=95257, and probably more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, those few aren't public domain. But in any event there's about 90 more records I have yet to go through that came up in my search, so there's probably more than one PD video with Douglas-Home in it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanks for the Effort, Calliopejen. That being said, it seems like you're doing a whole lot of work for nothing. There are plenty of images of Douglas-Home all over the internet, and nobody is ever going to enforce copyright on any of them. It is ridiculous to force people to jump through hundreds of hoops in order to find a "free" image which is much worse than the widely available images that we're never going to get into any trouble for using. You said above that you wish people would spend as much time looking for images rather than bitching about policy. But the bitching about policy is in service of the goal of changing policy so that nobody has to spend so much time looking for images. john k (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Except we're wikipedia the FREE encyclopedia. It's not jumping through hoops. Why not just cut and paste paragraphs from books and collect them here? Probably a lot of authors would never notice. But we don't do that because the goal of this project is to build a 💕. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see the difference between using photographs to illustrate an article and actually plagiarizing text from copyrighted work, I don't see that there's any room for discussion. john k (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference.

Both are copyrighted works belonging to somebody; it we wish to use either under United States fair-use precedents and our own specifically focused non-free criteria, we need to explicitly justify it clearly and rationally. We don't use either (copyrighted images or paragraphs) willy-nilly, because they are functionally identical with regards to intellectual ownership and work. — pd_THOR | 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

pd_THOR is correct, there is no difference. Whether it's text or an image, either case is theft of intellectual property. The argument that because "no one is ever going to enforce copyright on any of them" they are fair game is just plain wrong. It's wrong from a legal perspective, wrong from an ethical perspective, wrong from a business perspective. Cmadler (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean no malice, but I want to clarify: are you saying that because we can use others' copyrighted works w/o need or permission and get away with it, we should? — pd_THOR | 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: excellent work Calliopejen1! Good find. — pd_THOR | 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had already arrived at the “wonderful mission” part before detecting the sarcasm myself. The problem may be that I’ve read too many statements of that kind on these pages that happened to actually be meant seriously. I’ve been pretty much inactive for more than 9 months now, but looking at this page I don’t seem to have missed any major developments. Or I may have, at least back then nobody seriously proposed I draw pictures of deceased persons or substitute their photo with a picture of their dove-shitted stone likeness. One could get the impression that all of this section is meant to be satirical with some people playing the straight man.Malc82 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon characters?

Is there a mention in any guidelines about showing images of cartoon characters to illustrate them in articles? Some articles have them and some don't, and I'm not sure what applies. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A single, low resolution image in an article specifically about the character in the infobox is probably acceptable. Any other use will have to illustrate a specific point in the text and meet the general requirements; there's no reason to treat them any differently from other non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with J Milburn. There's nothing different about a cartoon character vs. a tv character vs a movie character, etc. The usage J Milburn describes is appropriate and within guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate covers for albums/singles

Of late there's been an upswing in the use of alternate album/single covers on articles about those releases. Examples can be seen on the right hand side at '03 Bonnie & Clyde, (It's Not Me) Talking and (You Drive Me) Crazy. As a result, there's been an increasing number of IfDs for these alternate album covers (, for the examples). Other examples abound; . Most of these IfDs result in delete, though some not (see last example).

There's been some prior discussion:

• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_38#Similar_album.2Fsingle_cover_overkill.3F
• Talk:Walk_Among_Us#Thoughts_regarding_suitablity_of_alternate_covers
• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_37#WikiProject_Albums

But, there's nothing conclusive.

There's been enough of these IfD nominations that this problem probably needs to be addressed more formally. See Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 January 10, where there's about two dozen nominations for these alternate album covers.

Should we...

(A) Allow the use of any album/single covers the album/single was released under on its respective article
- or -
(B) Allow the use of only the first or primary release of the album/single

..for identification purposes only.

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this here, in response to a batch of IfD noms by Peripitus. Your thoughts may be of interest to WikiProject members there- I'm sure we'll be able to work out something to add as a WikiProject guideline. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was unaware of the other discussion until now. That said, I have always been and will always remain opposed to hosting such a discussion on the specific project's page. It is not a purview of a project to interpret/write policy or guideline. That's for a place such as this to decide. This is precisely why I was against raising the whole sport logo fiasco at Wikiproject College Football. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it's for everybody to decide.
  The operative question here is: when is an alternate cover significant enough that it significantly adds to the understanding conveyed by an article. WP:ALBUMS is actually quite a good place to ask a question like that, because it tends to attract people who actually know about albums and so have the knowledge and insights to usefully discuss that kind of value judgment. Jheald (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Projects are a rotten place to seek consensus on a fair use issue. It would be same as insisting that any AfD having to do with Project Albums be listed only at that project. We don't handle such debates there. Instead, they are handled at WP:AFD. By pushing such discussions into projects, it inherently biases the discussion. I will not be at all surprised if the discussion ensuing on this subject on the project page will result in the images being retained. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• No offense Hammersoft, but I have had enough experience to know that you will do whatever it takes to remove as many non-free images as possible. Bringing the discussion here only gets people who like to limit non-free image use involved, not the wiki community as a whole as it should be. You guys are here on NFC because you like to limit the content, not because you want to break down the guidelines and allow more use. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm out of time right now, but someone should make the appropriate changes to make this section, rather than that section into an RfC and centralize discussion here, with announcement of the RfC in appropriate forums. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a RfC at the moment- I'm fairly sure once policy and precedent is explained, the WikiProject (of which I am a member) will be happy to codify the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn here, an RfC is not required. We have a strong reaction from a disputed deletion -> DrV -> lots more attention given...then a lot of heat with hopefully some light. The discussion within the project is ongoing though I have noted it on the page as a policy issue that should be discussed here. I've looked through about 75 of the 5000 uses of alternate album covers and found that the vast majority

• Use just boilerplate fair-use rationales that often are not relevant to the particular image.
• Have zero mention of the image within the article.
• By the standards that other non-free images are measured are not suitable for hosting here.

NFC and the resulting NFCC rules are not intuitive and clearly from this are not understood widely enough. Far more than an RfC is some way to educate more widely about the policy and its implications. Perhaps a few useful examples, drawn from IfDs that the consensus here says were closed correctly, would help ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we need to make a specific section about album covers. Referring people to images in general is not a good idea because face it, album covers are a different case, there are no free images to stand in their place and they are the only thing that can accurately represent the album and its other releases. I also think it needs to be made clear that if the page is about the album, then that is the critical commentary. When we include an image of a celebrity, maybe because of what she wore that caused an outrage for example, the critical commentary is not about the photographer and the image's artistic aspects, it's about what it depicts, which, in the case of the alternate albums covers, is the alternate release which as I said, the article undoubtedly describes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help here, to keep the discussion in one place as it's rather spread across the site, if you explained how albums are different from movies and books in this regard and so why you see they need to be treated differently ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather how are they not? Albums aren't released dozens of times so there is an association with each cover, not felt with books and movies. It was described better on WP:Albums, so let's keep that together over there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is an age old argument in fair use disputes. "This is different and deserves special dispensation because...." In reality, this isn't any different. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, its all up to everyone's interpretation of the criteria and guidelines set for by wikimedia and as of now there is no consensus to either remove or keep the images. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here I was thinking this was about Virgin Killer --NE2 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to treat album covers differently from other non-free images. Per the non-free content criteria, none of them will be replaceable. In response to Grk1011, just because the alternative release is discussed, does notmean that an image of its cover is required. If the cover is discussed, then we can include the image. Yourmaking the false assumption that discussion of something means that an image is required- in fact, discussion about it's appearance may imply that an image is required, discussion about it does not. Furthermore, if there is no consensus to keep the images, they should be removed- the guidelines and policies are quite clear that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to keep the images. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out seemingly endlessly, WP:NFC says nothing about discussion; what is required is "significantly improved understanding" of the topic of the article. And it is long established that showing the identifying images for a record is considered part of the "significant understanding" an article should convey about it -- which is why WP:NFC specifically okays this use. This discussion about discussion is entirely off the point. Jheald (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Significant discussion about an image leaves it pretty unambiguous that the use of that image does increase the readers' understanding of the text. However, if it is not even worthy of discussion, it is pretty difficult to argue that it increases the readers' understanding of the text, and even harder to argue that it is significant. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to increase reader understanding of the text. It has to increase reader understanding of the topic. Read the friendly policy. Jheald (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's very easy to argue that showing the identifying images can significantly increase reader understanding of the topic, even without discussion -- because WP:NFC directly says so. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that they can, and that's why I support the images of primary album covers or first edition book covers, even in articles where they are not directly discussed. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, we are back to the discussion of the cover itself. That would be a good reason for inclusion in say the biography, but it is unnecessary for the album's page since its purpose is portray the alternate version, which is discussed since half the page is probably about it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a big assumption. A lot of rereleases are barely worth a mention, or, at least, are barely mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about "oh they released it again quietly" we're talking about big re-releases with bonus songs, material etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't exactly clear. This issue is made more problematic by the fact that, regardless of how significant the rerelease was, a lot of these album articles are only a couple of lines long. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it may not be as relevant on the shorter pages, but what we are deciding affects all situations. Obviously I'm going to argue for the inclusion of the cover on the longer articles even if it means the shorter ones may get alternate covers through a loophole because its better than no alternate covers at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're basically saying that it's better to have too much non-free content than to have too little? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus To Keep Images In Character Article

The reason given for removal of the fair use images in this article was because there is no consensus to keep the non-free content. However I believe that there is consensus based on past discussions about the topic. More than one discussion has taken place about this subject and the result has always been the same, the images are kept. JayJ47 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus above showed that a single montage shot of at least two characters in the game (which is possible, it's on the PC and I know what the cut scenes are like) is an appropriate replacement for one of each major character. --MASEM 06:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically people use "consensus to remove" or "consensus to keep" a bit too informally which can sometime confuse the issue. There are (roughly) three possible positions:

1. Consensus to include/retain the image
2. No consensus to include or to remove the image
3. Consensus to remove/not include the image

If Number 2 or 3 are the case then the image is not used. (Arguing "there was no consensus to remove that image" is always fallacious.) If Number 1 is the case then the image may be used but with the caveat that the global consensus represented by WP:NFC policy overrides any local consensus at the article talk page.

In the case of List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, situation number 2 applied - as you yourself pointed out: . Therefore the images should not be used. CIreland (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's disputed. (As discussed at length in the recent college football logo discussions). Unless you can point to a well-formed consensus which has come to this resolution, the claims you are making are merely your personal opinion. Jheald (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly it is disputed, but it is written into this very policy all the same; policy represents consensus. Of course, in the exceptional case of WP:NFCC consensus would not override policy anyway, disputed or otherwise. CIreland (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that it isn't what's written into this policy, is it?

And what is being discussed here is not whether or not to override WP:NFCC, it is the balance of opinion as to whether or not an image satisfies it. Jheald (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Quote: it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof. CIreland (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That says that those seeking to remove or delete an image don't have to show a-priori that no rationale can be created. Which is reasonable, because proving a blanket negative is a hard thing. However, once a specific rationale has been proposed, policy does not require us to presume it is false. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but if there is no consensus that it is correct, then it is assumed to be false - with all that implies for retaining an image use. CIreland (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But if the opinions on wether or not an image use is within policy is so split down the middle that we can't come to a consensus either way how can the image be said to comply with policy? The fact that any non-free images are allowed at all is by it's very nature an exception to the norm. This is not just a personal extremist opinion, the Foundation explicitly refeer to this as an "Exception Doctrine Policy" and makes it clear that no non-free content is allowed by default. It might not be explicitly written in so many words, but if there is no consensus either way for allowing an exception it makes no sense to claim that the default action is to allow it. Those wanting an exception from the norm always have the burden of creating a consensus in it's favour. For example deleting articles that does not qualify for speedy deletion is an exception from the norm and so a "no consensus" defaults to keeping the article. Creating a new policy is an exception from the norm so the default action is to not implement a proposed policy unless there is a consensus in it's favour. Giving someone administrative rights is an exception so a "no consensus" does not default to granding said rights. Simmilarly in the case of non-free media it is including the image that is the exception to the norm and so if there is no consensus to include a non-free image the default action is to not include it. --Sherool (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's an exemption doctrine policy, not exception doctrine.

And the policy is a balance. It is also an important part of the balance not to remove content that is legal, both for us and our commercial redistributors, and helps Misplaced Pages towards its m:vision by adding significantly to the information the article conveys. Jheald (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok yeah you are right, but same difference. The policy grants an exemption from the normal state of afairs provided some strict conditiosn are met. I don't see how the wording or spirit of the policy can lead you to conclude that in the absense of an agreement on wether or not something does in fact meet those conditions the default asumption is that it does. --Sherool (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What if one single image was used which included all the major characters in it? I am able to create one but am unsure if it would be accepted, and kept in the article? JayJ47 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be fine as long as you are talking about a single image taken as a screenshot from the game (this would include machina-posing of the characters for a single shot), but would not be acceptable if you took the individual images and made your own composite or montage of the character images. --MASEM 13:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This will be possible then. Last time when someone suggested it, we were told that this would not be acceptable, so it's a bit frustrating with all the different opinions on this. --.:Alex:. 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there weren't different opinions, would we really need talk pages? I'm a little concerned still about a single image (an image is required or it is not) but if you can demonstrate that a single image is required, it can be included. You can't just include one on the grounds that "it's better to have a single image than have all of them". Of course, the image will have to be a low resolution, so it's difficult to see what it may add to the article, but if you want to add one and you think you have a decent rationale, go for it. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By different opinions over that one point, I meant flip-flopping. That is my one main criticism with many aspects of NFCC. It's frustrating to have one group say "a-okay" to things and another group say "that's not acceptable" about the very same thing, that's all. --.:Alex:. 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the distinction really rest on whether the image is a screenshot created via tools within the game engine or created another way? This strikes me as truly bizarre: two identical images, one composed by posing the characters and taking a single screenshot, and the other created by putting multiple screenshots together, and the first is fine while the second is verboten? I understand the technical distinction, but considering that the mashup approach is no more or less legal (it would still be a fair use), I don't understand why it's necessary. Is this guideline really so concerned with technicalities and legalisms? Croctotheface (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Computer screenshots

A suggestion: computer and video game screenshots should always be kept at the original resolution. Resizing too often makes the shots blurry and ugly, any text in them becomes nearly unreadable, and thus the image does not depict the original content fairly. -- Stormwatch (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The original resolution could be enormous. There is a clear consensus that the use of non-free content should be minimalised, and this includes lowering image resolution. There's no reason to treat screenshots as different to all other non-free media, which is also reduced in quality by size reduction (which is the point). J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of book covers in intelligent design

Could I please have some input on the discussion here regarding the use of images of book covers in intelligent design? J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the covers being discussed can be seen in this diff. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another case of majority rule ILIKEIT. We don't use album covers in that manner, and it's clear the appearance of the book is not related to the topic or context of the articles (the content of the books, sure, but not the cover artwork). We need to start adding asterisks for all the exceptions to these guidelines (No sports team logos on subpages, except for colleges, no individual character images on non-character pages, except for video games, no book or album covers used for decoration, except for intelligent design...)-Andrew c  16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)