- Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wolf of Fenric (notify | contribs).
- Discussion about this is being brought here from ANI thread.
This is a derivative image of 38 non-free works:
- It does not give proper credit to original authors of source images
- It does not name sources or publication dates for individual images
- Fair use rationales are missing for all 38 source images here
- It needs to be explained why this derivative work is itself, is a fair use of all those images
In my opinion it is not good enough to simply bundle many non-free images together and present a single fair use rationale. Non-free images are non allowed in galleries, and this simply seems like an attempt to find a loophole. Papa November (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was simply a collage, you would have a fair argument. But each photo is actually a link to an article. So it's of benefit to the users and does no harm otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That it has an image map associated with it does not mean it is not subservient to our fair use policies. Regardless of how useful it is, it must obey our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simply a collage with imagemapping on top. The same result could be achieved using individual images (e.g. table with CSS). Bundling them into a single image does not exempt them from WP:NFCC. You can't just use images without giving proper credit to the authors, and explaining why each of them is needed in the article. Papa November (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no harm ...well, apart from blatantly violating one of the project's core mission objectives (not to mention one of the five pillars, of course. Black Kite 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Delete: As I noted in the discussion, this is a blatant case of overuse. If we'd broken all 38 images out and put one next to each cast member located at Companion_(Doctor_Who)#List_of_Television_companions we wouldn't even be having this discussion; they'd be gone already. Our WP:NFCC #3a stands in favor of minimal use, as does Foundation resolution ("[use] must be minimal"). Further, our guideline has a specific stance against montage images "[montages] should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly" Simply because a montage does not exist for all 38 characters does not give us reason to create one. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a fan guide. That lies this way. As per others, this currently stands as a blatant copyright violation as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
| Cut and paste copy of WP:ANI thread
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
If you'll have a look at the montage image in the upper right of that article Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg is being used to portray all the various companions of Doctor Who. It's a montage of 38...yes that's right, 38...fair use images.
Twice today I've removed it from that article, citing policy at WP:NFCC #3a regarding minimal use and WP:NFCC #8 regarding significance, and citing guideline at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles which has a clear statement regarding strong opposition to montage images of fair use images to get around limitations on high numbers of fair use images.
I've been reverted twice, once by User:Ckatz and once by User:Edokter. Both users claim that it isn't a list (though it exists in Category:Lists of Doctor Who characters and Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks) and therefore the policy and guideline doesn't apply. But the policy doesn't say anything about non-lists being excluded from minimal use and significance.
I'm really not up for an edit war, but this image is a blatant violation of our policies and guidelines on this sort of usage. I can't think of ANY article on Wikipedia that can justify the use of 38 fair use images, and the fact this this montage is one image made up of 38 fair use images doesn't excuse it from overuse of fair use images.
Somebody intervene please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This might not help any, but have you gone to the project talk page to ask about this? They are a pretty active project and I'm sure a few people there can be convinced that this collage is basically a non-free image gallery. If you don't get any traction there, I would list it at IfD. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the fair use doctrine is far from entirely clear, I'm quite certain the collage qualifies. It is for educational or critique purposes, they are low-resolution stills of a television program, they are a trivial portion of the copyrighted work as a whole and they do not affect the market value of the work. It passes all legal tests without so much as a doubt. The question of whether the image also meets the more stringent NFCC criteria is also clear: there can be no free equivalent, the use is minimal (a single still per companion to illustrate), and it is used in an article. Respecting copyright is very important, but let's not get carried away either. — Coren (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the surface, 38 might well sound like a lot of images. However, one has to put it in the proper context if we are to judge this fairly. How many other television series have had 50 or more main characters (if you incorporate the 10 actors who have played the Doctor)? Furthermore, what are the alternatives? These actors appeared at different times over a forty year period, so there is no such thing as a "cast photo" to substitute and no possible way to obtain one. As for the argument that this is a list, one cannot make that call simply because of a category; one has to look at the article as a whole. Doing so, it is clear that it is first and foremost an article about companions that happens to incorporate a list. The images are not being used to decorate the list; in fact, they are no-where near the list section. The DW project is one of the most active projects in the Television section, and as such it would have been far more appropriate to address the issue there first. As Coren said, we must not get carried away. --Ckatzchatspy 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we try not to use arbitrary numbers for our image use guidelines and policies. 38 sounds like a lot, but in this situation it seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, lets not forget that there is no ban on fair use images for "list of" articles, or ones that appear to be lists. What an image contributes is often subjective, making blanket removals not the best course of action. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take: given that nearly every companion has his/her own page that's not going to go away due to lack of notability, and each with a picture, there's conflict with NFCC here. The montage might look nice, but it is the equivalent of 38 non-free images, and companion pictures can be found elsewhere, so that's not minimal use. If there was a single BBC-provided image that demonstrated companions better, that would be acceptable, but this is really a bad example (particularly when we tell other character list editors to restrict pictures to one or two cast montages). --MASEM 04:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was easily fixed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:42
- That's worse. You can't just create a derivative version of 38 fairuse images and claim CC on it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me what to list and I will list it. I figured since I created that image (via copying, which I mentioned), I could claim CC. I was wrong, obviously, let me know what to switch it to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:47
- You don't own the copyright on the material just because you copy/pasted it, so you can't relicense it. It should ideally go away (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #4, plus it's an unnecessary duplication of the existing images). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not what I asked....what Licensing should I put down? Also, removing each and every idea that people come up with doesn't fix the use of 38 fair-use images in one page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 04:53
- You'd have to put a fairuse tag on it, not a license. But like I said, it violates the fair-use criteria and doesn't do anything positive. If you took that personally, I'm sorry. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a non-free image - however, because you created it out of 38 separate images, it is basically the same 38 uses of non-free content even if it is a single image. That's why user-created "cast" montages are explicitly discouraged since the derivative work concept becomes difficult to untangle. --MASEM 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't take it personal, just don't like seeing 38 fair-use images on one page. I updated the licensing on "my" image. For the time being (until a better idea can be come up with) I think it is the best alternative to 38 fair-use images on one page...and I am a little biased :). - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 05:00
- Sorry, but again it's not really an alternative. It violates WP:FUC as it's not an image that appears elsewhere, and it's still 38 instances of fair use material. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I leave it to you, because to me...and again I could be biased here...38 fair-use images doesn't sounds like a great alternative when you have one fair-use image. Both ideas suck, just one sucks less. I tried. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 05:11
- It's not basically a non-free image gallery,it is a non-free image gallery of 38 copyrighted images. Most of these characters have their own articles, and most of them already have a non-free image in them. Duplication is therefore overuse, however you look at the situation. I'm a little concerned that those who think this is OK includes admins, who I'd expect to understand WP:NFCC. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be an issue if this was a discography of album covers for an obscure band,rather than a Doctor Who article, as well. Since it's a fairly blatant violation, my inclination would be to send it to IfD, where WP:ILIKEIT wouldn't be such an issue. Black Kite 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurs to me that the reader might remember a face but not a name. So you would force the reader to look through 38 articles to try to find the one he's looking for, rather than having this one-stop-shop guide. How does that serve the reader's interests? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point but *not* a consideration of fair use as I understand the term. The law wins over readability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's fair use rules have very little to do with legalities. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm absolutely astonished that there's people who actually think this montage is acceptable. You know, if I broke out every single one of these images, and put all 38 resulting images next to the appropriate characters at Companion_(Doctor_Who)#List_of_Television_companions, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The images would be gone, period. But since it's a montage it has some special standing? It has no special standing just because it's a montage!!! If it was a montage created by the BBC, then fine. That's *one* copyrighted work. We're dealing with __38__ copyrighted images here. This should be a no-brainer. Come on people. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
(also a reply to Hammersoft in the AN/I thread) I disagree. The images serve another purpose as a collage, rather than when they where listed side by side to the names: They allow the reader additional understanding of the way the companion role has changed over the course of more than 40 years. The number of images is never to be considered a reason for removal or inclusion, but only whether the number is needed and can be justified within the rules of WP:NFCC. If it does not fail WP:NFCC, it does not fail it, no matter if there are 1 or 100 used. Criterion 3a strictly says that less images are to be used if they "can convey equivalent significant information". If they can't, it cannot fail 3a. As Ckatz said above, I really think you should take it to WT:DW. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the images would actually be more useful broken out on their own and put into the list sequentially, just as the character list is. Looking at the image does not tell the user that this is a sequential presentation of the companions over time. Also, WT:DW isn't the place to be taking fair use issues, nor is any other project, just the same as you don't take AfD discussions only to the project that covers it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You must still have publication details and a fair use rationale for each original source image. As it stands, there's not even a link to the originals. Using someone else's work as part of your own collage without even giving them a proper citation is a straightforward copyright violation. Papa November (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails 3a in that there is also a second image of nearly each companion (and likely one for each if I scoured the episode pages) on the companion's main article page; that's duplicative fair use. It's use here also fails #8 - significance - as a picture of each and every companion is being used mostly for decorative purposes; the image does not aid in improving the understanding of the article - the only point that has been made is that this can provide a visual reference for those that remember a face but not the name, but that's still a decorative use, in the same way discographies and episode lists were stripped of images. --MASEM 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, clearly not minimal use, fails WP:NFCC#3a, would open the floodgates to an avalanche of copyrighted images if kept. We have NFCC for a reason, and that reason is that Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. The fact that it's not just fair use, it's a straight copyright violation because the originals aren't credited is probably a stronger reason to delete, but NFCC needs to be seen to be working as well. Black Kite 14:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image description clearly states the source for each image; they are gathered from screenshots or publication images. And as this is a collage depicting a cast ensamble of characters which have appeared over a span of 40+ years, there is no way this can be replaced with a free alternative. And since each individual image is cropped to show only the necessary part, there is no possibility of abuse. As to minimal use; We can't help it if there were 38 companions, so 38 is the minumim number. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- WP:OSE does not become a good argument, just because you use it the other way around. None of your examples are comparable: Those you listed are all characters, here we have only main characters - because of the subject at hand, with 40 years of history of Doctor Who, the amount of main characters is much higher. But that does not make them less main characters and as such have to be compared with the minor or recurring characters of other shows. SoWhy 15:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that just because there are X number of characters does not mean we should allow X number of images. This is why after massive haggling and debates lasting into practical infinity, Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles was hammered out. And no, just saying this isn't a list doesn't escape the underlying serious issues regarding fair use overuse. If this image is allowed to remain, we might as well vacate that guideline and allow montages of characters for every character list article. If this image is acceptable, so is any other montage image made by users and not the copyright source. What you are advocating is precisely that. There is a reason that other stuff DOES NOT exist in this case, and if you do allow it in this case there's no argument that can be made to prevent montages from covering every character list article. Even if we get past the blatant copyright violation problems, even if we get past the blatant missing fair use rationale issues, even if we get past the extremely loose identification of source problems, the issue still remains that there are 38 fair use images here, and that is massive overuse no matter how you try to slice it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the source of the original images is emphatically not "clearly stated". There is a blanket statement that they are all BBC screenshots from sometime in a 40 year period. That is not a proper citation. WP:IUP states that a minimum requirement for images is that sources must be verifiable. You need to say which episode each image is cropped from at the very least. For example, how could I check the source for the image in the third row, third column? It's not verifiable, so it must be deleted. Papa November (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. As IUP states: "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". That makes it sufficiently sourced. There is no reason to doubt that these images come from anywhere else then the BBC. One can always call the BBC to verify the images. — Edokter • Talk • 17:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hello, BBC copyright desk? Yes, I have an image that I think is from the Doctor Who series and I'm trying to verify that the source is actually the BBC? Ok great, well I've got a highly cropped headshot of Frazer Hines and am wondering if you can tell me if you hold copyright to that? No, I don't have any more context than just his head. Really? You sure? I mean, it's his face and everything. Surely you can have a look through every scene he's ever been in in the three seasons of Doctor Who and tell me if it matches up? <click> Hello? Hello?" Just saying it's "BBC" doesn't make it verifiable. What episode, at a minimum, is needed to verify. Saying "BBC" is the source is as useful as saying "Flickr" is the source. There's no way to verify. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly reasonable to question the copyright holder if there's no proof given. Could we make an article by copying 38 paragraphs verbatim from unknown sources and provide "All text from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968-2007" as the only reference? Of course not. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of whether it is text or images. Verifiability is essential. Papa November (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I interpret it, the image is sufficiently sourced and verifiable. How you interpret it is your business, but do not try to make ohters look ignorant just becuase they do not agree with you. — Edokter • Talk • 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I would've expected an admin to uphold our non-free image policy, rather than trying to manouevre their way round it because it's in an article which they are active on. Perhaps that's just me, though. Black Kite 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And someone else could point out that an admin should uphold WP:NPA. And you might say that you are not attacking Edokter here. But someone else might say that you are, telling the world that you think he is biased and acting against policy. But this should not be of any issue here. Whatever we personally like or want, we have all to assume that everyone here is only trying to apply the policy the correct way. As we all know, all policy cannot have rules for each and every problem, so there are always ways to see things differently that are still within the letter of the law, so to speak. AfD and XfD are processes specifically created to address this problem, so we can decide which interpretation is to be applied. So we should use the process, not caring who makes the arguments. Because no admin that participated here will close this IfD in the end. SoWhy 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: 38 fair-use images on one page, as Black Kite said, fails WP:NFCC. It is there for a reason, this is that reason. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 15:12
- Keep; there is absolutely no reasonable argument that this image is not legally fair use, and whether the image meets WP:NFCC is arguable, but my opinion is that it clearly does. It's encyclopedic, it's fair use, it's illustrative and it's a reasonable navigational aid. Given that the only other significant criterion is whether the image is replacable or not (it is not, many of those actors are dead or aged greatly, and any picture of them as their character would, at any rate, be just as covered by copyright to the same extent). I'm one of the very last person to cry "copyright paranoia", as I've deleted very many hundreds of copyvio from the encyclopedia myself, but this is definitely a case of trying to be more catholic than the pope. — Coren (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing that it isn't fair use. It is fair use. That's why we're talking about deleting it. You claim it clearly passes WP:NFCC. Fine. How do you justify 38 fair use images as "minimal use"? Would you please indicate where in policy or guideline that an image being a useful navigation aid is a reason to keep an image? As to being replaceable, I'll grant it's not replaceable. But, as I noted above, if that is the reason we keep it, then we might as well have such montages for all character lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we cannot let an out-of-context "38" overrule common sense. Saying this will lead to montages for all character lists is not a valid argument, as this is clearly a special case. Heroes has a large cast, but they are (for the most part) present at the same time during a given season. Thus, cast photos do exist and can be substituted. That is impossible with Doctor Who. The very nature of the casting for the series precludes cast photos, and even makes multi-character photos difficult. (It is rare to have more than one or two companion characters at a time, and new ones are not introduced until the old one leaves.) --Ckatzchatspy 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a special case at all. This is a character list. That is spans a period of time is irrelevant. The crucial point here is that there are 38 fair use images here that are not replaceable. That's why I raised the issue of Category:Lists of characters in television animation. Every single list in there contains characters who have no free license images of them available anywhere. If we allow this fair use montage in this supposedly special case, we must allow per-character images for every single character in that entire category. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not merely a list; the article covers every aspect on the subject of a companion. And most companions are critically covered in the article. How the article is categorizes has no bearing in this discussion; NFCC does not consider categories. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Keep. Fair and valid non free use of copyrighted images in this article. Other stuff arguments or speculative arguments or any other end of the world arguments are irrelevant. If people realy must interpret 'minimal use' as single use, then remove all the individual images spread around multiple articles and instead use a single well crafted and annoted fair use gallery format here to give the same visual information. Heaven knows that would suit our actual primary mission of presenting information of good quality and practical benefit to readers. The list specific policy point 4 seems to exlicitly allow reuse of article images, although it needs redrafting if you want it to apply to montages and not in text images. If people in all seriousness object to this montage on the 'free encyclopoedia' mantra, then why are they not listing them all for deletion? - as far as the free mission goes, the presence of a single montage on wikipedia in addition to the presence of single character article images is nothing in the grand scheme of things, that horse has already bolted. Don't oppose the informative but compliant non free use of images on the grounds of the NFC as a poor substitute for advancing the free content mission. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 38 images in the montage are not reuse of previously existing content on the encyclopedia. Try going through the companions, and you'll see. Our actual primary m:mission is as you say, except it also specifically includes reference to "under a free license". You can't overlook that. Fair use is not free, which is why we deliberately restrict fair use. This isn't just a single montage. Trying to evaluate this discussion based on the idea of this being one image is improper. We are talking about deleting 38 fair use images, not one. Minimal use prevents us from using 38 images in this manner, just as we stopped using screenshots in episode lists, and album covers in discographies. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under the impression that "minimum" equals "one". It doesn't. If 38 is the minimum number of images used required to convey the context, then 38 is the minimum as applied to NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're right. "Minimum" actually equals zero. Regardless of that, every single one of those images that is used in a separate article (which is most of them) is overuse. It's not a difficult concept to understand, surely? Black Kite 18:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- If that's what you really think, I'd seriously suggest you reconsider your position as an administrator of a Free Encylopedia. Because this image conveys nothing. It's just a navigation aid. Black Kite 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to attack me... If you cannot participate in this discussion on the merits of the subject itself, without playing to the man, I seriously advice you to step away from this discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- "Failing to uphold policy" is only your point of view. Others believe the image does meet NFCC. You point of view does not make it the Universal TruthTM. Stop acusing ohters like that; it really diminishes your credibility. — Edokter • Talk • 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you then please defend having one image per character and why this is necessary? Could you then please take the time to describe why such an argument would apply to this article, and this article only and not to every article in Category:Lists_of_television_characters and all it's sub categories? What sets this article apart as being unique? Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not, the accepted norm isn't to allow per character images on articles for identification purposes. We simply don't permit it. We do accept cast photos, or a small subset of the entire list being pictured, but not the entire list. That's been the norm for a long time now. So why should this article and this article alone be an exception to that? What makes it special that we should ignore those standards and allow it on this article? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many argument posted here already. This is a special case spanning the history of the companion for over 40 years. Therefor it is bound to stretch the defenition of "minimum", but it doesn't break it. It presents a unique timeline that cannot be otherwise conveyed. So I pose that it is permitted. Policy is broad enough that you cannot throw around these blanket statements; Or to put it in your perspective: if this one isn't permitted, no fair use image should ever be permitted, period. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the article doesn't discuss changes in the characters very much at all. If one image per character doesn't break minimum use requirements, could you suggest a case where the minimum use requirements would be broken? Two per character? Three? Five? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My credibility? Yes, very funny. I'm not the admin that is arguing against Wikipedia policy here, am I? What we usually do here, is raise an RfC. Hopefully, that wont' be required. Black Kite 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe that the criteria for inclusion is conveying information to the reader, then there's no limitation on fair use on the project at all. Anyone can upload a fair use image, use it in an article, and claim it conveys information. The m:mission of Wikimedia will never 'thin'. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It adds to the understanding of the article. And you know very well these discussion do not set a precendent, so presenting doomsday scenarios doesn't help your argument. — Edokter • Talk • 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The copywrite issues can be solved. As Mick (and others) say it should be possible to include a crop of the 38 images that are shown on the character pages. What we are looking for here is a fair use reason for these images to appear on this page. Some have been raised above, but I feel they are getting lost:
- Aid to navigation
- Showing all the companions, with the variety in gender, spieces etc
- Showing how the role of companion has changed over time.
- Not otherwise available
Edgepedia (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Being an aid to navigation is not a sufficient fair use rationale, else we'd allow fair use images on templates. (2) Just showing the companions is not sufficient fair use justification in this case. (3) There's no discussion of specific images with relation to changes in the nature of the role. (4) Their being no free alternatives available does not make them acceptable in full. It just clears one (item #1 of WP:NFCC) of many hurdles of NFCC. The image isn't being considered for deletion for failing item #1 of NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- No need to apologise. I was trying to summerize what I saw as the arguments here. The above statement is not helpful as it is too general, and I don't think we could (should) come up with a definitive list if what is and what is not fair use as this would be too restrictive. The question here is is this fair use in this article. WP:IAR has also been cited. Edgepedia (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was noting is there is no exception clause anywhere that grants non-free content a free pass just because it's used in a navigational element. That it is a navigational aid is therefore not a valid defense. Also, WP:IAR isn't applicable here. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy at the top where it says "This policy may not ... ignored on local Wikimedia projects". We can't just ignore our EDP by asserting WP:IAR, as WP:IAR is specifically disallowed in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is about the role of the companion in Doctor Who. The only real way to illustrate an article on a Doctor Who companion is to include an image of a Doctor Who companion - otherwise, the image would not connect with the article. However, we cannot just choose 1 picture - say Sarah Jane Smith because of her 30 years association with the show and her own spin=off series - because that would be exercising POV, i.e. that Sarah Jane Smith is more of a companion than Rose Tyler, who was the first companion of the revived Who, or Donna Noble, who was said (by the Doctor) to be "the most important woman in the whole of creation". What better to show the diverse range of 38 companions, each different and thus offering something different to the role of Companion, which is what the article is about, than the 38 companions? We could, of course, have a seperate picture of each 38 of them, but then there would be far more picture than text in the article, and we would probably end up with something reminiscient of this mass deletion attempt of articles. This way is minimal use, not 38 seperate pictures. I can see nothing really wrong with the Fair Use rationale, but if you believe it needs to be fixed in any way, feel free to go ahead and be bold. We do not delete articles if they have one sentence that is NPOV - instead they get a nice little template. In this way, the image should not be removed if, as you say, there is a fixable problem with the Fair Use rationale. User:Wolf of Fenric has not edited for 16 days (something which unfortunatly failed The Last Sontaran's GA), and so has not had a chance to comment on this, or fix the supposed Fair Use rationale problem, but others can - weebiloobil (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let's contrast List of Shadow Raiders characters. The article is about the roles of characters in Shadow Raiders. The only real way to illustrate an article about this is to include an image of the characters. Etc..etc.. The litmus test isn't whether we can illustrate the article with fair use images or not. I'm sorry. We already have 38 images for each companion. That's the point. This is a montage of 38 fair use images. It most emphatically IS 38 fair use images because the montage was created by an editor here, not by someone at the BBC. You can't take 38 protected works, slap them together in a montage, and say it's really only one work so it's ok to have one image. As to the copyright problems being fixable; yes, they are. But we also routinely delete images that fail on this criterion.--Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's not fixable in its present form, though. However you look at it, it's 38 copyrighted images (overuse), practically all of which are used - in a different form - in other articles (further overuse). I don't see how that can be defended, to be honest. Black Kite 18:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I surveyed the first two rows of images. Of the ten, only three are crops of other images existing on the project. Taking Image:Steven Taylor.jpg for an example, the image description page indicates [1] as a source. That's appropriate sourcing. Contrast; Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg makes no mention of this source. 7 of the first 10 images, we have no clue as to their actual source other than "BBC". There's no way to verify the source. That's improper sourcing, and IS a reason for deletion alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd only point out that any more Keep votes really need to point out how this image passes our copyrighted image policies, because none have so far. Black Kite 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise - you tell me where the minimal use criteria is defined as one image in one article. You tell me why the Free Encyclopoedia goal as protected by the NFC is actually satisifed by having 38 images in 38 articles, but isn't by having 38 images in 38 articles, plus one gallery in a germaine article (which reuses images in compliance with the use in lists policy subsection). You worry about whether your floodgate argument holds water, let the keepers worry about whether they have correctly and rationally interpreted the NFC restrictions. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mick. Surely, it's the very definition of "minimal use"? 38 images in 38 articles could be argued to be minimal because it's one per article, but there's no way that 38 in a single article could be argued equally. I can't find - at a quick scan - a single article in the entire encyclopeda that uses 38 copyrighted images, in fact I can't find one that has survived using more than a quarter of that number. That says to me that we use non-free images judiciously, and not purely because they are available. Black Kite 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The very definition would be those exact words. The merits of the magic number of 38 and other articles have been addressed already. MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh cool! off to populate all the character articles with screenshots of each character. That was easy! Once I'm done with that, I'll start repopulating all the episode lists with screenshots. Oh, then I'll have a quick run through of discographies and put the album covers back in. It's all minimal use, right? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This usage is not the same as an episode list or a discography. "Minimal usage" is not "1 image 1 article". You can answer with more sarcasm if you like, it still won't negate these basic points, and it still won't be taken seriously. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be more than happy to, thanks for the invite. I never said 1 image 1 article, but thanks for providing the strawman to knock down. The basic point is there is no valid argument that 38 images is minimal use, and this image violates basic, fundamental Foundation issues. Fair use image use must be minimal. This is not negotiable. The Foundation's resolution can not be eroded or superseded by flawed ideas that 38 images somehow constitutes "minimal" use. Also, as I keep asking, would someone please defend how this article is different from the various different categories I noted? People keep saying it is, and all I get in return is a vague "it shows the progression of the companions", which as a poster later on down noted, can readily be replaced. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, I was under the belief that for an image to be deleted, it needs to be shown how it fails the crtieria. NFCCs #3a and #8 have been mentioned, and explained - minimal usage as it only includes 1 picture of each 38 companions, who, coincidentaly, the article concerns, and significance, as it is needed to see the range of, difference between, and common features of companions. Don't assume that all of the people saying Keep don't have valid reasons for why it passes #3a and #8. All is detailed above - weebiloobil (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they clearly don't, because it's already been proved that it fails WP:NFCC#3a, because nearly all the images are used in their characters own articles. That's overuse whichever way you look at it. How can it not be? Black Kite 18:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the argument that 1 image per character constitutes minimal use, then adding per character images to every article containing a list of characters would of course be permitted. Similarly, repopulating the list of episodes articles with screenshots from each episode should proceed ahead. This simply isn't the case. Also of note; for an image to be kept, it's not up to the people requesting deletion to prove how it fails, it's up to the people in favor of keeping how it passes. Just because an image is existing here doesn't make it more difficult to delete; it still has to pass the hurdles, and it's up to the people who want to keep it to show how it passes every one of the criteria at WP:NFCC. Weebiloobil, you maintain that the images are necessary in their form to show the progression of the companions. Yet, there's virtually no discussion of that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's been a prevailing impression that all 38 of these thumbnail images in the montage are previously existing images on the project. That's not the case. I've finished a review of all 38 thumbnails vs. the fictional character articles, and only 11 of these thumbnails are from previously existing content. This violates Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles #4. 27 of them are from some other as yet unidentified source (other than generically "BBC"). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of the 38 thumbnail images in the montage, 9 of them are clearly replaceable fair use images. These 9 match up to their appearances in 8th, 9th, and 10th doctors. All of them are alive, and their apperance in the show is not significantly different than how they appear in 'real life', making it possible to replace their faces with free works and convey the same meaning. This failure alone makes the montage fail WP:NFCC #1. Nobody has previously said this image fails that criterian. I'm stating it now. 1/4th of the image is clearly replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has been discussed before and was already established that we cannot use actor's images to portay a character, simply because the actors are not in character. It would also violate WP:BLP as the actors would be misrepresented as being in character while they are not. — Edokter • Talk • 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Here's a sample discussion. And no, you cannot use actor's images as character images, just as you cannot use character's images to depict the actor/actress; that constitutes a misrepresentation and technically violates BLP. — Edokter • Talk • 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I think this is a non-starter. To say that a particular photo of say Billie Piper looks (enough) to pass as Rose Tyler is OR. Media companies and actors go to great lenghts to create a consistent and believeable character image. I think that attempting to pass off an image of (eg) Billie Piper at a public function as if she were playing Rose Tyler in character on set is dishonest and some readers would feel insulted. I also think that this more likely to get the attention of the media companies and actors as they protect their brand. Edgepedia (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC specifically states that non-free content is only used when free content can not be created to serve the same purpose. A free license tightly cropped face shot of Billie Piper serves the same purpose. Observe: Image:Billiepiperdebate.jpg. There's essentially no difference in these images other than that in the free half of the image, she's smiling. Big whoop. There's no elements of costume here, or anything else that uniquely identifies the image on the left as being from Dr. Who, and the image on the right as not being from Dr. Who. This makes it completely replaceable by a free image, and thus this entire image fails WP:NFCC #1. The companions image isn't being used for any other purpose than identification of the actors/actresses, and a free content image serves the same encyclopedic purpose. If the person had a costume that made them dramatically different, this wouldn't be an issue here. But, the companions do not have costuming on their faces, outside of a bit of makeup here and there. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the caption going to be? It it says Rose Tyler, or implies Rose Tyler, I am starting to think that's fraud. And just because you can't see a difference, this doesn't mean that the BBC or Billie Piper (or her management) will not see a difference. I think this is a very dangerous road.Edgepedia (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a far safer road to use the free license imagery over the non-free. So what if the BBC or Billie Piper complains? In the former case, there's nothing the BBC can do as they would hold no rights of any kind with respect to the image. They have no legal standing. In the latter case, there's personality rights but she was appearing in a public venue where expectation of privacy was non-existent, so her legal standing is very iffy as well. They can complain all they want regarding a free license image, but the reality is it IS free and they can't stop it. That is most emphatically not the case with the non-free image being used in ways that violate fair use law. Give me the free license image every time; they can't touch us. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NFCC applies not only to images in one article, but to all non-free use on WP as to keep it to a minimum. If, for example, an actor's character role is so notable as to require a non-free image on the actor's page (a rare, but acceptable case), then if that character itself is also notable to have an article, we reuse the same image, not create a new one. This is the same case here, in that each companion save for a few have their own page, and have a non-free image on that page; having 38 separate (even if smaller cropped versions), or a single user-created montage (representing 38 non-free uses) is duplicative and thus fails #3a. Now, one might turn around and say that, well why not reuse a picture of each companion in the list on the article, and that is the other side of the coin is that in this case, each image would be used purely for decorative use to identify each character, and just like with episode lists and discographies, this is not acceptable. That brings me to the fact that there is a way to still have an image on the "Companion" page which does not raise any red flags from NFCC , and that is to use either a still or a promo image of five possible cases: First Doc with Susan, Ian, and Barbara (circa "Unearthly Child"); Fourth doc with Romana and K-9; Fourth/Fifth Doc with Adric, Nyssa, and Tegan; stills from "The Five Doctors"; or stills from the near finale part of "Journey's End"; all which show an example of the type of companions the Doc has to make the point, the Doctor rarely travels alone on his journey. You need only one non-free image (without the weight of user-created derivative works) to do this. --MASEM 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Further to MASEM's comments which I believe has persuaded me that this should be deleted, has anyone explained why an image of EVERY companion is required, when an example of companions would suffice? The only reason I can see is that the article does discuss (or at least mention) each companion... but that sounds like a list and we shouldn't do that. There could easily be a comment in the text regarding the types of companions and how they progress, I'm unsure how the omission of this image would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader. --WORM | MЯOW 13:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
This one is rather simple. WP:NFCC requires reliable sources to meet the terms of WP:NFCC. Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg is an unauthorized derivative work. While there may be reliable sources that discuss some of the people in the derivative work, there is no reliable source that discusses Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg. Without reliable sources to meet even the most simple "identification purpose" under WP:NFCC, this image can never meet WP:NFCC under any circumstances. -- Suntag ☼ 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already raised above; This is a collage, not a derivative work. I also cited NFCC requirements for sourcing ("URL or copyright holder"). The image is adequately sourced. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A collage "is an expressive creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work". By definition, it is therefore a derivative work! Papa November (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Papa November. This is blatantly a derivative work. If it's adequately sourced, then please explain how I can go about verifying who owns copyright on this? A generic call to the BBC for verifying if they own a tightly cropped headshot of an actor/actress will yield nothing. There's no way to verify, because there's no specific source. At a minimum, if these images come from screenshots they should be identified as to the episode they were drawn from. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than being a collage (which does not appear in the U.S. Federal Codes. see search), I think you mean that it is a compilation. A compilation under 17 U.S.C. § 101 is
a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.
Original work of authorship mean that you hold the copyright. However, you likely need the permission of the copyright holder of each photograph to make the collection a valid 17 USC 101 compilation. However, even if it were a compilation, a compilation runs afowl of original research since the decisions to include and exclude photos and the decision to arrange the photos in a particular order are done by a Wikipedia editor rather than based on a reliable source. Also the URL source of each image and reliable sources discussing the compilation image are two separate issues. -- Suntag ☼ 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, compilation. Since no copyright is claimed on the compilation aspect of the image, it doesn't really come into play here. Compilations also fall under fair use in the code, as each image is basically a "quote" form each original image, and as such does not need permission. As for sourcing; NFCC states that listing the copyright holder is sufficient as a source for the images used. There is also no original research involved; the image simply lists every companion in chronological order. No unverifiable synthesis or theory has been used to determine the final image. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC does not make the claim you think it does. It does require an attribution of the source of the material and the copyright holder, not just the copyright holder. See also Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_uploading_an_image which has an excellent example (the offline source) showing that the holder and the source is specified. Just saying "BBC" is insufficient, and leaves us with an unverifiable image. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Edokter. If there is no creativity in the arrangement, then it does not qualify for a compilation. If there is creativity in the arrangement, that may qualify the arrangement as a compilation, but then that brings up original research (they get you coming and going). The purpose and actual uses in the article should be based on reliable source material. Oddly, NFCC doesn't seem to explicitly appear to say that, but when NFCC talks about critical commentary and information prupose, that identification should come from reliable source material. I'm seeing your position better, so perhaps the issue is not as simple as I first thought it (I struck my "simple" comment above). Instead of thinking that your actions were out there, I've changed to think that your efforts are reasonable. However, I still believe that they may not meet NFCC requirements. -- Suntag ☼ 15:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically a compilation, no crativity is claimed. Claiming OR is a misnomer; If 38 seperate images were used in the same arrangement in the article, would that constitute OR as well? — Edokter • Talk • 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously fails the NFCC. This is not minimal usage. It is not minimal extent of use. It is effectively a gallery of non-free images which can be replaced with a text list of the actors who played the roles. I also submit that it fails NFCC 8 pretty handily--how does this gargantuan block of images significantly improve the understanding of the topic. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comments on ANI. However, I think it should be edited to remove some of the more minor characters, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At AN/I, you noted "38 sounds like a lot, but in this situation it seems fine to me". There's no actual defense here. WP:NFCC notes, in the bottom enforcement area, that it is up to Wikipedians wishing to keep an image to provide a convincing non-free-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. Your defense is "seems fine"? There's no explanation on your part of why 38 isn't a lot, just that it seems fine. Several strong arguments have been put forth showing how this image is not compliant with our policies on minimal use. Disputing those points with "seems fine" is rather insufficient if you wish to keep this image. Further on AN/I, you note "there is no ban on fair use images for "list of" articles, or ones that appear to be lists" you are technically correct, but there is policy and foundation resolution strictly limiting fair use content, and there is a guideline specifically limited quantity of fair use on lists, and we do outright ban fair use images on discographies and episode lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is another example of the "free" and "encyclopedia" parts of Wikipedia's mission coming into conflict. An encyclopedic treatment of this concept would include images of the characters, but a strict interpretation of the current guidelines at WP:NFC does not permit this image, despite its usefulness to readers. I'm going to abstain from !voting, but I do think that the deletion of a useful and informative image like this would be a shame. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the decision to keep something were based only on whether it was useful or not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're just not debating whether it's useful or not. What this debate is showing is the great divide among wikipedia editors, between those who think fair use should be liberally allowed so long as it's useful and those who wish to have a free content encyclopedia, in as much as possible. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely an article is much more "useful" if every element of it can be freely modified and distributed? Non-free images cannot. Papa November (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of ideological absolutism isn't very helpful. As a general principle, of course free content is preferable to non-free content, and in an ideal world it would be possible to create a comprehensive encyclopedia with no non-free content at all. But we don't live in an ideal world, and in order to make a comprehensive encyclopedia we sometimes need to use non-free content. Whether this particular example is essential to a comprehensive understanding of the subject is debatable. But it's silly not to admit that usefulness to the reader here and now sometimes comes into conflict with the theoretical ability for downstream users to adapt and reuse the content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets fair use requirements, in my opinion. Unreplaceable with a free equivalent, adds significantly to the understanding of the article, low resolution, highly unlikely to impact the earnings of the copyright holder. fish&karate 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the copyright violations have not been addressed. It is a requirement that the source is verifiable. Stating that the BBC made it some time in the last 40 years is nowhere near good enough. Papa November (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least 9 of the thumbnails in the image are replaceable, making this image non-compliant. Observe Image:Billiepiperdebate.jpg. A tightly cropped face shot for Dr. Who companions shows nothing unique to their character appearance that they would not be exhibiting in a free, out of character shot. They are essentially the same. That makes these 9 thumbnails replaceable, and the entire image fails WP:NFCC. Not to mention that it fails a number of other WP:NFCC requirements, including #3a, #6, #8 and #10. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion on what is and is not appropriate is based on a guideline section of NFCC not the policy part ("acceptable use"), and is different from mine; showing a picture of Billie Piper "out of character" - and then labelling it as an image of Piper playing Rose - would be deceptive, and the image is not therefore replaceable with a free equivalent, as no free equivalent does or can exist. 3a is not failed, as one single image could not convey the same information. 6 is certainly met. 8 is subjective, but I would say it does enhance understanding, and 10 is a technical issue that can easily be remedied. This is not "keep throwing NFCC rules until you get the image deleted". fish&karate 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article Companion (Doctor Who) is about the character concept as well as a list of specific fictional entities who have fallen within that concept. There is no critical commentary and discussion on the specific characters on their imagery in this article, failing the non-free content acceptable use guidelines. Use as a navagational aid as it's performing in the lede, does not satisfy said guideline.
As has been demonstrated and alluded to, twelve of the copyrighted images have libre equivalent images of the actors and actresses depicted. Whether some of those specific libre images can or cannot adequately replace their non-free bretheren: (a) there is no rationale for not using the free images in the IDP and (b) WP:NFCC#1 also stipulates that such libre imagery not be attainable. Some of the character's actors—while not having such copyleft media currently on Wikipedia—are certainly still around and available to be photographed. WP:NFCC#1 is not met. For the purposes of character depiction, every individual character article already uses non-free content to depict there ctaracters (whether legitimately in line with #1 or not, I won't discuss here). Using that imagery again or new different copyrighted imagery fails WP:NFCC#3. For the reader to adequately understand the character concept of a "companion" and that "x character was a companion at x time and was portrayed by x" doesn't require copyrighted imagery and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of "companions". The prose provided at Companion (Doctor Who) is wholly sufficient to understand its topic, and the redaction of the copyrighted images in the lede would not be detrimental to that understanding—navigation, perhaps, but that's not a criteria to be considered when determining compliance with WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#10a requires attribution of the material's source. As the criterion is not specific, only my interpertation thereof determines that each individual copyrighted image should be specifically attributed an indivudual, specifically identified, verifiable source; "this or that between then and then, all owned by the BBC" is wholly inadequate for copyright holder verification purposes. However, per the specific wording of the criterion, I would not base a deletion argument on its non-fulfillence. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as we all seem to agree, this is clearly fair use. The minimal amount of use some people (including some admins) seem to think somehow limits us to one or two images per article. That is arbitrary. The question is if this meets NFCC. I've not seen a good argument that it doesn't. Just people's idea what minimal means. To me it means "as little as possible to do an acceptable job of coverage of the topic". And nothing will do as good a job showing the diversity of the companions over time as this image does. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This article is not a list, or at the least not just a list. It is an article about a topic. It could have covered the topic as both an article and a separate list list, but it did not. That's an editorial decision. The image is not in the "list-like" part of the article in any case. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm just responding to your comment about lists. Are you in agreement (this isn't a list and so the part of NFC you cited doesn't apply)? I don't even know how I'd look for a certain number of images in an article, let alone fair-use ones. I do know that there has been edit warring (including by folks in this discussion) in an attempt to get their definition of minimal used for fair-use images. So their may be no others for all I know. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, while working on something else, I did find a bunch of them like this. I almost feel bad for bringing it up here as I suspect it will just get others to go in and start removing images. But [2] has
41 24 as far as I can tell. There are a lot of articles like this. As there should be IMO. If we start removing images from article like this, people will just start unmerging them... Hobit (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- The articles were blatantly in violation of standing practice with regards to episode lists and fair use screenshots of the episodes. I don't count it as a 'win' (there's nothing to 'win' here), just as routine maintenance of the project. The usage simply was not legitimate. Can you cite an article that legitimately uses a few dozen or more fair use images? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with a simular collage of images taken from the 'fair use' images on the individual character pages, cropped as required. Delete because strictly it fails WP:NFCC#10a. However we can reuse 'fair use' images on list pages (although I would argue this is more than a list page), this is explictly allowed by Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles #4. It seems to be that this exactly the type of article were such a reuse of a non free is justified for the reasons given by several people above. We can not use a 'free' image of an actor to represent a character because to say that the photo sufficicently looks like the character is not verifiable and therefore OR. Edgepedia (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because a fair use image exists in one place on Wikipedia does not mean that it can be used wherever and however we like on the project. Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles doesn't permit having per character images for all characters on ANY article (be it a list or otherwise). Also, your claim that we can't use free imagery is false. In fact, this is the stance of the project; we MUST use it when such content conveys the same encyclopedic purpose. To undermine this critical element of our fair use policy by claiming any use of free content in place of fair use content constitutes original research puts these two policies in conflict, rather than in concert. Obviously this isn't the case. They work in concert. Image:Billiepiperdebate.jpg is a blatant case where WP:NFCC #1 applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I thought I would come back to you here, because this time I actually looked at Image:Billiepiperdebate.jpg. I was told once on Wikipedia that we are not interested in the truth (whatever that may be), but that everything needs a verifable, reliable source. Therefore where is your verifable, reliable source that the second 'free' image is an image of Rose Tyler? They look very different to me. I am worried that you are letting your obvious enthusiasm for 'free' copywrite cloud your judgement. Also while perhaps you haven't yet got there I would point out that trying to 'pass off' something for what it isn't is treated seriously. Edgepedia (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and improve sourcing. I think User:BaseballBugs gave perhaps the most important reason that this image is valuable, in his contribution to the ANI thread quoted above:
- It occurs to me that the reader might remember a face but not a name. So you would force the reader to look through 38 articles to try to find the one he's looking for, rather than having this one-stop-shop guide. How does that serve the reader's interests?
- This is a huge consideration when we are thinking about how best we can "significantly improve a reader's understanding of the topic" (NFC #8). A reader vaguely remembers the face of a Doctor Who companion, but not the name. Where do they come? The natural page for them to go to is Companion (Doctor Who) to see whether there is something there to jog their memory. With this picture, they identify the character they are interested in, and are able to significantly improve their understanding. Without it, probably not.
- With this picture, they can also put names to other faces they remember, and therefore relate to who the article is referring to when it is talking about "Dodo" or "Victoria" or "Liz Shaw", which otherwise could well be a closed book to them. So yes, this image can help "significantly improve understanding" - before we even get on to the points made about the value of this image.
- Let's also think about some of the other issues that have been raised:
- - Minimal use.
- What is "minimal use"? Minimal use is the use of no more than is needed to achieve the objectives claimed.
- The appearance of this criterion in WP's policy is derived straight from US Copyright law, specifically factor #3 (Amount and substantiality) of the four fair-use factors applied by US Courts. Perhaps the most significant rulings for our purposes here are those in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc.: "If the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her". The use here is minimal, because any less would not achieve the purpose identified above.
- Additionally, I think the likes of Hammersoft and Black Kite in this discussion fail to give sufficient credit to just how much the creators of this image have done to minimise what is technically called the copyright "taking" -- by very tightly cropping the images, and then very aggressively minimising them to sub-thumbnail size. Both of these actions minimise (though certainly do not eliminate) the artistic and creative value that is being "taken" from the original material. (Cf both Kelly and Perfect 10). Personally, with the extremely shrunken size of these images, I think we are actually less of a taking of copyright material than the typical four or five images that often illustrate list articles. It is not just a numbers game. I also think the appearance of the fair use material in the Companions article is commendably restrained - indeed IMO it is less visually prominent than we typically accept. It is a good example of WP legally using fair use material minimally and appropriately to achieve a particular end.
- - Unsafety.
- Hammersoft at 17:27, 24 October 2008 suggests there is a "safety" issue here for WP. This is important, because WP's overriding purpose is the creation and dissemination of new GFDL content. We do not allow any fair use material if there is any realistic possibility that it might in any way disrupt or threaten that purpose. We are here to write an encylopedia, not to fight lawsuits. However, it seems generally agreed from all sides (if we exclude occasional rhetorical hyperbole) that in truth there is no legal risk here, neither to ourselves, nor to any commercial downstream re-user reproducing our page verbatim, because this usage falls well within U.S. fair use law.
- We could also ask ourselves, what is the worst that could happen? However unlikely, what is the risk? We could receive a take-down order, and then -let's be absolutely clear- the content would be down within the day, no questions asked. But here it is perhaps particularly unlikely, considering that the Doctor Who production itself used this Wikipedia collage, which appeared at the time on the Doctor Who article (since artistically degraded, for copyright reasons), as its visual reference for drawings of past Doctors for the episode Human Nature. Quite an interesting example of the presence of Wikipedia content facilitating new creative re-use!
- - What Wikipedia is for.
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to empower our readers, to bring human beings closer to "freely sharing in the sum of all knowledge" as m:vision puts it.
- Some seem to hold that removing an image that both we and our verbatim downstream reusers can perfectly legally reuse serves in some way to empower our readers. I have to say, I don't see it.
- Our m:mission sets out what makes WP distinctive and different, our reason for existence which must not be threatened. We create new free content, in a particularly free and open way. But it has long been recognised that English Wikipedia is not a free-content-only encyclopedia. Indeed (to paraphrase from the rationale to WP:NFCC) it is recognised that the judicious use of non-free content, minimising legal exposure, can support WP's production of free content. This is such a case. The image is legal, and compliant with WP:NFCC. The article is a better article for including it, more useful, and therefore more likely to have its GFDL text well cared for and appreciated.
- As User:Coren put it above (in the ANI thread):
- While the fair use doctrine is far from entirely clear, I'm quite certain the collage qualifies. It is for educational or critique purposes, they are low-resolution stills of a television program, they are a trivial portion of the copyrighted work as a whole and they do not affect the market value of the work. It passes all legal tests without so much as a doubt. The question of whether the image also meets the more stringent NFCC criteria is also clear: there can be no free equivalent, the use is minimal, and it is used in an article.
- As he then put it in this AfD, we don't have to "be more catholic than the pope".
- Therefore, keep. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you believe the most important reason to keep is that it is useful? In that case, we should do away with all minimal use standards, and populate discography, videography, episode, and character articles. Having such imagery does significantly enhance reader's understanding of a topic. Hell, in character articles with dozens of characters, knowing who is who is virtually impossible without the character images themselves.
- Whether or not there is a legal threat is a straw man. Wikipedia's policies are deliberately a superset of the law. No user here should ever be evaluating whether there is a legal risk to hosting content or not.
- The point is to create a free content resource, and per Foundation dictum keep fair use to minimal levels. As to your "What Wikipedia is for" comments, if we are not concerned about down stream use vis-a-vis fair use content, then there's no reason we can't have dozens of fair use images all over discography, videography, character and episode lists.
- Essentially what this boils down to is you advocating that Wikipedia give up it's m:mission and liberally allow fair use everywhere, so long as it's legal, and therefore this image is permissible. I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammersoft, you seem to be saying that you think this image is useful, does significantly help enhance reader understanding, is legal to be used by WP, and is legally re-usable by verbatim downstream reusers. And yet you still want to see it deleted.
- The question I have to ask is Cui bono? - who benefits?
- Who is it that you think is empowered by removing their access to this image in this article?
- - Mission
- I see you repeating extensively that you think fair use like this conflicts with WP's m:mission. I think you are wrong. m:mission sets out that WP's core activity is the creation of GFDL material. Non-free images are at best a side activity. But WP is, quite deliberately, not a free-content-only project. And WP:NFCC gives the policy view that appropriate use of fair use images positively supports WP's m:mission.
- Wikipedia's policies are deliberately a superset of the law to guard against the three key areas where the non-free content might come into conflict with WP's core activity. It might directly supplant the creation of possible new free material, including possible new GFDL text. It might cause legal problems, causing us to have to divert resources from our primary activities. And it might restrict the re-usability of our content. We are agreed, I think, on the first two: this image does not supplant the creation of possible alternative new free material, and it does not pose a legal threat. What about re-usability? As I understand it, the WP:NFCC policy is framed to make sure we are confident that there is no risk to verbatim downstream re-users, including commercial ones. Re-users who are going to extensively modify and adapt our content are less of an issue, because if they're going to be editing it anyway, they can ask themselves the question, "is including this non-free content still legitimate for my new use?", and we best empower them by letting them make their own decision. But re-users who re-use our content substantially verbatim are not going to go through that process, so on their behalf we want the content to be legal. In this case, it seems generally accepted that it is.
- - Discographies, Episode lists, etc
- The difference I see in this image, compared to discographies and episode lists, is that in this case visual representation is more likely to significantly help enhance reader recognition and thence reader understanding. (Albums are more usually remembered for their songs; episodes for their plots or their gags; but tv characters are very likely to be remembered through their faces). Compared to other character articles, firstly this is a collection of the major characters who carried the show for whole series, not odds-and-sods minor characters; secondly, due to the time-span, there is not the possibility of a "season characters" group shot. Instead, the creators have resorted to a different approach, aggressively cropping and shrinking the photos to the greatest extent possible, to comply with the "minimal use" requirement of WP:NFCC, the Foundation resolution, and U.S. fair use law. Jheald (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire. Albums are frequently remembered for their covers, and many of them have been iconic in music history. People frequently do remember them for their covers. You state that fair use image use supports Wikipedia's mission, but fail to show how. You seem to think that it's about the law. It isn't. The image most emphatically does supplant the creation of free content, it could potentially cause legal problems, and it does restrict downstream use.
- Sweeping accusations.
- So, what is this new free content that might be added to the article if and only if the image were deleted, that you claim the image is supplanting?
- What is the analysis that leads you to the claim that this image could cause legal problems (in contrast to the views of apparently everyone else on this page) ?
- What is a single concrete scenario where this image would restrict downstream use? Jheald (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm stopping there. I'll be brutally blunt here. You and I have never agreed on any single point with regards to fair use image use. From my chair, it appears you'd prefer fair use images to be used whenever and however they can be used, so long as it's "legal". Your opinion and mine are diametrically opposed, and there's not much point in you and I continuing to debate things. Just wearing down our keyboards for no purpose. I know your position, and you know mine. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not me you have to convince, it's the closing admin.
- Also my position, like the Foundation's, is rather more than it just being "legal". It must also not prejudice the creation of alternative free content. And it must be legal for verbatim reusers, including commercial reusers, not just ourselves. I think perhaps you sometimes underestimate the barrier that "legal" represents. Our taking must represent a valid re-use per the first factor, and it must be "minimal" - no more than required to make possible that use. That is why WP:NFCC is written as stringently as it is.
- But you want to go beyond that. Even such an image you would object to. This I don't understand. Who is it supposed to benefit? Every time I have asked you that you have closed down the conversation and never given me an answer. Jheald (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously in this discussion, I've noted how keeping this image would erode our policy and guidelines on fair use image use in such things as discographies. As an example of this, I have created a montage image of albums produced by The Cheetah Girls, and placed the montage with an imagemap on The Cheetah Girls discography, just as has been done on Companion (Doctor Who).
I submit that the image would be acceptable if the image we are debating here is acceptable. The reasons I cite are the reasons as cited by the 'keep'ers above:
- Each cover is actually a link to an article. So it's of benefit to the users and does no harm otherwise. [3]
- Image description page clearly states the source for each cover as The Walt Disney Company. There is no way this can be replaced with a free alternative. Since each individual image is very low resolution,is no possibility of abuse. As to minimal use; We can't help it if there were 8 albums, so 8 is the minumim number. [4]
- There is absolutely no reasonable argument that this image is not legally fair use. It's encyclopedic, it's fair use, it's illustrative and it's a reasonable navigational aid. [[5]]
- Fair and valid non free use of copyrighted images in this article. Other stuff arguments or speculative arguments or any other end of the world arguments are irrelevant. The list specific policy point 4 seems to exlicitly allow reuse of article images. [6]
- The only real way to illustrate an article on a The Cheetah Girls discography is to include an image of the album covers. This way is minimal use, not 8 separate pictures. [7]
- In this situation it seems fine to me. [8][9]
- Meets fair use requirements, in my opinion. Unreplaceable with a free equivalent, adds significantly to the understanding of the article, low resolution, highly unlikely to impact the earnings of the copyright holder. [10]
- As we all seem to agree, this is clearly fair use. The minimal amount of use some people (including some admins) seem to think somehow limits us to one or two images per article. That is arbitrary. The question is if this meets NFCC. I've not seen a good argument that it doesn't. Just people's idea what minimal means. To me it means "as little as possible to do an acceptable job of coverage of the topic". And nothing will do as good a job showing the diversity of the covers over time as this image does. [11]
- This article is not a discography, or at the least not just a discography. It is an article about a topic. It could have covered the topic as both an article and a separate discography list, but it did not. That's an editorial decision. The image is not in the "discography-like" part of the article in any case. [12]
If I'm missing any arguments put forth by the 'keep'ers, please feel free to add to this list of reasons to keep this montage of album covers.
If you think the image we are debating is clearly different than the album covers montage, then by all means be specific as to exactly why it is different and why we should not allow such album cover montages but do allow character image montages for this specific, supposedly unique case of the Doctor Who companions, while not permitting any other character montages. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is baiting, and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Breaching experiments are not welcome here. Had I not argued "keep" earlier, and could be seen to be involved, I would consider blocking you to prevent further pointy disruption. fish&karate 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am disrupting nothing. The companions image should have been deleted on sight. Since it's not, it's at least marginally acceptable by the powers that be. I'm quite happy to have this new image removed from the discography and deleted should the image we're debating be removed and deleted. If the image we're debating is not removed and deleted, then I sincerely stand by the arguments as noted above as my own and will argue vociferously in favor of keeping the image. If this debate closes as keeping the image, please by all means feel free to place the image I uploaded for deletion. Also, be advised that I do not intend on creating any further cover montages at this time. Doing so would be potentially counter productive of my time. If we delete this companions image, then we'd certainly want to delete any additional cover montages I made. But here and now, we're discussing a very significant change in policy and guideline. In so doing, it's highly appropriate to consider such cover montages within the context of this debate. Nobody complained when I created Image:Billiepiperdebate.jpg to support this debate, and I find no rationale to complain about this creation either. I'm being quite reasonable, and hope you will be as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with F&k... This is purely WP:POINT. Uploading temporary imges for the purpose of discussion is one thing. Uploading and placing them on articles is quite different. The two articles are nothing alike. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you the image is not temporary if the companions image remains. If the two articles are nothing alike, would you please respond to my query and indicate why they are different? Could you please further indicate how the Companions article is different than any other character list article making it unique enough to warrant a special case allowance for the companions image? This would really help clarify the support/keep arguments. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image has been removed, per WP:POINT. If you wish to demonstrate this, use your own pages (or this one) to do so, not an article. --Ckatzchatspy 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Per WP:POINT" is not a reason to remove an image from an article. Perhaps you removed it becuase it is a brazen violation of our WP:NONFREE image policies? HiDrNick! 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POINT specifically says, "State your point; do not prove it experimentally." Hammersoft's own edit comment, incorporated into the image map he posts at the Cheetah page, says "The image and imagemap used here is possibly temporary, used in support of ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_23#Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg.". --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's get the to real point then: does Hammersoft's use in the The Cheetah Girls discography violate our non-free image policies or not? HiDrNick! 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely it is. What is worse is that he is edit-warring to keep the image in the article, even though it is in blatant violation. I've nominated that image separately for discussion, just so it isn't lost. My recommendation for such willful violations of guidelines and policies starts with blocks and quickly proceeds to site-wide bans.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CCC. Consensus has clearly changed that montage use of fair use images as a navigational aid is not permitted. I stand by what I did as an appropriate action and furthering support of discussion in this pivotal debate. We are at a crossroads. If attempting to help the project navigate through this crossroad constitutes reason to permanently ban me from the project, then please by all means see to it that I am permanently banned. As to the edit warring, as I noted to you on my talk page, if I'm guilty of edit warring then so are you. As to policy violations, I violated no policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, particularly per Hammersoft's slippery slope argument above. This sort of non-free image gallery is fine for some other sites, but not for our free encyclopedia. HiDrNick! 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the image created by HS is perfectly reasonable, both by law (fair use) and policy. Fair use is allowed here, so long as it is minimal. Doing what he did was POINTY++. But that's a different issue. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It is disruptive, as you showed clearly that you had no intent of adding the image for real; instead, you just uploaded it to use as an example in this discussion. No matter if the image is acceptable or not, the usage and the intent here are POINTy. Someone else could upload it in a similar fashion but with a different intention, i.e. to really use it and it would still be POINTy if you did it. Because you have clearly showed that you would nominate such images for deletion and think they have no place here. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. I have every intent of creating multiple images of this type and variety should this case pass. It's entirely appropriate to do so. At least one other user above felt the use was appropriate and inline with our policies. I strongly support our policies. If our policies should change to make it clear that such images are permissible (say, by this decision going in favor of the image being kept) then I would equally strongly support inclusion of such images and would be happy to upload quite a number of them. You are falsely concluding that my intent is disruptive and disingenuous. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since certain editors are insisting, despite WP:AGF, that I was trying to disrupt the project (though how I do not know when it contributed to the project and even one other editor agreed), I've created an alternate page to the Cheetah Girls Discography. See User:Hammersoft/The Cheetah Girls discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This probably won't affect Hammersoft's clearly POINTy reasoning, but it might be relevant that there have been two different books (published in 1986 and 1995) on the subject of Doctor Who companions. (Why they're not used as references for our article on the subject, I don't know.) One was written by the series' producer, and the other by a television historian (when Doctor Who had not been on the air for six years, so it couldn't really be considered promotional). Both books contain descriptions of the role of the companion in the series and photographs of each companion. To me, this indicates that reliable sources felt that images of each character were part of a comprehensive treatment of the subject of Doctor Who companions. I'm not aware of any published books depicting the covers of Cheetah Girls albums. But if there are, for example, multiple reliable sources discussing the visual appearances of Beatles albums, I'd say that a comparable imagemap of those albums would not be inappropriate for The Beatles discography. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Josiah, that's not what we're discussing. I don't think anyone is objecting to the presence of images of each companion - we already have them on each character's article and I'm fine with that (if they are properly attributed and have a good fair use rationale). I'd also be fine with a couple of photos of the more notable companions being placed within the text, next to the discussion of their characters, with an appropriate caption.
- The subject of this debate is only the presence of the large collage image. Can you be more specific about the images in the books? For example, do they have:
- (a) A gallery at the very top of the article (as a navigation aid), separated from the discussion of the specific characters? (as in Companion (Doctor Who), the subject of this discussion)
- (b) A set of pictures of individual companions, placed at the top of articles about the characters? (as in Tegan Jovanka)
- The issue of non-free images in discographies has been discussed to death, and the Albums Wikiproject guidelines explicitly forbid them. Papa November (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the books don't have a "gallery at the top of the article as a navigation aid". They're books, and they're arranged differently: each entry is accompanied by several photographs (or, in the case of the Nathan-Turner book, occasionally paintings) of each character. I suppose the question I'm asking is whether a comprehensive treatment of the subject "Doctor Who companions" can be made without images of all the companions, or, to put it another way, whether our articles on each companion have to be considered as spinouts of the general "companion" article in order for that article to be comprehensive. I hadn't thought of it that way, but if we treat Companion (Doctor Who) as a summary of the subject, with individual articles covering the details of each character, I suppose that can justify the loss of the overall guide image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the witch hunt over the Cheetah Girls discography image has become so insanely distracting to this conversation, I've removed it and tagged it for speedy. I refer readers to User:Hammersoft/The Cheetah Girls discography instead. Further comments regarding the Cheetah Girls image itself is available, but not relevant to this Companions image discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made this comment above in my delete !vote, but these 38 non-free uses can be replaced by one non-free use that better describes the "Companion" article without the weight of the 38 non-free uses and that is to use a still that shows the Doc with 2 or 3 companions (the more iconic, the better, which is why I'm thinking a 4th Doc, SJS, and K-9 image may be perfect, but there are other possibilities). The whole point of the companions article is that "the doc does not travel alone", and thus its representative image, I would think, should emphasis this point by showing an example of the Doc traveling with companions that helps to show the cross section of types that he brings along (again, why the SJS and K-9 pic is good in this regard). I'd like to see this idea explored more as it fits every aspect of NFCC much better than the current attempt to just show the companions, period. --MASEM 13:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, how would that help the user who comes to this article because they want to know more about a particular companion, because they can remember their face, but can't remember their name? Jheald (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question isn't whether it is useful or not. The question is whether the image complies with our policies and guidelines. If you firmly believe that usefulness is the core point, then please point to policy or guideline that notes usefulness as being such a central concern. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for a couple rather forgettable companions, the user can clickthrough the list to find pictures. Besides, the goal of WP is to serve the general reader, in this case, one that may never have seen or will ever see a Dr Who episode but needs to know about it for research purposes. Individual companion pictures on this page do not help, though an example of the Doc with companions does help stress the Doctor doesn't work alone. --MASEM 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't waste my time opening 38 tabs, I would just use a better information source, one that knows what the real quality rationale is behind having a non-free content policy, rather than one that treats it as an annoyance to the true goal of 100% free content. Your less than 38 argument looks even more like failing the decorative use criteria than a 38 image compendium does. Personally, I don't need a representative picture to tell me that having a companion means you aren't alone; and if you're only including 'memorable' companions, who needs an image at all? MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Well, either man up and try to get the NFC deleted on en.Wikipedia, or actually go and contribute to a truly free encyclopoedia, don't complain/campaign about it incessantly to the point of disruption, at the encyclopoedia where non-free use is actually permitted. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because it is permitted does not mean it gets to be used liberally as much as anyone likes. There are severe restrictions on the use of fair use images due to our m:mission, which was supported by a direct statement by the Foundation. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Perhaps you've not read those yet? If upholding our mission, resolutions and policy counts as disruption, please make a report requesting I be blocked because I fully intend on continuing to do so, with unrepentant fervor, and will continue to 'disrupt' Wikipedia in this way as much as I can. It would be in your interest to see to it that I was blocked, or even better banned from the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most experienced editors know that repetition ad nauseum is disruptive behaviour, and such behaviour is not mitigated in the slightest by believing you are right. This basic point has frankly got diddly squat to do with the mission or the foundation. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Comment If a person can remember a companion's face, they can almost certainly remember which doctor they saw the companion with - that will narrow things down very significantly - as will the way the companion is dressed. I can't imagine a situation where the person will need to see every companion, just to help remember. The article is about companions generally and I think an example is all that is needed. --WORM | MЯOW 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment It does not really narrow it down. The 10th had seven companions alone (Rose, Martha, Mickey, Donna, Jack, Astrid and Sarah Jane). But Sarah Jane was also a companion to 3rd and 4th, so it is quite possible, especially with the older, b/w serials, that you remember the companion but are not sure which Doctor they accompanied... SoWhy 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to put my personal preference (for deleting the image) on hold for the moment and make a proposal regarding the bigger picture (no pun intended):
The opinions of the community seem to be split almost exactly evenly over this subject, including a large number of administrators. It seems that there is no strong consensus over either keeping or deleting the image, although there is passionate support for both options. The results of this debate are also likely to be cited in similar cases in future. Unless someone can find a "killer argument" to persuade the other side, the debate is likely to end without consensus or a very weak consensus one way or the other. For such a lively debate, I think a lot of people will be disappointed by such a result.
A core feature of this debate is the vagueness of WP:NFC on several issues. I think I'm right in highlighting the following questions, which really need to be answered definitively to reduce the time spent on debates over similar cases:
- WP:NFC states "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." but under what circumstances (if any) can non-free images be used as part of a navigational aid?
- WP:NFC states "An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin." is unacceptable use of non-free content, but how specific must the citations be for TV screenshots? Do we need to know the exact episode or is it good enough to just state the name of the TV show and its production company?
- There is very little guidance about derivatives of non-free content. Are collages included in the guideline of question 1, or are they treated differently? Are they permitted at all?
- What sort of copyright tag should be used for derivatives of non-free work? Is there even an appropriate tag for such images? What are the requirements for citation of the source images? Is a {{non-free television screenshot}} tag required for every source image? Can a blanket fair use rationale be provided for all of the source images, or must a specific rationale be provided for each individual image? Is an additional fair use rationale required for the derivative work?
- WP:NFC states that It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in [a list article] Does this also apply to non-list articles which cover a large number of fictional characters?
- WP:NFC states For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. Does this mean explicitly that non-free headshots of characters are forbidden if they are indistinguishable from that of the actor when out of character?
All of these questions have been raised in the debate, and I'm sure they will rear their heads again. I propose making a request for comment about these points, to save a lot of time in the future. Would anyone agree that this is helpful for future cases? Should we add any questions? Have we already reached a firm consensus on any of these? Papa November (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, those are the core issues, but I think one should be added: "What, exactly, is "minimal" use"? That's also a big point of contention with answers ranging to "zero is minimal" to "every significant aspect should be illustrated if possible". — Coren (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree exactly with Coren. Nice writeup (thanks!) but add the minimal thing. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think there is an agreement on the role vs. actor thing. Makeup makes a big difference, no matter if you are a wookie or on "Days of our Lives". A character generally has different clothing, makeup, and way of holding themselves than the actor. And in SiFi, the differences are often large. So I'd not include that one personally, but that's me. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point, an RFC is going to prove fruitless (it's a bright line issue, and the responses on this or that side are about equal, so it will likely not resolve). This is probably too much of a content dispute to take to Arbcom. Realistically, I think the action that will most benefit any further discussion is to approach the Foundation itself (at least those responsible for crafting the resolution on non-free content) and ask exactly what they think of the image - is this what they meant by minimum free use? I would not try to pre-load the question by pointing to the issues of discographies or the like, just simply pop the question. They may not answer it, but that's the worst case, and we'll probably then need to resort to the RFC. --MASEM 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Foundation has routinely refused to get involved in local policy setting. It's doubtful they would weigh in on this debate. ArbCom won't weigh in either. So, the status quo remains. We end up with a project that chases its own tail. It would be funny were it not for the endless bickering that goes on about this general topic. It's such a waste. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say bring it to the foundation and ask. If they refuse to answer, we know it's a local issue. At which point we start the RfC. If they do answer, problem solved. I do think the RfC has value. We need a single answer to this and I don't know of any other way to get there. Even if we conclude there is no consensus either way, we've learned something. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I posted a message on foundation-l [13]. Result? 31 hours later, no response at all. You can follow along yourself by seeing the thread listing. I'm not surprised at the lack of response. Knowing it's a local issue isn't going to change the perpetual problem of the divide highlighted by Masem. If it was possible to achieve compromise or consensus, by now we would have. This dispute has been raging for the better part of two years now. The Foundation doesn't want to get involved and ArbCom doesn't want to get involved. We're screwed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
