Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

Archives

Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes

...when the scene/frame/appearance of characters is not discussed in the article are not allowable. Some Simpsons article editors are getting rather annoyed at their removal: Special:Contributions/Alientraveller, User_talk:Ed_g2s#Simpsons_episode_images. ed g2s • talk 11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I myself am not getting annoyed, but perhaps you should reconsider your own hasty actions if you feel they may be annoying editors. Now the policy states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", and therefore there is no other promotional image that could represent the entire episode. If we see the FA Pilot (Smallville), there is no particular commentary on the poster itself, but it acts to illustrate the whole episode when a non-free image couldn't. These images also have "the name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item" and is used in a relevant article, and are unlikely to "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media".

Now imagine, if we decided to change the no free equivalent policy. Where then, would a reader know what Batman or Optimus Prime look like, if their images cannot be used for identification of a copyrighted image? Alientraveller (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"But look, this article uses non free images in this way" is never a valid argument; there are thousands of image uses violating this policy on Wikipedia. Nor is comparing this to the illustration of Batman/Optimus Prime, where the appearance of the characters is central to the article and (hopefully) discussed. You seem to be missing the point, which is that you have arbitrarily chosen screen grabs / promo images that you feel "illustrate" the whole episode. Unless these images themselves, or the appearance of elements within these images are the subject of critical commentary in the article, then we shouldn't use the images. ed g2s • talk 12:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So if film posters are not the subject of discussion, should they be deleted? No. They still illustrate primary characters or set design. For example, "Husbands and Knives" has an image of Coolsville and its owner. There is no other free equivalent for this one-shot character. Alientraveller (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if you're citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, be aware I was comparing two featured articles. Alientraveller (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only here to point out one thing, as I've been in an image debate before and I don't particularly have time at the moment--school's coming to a close so I have lots of papers and final exams--to devote myself to such arguments, that the poster in "Pilot (Smallville)" is talked about. Well, the scene is talked about. It's mentioned in the "Plot and themes" section, the last three lines of the second paragraph are devoted to discussing this particular image. I just don't want any click-happy editors saying "thanks for pointing that out" and then deleting the image on the spot--and yes, I've seen admins literally delete the image and not orphan it to give editors a chance to correct any issues. To make one quick statement, the only problem I see with using screenshots in the identification part of the article (i.e. the infobox) is that it's an editor choice. Unlike film posters which generally encompass the idea of the whole film, screenshots become subjective. I think we need a way of determining the best approach to using such things as identification of the whole episode, because I've seen several episode pages that have an screenshot in the infobox and then one in the plot as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, the image isn't just of some random thing. It's an image of a key plot point, or a promo imager that illustrates a key plot point. And you are just arbitrarily removing every image and I highly doubt you read the text to actualy see if the image is discussed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But I think the point that's being made is that who decides what is that "key plot point" as to make it the image to represent the episode? Any WP-editor based decision (whether one person or a consensus of editors) is introducing WP:OR. Now, if the show (in the case of the Simpsons, there's a few) has provided a promo piece to be used, that would be more reasonable - it's not a image chosen by WP editors. This is comparable with using book covers, CD covers, movie posters, and video game box covers for the infobox identification of the case - someone else besides WP has made that decision. But I do agree that while that image in the infobox can help to identify the episode at a glance, most of these TV articles have an image or two in the plot summary which visually is laid out right there on the same page and should be obvious for the viewer to see. --MASEM 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. My point is that the image is usually of an important point, and that important point is usually discussed in the text. Therefore, the image is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that in most cases that the infobox screenshot is an important point discussed in the text, but my point is that whom decided that that important plot element is the important plot element of the episode? If it is a WPian editor, then it's OR, and thus the image should not be used in the infobox to represent the episode. --MASEM 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Media-related articles, such as those that cover contemporary fictional topics, are restricted to copyrighted images for the vast majority. Articles about film, music, comics, etc. generally implement a non-free image in some type of infobox to serve as identification. I cannot seem to find the wording that permits non-free images to identify the subject matter. Critical commentary seems to be the threshold but from what I can tell, it only applies when there is commentary specifically for the non-free image. The implication seems to me that WP:NFC dictates that no identifying non-free images are permitted, even in a case where there is plenty of real-world context in the media-related article. For example, at Fight Club (film), the film poster serves to identify the copyrighted topic at hand, but the wording of this policy doesn't seem to permit any identifying images like this. Unless I'm missing something, the implications of this are drastic and would have an incredibly corrosive effect on media-related articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can argue that without a general identifying image, a reader's understanding of the topic will be affected. Humans like to see as well as hear, as it were. It'd be like having no images at all. Alientraveller (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A nonfree screenshot in the infobox seems fine to me, per NFC:Acceptable images #1 and #5. #1: The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the episode (episodes don't have cover art of course, but to me the promotional images serve that purpose in places like TV listings magazines). #5: The image is used as part of critical commentary and discussion of the episode. If other images are used in the main body of the article, they need to be supported by critical commentary. The concerns about arbitrarily chosen images could be applied to much more than screenshots: for example, nonfree images of deceased people are often arbitrarily chosen. With book covers, the most recent edition or the cover used where the uploader comes from are often uploaded. Bláthnaid 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was talking about in the section I created above, only about screenshots used in the infobox of the main show article. Since I haven't gotten a reply there yet, I'll ask again here: how is the use of these screenshots justified under our policy? I'm talking specifically about a screenshot of a show's title screen, used in the infobox of the main article. --CrazyLegsKC 23:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just some general bits of 2¢...

As has been pointed out, the infobox image the "This is what this article is about" image. In some cases it easy to come up with, and to note in the FUR for the image. People, art, books, characters, films, television series, all of those are easy. And in most cases "common sense" turns down "I don't like..." arguments for replacing them.

Episodes of television series are another matter. Common sense would hold that the best image would be either a cap of the episode title card or, in cases where such a cap is only text, none. Such a title card fills the role of "This is what the article is about". No arguments, no fuss, no muss. The fact that for a large chunk of shows such cards don't exist, are only text, or are text with stock images or meaningless background make a 'box image retardant, at best.

The solution that is being employed with the articles for The Simpsons episodes, which isn't unique, falls short of the mark. One plot element generally does not embody the entirety of an episode. And that means such a usage of a non-free image is open to dispute, generally on the grounds of "It illustrates the notable plot element of <foo>? Then it should be in the article next to the text for that in the plot summary or, even better, critical commentary on that element." At which point the image should likely be moved. Not re-moved, but moved. And this is assuming that the uploader or another editor added a FUR with some semblance of a "Purpose for use".

As an aside to this, there is a possible way to include plot point images as 'box images — What do published episode guides use? If they use the images, cite it on the image page so that it's clear that it's not a Wikipedia editor assigning the notability.

Deletions and disagreements. IIUC, any image that isn't an egregious copyright-vio (manipulated/digitally changed to add or remove content for example) or purely, unequivocally decoration (galleries) is supposed to tagged at least two places in addition to the image page: notification to the uploader and notification to the articles using the image. This is to give a chance for the FUR and/or the placement to be fixed. If an editor is going to dispute an image, they should be doing it the right way. - J Greb (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at a television show article with a title card screen shot and a cast member shot. Both were non-free with a proper fair use rationale and both added to the understanding of the article. I can see no reason not to allow title card screen shots in the infobox. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Which article(s)? - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to name the article. From what I have seen on this page is that any non-free image mention is in jeopardy of being deleted. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, are we on this boat again? Well i don't really care, but it would suit Ed if he didn't start again with TV shows. If he gets all movie posters in the infoboxes of films, albumcovers in albums and single covers removed first then i don't object to this either. But since that is never gonna happen, I OBJECT ! The anti-TV mentality has to stop. Yes there are a lot of idiots around on those pages but that doesn't make it your personal shooting range.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue on Deletion Review

A case concerning this issue has been brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 10#Image:DW Fear Her.jpg. --Stormie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Character images and lists.

This is a reprise of an issue that came up lightly before (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28#Two questions regarding images of fictional characters). It seems that recently, some character articles have been entirely stripped of images. Others have been reduced to only one image. Recently, it seems to have been for video games, but presumably this would apply to any medium wherein everything is inherently copyrighted, hence the choice is fair use or nothing. So film and television as well. For examples, see [1], [2], or [3]. A discussion of this also took place at Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts and some other areas, where sometimes a compromise of one image was used.

The previous consensus has been that character images in lists is fine so long as the character was major enough to have their own section and the artistic/production style was relevant (and ideally could eventually be commented on). For instance, the Featured Article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII had critical commentary on the art design of the characters, and still had its images removed. Has this consensus changed? This should be resolved, and ideally somewhat quickly, before OrphanBot kicks in.

1. Is fair use of character artwork ever acceptable?
2. If it is, is there a difference between group pictures and individual pictures?

My personal take on this is that for works in a visual medium, allowing fair use inclusion of images is a reasonable and entirely defensible policy. The encyclopedic value is obvious- a text description of a character is not going to ever exactly equal seeing the actual work. You cannot compare art without seeing art, and you cannot compare production values or costuming without actually seeing examples. As for the validity of fair use, if a work is copyrighted, there is clearly no alternative. Furthermore, when not discussing stand-alone art pieces, associated artwork / screenshots is almost always a tiny portion of the original work. The actual product is a film / television show / video game, not that actual piece of art. The claim by some for these images to be "decorative" is only a reasonable complaint against, say, minor characters mentioned in passing, or multiple shots of the same character without some kind of commentary on the reason (for instance, different actor portrayls of the same role). As was pointed out in the earlier debate linked above, the trend of WP:FICT encouraging the merging of "mini-articles" into one cohesive article naturally would lead to multiple images as well. So long as they are justified by their section, that is not a reason to invoke the normal shyness with fair use images in "normal" lists.

As for the second issue... I see this as entirely an editorial question, not a policy one. There is absolutely no change in the amount of copyrighted content used between 5 individual small pictures and one picture which is those same 5 pictures put together in Photoshop. If character artwork is decided to be not allowable, then the gallery pictures should be removed as well; if they are found to be acceptable, then there is no appreciable difference between the two as far as fair use criteria are concerned. There may, of course, be editorial reasons to use gallery pictures anyway (especially for minor characters or in the main article), but that is irrelevant to this guideline. (As far as the editorial issue, I'll just say that WP:FICT usually counsels that articles should be accessible to a general audience, and group pictures run the problem that it may not be clear who is who to a person not familiar with a fictional work. But there are reasons to use them too.)

Comments welcome. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's been debated many, many times before. This is quite old news now. In the Spring of 2007, the Foundation passed a resolution regarding the use of fair use images. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. This codified what was already commonly held practice. Subsequent to this, massive efforts were undertaken to comply with the Foundation's stance. A major dispute erupted as a result, of which part was reported at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. In the end, the removal of images was upheld and it continues to this day. Sorry. The basic crux; if a character is significant enough to have an article of their own, then they can have an image on that article. On character lists, no. That's the general rule of thumb followed by many people now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- looks like my argument matches Hammersoft's) I've noticed the creation of the character lists that you've mentioned. I think that if a fictional character is notable enough to have its own article, it should be privileged to an identifying non-free image. If a character is one of those compressed into a list of characters, then its notability (in the general sense) is downplayed. There can be a lot of minor characters present under a particular fictional topic, and these minor characters can have a different appearance with each spin-off of the topic. I think it's best to apply the rule of thumb that if a fictional character has his or her own article appropriately substantiated in line with WP:FICTION (real-world context and all that), there can be an identifying non-free image. This makes me think of the removal of non-free images from lists of episodes -- only episodes that have their own articles generally have an identifying screenshot (pending discussion as seen above). I understand what you mean about the visual aid tying into the content, but it's too easy to interpret that to require a picture of every character in some fictional topic, may it be comic, film, or TV show. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammersoft: I realize you probably were trying to avoid rehashing arguments from elsewhere, but stating that "lists are no good, articles are okay" isn't an argument. As best I can tell, the side in favor of allowing images in list seems to have come across better the earlier time I linked before.

Erik: The problem is that with lists of episodes, it can be argued that the use of images really was decorative - there was an article on the episode. I agree that a character list of the type that only mentions the existence of various characters would probably not qualify for images under current policy. However, some of these lists are actually merged articles in and of themselves (hence why some are just "Characters of..." rather than "List of characters in..."). I don't see why they wouldn't face the same standards articles elsewhere do; that's not a free pass, mind, but it does mean that simple "it looks like a list, remove it" shouldn't apply. Also, the rationale for "here's a random picture of something in an episode" isn't nearly as core to the topic of an episode as "this is what the character looks like." SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I arrived here via WT:VG, and would like to propose a test akin to WP:AMNESIA in order to cope up with a respectable guideline on whether certain uses of images fit NFCC 3a and 8, because that is essentially what is up for discussion. The test consists of two parts, one for each of the applicable guideline. I will use characters as an example here, as that is the topic essentially for discussion.

• First, critical commentary on the appearance of the character has to be present, including a description that fits the criteria for plot summaries.
• Second, the real test, partially quoted from WP:AMNESIA.

1. Forget everything you know about the subject. If you cannot forget, act as though you know absolutely nothing about the subject.
2. Re-read the critical commentary and description of the subject.
3. Draw the character from that information.
4. Does your drawing capture the essence of the character? Then do not use a non-free image.

What I hope the above illustrates, is that images should only be put in place for characters that are sufficiently round. Flat characters do not warrant non free images, because their "free quivalent" (NFCC 1) is text, essentially. If the contents of an image of a character could be described adequately with the words "Bob is a brown haired, fat lumberjack in a green jester's outfit", I do not consider a fair use image necessary per 3a. On the other hand, if a character cannot be described adequately in text, for example, because sources do not allow for a really detailed description, an image is necessary. This is often the case in video games, as the sources use images themselves, and do not describe characters in great detail.

This goes back to the essence of why Wikipedia uses images at all, beyond "illustration": because some things cannot be expressed in words. Try to describe Pikachu or Batman in words only.

I am strongly opposed to the indiscriminate removal of character images from character lists, just because they are character images on a character list. The merit of every single use has to be considered. This relates to the above comments, both of which appeared during an edit conflicts. "If a character is notable enough to have their own character" is not the right standard to use, I think. The (arbitrary) form any Wikipedia editor chooses to write about the subject in is not of relevance to whether certain use is fair or not. It is the question whether such images are necessary for the specific character that matters. WP:FICT, the applicable policy for characters having their own articles, does not read "Round characters can have articles, flat articles cannot". User:Krator (t c) 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your stance would result in articles where there could be hundreds of unfree images on display. This has happened before. The work that has been and is being done is to reduce that massive use, which goes against the crux Foundation's stated principles to use such works minimally. I note that in your examples of Pikachu and Batman, both of these characters have articles about them specifically. They are famous characters by themselves, and an article on them deserves imagery even if only unfree imagery is available. On pages where there are dozens, if not hundreds, of characters listed. Your suggestion would result in pages such as List of Spider-Man enemies, List of Pokémon characters and List of Batman enemies having an enormous quantity of unfree images on them. That just isn't workable. I note again that this has been debated repeatedly in the past six months, with the resolution always being that the images stayed removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • List of Pokémon (1-20) has an interesting criteria for pictures now (it used to have 20 pictures per page). Nifboy (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your exaggeration of "hundreds of unfree images" supposes that there is actually an effort to add as many unfree images as possible. Please bear in mind that, beyond any copyright policy, we are first and foremost trying to write an encyclopaedia. Nifboy's example of the Pokémon list is a good one. Consider "Catterpie" and "Charizard" as easily described characters, where an image is unnecessary. "Green caterpillar" and "Red firebreathing dragon" would do. Bulbasaur, on the other hand... I will not get into more detail here, and I hope you recognise my point of considering the individual merit rather than mass-removing images on all lists. User:Krator (t c) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the second point above - about merging smaller images into one - I do not believe that that gets around the fair use issue. The one single montage image is now a derivative work of each individual image and thus represents 'n' fair use issues (n being the number of images used). On the other hand, if from the media you can find a single image that is effectively a cast image, that to me is at least a fair replacement from using smaller images. However, a list of characters page likely only needs one of these; any more any you start getting back into the decorative issue again. Mind you, I can't remember where I've seen discussion of this (darin or betacommand) where someone suggested that even a true (non-montage) cast image is decorative for a list page. --MASEM 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tendency is to include more images that absolutely necessary, but I also agree that removing images from character lists "just because they are character images on a character list" is not sufficient justification for removal. If, for example, a character is just barely not notable enough to have their own article, but is extremely important to the work itself, should that character get an image? If there is critical commentary on that character's design? It must be noted that the notability criteria are independent of importance within the work so a blanket rule that if a character has his own article, he can have an image would shaft a large number of characters who are not independently notable yet still require an image to properly illustrate them (if they are "round", or something). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the point made by Hammersoft is correct, I once removed 345 NFC images from a List of... page. Most Images i list are not needed. If a character is notable enough for an image they are notable for their own article. β^_command 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So if characters are split back out into their own individual articles, it's okay to go wild with images? That would seem to offer a very bad incentive. Many of these characters *are* notable enough for their own short article, but they've been merged to create one better and longer article as per WP:FICT.

As for Axem's idea, his proposed standard is fair enough, but as any art teacher would agree, there's almost always something more in the picture than in just a prima facie text representation. Mona Lisa is described by "smiling woman," sure... but there's a lot more to it than that. This is true even of "bad" art. Now, I disagree that this means that "tons of images everywhere!," as minor characters are presumably discussed as part of a section rather than their own small article. To clarify.... I do not mean "minor" as in "every character on a unified article," as some seem to. So if the section headings are character A, character B, and Enemies of A & B, there may be a rationale for one image for A, one for B, and one representative shot for all the Enemies of A & B. This may not be always true, but it's certainly not always false either. SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that people are asserting this shouldn't be allowed. However, any argument along those lines should presumably adhere to WP:NFCC. A simplification of the guidelines is that there are two requirements: that there be no free alternative (#1), and that the copyrighted content be significant (3, 5, and 8). Let me add here that I like free content and all and understand the reasoning behind it; that's why requirement 1 is the first one. No need for copyrighted pictures of, say, buildings and so on. However, the topic we are dealing with - copyrighted works of fiction - has basically all the content copyrighted. So criterion 1 applies.

As for significance. I'm sure that the usual argument brought up is the word "minimal" in the Foundation licensing resolution. Unfortunately, it seems that many people interpret minimal differently. I'm going to propose that it means "minimal for what is required to make a high-quality, comprehensive encyclopedia article." If an image would noticeably increase the quality of an article, then it's a reasonable use; we should not sacrifice good articles at the altar of Stallman. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

Anyway, if we assume that standard, I think that most copyrighted images of characters easily satisfy the criterion, as long as the art design / costuming / etc. was remotely relevant to the character (that is, no grues). The identification aspect is also incredibly basic but important. Which character was this I saw? This is a common question from someone only faintly acquainted with a work, and visual identification will be necessary. Artistic styles and production values are also important. This game was known/criticized for having an anime-style cast (an issue in Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series)? Let's see it. Same with a criticism of cheap vs. well-done production values for a movie or show. A character article that does not include appropriate images is simply incomplete, depriving the reader of valuable tools to assess a work with as well as the object of any text commentary.

Now, once one image is used, the rationale for future images is much higher. The basic character portrayal is already shown; there should be a good reason why additional images help. So my interpretation of minimal is "one image by default for notable characters." I completely fail to see how whether having that image in a character's own article or in a compilation article matters. The same arguments apply to either case for usage of an image where appropriate and limiting their usage when inappropriate. SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<INSERT BROKEN RECORD HERE><LET PLAY 5 MINUTES>, When the whole issue about NFC in list's was broght up last time the idea of as few as possible could not be agreed to, some thought that 100 NFC images in a list was ok. (100 images in any article is not ok, It please remimber the "poor" people still stuck on dailup). Giving the standard of notability, that having an article means that they are notable, Instead of arguing over every single non-notable character that every fan wants to include in their list of.. page, it makes the standard of inclusion difficult. Because instead of having to revert war over the ILIKEIT fancruft you can just AfD the article and the image if its not notable, and you can address each seperately instead of having to fight over the NN Cruft, Not letting NFC in List's just sets a good standard on both notability and quality standard as very few of these List Of.. have good outside sources and are written in a NPOV manner. β^_command 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by the above comment. Do you mean that because some lists include an arbitrary (large) number of non free images, there should be no non free images on lists at all? Please rephrase your comment, as this is not possibly what you could have meant. User:Krator (t c) 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe its more a case that if you don't draw a bright line somewhere, people can wikilawyer past it to use 100s of nonfree images on a character list. Unfortunately, that bright line pretty much restricts the use of non-free images on such lists period.

However, and I turn to betacommand for this, a thing I brought up before, if a list used a single non-free image that included multiple characters described on the page (aka "cast picture") is this a valid use of a non-free image on a list? Mind you, these need to be limited as well : there's no way I would be able to provide images to cover every character on List of characters in The Simpsons for example without violating too many non-free images. --MASEM 14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be ok with that. A single image (not a montage of other unfree media) that displayed a lot of the characters seems fine to me. That does a lot convey the general artwork used in the characters, and still supports the concept that if a character is notable enough for their own article, they'd have imagery on that article rather than the list. A great example of this is Characters of Final Fantasy XII in its current form, with just the one image near the top. --Hammersoft 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 points that need to be made, with your example about the Simpson's, notable characters have their own articles, and their own image. (which for Non-Free Image Use NFIU is acceptable). if you then wanted to include a picture of them in a List of... page there would be a problem of over use, just link to the page. I think {{main}} is good for that. If the characters are not notable enough for their own article it begs the question, why are they notable enough to have their image included? But I do work with NFC and images in Lists. the main problem with List articles is the very high probability of abuse. My position is simple, one image per list at most. That point was reached after working many list articles and fighting over the massive abuse of NFC. If you can get one good image that clearly displays the subject(s) of an article use it. the point of one image per character is clearly NFC abuse. (NOTE THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND PRACTICE, THAT IS NOT STATED IN POLICY IT IS BASED OFF PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND THE LONG ANI DEBATE) β^_command 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that; mind you, if the best "cast" image one can get includes images of characters that have their own articles in addition to those that have do not, I would still say it's valid only if the majority (maybe even super-majority?) of those pictured do not have their own article. example: If Bart, Homer, Lisa, and Marge have an article but Maggie doesn't, including a Simpsons family picture on a character list page just to demonstrate who Maggie is is unacceptable. But, if only Bart had a page, showing the family picture which includes Bart is a reasonable way to cover the rest of the cast. I know this is begging for wikilaywering all over it, but I think common sense should help - a cast image that significantly duplicates what's already out there is a violation of WP's non-free material requirements. --MASEM 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My position is that video game characters articles should have at least one screenshot for reasons of completeness and neutrality. Images of 'all the characters' are invariably promotional artwork designed to sell the game, rather than in-game footage. The Characters of Final Fantasy XII, mentioned above, is a prime example of this. --Nydas^(Talk) 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Real-life intervened during the weekend, but returning and looking at this... I fail to see any kind of arguments based on WP:NFCC above, or any kind of fair use standard whatsoever. I've already said my piece on that above, and am distressed to not see people disagreeing with the *argument*, rather than simply offering examples of bad pages.

Betacommand is worried about hundreds of images; who cares about the exact number of images? What matters is the amount of copyrighted content used. The same content divided into individual pictures is generally more usable and is neutral in the amount of fair-use done. I seriously don't see why galleries are acceptable but individual images are not, aside from some punitive desire to punish fair use. Now, two issues are being conflated here:

• What characters should get depictions?
• Does it matter if depictions are in a single gallery picture or in individual pictures?

The "hundreds of images" worry that Betacommand mentions presumably comes from the first. That's completely off the topic; I don't think anybody here will argue that super-minor characters in lists all deserve images necessarily (though I would argue that Betacommand and some other's definition of "minor" is wrong). However, I really strain to see the explanation for why the gallery picture style helps (again, aside from certain editorial concerns). If the same content is divided into a hundred images, it's the exact same amount of fair use; it doesn't affect the minimal standard at all. If we've decided that gallery pictures are acceptable at all, individual pictures are not "worse" from a "minimal Fair Use" perspective. SnowFire 04:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, the consensus seems to agree that some form of depiction of copyrighted appearances is often relevant and meets WP:NFCC (one or two people who'd remove all fair use aside, which is a valid position, but not Wikipedia's currently). But... if this depiction is in one or two images at the top of an article, that's okay, but if the exact same content complying with Wikipedia guidelines is split into several images interspersed at relevant points within the article, that's not okay. Riiiiiiiight.

If this is seriously the case - and I doubt it - then I'd request that those who'd like to enforce this, rather than removing fair use pictures it seems to be admitted can often be appropriate, instead make a new template along the lines of "request for photoshopping." The fair use content can then be combined into one or two images. It'll be using exactly the same amount of copyrighted content as before, and it probably won't be as useful to the reader, but it will meet this new criteria just fine.

...no, I'm serious. I completely and utterly disagree with this stance, but for those who admit to the validity of some kind of depiction of a character and that such a thing would improve the encyclopedia article (what we all came here to do, theoretically), isn't this the stance that logically results? And it would be better than wholesale deletion.

Sigh. SnowFire (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping "n" smaller images into a larger one, assuming each smaller image is a non-free fair use, is still creating "n" derivative works and thus the larger image cannot be considered as one FUR but "n" FUR, and thus will be handled (and likely removed) in the same fashion. (Obviously, people with "mad photoshop skillz" can probably make such an image that its impossible to tell if it was a montage or not, but that's why a proper FUR should have a source of the image as well.) --MASEM 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly true, but I think that a normal group shot is "n" pieces of fair use as well, and furthermore, these "n" pieces of fair use are theoretically justified by policy anyway (those that aren't should be removed anyway). So why not be up front about it and just use n images? If they're of separate characters, then it's justified by the criteria anyway. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not if this is image directly from the copyright owner, such as Image:Ff12cast.jpg. The copyright owner composed and released that shot, thus it's only what is done after that shot is released with copyright as promotional material does the issue of derivative works come into play. --MASEM 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think this idea, at its heart, is beneficial because it forces editors to find good group images and whatnot (for example in Characters of Final Fantasy XII). This can never be a bad thing. On the other hand, I disagree with its execution and enforcement. A blanket removal is not likely to be well-received. Of course, this ultimately leads to the question of whether it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I believe it should, since there is no deadline and the ultimate goal is to have every article be featured anyway. So why not just spend the time to hammer it out individually as you get to each list, instead of desperately rushing to remove every fair use image as quickly as possible? If, for example, a minor character caused a scandal because of a racy design, but is otherwise not notable, it is best to determine if an image is necessary individually. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of signatures

Lots and lots of "fair use" images of signatures are cropping up on a range of articles, primarily for writers, and politicians operating outside the United States (or possibly below the federal level in that government e.g. at the state or city level). They are being claimed under "miscellaneous" fair use which doesn't seem the best of ideas - it would seem sensible to have a distinct category for them so they can all be identified and treated similarly.

However, I am loathe to create a new category and tag because I'm not convinced this is a "blanket category" that is generally likely to be (1) within the "fair use" provisions of U.S. law (although this is not quite so unlikely), (2) within the bounds of the "non-free content" policy (is it really vital to our understanding of a 20th century political figure that we know what their signature looks like?), or (3) that it is within the spirit of Wikipedia's "free content" mission.

I have seen no article where a non-free signature is included and where anything resembling "critical commentary" has been provided. On the other hand it is true that the signatures generally have minimal economic value that could be eroded.

Overall I'd tend to suggest that non-free images of signatures should be listed under "unacceptable examples of images" with exceptions for cases where the signature is notable in its own right and critically discussed, and most non-free signature images should then be deleted.

Either way, they now form a considerable component of Wikipedia's non-free content and should be dealt with consistently. As far as I can the see the two main options are declaring signatures (perhaps especially for politicians or writers as opposed to general celebrities?) to be generally within the bounds of our non-free content policy, including them within the blanket "acceptable images" list, and providing a new tag and category for them, or alternatively listing them as unacceptable outside certain unusual cases, and deleting the bulk of them. Thoughts? Purgatorio (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good question. I'll take your word for it but I can't say that I've ever noticed a single one. I don't think we're in any realistic danger of copyright infringement here, nor have I ever heard of a case of a copyright infringement suit over a signature, so per the goals of creating a free content encyclopedia it seems to boil down to a stylistic and policy decision on whether they have sufficient encyclopedic value. Does the signature of an author, celebrity, or politician have a strong enough association with the individual to be useful for identification (like a logo or book cover), or otherwise help achieve an understanding of the person in ways that words cannot? I would say no but I imagine some people say yes. And I suspect the difference isn't easy to reason through; some people read more into signatures than others.

Note that most signatures published before 1978 or whenever these deadlines would be out of copyright because they did not bear a notice. Also, a good many were collected by aficionados and never published, so the clock never started running. There could be some specialized copyright or other laws that apply to signatures as well.

Do you have a few examples? It might help to see these images in action to get a good feel fro them.

- Wikidemo (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that signatures were ineligible for copyright. I remember someone asked at WP:MCQ about a signature where someone signs in the shape of a dinosaur. There was consensus that it was public domain, and I think that example has more of a claim to being a creative work than most signatures. 17Drew (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spotted quite a lot doing sweeps of random images (Special:Random/Image). Here's an example: Image:Ramón José Velásquez signature.jpg, from a former Venezuelan president (Ramón José Velásquez). It's not discussed at all in the article, as far as I can see.

If signatures genuinely are copyright exempt (do we have any reliable sources for that?) then it might be a good idea to create a specific "signature, ineligible for copyright" tag for them. It is true that signatures will often be published without copyright notices but the Venezuelan president's signature would be a counter-example, since it was scanned from a book which presumably did have a copyright notice. Since it's outside the U.S. I don't think the 1978 rule is applicable anyway.

Not all signatures are consistently copyright-tagged, incidentally. Image:Thatcherautograph.JPG is listed as Public Domain - despite the fact that Margaret Thatcher falls outside rules related to U.S. Federal Government works, and presumably didn't explicitly release the signature into the public domain (being in the EU, if I remember correctly, actually means she doesn't have that right), but PD is being claimed on the grounds that it came from the autograph collection of a Wikipedian. I'm not sure that logic is correct - my strong suspicion is that if it is eligible for copyright, it will be copyright to Mrs Thatcher and not to the keeper of the autograph collection, since she was the creator? Or does signing an autograph for somebody implicitly constitute an agreement to hand the copyright over to them? (Bearing in mind that there is a big business in autographed prints, I am sure there is a definite legal answer to this question, although it may also be affected by issues such as personality rights - needs a lawyer really!) Purgatorio (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

((edit conflict))

The only example I can pull is Walt Simonson, which does have a ref in article to his distinctive signature, and the image at Image:Simonson autograph.jpg.

This does bring up two other places where signatures will crop up: visual artists and "famous peoples" (athletes, actors, and the like... the targets of autograph collectors).

There is at least one question this beggars though: can a signature be subject to being copyrighted and/or trademarked? To a degree this bears on the licensing tag that can either be used or created for the images.

And if we are going to look at this, even if the signature fall under free use images, this is something where rock solid guidelines need to be in place. The signatures are of intrinsic value to the articles as an identifying characteristic, just like the photos. What we need to be cognizant of though is that the images need to be of a quality that is just enough to provide a reference, but not high enough to allow for it to be used for forgery. This is much more of an issue with the signature than with art or photos, both from the potential to sell as autographs and from the potential for identity theft.

As minimal suggestions, I'd go with:

• Creating a "Signature" tag and associated category so the files are easy to look after.
• Setting a maximum image size, in the range of 150px on the long axis.
• Restricting such files to JPG format. This is a case where the high quality of a PNG or vector image is not wanted.
• Adding a priority "Signature image over-sized" and "Signature orphaned" tag and cat to quickly remove files that are outside of those restraints. And by quickly, I mean waving the normal 5 or 7 days for a speedy delete.

- J Greb (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the signatures a lot from articles related to Presidents from the United States or from the Philippines. I seen both projects and uploaders tag them as public domain. In the US's case, they just lift them from public domain documents. As for the Philippines, no idea. As for should they be included in Wikipedia, I have no idea. I do remember in my younger days, I saw the signatures in the World Book Encyclopedia. However, would they be considered fair use decoration? I believe so, since I have not seen a source stating that signatures are in the public domain. However, I will look. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I seen our Wikipedia article state that signatures are not covered by copyright and they use [4] to cite it. Honestly, we know that names cannot be copyrighted, but I wonder if this is the clause they are trying to point out "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." I wish that can be clarified. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be. One thing to keep in mind, various visual artists use an "artist's mark" in thier work instead of a traditional signature. This may be a side step since the 'mark can be treated as a logo. - J Greb (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. I still think we should at least focus on sets of signatures and see what happens. I think it will be easier to do that instead of focusing on all signatures now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked for options, here's mine: Signature imags should be banned from articles unless the article mentions a signature (e.g., that a person was known for his/her distinctive signature). Then we don't need any special instructions on sizing, templating, or anything else. Plus, if they are fair use rather than in the public domain (and, if I were a betting person, I'd bet the former), we'll have a leg to stand on (because fair use allows some use when it has educational value). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm mixed on if we should use them or not, but until we figure it out, I think we should just limit it to what we have now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Three different questions here: 1) are they copyrighted in the first place? 2) if so, does their encyclopedic value outweigh our preference to avoid non-free images (my quick opinion, not in most cases), and 3) if not, are they appropriate on style grounds (again, my opinion is usually not - in those examples I think the signatures are a distraction more than a help to the article). Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in "list of characters in..." or "Characters of..." articles

Preface: I'll try to keep this short, but if you're not prepared to read the material below in full, you're not prepared to comment. This is a complex subject. I wish there was a way to greatly simplify this, but no one has yet come up with a means to do so. Please, the best service you can provide to this discussion is to carefully read and understand the various aspects written below before commenting, not just bring your pre-suppositions to this discussion, as it will hopelessly fracture the discussion. Thank you.

---

Short history: The Foundation's passage of the resolution in March of 2007 regarding the use of copyrighted works spawned a large effort to reduce the amount and usage of fair use imagery on this project. This ran into massive resistance, some of which was covered in May. That particular debate centered on the use of fair use screenshots for depicting each episode. This later expanded to cover the use of fair use images in discographies and the use of fair use imagery to depict characters without critical commentary on the image. In a related dispute, fair use images used to depict living persons have subsequently been deprecated as well. Despite the resistance, the push continued due to the resolution of the Foundation.

---

Commentary: The disputes over the application of this policy never end. I would like there to be a touchstone to refer to when debates happen. There is considerable grey area on this subject due mostly to massive disagreement between fair use inclusionists and exclusionists. The grey area needs to be eliminated to stop these never ending debates. A sampling of the debates that have occurred just here on this discussion page, much less a large array of other pages: May 2007,June,August,September, plus the debate above. It never ends, but for the sanity of everyone involved needs to be concluded once and for all.

---

Policy:
Working your way through the policy to understand this issue is complex. A full understanding of it relies on a complete understanding not just of the wording of the policy, but also of the history of it and how it evolved, along with a substantial understanding of the various debates that have occurred and the resulting applications of policy that remained in effect. This is so complex it prevents all but a handful of editors from truly understanding the issue. This is not to say they are some 'elite' that must be followed, but editors that do understand regularly come under fire from those that do not. The endless explanations never substantially fix the extant problem as very few people are willing (whether form lack of time, intellect or desire) to become one of the few that truly understand it. I don't blame the people who don't understand it. Wikipedia does a terrible, terrible job of simplifying this matter into bit sized bits that can be understood by the common editor.

Here, in long form, is what the policy is that dictates the use of fair use images on this type of article. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, but it's nigh on impossible to do so.

• WP:NFCC #3(a) states that images must be used minimally, and if one image can replace multiple images then one image should be used. This descends from the Foundation's resolution point #3 where they state that fair use must be minimal. Having 12 individual character images rather than a single image depicting most of those characters is not acceptable under #3(a).
• Point #5 in the policy notes that the image must be encyclopedic. This is so vague that whenever this is referred to it has the flight characteristics of a plumbum anatidae, and the resulting dispute the cacaphony of a flock. But, in essence, the purpose of an encyclopedia is education. It isn't necessary to illustrate independent sub topics within a topic in order to convey educational meaning. You do not need to show an image of every species of duck in order to have an encyclopedic article on ducks. If you're making a birding guide, then yes; an image of every species would be appropriate for identification purposes. But, Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Since we're not, having an image of every character is counter to our purpose here.
• Point #8 speaks to significance of the image. This was deliberately made more abstract within the last few months to more appropriately place examples in the guideline. The lack of examples specifically in the policy has been fodder for arguments on applicability of the policy. Nevertheless, the guidelines do apply. Most examples of the application of this portion of the policy are covered at WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images. That list is not exhaustive. It is important here to note WP:NFC#Rationale "limiting the amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances" should not be interpreted as saying where such circumstances are not specifically stated we have a free hand to use as much fair use as we like. The default case on Wikipedia is that fair use is not allowed. Special circumstances are exceptions to that, not to be treated as free for all territories when such circumstances have not been specifically cited. This is one of myriad ways in which dispute occurs on this subject. Interpretation of this policy is often highly subjective, but considerably less so when it is understood what our default case is here. The Foundation's resolution clearly shows the default case; "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License"
• Point #10(c) discusses the need of rationales for each use of an image. This has been massively debated as a result of the efforts of BetacommandBot to tag images which do not meet this requirement. At first pass, this point might not seem to apply to this debate, but it does. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline notes that a rationale must provide the purpose of the use, but this guideline does not state what purposes are acceptable. This is an important hurdle for images to clear; it's not enough to have a purpose being here. There must be an acceptable purpose. Acceptable purposes are listed at WP:NFC#Acceptable_images. In this particular case, the appropriate section is "Film and television screen shots", which states the requirement for critical commentary. Illustration of the subject alone is not enough; there must be critical commentary of the particular image and how it is significant to the subject at hand. How does this image relate to the article text? Is the image discussed itself and if so is it possible that text could replace the image without significantly hampering the user's understanding? It isn't enough to merely show what a particular character looks like and discuss that character's appearance, but it could be enough to discuss that character's appearance in a particularly important scene relative to, say, the character's development over time.

In summary, since we're not a guidebook, pure illustrative purposes do not constitute an encyclopedic intent, are not supported by requirements of minimal fair use, and fail supporting rationale requirements.

---

Common defenses:

• Some users have attempted to create montages of their own, using fair use images to do so.
  Rebuttal: This has been handled as unacceptable, because the quantity of copyrighted work being used remains the same.
• Some users have attempted to say that lists of characters where there is substantial (subjective) discussion on the character is not a list, but an article on the characters, thus the policy doesn't apply.
  Rebuttal: The policy still applies, due to the requirement of minimal fair use whether it's a list or not.
• Disputes frequently occur that there is no consensus on the talk page of the disputed article to remove the images, so the policy doesn't apply until there is consensus on that article to remove the images.
  Rebuttal: Policies exist by consensus; you do not need consensus to apply a policy. To do so would hopelessly hinder the ability of the project to manage itself, as each application of policy would have to be debated.
• A given situation is not specifically mentioned either in policy or the Foundation's resolution, so no case can be made that it applies to X article type or X situation.
  Rebuttal: Specific examples in the policy have intentionally been removed, and pushed into the guidelines where they are more appropriate to help users understand application of the policy. See, for example, WP:NFCC #8 before this was done [5] versus the current #8 example. Regardless of the presence or not of specific examples, abstract policies can and do apply.
• Fair use images should be included, at least, for major characters. That would be minimal use.
  Rebuttal: Who decides who the major characters are? It's entirely subjective, and provides only a vague metric.
• Fair use images up to <x> number of images should be allowed.
  Rebuttal <x> number is arbitrary, and could easily result in overuse, such as 10 images for 11 characters, or oppositely, 10 images for 130 characters. Even if you did it like one image per ten characters, it is still arbitrary and ignores fair use law.
• The images are allowable under fair use law.
  Rebuttal: Maybe, but Wikimedia policy is deliberately more restrictive than fair use law. Also, we're not lawyers. Having random editors decide fair use law acceptability questions is problematic.
• The subject of the image is being discussed, so that's critical commentary.
  Rebuttal: If the image itself is not discussed it's not critical commentary. It's just illustration. See also [6].

---

Touchstone: From multiple discussions, policy, resolution and etc. as supported above this is the current position held by those few who understand all of this (as called before 'fair use exclusionists) and routinely denied by those who do not understand (as called before 'fair use inclusionists'):

• In any "List of characters..." or "Characters of..." type article or subsection of a larger subject article, the use of non-free media per character is not accepted when the media is used for illustrative purposes only. An example of inappropriate use: [7].
• It is appropriate to have a non-free image of a character in an article specifically about that character rather than on a list of characters. An example of an acceptable use: [8]
• It is not enough to illustrate and discuss the appearance of the subject. For critical commentary to be cleared, the image's plot/historical/setting importance must be discussed in the article. In such cases, the use of a limited number of montage images showing multiple characters might be acceptable. It is frequently the case that this is limited to one image of this type per article. An example: [9].
• Montages can not be created from multiple images being merged into one by an editor as this does not effect the quantity of copyrighted work being used. The montage must come from the copyright holder themselves, such as Image:FFIX characters.jpg in Characters of Final Fantasy IX.

---

In conclusion: I am not asking for consensus to form to support this touchstone. That does not mean I am a bull in a china shop and all of you can go to hell if you disagree :) I have gone to great lengths to show how the policy applies, citing examples, rebutting the defenses, and supporting the Foundation's resolution. If you want to contest this touchstone, in the very least come up with a rational rebuttal based on policy and guideline (as I have) and at least find some admins who support your position. Also, this is not a poll, but a statement of the status quo in so far as a large group of administrators have agreed, in general, that this is the case both in writing and in action. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the above content below this point

• Sorry, but what is the question? This just seems like your views on the policy, what can I say ? Of course you can't have montages of fair-use images, it is illegal to modify copyrighted work and republish it in a modified form. Is this your question ? As far as simply sticking them next to each other, in an image editing software, this may not be illegal but it's pretty obvious it's against policy.

However if someone can find an image showing all the characters together, then that would be the ideal image for illustrating a list. You must understand that the limitation of fair-use images in lists is for one not policy, but the result of a discussion from a while back, and also it is there to stop people introducing 20 images in one article. The basis of thought is that if each character is not notable enough to have an individual article then fair-use images of each one are not indispensable to the understanding of the article. However the list in itself is notable (or if it's not then delete it), so it would only be logical to have one picture showing a large number of characters if such an image already exists.

But I don't understand what your question is and unfortunately of the few people who read all the way through your post, many may not understand either, so apologies if this is not the answer you were expecting. Also in my opinion it seems unlikely this is your main account, if this is the case please understand that I find it rather rude of you to not use your main identity when asking something. Jackaranga (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking a question. I'm attempting to create a touchstone point, something to refer to, to prevent the unending arguments that occur on this point. We seem to largely, though not entirely, agree on the essence of what I have posted above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jackaranga asked if you're a sockpuppet. Your account has been here for a year so I'm not sure where that suspicion comes from, but if this is your main account would you mind confirming that?

The above is a reasonable stab at a summary but not everything there is consensus and a few are minority viewpoints. Specifically, one need not always discuss the image itself; in many cases the commentary may be about the subject of the image. This varies by type of copyrighted work. If the image is a logo, one need only discuss the company. If the image is a character, one must discuss the character, not the particular image. In the case of birds, it is our encyclopedic period to describe every significant species of bird, but we would use non-free images. Wikipedia is in very many ways a guidebook, but that whole point is a matter of style and editorial policies, and notability, not non-free images. If it's notable enough for an article, it's notable enough for a picture. Decorativeness is not a useful concept, and is entirely subsumed anyeay in criterion #8, significance. The term is based on an out-of-context concept from some copyright cases. It's too often misunderstood. Galleries are not decorative at all. Their problem is significance and amount of non-free content. "Illustrative" use is perfectly fine - that's not really a concept here either. Where it comes into play is that one does not include a non-free photo of a living celebrity simply to show what it looks like. On the other hand, one does include a non-free artistic work precisely to show what it looks like. The 10(c) requirement is entirely procedural; it does not impose any higher standard for inclusion.

Agreed that montages don't help. Actually, they're worse because they're derivative works. If 2-3 related subjects are discussed in an article it's fair to have 2-3 non-free images if they meet all the other criteria - it's not a list. That begs the question why it's not in 2-3 separate articles though. If it's more like 8 or 10 or 20 in one article, it becomes a list, particularly if it's in a gallery type form. Consensus is a subtle issue. We've decided by longstanding consensus that non-free images cannot be used in galleries, for example, and put that in the guideline - so no further consensus need be shown to remove an individual image. On the other hand, someone arguing for their own particular interpretation or application of the policy or guideline does need to show consensus. Simply saying that your actions have a basis in policy does not eliminate the need to act by consensus. Someone else might read and follow the same policy and think it does not apply.

I agree with the other 85% of the analysis. Despite the "say no to fair use" banner on your talk page, which is a little provocative, your points are pretty mainstream and I don't see that any of your recent image removals are problematic.

Back to the character lists. We've decided to simply ban images in lists and galleries, based on concerns over significance and over-use of non-free images. That prohibition is expressed as an example. End of story there. If a character is notable enough to have its own article, that article can be illustrated with a representation of the character. But several characters listed in a single article don't merit one image per character. That's a judgment call and there's no rock solid logical reason, just a policy decision to draw the line somewhere. I think it's useful to summarize as you do to explain to people unfamiliar with the subject why we made that decision. But the decision is made. No need to go back and justify it each time. Just ask people to touch the touchstone.

-- Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand

I do not understand WP:NFCC#10c, can somebody explain it to me, and its there an article that I can use as an example.Angel,Isaac (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. The image Image:04c.jpg is non-free, but it contains a fair-use rationale for the only article it's in. If it were used in two different articles, it would need two rationales. To add a rationale, use Template:Non-free use rationale. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the guideline

In the section above regarding fair use images in character lists, little discussion has taken place after two days. Subsequent to this, I'd like to propose a change to the guidelines, specifically in section 2.6, "Unacceptable images". I'd like to add the following line:

13. Screenshots of characters for illustration purposes only on anything other than a specific article about that character. If used beyond that scope, there must be critical commentary regarding the image itself, beyond the appearance of the character. Group shots created by the copyright holder of characters may be acceptable.

This proposed change is inline with policy WP:NFCC #3a "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice" and "As few non-free content uses as possible" and #8 significance, as well as Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it is a screenshot of a t.v. show, it's already not permitted to use it for illustration purposes. The license states it must be used for critical commentary. See Template:Non-free television screenshot. You seem to be aware of this and indeed cover it in the wording above, so I support the suggested change. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. But, there's been considerable debate regarding this, and I wanted to get something codified in the guideline to cover this particular case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)