Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Archives

Album/single covers in articles that include multiple releases

I have a question based on this: "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Below of futher examples of images that, if non-free, may not satisfy the policy: 1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."

What does "discography" mean in that context? Album covers for album articles are covered under fair use, and it would follow that covers to singles would be allowed in articles about the single. But what's the policy if the article about the single is merged to the album? Can the image go with it? Also, the WP:MUSIC guideline advises that albums can be merged with their artist's article; if that's done, what's the policy then? There is also some discussion of combining album articles into discographies, where each album would have a section (and I would assume a separate infobox), but not a complete article to itself. Technically, that would be a discography, but if it's the only coverage we have of an album and the section is specifically about the album, it would seem to meet the significance test; the content would be identical, only the structure would be different. Can this be clarified in the policy? Thanks. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can have an article that has more than one non-free image in it. Each image has to be significant and be discussed in the article. If an artist had a hit single and a hit album and each were notable; two images would be OK. The text would have to support the need for both but it can be done. You would have a difficult time supporting 10 5 images. A combined article about the artist and two records can be preferable to three stub articles. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Language in unofficial section should match language in official policy

Although the first part of this article outlining the non-free content criteria is official policy, the subsequent examples given are not actually official. It is therefore really important that the language in these sections is consistent with the language used in the official policy. Because NFCC #1 uses the word "equivalent" rather than "reasonable," the latter word does not conform to the actual policy.Girl80 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Scanned engraving, across jurisdictions

I'd like to use this image in an article (engraving, p174, The morall philosophie of Doni). The engraving dates to 1570, but is reprinted in an 1888 book, the author of which (Joseph Jacobs) died in 1916. So far, so good. If I had a physical copy of the book it would be PD everywhere. However, this isnt a clear cut case of Bridgeman vs Corel; the donating library is in Canada, I'm in the UK, and IA claim that OCA rights apply to this book (ie licensing remains with the donor; it was scanned before they changed to a blanket non-commercial license). Of course, its impossible to identify the actual donor since its come from a consortium of libraries, none of whom list a contact... it might be easier to hold a seance and get Jacobs to print me another copy.

So. 438 years old, 1/3 of a page in a 300+ page book, with no text; can I use part of this scan? Yours in copyright paranoia, Bazzargh (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Old tv-station logos

Hi. I have recently seen tv-station articles with own sections about their old logos. Example. My intuitive reaction to such section is that it fails criteria 3 and 8 to include all the logos, since there are no actual commentary. Anyone else that has a thought on this? Rettetast (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few before due to that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now removed a lot of these sections in various articles. Rettetast (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, old logo galleries are interesting and encyclopedic, and present no troubling copyright issues, just not all that right for Wikipedia. Do be careful because there may be a few cases where an old logo is actually discussed critically in the article so the image would be useful / necessary. Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. If there are any commentary on them they should stay, but when the only mention is that this tv station has had several logos, than that can not be sufficient to use non-free images of theses logos. Rettetast (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I leave the ones that have critical commentary alone; just the gallery of images I remove. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That specific article has had repeated problems with editors gallerying old logos, a while back (mebbe a year ago?) I was doing the same. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback plz

I'd like to hear some third opinions. Are some or all of the images contained in this article not justifiable, from a fair-use standpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, I removed six non-free images from Xena, a character article, as they all illustrated the same character, whose appearance does not significantly change and who is played by a living actress whose appearance is also unchanged for the series. As such, I feel it violates WP:NONFREE sections 3a on Minimal usage and 8 regarding Significance (or lack there of). The images are only decoration and add nothing to the article. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The same character paired with other characters, each of whom are mentioned in the text near each pic.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Xena, so it doesn't matter how the other characters look to understand Xena. One exception for more images may be real-world commentary and content (make-up, reception for a particular scene, merchandise) that may need further illustration. But there is currently no such content. (edit: the Sexuality section may justify a picture of the two characters). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

favour?

Could I get an assist at Body Worlds? Uploaders are claiming GFDL release for images watermarked (and I imagine copyrighted) to http://www.bodyworlds.com — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

if they have the website name in the picture DB-copyvio them. the uploaders are obviously claiming a false license. 198.22.123.107 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)