Images are deleted fairly efficiently, if they are not then you get an out of control situation very quickly. Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week, there is simply no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review. This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader. Every effort is made to educate people as they are uploading, and including fair use images isn't super easy, but some people argue that it shouldn't be since we are a free encyclopedia. Probably no more time can ever be spent per problem image, as we are rate limited by number of volunteers, but better upload tools, and/or better education about the policies would be a big help I think. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: However a non-free image that IS on an article and complied with all applicable policies & practice at the time of its upload might be worth a few moments longer, especially when it was uploaded years ago and the contributor may have left the project since. As it is, I'm increasingly inclined to the view several people have expressed here that the mechanism of requiring a new hoop for fair-use images to jump through every six months or so, and expecting original uploaders to respond within a couple of days to a notice or the image gets deleted, is in effect a program of trying to get rid of fair use images even if they are within our defined scope for using them. This process will inevitably cut down the use of fair-use images in enwp down to a tiny subset where there are a group of people who'll spring to that image's defense. It could be argued that this will be the group of images where we really NEED fair use images, but this is a change in de facto policy. -Matt

Well, there is some degree to which we don't need any non-free images, or indeed, any images at all. Articles still get written, even though there is no way to illustrate the matter in question without resorting to a non-free image. So if we are talking about exceptions, the issue seems to be that those exceptions invariably generalize into situations; and that therefore exceptions are really policies of permission. If a corporate logo is acceptable in a context in which it is not discussed itself, then ALL corporate logos are granted exceptions. Same thing with album covers. Here comes my hypothetical infobox 'bot again, except this time, instead of applying the fair use rationales mechanically, it deletes the images or strips away the fair use rationale mechanically, because the situation is held to be too general to justify fair-use. On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Expecting images to fit the new rules, however, isn't. Surely someone is keeping a general eye on the tagged images, then? - d.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh, this one wasn't an orphan, it didn't include an outbound link in the rationale. Sorry for the confusion. The current situation is that the rationale needs to link to the article it's being used in. (like "This image is fair use, in [[Diet Coke]]") This is distinct from orphan non-free images (which are also tagged, yes, and deleted in 7 days) I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great idea, but it's been around for a while now. I don't think bots should look at the *quality* of rationales. I think bots are helpful in making the binary decisions about whether a rationale exists, and if it's an orphan. If a rationale exists however, and it is used in an article then, in my opinion, any further action needs to be taken by a human. Having said that, the preceding is *not* the current status of image management on enwiki. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Um January 2006 is relatively new? Image was uploaded after that date. -- geni

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which we should refuse, since the whole purpose of a rationale is to address why a specific use of a specific image in a specific article is justifiable. We should never accept nonfree images by category, only by individual case. It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: I see no reason why we should change this for these instances. Why would you favor such a change? -Matt

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:44 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: What you describe is the problem, though, not the solution. For some instances (Nike, Coca-Cola, the Intel Inside campaign, the Beatles' White Album), an album (or other media) cover or corporate logo is an integral part of the article's subject, there is a significant quantity of discussion of -the image itself-, and we can make an appropriate rationale for putting it in the article. In most cases, though (Advanced Micro Devices, Band X's latest release), the logo or cover is unnecessary and decorative since the article does not (and should not) discuss it, since it's just decoration for the company/book/album in and of itself and is not discussed by sources. It is not, in most cases, a necessary part of an article on the (corporation|album|book|movie|video game|what have you). We should only provide exceptions for nonfree images where they're -needed-, and part of the requirement should be that the image itself should be the subject of significant commentary and discussion, rendering its actual presence necessary for the reader to see the image that's -actually being discussed in the article-. A nonfree rationale should include a rationale for why the image is needed because it is actually going to be discussed and why it is not just a pretty for the infobox. I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal. In such cases, an image is decorative. That disqualifies a nonfree image too. We should be writing detailed rationales for every nonfree image justifying the use of that particular image in one particular article, -including the presence of sourced commentary on the image-. And yes, that would drastically reduce the number of nonfree images we use. Good! In case anyone has forgotten, we're a free content project, and that is and should be one of our aims. Exceptions to that goal should, above all, be made on an -individual- basis, not categorically. A detailed and individualized rationale is a good step toward that goal. Accepting boilerplate rationales would be a tremendous step backward. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On 05/03/2008, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: And that record and book covers are a significant part of almost any record or book release, because people do in fact judge records and books by their covers. Todd is phrasing a personal editorial viewpoint as if it follows naturally from WP:NONFREE, and it doesn't. - d.

On 05/03/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: It only needs strengthening for those demanding shrubberies. Isn't there a WP:RFA for that sort of thing? - d.

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we accept that in and of itself as justification for a nonfree image's use, we could use that to include any nonfree image anywhere, so that alone is not justification. If the image is undiscussed, it's still unacceptable, even if it would be nice. "Nice" or "helpful" aren't enough for nonfree image use. Also, I'd like to see this study. Does it state that -any- image helps the educational process, even when it's only marginally related to what's actually being discussed and the image itself isn't discussed at all? What study is this? I've seen that bantered around, but I've never seen any particular study actually -cited-. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote: I do agree with your position here, but I feel the need to point out a flaw in this reasoning. If this position translates to album covers (and I'm not saying you think so) where an album cover is included because it identifies the album, then why not the individual songs? They identify the album too. What if we discuss a particular song, such as [[Head over Feet#Harmonic_structure]]? (Ignore the OR tag for the sake of discussion.) Can we include the song under fair use? I have no answers, only questions. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote: We can include some of the song in that case, I feel, either in terms of audio clips or some written musical notation. It's probably not good enough to include the whole song. -Matt

Matthew Brown wrote: What's the point in naming the article when "What links here" will accomplish the same thing. Are some people just too lazy to check that? Ec

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -Matt

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:16:18 +0100, Matthew Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well two years ago the Non-free (then title "fair use") policy stated (among other things): "(...)For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." - <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&oldid=43474222> And yes it was official policy at that point. One might argue that it was not very well known (or enforced) back then, but requieiring a link to the article is hardly some recent retroactive addition, it's been in there for a very long time (see below). Depends on your definition of recently. True it's only been "hard" policy for a couple of years, but even the earliest precursor to the current policy I know off <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_description_page&oldid=1431693> (4 September 2003), states: "Remember there is no "general rule" about fair use, each "fair use" must be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use (i.e. every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image page)." While it doesn't explicitly state that each article name must be typed out it's hard to have a distinct rationale for each use without mentioning wich use is wich. Also later versions (2004 an on) also include a link to the article in all the example rationales given. Ok so it wasn't tagged as official policy at the time, but then again neither contemporary versions of things like WP:NOR <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=5884338> or WP:NPOV <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=1471194>... -- [[:en:User:Sherool]]