February 24
File:Igeum.jpg
File:Bless The Bride.jpeg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Ultimately, for a magazine cover to remain outside of, say, an article about the magazine itself, the significance of the specific magazine cover would need to be discussed in the article. I remember that there was much discussion some years back about a similar issue on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster article, where a CNN screen-grab and I believe also a Time magazine cover were being used to illustrate the vehicle's breakup, rather than anything to do with the material as it came through under that source. Ultimately, for Columbia, File:STS-107 reentry.jpg ultimately came about, which was a NASA image of the breakup, which satisfied all applicable guidelines. So for the image at hand, you might (note that I say "might") get away with a non-free image showing the musical that's not a magazine cover or similar to illustrate the concept, since I believe it may very well be impossible to land a free image of this. But the use of a magazine cover requires sourced commentary specifically on the magazine cover, and we don't have that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bless The Bride.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bertie1pug1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
Magazine cover used in the article about something that happened to be on the cover of that magazine. Use is entirely decorative and does not enhance readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain On similar grounds we'd have no "illustrative" pictures in any wiki articles, and restrict ourselves entirely to charts and diagrams. In fact the picture presents actual protraits (rather than caricatures) of the stars of the original production of this (very old) musical and is far from being "purely decorative". Many articles on musicals, films, plays, operas and other dramatic works have posters or magazine or program covers as illustrations, as here, while often being far LESS informative - in that stars are much less likely to be authentically portrayed. This illustration "enhances readers' understanding of the article" every bit as much if not more than any of these do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. The photo on the cover is a publicity shot for the musical Bless the Bride. It shows the style and setting of the original production of the musical and its original stars, in costume, and it provides context for the discussion of the musical in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the discussion of the photo, though? Stifle (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The SUBJECT of the photo (the two stars) is/are discussed of course.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Retain: Articles about various arts are often best identified or given cultural context through their third-party media coverage. In fact, that's one of the main ways in which a subject becomes notable. So including an image of the cover of a magazine that is covering the subject seems like a perfectly fine use to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC) - New opinion posted below.[reply]
- Have any of you read WP:NFCC#8? This discussion only arises because the image is non-free. If it was a free picture, there would be no question that it is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But virually all illustrations of articles on dramatic works are "non-free" - and the vast majority of them very much more recent (this image is over 60 years old). The other point is very simply that is does add valuable pictorial information (like what the stars looked like). If this is not valuable information, why do we have portraits in biographical articles? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have portraits in biographical articles if they are free. You appear to be missing this important distinction. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You "missed it" until your original objections had been met and you needed to shift your ground to continue the argument. Is this productive? The precedent it would set would mean that all non-free publicity material for theatrical performances would need to go. This borders on the ludicrous, especially for material that was specifically released by its original owners exactly so as to be distributed as widely as possible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soundofmusicals: To be fair, I think Stifle has a point here. I disagree that the image should be deleted on the grounds that it's not free, but I can see a case for removing it because the cover of the magazine doesn't make it clear that the photo is related to Bless the Bride. One would have to know the historical context of that magazine issue to understand it, or an explanation would need to be added (such as in the caption) stating which issue it was and what the photo was about. In other words, I can see how the image doesn't provide the right context on its own, but deleting it might not be the correct response - instead, we might want to improve the article so that the image's context is easy to understand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redacting my own comment because the image is accompanied by a perfectly appropriate caption in the article. I hadn't bothered to check that before making my lengthy comment here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle: I honestly don't see how this image violates WP:NFCC#8. As mentioned elsewhere, the image does provide context to the article, the context is properly identified in the caption, and the people shown in the image are discussed in the article. The image itself does not have to be discussed in order to be relevant and encyclopedic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain Image is essential to the article and is correctly tagged as a non-free image Jack1956 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image is so essential, why isn't it discussed in the article? Stifle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The people in the picture are mentioned and their performances discussed. What else about the picure COULD be discussed? Make a suggestion and we'll discuss it, I'm sure.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image helps identify the subject and give it context. The article is not required to identify, give context to or discuss the image. As a parallel: Most articles on video games include an image of the game's box art, flyer art, and/or screenshots of their gameplay, and yet in the vast majority of cases, the images themselves need no discussion in the article (beyond a caption, usually). If we had to discuss a non-free image in the article to justify its existence there, every article would have sentences in it like "Two of the performers in this musical were pictured on the cover of this popular magazine, dated such-and-such-date". It would be unnecessary and would clutter most articles beyond usefulness, not to mention possibly introduce WP:WEIGHT issues. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain A no-brainer, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: After looking over the article I can say, at least in regards to it's current use, this does fail policy. It is a magazine that has a cover with two of the actors form a musical on the cover of it. The article is not about the magazine, it is about the musical. An image such as this would be fine as it is a flyer/poster for the musical. There are many examples of acceptable and unacceptable use of non-free content to be found and many of them deal with what the material is *of* and how it is used. You don't use a book cover in an article about the artist who created the book cover unless there is very specific text in the article about that specific cover. You don't use an album cover in the info box for the act who recorded the album. You don't use a one sheet for a film in an infox about a TV show based on the film. Living or dead, current or past - it does not matter when it is non-free content being discussed because in order to use such content the subject of the article must be about the subject (What is the picture of) of the image itself, not the content (What appears in the image). So, an one example, File:Platform book cover.jpg is a book cover - that is the subject of the image. The content of the image is text, yellow, a female, breasts in a bikini top, a belly button, skin, someone on a beach, sand and water. The image can be used in an article about the book itself but it cannot be used in an infobox of articles about sand, water, text, breasts, bikinis, belly buttons, skin or the color yellow. In other words - to quote two of the guideline examples - Acceptable use - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. This image falls under the "unacceptable use" Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be safely assumed that the original picture was supplied to the editors of this publication (and probably simultaneously to other members of the contemporary British "show-biz" press) specifically in order that they might publish it, on cover or elsewhere, as part of a publicity campaign intended to sell seats to the original production. It is in this sense no different from a flyer or poster. If a flyer or poster (or a CD cover) is legitimate then this certainly is. We could trim the photograph from the image of the cover - and be within our rights, as the publishers of the magazine have no copyright over the image itself - they were reproducing it with the (strongly implied) permission of the actual owners, the producers of the show. To do this would be a less than ideal compromise of this thoroughly artificial "dispute", as the cropped image would be less informative (there is implied information about notability and context in the fact of the image actually appearing on a well-known magazine's cover) - but if it will save the important principle involved, and allow us to continue the totally unobjectionable practice of using images intended for publicity purposes to continue to supply that publicity!! (not to mention encyclopedic information)... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. Policy and guidlines are explicit on this one. This is not a discussion to change those, if you disagree with policy or guidlines you need to take it up at the appropriate talk pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BUT this is NOT illustrating an article about either or both of the people involved but a musical comedy in which they appeared. If you want to go all legalistic then you need to actually match the condition! everyone has been reading your arguments - return the compliment if you can find the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you are just being ironic however unless you feel that 1+1=15 than what I said, and what the policy says and what the explicit guidelines that explain the policy say, are clear. If you wish to discuss policy and if you feel it is not valid please do so at their talk pages. What I deal with is 99% images and copyright. I understand that the Wikipedia policy on such matters is hard to understand at times but I had hoped the guideline examples would be clear, however if you seriously do not understand this is my one final attempt at explaining it here:
- What is this material? It is an image of a magazine. Specifically a magazine cover.
- What is the subject of the image? It shows a magazine cover.
- What is the content of the image? It is a magazine cover. That cover contains text, handwritten name, the color blue, and a black and white image of a man and woman.
- Is the material free or non-free? It is non-free.
- How can such material be used on Wikipedia? Per the allowable EDP our guidelines on non-free content state that The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law as defined by our non-free content criteria as described below.
- Acceptable use - Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
- Unacceptable use - A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover.
- So this material would be acceptable to use in an article about the magazine itself. It might even be acceptable if this particular issue of this particular magazine was considered somehow iconic or had caused some controversy and had been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. How is this image currently being used? Is it in an article about the magazine itself? No. Is there any sort of indication this particular issue of this particular magazine was of any notability in regards to the current use? No. What is it being used for? To illustrate Lizbeth Webb and Georges Guetary in costume in the musical Bless the Bride. That use is not an acceptable use of identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item - meaning an article about the magazine itself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying the same thing louder and at greater length isn't a new argument - numbering points doesn't make an argument valid. The basic premise behind all fair use (and a sensible reading of the policy you keep quoting out of context) is that if we use a non-free image we do so in a way that the original owner of the image could not reasonably object to. Hence, for instance, it is fair to make a brief quotation from copyright text to illustrate a point from that text. This image is almost entirely taken up with an photograph that "belongs" to the people (as individuals very probably dead) who produced the show in question, just after the Second World War. They would most certainly not have objected to us (or anyone else) using the image in any way that did not defame or "rubbish" the show. It's a publicity shot for heaven's sake - meant to be stuck up on (metaphorical and real) walls just like a poster.
- SO, is it the peripheral matter - the other parts of the original magazine cover that are the problem? If they really are, then we could easily crop them away, revealing the publicity photograph as it was before the layout editor of the magazine stuck it there. Would this be preferable in any way? I think not. Presenting the central image in context on the magazine cover conveys several interesting points of information, and generally makes a much more interesting image than the bare photograph would. The "art work" is really so minimal that one could legitimately wonder if it is actually "copyrightable" in any sense at all. As you say - it basically comprises the colour blue and the name of the magazine in a commercially available font. Is the colour blue copyright? is the font used copyright (possible but I doubt it) is the name of the magazine copyright? We could probably even start a magazine of our own of the same name if we were so inclined.
- The rule you quoted so emphatically and still seem to feel so strongly about would have some application if the article were about either of the prople in it. It is not, it is about a show they were in. The rule, as I read it, does not seem to say that an image of a magazine cover can ONLY be used in an article about the magazine. I was not being ironic - just asking you to address this point rather than fly off at yet another tangent.
- I am not fighting just to keep a pretty and eminently suitable image, perfectly illustrating an interesting article about its famous composer's most beautiful and perfect little musical. I also think that a sensible fair use policy - that doesn't go into stupid legalistic wranging, but that steers a proper course between too liberal or too conservative an interpretation of "fair-use" guidelines - one in fact based on pragmatic common sense rather than dogmatic posturing. Delete this image, or even crop the "magazine cover" border from it, and you're opening yet another can of worms on a road to the "goal" of a "free image only" wikipedia. (Excuse mixed metaphor.) God save us all from that.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying it to say it over, I am saying it because you seem to have a clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on non free content. In the real world this may not be an issue, but Wikipedia is not the real world and it based it's policy on the concept of fair use but (bold added) The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law as defined by our non-free content criteria as described below. That is not my reading of it - that is how it is. You need to understand Wikipedia current policy is not a real world "fair use" policy, it is a non-free content policy, or an EDP. There is no other tangent at all other than this image, as is currently being used, fails our policy requirement for such use. Per your edit summary I have asked for "an authoritative third party" to visit. Soundvisions1 (talk)
Delete: I was asked to step in here as an "authoritative third party", per the request (in edit summary) of User:Soundofmusicals. The policy/guideline issue here is very clear cut. Before I get to that, I'd like to rebut the "retain" reasons already given:
- "Many articles on musicals ... have posters or magazine or program covers as illustrations"; Posters from the musical fine. Program covers, fine. Magazine covers, not fine. Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments rarely hold water.
- "The photo on the cover is a publicity shot"; that doesn't make it more acceptable within the constraints of WP:NFCC policy.
- "Articles about various arts are often best identified or given cultural context through their third-party media coverage"; If there is reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources] regarding the media coverage surrounding it such that an image from the media ties directly into discussion of the media coverage, then fine. Otherwise, it's taking copyrighted works from a third party source.
- "Image is essential to the article and is correctly tagged as a non-free image"; nobody is contesting that is properly tagged as a non-free file. If the image is essential, where is the properly sourced discussion regarding the coverage of this play in 'Theatre World'?
The core issue here is the use of third party copyrighted works to depict something. I don't want to get too far down into legalspeak here, but the issue has to do with transformative use, an important element of Fair Use law. If we take a copyrighted cast photo from a production and use it here to illustrate an article on that production, it would constitute a transformative use; we are directly using their material and discussing it. If we take a third party copyrighted work, we have to provide a transformative use not just for the original copyrighted work being depicted, but also for the third party's copyrights as well. That is the key underlying issue Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 #8. So unless there is secondary sourced discussion about the cover of that issue of 'Theatre World', using it to depict anything from this play is not just a violation of WP:NFCC, but also Fair Use law in the U.S. There's really no wiggle room on this. I strongly suggest using one of the many advertising posters from the play, or if the depiction of the characters on the cover of the magazine is in fact a publicity photo from the production, find the original publicity photo (and don't just cop out cover elements from the magazine and declare it to be the actual publicity photo; that would constitute a derivative work). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, regarding the "Many articles on musicals ... have posters or magazine..." comment: I think this argument wasn't so much going after WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather pointing out that if the policy really is that strict, then there are possibly hundreds of articles on various performing arts that are violating this policy. It means that many people will have misunderstood and violated the policy and lots of work will need to be done to bring them all in line. I don't have specific examples for you, but if it turns out that we've been "doing it wrong" for so long, it might point to a deficiency in people's general understanding of the policy. (To my knowledge, I'm not responsible for any such violations myself - I'm just trying to interpret the argument.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I originally voted Retain, but the discussion since then has convinced me that the image's use violates NFCC policy, and that even without a policy violation, the image doesn't adequately illustrate the subject of the article. You cannot tell just by looking at the image that it has anything to do with the musical - you must read the caption, be able to read the fine print on the magazine cover, know something about the people pictured, or be able to read the magazine itself to be able to tell that the people pictured starred in the musical. A publicity poster or flyer about the musical, clearly showing its title, would be a far more suitable image. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Thank you for player.png
File:Tania-Page-May25.png
