Wikiversity:Community Review/Fair Use/Archive 1

Rationales for Fair use images
In the Category:Fair use images we have 2,923 files at the moment. Looking at the sources for the first 200, they fall into the following categories:
 * 1) 139 files, authors uploaded their files for fair use; i.e., designated them as fair use, these include those from courses hosted here at Wikiversity, ~ 70 %,
 * 2) 20 sources are various .edu world-wide, ~ 10 %,
 * 3) 12 sources are commercial (.com), ~ 6 %,
 * 4) 12 probable Public Domain files, including 2 deleted from Commons, ~ 6 %,
 * 5) 7 sources are .org, various ones, ~ 4 %,
 * 6) 3 author stated that his files are free for educational uses, ~ 2 %,
 * 7) 3 unknown sources, but uploaded as fair use, ~ 2 %,
 * 8) 1 author taking part in Upper Limb Orthotics designated the other files as PD and uploaded them to Commons but perhaps forgot this one. I designated it as Fair use, for me to designate as PD could be illegal,
 * 9) 1 source is an archive.info, ~ 1 %,
 * 10) 1 source is a .net, ~ 1 %,
 * 11) 1 source is apparently noncommercial but indeterminate, might be a personal author, I'm not sure. ~ 1 %. Here's the File:08785-06-L.jpg.

Total of 200. Three of the above File:2012 LZ1.jpg, File:2013-02-15T101834Z 1461539070 GM1E92F1EHS01 RTRMADP 3 RUSSIA-METEORITE.JPG, and File:20130321 nwa 7325 ralew.jpg all have fair use rationales modeled after Wikipedia.

Discussions or comments about the Fair use rationales needed can be found at Template talk:Fairuse and Community Review/Fair Use. To try to get some guidance from WMF-Legal I created a task at url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126418 at the Phabricator. They have been kind in suggesting what they can. Please have a look. This task is still open for anyone wanting to get clarification, if possible. Essentially, they've asked the community to choose the wording to best help potential readers with respect to why the image is fair use. Feed-back from the community would be really helpful. Suggested content will also help. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia, Wikisource, and all the other WMF projects have the added burden in their rationales of not being a noncommercial, education, teaching and research website. We are the only site that has all four. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For many of our files uploaded as fair use we can use the Template:Upload Information. The permission line can be used to include comments like "author stated that his files are free for educational uses", for example. We can also add a "Rationale" line to this template. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * 1) For the some 2100 fair use images that are author designated as fair use we probably need to do nothing.
 * 2) For the some 290 fair use images from .edu sources, since these usually require educational use only, we may need to do nothing. Even for images from .com like nature.com where the authors are from an .edu (below the author line, they actually hold the copyrights on the images along with their parent institutions) we probably need to do nothing, or see suggestion 5.
 * 3) For the some 175 that are probable Public domain, they usually state something like "probably Public domain" in the permission line. My tendency again is to do nothing because these also have the Template:Upload Information filled in already.
 * 4) The .org, .net, .info, or author states on website source that they are already non-commercial, around 230, already have the Template:Upload Information filled in so we may need to do nothing more.
 * 5) For the some 175 that come from a .com, most already have the Template:Upload Information filled in. We could add the "|rationale" to this template and put in for each "For education, teaching and research only", for example.
 * 6) Files used in the course Upper Limb Orthotics, perhaps some 30 usually have the course or a subpage on the file page already. Or, see the suggestion just above.
 * 7) The unknowns of which there may be as many as 80-90 could also use step 5 if they have that template already in place. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, but none of the files I've looked at so far are copyright violations IMHO. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Responses
I have read https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126418. The responses there indicate that something needs to be done for each file. Quoting, "the term “fair use” is less of a rationale in and of itself and more of a shorthand for a somewhat complex analysis. The rationale given for a piece of media should provide at least some of that analysis." and "When someone is just looking at the image page (and not necessarily at other pages that use the image), what do they need to know about why the image is allowed to be there? What information would best inform them about whether and how they can use the image elsewhere?"

This isn't a question of copyright violation, per se, as it is assumed that Fair Use files are copyrighted. This is a question of meeting the legal requirements of our own EDP, which states, "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder."

Unless you are proposing a change to the EDP, I recommend that everyone begin tagging any files they want to keep and have proper attribution information for. I also recommend that continued discussion be moved to Community Review/Fair Use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting! BTW I don't believe any of our Fair use files need to be deleted.


 * The complete quote for WMF-Legal is "When you’re deciding what to include in a non-free content rationale, I’d recommend thinking about it in terms of what other users would find most helpful. When someone is just looking at the image page (and not necessarily at other pages that use the image), what do they need to know about why the image is allowed to be there? What information would best inform them about whether and how they can use the image elsewhere? I think those are some of the more important considerations behind the rationale requirement—the legal issues are somewhat secondary."


 * User Mu301 has recently added "This template must be accompanied by a justifying the assertion of fair use." to the  template. I made the suggestions above by considering the entire quote above. Also stated is "I would hope, though, that others in the en.Wikiversity community (or other Wikimedians who have an interest in copyright) would be interested in working with you to craft the language for templates and such." so I would prefer to get feedback hopefully from as many as possible, where moving it to Community Review/Fair Use is probably going to limit the discussion to two or three of us. Apparently, choosing the language is open for discussion and consensus. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's an example that I believe meets our requirements for a rationale and our EDP: File:Meltwater from a glacier.JPG. In the permission line I have written "Fair Use, AVO is a .edu so image is for non-commercial educational, teaching and research purposes only." What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that some 2,000 to 2,100 of our fair use files were uploaded by their authors in good faith that declaring them as fair use was apparently all they needed to do. The recent addition of "This template must be accompanied by a justifying the assertion of fair use." occurred after all these files were uploaded. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the source of the image is an educational institution has no impact on fair use. According to Fair use, there are four factors: how it is used, the nature of the work itself, how much of it is used, and the effect on the work's value.
 * The image you have tagged as an example appears to be available under guidelines similar to CC-BY-SA, in that the full high-resolution image is made available with explicit instructions on how to obtain it and how to use it by crediting the photographer and organization. So I would say that this is not a fair use image. Tagging it as such is inappropriate, and tagging any image as fair use based solely on the nature of the source institution is not consistent with fair use guidelines.
 * The change to the template isn't the issue. The issues are the EDP, which hasn't changed since September 2011, and the community's lack of oversight in addressing content that is not consistent with the EDP since then. We can either work on changing the EDP, or we can work on appropriately tagging or removing the images, or some combination of the two. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The four factors are what courts are using to decide if a commercial use of fair use images is justified or not. There are no cases requiring these four factors when the use is educational, teaching and research, because the law was written precisely for these; this is why the information is more important than the use of the template, for example. The example I included answers more appropriately "how it can be used" and mentions the source is a .edu. Usually, images are presumed to be all or the "heart" regarding how much. Our descriptions in the information template answers "the nature of the work itself". The effect on the work's value is nothing when it's used on an educational, teaching, and research website by the copyright law section 107. Wikipedia adds this factor because they are not "an educational, teaching, and research website". Well, as I mentioned, none of the images tagged fair use needs to be deleted so that leaves perhaps clarifying the EDP. My uploads are not really a problem but the author-uploaded and designated as fair use are by their shear numbers. Tagging whichever files may be a lot of work or very easy depending on what we really need to do. The Creative commons image categories are way too numerous and unnecessary again because these licenses were designed for commons which is not "an educational, teaching, and research website". I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW it's okay with me to leave out portions like "AVO is a .edu so". I was being illustrative. The key part is "Fair Use, for non-commercial educational, teaching and research purposes only." This would be in line with the AVO which is the .edu portion of the credit. Fair use also allows parody. If our uses were parody but not educational, teaching, and research, these are still covered by section 107 and would not require the four points because it's also per section 107 as long as it's non-commercial. I also hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 05:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the illustration, but the selected image doesn't seem to apply to the discussion. In fact, if it remains tagged as fair use but goes unused, it will be deleted. We can't have unused fair use files, and fair use doesn't seem to correctly describe this image.
 * If you disagree with the EDP as written, please propose changes that the community and WMF Legal can support. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If unused I agree, but I'm using it on Volcanoes/Mount Redoubt. I was in the middle of that process when I included it here.


 * Well, let's see, here's the quote from WMF-Legal: "When you’re deciding what to include in a non-free content rationale, I’d recommend thinking about it in terms of what other users would find most helpful. When someone is just looking at the image page (and not necessarily at other pages that use the image), what do they need to know about why the image is allowed to be there? What information would best inform them about whether and how they can use the image elsewhere? I think those are some of the more important considerations behind the rationale requirement—the legal issues are somewhat secondary."


 * The easiest would be "When deciding what to include in a non-free content rationale, think about it in terms of what other users would find most helpful. When someone is just looking at the image page (and not necessarily at other pages that use the image), what do they need to know about why the image is allowed to be there? What information would best inform them about whether and how they can use the image elsewhere? Those are some of the more important considerations behind the rationale requirement—the legal issues are somewhat secondary." What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand this to mean each file needs a non-free rationale, and each of our fair-use files that doesn't have one needs to be updated. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. The fair use analysis is complex. Looking first at the author-declared fair use images, all of them use the template. This should tell anyone that the image is not free for commercial use. If they try to use it let's say in a book for sale by a publisher, they'll probably declare the image fair use and should make an effort to contact the author to include it. Here that may be difficult. The source for the author-declared should be obvious. But contacting them may not be. Many include "for a school project". The easiest thing to do is include something like "for educational, teaching and research uses" in the  template, or "for noncommercial, educational, teaching and research uses". Or we could insert "for noncommercial uses per section 107 of US copyright law." as fair use allows parody. We can use that here too but our Main Page stated use is "educational, teaching, and research". Putting some statement directly into the  template would handle all fair use category images. The template already states: "The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law." The template also states "Familiarize yourself with the Wikiversity Exemption Doctrine Policy before using this template." But, whether they have or not isn't the issue. My personal preference is "For noncommercial, educational, teaching and research uses." in place of "This template must be accompanied by a  justifying the assertion of fair use." That should do it. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The comments by CRoslof at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126418 indicate that it is not possible to solve this problem by simply changing the template or tagging each file the same way. As this is a world-wide site hosting international content, the issues go beyond Fair Use and US copyright law. Further, as User:Mu301 indicates, Resolution:Licensing policy requires that non-free content "must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." We need to visit each file and tag it appropriately. It might be helpful to research different approaches to tagging files in a machine-readable format, so that we can be sure to tag effectively when we make our updates. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The last time I checked the use of the template puts files in a machine-readable format. I'll try a couple more to see if the one or two I've checked were isolated cases. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost forgot about the illustrative image. On the website the image credit is to include the "Alaska Volcano Observatory" (AVO) as well as the USGS. Solely USGS images are almost always PD. But the AVO is a .edu probably from the University of Alaska. The site isn't clear on why AVO is a .edu. Most .edu sites are "non-commerical, educational use only" sites. An exception is the Chandra site at Harvard. It's a .edu but Chandra images have been declared PD. OTRS at Commons has confirmed that. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of this image isn't restricted, so it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The details of US copyright law are wholly irrelevant. Wikiversity, like all WMF projects, is required and obligated to follow Resolution:Licensing policy which is more restrictive than what would be allowed on a personal web server. While we are allowed to have an EDP for fair use images, it is very clear that: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."

The change that I made to the template is due to: "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." The easiest way to comply with the requirement is to transclude a template which inserts the machine-readable code. It would also be acceptable to include this code in the file description by manually editing, as long as it is done correctly such that a bot or other automated software can identify the information.

It also crystal clear that "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale." That point is not a topic for community discussion - it is a requirement for participation on any WMF hosted project.

I agree that this thread should be moved to Community Review/Fair Use or perhaps to a user talk page. --mikeu talk 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above per WMF-Legal we should involve the community and this is the best place to do that. In addition, I added this discussion to the phabricator task so WMF-Legal can monitor our discussion if they want to. So let's keep it here for now, please. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Resolution:Licensing policy, I'm pretty sure WMF-Legal was keeping that in mind when they made their comments. So deleting images uploaded as Fair use was not specifically endorsed. But, trying to work together to formulate the "why" for these images was. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't found any files with the template in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license of the some 10,000 files, but one of the files for the course Upper Limb Orthotics in the first 200 from this category has a "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license versions 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0" which is weird. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another update: I've looked at some 600 files from the Category:Files with no machine-readable license of the some 10,624 files. None have the template. But, it's getting weirder:
 * File:100 9317sml.jpg has a Licensing tag of "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.",
 * File:19721207-Earth.jpg has a PD licensing, as do two others.
 * 1) The files in the Category:Fair use images number some 2,923 so they should be about 27 % of the Category:Files with no machine-readable license. So far nada for almost 6 %. They should be occurring at a rate of about 1 in four.
 * File:A-8001.gif has a Licensing tag of "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License." And, get this, here's the Summary: "HLA allele distribution. Source: HumImmunol 2008 69:443 [1]. Permission for use obtained from authors." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It's beginning to look like the  template is the only licensing template we have that does comply with "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." and "The easiest way to comply with the requirement is to transclude a template which inserts the machine-readable code." Which I believe puts us right back to inserting something that meets WMF-Legal's "why" rationale into the  template. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Well, that's 2,000 images and not one has the  template. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Legal has already said that one-size-fits-all is not an adequate solution. More specific information will need to be filled in for each file. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. Many of the files already have additional more specific information as mentioned in my suggestions up above. Another solution is the information template having a "|rationale" section. Since I have already included this with all my uploads, it makes mine at least easier. We put this in that template and perhaps discuss the many possible rationales that are acceptable. My suggestions include some that may be okay. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Another possibility is to put a line in the template to be filled in with each image by the uploader or author. How easy would that be? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's run some tests and see what you think. I added "|rationale" to the Template:Upload Information and filled in a scholarly rationale using the Template:Non-free media rationale as a guide for the File:Redoubt Glacier.JPG. The rationale fulfills these two concerns:
 * 1) Why free licensed or public domain alternatives cannot be used or created and
 * 2) Why a book or module requires the use of this media (historically significant event at least from a glaciology POV, I believe is why this is being asked). --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I've also added a "|rationale" to the section, although it needs some tweaking. For at least my image uploads either of these would be easy. Albeit, I have uploaded hundreds of images. Each would have such a unique rationale. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The tests produced the following results


 * 1) in the  template adding a "|rationale" line works except it put all the Fair use files in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license, so without an easy answer to this, I've removed the "|rationale" line.
 * 2) in the Template:Upload Information adding the "|rationale" line puts it in all displays of that template so I added (for fair use images only) to the legend. That allows all files with this template to display this new line. If a file doesn't need to have this filled in, well it doesn't need it, the fair use files with this template can have a rationale added. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: The rationale added uses the template as a guide for what to add as a rationale and saves redundancy of adding yet another template to these files. I can also put in rationales in all my uploaded fair use files as I go through updates on each of my resources since they all have the Template:Upload Information. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * strongly as proposer using the inserted rationale line in the Template:Upload Information to supply fair use rationales using the template as a guide for what to add as a rationale. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC) BTW of the 10,642 files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license the first one is free use and already on Commons! The second one, also free use, I just uploaded to Commons using Commonshelper, but there's just too many to do this one at a time. I've only checked the first 2,000 (all or nearly all are free use, I might have missed a few). --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC) The only template that has received wide community support is Template:Upload Information. The  template has never had a community review until now (this is part of that) and has never received community support! Community support is needed per WMF-Legal. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly - There are now 10,786 files impacted by this change. Only 1,425 of those files are Fair Use files, and 43 of those already have rationale. More importantly, there are 2,885 files using the Fair Use template, so only half of the files that are part of the problem are being addressed by this solution while 87% of the files impacted by this solution aren't related to the problem. If we are not going to use, the alternative place to insert rationale would be in the Fairuse template. But the template changes must be done correctly so that files with rationale display the rationale, files without rationale indicate that the rationale is missing, and categories are maintained accordingly. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly I agree wholeheartedly with the comments from Dave. It is critical to examine the templates and compare the machine readable code to what automated tools expect. A trial and error approach is going to miss important details. Any changes to the templates should be in strict agreement with the WMF licensing policy, and not a single community member's idiosyncratic interpretation. --mikeu talk 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (as I read the rules)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for voting! I'll revert the edit to Template:Upload Information. The rationale will still be on the page so it can be transferred to whatever template(s) are agreed upon for this use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edits to Template:Upload Information are complete. We still have no community approved template for applying a fair use rationale, especially one per WMF-Legal (only needed on the file page and not for every page the file is used on). So


 * strongly using Template:Upload Information as it appears on about half of the files that are fair use and when the free use files are deleted after transfer to commons will easily facilitate application of the rationale to those remaining. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC) BTW this can also be considered as an opinion and vote for updating the rules to make the process of adding an appropriate fair use rationale (if use of # 5 and # 6, are okayed by WMF-Legal) to files more efficient even if we reduce to these two steps, if the information is already present on the file page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * What I would like to have is at least five users voting on this. If the voting goes four against I will revert adding the fair use rationale to my fair use files and seek another hopefully easy, fast and efficient way to do this. If the voting is split I will continue supplying fair use rationales because these are needed. Many thanks to the community members who have helped with this important matter so far. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be best to follow current practice and update files using for now. Whatever solution we ultimately agree on can be addressed most effectively if there is only one approach in use. Please keep updating, but do so with already accepted methods. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for voting! The template redirects to the  template which has seven lines to fill out
 * user Who asserts this rationale, which in my case is already available, and is available on all these files,
 * article The page where this media is to be used, WMF-Legal has suggested that this is less important than having the "why" of the rationale to help the outside user know the "why" on the file page, plus some files end up being used in multiple resources which are listed at the bottom of the file page anyway, more redundancy,
 * copyrights Who owns the copyrights to this media (and for what years if known), this is already identified in the Template:Upload Information, so is redundant,
 * source The source of the media (provide a web address if possible and not already provided), this is also in the Template:Upload Information, so again is redundant,
 * not free Why free licensed or public domain alternatives cannot be used or created, currently being included in the rationale together with,
 * rationale Why a book or module requires the use of this media, included, it usually refers to a significant historical event, this phrasing is curious but in a way does correspond to the request for "why" from WMF-Legal, personally, why "a book or module requires the use of this media" is somewhat irrelevant when we are engaged in education, teaching, and research, but book publishers do use articles from Wikipedia and from here to compose and publish books for profit, hopefully they also donate to the WMF,
 * missing Some required information is missing, unfortunately I don't know what's missing so this probably refers to something other than already known about the image.


 * Regarding the other files affected, the Template:Upload Information has no effect on the more than 10,000 files in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license one way or the other, but it does show up, if they don't need a rationale, there's no need to fill one in, BTW nearly all these files have free licenses and should be moved to Commons rather than being kept here. The presence of the template in the Template:Fairuse let's the uploader or subsequent reader know that such a rationale is needed and the Template:Upload Information includes on the left in the blue margin "(for fair use files only)". Regarding the 2,885 files using the Fair Use template, so only half of the files that are part of the problem, actually 2,000 to 2,100 of these are author uploaded as fair use for courses here at Wikversity, most of which we would have to fill in a rationale or put up for deletion since for most of these the courses are over. Those that are being curated by me as part of Upper Limb Orthotics and later the North Carolina in World War I series can have rationales applied by me without much effort as I know what to put in. Actually, files not having or requiring a fair use rationale indicate "" rather than "indicate that the rationale is missing". Those that don't need it, don't need to have it filled in. The  template is a good place to have the rationale inserted, and there may be a way to do that. But, my initial attempt to do that caused all of the Fair use files to be included in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license, where they weren't before. If someone can figure out how to include the line for the rationale into the  template, this would be great! I could easily move the rationales already being inserted into this and remove them from the Template:Upload Information. This could be a Win-Win. Let me know if I missed something else. I've looked so far at all aspects of this problem and find either using the Template:Upload Information or the  template to be the easiest and most efficient way so far to handle this problem for all files affected. Using either also really reduces the redundancy and clutter on the file page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI but
 * 1) Template:Non-free use rationale, so far as I can find, was imported from Wikipedia.
 * 2) Template:Non-free media rationale, does not have an attribution, has never received a Community Review, see Past Community Reviews, and has never been discussed in the Colloquium (not apparently in the Archives) until now so far as I can find.
 * 3) Template:Fairuse rationale, seems to have an attribution by hyperlink, to Wikibooks:
 * later was blanked and a redirect inserted to Template:Non-free media rationale.


 * 1) Template:Upload Information, attribution=from Wikimedia Commons under GFDL, for list of authors see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Information&action=history, by hyperlink. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RE: "What I would like to have is at least five users voting on this. If the voting goes four against I will..." Wikiversity operates on the principal of Consensus - "Consensus is not established just by counting votes." No single contributor gets to pick and choose the criteria for how the community conducts itself. Decision making must also adhere to WMF policy. The community can not boldly ignore our obligations as a WMF hosted project. --mikeu talk 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for voting on this and your opinions! The template may not be in agreement with WMF policy, as it was never approved by the community, but my uses of Template:Upload Information definitely are. If the lines # 5 and # 6 of Template:Non-free media rationale also are in agreement with the "Why" of the rationale, which I'm still waiting on WMF-Legal on, then the community has several options to vote on or comply with WMF policy. Consensus also should reflect the community which as I recall three people with opinions and votes never has. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just FYI but the direct use of the Template:Upload Information in the manner I'm suggesting is in direct and immediate compliance with our Exemption Doctrine Policy and a lot more efficient and effective, no redundancy required and in compliance with WMF-Legal recommendations. BTW many Fair use images were uploaded without the use of the Template:Upload Information and lack any Fair use rationale. Most of these were the author uploaded fair use declared files mentioned above of the 2,000 to 2,100. I've also asked for assistance from Commons with our almost 11,000 free use author declared files that Dave included in his statistics above. Without community approval for the use of Template:Non-free media rationale the community maybe boldly ignoring our obligations as a WMF hosted project. However, using the Template:Upload Information, which has received wide community support, in the manner I'm suggesting is boldly complying with our obligations as a WMF hosted project. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We have some files in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license that are uploader designated free use or appear to be free use but probably would not remain at Commons if uploaded there due to a lack of copyright information. As this discussion probably does not need input from WMF-Legal, I've transferred the discussion to Community Review/Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The task T126418 at the phabricator has been closed. Some salient points from WMF-Legal are "We will take down images as required by law if we are asked to by the copyright holder," "When you’re deciding what to include in a non-free content rationale, I’d recommend thinking about it in terms of what other users would find most helpful. When someone is just looking at the image page (and not necessarily at other pages that use the image), what do they need to know about why the image is allowed to be there? What information would best inform them about whether and how they can use the image elsewhere? I think those are some of the more important considerations behind the rationale requirement—the legal issues are somewhat secondary.", and "Unfortunately, I can’t give approval for any specific rationale language for you to use. I would hope, though, that others in the en.Wikiversity community (or other Wikimedians who have an interest in copyright) would be interested in working with you to craft the language for templates and such."

If there are no objections, we can either archive this discussion to the Colloquium archives or to the archives for Community Review/Fair Use, or both per suggestions or opinions. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)