" 

 == Begging your pardon for all this... == 

 I have a complicated question. It is to me, at least.  

 So a froofraw has occurred at AN where  nominated dozens of nonfree images to be deleted for not complying with NFCC policy. I got into it because he tagged three images in articles I wrote. (These are the images: 1, 2, and 3) I feel rather certain that I fully justified the inclusion of these images based on my experience writing FAs and GAs. In fact, the third image there was included in a 2009 Featured contact Dispatch about how to write a fair use rationale. But now I get from the disjointed discussion that the issue of ""transformative use"" is undecided and without consensus. According to those pushing for transformative use, a historical image has to be involved in the article, which qualifies for the historical images in Birmingham campaign, which I wrote.  

 I apologize because this is now so spread out I can't keep track of it anymore. There is the AN discussion here, an RfC about the issue of transformative use, which I can't even track it's so all over the place, and the discussions about each of the images that were tagged for deletion (start there and scroll down). 

 # I'm asking you if you can shed any light on this, specifically what I need to do to keep the images in the articles, because you have in the past treated intelligent editors looking to do the right thing with respect. I'm not seeing this in the other discussions. Not that I'm surprised. 
 # It's my contention that when other editors insist on bulky justification of images in article prose that does not reflect the weight of what sources say about the images, that that is a violation of WP:UNDUE and is a form of original research. I thinkand I'm not clear about what is being asked or demanded of methat a couple other editors are insisting that I make a section in the article about the image in order to keep it in the article. If, for example, three sources state that the image of Emmett Till's uncle is significant and they devote half a page in each book to how significant it is, but in the overall scheme of Emmett Till's story that is decreased to three sentences, would it not be OR to inflate how much prose is dedicated to the image?   
 # Why is the issue of what qualifies as fair use in images left up to consensus? Why haven't copyright attorneys taken this over? It seems if Wikipedia is doing something illegal or extralegal that there should be no questions about what qualifies as NFCC. I think part of why I'm so confused is that the editors insisting that the images be deleted are unsure of the legal literature themselves and have replaced clarity with force, pseudo-authority, and confusing language. Not that I'm surprised. 

 I learned how to justify images by being schooled by , who is semi-retired. He did pop into the FfD discussion for the Stonewall riots image to say that the ""transformative use"" interpretation of the NFCC rule is ""a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of NFCC and sourcing policies"". I'm not a copyright attorney. I can't parse all this. I just don't want the articles' qualities decreased because someone went on a deletion tear when none of the rules are clear.   "