Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement

Message is from Kat Walsh

This message is from Wikimedia Foundation Board member Kat Walsh. I have reproduced it here from the mailing list in its entirety. --Cyde Weys 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words: Sky still blue, water still wet. Haukur 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

Because licensing has been an active topic in the community, the Board
has discussed the issue at its recent meetings; thank you to those
whose thoughtful input furthered the discussions.

A formal declaration in the form of a Board resolution has not yet
been made and will be forthcoming; however, we hope that this longer
message will provide the explanation behind the resolution. The
resolution will seek to clarify something that has been true for some
time but may not have been stated in a clear enough form as guidance
for the various communities to follow.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to develop educational
content under a free content license or in the public domain. For
content to be "free content", it must have no significant legal
restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the
content for any purpose.

It is therefore vital that all projects under the Foundation umbrella
use these standards, not only because of our desire to enable the
creation of free reference works, but also because of our commitment
to allow those works to benefit everyone who wishes to use and reuse
them. Because of this, all media we allow on our projects must be free
for all users and all purposes, including non-Wikimedia use,
commercial use, and derivative works. (Some media may be subject to
restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still
considered free work.)

There are many different licenses that allow these freedoms. The
licensing page on the Wikimedia Commons,
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing>, discusses some
of these license terms and gives links to the many licenses that are
acceptable to use.

While we appreciate the goodwill of those who give special permissions
for Wikimedia to display a work, this does not fulfill our greater
purpose of giving others the freedom to use the content as well, and
so we cannot accept media with permission for use on Wikimedia only.
Derivative uses are also important. The value of allowing
modifications becomes clear to anyone who edits the projects, as new
work builds on the work of others, and work you cannot change to meet
your needs and purposes is not free.

Commercial and non-commercial use is more controversial, as many
people are concerned that allowing commercial uses allows others to
abuse their generosity. But ultimately Wikimedia's longstanding and
carefully considered position is, as with many other organizations
devoted to free content, that disallowing commercial use does not
provide significant benefit to the content creator or to the public.
Non-commercial licensing stops many valuable uses that help distribute
and support free works, and hence does not further our mission. Where
commercial use spreads the works without taking away others' rights to
use and distribute them for free, it helps our purpose of making the
content as widely available as possible. This is a long enough message
without going deeply into detail, but Erik Moeller's essay at
<http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC> is a thorough and
clear explanation of the reasons why the harm is more than the
benefit, and so why non-commercial content is not something we use.

It is for these reasons, which we have long supported, that all media
on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that specify
non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for
Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that
does not have these restrictions.

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a
doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,
primarily historically important photographs and significant modern
artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a
free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
context without including the media itself. Because the inability to
include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many
jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions
without having license or permission. Some works that are under
licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these
conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free
media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace
with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

Since individual projects have differing community standards and there
are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual
projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy
requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media
at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive,
or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons
and limited fair use.

We hope this clears up some of the uncertainty about what types of
material may be uploaded to and used on the projects as well as why we
take this position.

Thanks to everyone for your input and hard work.

For the Wikimedia Foundation,
Kat Walsh

• Interpretation? Should this change our fair use policy or the way we carry it out? Chick Bowen 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, I don't think our fair use policy is changed, I think it just means that we actually start enforcing it. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  In regard to one possible change, I've started a thread here. Chick Bowen 03:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone do an executive summary of the executive summary, please? Carcharoth 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  You really can't read it? Feh. Executive summary: fair use = bad, and will be removed in most places. --Cyde Weys 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Fair use should only be used for images that are necessary for readers to understand the text. A photograph of a piece of copyrighted art is useful when discussing symbolism in the art. However, most pictures hosted under fair use serve no such educational purpose; they only make articles prettier. Notably, photographs of people or characters are often unnecessary because they don't make it easier to understand the content (unless the content addresses their appearance, for example). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:02:06, 08 February 2007 (UTC)

  And most notably is those silly screenshots of television episodes that you see on all sorts of episode articles and in fair use galleries on episodes by season articles. These are totally unnecessary and do not increase the value of Wikipedia sufficiently to outweigh the non-redistributability that they introduce. --Cyde Weys 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• If this changes anything - and it should - the most key thing will be developing a way to certify fair use on en. This will probably require the development of some sort of bureaucracy - maybe something like 20 admins with extensive fair use experience who can give an image the "tick of approval".--Peta 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Our efforts should focus on replacement, I think, as much as any anything else. The replacement project at WikiProject Free book covers could serve as a model for other similar ones, perhaps. Chick Bowen 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Most "pop culture" stuff, which makes up the bulk of FU on en is irreplaceable; but the fact it is irreplaceable does not make it fair in the majority of cases (tv episode screen shots anyone?). There is stuff that should be removed, but someone decided what needs to go and gives someone the approval to do it; or they'll find themselves in a KM user box scale mess. --Peta 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'd think it best to wait for the promised board resolution (which I assume will be soon), before trying to adjust fair use policy. Though working to apply the existing policy is probably not a bad thing. Dragons flight 05:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too much like hard work. Just make the instructions easy to find and make sure the image upload page only has safe options.Geni 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess that's that, you can't argue with the foundation. I'm going to go ahead and kill the fairuse albumcover images I have uploaded. Teke ^(talk) 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct in my interpretation of this that the foundation no longer considers "identification" to be a legitimate cause for using a fair use image? In other words, consider every single article about a company. 99.9% of them display the company's logo. They are displayed purely to identify the company in question, but you can discuss any or all of them without showing the corporate logo. The same goes, as Teke pointed out, for album covers or, as Cyde pointed out, for screenshots that are used in infoboxes or episode lists. Is this a correct interpretation of the directive - kill all fair use images that are used purely to identify the subject? --BigDT 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That was never a valid criteria under fair use law. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:02:40, 08 February 2007 (UTC)

Well ... you may want to tell ESPN ... they have sports team logos all over their site. --BigDT 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Consent of the leagues exist there ("It's a profit deal!" - The Jerk). Besides that, the function of their media and this one is different in the scope and parameters. Teke ^(talk) 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We are nothing whatsoever like ESPN in any function ... plus, they're not worried about redistributability of content, so they can sign by permission deals and such. --Cyde Weys 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until the Foundation releases their formal declaration before we start taking these drastic steps and deleting 90% of the FU images on Wikipedia? I see both sides of the argument. I do enjoy seeing the cover of a book of an article I'm reading as it can help be identify the book when I go into a bookstore (same of album covers, DVD covers, etc). But I also see the point that the author and title should be able to replace the image and still get the point across. Also, I see the point that having "unfree" content goes against what the GFDL stands for. So in the end, I can argue for the deletion of these FU images but I think we should wait for a formal declaration from the Foundation especially since they said one is "forthcoming."↔NMajdan•talk 14:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Executive summary

Since one was asked for above, here's a summary:

1. Commons only takes "free content" (which is defined as any licence that has "no significant legal restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the content for any purpose" - so no non-commercial, no no-derivatives, no permission-only);
2. no project may have less restrictive media rules than Commons, although they may have more restrictive rules;
3. individual projects may also allow unfree media (including not-free-enough media) under fair use or fair dealing doctrines, if they want to; but:
   1. the use of unfree media is only justified because not using it would unreasonably limit scholarship and criticism;
   2. unfree media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace it with free content that would serve the same educational purpose.

I think those are the key points.

Summary ends here! The rest is my commentary:

As to what this means for en: policy; the universal definition on what is "free content" shouldn't affect us because we already operate (or should operate) by it, that is we already prohibit non-commercial, permission-only etc. However, I think this should serve as a basis for a rethink in the direction of our fair use policy, centred around the idea that we only ever use unfree media for one fundamental reason, that it would limit scholarship and criticism. The examples Kat gives are historically significant photographs (eg. this), and images of recent significant artworks that are still in copyright (eg. this).

I think that we should dispose of the current fair use system, develop a range of clear, limited categories such as these, and eliminate all other unfree media. The question of whether disallowing unfree media would unreasonably limit scholarship and criticism must be the central part of the policy. --bainer (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that summary as I read it. I have no problem removing the fair use images in book covers, TV images, dvd covers, album covers, etc. They're nice to look at, but really they don't contribute to the GFDL and if that's what the goal is, I'll listen to the foundation above all else (hey, they have the purse strings). A nice OFFICE or foundation policy page would be nice outlining the proper use and removal of such images. Teke ^(talk) 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, it's still unclear the extent to which the fair use policy is truly being tightened up. Most important, is the eye candy pop culture stuff that is now 95% of fair use set to go? These often (when done right) have a fair use justification that would be sufficient for a respectable newspaper (publicity photo or screenshot), but that would not apply if we're restricting fair use to scholarship purposes only.--Pharos 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the latter of which you said. I'm reading it as for example, Image:24tv.jpg should be removed as it is unencyclopedic. It may qualify for fair use laws, but it does not contribute to the overall content and integrity of the article. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Teke ^(talk) 06:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be cool with that. But not everyone will be. Best to make the change now before we acculturate even more new editors into the current system. "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly."--Pharos 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My reading of it, as it stands (and the final product may be different) is no different than our already moronically tight fair use policy. This changes nothing, just gets a Foundation-level blessing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Images_used_with_permission, is states with permission should be phased out and replaced. We stopped accepting such images sometime in 2005, but those uploaded before that time are still OK. I guess this latest means we should be pushing harder to replace all those images and/or removing those which fail the same criteria as fair use? --pgk 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(When the full thing does come out, if this leads to a discussion on our image policies Category:Presumed_GFDL_images might also be considered as to they genuinely are free images usable in all settings etc. etc. (i.e. would someone use one in a for-profit scenario based on a presumption) --pgk 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The questions begin

Or, "What does this actually mean?"

Well, as an editor and admin who's spent a lot of time and energy on "pop culture" articles, including a lot of time providing fair use rationales for images that it seems will no longer be allowed on Wikipedia, I have to say that I'm disappointed by this (if it means what it seems to). If limited fair use for identification — as had been common practice for book covers, album covers and TV episode screenshots — is no longer acceptable, a lot of useful content is going to be deleted. Of course, the Foundation has the right to make policy, and I won't argue with it. But I would like some clarification of how restrictive the interpretation is going to be. For example, consider the featured article Dalek, which recently passed FAR. Would all images have to be removed from that article? Is it possible to get a freely licensed photograph or image of a copyrighted character, or are all images of such characters now verboten as derivatives of copyrighted images? (Note that even images of toys and the like are considered derivative images on Commons, and if we're now as restricted as they are, then the same restrictions presumably apply.)

The only loophole I can see is in Pathoschild's comment above, where he says that "photographs of people or characters are often unnecessary because they don't make it easier to understand the content (unless the content addresses their appearance, for example)." If this interpretation is correct, then an argument could be made for some of the images in Dalek, because the section Dalek#Physical characteristics does describe a Dalek's appearance, in some detail. The article would be significantly more difficult to understand without any images.

But I don't see that loophole in Kat's letter. Indeed, it looks to me as if fair use is going to be restricted to "historically significant photographs" and "significant modern artworks". Although I could make a case for saying that Doctor Who is a "significant modern artwork" (it was, for instance, selected as an "Icon of England" by an organization sponsored by by the British government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport), I'm not sure that's going to be good enough.

As for the implementation of this edict: may I recommend that a deadline be set — perhaps the end of May? — by which fair use media must be removed and/or replaced with free media? This would give users time to find replacements, and (since so many fair use images are in "fan" subjects) to move content that will be deleted from Wikipedia to fan wikis like those hosted by Wikia (which I assume will not adopt these restrictions — otherwise Memory Alpha and its ilk will be very unhappy, and probably try to find hosting elsewhere). A lot of the "pop culture" content might be better suited for fan wikis anyway — but it would be good if we allowed contributors time to make that transfer before engaging in mass deletions. Remember that a lot of Wikipedians contribute both to "fan" subjects and academic ones. If we make this transition more abrupt than it needs to be, we'll lose a lot of good contributors. If we give people time to get used to this, and make the transition gently, we won't lose as many. Of course, there will be much hue and cry, but we have the ability to ameliorate or exacerbate it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said "quickly", I meant better a month or two from now, rather than next year, which would leave the boil on way too long. I do suspect that in the future we will see more user-created Dalek diagrams (BTW, how far could copyright let us go in that direction?).--Pharos 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, drawing your own version doesn't help for many current fair use images. Drawing your own Smurf is still a copyright violation: either you show a oublished copyrighted Smurf drawing (or licensed figurine or some such), or you show nothing at all: recreating copyrighted art in your own hand is a) still copyrighted and b) misleading and probably uglier than the original one. A main problem I see is that for many people, a cover is much more recognisable than a title, so that while they perhaps don't remember if they have read something called The Black Island, they would immediately recognize the cover and make the connection. Removing all coverart (unless explicitly described) would make some parts of the encyclopedia (like the comics section) much less accessible and useful. Of course, one can argue if the same argument is valid for e.g. Catch-22, which has had many different editions with mùany different covers, and where the artwork is not an integral part of the subject of the article. In short, I can see the reasons behind and the necessity of the removal of many fair use images, but please try to weigh the benefits of doing so in individual cases or per category of work, and keep images of art where the visual aspect is a defining factor. Fram 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My idea would be that in certain limited circumstances it might be OK to have technical diagram-type user-created images to explain certain copyrighted (or even fictional) concepts, like the design of a Dalek. Of course this would not apply to the vast majority of current fair use images.--Pharos 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question...would this affect the TV and Radio images/logos? I have brought that before and was wondering if this would allow the older logos/images to return of if this has no affect on them what-so-ever. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd think it could apply to wikia. Wikia is a commercial enterprise and separate from the Wikimedia foundation. I think we should wait to see the greater detail on this, my initial reaction was that this could end up causing endless debates for items such as album covers where some are arguably "works of art", some can arguably can be useful in discussion in an educational context (similarities/differences in different styles according to genre, historical development...) --pgk 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that it wouldn't apply to Wikia.

I also agree that we should wait to see the full detail on this before jumping into any major changes.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that trans-wikiing images would be a nice idea if we can do that. It would be ironic if that made the wikia wikis look nicer than Wikipedia. I think the careful and judicious use of a few fair-use images, with commentary, can really improve an article. At the very least, it would be nice if the images could still be linked to somewhere, if not actually hosted and distributed with Wikipedia. Carcharoth 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To reply to Carcharoth: I'm not actually sure it's valid to distibute fair use images across Wikipedia, even now they seem to be restricted to specific uses. Not that I'm a huge fan of fair use. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

this is the human readable version of foundation policy. We can't really start activly doing stuff untill we see the legalistic version. IT is also somewhat questionable if we could deleted 200K images by May. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

That's a good point. I pulled "May" out of the air — when I suggested it, I thought that the alternative might be a massive, systematic, un-reviewed removal of every image currently tagged with a fair use license. I thought that three months was a good alternative to that. If that's not a likely outcome, we can allow more time for replacement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Could someone explain to me it's so important that people be able to use Wikipedia's contents commercially that we can't use fair-use images in the way for which they're intended (i.e., fair use)? All the work that editors put in to this project for free, on the basis that this is a free encyclopædia, is to be judged by whether someone else can make money out of it? Does anybody else feel their stomach churning at this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it does go into that aspect and points to the essay on it. But you seem to be making an assumption that everybody worldwide is able to rely on a fair use privelege. You also seem to be assuming that the use by a for profit organsation will not be in keeping with our aims. Say for instance a commercial organisation is distributing computers to schools at low or no profit, would you like them to be prohibited from distributing a copy of wikipedia with that? --pgk 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many fair-use images (for example, photos of actors, musicians, etc.) are designed to be used in commercial magazines — that's the point of them. The notion that they can't be used by us is bizarre. (And if a company provide a free copy of Wikipedia, I agree that that would be in keeping with our aims — as well as with fair-use.

As to the international point, I have been assuming that; is there anywhere that an image distributed by its copyright-holder as fair-use isn't fair use? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use == unlicensed. Most images used in magazines etc. are not being used under the fair-use doctrine, they are licensed for use by the magazine, even if that license often doesn't require any royalty or other fee to be paid by the copyright holder. This is one of many common misunderstandings regarding images, people obtain them from a magazine and assume it is being used to promote that person/thing and therefore tag it as {{promotional}} this is often incorrect as the image hasn't be given a general release for promotional purposes but specific permission for the individual publications.

"image distributed by its copyright-holder as fair-use". That makes no sense. Copyright holders do not distribute images as fair use. Fair use is a doctrine from copyright law which enables you to use images without any license or permission from the copyright holder in certain circumstances. --pgk 14:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about images taken from magazines; I have, on a number of occasions, approached a PR firm or artist with a request for an image that can be used by us under fair-use conditions, and they've been happy to co0mply; that's what press packs are for. I've now found that those images are being stripped from Wikipedia on the grounds that they're fair-use images which coyuld (in some bizarre lawyer's, non-real-world sense of "could") be replaced by a non-fair-use image. That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about. If you're saying that they shouldn't be labelled "fair use", and that we can use them, then someone tell the handful of obsessives who devote their Wikipedia editing to removing and deleting such images. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting tied up in terminology here (You'd be better asking them for an image licensed under the GFDL or suitable CC license). Asking them for a fair-use image as above makes no sense as any image can be used for fair use without their permission provide the correct rationale can be met. An image supplied to you by them may be released elsewhere as part of a press pack in which case the promotional tagging maybe correct. If on the other hand they are releasing an image to you "with permission" for use only on wikipedia, then we haven't permitted those since mid-2005. Even in the case of with permission or not from a press pack, there maybe a reasonable fair use rationale for the images (notwithstanding replaceable issues). To me this discussion typifies one of the problems of fair use and our image policies, a general lack of understanding (or difference in understanding) and confusion on terminology. Now this is just my understanding of some of the fair use issues here and maybe someone else will chime in and disagree (or agree with one or both of us in whole or part), and this also is part of the problem, anyone wanting to reuse those images (even if just republishing wikipedia verbatim) has to be confident that there own usage is reasonable under the fair use doctrine, and it to go through and evaluate all the images, all the fair use claims checking all the sources is a huge job --pgk 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I agree that that would be in keeping with our aims — as well as with fair-use." - Well the school may have a fair use claim for using the image, in much the same way we do. The person distributing so to "add value" to their product (as it could be perceived), may not. --pgk 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Other question: are quotes still allowed? After all, they are also a "fair use" use of copyrighted material... Music samples? (There were two, Image:Alison Krauss - Stay.ogg and Image:Alison Krauss - Down to the River to Pray.ogg, in yesterday's featured article, together with at least one fair use imageImage:Alison Krauss Poster01.jpg). This is all very unclear, and if applied too strictly may make it hard to create good articles on many subjects. Fram 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, those would still be good articles, even without the music samples and poster. I think a lot of people are overestimating how important the decoration is. Just look at Encyclopedia Britannica; it does an excellent job with no fair use images whatsoever. --Cyde Weys 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an image or copyright expert, but isn't this[1] a fair use image? Or this[2]? Fram 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there is nothing intrinsic about an image which makes the use "fair use". Without asking them it is difficult to tell if they are using it under the fair use doctrine or have explicit permission to use it (on a free or cost basis) --pgk 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Britanica are UK based so no.Geni 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Our article on Encyclopedia Britannica says "In spite of its name and preference for British spelling, the Britannica has been published in the United States since 1901." So they could be using images under a fair use doctrine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The second image there includes a 'with permission' disclaimer. Since Britannica doesn't allow itself to be copied / reprinted / alterred they include most of their copyrighted images (and text) simply by asking the owner for permission to display them for that book/website only. We'd have to ask the owners for permission for anyone to use the image/text in any way they chose... essentially to release the material into the 'public domain'... which they usually are not going to do. To date we have gotten around this disparity by allowing 'limited permission' and 'fair use' criteria at the expense of 'easy re-usability' of pages on which they appeared. The statement by Kat doesn't actually say anything about removing some of the currently permitted forms of fair use... but if her statement about fair use "primarily" applying to historic images is taken to mean, 'will henceforth only apply to historic images' (as some people seem to interpret) then we would in the future be showing considerably fewer copyrighted images than Britannica and the like can. Which strikes me as odd... because if we keep ANY sort of fair use then the 'easy re-usability' of Wikipedia is still compromised (and indeed it will be easier for people to mistakenly think that an image is 'free use' if 'fair use' becomes seldom allowed), and we would then provide less visual content than paper encyclopedias despite the online environment being more suitable for such. --CBD 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To add here.... the first image is also copyrighted and used with permission. EB has licensed this particular image from Corbis, who has gone through the effort to obtain commercial copyrights and offers its own license to those who want to reproduce these images commercially. The costs are generally pretty reasonable, especially for a small commercial website designer. I am presuming that EB purchased this same sort of license, but that license is not transferable to 3rd parties. --Robert Horning 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. This means that comparing our fair use policy and use to Britannica is a bit disingineous (sorry Cyde!), even if it was not intended that way. They don't have to use fair use because they can show images that are copyrighted with a rather easy "with permission" statement. Since we can't do that (because we have to be freely redistributable etcetera), we shouldn't base our policies or the need for fair use images on what Britannica does or doesn't. On the other hand, you could easily argue that even Britannica feels the need to show copyrighted images, so they think the "decoration" is important as well. Fram 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from Kat: "no project may have content policies less restricive, or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and limited fair use." The emphasis is mine - we already have severely limited fair use, way beyond the size and scope of anything reasonable. The final statement on the matter would be the thing to look toward, but I think we could avoid a shitstorm by actually reading what's being said - I'd assume Kat deliberated considerably on the statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. The problem is, people interpret limited fair use very liberally. That has always been a problem. Kat's statement means that the policy is likely to be enforced more strictly than it has been. That will bring a shitstorm (to use your word) with it, absolutely inevitably, because long experience shows that every new user has to have fair use explained to them several times before they finally get it, if they ever do. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly, I've seen very little than can be seen as liberal use of fair use here. My hopes that it could change are being dahsed by the Foundation, so I can only hope for sanity at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing looks like it may become a huge disaster (if it isn't already - Cyde is already deleting images with no warning or discussion that I can see), while I can see the appeal of wanting all free media it certainly makes "free" the higher priority than "good". As far as I'm concerned, this is a huge blow for wikipedia and instantly eliminates any possibility of wikipedia being as good as the top commercial encyclopedias. It simply isn't possible for wikipedia to display the same images that "real" encyclopedias do, and wikipedia will suffer for it. Wikipedia will have virtually no photos other than "homemade" ones and ones taken before 1920 or so. Additionally, this edict is extremely vague and the criteria listed are so widely open to interpretation to be almost meaningless. "historically important photographs and significant modern artworks" basically means there's no criteria to judge photos beyond endless arguments that will mostly be "seems historical/significant to me". I'd second the question about whether text is included, if it is it would likely mean no quotes from any copyrighted literature of any kind, regardless of how short. I think this has the potential to cause a major shift, with content about virtually all pop culture (really any article about any copyrighted material) getting relegated to second class status and editors interested in those topics moving to other more specific wikis. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the perfect opportunity to follow up on a recent discussion regarding one of my own images: does Image:WotW pub.jpg augment the text well enough to maintain fair use under this clarification? Its context is here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I get real excited when describing Wikipedia to people, I get to the part where I say it's content is free to be used for any purpose, then I have to say except for.... I frankly would not be upset if fair use was banned altogether.(getting ready for rotten tomatoes to be thrown at me). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't be upset either. Quuxplusone is trying to make the point that de-wiki is somehow too "bland" by linking articles that contain lots of fair use images on en-wiki but none on de-wiki. I just find those images decorative and unnecessary. If an image isn't available under a free content license there had better be a good damn reason for using it (the classic example being this image). I don't see how "but it makes the article look prettier" is an acceptable reason. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"historically important photographs"

Is this meant to apply only to photographs that are themselves notable and the subject of substantial scholarship (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), or does it extend to not-particulary-noteworthy historical photographs used for purposes of identification and illustration as well?

(The specific issue I'm thinking of here are Nazi-produced WWII photos. Most of them are tagged with some sort of fair-use claim because nobody's really sure what their legal status is; are things like, say, this going to fall under a permitted class of fair use now?) Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• My reading is that historical importance refers to the image itself being historically important, rather than the image depicting a historically important event. The image at Christine Keeler is unquestionably copyright but of historical importance. Specific pictures from the war? Tough call. We know the copyright status of Iwo Jima, but we don't know the status of many others, and in some cases the fair use rationale is stretched. What we really need is for the German Government to publish these photos as a free-content archive. Oh, and free beer for all. And pig wings for supper. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think there's a world of difference between images showing historically important events (even if the images themselves may not be famous, like these Nazi-produced WWII photos) and most of the fair use crap we have on Wikipedia, such as screengrabs of TV shows, album covers, movie posters, etc. Let's take out the blatant unnecessary fair use first and maybe work out some sort of a policy on historically important events afterwards? --Cyde Weys 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? What's so bad about a "Think first, act later" kind of approach? Let's just wait for the Board resolution before we start to massively delete anything. --Conti|✉ 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There already has been lots of thinking done on the fair use photographs of the TV screengrab/album cover variety. Years of it. Hence this message from Kat and an impending statement from the Board. WWII-era Nazi photographs would be another issue entirely. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cyde, but Kat's message and the forthcoming Board statement change the landscape, and it's appropriate for us to figure out exactly how before we jump into ill-considered action. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No no no, that's the thing, it doesn't change the landscape. This was the way things were supposed to be all along; we just fell lax in our enforcement. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but let's take the chance to explain how things should have worked all along! As for the German WWII photos, the main problem is that they are "orphan works": in most cases, we don't know who the photographer is and so we don't know who the copyright holder is. They are not German government copyright, that would make life a whole lot simpler... However, as Germany has a life+70 copyright term, we know they are still under copyright. Kat's message implies of a criterion of whether "the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism": on that basis, the portrait photos would have to go. This fits with other comments that fair use for identification is not possible. Photos of ships and planes are also tricky, as they could conceivably be replaced by free use drawings. The photos we have of battlefield scenes seem more like justifiable fair use to me. Just my opinion, based on what I saw of the German wartime photos when I was working on cleaning up the old {{PD-GermanGov}}. Physchim62 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Except wartime photos cannot be recreated. Hence the fair use. pschemp | talk 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Book covers and TV/movie screenshots cannot be recreated either. They're still not fair use, according to some. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They are (or can be) fair use according to US law. It's just that they aren't (or won't be) acceptable examples of the limited, restricted cases of fair use which will be permissible on Wikipedia under the new (or newly clarified) rules. We might want to find a new term for this, so as to avoid confusion between what's legal under the US doctrine of fair use and the much smaller set of media which will be permitted under this policy.

Cyde, even if this is interpreted as "the way things were supposed to be all along", it changes the landscape because we now have Foundation-level guidance on what the policy should be. We didn't have that before, and all previous conversations were held in ignorance. Many Wikipedians interpreted the rules differently, in good faith. Now, we know for certain what the Foundation's position is, and we need to adjust our policies accordingly. This does not mean that everyone who was on the "wrong" side of this issue should now be ignored.

It's like when a Supreme Court decision comes down. Everyone's obliged to follow the Court's ruling. But until the ruling is put into practice, you don't know how it's going to be interpreted. And just because the Court rules in favor of one party, that doesn't give that party sole jurisdiction for interpreting the ruling.

Oh, and Physchim62 — I wonder whether a drawing of a particular class of airplane would be considered a derivative image? Presumably the design was copyrighted to someone at some point, and many WWII airplane manufacturers are still going concerns. You see where this leads us? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia for profit

I'd like to raise three points here that I haven't seen mentioned yet. First, Kat Walsh's letter sounds much less apocalyptic than most people (on either side) are making it out to be. Sounds to me like her problem is less with fair use and more with licenses that specify non-commercial use (such as some Creative Commons licenses), or criminalize use by anyone except Wikipedia. I think that's a reasonable position; I'd rather see Wikipedia that much more free, at least. And in practice, most of the images licensed with CC or special-permission licenses are things like Flickr photos, contributed by Wikipedia editors or their friends, and it won't be very hard to find the creators and get them to agree to change the licenses.

Second, since each image page already comes with tags specifying its license(s), it's trivially easy for anyone to strip out non-commercial images from their commercial version of Wikipedia (call it Commercipedia). Most Wikipedia mirrors strip out at least a subset of our images already. So the goal should not be to delete any images at all — that would only decrease the quality of our encyclopedia, without providing any benefit to our commercial masters. The goal should be to replace images with public-domain or GFDL images wherever possible. And that's already being done, albeit slowly.

Third, fair-use images can be used in commercial publications, no problem. This debate shouldn't be about removing screenshots of Seinfeld, since a dozen books, magazines, and TV news programs are published every year containing Seinfeld screenshots. We're not on shaky legal ground there. Again: Walsh's letter seems to agree; it's more concerned with making life easier for commercial publishers of Wikipedia derivatives.

That said, if Wikipedia turns into the German Wikipedia, I'll say a sad farewell, too. --Quuxplusone 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images can only be used in commercial publications if used in similar context, as opposed to the rest of Wikipedia that is free to use in any context. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to use wikipedia is required to ensure their use is legal, which includes images and other media. There is nothing stopping a commercial entity from removing fair use images. Wikimedia is not their content broker nor does wikimedia make any effort to represent themselves as such therefore it is still the user's prerogative to make sure their use is legal. The response "well, it's on wikipedia" is insufficient grounds for lazyness and ignorance of the reuser and I see little reason to help them in their commercial endeavor at the expense of this encyclopedia. Cburnett 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, the whole point of making a freely redistributable encyclopedia is so that you can just say, "Well, it's on Wikipedia, so we can reuse it under the terms of the GFDL and that's that." Each reuser shouldn't have to be overly concerned with copyright minutiae. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You will want to try that again as not everything here is GFDL. Regardless, it is not our duty to cover someone else's ass in reusing this content. We also provide reference-less text and we provide referenced text. Ideally, we want everything referenced and be self-assured that it is referenced correctly but it is also not our duty if someone does not check these references for themselves. Nowhere under any circumstances did I agree to take on the legal responsibility for any other entity and anyone relying on anonymous people over the internet for their legal responsibility is a complete and utter fool. Cburnett 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that we allow Creative Commons licensed images, too. Even with all fair use images gone, Wikipedia isn't that easy when it comes to images. --Conti|✉ 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, just some Creating Confusion images. Actually, most of them aren't even compatible; it has to be CC-by-sa or CC-by. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation

Cyde has taken this email to mean that all fair use images should be deleted. He recently unitlaterally deleted all of the Heroes episode screenshots without following policy by notifying the uploader of improper fair use rationale at least 48 hours prior to deletion. That is further compounded by his interpretation of the fair use criteria that has been all but unanimously be agreed that his and User:Ed g2s interpretation is wrong.

I quote:

Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

There will never be a replacement for screenshots of episodes. NEVER. This email does not support nor condone wholesale, unilateral image deletion of fair use images! Don't read your own wishes & desires into it. Cburnett 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between an article that says something like "The camera angle in this shot shows the director's intent to depersonalise the character[ref] [low res screenshot]" and what we do, which is to decorate lists of episodes with random screenshots, put them in big infoboxes, and dress up what's basically an unofficial online guide to a television program. Perhaps one could say that we're not competing with the website that the copyright holder has put up, and presumably wants to drive traffic to through attractive use of decorative screenshots from their property. Regardless, we don't need to do this, it is not best practice, and we can either clean up or just keep waiting to be told to clean it up. The bottom line on this point is, as usual, don't upload unfree content to Wikimedia projects with the idea that it won't be deleted without a lot of explanation, compromise and you personally receiving a compelling explanation. Jkelly 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "unilaterally" has been abused so much on Wikipedia it has lost all meaning. Please try another adverb. --Cyde Weys 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Without discussion? Without consensus? Out of process? With no regard for other editors' interpretation of policy? Any of those better? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion for months. Consensus does not override foundation principles. "Invalid fair use claim" is a valid deletion reason on WP:CSD. The policy is in plain language. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A general discussion isn't grounds for deleting any image you feel like on sight. CSD says uploaders should be notified and given 48 hours, which doesn't seem to have happened in this case. And "invalid fair use claim" is debatable, many editors dispute that the fair use claim was invalid. I assume these will probably head to DRV. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Improperly? Abusively? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Admin abuse" is a phrase abused even more. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet there are plenty of cases where it still applies. So where's the 48 hour notice? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cburnett, you forgot to quote the sentence immediately preceding that: Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. It seems clear to me that screenshots (in this specific example) have to be used for "scholarship and criticism", not in galleries like Jkelly has pointed out. howcheng {chat} 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet we have editors removing images regardless of how they are used, and insisting that most if not all screenshots should be deleted based on this. Can someone provide a good example of an image being used well in terms of "scholarship and criticism"? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The classic example is Guernica (painting), which has extensive discussion of the image itself. For screenshots, one case might be Citizen Kane — while some of the images in that article probably wouldn't be allowed under the new guideline (as it appears to be being interpreted), Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg would probably be fine, because it's being used to illustrate a directorial technique that's discussed in the article. Images in lists of episodes are clearly out, but some images in episode articles 'might be OK, if they illustrate an artistic element that's discussed in the article. I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've used this example before. In our article Christopher Reeve, the image in the infobox shouldn't be there. I'd, however, be much more comfortable making a Wikipedia:Fair use claim on the "portrayal of the dual role" comparison at the Superman section, where we quote from critics on Reeve's handling of the particular challenge of that character. Do you see the difference? Jkelly 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I wonder whether this new ruling would even allow the comparison faces or the deep focus images? And even in Guernica (painting), while there's an image next to the descriptive text, there's also one in the top infobox without analysis that could be argued is decorative. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the image has to be directly next to the descriptive text. In Guernica, the article describes the symbolism etc in the painting, all of which can by seen by scrolling up to the other image; heck, the best way to see what the article is talking about is probably to open the image in another window/tab, and flip between the two, thus completely removing the image from the text itself. However, now that I look at how Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg is being used, it probably has to be removed from some other pages... howcheng {chat} 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be one of the issues under debate - I've seen editors revert war over the placement of an image in an article, saying that it is fair use in one place but not another. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When images used in encyclopædias and other reference works, it's to illustrate articles; calling this "decoration" seems only to have the purpose of trivialising it, making it sound frivolous, whenit's actually none of those things. The silliness of the position adopted by some editors with regard to this can be seen when at least one editor removed an image of the subject of an article on the grounds that it merely(!) illustrates the article, responding to objections with the usual claim that it was only decorative, and immediately placed a template on the talk page asking for an illustration to be added because it would improve the article... It's a mad world my masters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if we got Greg Williams to draw a cartoon for every article, it still wouldn't be permissible under the strictest interpretation: Image:Redshirt comic.jpg would presumably be verboten as a derivative image from Paramount's Star Trek copyright. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that saying any image that doesn't have a paragraph talking about it is "decorative" is an odd point of view. In many cases, doesn't an image provide important information specifically what something looks like? A film still of Pirates of the Carribean is going to do a much better job of informing me what Jack Sparrow looks like than a lengthy text description (and it's not like any of us can take a cameraphone pix of him walking down the street). --Milo H Minderbinder 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Having multiple images for every single television program in existence is decorative and subverts the copyright holder's use of them. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is your beef "multiple", "every single" or "television program"? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem. Allow me to quote some excerpts from another recent e-mail by Kat;

  "I'm afraid you may be disappointed if you are expecting something quite so specific [as percentages and types of fair use to be banned]; there are so many individual cases and circumstances that it would simply be impossible to say in detail "this kind is allowed, this kind is not" in such a way that everyone would know. For the most part it is up to the informed and reasonable members of the community to come to these decisions for their projects."

• In short, the details of what does and does not constitute allowed fair use in Wikimedia projects is still a matter for the community.

  "Side note, as I think from previous experience that I need to make this clear: this is not license to be a jerk when deleting images, and on the flip side you do not have license to accuse someone deleting these images of doing so to be a jerk. Treat each other with courtesy and understanding, darn it."

• This should have gone without needing to be said... but somehow didn't. --CBD 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

Would the policies on enforcing FU change? I mean, does this mean that admins can now delete unneeded images on the spot, or do we have to go through IFD, or what?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anything changes. Cburnett 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially while we're waiting for the formal statement from the Foundation. The main point of Kat's email is that images "which are used under terms that specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that does not have these restrictions." That's a slight change, I think, but not one that many people are going to be upset about.

What's more controversial is the fair use discussion. I think that this email gives those who want to severely limit fair use images in articles a somewhat stronger arguing position than they had before. But, as many folks have said, we shouldn't rush into changing our policy until we see the actual Foundation statement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that we can justify any change in procedure just on the basis of Kat's message. If the Board want admins to cut the number of fair use images through speedy deletion, they should say so. Personally, I would be in favor, but insofar as I am doing image deletions at the moment they have to be on current CSDs. We should probably apply a tighter test than at present on IFD and in editing (maybe based on non-use "limits scholarship and criticism"). The Board is hardly going to all this trouble simply to say that current practice on Englsih Wikipedia is fine. Physchim62 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can really make any policy changes or take any actions based on the limited info we have so far. It's vague and even somewhat contradictory, and can be interpreted as either a huge change or no change at all, depending how you interpret it. Any deletions going on now should cite current policy and not this letter. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is contrary to Cyde's deletion of the Heroes episode screenshots. I have undeleted them because he didn't follow procedure. Cburnett 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So at this point is it appropriate to view this letter as policy and for admins to delete images based on it? This is happening already, even ignoring deletion process in some cases. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate. If this letter indeed does change policy then policy needs to change first. Cburnett 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not changing my behavior as an admin and I've yet to come across a case where I would need to change my behavior as an editor. The letter is "On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation", but also says that a Board Resolution "will be forthcoming". I think that some points of the policy will have to be changed, but I will wait and see what the Board's opinion is. I don't think you can criticise editors who orphan images on the basis of the letter, but I don't think admins should be deleting them outright until the situation is clearer. Physchim62 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an informal declaration without anything specific or concrete on what is to change and using this as a substitution for current policy and procedure is foolish and premature. At best it should be considered like a trailer for a movie or a cover of a book. Cburnett 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples of articles on images

Someone up above asked for exampes of articles about images. Well, here (from the thread at Wikipedia talk:Fair use) are some examples (some public domain, some not): The Death of General Wolfe, Ptolemy's world map, Piri Reis map, Fra Mauro map. See also Category:Photographs, for things like Earthrise, The Falling Man, Bliss (image), Che Guevara (photo), Migrant Mother, Nguyễn Văn Lém, Dancing Man, 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute (this is a classic example of fair use of an historic picture). Examples from others of the more analytical, rather than historic, images, are Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Album cover, Animals (album), My Aim Is True. Going back to historic photos, there is Image:Kent State massacre.jpg, and all the stuff tagged this way, such as Category:Fair use historic photographs.

Essentially, if someone, and preferably lots of people, has written about the image, then we can write an article documenting that, and use a photograph of the image on the article under fair-use. That will always be the case, by my reading of what is going on here. The examples I gave vary in how much the image is disucussed. It would probably be helpful if people commented on the examples to see where they disagree on whether these are good examples of writing an article about an image or artwork. Carcharoth 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points and thanks for the examples. Is it necessary that people have written about the image, or is it sufficient that people have written about the thing/event shown in the image? And would the article have to be about the image, or could it be about the event/thing pictured? Much of the talk has been about tv screencaps, but this has the potential to apply to images of products, logos, news events, scientific/nature images. If the only existing photo of a rare bird is fair use, would we be able to use it? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, due to the new information presented here, is that if an image of the subject of the article has not been shown to the general public worldwide, then a fair use image should be fine. For example, President George W. Bush is pretty much well known around the world, and his face has been seen on the internet, news, and TV. An FU image of him would not be needed, since any person seeking such an image can simply go on Google images. If it was however, the Head of State of some 3rd world country that not much people care about that someone would like to see a picture of, then I guess an FU picture would be acceptable, since that person's face isn't even well known. Milo H Minderbinder, in your case about the rare bird, such images are available throughout the Internet, and anyone who really wants to research said topic would not just look at Wikipedia. With enough common sense, they would go to a library, or a database, etc.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "just google search it" argument is that it's also an argument for not bothering to use (or write) wikipedia at all. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but Wikipedia is discouraged among many schools as a reference for research, so many people just come to Wikipedia for basic information. As a student, I do not use Wikipedia for my research; I use the databases that my school provides. However, as an editor, I try to improved Wikipedia in order to improve its quality for the rest of the world. I am an optimist, so whenever I even make the most minor edit, it feels like we're making one step closer towards our goals.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, if you can link to an image (an external link, that is), then that is sometimes enough. But make sure to link to an official website, and not a random website hosting a copyvio pic. The official Coca-cola gallery someone mentioned earlier is a good example. I'm going through old astronomy articles at the moment. Some of those link to online scans of 19th century obituaries in online databases of huge numbers of articles. See at the bottom of this article. As that sort of thing becomes more common, linking to official collections of copyright text or images might be the best way of balancing things out. Remember that the big thing about Wikipedia is that we create and edit the content, linking out to sources that confirm what we write. Fair-use images go against that. They constrain how we can edit and change things. Free material you can mercilessly edit and improve. Fair use content, you can't do that. Carcharoth 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. An article has to be complete when printed out (a normal means of redistribution, which we encourage so strongly). External links are good for further, more detailed discussion, but not for providing images necessary or at least very useful for the comprehension of the article. An article on Ligne claire without a picture from a Hergé comic (and preferable a better one than the current one) is useless. An article on Piet Mondrian without at least one picture of his late works is difficult to understand for people who don't know how a Mondrian looks. I don't want to have an encyclopedia where I can't fully understand the information without browsing external sites as well. Yes, there are way too many fair use images on Wikipedia, but there are on the other hand many irreplaceable copyrighted images (mainly of artworks) which are necessary to show what the article is talking about. And the argument that you can't edit fair use images is frankly a bit ridiculous. Why would you want to edit them? We show what the artist created, and that is factual info, not something to toy with and to edit as we like. Applying that argument means that we have to remove all fair use pictures, even the Iwo Jima pic, the Ché photo, the Guernica: no more exceptions. Our articles both on 20th century art and 20th century news events would become much much poorer and harder to understand, while I can't see on the other hand any benefits for Wikipedia by doing this. Fram 09:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we should make it harder for people to edit such fair-use images, making the provenance crystal-clear and even documenting whether an old historical image has been 'cleaned up' by a Wikipedia editor. I agree that there are many, many legitimate uses of fair-use, but it is equally clear that a discussion with examples is needed. Your examples are excellent. This really will help people understand the difference between this and an episode screenshot. Of course, providing examples of 'purely decorative' use will be difficult once such images are deleted. But episode lists are probably a good example. Carcharoth 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, we agree more than I thought (I thought you took a more extreme position). I agree that provenance, origin of the image has to be very clear, and that the image must really add information to the article which would be much harder to give through text. Bad examples of fair use are e.g. book covers (like the Catch-22 example I gave, which usually add no information, are not discussed in the article, and are even hardly recognisable since many books (certainly bestsellers and classics) have had many different covers. Fram 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the example of third world leaders really holds water. As I understand it, the image of the leader would have to be important to the article for something more than simple identification. Viktor Yushchenko seems to be a clear cut case where fair use is justified, as any biography would have to discuss the changes in his physical appearance, but otherwise there would seem to have to be something particular about the persons appearance to make the use of the image fair. We can always link to sites where copyrighted photos are available, after all, our use will only be fair if the image has to be near the text for the text to make sense. Physchim62 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection

There is an aspect to replacing “unfree media” — and here I am referring strictly to “fair use” media — that is often casually overlooked in these discussions. As bainer notes in the Executive summary above, “unfree media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace it with free content that would serve the same educational purpose.” (Emphasis added.) All too often it seems to be glibly assumed that “free content” material is widely available, especially when the subject is has been widely photographed. Those assuming this and insisting on the removal of otherwise proper “fair use” material rarely, if ever, assume for themselves the due diligence of attempting to determine whether or not this is actually the case. In fact, if they did, we might have less of a problem with fair use images.

To see how widespread this assumption is, one need only look above to see proposals above that a deadline be set for the removal of all fair use materials by May (more or less) — and this for a policy that has not yet even been publicly and officially promulgated (and the implementation of which is still quite unclear by the postings here). Either the scope of the effort required to replace “fair use” images with “free use” images is grossly underestimated, or there’s so little of it that “fair use” isn’t really that much of a problem since there’s so little of it.

While Kat Walsh has made the rationale for this policy change clear, I would like to recommend further consideration and clarification of the standards to and the process by which this policy is to be implemented, and that a more realistic timeframe is embraced. — Askari Mark (Talk) 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A person uploading a fair-use image is already responsible to provide sufficient reason to believe it can not be replaced. Do you have a significant number of examples of images which were provided with such a reason but which were deleted anyway as replaceable? Remember, our current policy does not require that a replaceable free image already exists, only that it could be created. --Yamla 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one prove a negative? Some editors seem to interpret the phrase as whether it's theoretically possible to replace a picture, even if in practice it's impossible for us. Is that really the case? Just because someone is alive doesn't mean we could get access to them to take a picture. We can only know that a picture is replaceable, and we know that by the existence of a free picture. Many persons, places, and things are inaccessable to those willing to give photo rights to the public domain. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, I think "our current policy does not require that a replaceable free image already exists, only that it could be created" is a rather liberal interpretation of the quote I highlighted above. Moreover, taken at face value, it would mean a fair use image could never be used because no editor could ever assure that there could never be a situation where a free use image could not come to exist ... even if not until a thousand years hence. As Milo H Minderbinder observed, you cannot prove a negative. In any case, I was addressing any particular past removals but rather the quite frequently encountered attitude that if a "fair use" image exists, a "free use" example must be "out there" — which, when combined with the impending policy change, means that even fair use images already uploaded with a reasonable assertion of fair use will now also be targets for removal. While there may indeed be a need to tighten up restrictions on their (mis)use, there is neither standard nor mechanism for gaining consensus on the appropriateness of the use of a "fair use" image; on the other hand, there need be only a bland, self-assured assertion that "surely somewhere, someday, somehow there will be a suitable free use image" to reject it. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking over this line for a while:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a
doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,
primarily historically important photographs and significant modern
artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a
free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
context without including the media itself.

The words "significant modern artworks" are really the key words for the whole discussion. "Significant" is completely open to interpretation and is where our fair use rationales come into play. "Artworks" seems to mean any copyrighted material. "Modern" appears to mean anything that is not old enough to be in the public domain (or in the case of places which do not recognize public domain, "modern" is entirely meaningless). So, "significant modern artworks" seems to be a catch-all for whatever can be interpreted as fair use. Therefore, it appears she is just saying "fair use media can be used when it is fair use". No shit, really? If this is a sign of things to come, I don't see how any future foundation resolution is going to help to clarify the situation. Unless they explicitly say "fair use is not allowed", nothing is going to change. We all know (or at least I know) that this isn't going to happen any time soon. --- RockMFR 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a real leap from "artworks" to "any copyrighted material". Corporate logos, celebrity promotional photos and TV and movie screenshots are not artworks by any stretch of the imagination. —Angr 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? There's no aesthetic content to this, or this or this? I'm sure that would be a surprise to the people who designed and/or photographed those images. Just because an artistic creation also serves a commercial purpose doesn't mean that it isn't art. If it has been discussed as art by reliable sources, and our article includes references to those sources, it should be possible to include the images according to the standards put forth by Kat. Of course, many — perhaps even most — fair use images currently in use in Wikipedia articles don't meet that standard. But a blanket statement that something "isn't art by any stretch of the imagination" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia — because reliable sources have said that it is, or can be, art. The key is finding and citing those sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Films are often argued to be works of art, television as well. The statement certainly didn't say that only paintings are art. Nobody is arguing that a screenshot is a work of art, it's how we visually represent the art (same as a photo of a painting or sculpture) since we can't actually put an excerpt of a film directly into an article. I wouldn't agree that art covers all copyrighted material, but it certainly includes things people would consider "pop culture" like it or not. The issue is that art is allowed, not arguing over "good art" versus "pop art". --Milo H Minderbinder 13:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire film is certainly a work of art. A single still from it is no more art than a single fleck of paint on the Mona Lisa is. The Coca-Cola logo (like all corporate logos) isn't art at all, not even pop art. It's simply advertising and as such is inappropriate for Wikipedia, even if it were freely licensed. —Angr 07:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All corporate logos? Even ones which are sufficiently noteworthy to have their own Wikipedia articles?

As for screenshots: a screenshot is a "quotation" from a film or television program, just like a quotation from a prose work. I don't see how you can say that a film is a work of art, but a screenshot from it is devoid of artistic content. Would the same (absurd) argument hold for a quotation from a novel? If not, why not? And if so, are you proposing that every prose quotation be removed from Wikipedia? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia has an article on something, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. A screenshot isn't comparable to a quote from a novel, it's comparable to a word. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" is a quote from a novel. "The" isn't. —Angr 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation, but without anything in WP policy or case law to support it, it's nothing more than your personal opinion. Based on your logic it almost sounds like you're saying we should start using short film clips instead of stills. Or what about audio clips? There's certainly an argument that could be made in that direction, but I doubt that would make the Board happy. I think the absurdity of this entire situation is exemplified by the simulatneous arguments that a screen shot is too much and not enough. The still isn't mean to be art, it's meant to illustrate it. Do you oppose photos of sculptures as well, since they can't represent the whole work? Photos of a close-up of a section of a painting? And speaking of text, do we know if text quotes are one of the forms of fair use media disallowed by this? For the record, currently WP:FU specifically mentions screenshots/stills and corporate logos as allowed if used appropriately. As Kat said, the intent of this isn't to change policy but just to enforce it better. That implies that they're not banning stills or logos, they just want to make sure they're not used without proper fair use justification. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, how about doing what an encyclopedia's supposed to do and describe what we're talking about in our own words? Quotes (whether audio, video, or text) should only be used when the article would be incomprehensible without them. And of course that's just my own opinion, just like everything everyone else here has posted has been their own opinion. —Angr 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Significant legal restriction"

Anyone care to take a stab at how this can be interpreted? Most of the content on Wikipedia already has this wall of text legal restriction. In my opinion, any legal restriction is a significant one. The use of the word "significant" seems to indicate that it is better for us to have content under a license that people can violate the conditions of without much risk of consequence (GFDL licensed text), rather than have content under a "license" that increases a risk of consequence if used improperly (fair use images). Any legal restriction is a legal restriction. We should not concern ourselves if some legal restriction on content here is more "significant" than another legal restriction on different content. Our goal should be to make an encyclopedia that can reasonably be redistributed and modified (if care is taken to follow the legal restrictions of the content being used). We are not in the business of making a truly "free" encyclopedia. I hope people realize this. --- RockMFR 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"No legal restrictions" would rule out the use of any registered trademarks—including the name "Wikipedia®"... Physchim62 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sign of hope

Hopefully the Board resolution will pave the way for more concrete and clear examples of what is allowed, especially in terms of fair use. It is very discouraging to get numerous "Orphaned fair use image" messages on my talk page, only to find out that my fair use images were orphaned because they were replaced by higher-resolution versions, about 100 to 200px larger. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

Several people have pointed me at this thread asking for further elaboration and clarification. Really, I don't have much to say beyond what is in the message, but there are a few points I would like to make more clear:

1. There is absolutely not going to be a detailed fair use policy handed down that says "you can use this kind, you can't use that kind". I know this is an unsatisfying answer, but the scope and fuzziness of the task makes it near to impossible; that the Foundation isn't micromanaging doesn't mean that we don't care whether or not it is being done appropriately. It is up to the informed and responsible members of the community to draw up the exact limits of the policy within the scope of our free-content mission. As to how the images deemed not to be fairly used are to be deleted—that's up to individual projects.
2. The "free content" part is the primary concern, even if some articles would look a lot nicer with images we should not use; to note a comment higher in the thread "free" is a higher priority than "good". While there are plenty of reference works available online at no cost, this one is special in being free content, and part of our purpose is to encourage the development of more free content. A lower-quality free picture existing means that it is possible to have one. We are a project for the long term, and waiting for a free image that is reasonably possible but takes a bit longer to get, is in the end more in line with our goals than never getting a free image at all.
3. This is not a change in Foundation policy (as Haukur stated above, "sky still blue, water still wet"). It is simply the case that some people on the projects are unaware of the extent of the Foundation's commitment to free content.
4. Treat each other with courtesy and understanding even if it kills you.

I note that this is not a Board-approved statement, but I would not expect the others to disagree. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, we have too many fair use images. Clearly consensus is not sorting this out. I fail to see why the board can't make more clear guidelines on the use of "fair use". Given that it's a legal issue, why are we taking any sort of risk here? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect the reasons why the Board would not want to micromanage the policies of fair use images because of the size and scope of what is currently on here. But I would still prefer a little more specific input from the top, especially since this is more or less a legal issue. Over the past couple of years, I have seen discussions on fair use policies spill over into intense debates, conflicts, edit wars and 3RRs, and blocks. This, this, and this come to my mind. Not every Wikipedian who comments on Wikipedia talk:Fair use and other discussions may know all of the details within the various copyright and fair use laws, in addition to the principles made by the Foundation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I too, understand that a detailed policy may not be called for from up top, but I think three or four "rules of thumb" would be extremely helpful. Kat, you just suggested one above: "A free image is better than an unfree image, even when the unfree image is of higher quality." But what would be our rule of thumb on eye candy like album covers (presuming the design is not discussed in the text.) Would the rule be "An unfree image may be used just for the sake of having an image, if a free image is impossible and fair use is followed." Or: "An unfree image should not be used just for the sake of having an image, even if it meets fair use criteria and a free image is impossible." This is a very basic aspect of image policy. If we adopted some rules of thumb, there would still be plenty to argue over, with the specific merits of various fair use claims. But where Foundation policy differs from what's legal under fair use should be clearer.--Pharos 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that if the Foundation actually wanted no fair use images on Wikipedia, they would come out and say it. They are allowing us to make our own determination on what should be allowed and what should not. Because of this liberty, some are taking it as permission to push force their own draconian interpretation. I feel that images that have no free equivalents, such as the album covers, CD covers, logos, etc should be allowed to remain. Basically any picture of a living individual that is fair use probably does not fall under this criteria unless the individual is a fictional character. I just don't want to see en.wiki go the same route as de.wiki.↔NMajdan•talk 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles

Since this message from the board was posted, pretty much every front page Featured Article has included some (if not all) fair use images, some theoretically replacable and some arguably decorative. Don't these provide an example of the Right Way to do an article? Based on the actual deletions that have happened over the last few days, it looks like the statement is just being used to selectively enforce WP:IDONTLIKEIT while conveniently ignoring "serious" articles that use images in the exact same ways. Wikipedia needs to reach a consensus what this means and how it should be enforced - in the meantime as far as I'm concerned any admins going on unilateral deletion sprees in the meantime using the board message instead of WP policy are just being disruptive. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, images on FAs have been dealt with rather poorly all around. See Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey for a new effort to address this problem.--Pharos 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we be a little less vague than "reasonably replaceable"?

We have a lot of problems with inconsistencies in how admins interpret that. Merely being alive does not mean that a free-use image of someone can reasonably be taken (see J.D. Salinger, Thomas Pynchon).

I wrote some proposed guidelines that have gotten some encouraging feedback but not enough, and one notoriously anti-free use admin just went and decided it was rejected despite generally favorable results on the talk page. Can anyone else give it some thought? Daniel Case 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" is another proposed guideline page that got nowhere. As a result, there have been a bit what looks like the start of upload wars such as here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations as a model

I am new to this disucssion so I apologize if I am merely repeating something already said. Wikipedia already takes advantage of "fair use" when including quotations in articles. The decision whether or not to use quotations is made on an article by article basis; if something can be paraphrased it will be; if something should be left as fair use it is. The only "reasonable" way I can see Wikipedia getting around the idea of fair use for images is to either ban it outright, or to allow the decisions to be decentralized for each article. I have read some of the rejected policies, and while I agree with their intents, it is obvious that trying to define what is reasonable or not is a near impossible task, and enforcement would be a nightmare. Why shouldn't this decision be left to a consensus on each talk page? After all, wouldn't it be the editors who could make the best judgement on whether an image is necessary, replaceable, etc.? Joshdboz 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright fair use vs. trademark fair use

Most of the discussion so far has had to do with copyright fair use. I think there have been some misinterpretations about trademark fair use (such as, for example the Coca-cola(R) logo in the Coca-cola article (although the one actually appearing looks like a picture of a case, rather than an official logo). Obviously, it's not "free". Obviously, it's fair use under trademark law (a trademark used to refer to the trademarked concept) in all jurisdictions which recognize trademarks. Obviously, we don't have an guidance about whether it should be used. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it

Why is it that a final decision by the board can't be issued before any further action must be taken? --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Because any action taken without clarification could turn out to be a misinterpretation of what she has said already. Her comments were pretty vague and there's wide dispute over their interpretation - if there's more clarification coming, best to wait for it than take actions that may end up getting reversed later. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• So you agree with me? --evrik ^(talk) 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"I must bid you good luck - you're gonna need it - and adieu"

One day, Wikipedia attracted a retired sports reporter, a golf history buff who lived through a lot of that history. He was very excited!

So he proceeded to go through biographies on some of golf's greats. He started with Jack Nicklaus, a living person.

So he wrote a fantastic introduction to Jack Nicklaus and decided that now might be the time to place a nice photo into his work. So he did.

He placed in a photo of Jack from his promotional pack, and then sat back and sipped some tea while he admired his great start. But soon, something happened.

"Woops! Sorry. Can't use that!" the retired sports reporter was suddenly told.

"Huh? Why???" he replied back.

"Well, because there is a 'free' photo available of Jack. See, its right here. You gotta use a 'free' photo."

"But that photo is miserable, surely a complete embarrassment to Jack! The most prominent feature in it is - it's his GUT! - something he lost not too long after someone snapped that photo of him without him even knowing it. And that horrible shot will show up all over the whole Internet in weeks!"

"Well, it already is all over the Internet through Wikipedia's mirrors and stuff. ;-) But Sorry. We have to remain 'free'."

"But I am donating my time and expertise here to write this article, and plan on doing scores more. I thought no was ever going to be charged to read these articles. You know, that it was free."

"Ah! No, that is a common misunderstanding. We mean 'free' as in libre, not 'free' as in beer."

"I'm confused. And I thought this was about 'free' as in education."

"Well, one thing you can do is approach Jack to see if he will release a great photo of himself for 'free'."

"But this photo is free! Jack provides it in his press packet without charge. I know he'd be more than happy to have it used for educational purposes."

"Yes, you are indeed confused. What you have to do is get him to release a photo that anyone anywhere can use for any for-profit or derivable purpose."

"Are you saying I just need to get Jack to give explicit permission to use this promotional photo in Wikipedia?"

"No, no, no. We cannot use photos like that."

"Ugh! Now I think I really am confused! And look, these people have reputations to maintain, and their image is a big part of that. Real lives can be harmed by putting horrible photos of living people like that in an encyclopedia article."

"Well that's Jack's problem, not ours. But let me make it real plain how you and he can solve it. You have to get Jack to release a great photo of himself to the whole world, one that anyone anywhere can sell, or change around in all sorts of ways."

"Um, you're kidding, right?"

"No, not at all."

"Well what about this photo? That's from when Jack was just making it big, back in the early 1960s. I was planning to write a biography article of him, after all. It really has to include his golf career in more than just words."

"Wow, nice shot! Can you get Jack to release it under a 'free' license?"

"Do you mean, Can you get Jack to release that photo to the whole world so that anyone anywhere can sell it or change it around in all sorts of ways?"

"Hey, you're catching on now! And yes, that is what I mean."

"Are you serious? You really do gotta be kidding now, right?"

"No, I assure you I am not."

"So, let me get this straight. You want me to donate my time to write articles that anyone anywhere can then turn and use to make money. And on top of that you want me to get photos for these articles - photos that anyone anywhere can then turn and use to make money, as well as alter and change around as they deem fit?"

"Exactly! Look, 'free" is a wonderful goal. We need your help to change how the rest of the world operates. They should be like us, not the other way around." The change is quite clearly inevitable, in fact. Erik Möller even said so.[3]

"Gosh, I am beginning to think I have wasted a lot of time here. These things you are asking me to do - they are just completely unrealistic. Not to mention the gall !"

"Or, you can just write the articles."

"Waddaya mean?"

Well, they don't need photos, after all. 'Free' is more important than quality, ya know. Kat Walsh even said so."[4]

"Please tell me you really are kidding this time."

"Sorry, I am not."

"Well, I am afraid I must bid you good luck - you're gonna need it - and adieu."

And so the retired sports reporter reverted his edits, buried them under a bunch of trivial minor ones, and was never heard from again.

72.144.241.142 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of other users, I shall summarise the above overly long post. (I think this is one of those times an American attempts irony, which as usual resembles a giraffe attempting the limbo.) "Jack Nicklaus has a bit of a tummy, unlike every other 66-year-old man on the planet, so we should use only photos which show him from the neck up, like this professional one. Unfortunately, people who spend the time, money and effort to create professional, posed photographs understandably don't want to release them under free licenses. Therefore, Wikipedia is @#%$ed". I'm missing something here. "The fair use provision of United States law allows Wikipedia to use copyrighted photos in limited contexts" means nothing more than "We should use other people's work because we can get away with it". That isn't good enough for a free-content encyclopaedia. We don't have the resources to take professional photographs, I fail to see how this is a problem except for the extreme minority of people who can't even bear to look at their real selves, and God knows how they shave in the morning without a mirror. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of other users, I shalll summarize Sam's analysis: Sam completely and totally misses the point of the essay, and Sam's summary is the poorer for it. The essay (now at WP:ADIEU) is actually quite readable, quite enjoyable, very funny, and perfectly illustrates the various follies and fallacies of the current interpretation of our fair use policy. Media professionals, who have been dealing with fair use issues, successfully, for many years, are often shocked at the literalness and vigor with which many non-media-professional editors interpret Wikipedia's draconian fair use guidelines, all at the altar of "free/libre." There are, of course, limits to what libre can accomplish in a copyright-encrusted world, but asking a libre absolutist to bend or change or compromise is a bit like asking a Flat Earther to stop worrying about falling off end of the earth. No matter what the evidence is, they'll never be convinced the world isn't headed toward a libre utopia... So why bother? Instead, embrace the limits of libre! Own them! Go "German," and reject fair use as an evil conspiracy ("I don't trust fair use..." I saw an editor write the other day, as though it were something to be feared)... And it's important to note that if the board values "free" above "quality," then they've really tied their own hands in a wide variety of issues. Because I would guess that most people come to Wikipedia because it's an excellent encyclopedia, not because it's an excellent "free." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother. That's a hilarious essay and dead on. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't appreciate Sam's joke at the expense of Americans. It is in poor taste. What that essay is failing to mention is you can still create a great encyclopedia entry without images. I would encourage that editor to continue editing the article despite his opinion on Wikipedia's image policy.↔NMajdan•talk 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a response to this essay, but move it to Wikipedia talk:I bid you adieu instead Nil Einne 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)