Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

scans of text documents

Where can I go to read Wikipedia's guideline or policy about scans of text documents which are presented as images for their text content? An article uses a scanned text, [1] presented as a primary source of information. Then it offers the reader, download a high resolution copy of this image [2] which can be more easily read. I simply want to read the pertinent policy about it. Terryeo 23:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such guideline as far as I know. But it may fit the text restriction in our Fair use guideline. -- ReyBrujo 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks ReyBrujo! It looks like I need to crop those images down to just what I want to quote to meet the Fair Use criteria.--Fahrenheit451 04:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. The digital file that contains the content is an image but the copyright is on the text. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the way I read Fair Use, too. That is, the copyright applies equally whether our eyes are looking at an original or at a scanned reproduction. The "high resolution" element of the image copyright notice [3] talks about what a human being's eyes perceive, right? Not the number of picture elements that hardware presents to our eye ?
If the work is unfree, you shouldn't be quoting so much text that you can't simply type it out. ed g2s • talk 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
My main concern was not about the copyright being violated although scans of whole pages, presented as text, might infringe. Especially since 5 sequential pages are scanned and presented in resolution which could be printed. But about User:Fahrenheit451's potential infringement of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, which isn't very established as a guideline yet. Terryeo 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I read the guideline and fail to see any conflict of interest. My concern is keeping within the Fair Use criteria.--Fahrenheit451 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To reply to "fair use", it is 5 full pages, scanned, 4 of them sequential pages, of a published magazine, presented whole and intact? The presentation then is of sufficient quality that a person could print an original-appearing page, reproducing in print, those five sequential pages, isn't that right? It seems, offhand, to be beyond fair use. Could I do the same with 5 pages of TIME Magazine here on Wikipedia? Or National Geographic? Or Forbes Magazine? The copyright protections are the same, I think. Terryeo 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is clearly NOT a magazine, it is a pricelist, a totally different body of data. Your comparison is non-sequitur. After the discussions with various editors, I know what I need to do to bring it up to standard. I had merely answered your quip about conflict of interest, which had no relevance whatsoever. --Fahrenheit451 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have earlier stated that you scanned those from a Magazine, did you not? In any event, the "copyright CSFSO 2004 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" can clearly be read [4]. Would you reproduce any magazine to include its copyright notice? The notice makes it clear that it can not be reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder, does it not? Terryeo 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another false accusation from you again Terryeo. On no occasion did I scan the FSO pricelist from any magazine whatsover. Are you trying to start trouble? Please stop the personal attacks by accusation.--Fahrenheit451 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he made an "accusation", but was simply trying to recall something you had said. Magazine or not, I again point out that the image resolution is not even an issue in this case because the legal copyright is on the text and not on an image. Just because you changed the digital file that the copyrighted material sits in does not change what is copyrighted. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me? I asked a question did I not? You say it is an assertion. Based on your understanding that my question is an assertion, you accuse me of a personal attack. However, your accusation of a personal attack should not detract other editors from the issue which is the direct presentation of copyrighted material whose copyright notice appears on the page which you uploaded, User:Fahrenheit451 Terryeo 08:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that the copyright notice is visible really isn't an issue. It's "fair use" because it has that copyright, and using something as fair use is also admitting that the image is copyrighted. But, as I said, this is all besides the point. The copyright is being applied to text; text as in the written words, not as in text that you can select with a mouse. Being in an image container makes no difference, this is fair use of copyrighted text that fails out fair use guidelines and policy. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ned, Could you then please cite the passage of the guidelines/policy that it fails?--Fahrenheit451 08:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for starters: Wikipedia:Fair use#Text: "In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." -- Ned Scott 09:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is not news material, but rather published prices.--Fahrenheit451 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Lets try that again, with some formatting assistance: "In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services),<-comma movie scripts,<-comma or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." -- Ned Scott 09:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ned, you have made the situation clear. Terryeo 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No thanks, Terryeo. I asked the question. I do not appreciate your interference. So, Ned, the keywords are "extensive" and "in general". We need to nail down "in general" first and then "extensive". I have read the statute and believe the material is fair use as there are four main criteria.--Fahrenheit451 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest using direct text quotes without the image file, and only quoting the text that is needed. That would be okay. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
An external link to the document, image or text, would likely be ok as well. Just as long as that much of the material is not directly on an article while being hosted by Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that an external link to a document, image or text is not acceptable if the off-wiki material is likely to violate copyright. See WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. I think (but am certainly not sure) that F451's biggest problem is that he/she is trying to upload scanned documents to get around verification and reliable source problems, but that's probably an issue for another board. TheronJ 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Cool. My project for tomorrow.--Fahrenheit451 09:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Denelson83/SVG registered trademark warning

I'm pretty sure there's absolutely no legitimacy to this, because the "low-resolution" specification is wikipedia policy, not US law, and the rule is just there to avoid compromising commercial value by offering a version that could be used to make posters, for example. But these are logos, and vector imagery doesn't interfere with their commercial use; it just allows a more accurate and less space-consuming reproduction. He's been placing this tag on SVG logos like the one for IBM and then having them deleted, claiming policy and law backs him, but there was a tfd vote which turned out no consensus. Thoughts, input? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vecotr images can be scaled to where you can use on posters, and also allows someone to help counterfit (far fecthed example, but with SVG, you can do anything). If we can convert the SVG files to maybe medium scaled PNG files, that could be a decent solution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You could do it with PNGs too, or with the high-res printready logos straight off the company's site. We want to reproduce the logos accurately. Fairuse policy here is to make sure our content can be used by anyone legitimately, not to prevent all possible illegitimate uses. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting question. I have seen people convert PNG and JPG files to SVG so often I considered it as natural as replacing a GIF with a PNG. In short, I am guessing Denelson83 is right, and SVG should not be allowed for trademarks. -- ReyBrujo 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We can easily scale down PNG using Photoshop, then save and upload the results. But with SVG, you can scale up and it looks crisp and clear. With PNG, artifacting can occur, which will make a large scale use for piracy not possible. Plus, I think corporate logos should not be really big, so having a infinite-scaling SVG file seems unneeded. So, the SVG's can go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What we DO want to do is, create fun, informative articles. What we don't want to do is provide third parties with downloads they could use for nefarious purposes, thus we have our guidelines. Those tell us, generally, to use an image that fills the purpose of the article without excess information. For example, a one megabyte JPEG contains a lot of information while a 20 kilobyte PNG serves quite well in almost all articles. The information just isn't within a 10 to 40 kilobyte sized PNG to download and reuse for nefarious purposes. Terryeo 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet if you can do the same thing with a 500 byte SVG file, why not? One of the things about wikipedia is that we don't care if users use our content for nefarious purposes -- we have information on thousands of things that you could use to get yourself killed or hurt someone else, but we don't censor it because someone might get hurt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, I don't think people quite understand the issues here. I'm often bordering on copyright paranoid when it comes to images but I'm all for having wikipedia content as useful as possible (indeed thats why I'm copyright paranoid). That's why we generally encourage large images (you may only see the thumbnail but users might want the full image), SVGs/vector graphics (same issue and more) etc. But we have to be make sure we respect copyright and fair use is a very tricky issue. We want to minimise it as much as possible. (As I've stated, this is about maximising what a user can do. A user can't do much with fair use images which is one of the key reasons why we don't like them). There is a good reason why we limit the size of screenshots etc. However when it comes to logos, there is no reason to have a such a restriction and the issues are completely different. Regardless of whether people can use it for nefarious purposes what's important is it's in no way breaking the law and it's the highest quality and most useful possible. Nil Einne 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What people don't seem to realize is that many of the SVG images are created from a PNG, JPG or GIF image using a tracing program, thus the argument that someone could use an SVG for "nefarious purposes" but not a PNG or GIF doesn't hold water. For the majority of images where SVG is appropriate, the SVG doesn't really contain any more information than a PNG or GIF.
It could even be argued that SVG's by themselves wouldn't violate the copyright on the original image (unless it was the SVG file itself that was copied), because they are merely a description of the image, and not the image itself, and that only the rendering of the image would bring up copyright issues. For example, an SVG image of the H&R Block green square could be blown up to any arbitrary size, but then so could a PNG, GIF, or JPG image, because they would contain exactly the same information. But then, so would the words "green square" (or perhaps "square of color Pantone #whatever"). DHowell 00:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Politicians & Judges in Non-US Countries

I think there needs to be some discussion about the use of this template Template:Replaceable fair use for Australian politicians and judges' pictures. The policy has been written from a United States point of view, in which most content from the Federal Government has been determined as in the public domain. I'm from Australia, where all Federal Government comes under Crown Copyright (for a period of 50 years), so we cannot just go and take photos from websites unless they are fair use. The Government has also been asked if they would provide content for Wikipedia, and while they have no problem in it being displayed for educational and non-commercial usage, they don't want it distributed for commercial usage of the photos (Template_talk:Parliament_of_Australia). Recently the administrator Quadell has started deleting every politicians' photo from Australia, claiming that because there could be a free use alternative the photo shouldn't exist. I'm concerned about this, mostly because as far as I can determine it, the purpose of the Replaceable fair use template is not for the deletion of every picture of living people, but to stop mindless and lazy usage of fair use photos when a free image is easily available (I think Jimbo had an example on the talk page about a beach in the US somewhere where a free image was quite easily available) - I'm all for deletion where an example is easily available - like pictures of buildings or places that still exist, etc. But what about situations where that is not so easy? In Australia, it is VERY hard to get photos of Federal or State politicians (especially Cabinet members), and especially nowadays because of terrorism concerns people going up to politicians with a camera and asking for photos would be deemed very suspicious. The same goes with our judges: taking photos in court is illegal without permission, and outside of that the High Court judges rarely appear in public as tradition governs that they do not comment on political or other matters whilst on the bench. These photos are not the sort of thing which could be replaced within days, and are not like your average celebrity where there's oodles of free use photographs sitting around.

I'm asking that the Fair Use criterion #1 not be construed so strictly in regards to these photographs - a bit of good faith wouldn't go astray, and maybe Template:Fair_use_replace would be a better template to use for these photographs, to at least give us some time to look for these pictures. Whilst permission itself is of no point anymore on WP, we have been given permission by the Government agency AUSPIC for Federal politicians and others to display their images on Wikipedia, and combined with fair use I should hope this would have some weight to keep them for a while at least. We have been looking for free images for our politicians and in some cases we have found them, but this is a long and slow process. Without the fair use on these images we are liable to lose all pictures of our Governor-General, all our High Court judges, all our Cabinet members, and most of our state politicians - think the Australian equivalent of George Bush, the entire US executive, the entire US Supreme Court, and all State Governors, all having articles without a decent photo on them for illustration. They greatly improve the articles and are all at low resolution and follow the fair use guidelines other than on criterion #1. I don't think a reply that "too bad, you should go without photos until you get free ones" is really fair. What can we do about this to make it fair for other countries as well as the US situation? I note there's also a discussion on the Canadian judges on this same issue. This needs to be resolved. JROBBO 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a further point to Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Counterexample #8. JROBBO 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the policy has been written from a United States point of view. The policy was clarified to better reflect concerns like these, where Jimbo cleary said that for celebrities, "we are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo".
Jimbo also said that {{Fair_use_replace}} is for images we're "very unlikely to get a free replacement in the next 20 years", and not a few more than "within days".
I have already seen free images being uploaded to fill the gap left by the deletion of a "replaceable" unfree one. Indeed, the use of an unfree image in some article removes almost all the incentive to produce a free one. This policy has a reason and I see it achieving it. Australian politicians should not be an exception. --Abu Badali 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the "I've done it so why can't you" argument is always valid. Please note I am all for getting rid of copyright violations and getting rid of pictures that blatantly have the wrong tag, or are of places or buildings that you can go to, etc., but I think you have to realise that there are a LOT of people who have Wikipedia entries that are not easily accessible as people, and whom it will take years and years to get a photo. The disputes over photos are going to end up between American administrators who say - "politician - easy to get = Delete" and the overseas user that has a bit more of an idea of how accessible it is to get their photos. The fair use photos were never meant to be permanent, and in a very small number of cases (3 or 4) we have got photos, but they are mainly from US Federal websites which are public domain. Apart from those politicians who visit the US, it's going to be neigh impossible to get photos of them. You can always try for us if you want and see just how difficult it is. JROBBO 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
From my limited understanding of intellectual property law, these guidelines seem a lot harsher than the "fair use" or "fair dealing" allowances permitted under various countries' legislation. Why is this being called "Fair use" if it's not? If we are going to use "fair use" why not adhere to what is legally allowed - it at least provides a good benchmark rather than the restrictive current policy which is only going to get harder and harder until there's no unfree images at all. JROBBO 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, if we permit unfree images to "fill the gap" we are discouraging people from finding replacements. Why would you bother putting in all the effort of sourcing a free picture if you were "allowed" to steal the professional shot off the website? ed g2s • talk 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You're making it sound like fair use is stealing or a copyright violation. The fact is that it is not - fair use or fair dealing, either under law or under WP policy allows a non-free image where one is impossible or extremely hard to obtain. Delete the laziness examples like places, etc., sure, but not examples like this. To have no pictures of living people at all unless they are free is no more than having no fair use images at all. If Wikipedia wants to go that way, I'll oblige, but that's not the position that we have at the moment. What is the point of having fair use if we're going to construe policy that strictly? JROBBO 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia not only wants to go this way, it has always been this way, we've just been less strict in enforcing it. ed g2s • talk 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We actually shouldn't put that effort into finding a free picture. We should use the fair use picture that already exists and is legally usable. We can put our time to use in better ways, like building a more informative encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We're here to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia, not to make a great website. Obviously, you've heard that before, and either don't believe it or would just rather being doing the latter and would prefer to ignore the stated goal. Regardless, if you're really concerned about wasting time, you should rethink your position. Users uploading images that will be replaced is an inefficient use of time that could be spent "building a more informative encyclopedia". Users uploading content that we'll remove as soon as the copyright holder asks us to is an inefficient use of that time. Users uploading so much unfree material because they've been misled into thinking that everything magically becomes okay when it has an appropriate boilerplate template leading to massive cleanup efforts is an inefficient use of that time. Jkelly 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Our mission should be to build the best encyclopedia. Legally permissable fair use is a tool in doing so. We have commons to crusade against fair use. Johntex\talk 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, our mission is to build the best free-content encyclopedia. Borisblue 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not what our first pillar says, and it would be a mistake to make that our mission over building the "best freely accessible encyclopedia". Johntex\talk 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images aren't feely accessible. People who want to use them commercially, for instance will have problems. To ensure that the images are freely acessible, they should be free-content. 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
And besides, WP:COPYRIGHT is one of the five pillars. And is says It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. Borisblue 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this to the extreme examples - shouldn't The official Canadian picture of the Queen be deleted? Theoretically someone could come and take a picture of her... JROBBO 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, this image should be deleted. And there is already a 'replaceable fair use' tag on it, so I'm not the only one that thinks so. Borisblue 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, apparently she did visit the US recently, there should definitely be a good photo of her. We could probably take this image [5]. Borisblue 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think this would be a "free" image? You do understand that images created by a city government are not necessarily in the public domain in the US — only the federal government. --Fastfission 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Then this image will do. Borisblue 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To user:Jkelly and everyone. In the circumstances I guess some of you will support this policy, or similar, for images of living people. Your comments are welcome as a matter of some urgency--luke 07:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: ... An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like.". ed g2s • talk 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ed, the entire question is whether or not lines like that — which seem to have been added in without much reflection — should be included in the policy or not. Citing them doesn't resolve anything. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fastfission (talk • contribs) . 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but I was pointing out that this is in the policy, and is not just individual interpretations. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's in the policy but it is not well thought out and was simply slipped in there without any real discussion. I'm not sure that makes it canon. --Fastfission 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#The_first_three_paragraphs above. Jkelly 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary sigh

Official portraits of government figures are probably the safest legal category out there — for us or anyone else who would possibly re-use it. The fact that something as straightforward as this would fall out from our FUC while other far more dubious things would remain in it (i.e. the use of highly creative works of illustrations) pretty much says to me that our current FUC have some serious flaws in them. It currently makes photographs of people one of the hardest things to justify, when those are often among the most "uncreative" forms of media we use and are often quite legally safe.
I fear our policy has diverged quite strongly from both common sense and from a good faith approach to fair use. There are too many people who are happy to see any restriction on using unlicensed images here no matter how arbitrary and poorly thought out.
I believe in making a free encyclopedia. But I also recognize that the use of the "fair use" clause has been something which has been pursued for quite some time on here and with Jimbo's sanction. I also understand, perhaps more to the point, that if you want people to think that rules make sense and are not just being enforced by people who enjoy being pseudo-legalistic then you have to explain them and they have to have their reasoning be somewhat transparent. This means finding that sweet spot between idealistic desires and practical principles.
I fear that at the moment these debates are dominated by people who do not care whether or not we have a sensible policy. I do not see much honest effort to develop one at this point. I think this is quite foolish. It does not, in the end, help Wikipedia function, and it does not, in the end, make Wikipedia any more legally safe. At the moment things are slanted in a way which makes it very easy to add arbitrary and poorly-thought out aspects to the policy which lead to endless enforcement problems and a lot of unnecessary strife. It is quite hard to remove them and to make the policy more reasonable, arranged along the lines of finding a harmony between our values, our editing system, and the law.
I don't mean to make this sound like some sort of rant but frankly it bums me out. I created WP:WPFU because I didn't think that enough coordination was going in to our fair use policy and it was creating undue risks for Wikipedia. At the moment though I think the policy wonkery has gone way overboard and that common sense has been purposely jettisoned and replace with ill-defined appeals to legal danger and to lofty ideals. In my opinion that's not how you make rational, enforceable policy. I think there's a problem. Personally I've about hit my limit on trying to fix it. I think that we can have a "fair use" policy that makes sense, and I think that having a policy like that would be both easier to implement and easier to enforce. It's a pretty simple assertion but in this climate it feels revolutionary. Sigh. --Fastfission 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"It does not, in the end, help Wikipedia function, and it does not, in the end, make Wikipedia any more legally safe." I would disagree. The less fair use we have, the more legally safe we are as a whole. Besides, how legally safe we are is only one of many factors. We could probably get away with loads more fair use without being in trouble, but then our content would become considerably less usable. Removing pictures of living people is a great help to the project, as it gives people a motivation to source free pictures, which is completely removed by allowing such images. That Wikipedia actively encourages third parties to use our content, even for commercial use, does not appeal to most people's common sense or opinion, but that does not mean we are going to abandon it as a philosophy. If your line of thought is "what can we get away with" then this policy is never going to make sense to you. ed g2s • talk 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO it's not arbitrary or about beeing legaly safe. This project is based on the "lofty ideal" of free content. If the subject of an article is something it is realisticly possible to create a free licensed image of, then we should settle for nothing less. This may mean that some articles will go without images for quite a while, but this is not fundamentaly different from all the articles that take quite a while to get to a deacent level of quality, and we are not on a deadline. Also the presense of a unfree "placeholder" image have proven to be quite effective at discouraging the creation of free alternatives, especialy if the "placeholder" is the work of a professional photographer. Most people will just see a "good looking" image and asume we don't need any more. If however there is no image there people who are in a posission to actualy make a free licensed image of the subject will be more motivated to pick up a camera and do it, even if theyr contribution will not be quite the same quality as the work of a professional (the trick is just to keep others from adding new unfree images to the article in the meantime). --Sherool (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As someone who actually does "pick up a camera", I can say that I'm not at all motivated by the removal of nonfree images from articles. I'm primarily motivated by availability of an interesting subject. If it replaces a nonfree image, that's a nice bonus. If you want to help me do more, make up a list of needed images that I can cross-check against my backlog and my travel plans. Stan 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad we have some users like you, however I do think my asessment is still acurate for most of our "casual" photographers (as in someone who just happens to live close to a subject we could use a photo off, rater than someone who love taking photos), and I fear there are not enough of "you" to ilustrate all Wikipedia articles alone ;) As for lists of needed images you can check Category:Fair use image replacement request, then there is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and it's various regional sub-categories. Good luck on your travels :) --Sherool (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The ultimate dispute, I think, is "Should we make Wikipedia as pretty as possible, even if less free, or should we make it as free as possible, even if less pretty." Jimbo has said we should lean toward the "free" side, rather than the "pretty" side. Because if we use a non-free image, no one replaces it with a free image, but if we use no image (where a free one could be made), sometimes someone creates a new free image to replace it.

I know some people disagree with this policy, in good faith. I can only say I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read comments from users who had said they were contributing to the english Wikipedia because it allowed them to upload fair use images, and that they would leave if such exception were removed. Some see WP:FUC as a limitation to your freedom, when it is the opposite. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the freedom of our consumers (people who read it and downstream users) that we're concerned about, not the freedom of the editors. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The extent to which I do not care about "downstream users" is virtually endless. Why should we adjust our policies to benefit horrible, opportunistic companies that ruin the internet? And bravo to fastfission for actually saying things that make sense. A plague on everyone else. This page is dominated by a bunch of ideologues whose basic purpose is to ban fair use entirely in stages. Boo to you all. john k 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the horrible, opportunistic companies that ruin the internet must adjust to us. It feels strange for me to point an administrator to our five pillars, where it is pointed that Wikipedia is free content because our text is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, and the license clearly requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially". So, if you want to blame someone, blame Jimbo or Richard Stallman, not us. -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo is right - TEXT is released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Text... not images. Images, obviously, are fairly used on the English language Wikipedia in accordance with what I think could be called a conservative/restrictive set of fair use guidelines. So why all the fuss over promotional photos? If properly attributed, sourced, etc., the Template:promophoto does a fine job of protecting everyone's rights. Jenolen 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On an actual argument note, I think we should stop focusing on the theory and look at the practical side - this is an Encyclopaedia, pictures are important as they show the context. I see no reason why perfectly legal and re-usable images need to be removed from the reader just becaues the person in question is alive and in theory you could find a "free" photo of them. What is the point of the {{promophoto}} fair use template if it cannot really be used because of this silly little criteria? Sure if free alternatives exist maybe it makes sense not to use fair use images, but if none exist what is the benefit of removing them?

There is obviously a lot of opposition to this, including from me. And I see no consensus on the issue here. I have marked the "policy" with {{disputedpolicy}} until this is fixed.--Konst.ableTalk 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The benefit of removing them has been explained above. 1) it tend to make people try a little bit harder to actualy find a replacement 2) it helps keep the amount of unfree material to a minimum. Also the asertion that fair use images are prefectly re-usable is somewhat flawed considering that the US is pretty much the only nation in the world that have a fair use clause in it's copyright law. Sure there are simmilar provisions ("quotation rights", "fair dealing" and so forth) in many other countries, but they are much more restricted and narrowly defined (typicaly restricted to review or critisism of the work itself, rater than the subject of the photo) meaning most of our fair use images can in fact not be relief upon to be legaly re-usable as-is by anyone outside the US. --Sherool (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your position and your opposition, but this is a core value of Wikipedia, one that has been put forth repeatedly by Jimbo and the Foundation Board. You can rail against it all you want, but in the end you're just tilting at windmills because this is an edict that comes from on high. howcheng {chat} 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have no intention on going on a holy war to get rid of this criteria - though I am not convinced that it is a good option at all to favour no images for bios just because 1 in 20 of these articles will eventually be able to find free images if the fair use versions are removed. Since Jimbo said it should be so, I guess it is a lost cause anyway (but he did admit that his point of view is extreme and only a point of view, not an order) - so I will remove the disputed tag.--Konst.ableTalk 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rearrange the page and rename the policy.

I believe that, regardless of what follows, the following things need to happen.

Could we please make this a survey? Support or oppose each item:

Rearrange the current page

Move the Policy section of the existing page to the top of the page, and remove all the "guideline" material that comes before it.
  • Support From experience, it's frustrating to find that an image meets the qualifications set out in the former as explained in the "Briefly,..." portion of the Law section but then fails the latter. Don't move the material below the policy, eliminate anything on the page that isn't the policy or how to apply it.—Chidom talk  00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion of the "Law" section, neutral on moving "Policy" above "Law." IMHO, although Wikipedia's "fair use" policy is stricter than US law, one element of the fair use policy is that, at a minimum, there must be a strong argument that the use actually does qualify as a fair use under US law. Although some of the Wikipedia factors do tend to protect against unfair use, I don't think we should lose sight of the "red line" beyond which we may not legally use items. TheronJ 15:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the policy is found in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. This page is a general guideline with mixes the policy with some useful examples. That people refer to this page when talking to the policy is their mistake, not the page's.. -- ReyBrujo 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria: "For the full fair use policy (including these criteria) see Wikipedia:Fair use." (emphasis added) This is the full policy, the criteria should be listed first rather than conflicting information.—Chidom talk  21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That is the misleading part that confuses everyone. Remove it from there, and everything should be clear. -- ReyBrujo 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename the policy

If this passes, then we can decide what the new name should be via another survey.
Comment The policy applies to far more than just images. It is for anything that is copyrighted. Among the things that are included in the policy now are text, music, videos, etc. If this proposal is supported, another survey would be started with suggestions for names and support or opposition to them.—Chidom talk  18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment and oppose: A similar point has already been raised and discussed above at Renaming Fair Use Image Policy. Why raise the question of renaming again when a proposal for images has already been made (it's images which have been the cause of the fuss), a suggested guideline is published and still waiting for more comment, updating and approval, and the discussion is still current on the forum. But this time we don't even have a new name for the policy/guideline, let alone what the new guideline will actually be. We are simply voting for abandoning the 'fair use' epithet. Why are we being asked to do that?. Because the policy is creeping so far from fair use that people who are familiar with the term are throwing up their hands and calling 'enough is enough.' But just changing names to try and dodge the real issues - once again leaving the real issues fudged - is not the answer. We should try and adopt a clear policy that everyone can recognise, understand for what it means and sign up to, as was stated earlier by user:khaosworks (I quoted it above) This means we either keep to a recognisably fair use policy as has been the case up until recently, or we abandon 'fair use' completely and move to a GFDL only English Wikipedia. I was considering putting forward such a proposal, but there are articles such as David Attenborough which would lose their 'fair use' images (but then again it should under the currently expressed policy too). Suggested that either a) we keep current fair use images for now, and move gradually to free content within say 3 months time seeking to replace 'fair use' with 'freely licensed' where we can - the remainder to be discarded in 3 months, or b) we ditch all 'fair use' images completely, or c) we freeze 'fair use' images which are already on Wikipedia, and adopt a policy that all NEW content is to be GFDL. These are 3 clear alternative strategies. Maybe someone could make a proposal along those lines so at least we would all know what we are voting for.--luke 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal One policy should cover all copyrighted work; there shouldn't be sepraate policy for images. Leaving "Fair use" in the article title is confusing; the policy goes beyond the more commonly-known definition of "Fair use", which is a set of laws that only apply in the United States. What we are voting for is to start with some basic, fundamental steps that will need to happen regardless of whether we stay with a policy that incorporates the concept of fair use (without calling it that to avoid confusion) or only allows freely licensed material.—Chidom talk  20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
hi, agreed that we need one policy on what is allowable and what is not - and it should be clearly understandable and appreciated, not subject to personal views or beliefs. Currently we have streched the term 'fair use' so much that everyone realises something has gone badly wrong. For an example, it seems that 'fair use' images of living people, which were once ok, are now only allowed in exeptional circumstances. So much so that the Queen's official Canadian portrait has been deleted from Wikipedia by an admin claiming to follow the current policy. Yet confusingly the 'David Attenborough' article I mentioned above still has two 'fair use' images which can only be seen as contravening counterexample #8...and there are many similar Wikipedia articles which I could bring to your attention. So what we have now is a 'dogs dinner' of a policy which does more to obfuscate than to clarify, causing Wikistress (a silly word, but think you know what is meant.)
So how to sort the problem. Let us start with Jimmy Wales's Statement of principles, published 27 October 2001, which says in part: As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and the license... Later on the fifth principle states: The GNU FDL license, the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license. There is no ambiguity in Jimmy's statement, yet the English Wikipedia has voted for allowing 'fair use.' Now you say we need some basic fundamental steps and I think that's right. You rightly point out the difficulties of 'fair use' - there are certainly complexities involved. But the fundamental step is to decide whether we continue to allow 'fair use' at all, or whether we follow Jimbo Wales. We have to face the point head-on that a large percentage of multimedia content will be ditched from Wikipedia if we adhere to the GFDL. That's why I suggested the possibility of a 'freeze' on current 'fair use' content as one option to consider.
Finally I suggested above 3 alternative ways to approach the problem. We really need to make a decision on the basics, and not balk on the issues involved. Of course suggestions will be very welcome, but my view is that first of all we must decide where we go, and this must be before we decide simply to move from where we are now because of the mess we have made of a complex area of law. But if it is too complex for us, then maybe we should simply decide to completely leave it alone.--luke 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Create a separate article of usage/application examples

This article would explain in greater detail what the policy means and how it is to be applied.

Delete other references

Remove links to other non-policy articles such as Copyright, Fair use, etc., and any external links.
  • Support If it's not the policy or an explanation of how it is to be applied, don't link it. This continues to invite confusion about the difference between Wikipedia policy and other standards—fair use law, etc.. If someone wants to create an essay on how Wikipedia policy was derived from other laws or standards, or how it ensures compliance with other laws or standards, fine; but that information isn't necessary in order to use and comply with the policy itself and may be confusing. Links to articles about those laws or standards themselves shouldn't be available from the policy article but could be included in the essay.—Chidom talk  00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's not enough that Wikipedia editors comply with the policy; it is also essential that they comply with the law. We should say both. TheronJ 15:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Don't eliminate additional information because the policy page is not well enough written. Terryeo 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Rebuttals to opposition

I made this a separate section because adding it directly below the responses above creates too much of a gap between responses.

  • If the policy doesn't currently cover compliance with United States fair use laws (which I believe it already does), it should be re-written (edited) so that it does.
Below is the summary of the law that is provided now and the relevant portion of the current policy which complies with it.
Law section # 1: "The use must not attempt to 'supersede the objects' of the original but rather be educational or critical."
Policy # 2: "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be 'fair use' as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work."
(Policy # 3 also applies to compliance with the law in this area, see below.)
Law section # 2: "The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as quoting the most important part may attempt to 'supersede' the original).
Policy # 3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
(This section of the policy, or another section, should be expanded to address taking care that what portion is used doesn't supersede the original.)
Law section # 3: "The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work (for instance, by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work), though not through criticism or parody."
Policy # 2 and # 3: (See above. If these points in the policy are followed, this condition is more than met.)
  • Now look at the contradictory statements between the Law section and the Policy:
Law section: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of Fair Use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Policy # 4: "The material must have previously been published."
(An exception to this for Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research#Original images. That needs to be explained here; a user shouldn't have to leave this page to know about it.)
  • Fair use law is only only applicable to the United States.
  • Including the "Law" section looks like there are two sets of policies on the page.
  • The policy should be "well enough written" that no other information is needed in order to comply with it.
  • This is a long enough policy without including other information. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep.
  • Users shouldn't need to read other articles in order to comply with the policy; providing additional/alternate information again invites "but according to ________, it's fair use; why can't I use it?". (To which the answer is, again, "Wikipedia policy is stricter than fair use".)
  • Having links to other articles or external links invites continued confusion about what the policy is.
  • The only thing that belongs on the page is what the policy is.
  • A link to an essay about how the policy was written and the underlying law could be on the page; the essay could then include the other links.—Chidom talk  18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
comment just on (for now) Fair use law is only only applicable to the United States - this is covered in this proposal which should be taken into consideration in any discussion and implementation of Wikipedia fair use internationally.--luke 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of copyrighted sculptures/statues

The template {{Statue}} is designed as a template that can be applied to user-created photographs of copyrighted sculptures (see Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg for an example of its usage). Recently, the very need to have such a template has been disputed. It would be good if some editors could look over the template and join the discussion at Template talk:Statue. Thanks, —JeremyA 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Change all "equivalent"s to "alternative"?

It might be a good idea to alter the word choice for consistency, as discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Word_choice_for_consistency. I think that the switch should be made from equivalent to alternative, rather than the other way round however. Borisblue 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The switch should go the other way around. "alternative" leaves the door far too open for vastly infereior "alternatives" to be offered, even when they do not serve the same role to illustrate the subject or point in question. Johntex\talk 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The key here is, do we err on the side of being pretty, or do we err on the side of our free-content principles?Borisblue 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If it doesn't serve the same role, it isn't an alternative. It would be hard for a deletionist to argue that an inapplicable image was actually serving as an alternative. It would be easy for a fair-use-enthusiast to claim that an applicable image is not "equivalent" simply because it doesn't look the same. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of stamps images

The artwork of J. R. R. Tolkien was issued on stamps. Would it be OK to use a composite image like the one here as a fair-use illustration of the way Tolkien has had an impact on wider culture? ie. Enough to get stamps issued. The fact that they also happen to be artworks by Tolkien is a bonus, as is the fact that a low-res version and the composite nature of the image means it doesn't infringe commercial sale possibilities of these artworks. The image (or a composite scan of the stamps) would be used in an artworks section of the Tolkien article (not yet existing). Would this be an acceptable fair-use rationale? Carcharoth 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, based on the Terms and Conditions of the Royal Mail website where the images are. Specifically, there are two terms that would seem to preclude this use:
"Trade mark and copyright notices
"All website design, text, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all software compilations, underlying source code, software (including applets) and all other material on this website are copyright Royal Mail Group plc, Post Office Limited or their related companies or their licensors."
Additionally, they're even picky about accessing their website, let alone taking things away from it:
"Links to this website
"You may not create a link to any page of this website without Royal Mail's prior written consent. If you do create a link to a page of this website you do so at your own risk and the exclusions and limitations set out above will apply to your use of this website by linking to it."
The Royal Mail also includes a credit for the stamp images:
"The artwork is reproduced with the kind permission of the Estate of the late J R R Tolkien and The Bodleian Library, Oxford."
Also, the {{Stamp}} template here specifically states that images of stamps may be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". This is another one of those knife-blade dances. If the stamp is being used to illustrate another concept, i.e., the wider impact of Tolkein's work, I think it fails; ultimately, what's being "used" is Tolkein's illustrations on the stamps, not the stamps themselves.—Chidom talk  07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Postal administrations have taken to issuing so many stamps in recent years, primarily for sale to collectors (collect their money, no postal service expected, what's not to like? :-) ), that almost all recent stamps have no cultural significance, the sole criterion being whether the post's marketing department thinks there's a sales opportunity. Stan 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of book cover images

As I understand it, one can use the image of a [copyright, non-copyleft] cover design of a book within an article about that book. If that book does not merit its own article but its author does, may the image be used in an article on the author?

Current practice seems to suggest that it may, and this is what I have been doing without any adverse comment (yet). But I wonder about the principle.

In the context of the Spanish civil war and Guernica, the project page says something about "iconic"; this is a word that I find obscure, aggrandizing, and unintentionally ridiculous, but I suppose I understand roughly what it has come to mean. Neither the books nor their cover designs seem to be "icons" of the authors (or actually photographers), if this is an issue.

If this is all irritatingly abstract, then right here is my latest -- perfectly fine? utterly wrong? -- addition of such an image.

(Yes, I think I understand and adhere to other related guidelines, e.g. the size of the image.) -- Hoary 06:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading is that as long as the book itself is discussed (i.e., there is "critical commentary") in the article to a fair degree, the cover image is usable. If the book isn't mentioned, the mention is only in a list of published works, or the mention is something along the lines of "He published Fear of Foo in 1958 to mixed reviews", the image shouldn't be used. On the other hand, "He spent nearly 3 years writing the book that documented his lifelong fear of fooing, Fear of Foo. During that time, he interviewed more than 100 people who shared his fear about what their experiences of it were and how they coped with it." probably is enough "critical commentary" to include an image of the book cover. For authors of several books, it would be best to choose one that had won an award over one that hadn't; just to fortify the justification for talking about it in the article.
In your particular article, I'm not at all familiar with the subject of the article. It would be better, I think, to include some information about the book in the image you're using; perhaps comparing it to other books of his photos, recounting distinctions between this book others on his work. Possibly (and remember I don't know anything about the topic, please!):
Tōkyō Shitamachi 1930, an anthology of Kuwabara's earlier photographs of street scenes in the shitamachi of Tokyo, was published in 2006. ("Shitamachi" more usually refers to an area or neighborhood where artisans live; however, it is sometimes translated into English as "downtown".) Along with Tōkyō Shōwa jūichinen, published in 1975, Tōkyō Shitamachi 1930 focuses on his black-and-white photography of the 1930s, rather than his later work. Other books of his photographs are more widespread in the time period represented, and include many of his later color photographs. Additionally, the other books include his photographs of Setagaya-ku, where he later lived, and many of the pictures are in color.
Hope this makes some sort of sense and helps.—Chidom talk  07:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially for somebody who claims not to know what he's talking about, you are an excellent writer on the subject of early 20th century Japanese street photography. I'm tempted simply to grab what you wrote and stick it straight in. But, er, no: I do note your concerns about factual correctness so I hesitate for now.

More importantly, that's a lucid, sensible, and persuasive answer about fair use of images, for which I thank you.

I can't immediately bring all my uses of images up to snuff, but I'll try to do this over the next few weeks, hoping that nobody complains about any of them until I get around to it. Thanks again. -- Hoary 08:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to grab anything I wrote and run with it if you find it's factually correct. Thanks.—Chidom talk  09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

Regarding the deletion procedure under the first criteria (without actually changing it), have a look here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deletion of promotional photos for a proposal.--Konst.ableTalk 09:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Improving FUC #1

Fair use criteria number 1, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information...", is problematic in its current form.

Read very strictly, it would eliminate all fair use since in theory any copyrighted image could be made free by convincing the copyright holder to release it. But even being less pedantic, "could be created" can be read as eliminating any fair use for images depicting people, places, or objects now existing in the world, because some Wikipedian "could" just go make a new photograph of them. However, this is problematic because no distinction is made between what is practically achievable and what is near impossible. I could go to a concert and photograph Yoyo Ma, but is very unlikely that I could go photograph the bones of Homo floresiensis or the interior of one of her majesty's warships.

If we allow the notion of "could be created" to be interpreted so harshly as to include cases where there is little practical chance of an alternative being created, then we are allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the whims of content creators with special access to the materials of interest. Doing so even when Wikipedia would be legally justified in making fair use of already existing images would be shameful in my opinion.

So what do we do about it? I propose modifying FUC #1 in the following small, but significant way: "No free equivalent is available that would adequately give the same information, nor could one be created given the techniques, resources, and opportunities commonly available to members of the public". My purpose is to say that we don't want fair use images of trees, cars, and concert performers, but that fair use can be considered as an argument for materials where it is unlikely that Wikipedians would be able to create a free alternative. (Of course the images would still have to meet the other requirements of fair use, but that's what the other conditions are for.) Dragons flight 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis should turn up on display at some point and the US militry will likely publiish pics of the inside of various british warships (and getting a picture of the inside of HMS victory shouldn't be too hard. For other stuff not generaly availible to members of the public we have students.Geni 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If things change to provide equivalent free alternatives then we can and should use those, but I don't agree with simply saying we should have no image until that happens. To use the floresiensis example, the discoverers have been refusing requests even from other experts to inspect the bones, while they use their control over them to foster the discoverers' own research agenda; hence, it could be many years before they go on anything approaching public display. To give another example, the terms of use for images created by the European Space Agency are essentially noncommercial and nonderivative. Should we then ignore images created through their unique contributions to science, such as Venus Express, simply because some other space agency with a billion dollar budget could plausibly recreate it someday. I feel we must act based on the realities as they are now. If those change, then we can reevaluate things, but simply waiting around for a free image that we have no ability to create is to unnecessarily deprive our encyclopedia of exactly the educational and informational opportunities that fair use law was intended to create. Dragons flight 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
ESA I conceed. I haven't followed the Floresiensis train wreck closely enough to disspute your claims on that either however I do not feel that the suggested wording modification is required.Geni 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well if you accept at least the ESA, then I would think you would accept that some modification is needed since I have seen people tag ESA images for speedy deletion as failing FUC #1. If you have some alternative suggestion, I'd be more than happy to hear it. Dragons flight 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"No free equivalent is available that would adequately give the same information, nor could one be created given the techniques, resources, and opportunities available to wikipedians, nor is there any reasonable chance that there is an unfree image that could be mnade free at no cost."Geni 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the principal Dragon's Flight is discussion is a good one. I'm ambivalent about the specific wording. Some real-life examples of such images are:

  • Image:Osama-med.jpg shows Osama bin Laden. He is not available for photographing. It is remotely possible, I suppose, that he will be captured alive, and that free replacements will be created -- but that is unlikely. He is not photographable using "techniques, resources, and opportunities commonly available to members of the public", or even to members of the U.S. military.
  • Image:Pynchon.jpg shows a recluse who has not been photographed since 1957, although the media have tried relentelessly. (The image is currently improperly tagged; it is non-free.)
  • Image:A8 Coupe.JPG shows a prototype car. Only one such vehicle exists, and it has not been publicly displayed since 2002. It might be publicly displayed and available for photography at some point in the future, but then again, it might not be. I don't think this image is reasonably replaceable at this time (although this could change in the future).

Counter-examples:

  • Image:C70 st.jpg shows a motorbike that has not been produced in 34 years and is difficult to find. Still, many exist, and they are able to be photographed my members of the general public.
  • Image:Doak Campbell Stadium.jpg is an airborne photo of a stadium. Most people aren't able to take aerial photography. Still, it can be photographed using tools available to the general public.
  • Image:C-triomphe.jpg shows a car that is only sold in China. But people in China have access to it.

I think that the former 3 examples are not "replaceable" at this time, but the latter 3 are. So our wording should match this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like Dragons flight's proposed wording. The point is that we don't want unfree images that are replaceable by people who might be motivated to plan their picture-taking around Wikipedia's needs (guys on the street with cameras, as opposed to NASA), but the current wording does not reflect this. --RobthTalk 21:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
NASA isn't really a good example, since all their stuff is public domain. But I agree with this point. Borisblue 04:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
My point was that NASA is unlikely to plan their missions (and thus their creation of public domain images) to fill holes in Wikipedia articles, whereas random guys with cameras have been shown to do so in some cases. --RobthTalk 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what I proposed elsewhere a couple days ago: Wikipedia talk:Images of living people#Exceptions for certain living people. Andrew Levine 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Andrew's proposal works well as an example of applying Dragons Flight's wording to a specific case. If we want to encourage photographers to go out and create educational free content, we should be strict on use of non-free images. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use disputed and vindicated: What next?

Let's say an image has been tagged as replaceable fair use, but agreement on the talk page is that the tag is unwarranted (see Image:Z-6354.jpg for an example). The RFU tag says it must not be removed. But at some point, such as a week after the tag was placed, surely an admin must render a decision and remove the RFU tag, right? Otherwise, does it stay on the image page forever? Andrew Levine 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The tag stays for a week, unless the original tagger agrees with the discussion on the talk page and removes it early. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's right. After a week, the deciding admin chooses whether to remove the tag or delete the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

fair use question

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 article is currently GA candidate, main issue is lack of images. on this page can first 2 images usen with fair use criteria. And the 3rd one, i guess it does not fit on fair use, becase it can be reproduced. by the way on this page, there used to be an image now it doesn't seem but it's the same image of Hakan Ekinci on first link. And it's noted that image is released by İzmir Police Dep. And reviever, advice me to use logo of Airlines on the article, but i don't think that logo can be used on FU on that article. Thanks in advance --Ugur Basak 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The first image in your link (of the nose of the plane) can be used under a fair use claim, because it is a photo of a non-repeatable historic event. (You might use a rationale similar to this.) The second photo, of Hakan Ekinci, might not be usable under a fair use claim. It depends. Is he alive? Can he be photographed? If so, then the image is repeatable and fails our first fair use criterion. But if he is dead, or is in prison for life where photography is not allowed, then it would be fair use. I just don't know. And you're right that the third image, of the map, can not be used, since it could be recreated. You might modify one of these maps to show only the three relevant cities: Image:Balkan peninsula line.jpg, Image:Balkans-political-map-small.png, or Image:SEEurope-small.jpg. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Quadel. I've found a mugshot of the hijacker. I checked some pages like, Image:Janefondamugshot.jpg and Image:Bill-gates-mugshot.jpg, and uploaded mugshot. The second one seems to be deleted from en:wiki but the reason is listed at :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. These are the images, Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg, Image:Hakan Ekinci.jpg and Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Route.jpg. If there is a problem, i would like to know. --Ugur Basak 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The use of Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg in Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 seems to fail WP:FUC#8. --Abu Badali 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's bad Abu Badali. I don't know much about fairuse, but Quadell stated above i can use that image as FU for non-repeatable historic event. I'm not sure. But if it really fails criteria, it can be deleted. --Ugur Basak 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As for criterion #8, the image shows a plane that is being hijacked, which should make it important, not decorative. Then again, you can't really tell it's being hijacked in the picture. It's like showing an aerial pic of a house, and saying there's a rape going on inside. It make be true, but you can't really tell. So I dunno whether the image is useful or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change FUC #1

I propose changing

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."

to

"No free equivalent is available or could be easily created that would adequately give the same information."

Why you may ask? Well this fair use paranoia has become at best disruptive on BLPs. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. There's no definition of "easily" and based on my interactions with MatthewFenton, this would not include living celebrities, as MatthewFenton has stated the only way to take a photograph of a living celebrity is to illegally stalk them. Jimbo Wales has specifically expressed that Wikipedia has the clout to demand free images of people and furthermore, that articles would be better without images than with copyrighted non-free replaceable images. The Wikipedia Foundation has approved the replaceable clause from what I understand. --Yamla 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
comment on: "The Wikipedia Foundation has approved the replaceable clause from what I understand." - this is doubtful, as see Wikimedia_Foundation#Foundation_goals.. also "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." (Foundation home)--luke 18:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My comments were based on the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, though it looks like I was mistaken in my statements about the foundation. --Yamla 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Vaguely supportive. Any change to loosen the current rule would be to the good. To Yamla: " Jimbo Wales has specifically expressed that Wikipedia has the clout to demand free images of people." To which I respond: So what? Is Jimbo Wales an expert on whether people will give free images of themselves to wikipedia? Sometimes people will give free images, and someimtes they won't, but I've seen very little evidence that wikipedia has any "clout" to influence people to do so. Should we really be making decisions on policy based on statements of very dubious factual accuracy of this sort? If this is a statement of how things should be, I'm all in favor - it would be great if wikipedia had clout to get people to release pictures. But we do not, at the present time, have such clout. At any rate, I would support either this wording or Dragons' Flight's more restrictive wording above. I'd also point out that "adequately conveying the same information" is already a phrase that should give us some leeway in deciding which pictures to keep, although it has not been interpreted in such a manner. john k

General guidance requested by n00b admin

I note that Category:Disputed fair use images is pretty full. As an admin, I'd like to do my part in helping to keep it cleaned out, but my only image experience is deleting speedies. The existing discussion on this page has been enlightening, but it would be helpful if someone could walk me through concrete examples and/or point me to a page(s) where I can find answers to these questions?

  • Image:Larry Csonka young.jpg.
    1. It's not possible to take a new picture of Csonka in his playing days. Somewhere there probably exists other photos of him, but they are probably in the photo albums of private citizens and not (I guess) likely to be released into the public domain and put where one can get to them. What's the right way to go on this?
      • This is, indeed, a tough one. Csonka is still alive, and a photo could be taken of him. Although football is the #1 think he is famous for, the article discusses his life outside of football (and even has a photo of him as a motivational speaker). Note how the image was used in the article: in the infobox at the top of the page, identifying him.[6] I would argue that the image was only being used to show what he looked like, and should be deleted. If it were an image of him catching a ball, and if it were used in a section on his football playing days, then it would definitely pass. But I would argue it should be deleted. Different admins might come to different conclusions on this one, however. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    2. Does the image have any value? It doesn't seem to have much, in my opinion. Does this mean that even if point #1 above is granted, the image should be deleted anyway? But if it had seemed to have encyclopedia value, it should not be deleted?
    3. What if an editor had disputed the {{Fairusedisputed}} on the image talk page, citing #1 above. Does this make any difference?
      • No. It just means someone else thought it didn't pass #1.
As the original uploader of both Csonka pictures, I would argue that it makes sense to have a picture of Csonka in a football situation in an infobox devoted to his football career. I used this one because it was the one distributed for promotional use by his speakers' bureau.
I am actually delighted this one has been bounced, as I can now use any of a bunch of really cool football pics I found during the original search under the argument that, if we show him actually playing football, it's germane to the article and irreplaceable. Coming right up. Daniel Case 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanking in advance for any guidance recieved, Herostratus 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The second two don't seem to have anything wrong with using the images in the manner that they're used; they're just lacking rationales. I have no idea where you're getting "not low res" on falcomon from because that image is only a couple hundred pixels across. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming to "Unfree content"

Would anyone Have objections to renaming this policy to "Unfree content" rather than "fair use," because this policy applies to all sorts of materials that aren't fair use, like permission images, and is not about the law of fair use, but when it's ok to use unfree content here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, the article discusses how to use some copyrighted images without breaking the law. Therefore use of such images is called "fair use". So whats the point of renaming? - Tutmosis 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Because our restrictions are not the same as the law on fair use, they're significantly stricter. Violations of this policy are very rarely violations of the law, but far too many users have confused the two. The policy applies to all sorts of materials that wouldn't require fair use claims, such as noncommercial images, but are not free content. We end up referring to requiring a "fair use" claim for all sorts of images that don't actually need that to meet the law, but do need to meet policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes but on wikipedia, "fair use" is used to refer to the whole concept of using copyrighted material not exclusively the law. If the law itself was called "fair use" then yes this page title wouldn't be appropriate because it doesn't relate strictly to only the law. "fair use" is a universal term on wikipedia to refer to the all the rules regaring use of copyrighted material so this title seems appropriate. Dahm, this is hard to get across. - Tutmosis 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm trying to change the use of terms. fair use is a legal concept, so people think "law" when fair use here is really a matter of our policy (which is different and more restrictive than the law). "unfree content" is a more accurate way to refer to the things that fall under this policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I kind of see your point now. I wonder what the rest of the community thinks. Might I also suggest renaming to Wikipedia:Copyrighted material? - Tutmosis 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, because everything in wikipedia is copyrighted to its contributors: the distinction is that we've used our copyright powers to apply the GFDL to what we've written and release portions of our rights (such as exclusive reproduction) to others, while retaining copyright in it so that we can sue those who don't comply with the GFDL. Free content vs. Unfree content is the more precise distinction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
My problem is that many new editors don't understand the "free speech vs. free beer" distinction, and thus wouldn't know what "unfree content" means. I would prefer "Unlicensed content". – flamurai (t) 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Much of it is licensed, but under insufficiently free licenses for our policy, such as noncommercial, education-only, or no-derivatives ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use" is the recognized name for the concept. Don't change it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CCC. "Fair use" is the recognized name for a different concept. Fair use has a specific meaning in law, and the use of the term to mean something else in wikipedia has led to confusion. We shouldn't keep a broken tradition for the sake of tradition. There's precedent for changing well-known names on wikipedia to more accurately reflect their subject, such as VfD becoming AfD, or "...for discussion" instead of "...for deletion." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing this is probably a good idea...contrary to Zoe's statement, fair use is the recognized name for a different concept (the legal one). Calling this page "fair use" encourages people to hold the false belief that if an image is used fairly (in the normal sense of the term) it is being used correctly. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "fair use" or "copyright exceptions" might be the best phrase to use within wikipedia but only if the context of an encyclopedia is sufficiently explained and disassociated from the "free content" movement. zen apprentice T 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think unfree content is a better description of this page's function. Borisblue 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly in favour of a new name. There is so much folklore and US law attached to the term "fair use" that it seems better to inform newcomers under an unfamiliar banner. "Unfree" is definitely better. It might be useful to have a name that is not conflated with "free of charge", such as "copyright exceptions", "no derivatives", "encumbered", "restricted", "enslaved", "imprisoned" or "captive". However, I don't have the time or inclination to start an alternative campaign that risks undermining Night Gyr's promising and popular proposal. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists in the real world and there is no getting away from real world 'realities' such as copyright, open content, fair use, fair dealing....etc etc. Renaming doesn't change these realities within which our free encyclopedia must exist--luke 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose we rename it to Wikipedia:Draconian rules restricting "fair use" images beyond rational reason. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) -- ChadScott 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"Fair use" also has an unfortunate association with the word "fair", which makes it harder to explain why using fair-use images is bad -- "fair" is a good thing, isn't it? --Carnildo 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, when telling people "fair use images" are allowed they tend to think this means that the full range of us fair use law can be applied and don't bothere reading our policy on the matter (and even argue against the policy since they use is "clearly allowed per law"). I mean for "legal" reasons the templates should probably still mention that the image is used under the fair use provisions of the law, but rater than just saying "this is a fair use image" they should say someting like "this is a non-free licensed image but is permited by Wikipedia policy to be used for this speific purpose since no free licensed alternative can likely be created, and is believed to also be convered by US fiar use law" or some such. Making it clear that the fair use thing is just a "legal cover" and the usage restrictions are Wikipedia policy rater than legal issues to play lawyer over. --Sherool (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting this is hopeless, I'm sure, but why shouldn't the full range of fair use law be applied? Personally, I think fair use images should only not be usable in contexts where we already have an available free image, and where that free image "adequately conveys the same information," with that phrase interpreted in a very broad way. I wouldn't be suggesting this if I thought we had a sane alternative policy, but we clearly don't. The whole "encouraging free-content images" business is all very well and good, but it seems to me to be fundamentally unsound that our policy is based around the idea that "if we do not ban perfectly legal fair use images, our editors will be too lazy to get free images of the same subject." It seems to me that if I was so concerned about free content, I'd be out there creating it instead of going on a crusade against the people who are trying to make decent articles in the meanwhile. This whole endeavor is essentially Leninist. "The worse, the better," seems to be the motto here - the more perfectly legal, eminently reasonable images that we delete, the more like the proletariat is to rebel and overthrow the Tsar...er, rather, to go out and quit being "lazy" and take free pictures of J. D. Salinger and use wikipedia's "clout" to get Thomas Pynchon to send us a freely licensed image of himself. john k 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That you disagree with our core philosophy is unfortunate, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. ed g2s • talk 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not disagree with the core philosophy. I'm all in favor of free content. I just think that legal unfree content is better than no content. john k 13:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The absense of content encourages the creation of new free content, while the use of legal unfree content removes the incentive. It has been observed, in practice, that removing an unnecessary fair use image can result, often very quickly, in the discovery or creation of a free image. The point, though, is that we don't need to fight this battle every time any discussion about this sort of thing comes up. --RobthTalk 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the absence of content encourages the creation of new free content. My point is that we don't advocate this Leninist "destruction in the service of the creation of something better" policy in any other aspect of wikipedia, save non-free images. Deleting a bad free image may encourage the creation of a better one. Deleting a bad article makes it more likely that a good one will be created. Etc. etc. etc. But only in this one context do we actually do that. As to fighting this battle, the fact is that there are two ways to solve the problem of the policy currently called "fair use" not being really about fair use - we could either make it so it is based on fair use law, or we can change the title. I'd support the latter only if it is entirely clear that the former is impossible. john k 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
And once again with the incredibly patronizing tone. I've been here for three years and done a lot of shit here. I'm pretty fucking sick of being told that I "disagree with wikipedia's core philosophy" just because I think the fair use policy is too restrictive. john k 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a comparison. It is wikipedia policy to encourage that our articles not just be copy and pastes of hundred year old encyclopedias like Britannica 1911, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia. Perhaps this isn't a "core philosophy," but it's still a fairly strong part of our content policies. However, when there are articles that are copies and pastes from those encyclopedias, we don't delete them. I am absolutely certain that this makes people be "lazy" and discourages people from completely rewriting, which would be ideal. But still, we don't delete them, because in all contexts other than non-free images, we take the position that something is better than nothing. Until a few months ago, wikipedia's "fair use" policy has never been interpreted to mean that we could not use "fair use" images for any subject that we could conceivably get a free image of. There is no evidence that such a policy is consensus for anybody but the rather small group that inhabits this policy talk page and the Images for Deletion page. john k 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely change. "Unfree content" is not perfect, but it's much better than "fair use" which is just plain wrong. ed g2s • talk 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
To John k's comments, how do you feel the policy is restrictive? It's not that we aren't allowed to use copyrighted images under the fair use law, it's that we don't want people uploading every single image possible and labeling it fair-use. This policy is designed to stop that and use fair use images only when it's appropriate to do so. So can you elaborate on what you wish changed? But I definetely agree with you about the unfortunate tolerance of copy and pastes from other encyclopedias. - Tutmosis 16:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The question is when it's "appropriate" to use non-free images. The current policy seems to be that it's only "appropriate" to use non-free images when there is absolutely no chance that a free image can be acquired. As far as I can tell, the only exceptions would be pictures of things that are themselves copyrighted, like album covers. Everything else "could theoretically be released for free, if wikipedians use wikipedia's massive clout to get people to do so" or else canbe deleted on the "wikipedians could theoretically go to the top of Mount Everest and take a picture" grounds. The law does not require anything like that. At all. What requires that is the interpretations of a few wikipedians who think that no picture is better than an unfree picture as part of wikipedia's goal of creating a "free content encyclopedia". I'm not sure precisely what I want changed. I'm not sure I necessarily want anything about the actual text of policy changed. I think what I want is new people interpreting it. In the absence of that, sensible changes in the direction of making wikipedia policy closer to what the law actually allows would be useful. john k 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Some users don't like seeing fair-use images because they see it as stealing other people's work (in a sense) and goes agains't wikipedia aim of providing a free encyclopedia. Nevertheless, even if this wikipedians do not like it, you are allowed to do so with this policy as long as you dont break it. In my experience, such users usually protest agains't the number of fair-use images used. The best thing to do is to compromise with them, but getting stressed over their view is just pointless. - Tutmosis 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
John K is absolutely correct. Tutmosis, you ask "how do you feel the policy is restrictive?", but I think you must know quite well what is going on with the massive campaign to purge perfectly acceptable images, representing dozens if not hundreds of hours of work to locate, format, and upload them. Korean wine being an example, these are all promotional images from the producers of very obscure Korean traditional alcoholic beverages (many even unknown to most Koreans), yet there is a scorched earth campaign to remove them all despite the fact that the companies have not, and most likely will not object to the appearance of these images in our educational forum. This impoverishes us all. I agree that the current tone is disrespectful of the enormous efforts of many productive editors who have been here for a considerable length of time. Badagnani 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay I now see what you (and maybe john k) are talking about. Some images are gettting removed mostly because of this criteria "a free image could not be created to replace it". Well, that is policy so any editor is right in following it. You can propose this criteria to be removed instead of accusing people of going on "a scorched earth campaign". - Tutmosis 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Tutmosis, this is a policy talk page - we are discussing whether the policy was appropriate. Beyond that, I think many of us feel that the policy does not mandate such actions. People are interpreting it in this way because they want to delete fair use images. Basically, the condition of whether "a free image can be created" and of whether that image "adequately conveys the same information" are being interpreted as broadly as possible so as to make virtually any fair use image that is not a picture of a copyrighted subject (and possibly of historical events) is excluded. There is plenty of room in the policy as written to not do this, if people had a mind to not do it. But, seemingly, a lot of people want to delete lots of images. This isn't a matter of policy forcing people's hands - this is a relatively new interpretation of a policy that's been around for a long time. john k 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe that people like me are motivated by a desire to simply delete images, rather than to defend Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If every uploader was as reasonable and careful as john k, there would be no thorny issue; but in practice uploaders will do the most blatant copyright violations and say "I feel this is fair use", as if feeling it somehow mattered. People lift art photos by big-name photographers, crop off the credit, and call it a "promo photo", and so forth. All our attempts to be reasonable about this have failed, and the sheer number of unfree images is now in the hundreds of thousands, way beyond our ability to police effectively. Draconian is about all we're left with at this point, since nobody has offered an alternative that would work with the available number of volunteers. Stan 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Stan - illegitimate tags, and bogus attempts to claim fair use, are fair game, and a policy which allows such images to be deleted or speedy deleted seems fine. The people who are involved in enforcement of current policy have been perfectly clear that the current policy has nothing to do with fair use law, and that images which are clearly legal should be deleted if they are not public domain or freely licensed, assuming a very stringent set of criteria that has absolutely nothing to do with the law is not met. I'm all in favor of being tough and making sure that all images on wikipedia are legal. But the current interpretation of policy, by the admission of its own supporters, has absolutely no relationship to the law. I think that the pendulum has really swung in the opposite direction from the kind of thing you're talking about (which was certainly true not too long ago), in the direction of pretty much deleting everything that's copyrighted, even when there's a clear fair use defense, or it's clearly a promotional photo. john k 10:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I would suggest the Korean wine article exemplifies why many of us strongly dislike fair use. My understanding is South Korean law has no concept of fair use and the Korean wiki disallows fair use for this reason. If Koreans want to publish the English wikipedia in some form or other, they might surely be interested in the Korean wine article. However they will have to remove all the images making the article much less useful. Fortunately in some ways, in their case it's easy since there is no need to examine each case. In more complicated cases, in countries which do allow images under fair use but under different criteria, anyone wanting to publich will either have to remove all fair use images or examine each one to make sure it's allowed. I highly doubt that anyone publishing wikipedia is going to say oh let's just hope no one decides to sue use. Some people are suggesting we aren't as vigirous in other areas. But this is wrong. Wikipedia requires all text content be GFDL. You can multi-license but if you copyvio it will be deleted ASAP regardless of whether the copyright owner is likely to sue use. There are more complicated issues at hand here but it comes down to the same thing. Similarly, although we don't necessarily delete bad articles, when it comes to things that could put us and publishers at risk like libel in BLP, we are very strict. But a bad article is very different from unfree content. If we have a bad article on Korean wine, Koreans it can still be published. All that will happen is Koreans will laugh at us. When we have fair use images, the images can't be published in Korea and probably in other countries. Nil Einne 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to talking about the title

Hey guys, could you separate out the discussion of what the policy should be from what the policy should be called? Things are getting a little confused here. Regardless of whether we follow the fair use laws or not, what we're dealing with is a policy on when it's ok to include unfree content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The title "Unfree content" can still be misunderstood, but it is far more accurate at describing the scope of the policy. I think this is an important change. ×Meegs 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Night except the way he uses the word "unfree" (the word "unfree" is incomplete and misleading in this discussion, would be even worse in a title). There are copyright exceptions that make some copyrighted content fair to use within Wikipedia and other encyclopedias and separately there is a movement that seeks to build a general content repository that is 100% freely redistributable. This very verbose discussion seems to me to be adding rather than lessening befuddlement of this issue, more disassociation and succinct clarity are needed. zen apprentice T 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think "unfree" is icky way to describe policies regarding our use of the freedoms envisioned by copyright law. If it is a choice between calling it "unfree content" or "fair use", I'd rather have the latter. However, might I suggest "unlicensed" as an acceptable alternative to "unfree". Dragons flight 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"Unlicensed" does not make the distinction, as a creative commons image is "licensed",and so is a copyrighted non-free image Borisblue 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? If it has an acceptable CC license then it is not under the rubrik of fair use to begin with, and if it has an unacceptable CC license then Wikipedia its use on Wikipedia would be unlicensed. In other words, fair use discusses the use of images for which we don't have a license compatible with its use it on Wikipedia, so "unlicensed". Dragons flight 05:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it would be licensed, because, for example, wikipedia is noncommercial, so it would be within the scope of a non-commercial use only license to include that material without invoking fair use, but would be against our policy that discourages the use of such unfree material. The key distinction is law vs. policy. Fair use is a specific concept in law, and our policy called "fair use" is actually more restrictive than what we would be within our legal rights to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No. If an image is not compatible with the uses for which Wikipedia content is intended, then it is unlicensed for inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree that "fair use" can be considered misleading, but I feel "unfree content" is a worse title. Dragons flight 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding how copyright licenses work. A license is issued by the holder of the copyright and permits you to do things normally reserved exclusively to the holder of the copyright. A license that permits displaying and redistributing images without charge is sufficient to make any use of the image (unmodified) within wikipedia legal, but isn't sufficient for our policy. Such an image is licensed, just under a license that's not good enough for us (unfree). All {{withpermission}} images, for example, have a license to wikipedia to use them, but it isn't a free license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
While I don't agree with the unlicensed name, I think Dragon is trying to say something other then what you're thinking. Dragon appears to be suggesting we call it unlicensed because it's unlicensed for the purposes of wikipedia. Obviously the content is licensed but it's not licensed appropriately for wikipedia. However as I've said I feel this title will be confusing (as you've demonstrated) and so don't think it's a good title. Nil Einne 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfree is everything not(sufficiently) freely licensed or PD, which is exactly the scope of this policy. Unfree content is being used within certain restrictions of law that our policy accomodates, rather than the full set of freedoms that wikipedia desires to offer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The word "unfree" has different connotations and meanings in different contexts which makes it ambiguous and insufficient here, your context/opinion/interpretation of this issue is not being sufficiently conveyed/explained/disassociated when you use that word. As a non-lawyer I interpret that under copyright law a wiki encyclopedia is able to include and distribute some copyrighted content that otherwise is not generally available, right? My point is Wikipedia should not discourage or taint the use or distribution of encyclopedic content or knowledge included under this very wise copyright law exception. zen apprentice T 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur, Zen Apprentice, this would be a perfectly sensible way of handling image policy, but I suspect that most of the people heretofore involved do not, since there seems to be a general feeling among people who frequent the "Fair use" policy talk page that such usages are "against wikipedia's core philosophy." john k 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. We strive for free content as much as possible, and make a handful of exceptions to that for the sake of building a better encyclopedia. However, we could include all sorts of unfree material to become a better reference, and we don't, because we're supposed to be free. How you feel is not policy, and the policy is that we should be as free as possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wiki and a (neutral?) encyclopedia before it is anything else. The emphasis should be on building a better encyclopedia first and foremost, I recognize there certainly is a lot of overlap between a free encyclopedia and a free general content repository but it's not 100%. And hopefully this entire discussion is unnecessary if say people were to suddenly wake up and see past dichotomies and vestiges of the old paradigm. Let's face reality, Wikipedia is now a pawn for the people behind the second curtain, to say the least. It seems way too odd and wrong to me that some encyclopedic content could be labeled "unfree", how did that come to seem reasonable to you? And fundamentally, whatever policy Wikipedia goes with we must sufficiently explain and disassociate between "fair use" copyright laws and the goals of the "free content" movement, the word "unfree" hurts clarity and understanding many different ways. Why do you need/want to taint and discourage content that is perfectly acceptable in a public encyclopedia? Perhaps you don't realize we can have both a successful free general content repository and a succesful mostly overlapping wiki encyclopedia at the same time? zen apprentice T 18:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There are five pillars of Wikipedia, and all are equally important. Being an encyclopedia is one, being neutral is another, and being free (libre) is a third. No one of these pillars is more important than the others. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

zen apprentice T, I hope you are not saying that if the name of the policy stays as "fair use" it will help your chances of eventually converting the content of the policy from an "unfree content policy" (which it is now) to a "fair use content policy" (which I know you and many others who reside in those states that fair use legal doctrine applies to.) That is what it sounds like you are saying, but if you are not, I am sorry thatI misunderstood you. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming something is impossible but I am not sure what that is, please elaborate? Policies are likely to change whenever more clarity is added. If some content has geographical distribution limitations on it then we can and should handle that specifically too. I think the current policies are incomplete and insufficiently explained, especially as they relate to what is suppose to be an encyclopedia. For the record I don't like the phrase "fair use" either, "copyright exceptions" or "encyclopedia only content" are better alternatives. zen apprentice T 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Change can be good, and I am not one to think the title should stay the same based on "people being use to it", but I have to say I like the title of this article. I am a little biased because I just like referencing people to "WP:FU". This is not my only reason. I think the idea of using content fairly is what the policy is about. It is not about the external meaning of fair use.-- ¢² Connor K. &nbsp; 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Call it Non-libre content, as unfree will lead us to the gratis versus Libre confusion. --Abu Badali 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the title should be changed, because there are uses allowed by the U.S. fair use doctrine that are not acceptable by Wikipedia policy, and because there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law. It's misleading. I think "non-free content" is the best choice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on your statement that "there are uses which are acceptable by our policy but which would not be acceptable according to U.S. fair use law"? I always thought we we're supposed to be fully compliant with U.S. law (although we have additional restrictions) in this regard but you seem to have a detailed understanding from your page so I must be wrong Nil Einne 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not non commercial

I really feel this needs a heading as many people do not understand this and that is perhaps why they don't understand why it is so important to make sure images are used in a fair use way. Wikipedia content is free to used by anyone for anything including commrcial use so the consequences of misjudgements go for many other reusers of Wikipedia content, not just the non profit organization of Wikipedia e.g. Answers.com. Arniep 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is, we just restrict ourselves so that our content can be used by those who aren't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It is also the responsibility of users of Wikipedia content to decide for themselves if the same fair use justifications we make apply to them. It is not Wikipedias job to make sure Wikipedia can be free for all sub users as a carte blanche copy. The policy specifically refers to fair use items. --MECU≈talk 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course producing reusable content is one of our goals. Why do you think we chose the GFDL? ed g2s • talk 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceability of images of moments in careers

I've been examining several close cases of replaceability/non-replaceability, involving images depicting a non-repeatable moment in some individual's career. These images are clearly, on some level, unrepeatable, but then, all images are unrepeatable on some level. The question then becomes whether they are unrepeatable in a way that we should be using a fair use image for on Wikipedia. The particular images in question depict title celebrations by professional wrestlers (see the remaining contents of Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 1 November 2006), but I think an answer to the general principle of whether we should use fair use to depict milestone, though not iconic, moments in a person's life is worth answering; would a handshake at a famous peace accord be worth illustrating in this way? An Olympic medal celebration? A swearing-in for a political office? I'm honestly not sure, so I wanted to get people's input. --RobthTalk 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using fair-use images to display "milestone" as you say moments. Personally, as it stands now I see some holes in the whole "replaceble" guideline for uploading images. Just because a free images can possibly be created, doesn't mean it will. I think we should rather turn our focus on encourging free image creation rather that deleting existing images based on the assumption that one day they will be. - Tutmosis 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Only if such images are in fact used in a section of the article that offer critical commentary on the event. Just having a sentence along the lines of "XX won the YY tournament in 2004" or for that matter "XX posted for playboy in 2000" and nothing more seems a rater flimsy basis for using a fair use photo, let alone making it the lead image of the article. But if there is a coherent sentence paragraph describing the importance of the event in theyr career or whatever then sure, such a image can be warranted in that section, but it should be "reserved" for the most importnat events. If someone add a blow-by-blow acount of every match some wrestler have acted in it would not be ok to have a fiar use picture for each and every one (remember there are 9 other criterea to fulfill besides #1). --Sherool (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if an image shows a non-repeatable event, and if that event is discussed in the article, and if the image is used in the section where it is discussed, then it passed FUC#1. However, if it's not an important-enough event to merit using a non-free image to depict, then it violates FUC#8. (I ask myself "If this article had a free image, would we still use this non-free one to depict this event?") Also, if it's a Playboy image or somesuch, you might decide it violates FUC#2. For me, if an image is tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}} and it violates any of our criteria, I go ahead and delete it after 7 days, but you might choose to list them at WP:IFD instead. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both Quadell's and Sherool's reading of the policy. I think Sherool's explanation is particularly coherent and easy to understand. --Yamla 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Album cover art in discography articles

I've always been under the impression that cover art for music releases was considered unkosher in discography lists (as decorative use of fair-use images), so I started deleting them from a few discographic articles tonight. But, when I looked in Category:Discographies, I found that nearly every article in the category had these gratuitous, unfree images used the same way. Should all of these lists be purged of their unfree images, or is this use now allowed and I just missed it? --keepsleeping slack off! 02:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the WikiProject Music's MUSTARD guidelines, there should be no images in discographies. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus comes from practice. If just about every discography uses images then consensus is clear, and should imho only be overridden on legal advice from the Foundation. In the absence of any such legal advice I'll be reverting any removal from articles on my watchlist. I consider the use of album sleeves in discographies to be legally and morally "fair". --kingboyk 14:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
On what basis?Geni 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
He's just told you - Legally and Morally Fair. Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a fair use rational.Geni 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ehem, kingboyk... Policies and guidelines reads While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent. and [[...] a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated. Consensus can't override a policy, and the policy indicates the material must contribute significantly to the article and not serve a decorative purpose. Images in a list, unless the list item does critical appreciation of the entry, is decorative. -- ReyBrujo 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked further into the matter, since obviously there's disagreement on the "spirit of the law", so to speak. The Images policy in WP:FU (note that that's policy, not "just a guideline") has a bit about cover art. It says:

Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).

I'm interpreting that bolded section to mean that to have an image of, say, an album cover, an article must specifically discuss that album, not just mention it by name. So, the album article can (of course) have the album artwork; the main article may, but only in the appropriate place (within a specific discussion of that album); a discography that is otherwise a list is apparently out of the scope of the policy. --keepsleeping slack off! 16:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like some more editors to weigh in on this. --keepsleeping slack off! 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is basically the explanation. Fair use allows usage if you are critically commenting about the item, being it text or image. Without a critical commentary, it is assumed the image or text is being used for decoration. While the US law may be not that hard (in example, it may allow a discography list to have images), Wikipedia does not accept that since it must always be stricter than the law to prevent breaking it. -- ReyBrujo 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to another poster, in a thread I have restored from archive, legal precedent says that isn't correct. It was a case involving Grateful Dead posters, which like album sleeves are part art and part promotional. They were being used in a DK encyclopedia article but weren't directly analysed in the text. They were held to be fair use. This precedent ought to cover discographies, and the widespread use of album images in discographies on the web and even in print tends to support that. Everyone else is doing it, why are we acting like the copyright police?! --kingboyk 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to fix a bunch of them (starting with every article that had been listed in the Good Articles) list, and was reverted every time (diffs: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). So, now what? --keepsleeping slack off! 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Also, the same user decided to go ahead and change the WP:MUSTARD guideline ([17]), accusing me of "making policy". Help. --keepsleeping slack off! 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you were reverted every time. Users on your talk page were starting to question why you were doing it. The policy states that if there is critical commentary, that Images that have a Fair Use tag on them may be used. You are vastly misinterpreting the policy. And wtf are you talking about the the last diff? I was actually reverting you changing the guideline. — Moe 20:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Please point out the critical commentary in this article.
  2. As for that "last diff", check the history. You reverted my reversion, which was back to the original guideline. --keepsleeping slack off! 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The last diff was me reverting you, yes, there was no consensus for you to change the guidelines of a WikiProject just because you felt like being WP:BOLD. As to the critical commentary in the Radiohead discography, the article itself is about albums by Radiohead, when they were made and what singles were from the album. What is a discography but a description of a group of albums made by a band? If an article about albums made by a band is not critical commentary, I don't know what is because you make it seem like it's being used on the userspace. The policy states the Images can used for identification, and thus it falls within the boundaries of the policy. — Moe 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) What I meant by "check the history" was look at what the original wording of the guideline said before I reworded it. Here, I'll link it for you. Now, the rest of what you're saying: an article about an album or albums by a band is critical commentary. No one ever said it wasn't, and no one ever tried to take the fair use images out of those articles. But a list of albums by a band (which is really what a discography is) has no critical commentary. The images are just there for decoration identification, because the discography conveys the same information without them. Even if you don't agree, do you at least understand what I'm trying to say? --keepsleeping slack off! 20:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It's now been reverted to the version that was in place for 3 months[18] until this discussion plays out. CovenantD 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the guideline now says "Do not use album covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not justifiable under fair use" (emphasis added), so why are we still having this discussion? --keepsleeping slack off! 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Because he said "until this discussion plays out". — Moe 21:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Keepsleeping, I understand what you are attempting to say. But your thinking it is used for decoration, to me, it is using for identification, which does go hand in hand with policy. If it was for decoration, I wouldn't use it. These are articles used to describe specific statistics for albums, and having the cover art for description is not against policy. If it was there just to show off an cool album cover or something, I would remove it too, but removing them because they don't have page of text next to them doesn't exactly follow guidelines. — Moe 20:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, they don't need a page of text to qualify, but I'd like to think they need some text, and not just the title of the album and possibly its release date and chart positions. Check out the Evanescence article, which was actually where this whole thing started. Look at where the images of the album covers are, then check the history and look at where they were. Images of album covers next to paragraphs of text specifically about those albums: good! Images of album covers next to one-line discography entry with title and release date: bad! Yes/no? --keepsleeping slack off! 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree with the formatting used in this discography. Yes, it is bad to have Fair Use Images on there. But no I wouldn't remove it, I would expand it, not completly blank the section though. I like the way the Evanescence discography is set up and I encourage others to use that format. An album is closely associated with what album art is on it and I believe for detailed discographies, they should be used. — Moe 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this is at it's heart a legal question, can we get/request an opinion from the Foundation lawyers? CovenantD 04:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to make such a request, but I guess if they have a Wikipedia userpage or e-mail I suggest getting a hold of them that way. — Moe 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Try contacting BradPatrick (talk · contribs) directly in his talk page or by mail. -- ReyBrujo 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not unfree media to decorate lists - there is rarely critical commentary in a list. I doubt Brad will weigh in on this as it is a matter of policy, not law, and the policy is crystal clear ("Cover art ... not for identification without critical commentary"). ed g2s • talk 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at List of South Park episodes. - Hahnchen 16:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have, unfortunately the people who edit such articles don't tend to have a great appreciation of our free content philosophy. ed g2s • talk 13:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence from people who actually know anything about the law that this practice is potentially illegal? "Critical commentary" can be interpreted pretty broadly, I think. If we use the pictures in an article that links to other articles with critical commentary about the albums, I doubt that we would be in any serious legal difficulty. Furthermore, come on. There is no possible way that wikipedia will be sued for putting up pictures of album covers in albums about discographies. It's completely ridiculous. Allmusic uses images of album covers all the time for merely "identification" purposes. Wikipedia's fair use policy is being run by people who don't think wikipedia should allow fair use. This is absurd. john k 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read (or re-read) WP:FU. It is not as simple a matter as whether we (Wikipedia) will get sued. ed g2s • talk 13:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it's not just about whether wikipedia will get sued. But I do think it ought to be just a matter of the legal definition of fair use, not some restrictive wikipedia definition of fair use that is made even more restrictive by the people who police the policy on this talk page. By the way, the current policy would suggest that album covers cannot be used unless we are providing "critical commentary" on the album cover. But this is ridiculous. IANAL, but let's go through the actual fair use categories and interpret them in light of use of album covers on discography articles:
  1. Purpose and character - the purpose of wikipedia's use of the album covers is to illustrate various wikipedia articles in order to educate the public about the music of the albums (and only rarely about the actual art work of the album cover itself). This aim is not simply to "supersede the objects" of the original, and thus ought to qualify.
  2. Nature of the copied work - the copied work is essentially an advertisement for the album. Images of album covers are pretty much omnipresent - any music website has them. Junk mail flyers are full of them. Album covers are not generally created to make an artistic point of their own - they are created to provide an image to go with a musical album. As such, it seems to me that fair use rationales are fairly strong.
  3. Amount and substantiality - on this one the case seems to be weak, if the album cover is viewed as a work of art on its own. If the work of art in question is, however, the album as a whole, the album cover is not a particularly large part of it, and is, in fact, the part of it which is basically designed to be spread far and wide, irrespective of copyright issues, in order to encourage people to buy the album. I'm not sure, though, which instance this belongs to. I think it's quite arguable, though, that the album cover is only a small part of a larger work of art, the album itself.
  4. Effect upon work's value - using the album cover in a wikipedia article has absolutely no effect on the value of the album (if anything, it increases it), and the album cover itself is generally not sold in a commercial way, so the case here seems to be very strong.
Again, IANAL, but the fair use rationale for using album covers in discography articles seems to be pretty strong. Covers are pretty much intended to be spread far and wide, and most likely companies would want their album covers to be up in as many places as possible. The idea that this presents a genuine copyright problem seems ridiculous to me. The basic issue is that a lot of people don't like fair use, and don't think wikipedia should have any fair use if it can possibly be avoided, and that these people congregate together on this talk page and basically answer any fair use question with a "No, that's not alright - you'll have to delete/remove that image." Amazon and other companies use album images for explicitly commercial purposes. Allmusic uses them all over the place as well. There's just no chance that any kind of challenge of this usage as copyright violation would ever be upheld, and there's just about as little chance that any copyright holder would actually sue somebody for having images of album covers on a website. john k 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
An additional point. Looking more closely at WP:FU, I see that the comment about cover art is in a section on images that basically says, "these images are automatically fair use, and fine." It does not state that all other use of cover art is banned. When one goes further and looks at the actual fair use policy, which is more extensive and, so far as I am aware, meant to be comprehensive, the key point is as follows:
The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
In an article which is essentially a list of albums, an image of the album "specifically illustrates" the "relevant point" of what that particular album looks like. It is not "purely decorative." It identifies the album. This seems to clearly fall within Fair Use guidelines. john k 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to some of the points raised above (at last! some other serious editors who think that this usage is fair legally and morally; I was beginning to think myself a loose cannon), I present this thread which I have revived from Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_5#Album_and_single_covers_implicitly_state_a_source. This thread quotes a legal precedent that an image doesn't need to be analysed within text to be fair use: (--kingboyk 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

I was just thinking... We are supposed to use the source of the image in order to detect possible copyright infringements. However, in the case of album/single covers like Image:Bj s05.jpg, it is clear that the image comes from the cover of the album/single, thus (technically) the source is implicitly the album or single, and is not necessary to be mentioned. Am I correct with this assumption? In this image, there is only a license, and is probable that a bot will mark the image as missing a source because the only content of the image page is the license.

I was tagging some of these images with {{subst:nsd}}, and suddenly thought that, at least with singles and albums, the source is implicit. For now, I am removing the tag from the other images. What others think about this? -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree. The rationale for sourcing is to make sure the status of the image is what the uploader says it is; since the status of the image tends to be extremely obvious in the case of album covers and the like, source is superfluous if not outright silly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
May be the official rational but it has a secondardy purpose of makeing the uploader think what they are doing (and if it has been taken from a website you can get some anoying derivative work stuff turning up).Geni 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes considering the opposite is easier: suppose a cover is tagged with {{subst:nsd}}, and someone removes it because the source of the image is the cover of the album, as stated by the chosen license tag. Would any of you reinsert the tag? Why? Nevertheless from where he picked the image, if a quick search reveals that is definitively the cover of the album, and it has been previously published (in example, not leaked from a soon-to-be-released album), is he right in deleting the tag? I prefer to be on the safe side (tag an image for deletion and let someone at IFD determine if my argument was right nor not rather than letting it at Wikipedia), but in this case I am realizing that common sense indicates this approach is correct. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When I come across an album cover tagged nsd, I untagged it instead of deleting it and add a simple statement such as "album cover of XXX by YYY". I reason that since the digitization of the image is irrelevant to copyright, a clear identification is sufficient (and more useful than a URL). Screenshots of all types are a similar situation. In any case, although sourcing the digitized version may not be critical, I'm not sure if it is worth complicating our written policies to specify that some types of images need explicit sources while others don't. ×Meegs 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If I came across an album cover with the "no source" tag on it, I'd check to see whether the design of the cover is specifically discussed in the article. If not, I'd go ahead and delete it just on general principle, because the image was being used for decoration, not critical discussion, in violation of fair-use policy. User:Angr 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand you reasoning, but it is quite conservative. You must object to the use of 99% of Category:Album covers then, most of which only accompany discussion about their albums' audio (at best — many are indisputably misused apart from any relevant commentary). My understanding is that because both the cover and audio of an album form a single publication, that the use of the cover, even solely for identification, is suitable for use in substantial commentary about the publication's other aspects. Book covers, the same. ×Meegs 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really (the music and the album cover are covered under entirely separate copyrights). Album covers may be used for identification purposes; critical commentary of the album cover itself is unnecessary. (Note the text of {{albumcover}}.) We're displaying the image, in low-resolution form, to permit recognition of the album, not to grab people's attention or get them to buy our product, so our usage is a) transformative, b) don't use any more than is necessary for our purposes, and c) almost certainly wouldn't negatively affect the market for a vastly higher-res version, and would doubtless improve the market for the album if anything. As for the purposes of fair use, we're educational and the usage of the album is akin to news reporting. It seems to be pretty clear-cut fair use, and Wikipedia policy certainly allows it regardless, although I personally would be interested to see any case law you think has bearing. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Then you would be acting in a manner directly contradicted by a legal decision on the matter, which is explicit about specific discussion not being required in a comparable case:
Appellant asserts that each reproduced image should have been accompanied by comment or criticism related to the artistic nature of the image.
We disagree with Appellant’s limited interpretation of transformative use and we agree with the district court that DK’s actual use of each image is transformatively different from the original expressive purpose.
And:
In the instant case, DK’s purpose in using the copyrighted images at issue in its biography of the Grateful Dead is plainly different from the original purpose for which they were created. Originally, each of BGA’s images fulfilled the dual purposes of artistic expression and promotion. The posters were apparently widely distributed to generate public interest in the Grateful Dead and to convey information to a large number people about the band’s forthcoming concerts. In contrast, DK used each of BGA’s images as historical artifacts to document and represent the actual occurrence of Grateful Dead concert events featured on Illustrated Trip’s timeline.
In some instances, it is readily apparent that DK’s image display enhances the reader’s understanding of the biographical text. In other instances, the link between image and text is less obvious; nevertheless, the images still serve as historical artifacts graphically representing the fact of significant Grateful Dead concert events selected by the Illustrated Trip’s author for inclusion in the book’s timeline. We conclude that both types of uses fulfill DK’s transformative purpose of enhancing the biographical information in Illustrated Trip, a purpose separate and distinct from the original artistic and promotional purpose for which the images were created.
Graham v. Dorling Kindersley Limited (PDF)
Note the specific rejection of the need for discussion of each individual image and the recognition of the images in context illustrating the state at the time - as all album covers inherently do for illustrating the way the artists' work was presented at the time. In summary, every album cover image is going to be fair use in an article about the album and your removals are entirely inappropriate and contrary to the decisions of fair use law, which have clearly established that the uses are fair. A simple template correctly identifying the image as one from an album cover is sufficient to establish fair use in this case (and would be for posters too, of course, since that what the case specifically covered, and without needing to even go to trial because it was so obvious). Jamesday 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

This page is nearly 300k, and manually archiving is going to be difficult because it seems that even threads at the top aren't so old. I was wondering if Werdnabot ought to be employed here? --kingboyk 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I archived up to the 24th 31st. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Book/album/game/video cover sourcing

I've just come across an editor, contributions, who has in one go tagged dozens or so images with {{nsd}}. However, I don't see the point in some of this, and reverted the tagging of Image:!!!.jpg[19]. Now, there was no source information, and still isn't, but why is it even needed? Surely that piece of album art is copyright to the record company/artist, and whoever scanned it is irrelevent. Especially if another user can confirm that it is indeed what it depicts. I mean, for example, would Image:Satisfaction-us.jpg need a specific source, or would just the note that it's the US cover art for (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction be enough? I agree with the latter, and I think this is similar to Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Do_screenshots_need_additional_source_information.3F - Hahnchen 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The source is the album. The proximate source (who scanned it) is not important. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_adding_.22No_source.22_to_scans_of_album_covers. We really need to get {{albumcover}} changed. --kingboyk 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have raised this point before here. But we must be very careful, or we would be allowing a loophole like "Well, the source for this screenshot is the series, duh!" -- ReyBrujo 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is. The ultimate source is the series, and the copyright-holder is the copyright-holder of the series. Whether I made the screenshot itself or downloaded it from a fansite doesn't matter. One holds no copyright to a screenshot one makes from a television show. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that listing the source is not important here, but I think we should still/instead list the copyright information (usually the publisher/record label), although many cover images currently do not do that. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not a bad idea. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Naturally, I agree with the sentiments shared above. However, I've been away for a few days, and instead of the 50 or contribs that User:Squreasdxde had, he now has about 10, which means that the admins deleted the incorrectly tagged images. - Hahnchen 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A nice layman's overview

The Straight Dope has so-far publish two parts (of a four-part series) on copyright and fair use. Very well written, and easily understandable, mostly.

– Quadell (talk) (random) 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

UK Government "crown copyright" license

I moved some image tags to the tags list that is transcluded here Image copyright tags/Fair use. Please see Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#UK Government licenses are not free. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TV/Film characters who look the same as the actors who portray them.

I replaced a promotional image of Kate from Lost with a free picture of Evangeline Lily, but was reverted (rv inaccurate photo; this article is about Kate, not Evangeline Lily). However it is my understanding of FUC#1 that unless there is significant discussion of the characters clothing, extra makeup (scars, hairstyle etc.), then a photo of the actor "adequately give[s] the same information". ed g2s • talk 13:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An actor and a fictional character are two separate things, the article you changed relates to the character and not the actress, request #1: please read articles first. request #2: If you wish to start converting fictional character images to the actor/actress portraying them then you will require a consensus. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think I haven't read the article? I do not need a consensus to implement policy, but seeing as there was a dispute I have brought it up here for further comment. Yes the two are separate things, but the purpose of the image is to show what the character looks like. This can be done adequately by showing the actor in these cases as there is not a significant difference in appearance between the two. Thus FUC#1 applies. ed g2s • talk 13:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It cannot be done adequately as these characters are not living the high life, thus FUC #1 does not apply at all. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that any depiction of a fictional character may be illustrated with a non-free photo without violating FUC#1. The actor and character may look the same, or they may not, but they are two separate entities requiring separate articles. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my interpretation, too. Of course, what would be even better would be a free-licensed image of the character, but my impression is that copyright holders are less likely to agree to such requests than they are for images of the actors. --Carnildo 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This made me literally laugh-out-loud. You are not going to find a "free" picture of an actor "in character." If the actor is "in character" then not only is their likeness owned by them, but their character is owned by the studio/production company operating the production. Yes, this is true even if you take a picture of them filming in front of your street or as they're walking out of that same studio. If we take the example of someone who is not an actor (an "unknown") and place them into costume to photograph them for illustration of a particular character, that photo would still not be "free" as the studio could argue the character is their unique trademark or brand and you're tainting it by sourcing it as something it is not. You might find that same studio demanding you use their promotional material, since that's exactly what it's there for! -- ChadScott 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I could see a fair use claim if the photo wasn't just their face, but say.. a screen shot showing the character in action, or the character doing something unique to that character. It should be something more than just them standing there looking at the camera. Find an image that can tell us something about the character other than what they look like. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my point. The promo photos aren't telling you anything more than a photo of the actor. If you using the picture to say something about the character then fine, but if you are just saying: "this is what Kate looks like" then you can do that adequately with a photo of the actor. ed g2s • talk 10:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. There are too many shades of gray here. So many subtleties in how a person is presented, what they wear, how they hold themselves, etc. could be related to a character. I see your point, but I'd politely disagree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An example (see Charlie Pace), then see Edies version - Ed. wanted to change the character picture to a picture of the actor at an awards ceremony - the fact of the matter in hand is this: a) There are no award ceremonys in this fictional television series for the character to go to. b) the islanders don't have posh clothes c) it's not the character, it's the actor. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, but none of that is discussed in the article, and seeing as Fair Use is for critical commentary... ed g2s • talk 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An image of the actor out of character isn't really a bad thing. Remember, fictional articles should be written from a real world perspective and have relevance to the real world (see WP:WAF). The article should break the 4th wall and be able to say something like "this is the actor who plays Charlie". I don't really see anything bad with using those images, provided they are explained as pictures of the actor out of character. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a picture of an actor out of character on a character page, but I think it's a digression from the actual question here: is it acceptable under fair use policy to use an image of the actor in character? An image of "the actor who plays Charlie" may be useful, but it's hardly an equivalent susbstitute for an image of the character Charlie. I know that our policy calls for images to be used in the context of critical commentary, but does that necessarily mean that every aspect distinguishing actor from character must be explicitly addressed in the article? I don't think so. Sometimes an image can provide critical commentary in itself: for example, a promotional image of a character from Lost shows the extent to which the show's producers are and are not treating their subject (castaways on an island with few modern conveniences) realistically. The show's producers are balancing a certain rugged aesthetic with an obvious desire to keep their cast attractive to audience members. Now, it would be very difficult to express this without verging into original research — but presenting an image can convey it without original research.
Now, if we want to say that the only acceptable free-use images of television characters are screenshots, we can say that. But I don't see that in the current guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Critical commentary is not mentioned anywhere in copyright law. Let's go by the actual law:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the photo is for identification of a character in an article about that character in a nonprofit enyclopedia
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the copyrighted work is a promotional photo intended for this purpose
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    it is the whole work, however this does not apply because of #2 and #4
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    this photo is given away for free by the studio, and the studio does this because display of this photo actually improves the value of the real product, which is the TV show (granted, the value may be decreased if the photo is used to potray the show in a negative light, however if NPOV is followed this will never be the case)
I would say we can and should use promotional photos in this fashion. – flamurai (t) 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Flamurai's suggestion seems very well reasoned. Badagnani 06:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about our policy, not law. As ever. ed g2s • talk 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Our policy is derived from law. Is there a reason to disallow FU promo photos to identify characters, or is it just a matter of "everything should be free, even if it does not directly illustrate the subject of the article"? – flamurai (t) 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider "critical commentary" to be an aspect of the purpose and character of our use; non-profit is only part of it, as we could be a non-profit fan entertainment site and thereby gain little to nothing on this factor. "Critical commentary" is a bit hard to parse in an NPOV encyclopedia, but as relevant here I believe it means an academic, factual deconstruction and history of the copyrighted work (the television show and the fictional character portrayed therein) as opposed to a derivative fictional abridgment, which is what you'd see in an "in-universe" fan reference. A relevant image from that work of fiction (whether an "in-character" publicity still or a screenshot) contributes to that critical commentary when placed in that context, as the image helps to further identify the article's subject and provides (as Josiah explains above) information about it. Anyone who thinks that relevant information will necessarily be the same as that provided by any photo of the portraying actor taken in any other context should really stay far, far away from any article on a work of fiction. Postdlf 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_11&oldid=1136058069"