Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Other projects

"…certain projects never accept fair use". Is this really true? Are there projects that (for example) do not allow any quotation of copyrighted work, or any mention of a trademarked name? There are certainly projects that do not allow fair use justifications for images, but I'm unaware of any that literally allow no fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was true about Wikisource or Wikinews. --Carnildo 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Many trademarks (possibly even most) may be used without resorting to a fair-use justification—brand names are too short to be copyrightable. Fair use would have to be invoked for slogans or logos, since those are subject to copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of the other language Wikipedias do not allow fair use.. For example dewiki, and dutch wiki. This has, however, resulted in an increased amount of non-free content being called PD on these wikis, and is just one of many reasons why caution and commonsense should be used when copying content from other Wikimedia projects. --Gmaxwell 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the de:Pokémon example you mentioned elsewhere uses exclusively fair-use images under US law. Some people don't seem to think that derivative works are subject to the copyright of the base work . . . maybe true in Germany, but that seems unlikely to me.

Anyway, I think the assumption behind the question was that Wikipedias that prohibited fair use only prohibited fair-use images, not (for instance) brief quotations. From using Google's translation tool, I deduce that in the German copyrights page the paragraph

Ein Fair Use von Bildern gibt es nur nach US-amerikanischem Recht; die Verwendung urheberrechtlich geschützter Bilder unter Fair Use ist in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia deshalb nicht erlaubt. Im deutschen Recht kommt das de:Zitatrecht in Betracht, aber auch dafür gilt nichts anderes. Siehe Näheres unter de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte.

means something along the lines of

Fair use of images is an American right; the use of copyrighted images under fair use is therefore not permitted in the German-language Wikipedia. Under German law quotation is permissible, but nothing further applies. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details.

So it seems that de:, at least, does allow some things that in America we would call fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that certain Wiki projects never accept fair use. English Wikisource now also prohibits fair use simply the nature of hosting others' published works in full makes "fair" use extremely unlikely. With fair use prohibited, non-commercial licenses are also prohibited due to not being compactible with GFDL. Other Wikisource sites have the similar nature, but the copyright policies are not yet consistent. Multilingual Wikisource now hosts a discussion as to whether to have the same copyright policy as English Wikisource.--Jusjih 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, sites such as Wikisource will typically not use any fair use whatsoever. Wikipedias, however, will always need some degree of fair use, if they want to have any article at all about modern copyrightable entities. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image appropriateness

Reybrujo and I are at a bit of a disagreement regarding a specific Playstation Portable image. The stockshot is professionally done, but someone went and replaced it with a rather inappropriate one of the system placed on the crotch of their pants. Rey states that we are forced to use the bad image simply because of fair use. What do you guys think? Daniel Davis 02:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a free PlayStation Portable image, File:Psp1.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), released under the GFDL, which some editors (including me) have added to some articles. However, Doom127 states that we are under no obligation to use the fair use version if that version is inapppropriate (sic) [1] because the "free" version is the system sitting on a person's crotch in a bathroom. [2], restoring instead File:PlayStation Portable.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the 2004 in video gaming and History of video game consoles (seventh generation) articles, and File:Official psp01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the PlayStation Portable article.

According to the first policy point, we can claim Fair use only if there is no free version available. Existing one (no matter quality or presentation), it automatically voids the Fair use license for similar images. At least, that is how I understand it. -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The fair use defense would likely be reasonable in this case, but Wikipedia policy is to use fair-use images only when no suitable free image is available. That image kind of sucks, but sheesh, someone here must have a PSP and be able to take a good pic of it. Try mentioning it on Wikipedia:Requested pictures and some talk pages. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, when suitable images are availiable. If it was on a table or whatnot (as other free use images of systems have been), it would be ok, but the system is sitting on the crotch of a person's pants, for gosh sakes. It doesn't strike me as suitable at all. Daniel Davis 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Is my modified verison (Image:Psp1.jpg) suitable? It really wasn't all that hard to remove the background, and the nice thing about the original being under a free license is that I'm allowed to do so. --Carnildo 07:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job. There are absolutely no pants in that picture. Daniel Davis 09:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I commend you on your ability to make friends. But in any case, the policy is that you shouldn't use fair-use images when a free alternative exists or could be created. I might be inclined to remove the background myself, except that I figure Carnildo probably has a copy of the image that he forgot to upload or something.

Why don't you download GIMP or a similar program and do it yourself? It's really not hard. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Carnildo already fixed it. Since it uses the same filename as the original, on some computers the cache (F5) has to be hit in order for the new picture to show. Daniel Davis 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then you weren't being sarcastic? My apologies. I could've sworn I checked the page history and seen that he didn't upload a new version, but seems not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fair use reduced

Template:Fair use reduced was recently created, to have high-resolution fair use images deleted in favor of low-resolution. I think that in most cases this is unnecessary and a bad idea. I'd appreciate your comments at Template talk:Fair use reduced. User:dbenbenn 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it. I support limiting the resolution of fair use images. I will discuss there as well.--Jusjih 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use amendment question

In a recent discussion, there was a (now solved) disagreement about a fair use image- that being, that if a free image can be created as opposed to a fair use image, that the "fair use" image must not be used. However, I noticed that it doesn't appear that anywhere in the fair use guidelines that any reference to offensive material comes into play. This opens a loophole; a person could theoretically replace a fair use image of, say, a Macintosh with a Goatse as long as the Macintosh is the main focus of the picture. I think that there should be an exception to the "always use a free image" rule if the free image contains offensive/slanderous or otherwise obscene content. What is the opinion of the group? Daniel Davis 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a free version of an image as you described would not be a suitable replacement for a fair use image. However, I don't think it's necessary to amend the rule. I think in situations where a free replacement could be created, the fair use image should just be removed. For a period of time there might be a blank spot in the article, but it's (usually) not a huge loss, and it would encourage people to come up with a replacement. I guess it's a somewhat eventualist view, but in general I don't see any reason why an article must have an image with it now, instead of waiting for a free one to come along. ~MDD4696 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That would mind that, if the free version is offensive, neither the free nor the fair use could be used, as one is offensive for few and the other can't be used due Wikipedia's Fair use policy (exists free alternative, then no fair use version of the image), right? -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mdd6's policy would condemn many images on Wiki to a premature death. Images for items like the GameCube, for instance, sat as "fair use" images for close to a year before another one was created. I don't think the present rule has to be CHANGED neccesarily, just added to so that an offensive fair use image isn't REQUIRED to take precedence over a nonoffensive fair use image. Basically, I think an appopriate policy should be such: if someone uploads a free image, and that image is appropriate (no goatses), then the free image should take precedence. But if no free image has been created, or if the free image is inappropriate, then the fair use image can be used instead. Daniel Davis 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I believe having an important article without an image describing it draws much more attention (and we can for sure expect fanboys to send pics of their consoles just to get it chosen so that they can boast to friends ;-) ) than keeping the same Fair use image. I am not sure how fast request for images are fulfilled, though. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, what's with the rulelawyering? For heaven's sake, do you honestly believe anyone would take this policy to mean what you have just laid out? This is an obvious case of Wikipedia:Use common sense. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already happened, Johnleemk. For example, someone replaced a fairuse image of the PSP with one that was prominently placed on a person's crotch a while back; several editors noted that we were forced to use it because of the "Fair Use" provisions on this page. It was solved when another user cropped the pants out of the picture, but it HAS happened in the past. Daniel Davis 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about free-license images is that you can crop the pants out or make whatever other modifications are needed to get a reasonable image. You can't do that with a fair-use image. --Carnildo 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but until that time, the bad free image will sit there in all its pantsy glory. The discussion at hand isn't whether a good (pantsless) image should be used, it's regarding what to do with the article in the time in between, Carnildo. Daniel Davis 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the best thing is to just remove both images, announce in the Talk page why both have been removed, and post a note requesting a picture (or that someone edits the offending image). As MDD said, nobody will die if the article spends some time without pictures. -- ReyBrujo 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean it takes an intolerable amount of time to crop an image? Just take both images out, download the free one and Photoshop it, reupload it, and stick it back in. It shouldn't take longer than half an hour, at the most. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict If this ever becomes a real problem, don't use either image for a week. Take the inappropriate free, reusable image to WP:IFD and explain the problem. Ideally, someone will fix it. It is better that we have no image for a week than an article with an unencyclopedic one or one with an unfree one that we are using out of some sort of subjective preference. Jkelly 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So that's the consensus then? The deletion of fair use images? Daniel Davis 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um...yes? If there's a free alternative that isn't unencyclopedic (it isn't encyclopedic to pose Goatse-style with a PSP in your ass; at the very least, the irrelevant stuff ought to be Photoshopped out), there's no reason to use a fair use image. We're here to build a free encyclopaedia, first and foremost. As long as the free image is of encyclopedic quality -- even if it is slightly inferior to a fair use image -- it ought to be used. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the question was so much about one being inferior or not, it concerned Wiki policy regarding what to do if someone posts something inappropriate that is still topical (such as a PSP in the butt). That was what the heart of the matter is- appropriateness doesn't seem to be directly addressed in the Fair Use article, only the word "suitable" (which can mean a lot of things) is used. I suggest that a small blurb be placed in the article about being able to replace or delete a fair use image that is wholly inappropriate. Otherwise we may very well see more debates about pants. Daniel Davis 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) If anyone is rulelawyering, just thwack them on the head with a cluestick. There's a reason a general word was used. We don't codify policy; we write simple points of principle and expect people to use common sense. This isn't a sufficiently major issue to justify instruction creep, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this the image with the PSP allegedly "prominently placed on a person's crotch"? It looks more like his knee to me. Angr (t • c) 18:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is nothing wrong with that version of the image. The cropped version is more desirable, but something like that shouldn't be replaced with a fair use image. ed g2s • talk 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fairuseair

Can I get some feedback on this image tag template: Template:Fairuseair. It's based on Fairusein template but tweaked for aircraft images within WikiProject Aircraft. The modern and popular aircraft are well documented on Wikipedia with free images but the older and more obscure stuff is almost always impossible without resorting to the Fair Use clause. As explained in the optional tag in the template, a lot of these aircraft have been out of existence for decades so an equivalent free image is impossible until a time machine is invented. A large percent of the time there is only one or two photos that were EVER taken. IMHO it's reasonable to include a single photo for illustrative purposes when a good faith effort has been made to obtain a free equivalent on what is becoming the dominant aviation site in the world. The promophoto clause could probably be invoked for many of these photographs since they are usually manufacturer PR but I think it's more weasely than a straightforward explanation presented in the template. Sorry for the long post. All comments would be appreciated. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Beatles 1969.jpg

This image is claimed as a promotional photo for the Beatles, but it appears on the Rolling Stone website without any credit so it is not clear if the copyright is owned by Rolling Stone, the photographer or The Beatles. Any opinions as to whether the fair use claim is valid? Thanks Arniep 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'm not aware that the owner of a base work's copyright is ever relevant to the validity of a fair use claim. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is that may be considered a promotional image for Rolling Stone, not the Beatles (if it is a promotional image). If your interpretation is correct then all photo agency images or images in magazines which we have previously avoided would be considered fair use. Arniep 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Arniep is correct. We avoid images taken by media agencies, etc. because reusing them causes significant commercial detriment to the copyright owner. The only exceptions are, for instance, when the image itself is noteworthy (such as in the recent Jyllands Posten scandal). Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose so. That would be factor four, which I guess only applies to how it affects the value of the work to the owner. The guy whose photo was taken would probably benefit from our reproducing it promotionally, if anything, but the photo-taker likely wouldn't. Okay, then. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarkovsky museum images

I'm wondering if fair use can be claimed from a series of similar images from User:Ipaat including, for example, Image:Stalker2.jpg. These are about 10 photographs of "behind the scenes" filmmaking tagged "NoRightsReserved", which is clearly inappropriate. The uploader got them by scanning prints at a museum in Russia, but doesn't have information about the photographers or the current rights-holders. Can these be claimed fair use because they're being exhibited in a museum? The images appear in galleries at the bottom of Stalker (movie), Solaris (1972 film), and The Mirror (1975 film). Thanks- Staecker 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence supplied of the images' copyright status, and therefore they must be presumed copyrighted. They need to be retagged {{Non-free fair use in}} or similar. One or two images of a movie may be appropriate under fair use in the movie's article, but this many seems rather excessive—some should probably be deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does a website's terms of service matter with respect to fair use images?

I have seen two recent examples of images which have been disputed and ultimately removed from an article's page: EK-32009.jpg and SecretariatBelmontStakes.jpg. The first is a picture of an intact aircraft which was ultimately destroyed in Armavia Flight 967. The second is a picture of Secretariat's 1973 win in the Belmont Stakes, illustrating the final moments in the race and the margin by which the horse won, discussed at length in the article. As I understand the {{Non-free fair use in}} template, both images reasonably fit the definitions of fair use put there:

• to illustrate the object in question (in the first case, illustrating the plane involved in the flight; in the second, illustrating the margin by which Secretariat won)
• where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (in the first case, the plane has been destroyed so no new photo can be taken, and no free image is known to exist; in the second case, the picture illustrates a moment in history in which again no free photo is currently known to exist)
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (both are hosted there)

Now, this being said, both images have been removed from their respective article pages not for the above reasons, but because of onerous terms of service on the respective websites from which the images were taken (See Image talk:EK-32009.jpg and Image talk:SecretariatBelmontStakes.jpg):

• Airliners.net: You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web browser and to use them as your personal computer wallpaper (or background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved. You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission from the photographer.
• Secretariat.com: All images are the copyrighted work of Secretariat.com or specified owner. These photographs/text are available for viewing solely on this website. Any reproduction or redistribution of content on this Secretariat.com website are prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. Elements of Secretariat.com website are protected by applicable Federal, State and local laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from Secretariat.com website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted in writing by Secretariat.com.

I get the impression that were it not for the above two sets of terms of service, that both of these images would still be in articles without objection to fair use - in other words, that in essense the terms of service have created a chilling effect preventing Wikipedia from using the images; they are being seen as 'less free' as other copyright images on the Internet that don't have terms of service attached, or for which terms of service have not yet been found.

It is my understanding that fair use provides a framework by which an image can be used without the owner's permission, and if this is true, it doesn't matter what the terms of service on a website are, because ultimately they are talking about enforcement of copyright law, and fair use is a part of that.

My question, then, is, do a website's terms of service matter to whether or not an image should be used? If we assume that a website without terms of service is 'more free' than one that threatens legal action, then I would propose that the {{Non-free fair use in}} template should be modified to say something like 'A website with specific terms of service with respect to its material forbidding copying should be avoided when declaring free use.' If, in fact, the reverse is true, I would suggest that an addition like 'A website's terms of service are not relevant to the use of an image on Wikipedia if the requirements of fair use are met,' would instead be appropriate.

At the moment, the validity of either statement seems to be unknown and decisions made about it arbitrary. The only postulate I can make is that when onerous terms of service are found at the source of an image, it tends to create a fair use dispute that ultimately results in a deletion of the image.

A clear stance by Wikipedia one way or the other would be very useful to expedite discussions about where a fair use image can reasonably come from. Skybunny 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Terms of service" on a webpage's site generally have nothing to do with copyright; they are legally questionable "contracts" with the web user if anything. If a Wikipedia editor downloads a file from a website with a restrict "usage" policy and uploads it to Wikipedia, the website could get mad at the user (and potentially block them from future use of the website), but could take no action against Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, as I understand it. The copyright issue is an entirely separate one, and the normal fair use requirements would apply. I don't think we should regard "terms of service" as being particularly meaningful, and they are usually far more restrictive about content use than copyright law would ever allow someone to be.--Fastfission 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Site TOSs are completely irrelevant and should be ignored when it comes to copyright questions. All images are considered maximally unfree until demonstrated to the contrary, so claims of unfreeness are immaterial. Even if these sites were the copyright holders (which they aren't), nothing they say or do can impair our legal right to use their images under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is unanimous agreement on this (and there seems to be), can someone put something into the main article explaining that fair use is not derived from the license or terms of service under which something is released? This definately is a 'Comes up over and over again' issue, and it would be nice to be able to point somewhere to say 'your reasoning is incorrect.'. Skybunny 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers

I find it hard to fathom that we cannot use magazine covers to illustrate the work of notable personalities and, in particular, models who appear on said covers. There's a keener who I expect at this moment is gearing up to remove magazine covers from pretty much every model article on Wikipedia. Surely these can be allowed since they clearly are being used to illustrate the subject included in the illustration. If not, I figure there are hundreds upon hundreds of articles that will loose their images. 23skidoo 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. It is posible to set up an article in such a way that the fair use claim is legit but it is pretty uncommon.Geni 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You can really only use magazine covers in somebody's biography when you are talking about how they appeared on that magazine cover. ~MDD4696 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Didn't we clear this up with the recent hooha about Time? Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to clear out the fair use magazine cover gallery, but it's hard going. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By which I mean, find the images which aren't fair use and take them out. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like a small clarification about MDD4696's comment. I am in a situation where the only image from a character at an advanced age is found in a novel cover (The Silver Stair), nowhere else. The article Goldmoon (about the character) has a section Goldmoon#Age of Mortal series where it is explained the character development in that novel. My belief is that it qualifies as talking about how they appeared on that magazine cover. However, I tend to be on the safe side and always go with the option that would protect Wikipedia better (in this case, not uploading the image). Can anyone here enlighten me? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Up-to-date information more important than license?

An interesting point has been brought by a new user in the PlayStation 3 article. Today Sony released images of the new console, which include a new controller Image:Ps3stock.jpg. Until now, the PlayStation 3 article was using a free image Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg. When I reverted to the previous version, in a section in the talk page, two users claimed that we should go with the newer image under Fair use license since it was up to date, while the free one was 7 months old. The free image shows the old controller; other than that both consoles are the same one.. My own opinion (expressed in the talk page) is that the license is more important, especially when the change between pictures is minimal. I would like to hear opinions about this. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say the license is more important, as long as the controller is noted in the caption. There's nothing special about the controller in the new image, so nobody's losing anything by not seeing it. ~MDD4696 04:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say keep the fair use image for a few days, there are bound to be GFDL images coming as soon as the expo actually starts and people can take pictures of the new controller. jaco♫plane 11:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All one needs to do is mention that the new controller is almost identical to the PS2 controller, and use a free image of that if necessary. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally beleive that out-of-date information counts as an 'alternative' or a 'equivalent' since they aren't pictures of the same thing. It's not a question of free vs fair, it's a question of whether they're even equivelent images (I am personally in the camp that they are not) 216.221.88.108 13:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a free image showing the new controller within a day or so when pictures can be taken by people on the show floor. Until then, we should stick with the old image. jaco♫plane 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A small caption explaining that the old controller has been replaced by a DualShock 2 style controller is an alternative. If anything the new image gives less information about the console, due to the lack of angle. ed g2s • talk 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still misleading, as there are differences between the form factor of the "dual shake" and the dual shock 2 - there's a new 'dashboard' button, and two of the triggers are larger, not to mention the lack of a 'shock'. And really, do we want wikipedia full of images that are wrong but it's okay because it says they're wrong underneath? What's the point of having images at all if they aren't going to show what it actually looks like? 216.221.88.108 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If the free images are insufficient to illustrate the object in question, unfree images are acceptable until free images can be obtained (which they can't yet). It sounds like the differences are nontrivial, so for now sticking with the unfree image is most informative. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's wrong of us to show a image that is in effect "fake". What has been used in the PlayStation 3 is a picture of the "mockup" of the system. The version is now void. Either the picture should be taken away all together or a "fair use" promo image should be used until a free image can be obtained. Havok (T/C/c) 11:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the most accurate/up to date image should be used as the primary illustration regardless of licensing preference. While I would like a free image, it must take a back seat to the concerns of accuracy. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be justified if the current version is radically different from the previous one. However, in the PlayStation 3 article, the different used images were similar to each other. The black Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD).jpg is the up to date Fair use image. However, there are no visible differences between that one and Image:PeaceThree.JPG, a year old free image. The other free image, Image:PS3 at CES 2006.jpg, is considered by Havok as void because it is a mockup. If the picture was taken from the front, there would (again) be no differences between the fair use and that one. Look at the browser's title, you will see it says Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We are trying to make a free encyclopedia, even if that means having to sacrifice image quality. -- ReyBrujo 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I think it's extremely unfair and rude to come down hard on people for using images in their sigs. Ardenn 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Would you rather have the copyright holder of whatever non-free image you were using in your sig come down hard on you and all of Wikipedia? --Carnildo 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If the image is copyright, why is it here in the first place? Ardenn 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's being used under the fair use clause of US law to allow us to illustrate it, and only to illustrate it (because if we do anything else with it, unfortunately, we are infringing on their copyright). --Rory096 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the page you're actually commenting on. WP:FU clearly bans the usage of fair use images outside the encyclopaedia space. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot galleries cont.

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Screenshot_galleries_on_video_game_consoles. ed g2s • talk 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Collages

Are collages fair use or public domain? If all of the pictures came from the public domain, can they be tagged with the {{PD-self}} tag? If there is at least one copyrighted image, would that be fair use? Apologies if this was the wrong place to ask, I dunno where to go. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that using a copyrighted image in a novel work of art (the collage) would qualify as fair use. I think any collage uploaded to Wikipedia would have to consist of images either in the public domain or released under a free license permitting modification. Angr (t • c) 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So that means collages cannot carry a fair use tag, and if a {{PD-self}} tag will be used, all of the images should not be copyrighted. Again, thanks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Derivative works require permission from the copyright owner; typically a fair use claim for anything other than satire would be on dubious legal ground (at best). Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the best tag if the images contain copyrighted material? --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't upload it unless there is a valid fair use claim to be made. ed g2s • talk 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Several of the 'Culture/People of country X' articles had fair use containing collages some time ago. I cleaned them all up. No collage on Wikipedia should contain unfree content. Think of unfree content as the viral sample which we must preserve in order to study. We keep it at arms length, don't use it unless we absolutely must, we and don't encourage others to spread it around. ;) --Gmaxwell 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your replies. Ironically, we're working out on a collage on a "People of X" article, and I'm advocating for an all-public-domain and GFDL images, with no copyrighted images. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure that we couldn't use some fair use images in collages, probably head shot promos which were released by that person or their agent would probably be OK, but definitely not photo agency images/screenshots. Arniep 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone photos

It appears that quite a few articles may have images from this site so we really need to decide whether or not they are fair use or not. Following on from the discussion above on Image:Beatles 1969.jpg (which I listed at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#May_11), this Image:Pink_Floyd_1968.jpg is being used at the top of Pink Floyd, source here at the Rolling Stone website. The problem is it doesn't say who took the photos or who owns the copyright.. opinions please. Arniep 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the first problem is that it's tagged as a publicity photo, including the following text: "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." Without more specific info from Rolling Stone, it's hard to know for sure, but it's likely to have been taken by a Rolling Stone photographer and is thus not a publicity photo by Wikipedia's definition. Angr (t • c) 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So if it is not a publicity photo, is it fair use? Arniep 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No. No. No! Just because a photo doesn't contain a copyright notice or a photo credit does not mean it is not copyrighted material. In fact, an artist or photographer holds the rights over his or her work the instant it is created, even without a copyright notice. The act of formally registering one's work with the Copyright Office is merely a formality, whose sole purpose is to provide prima facie evidence should a copyright dispute go to court. The rights to these photographs are strictly retained by the artists unless SPECIFICALLY RELEASED by them to the person who uses them. You can be certain the photographer who shot those photos released the rights to Rolling Stone specifically for use only in Rolling Stone.

Please people! Photographers' livelihoods depend on their ability to control the use of—and therefore revenue from—their work. Perhaps the best source for information on these matters is the Graphics Artists Guild's Pricing and Ethical Guidelines, Eleventh Edition. —Xanderer 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the distinction that you are making between the use of Rolling Stone photographs and Time illustrators (see here). I'm not trying to "trip you up" -- I'm honestly confused. Jkelly 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I made an assumption, which I guess is what I'm chastising others for. I assumed that since Time magazine was listed specifically under the license menu, some sort of special understanding had been reached with Time. Admittedly, I didn't not investigate any further than that, which is hypocritical. The situation is also slightly different in that Sam Huff's appearance on that specific cover is mentioned in the article which, to my understanding, falls under the fair use situation discussed here, here and elsewhere on this page. I apologize for getting a little preachy when I come to this subject, but it cuts close to home for me. —Xanderer 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use in 'article previews'?

The policy currently states that fair use images are allowed only in articles, but we routinely display such images on the Main page and portals... particularly to provide an image in conjunction with the 'preview blurb' for the Main page 'article of the day' or portal 'selected article'. The Wikipedia:Featured content page displays past 'articles of the day' and thus also routinely displays fair use images despite not being an "article".

Based on this policy, Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg was recently removed from the Portal:Middle-earth 'selected article' for J. R. R. Tolkien. If the Tolkien page, which is a 'featured article', is eventually chosen as the 'article of the day' should this image not be used? Should all fair-use images be removed from prior 'articles of the day' displayed on the Wikipedia:Featured content page (and banned from future 'articles of the day')? Or should the policy be updated to allow the continued use of fair-use images in 'article previews' like these in addition to the full articles? --CBDunkerson 16:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know FU photos ever appeared on the main page. AFAIK, User:Raul654 is responsible for main page content; maybe you should ask him about it. Angr (t • c) 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it has happened, actually. Jkelly 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OH NOES!!! Arniep 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It happens from time to time (just like Raul654 mistakenly uploads obvious copyright violations from time to time). Mistakes happen, and are usually corrected when someone notices. I've personally caught it a couple of times and found replacements. I think it's time for us to start opposing featuring articles which have zero free illustrations, but thats another matter.--Gmaxwell 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already started. I opposed three FAC's yesterday because they had too many copyrighted images. Today I'm getting messages on my talk page pointing to all the previous FA's about movies that have tons of them, hinting that precedent suggests they can get away with it. Angr (t • c) 19:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We do have an article about a TV show which is only illustrated with free pictures. So don't let people argue that it's not possible to have free illustrations for these things. --Gmaxwell 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A featured article? Which one? Angr (t • c) 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not featured.. Um. Some british show, I'll have to look for it. It's just evidence that we can have free illustrations for these things as well. For example, the starwars article up on FAC right now, ... no pictures of the fans waiting in line! Shameful! It would be trivial to get a free picture of that... people aren't even trying. --Gmaxwell 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrrrmm. Actually, fair-use images on the main page happens often enough that I had assumed it was just allowed. For instance Image:Perfect_dark_box.jpg was up there two days ago when that game was the article of the day. Three of the 'articles of the day' so far this month have used fair-use images and that's pretty much par for the course. Thus, 'I think it has happened' and 'It happens from time to time' seem a little understated... I'd estimate fair-use images are on the Main page one day in five on average. What is the rationale for not allowing these images (except for all the times we do) in 'article preview' blurbs? I'd think that the same conditions which allow them to be fair use in the articles would apply to these short introductions to the articles. --CBDunkerson 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently fair-use images are used whenever an unfree work needs to be illustrated. Makes sense, if you think about it; sine Gmaxwell, free images are really no substitute for fair use on such topics. Presumably Raul is resigned to this.

In any case, the idea is that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia, and should therefore avoid showcasing fair-use images if possible. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They are sometimes a fine substitute. For example, Dr. Who was put put with a picture of the TARDIS from the show, and we replaced it with a free picture of a police box taken by a Wikipedian. It's not always the case that we can avoid fair use, which is the only reason we permit it at all (and I do support our limited inclusion of fair use)... that doesn't excuse us from trying to find free illustrations, and from being honest about what can and can't be replaced with free images. --Gmaxwell 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

could be tricky. Police boxes ceased to exist a long time ago.Geni 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not hard: Image:Earls_Court_Police_Box.jpg and Image:Police_Box.JPG. Thanks for making my point: most of the time people say there can't be a free illustration they are wrong.--Gmaxwell 03:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. For a counter example there is the original image listed above... J. R. R. Tolkien has been dead for thirty years, so there aren't going to be any new 'free' pictures of him. He was also notoriously camera shy so there aren't even that many copyrighted pictures of him. Sometimes it really isn't possible to come up with a 'free' image. We could always go without a picture of the man, but that doesn't seem appropriate for an article on him or even a Main page/Featured content/Portal 'blurb' linking to the article. --CBDunkerson 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok in the case of doctor who stuff we could probably get photos of a lot of the props one way or another (there certianly used to be various traveling exibitions). In the case of dead people I'm sure there are some wikipedians with parents at least who were alive 30 years ago and may have taken photos (certianly we have one such photo of John Lennon.Geni 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have exactly this problem as I am going to make a new collage for Irish people, and I'd really like to include an image of Samuel Beckett but I can't find any that are free of copyright. As the image is so small, basically thumbnail sized and is actually being used in a pretty complimentary way I find it highly unlikely anyone would complain about their image being used. Arniep 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went searching for a freely-licensed Beckett image, with no luck. I suggest that he be left out of any such collage until we can get one. Jkelly 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that such a small thumbnail image being used in a complimentary manner (i.e. as representatives of the whole Irish people) would ever be regarded as a violation of fair use. Arniep 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that, but it's making our content less free because we happen to really like Beckett. Jkelly 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If I made a drawing from one of the copyrighted photographs could I release that under a free license, or would it be regarded as a derivative work made without permission? Arniep 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you made it based on one, it would be a derivative work. But if you made a composite sketch based on many, that should be fine. I see such images at Commons fairly often. Jkelly 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go if it comes out no good maybe I can see if I can get a thumb released under a free license. Arniep 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

For portals, especially those dedicated to copyrighted subjects (for example, Portal:Star Wars), the restriction of fair use images is rather disruptive. We ought to treat portal space like article space for fair use; if we can still have a free encyclopedia with fair use images in articles, portals shouldn't be a problem. They are basically part of the content of broad subjects that tie together many individual articles, rather than part of project space. Policy ought to be amended to reflect this. --ragesoss 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we not accept non commercial clauses?

If our goal is merely to make an encyclopedia why do we not accept images that are permitted to be used for non commercial use? Arniep 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because our goal is in fact not merely to make an encyclopedia, it's to make a free licensed encyclopedia available to anyone (under the terms of the GFDL license wich expliclity allow for commercial use). --Sherool (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why do we want other people to profit from it (which would actually be a bit of a con considering it is availiable for free here)? Arniep 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? Oh! When we say Free we speak of freedom and not price, and denying people the ability to make commercial use would be to reject a fundamental freedom and to discriminate against a perfectly reasonable class of use. When you say "to profit from it" and "a bit of a con" you're implying some things are necessary which are not. For example, what if someone took an copy, cleaned up all the vandalism, and pressed a DVD version for distribution to schools and libraries, charging only a modest fee to cover their effort and materials? This would quite possibly be a commercial use, yet there is no exploitation.--Gmaxwell 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be considered a non profit, charity type setup i.e. still non commercial? Arniep 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Within the spirit of the law/licence? Perhaps. But within the letter? Highly doubtful. Unless said person/organisation is registered as a charity, it would probably be considered for-profit and thereby illegal. Also, I think non-commercial licences make life a bit difficult for our commercial mirrors (though IANAL and could be wrong). Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Non-commercial" is a very vague term. Not only would it make trouble for commercial re-users like Answers.com, it could make trouble for us: if we were to do fundraising by selling CDs of Wikipedia, that could be considered commercial use, even if the money goes to a non-profit organization. --Carnildo 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up is I contacted a professional photographer on Flickr asking if they would change the license on the images from CC NCD, to CC share alike, he then responded, "does that mean a photo agency could sell my images as long as they credited me" which just made me think umm.., yeah, that would be pretty unfair (although I did eventually convince him to release low res versions under the share alike license). Arniep 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's unfair, it is the nature of free content. But keep in mind exactly what they could do: A photo agency could sell access to his work so long as they comply with the license (which, in the case of the GFDL, is somewhat incompatible with purely exploitative business models since it requires the distributor to include a copy of the GFDL). They could not sell the work itself as the author still retains the copyright. It is important to note that no sane photo agency would try to make a business out of reselling GFDLed images, because the attribuition and license transmission requirements are considered somewhat annoying for such purposes (they can't hide the fact that it's free content). This is true, to some extent, with all copyleft licenses although it's more true for the GFDL because the CreativeCommons licenses were designed to be more compatible with including free content works which are non-free where as GFDL is only has low overhead when the entire work is GFDL (unless you think it's low overhead to include a copy of the GFDL in small print in your full page advert that used a GFDLed image. :) --Gmaxwell 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the Creative Commons license appropriate for these low res images or should I use the GFDL? Arniep 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone concerned about both commercial use and making their work available to Wikipedia should use the GFDL. It effectively makes life so difficult for offline reusers that only those who really want to use free content will bother. Everyone else will find a less restrictive licence or resort to non-copyleft content. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use both. If you upload to the commons, the drop down box will give you some recommendations. ed g2s • talk 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the situation may be slightly complicated as the licenses say self created work. While I did crop and reduce the resolution of the images, I did so with agreement of the photographer and I want him to be attributed as the creator of the work, not me. If anyone here is a commons user I would appreciate any support on an RFAd Commons:Commons:Administrators#Arniep which was effectively hijjacked by another admin who got in a huff when I restored speedy on an image which clearly should have been deleted long ago (tagged no source since February 12th). It seems there is effective meltdown there with nosource and speedy delete categories with massive backlogs. Arniep 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

probably not a good idea. we got in enough troble over the whole strong armingmeta thing.Geni 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What's not a good idea? Arniep 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Useing en weight of numbers to ger our way on the various bits of cross project stuff. It tends to upset people.Geni 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there are many people watching this page so I don't think it could be considered ganging up on all the other projects. The problem is there seems to be lack of action in deleting bad images on Commons which directly affects us here on en-wiki. Arniep 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I started to write up a little description of why we don't accept non-commercial and education-only clauses at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial, but never got around to finishing it (honestly, I forgot I had started it). In any case, if anybody wants to help work on it, the goal would be to make it into something we could direct people to who were confused about this aspect of things, and hopefully explain the rationale and answer the frequently asked questions. --Fastfission 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it permitted to claim fair use here on images with noncommercial licenses?--Jusjih 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but as I visit WP:IT, I have found fair use tags possibly acceptable but noncommercial tags unacceptable. How are we going to claim fair use here on images with noncommercial licenses or licenses forbidding derivative works?--Jusjih 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Noncommercial or no-derivative licenses are not sufficient to permit us to use a work, but neither is their absence necessary. If such a license exists, ignore it and apply a fair-use tag instead. For our purposes, noncommercial/no-derivative/Wikipedia-only licenses are equivalent to no license at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How to stop the misguided copyright enforcement

The following User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright page is created with the intention of stopping the tactics of some admins regarding copyright. Recently User:Ed g2s has begun deleting every image that is fair use on every person's user page. A few months ago, another user, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2 began [[deleting hundreds of Time magazines covers, sighting fair use. These admins have no legal training. In our experience they have a weak or non-existant understanding of copyright law. No lawyer has been consulted. Even E-mails from Time magazine, giving wikipedia permission to use these images did not stop this behavior.

The majority of wikipedians want to share information and contribute to building a better wikipedia, a small, but vocal well-organized minority of wikiusers want to interpret copyright and fair use law in a restrictive and counter-productive way, which is not reflective in the laws of US copyright, and which is against the very spirit of wikipedia.

I would like to field comments about how to stop this intrusive and counter productive behavior. I would also like suggestions on how we can organize effectively against such actions here: User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright

I was threatened with being booted by user:Tawker for:

• messaging users who have had problems with User:Ta bu shi da yu tactics,
• messaging users who are opposed to this generally heavy handed use of power, and
• those who have had their messages on their own user pages deleted.

I look forward to seeing like minded wikiusers here: User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright. Travb 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple. If people stop breaking our copyright policy will we no longer have the activly inforce it. Until then we will continue to do what we must.Geni 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, it is Public domain

Geni Please stop deleting views you do not agree with.Please remember the 3RR rule. I am really glad their are volunteer police protecting wikipedia for us all. I sleep better at night knowing that you are attacking those dragons (windmills) which threaten the very existence of wikipedia. I think you deserve a volunteer policeman's badge.Travb 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats not Geni deleting your comments, btw. Syrthiss 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, you may want to point out it is User:Ed g2s. My mistake Geni, my comments are addressed to User:Ed g2s.Travb 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that the copyright police might have a point at all? Other wikipedias do remarkably well without taking recourse to "fair use". Dr Zak 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

→Other wikipedias do remarkably well without taking recourse to "fair use".→ That is so very wrong. Compare images on these English Wikipedia articles Beatles, Andy Warhol, and Batman to those on the German Wikipedia (de:Beatles, de:Andy Warhol, and de:Batman). You'll see what a big difference Fair Use makes (e.g. the German Wikipedia has to use amateur photos of wax dummies in the Beatles articles). Madman 22:11, 1 June 2006

Right, and even without copyright-violating pictures, the German articles are at least as good if not better than the English articles. Thanks for proving the point that fair use images are unnecessary! Angr (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that de:Andy Warhol does suffer for it. de:Batman, on the other hand... Jkelly 06:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2 yes.Travb 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the one where Jimbo came in and said he was right? --Rory096 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jkelly 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's not exactly how it happened. That's the one where somebody came in and said that Jimbo said it was right but then it turned out that wasn't exactly what Jimbo had said. It became a long and unpleasant thing, Jimbo intervened privately with me and smoothed things out more or less, but in any case I just want to point out that it wasn't some simple deus ex machina "ruling on high" as some have portrayed it as. It was pretty messy. If anybody doubts that, they can get in touch with me and I'll forward them everything worth seeing on the subject, though frankly I'd rather not dredge it up again. --Fastfission 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Could we please clarify what the above talk is about? Does it concern claimed Fair Use of images on user talk pages, or in articles, and if the latter, then is there a particular issue? Thanks. Tyrenius 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Travb has just been blocked. ed g2s • talk 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He's annoyed that someone's been removing non-free images from his userpage. --Carnildo 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

...and other userpages, and he's taking up the issue in a completely pointless place as well as making attack pages in his userspace... Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So, that is the way it works. If someone has an idea that differs from you, Ed, or from admins then he/she is blocked? If this continues wikipedia is doomed. Many people send comments to user pages for different things, what's wrong with Travb sending comments to peoples user pages?? You guys are just imposing your views, the same thing you are criticizing from Travb.Shame on you! Cjrs 79 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Travb was warned by three separate admins, and blocked by a fourth for vandalism and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He was not blocked for disagreeing with me. ed g2s • talk 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fair use historic photographs

This category seems to be an excuse to use photo agency images. Surely anything could be claimed to be a "non-reproducible historic event". Arniep 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw one in there that seemed to qualify. I think that is a better percentage than some of our fair use cats. Jkelly 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, IMO. Like any other category of images, it will have some obviously inappropriate ones, but many claims made here have a basis. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there some case about a video of Kennedy's assassination or something, where it was ruled that it went against the public interest for the only record of such a major event to be irreproducible, or something? I can't recall the case name. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the bar for that would be very high, and I doubt that that case in particular would stop anybody from sueing if it came down to it. It is probably not a good basis for policy on here as a consequence. I think the original intent for this category was just as a way of subcatting "fair use" images, not on the basis of it being a unique legal category (which for our purposes it is not, as I understand it). --Fastfission 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well previously we seemed to have decided that photo agency images were very very rarely fair use, this cat however seems to be challenging that by saying the only image availiable of xxx is a photo agency image so we are justified in using it. Arniep 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The intent is for this to be used where the image itself has historic significance: things like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Zapruder Film where we've got an article on it, or things like the lead image on Hindenburg (airship), where the image is an iconic representation of the event. --Carnildo 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well a lot of them seem to be portraits of people rather than events. A few agency images and those that are likely to be: Image:18-inside-malvo.jpg, Image:20040807202726.JPG (AP), Image:2003 Quebec general election, Charest on election night.jpg, Image:2004gopconventionmiller.jpg (AP), Image:2004OlympicsOpeningCeremonyAmerica.jpg (AP), Image:5 Feb 2006 Danish consulate in Beirut Fire.jpg (Reuters), Image:AmberFrey.jpg (AP), Image:BassamAbuSharif.jpg (from BBC website, though prob a screenshot), Image:KarlaHomolka 1993.jpg (AP). Arniep 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of fair use rationales

Did I miss the announcement of {{No rationale}} and category Category:Images with no fair use rationale, with seven-day countdown? I know that we were planning to do this eventually, but I was hoping we would rely more on standard boilerplate rationales rather than descend into the chaos of randomly varying per-image text (as for instance Image:Galactic-Ruckus.jpg). It's just hard to imagine the point of 20,000 different versions of "this logo is used for identification, and obviously doesn't cut into anybody's sales". Use of templates enabled us to get rid of a bunch of ridiculous text on image pages, like cut-n-pastes of half the US code :-), now we're just going to get a new pile of gobbledygook to clean up. Stan 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a step in the right direction. It means images that are just {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} with no attempt to specify an article get the 7-day countdown. Fair use rationales shouldn't be optional anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, images with fair use tags other than those, like {{logo}}, {{bookcover}}, etc., aren't (or should not be) subject to this, as the fair use rationale tends to be blatantly obvious anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:YBFlogo.jpg seems to be tagged as logo and also tagged with this template, which shows there's a breakdown somewhere. Hiding Talk 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, lookimg through the categories, there are loads of instances where this template is being used contrary to your understanding. There's going to be some problems here. If {{tv-program-logo}} gives a fair use rationale for an image being used in the article about that programme, why are these instances being tagged? Hiding Talk 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, right on the template, it states To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.. The template is just there to guide the person in the right direction, even if it is "blatantly obvious", I think the detailed rationale still needs to be there. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Most images I've seen tagged with any fair use tag still need a rationale; I've found few where the rationale is blindingly obvious. One possible exception to the rationale requirement might be {{Historicalphoto}} (which explicitly does not require a rationale; see the template's talk), but to be on the safe side I still add a mini-rationale for certain images. Anyhow, the new CSd I6 only applies to new images. Old ones still cannot be speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And... only new images that are tagged with ONLY {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• edit conflict{{tv-program-logo}} seems blindingly obvious to me, if it's used correctly like it was on Image:YBFlogo.jpg. That's the logo of the tv program, it's being used in the article about the program, what more needs to be said? What detailed rationale is needed, someone to actually write this is the logo of the tv program blah blah and as such is considered fair use in the article discussing the program blah blah? That's what the template says! Surely it's all covered in the template. I agree some of the templates are abused, but when you have instances like this, which are blindingly obvious, what are we hoping to achieve? Are we going to delete them for the sake of it? We're not process junkies, we're not automatons and we should not behave like that. If someone percieves a problem, I thought the whole point about wikipedia was that they fixed it. If the image is being used under fair use, doesn't contravene fair use, why on earth do people think it's good practise to threaten to delete it? Hiding Talk 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Given the speedy clause this is operating under states Any image tagged only with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}, with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded. Images uploaded before May 4, 2006 should not be deleted immediately; instead, the uploader should be notified that a fair-use rationale is needed. Images uploaded after May 4, 2006 can be tagged with {{no rationale}}, I am removing the template from any images which are incorrectly tagged with the template, being tagged with fair use templates other than {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. Hiding Talk 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's far too easily gamed. I don't think this was the original wording - was it? A general template is often no substitute for a specific rationale. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Diff in which the criterion was added seems to suggest that's the original wording, so I'd be curious as to who is gaming the system. Incorrectly tagged images are subject to speedy deletion, and I'd suggest that images which are tagged correctly and used correctly should have their fair use strengthened by those who see that as necessary rather than attempts made to delete them incorrectly. Hiding Talk 15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) By gaming the system, I mean that someone can tag a Time cover correctly as a Time cover (or just about any other magazine, actually), but still get Wikipedia in legal trouble. Being tagged doesn't obviate the need to prove that the use is fair. As explained numerous times by many people, we need to have a solid argument for why, say, our use of a picture of Adolf Hitler on Time's cover is fair use. (For instance, if we just put the Time cover on Hitler's article to illustrate him, making a fair use claim would be very difficult because we are competing with the original purpose of the work - to illustrate Hitler. By illustrating the publicity he got in the magazine, however, we sidestep this problem. At the very least, we're on somewhat safer ground.) I'm not going to push for an amendment to the policy for now, but bear in mind that most images that are uploaded are already specifically tagged; only a small minority of uploaders would use {{Non-free fair use in}}, and almost nobody uses {{fairuse}} anymore. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, but it does not address the issue I am getting at, namely people who are using this no rationale tag on images, to borrow your example, such as the Time cover of Adolf Hitler, in an article on that actual issue of Time. People need to be clearer on what this issue is. Where we have no fair use claim on an image, we should list it. But where there is a fair use claim, let's not attempt to delete images, it's counter productive, not likely to please many people and questionably could be viewed as bad faith. People are adding this tag to images where there is a good fair use claim, covered by the tag, and in some instances writing verbatim to uploaders what they should add to the image description page to avoid deletion. That's somewhat insane, to my mind. If I spot a tipo, I don't go back and tell the contributor, I just fix it; let's apply some common sense across the board here, that's all I'm asking. Images which don't meet the criteria for this tag, images which have a good fair use claim, images which shouldn't be deleted, should not have this tag placed upon them. That seems fair play to me. Hiding Talk 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to mostly agree here. A major argument for this new CSD was to close a weird loophole where images tagged as having "no license" could be prevented from being deleted by the placement of {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. Deleting all unfree content without a hand-written rationale would be a huge undertaking. There's something to be said for pushing the goalpost back slowly. Jkelly 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that that is why we would not enforce this retrospectively. The problem, IMO, is that this now creates a new loophole; editors are just forced to use a different kind of fair use tag to circumvent copyvio issues. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No new loophole: if they stick a random fairuse tag on it, the image can be deleted under the other new CSD: "Any image with a clearly invalid fair-use tag". --Carnildo 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

On that it appears we vehemently agree with one another. My problem is, however, that the vast majority of images that fit my example aren't used properly. I think your point ought to be included in policy as well; while I appreciate the need for fair use images to be used properly, sometimes the copyright paranoia I see in well-meaning editors' efforts irritates me just as much as the efforts of some editors to circumvent our image policies. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I think we agree on pretty much all aspects. I was considering proposing a speedy to close the loophole, namely that we do away with the tags and instead, any image uploaded without a detailed fair use rationale be speediable, but this whole area is so subjective. Who gets to decide what constitutes a detailed fair use rationale? Some of this is becoming interminable, and I would suggest efforts are better targeted at where we don't comply with fair use law, rather than where we don't comply with fair use policy. The former is beneficial to Wikipedia, the latter is just another form of process junkie-ness. That, or just scrap the idea of using fair use images. Hiding Talk 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the important thing is to at least say why it is fair use. The rationale need not be long; the reason we've failed thus far in getting people to add rationales is that it's so bloody difficult to meet the requirements as laid out in the relevant policy page. I'd suggest making any image that doesn't explain why it is fair use (just one sentence not repeating anything in the template will do; for instance, "Used in article X to illustrate Hitler's coverage in Time and its significance" is enough. It's helluva lot better than what we have now. I'm not sure throwing out policy would be a good idea; often there's a reason behind it. The process, however, definitely needs work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just had a conflicting opinion with User:Hiding regarding giving fair use rationales. When I saw Template:Logo at Image:Mergelogosmall.JPG without a fair use rationale, I added subst:frn in good faith because Template:Logo does ask the uploader to provide a rationale. Hiding thought my action incorrect without regard to what Template:Logo has said. As I consider my action in good faith without admitting any wrong doing, we shall either ask the uploader to provide a fair use rationale or amend Template:Logo, whichever is approproate.--Jusjih 15:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you asking the uploader for a more detailed rationale if you desire, and as I pointed out on your talk, I have no problem with you providing a better rationale. I also didn't dispute your action without regard to what template:logo says, I disputed your action with regard to what the speedy criterion state, and that is why I removed the template, as it was placed incorrectly. I personally believe that in the instance we are in dispute over, the rationale given in the template is enough, and am asking that people avoid copyright paranoia. Hiding Talk 15:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly should or should not be tagged for possible deletion? Everything is not yet clear.--Jusjih 16:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• If it's tagged with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} and there's no rationale, tag it as such. If it has one of the other fair use templates, and you're 100% certain that's incorrect, it can be deleted outright, so either delete it or put it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion using {{db|reason}}, noting criterion I7, and explain why the image is incorrectly tagged. If it's not used in any articles, tag it as orphan, the templates {{or-cr}}, {{or-cr-re}}, {{or-fu}}, and {{or-fu-re}} place an image in this category.
• If it's got no source tag it as no source, using {{db-unksource}}, if it is used in an article which doesn't meet the rationale on the template, for example an image of a team logo tagged as a logo used in an article about the sport rather than the team, and if in removing it you orphan it then tag it as orphan per above. If the image has no copyright info, or fair use tag, tag it as having no license with {{no license|month=May|day=19|year=2006}}. If an image has the right tag, and is used in an article where fair use will apply, I would say you are better serving Wikipedia by strengthening the fair use rationale than looking to tag it and delete it. If it is possible that a freer image than the one used can be made, then place the talk page of the article in Category:Wikipedia requested images. I think that covers it all. You can also list images at WP:IFD if you think it is unencyclopedic, since most other reasons are covered above. Hiding Talk 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, {{No rationale}} is only for images uploaded after 2006-05-04. What do we do with images uploaded before that date that have no rationale for their fair use claim? Angr (t • c) 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If the article requires the image, i.e. it's the only image in the article or it's illustrating a critical point that is discussed in a number of paragraphs, and it meets all the other requirements above, I'd say that an editor should strengthen the rationale. If it's an excessive image, in that there is already an image in the article and it doesn't illustrate a point heavily discussed, I'd argue that it could be removed and oprphaned, and then, after seven days, deleted. That said, be prepared for people to dispute the removal. However, bear in mind that the templates do constitute a rationale, however limited they may be, and if an image is used in the right way and is of value, bearing in mind we shouldn't rely on fair use images in cases where a free image could be found, I can't see where the problem is. Hiding Talk 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote from User:Jimbo Wales

Should we put the following:

We are supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.[3]

somewhere on this page, as has been done recently with some other policy and guideline pages? Jkelly 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you do you can kiss "Assume good faith" good by. Legally Wikipidia has to abide by laws and say certain things. Practically one should not J walk but who will stop you? For legal purposes we can state the letter of the law but for Enforcement purposes Consideration should be taken. If the person who owns an image says you are allowed to use it for XY and Z then our policy should not intervene AB regardless of the legal Copyright status.--E-Bod 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have commented more on this issue at the WikiProject--E-Bod 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy Regardless of what our Beloved Founder says.

--E-Bod 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a bureaucracy, but what Jimbo says generally goes. --Fastfission 04:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to be building a free encyclopaedia. Fair use images hinder that, and as such should be used as little as is practically possible. This is why even images used with permission must be used under fair use; at the very least, this won't get our mirrors in legal trouble (since the "with permission" clause nearly always applies only to Wikipedia; at least a fair use claim made on Wikipedia will apply to our mirrors, provided they don't alter the material that validates the fair use claim). Anyone who refuses to accept that we should be minimising non-free content use in Wikipedia as much as possible should either leave or be forced to leave. (At least, that's how I read Jimbo's statement; we can't damn well ban people who aren't aware of our fair use policy, but we very well should ban people who are aware of and understand it but refuse to follow it.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support something worded better, like "Wikipedia is, first and foremost, 'the free encyclopedia'. Fair use material hinders this in all but a few instances, and as such effort must be made to obtain free alternatives when possible. Users who claim fair use in such a way that harms the project may be blocked." Perhaps there should be a note at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations that users are obligated to avoid non-free material. ~MDD4696 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Of you are so eager to ban people. Even Jimbo Wales does Self tests even though he is well aware he is not alowed to. Does that Constitue a ban without a warning becose he is a well informed user? some of you are just to quick to ban people without even talking to the people and that is totaly not right--E-Bod 20:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? None of us are advocating bans without warnings. (Also, there's no policy banning tests; otherwise, I think nearly everyone would be blocked.) Johnleemk | Talk 20:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we're not interested in creating a hostile editing environment, E-Bod. It is assumed that users will have been given fair warning before a significant block is imposed. Administrators generally execise their good common sense in these situations; they wouldn't have been granted their RfAs if they showed hostility and short tempers when others make the occasional mistake.

I would guess that the reason Jkelly brought up this proposal is that Administrators get a lot of flak when they do anything that is not specifically spelled out in policy. Judgement calls get challenged a lot, and usually the complaint is entirely invalid, which wastes a lot of time. It's tough trying to strike a balance between what falls under "common sense" and "instruction creep." ~MDD4696 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. That was a personal Gripe I had with an Arbitrator. I'm just in a little shell shocked from the event because I was Blocked without a first level warning or even a notification that i was blocked. I'm Going to wait a week before I Discuss with this issue with the blocker. Not all admins puts the Community before the Dictionary. I am lost now becose I have no clue how I should aproch an Arbitrator who i fell is less than perfect. --E-Bod 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

In particular, Wikipedia is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies.

WP:FU

I suggest we not use this shortcut WP:FU. I can not give my reasoning because it has been called "abuse" [4] (a Violation of WP:NOT)--E-Bod 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think the shortcut by itself is fine. I think people should avoid using it in a way which would be misconstrued though. --Fastfission 04:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with it, as above. Also, the "not censored" clause doesn't mean that you shouldn't use good taste. ~MDD4696 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that the removal of your original posting[5] by a Wikipedia sysop, labelling it "spam" and "abuse", in my view was an act of unwarranted censorship. __meco 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"FU is an abbreviation for "Fuck you" ... It seems all to tempting to tell all the Anal retentive fair use people FU" seems pretty abusive to me, especially as at the time he was implying that my enforcement of fair use policy was "anally retentive". ed g2s • talk 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry for calling you anal. Could you have removed only part of my comment? Also My family is really anal retentive (Obsession with organization or excessive neatness)/OCD and I didn't mean it as a bad thing but rather a personality type and something you should recognize about yourself and learn to cope with. I was not literally thinking you were constipated. From my contact with you on the internet (In real life you may be different) You are definably not Anal-expulsive (Reckless, careless, defiant, disorganized) (Anal expulsive also is outgoing). I apologize because I was indeed writing that with you in mind but I had assumed at the time that you were only one of many people enforcing Fair use without evaluating whether or not it was a fair use violation and thus it would apply to multiple people. I am currently unaware of other users doing what ED does. That seems to me like a fair description for anybody. The first description that came to mind was a Seinfeld episode I had not seen but hear allot about where a really strict soup seller is called such a name. Calling you guys that, is unacceptable because it would offend the victims of the WWII Holocaust. Trab has actually gone far enough to call you guys that and unfortunately I doubt you will see that as a joke. Although it's intent is to be a (bad taste) joke. In my home town we refer to the most organized but least friendly Book salesperson by that name and we all know who we are talking about. What I was expecting out of the link was that calling you anal would make you read up about it

Today, however, the term is often used of anybody seen as overly worried about small details and unable to adopt a philosophical attitude toward mistakes. This metaphorical usage has become so commonplace that the somewhat graphic literal meaning of the phrase is often overlooked by those using it.

Another term used in a similar context is "hair-splitting." The intended implication is that an "anally retentive" person needs to "loosen up" a little instead of "holding on to it.

This is what I meant by calling the Fair use Police anal. More specifically After permission is grant to use an image (all the policies about fair use talk about granting permission) Ed had still stayed on his grounds an even argued with the creator of the image. His justification was not policy but a letter form Jimbo [6]. What happened was I asked Ed to evaluate a fair use claim I made for a template that I copied to my users pave because it had been deleted from the main space and I had used it to show people who asked what the template had looked like before it was deleted. Ed responed that Fair use images are never allowed on userspace. This is not in any policy I can find.

Again at the Time I asummed that Ed was not the only fair use police and I have heard people upset about the fair use police long begore I ever met one. This adjective was meant to clarify a valid personality type and was not meant as a personal attack. I belive Personal Atakes should not be removed. I could always go back to Srike the text and say sorry and the text will stay up there to ruin my reputation. By removing Persoal ataks you prevent other people from getting upseat with the person. You also should have just paraphrased my comment to remove the personal attack but keep the content. You should not have pretended the issue did not exist. I was upseat because I don’t want to read WP:FU all over the place because I am resisting the urge to tell people to go F themselves. It just seems to tempting and In the future I will no longer assume a good sence of humor. However you all should assume good faith.--E-Bod 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria makes it clear that unfree content cannot be used in userspace. Jkelly 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page). Surly with permission is grounds for an exception. Thank you for Pointing this out to me. It Explain things and makes me less definite on my position. I agree Fair use Images should be avoided, The removal of Fair use images is what i am concerned about. Non Notifying users is unacceptable and uncivil. Fair use images not being allowed on user space is not so much just because it is on the user space but rather based on the assumption that in the user space it is used as decoration. When it is not used for decoration Consideration should be made. Although the final result may still be to remove it, it still severs a few minuets of thought.--E-Bod 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I leave notification in my edit summary that I am simply enforcing this (as you know appreciate, well defined) policy. When I find, for example a sports logo that is used on 50 people's userboxes, it would take ages to leave a talk page message for each one, and a waste of time, as the policy is not of for discussion (at least, not on a user's talk page). As I have pointed out, "with permission" does not make the image any more free. I also do think that you could possibly argue that including this images "is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia". It may seem very strict - but the more exceptions we have to the rule, the more people will exploit them. On a separate note, I accept your apology, and am glad that you are discussing things in a civil manner. ed g2s • talk 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in categories

For your reference: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6031 , I couldn't find an existing bug for it. ed g2s • talk 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I brought this up once before. I think it's a good idea. ~MDD4696 21:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How would we sort images if we couldn't see the thumbails? Arniep 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You actually use the thumbnails for something on those cats? Too slow to be useful. 90% of what you need to know should be in the text anyways... then you bring up the image page to be sure. --Gmaxwell 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't really tell from the text what sort of image it is but you can usually spot a likely commercial image from a thumbnail. Arniep 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use cats are intended to contain commercial images, so a commercial image there wouldn't be interesting. I do use something simmlar to the galleries (but local and fast) to review things like "GFDL presumed". --Gmaxwell 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this feature (__NOGALLERY__) has been coded and is in the SVN and should go live at some point. ed g2s • talk 11:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a test gallery over at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images so you can see when it gets enabled. ~MDD4696 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agency images

Previously I had thought that we didn't regard any photo or press agency images as fair use and whenever I've seen them I've ifded them. Was I correct in doing this or are they fair use if no other type of image exists of a person (i.e. screenshot, promo) or if there is no possibility of taking a free image in the future? Arniep 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While agency images could be ruled out under FUC#2 (replacing the original market role), low-resolutions images could probably be used if the other criteria are met. ed g2s • talk 13:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So if an image could be taken (i.e. the person appears in public at known times) , would that mean we should not use an agency image? Arniep 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unless the picture of the person also showed a historic event they were part of. ed g2s • talk 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah but if you allow that, people will claim anything as a historic event. Arniep 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples of what people would claim as a historic event- sports events, film premieres, academy award speeches, election rallies, crime scenes, disasters, a celebrity opening something... etc. Arniep 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty wary of the "historic event" aspect. The only legal aspects relating to "historic events" are for really, really historic events of which they are no other pictures of it (the Zapruder film), not just "this is something which is technically historic and I couldn't find any other pictures). --Fastfission 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the key thing is that it should only be used in an article about the event. ed g2s • talk 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the key was that the photo itself was the subject. For instance this famous kiss on VJ day or the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. Other photos taken the same day, of the same larger event, by the same photographer, wouldn't be fair use (even in articles about what's depicted in the photo). Somehow, the photo itself, should be notable, in its own right. This is what I thought, but I could be wrong. --Rob 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant... ed g2s • talk 13:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we clarify- if no other image of a person exists except a photo agency photo and there is no possiblility of taking a photo in the future can we use it under fair use? Arniep 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Do you have a specific example in mind - I'd be reluctant to say what is always fair use, as one can usually find a counter example. ed g2s • talk 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right that there are very few examples, but I suppose another argument could be that while a member of the public may have taken an image of somebody or the person may have appeared on TV at some time, the only image that "seems to be" availiable "despite extensive searching" is an agency image. Arniep 23:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed policy tag

The Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria page never went through the normal channels to become policy as per:

Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy To my knowledge one user decided on 5 January 2006 to add the policy tag. He later explained that he had a converstaion with Jimbo but never produced this converstaion, and continuted to ignore my direct questions about how this page became policy. Having a conversation with jimbo is not included in Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy. I will add this article to Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy and see if it is approved through normal channels, the same channels that every article must go through to become policy.Travb (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Procedural objections do not carry weight on Wikipedia. Policy becomes policy when someone declares it to be policy and nobody objects for a long enough time. This was declared policy, and nobody objected. It wasn't a stealth action; it was discussed among leading editors and administrators and a decision made and executed. The discussion at Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, and policy can be created by other means than those listed there.

Finally, I am not a "he". Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing this "discuss(ing) among leading editors and administrators and a decision made and executed". From the beginning you have not assumed Good faith in my question. And you continue to ignore it. I didn't know there was a statute of limitations for objecting--lets say if I would objected on January 15, 2006, 10 days after you (based on the evidence thus far) unilaterally added this policy tag, would that have been "too late".

"This was declared policy, and nobody objected." Declared by whom, User:Kelly Martin alone? From everything that I understand, you alone declared it to be policy. Is this correct?

You simply just don't understand what I am attempting to ask you, and I apologize for not being more clear. Let me try once again:

Show me this "discuss(ion) among leading editors and administrators and a decision made and executed", or the discussion from Jimbo and I will go away and not question how this became policy any longer.

I do not follow the unwritten rule on wikipedia and all other web blogs that you can never admit you are wrong. I have done it before, and will do it again for you: I will gladly issue a public apology if you simply present how this consensus was made, or the converstation you had with Jimbo.

Show me the discussions about this, or the email from Jimbo, and I will go away. I asked you three times before I ever removed the policy tag and I have asked you two times since, and you have ignored my request.[7] I will ask you a sixth time: How did this suggestion became policy?

And finally, I apologize for assuming you are a "he" Travb (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked Jimbo

I asked him a simple yes or no question:[8]

Hopefully with four or five typestrokes he could end this argument about the policy tag.

signed:Travb (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it

You still don't seem to understand that the procedure by which this became policy is not really that important. If you think this should not be policy, you need to say why it is bad policy. You have yet to do so, at least not here (although there are some hints of this on your talk page finally). Why don't you just take five minutes to elucidate what you think is wrong about this policy, instead of wasting all this time on procedural maneuvering that will never succeed anyway? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in templates: exceptions

Wikipedia:Fair use images in templates: exceptions -- Please read and comment on that page's Talk area. Thanks! SteveBaker 14:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Given your example is the car manufacturer templates - I will have to respectfully disagree. The name of the company can adequately be conveyed using text. Adding the logo is a luxury we can do without. ed g2s • talk 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(For the benefit of those new to this, ed g2s is the person who removed the logos and provoked this debate). SteveBaker 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely see through the logic. Just because an image has something to do with the text of the template does not make it fair use at all. The template is not commenting on the image nor using it analytically. It is still, in this case, essentially decoration, as ed g2s points out. --Fastfission 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove referenced material

Please do not removed quoted referenced material. This statment from Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources explains that fair use was intented to be construed liberally like the first ammendment. It explains why wikipedians have such a tough time grappling with applying fair use. If you do not agree with the conclusions of this statment, find another cited statment to counter it, but please do not remove it, especially since it is the only citied secondary source of law on the entire page.Travb (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from Stanford about fair use law have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. This policy is not an attempt to interpret § 107 of the Copyright Act. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL i'm add but still, you must be joking. tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseeker (talk • contribs)

Screenshots on lists

Seems to be a growing problem. Almost every popular seems to have one now. When I challenged List of Family Guy episodes, a user there added fair use rationales to each image, such as Image:FGMrSaturdayKnight.png. The claims have little do with its use in the list. Specifically:

it allows for identification of the character: the jouster 'seargent';

when the article doesn't discuss the character in any particular detail, and:

it illustrates the film in question and aids commentary on the plot outline in particular peter training to become a jouster.

when the article dedicates just one line to the plot outline.

We need to set out the rules clearly on this as we are getting articles with 50+ fair use images, for about as many lines of text. ed g2s • talk 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Check out List of Dawson's Creek episodes. I don't think this is fair use, but I'm not really sure. What to do? ~MDD4696 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

One could start looking at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates in an attempt to prevent this from being held up as an ideal practice. Jkelly 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That Fair use rationale is for Mr. Saturday Knight, not the list (although it is being indicated as a rationale for the list). Unluckily, there is no tag for Fair use rationale missing ({{no rationale}}). I suggest tagging them with Template:Fair use disputed, explaining in the talk page the fair use rationale is missing for a determined list. The suggestion for checking the list candidates is a good one, but there are already many precedents (like the list of Final Fantasy games). -- ReyBrujo 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

These types of Articles do tend to get excessive fair use images due to the nature of the page. These pages are not Main Wikipedia articles but rather exist to assist users in finding other articles. Those pages are called navigation pages and so serve the purpose of navigation. Due to this nature you will not find an analysis of any episode because this article links to the episodes that are being analyzed. These Images are Vital to navigation because Episodes are often identified by some memorable scene. Having a fair use image will Very much assist in the purpose of the Article: Navigation.

I have herd arguments that because these pages are not Analyzed on the page that they can’t e used as fair use Despite being used for identification purposes. Some of you seek to remove these images. However having no Images is not ideal. Is there some way to replace some of the images with free alternatives? It seems these are about a show. If it is a cartoon and we trace our own Depiction of the character would it still be fair use because it is a derivative? If it would be then there are No free alternatives and very few options. If the Episode takes place at a real place or revolves around some Item maybe we can use a fee image of the place or item to Identify the Episode. It is hard to navigate to your favorite episodes without images to identify them. When I watch a TV show and I see a screenshot of an episode I can identify that episode that way and find the episode. Since

If the Episode is about a Birthday we can replace the screenshot with a birthday

If the Episode is a Christmas special we can replace the image with a Christmas tree.

After we manage to Maximize the number of free images on the navigation page we may still have a page that is hard to navigate due to the dearth of images. Now lets get to the fair use thing. The Encyclopdidia is not a Bunch of Isolated articles but rather an Interweaved Mesh of articles. Although the Fair use images on the navigator pages Do not analyze the images themselves they are a legal fair use claim. And about the part that The images need to be evaluated. They are Evaluated on the Episodes page and these navigation pages are Meshed into those pages Via Wikilinks. So in fact the Images used on navigation pages are indeed analyzed by Child articles or sub sections and therefore Do fulfill the criteria for a critical analysis of the work at hand.

I’m not saying my Interpretation is Correct But I would at least like some of you to accept my views as a Valid View whereas we can agree to disagree on the articles and not resort to edit warring over the articles. Shouldn't the Editors of a particular article have more of a say on the article than random people dropping by for routine maintenance. It is one thing to remove fair use images but it is another thing when the issue is not so clear cut. It is still another thing if you remove the images but do not bother to reformat the article so it still looks like an article and does not require a cleanup of your edit

And the issue about Mirros. Our license Requires that mirrors can reproduce our work. With that said if we are legally using Fair use images on the Navigation pages the mirrors should have not problem reproducing the page. The only problem would happen if the mirrors Modify the page so that the images are no longer fair use. However that could happen to any article. An article on Firefox could be purged of anything other than the image and become a fair use vio, however the way they were when Wikipedia distributed them they were legally used.

Please acknowledge than you will be open to my idea and actual consider it. Don’t just reject it but see if it actually is Compatible with Wikipedia. I take it you guys aren’t trying to annoy everybody by removing fair use and I hope you won’t resort to Wikilayering or Avoid Copyright Paranoia--E-Bod 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that vision. Out of 20 episodes in a season, a determined numbers are trivial for the storyline. Who is going to determine the "best" image to recognize the chapter? In a episode in 24 a lot of things happen, usually three or four important events. Which event to choose? A list does not need images to be a good list, nor we are supposed to help the casual reader, in a single article, to define the episode and season number of something he saw but does not remember. For someone who has never watched the series, images in the list are not necessary. There are sites created to just provide the casual user an understanding of every episode, there is no need for Wikipedia to become one. However, this does not mean a list should have no images at all. Images of DVD sets, promotions for the seasons, etc, could fit the list. -- ReyBrujo 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything the Current Policy is That we are allowed to use Fair use images for identification on Lists because Every Single Media list Wikipedia:Featured lists#Media Involves Fair use Images for Navigation. Further more The problem on the Lost episode Page Right now is that page is protected. However "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version", yet The page is protected For that Very reason. If we are going TO protect Pages They need to Be tagged That Specifically says it is "an endorsement of the current page version" because Otherwise The lost Page needs Immediate Un-protection regardless of fair use because it was not Blocked by a natal Party, It was Blocked for fair use Enforcement. The problem is the edit war and Page Protections are more disruptive to Wikipedia than the use of the images because it is not a clear cut case with only one Right and Wrong Solution.--E-Bod 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarify stamp fair use

Not sure where to ask this question, but every stamp in Category:USPS large-letter greetings stamps is used to illustrate the subject of the stamp not the stamp itself. That seems contrary to what the {{USPSstamp}} says.

Are the bullet points in the template AND or OR?:

• to illustrate the stamp in question

AND

• on the English-language Wikipedia

Or is it:

• to illustrate the stamp in question

OR

• on the English-language Wikipedia

Many of the copyrighted stamps that use the {{USPSstamp}} template are using the stamps to illustrate things appearing in the stamp's design, not the stamp itself despite the words on the template, is this proper usage simply because it is on the English-language Wikipedia? Does each stamp require a separate fair use rationale? Thanks, --Dual Freq 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely AND. Copyrighted stamp images can be used to illustrate the stamp, not the subject on the stamp. A stamp with Joe Blow on it can only be used in the article on Joe Blow if the article explicitly discusses his appearance on a postage stamp. Angr (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there is a serious problem with the way it is being used here. A quick glance at Category:USPS stamps will illustrate the problem. I'd wager that most of those images are being used incorrectly to illustrate things appearing in the stamp's design, not the stamp itself. --Dual Freq 15:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

At least some of those articles are going to make some sort of big deal about the stamp issuance, I assume. If you're interested in cleaning up spurious fair use claims, I find that the least-controversial way to clean that sort of thing up is to find unused images on Wikimedia Commons to replace the unfree images here. One gets a lot less resistance when one does the extra work if tracking down another image. Jkelly 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of mass removal of stamp images, but I wanted to clarify the template meaning. I would expect that a featured article wouldn't contain an image of a stamp, just to illustrate the article as opposed to discussing the stamp. --Dual Freq 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Here: Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#Put_all_the_pictures_back. ed g2s • talk 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did. Who made up the idea COPYRIGHT VANDALISM? .tg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseeker (talk • contribs)