Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Article limits for screenshot images

I am requesting clarification on Wikipedia policy for the number of screenshots allowed per article. Someone has pointed out that if you go to the image upload page, click on "Licensing," and scroll down to "fair use," it says "Screenshots (one per article)." This was used as the reason for removing all film screenshots (except one) from the biography article on Audrey Hepburn. Yet the article on Uma Thurman (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 25, 2006) has four screenshots from different films. I note that the fair use tags {Film-screenshot} and {TV-screenshot} both state that a "limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" is considered acceptable fair use in Wikipedia articles. So what is the official policy: "one per article" or "limited number"? If it is "one per article", then the tags should be changed to state it explicitly. If it is "limited number", then the upload page should be revised. I think most editors are acting in good faith in trying to abide by "fair use" laws and Wikipedia policy, but it's these kind of inconsistencies which are driving many of us crazy. Alan Smithee 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An absolute limit of one screen-shot per article may be too restrictive, but I think I understand why someone wrote that template that way. In any case, wording in a template description does not over-ride wording in a policy or guideline. What really counts is that each usage of an unfree image be properly justified under the provisions of the Fair Use policy. I would also say that using more than one or two screen shots in any given article would need some very strong justifications. -- Donald Albury 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the instructions within the image upload page that specify "screenshots (one per article)", but the fair use tags that the user is allowed to choose from all say a "limited number" of screenshots are permitted. This is the inconsistency in guidelines that I am pointing out. I haven't added any screenshots to any article and the above articles were mentioned only as examples. Alan Smithee 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no legal basis for a "one per article" rule, although Wikipedia could adopt this as policy if they wanted. I too think there is a lack of clear guidance here -- but that's partly because fair use case law is very muddled. (Frequently one judge will rule that something is a "fair use", and a different judge will rule that a very similar use is not.) Even one screenshot per article could be a violation in some cases, but four screenshots (of different films, with different copyright holders) might not be violation in other cases, depending on how the images are used. Case law is not going to give us satisfactorily clear answers on this, so I think Wikipedia policy will have to eventually draw an arbitrary line in the sand. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frequently one judge will rule that something is a "fair use", and a different judge will rule that a very similar use is not"

Could you give some examples please - maybe the circumstances were sufficiently different to account for the discrepancy in rulings, enabling the cases to be distinguished. This may give a better insight, thus enabling Wikipedia to formulate its policies more in consonance with current legal reasoning. Also, I have asked elsewhere if Fair Use is becoming problematic for the project, because this is obviously of some considerable significance--luke 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is some discussion on an example, with commentary by someone more knowlegable than me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The limited number means that you use as little images as needed to aid the article in whatever way that the fair use rational claimed. As such, this is not a set number. For example, if you wanted to show a screen shot that showed a unique special effect, and that effect had a before and after type setup, then two images would likely be able to claim fair use. If an image is being used to show a character.. then really only one is needed. If the first image does what the second image does, then the second image is not needed. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

True. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove Amendment2 notice?

It has been over a month since comments were made on amendment 2 and it doesn't seem to have wide acceptance. --Trödel 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For those of us who weren't here, what are you referring to? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. howcheng {chat} 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, there seems to be more discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD covers on actors pages

There's been a bit of contention on the Yes Minister talk page over this, so could I ask a third party(ies) to take a look at my disputed tag at Image:Yes-Minister-DVD-3.jpg. Cheers. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not a lawyer, I do work with fair use on a regular basis in my work life, and I feel that Wikipedia's rules about fair use have come to incorporate facets that are in no way part of the actual legal definition of fair use. The worry about a cover image is used to illustrate an article about the movie or book whose cover it is vs. something depicted in the book or cover, for example--this is not something that is considered in the four factors the Supreme Court says are to be considered in determining fair use:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

WP is a non-commercial, nonprofit educational purpose, so it always comes out well on the first point. (WP wants its stuff to be reusable by anyone, though, so fair use can't stand on this alone.)

The nature of the copyrighted work of course varies, but having a cover image implies publication, which is one of the things that points towards fair use in this context.

As for "amount and substantiality", I find it extremely hard to imagine a company winning a case saying that reproducing a reduced image of a cover violates fair use--given that the cover is the part of the work designed to be seen by people who have not bought the work.

And the effect upon the market for or value of the copyrighted work would have to be seen as positive, given that by their nature covers are designed to be promotional. Again, it's very hard to imagine a company successfully claiming that their sales were hurt by the distribution of the image that they use to sell their product.

None of the four factors seem to require any kind of relationship between the use and the product. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm still quite skeptical as to the legal basis for the elborate rules WP has developed around fair use. Nareek 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nareek confuses educational uses with educational users when he claims Wikimedia Foundation "always comes out well" in claims that it can fairly use copyrighted material for educational purposes. To establish educational use, a defendant must show specific educational use in a specific context. A mere claim that "I'm an educator" is not a license to use copyrighted material. Material can be used in an educational context to boost the reputation or appeal of the educational institution, but may have no specific educational purpose. An image of an attractive actress might make a biology text more appealing to students, but a school cannot, without permission, fairly use copyrighted images of an actress' body to educate youth about the human body.

Nareek demonstrates an ill-informed imagination when claiming reproductions of the cover of an artistic work are intended to be seen "by those who have not bought the work." The cover of a book or musical recording is part of an item purchased by the end consumer. That the portion may be available for inspection in limited contexts prior to purchase does not make it freely usable by anyone regardless of copyright. Part of the marketer's privilage is to dictate in what markets their product appears. Restricting appearances to franchise stores, or to presentations by other consumers who appreciated the cover well enough to pay for it can indeed enhance marketability. Further, publication of material outside a preferred market can have a negative effect on marketability. For example, if a company decided to publish its book covers alongside those less colorful covers of a competitor's books, the use might negatively impact the unwilling publisher's sales. It is merely Nareek's limited imagination that presumes covers of books and musical recordings are primarily intended as a merchant's best effort to market their product.

Likewise, it is merely Nareek's opinion that "the effect upon the market for or value of the copyrighted work would have to be seen as positive." As stated above, there is no basis for Nareek's assumption that covers are designed primarly for marketing purposes and not as part of an artistic presentation, and that reproduction can "only be seen" as enhancing marketing efforts. Covers depicting gruesome monsters might be part of a book or recording designed for a youth market, but depiction of those covers to parents might discourage purchases and impair marketing. Availability of those images outside a select market could discourage buyers from purchasing the item. Impairment of exclusivity to market franchises can impair sales.

Finally, Nareek's claim that contexts presented by publication of certain images in Wikipedia are "not something that is considered in the four factors the Supreme Court says are to be considered" demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for how precedent is applied. He may consider, for example, whether an image of an aircraft painted in a motif designed by Peter Max may be used to illustrate an educational article about aircraft. It may not, without permission from Max, because it depicts the unique artistic style of Peter Max. Likewise, an illustration of a rose on the cover of a book might well illustrate an educational article about roses, but it may not be fairly used because it exploits the creative work of a photographer or artist who arranged the image that so well depicts a rose.

If this is all too complex, there is a shorter version. Keep your hands out of my pockets.Prochin 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When I read those four points as stated by the Supreme Court, I really have to agree with Nareek; I really don't see a reason why an actor page shouldn't depict (small versions of) DVD covers. Prochin, I'm really sorry, but I really fail to understand how some people have such a hard time grasping the essence and purpose of such a policy, and manage to bend it to their twisted logic even if the criteria for applying the policy are spelled out literally.

• The purpose is clearly non commercial
• Certainly when smaller versions of DVD covers are shown, the DVD covers are NOT a substantial part of the "copyrighted product as a whole"
• Certainly when smaller versions of DVD covers are shown, I really don't see how showing them would have any negative effects on the DVD market.

RagingR2 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Keep your hands out of my pocket" is a poor summary of fair-use law. The basic premise of copyright is that it's a limited exception to the general rule that people can publish whatever they want, in order to encourage the arts and sciences. Fair use is part of the limit on that exception. We have as much right to fair use of copyrighted images as the copyright holder does--so long as we stay within the boundaries of fair use as defined by the courts.

The main point I wanted to make about the first factor is that you can have an educational context that is different from the context of the copyrighted work. If I xerox the cover of a Velvet Underground record to illustrate what a banana looks like for a school class, that's an educational context, even though I'm not trying to teach the class anything about proto-punk groups.

Now that's just one factor--the educational context doesn't make the work fair use by itself. If there's a guy who makes his living selling his photographs of bananas, and I grab one of his photos and put it in my non-profit, educational encyclopedia because I want to show people what a banana looks like, that's most likely not fair use--because I'm doing damage to his market for banana photographs.

It is true that if I'm doing a story about banana photographers, and I use a reduced picture of one of his photographs to illustrate his particular banana-photographing style, then I do have a good fair use claim. So the relationship between the educational use and the copyrighted material can be important. But such a relationship is not inherent in the four factors that define fair use. (Again, I'm not a lawyer. If someone is a lawyer and wants to set me straight, go right ahead and do so.)

The kind of impact on market value that comes from having your copyrighted material exposed to comparison and criticism is not what that factor is referring to. You're not going to get anywhere making a legal claim that by quoting your book in a negative review, somebody caused people to stop buying your book.

The bottom line is, based on the four-factor test, I would be very surprised if anyone had ever made a successful case that a use of a reduced cover image in an educational context was not fair use. If anyone knows case law to the contrary, it would be a real service to Wikipedia to produce it. Nareek 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about this, Nareek, but it's irrelevant. Either way, it is against Wikipedia policy, even if it's not against U.S. law, to use album covers in this way. (As an aside, it is unlikely that Wikipedia would be deemed "educational" (as the term pertains to copyright) in a court of law. The law has in the past limited "educational" claims to accredited schools.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is subject to debate and change, of course. In this case I think it would be unwise to change the policy without legal advice--not just from a lawyer, but from lawyers who specialize in copyright and First Amendment issues. I do think it's worth seeking such advice, because there's a real cost in passing up allowable fair uses that would increase the educational value of Wikipedia.

I do not believe it's true that accredited schools have a special status under copyright law. Nareek 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Back Jacket Cover

• Often, the back jacket cover of book covers will have a photo of the author, along with a biographical description of the author. Would not a low-resolution of these types of images fall under the same fair-use-rationale as that of low-resolution book covers themselves? Thank you for your time, Smeelgova 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Reuters image

I've proposed a "fair use" photograph from Reuters for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 2. IfD doesn't usually get much attention so I thought I'd advertise it here, I hope that's all right. Haukur 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portal-namespace

Hi, I've been under the impression that having a fair use image illustrating a selected article in a portal namespace when no other images were available would qualify as fair use, for the same reason that they're sometimes included in the featured article blurbs on the main page: the lead section clearly talks about the thing in question and the picture is used for identification. However, someone removed the image from the selected article section in the Film Portal (in this diff) citing the fair use policy, which doesn't specifically cover this use, so I figured it was better to ask here. Can they be used or not? There often isn't a fair use image available for either film or actor articles. - Bobet 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Legally, there's no problem with it. But unfortunately, it's Wikipedia policy to not allow "fair use" images outside of the Wikipedia article namespace. So no, you can't use fair use images in the portal namespace. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I'm asking is because it seemed to me to be something that wasn't thought much about before, and therefore never instigated discussion on the policy. Like you said, there shouldn't be a legal problem with it and it qualifies as fair use per the tags on the image pages themselves. I can't think of a single good reason to include fair use images in templates, categories, wikipedia (outside of today's featured article), help or mediawiki namespaces, they could never be needed for identification or analysis there (and I'm assuming you meant the article namespace above). The portals are more closely related to single articles, and actually talk about the subject in question. I'm mostly curious about if fair use in portals was even mentioned before and the status of the current policy just omits it because of a lack of discussion. - Bobet 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the policy does say "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)". Determining whether there is "broad consensus" is tough. Maybe start an RFC on the matter, or a widely publicized poll? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There were also images removed from selected articles in the Narnia Portal. I also am of the thinking that FU images should be included in the Portal namespace, as their primary purpose is to identify the selected article, which, if arousing enough interest in the reader, will lead him or her to the actual article namespace, in which the images have already been classified as appropriate. Within the article namespace is also the critical commentary, as mentioned in WP:FU#Images, only for which certain types of images (promotional, screenshots) are allowed. The selected article is just a mini-version of the article, which happens to fall into a different namespace. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was actually hoping that people who read this talk page would have more input on this, since they are the ones most likely to have insight regarding fair use in Wikipedia. Do you think the fact that this hasn't received more comments even though a lot of people have edited the talk page can be used as an indication that there really aren't any easily-conceived reasons to oppose? - Bobet 10:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't rely see any huge problem with it as long as they are otherwise used in a proper way (in article summaries, not to decorate the portal or in galleries of "featured images"). Seems like a reasonable exception to consider. --Sherool (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So… what should be done to get it considered for an exception? Where does this need to be brought up? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest creating a proposed amendment to the policy for it, then seeing how much of a consensus it gets.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using copyrighted images to identify a selected article. Whatever it is you mean by "identifying an article" can most certainly be done in a number of ways (including without using an image at all) and so is not an essential use of copyrighted material. ed g2s • talk 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "identify" I took straight from the guidelines itself, how certain types of images can be used for identification and/or for critical commentary. In this context, I mean "identify the article" as in the mini-picture that accompanies the article, like on the Main Page. In fact, it's serving the same function in the Portal namespace as, in today's featured article, the image of Operation Ten-Go is on the Main Page. It's doing the exact same thing, simply in a different namespace. That's what I don't get – I don't think it should matter what the prefix name of the page is, it should depend solely on the context, and I believe images should accompany "selected"/"feature" articles no matter where they are on Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that it would apply just as well to the article namespace, and the instances when fair use images are used on today's featured article on the main page. I can think of very few instance where fair use images (or any images, or a lot of text) are essential to an article, yet they are still used, and there's even a policy covering this use. The question is: why is the portal namespace different in this regard?- Bobet 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The following was moved from a section below, as to prevent a weird discussion fork. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it possible to include fair use images (like the coverart) to accompany our featured articles on Portal:Computer and video games when this seems to be no problem on the main page:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2004
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 12, 2005
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 26, 2006
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2005

... All fair use in Wikipedia namespace that have been used with these templates as the featured article on the main page. Is there some kind of exception that fair use cannot be outside the article namespace exept the main page? Isn't the main page just another portal? jaco♫plane 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh in fact the main page is in the article namespace. But yes it is generaly consideredd to be an exception althoughe of course fair use should be used spairingly.Geni 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main page might be in the article namespace (but really, it's just a portal), but the templates that I mentioned above (which were transcluded on the main page) are definitely not. So... How about I transclude these very templates in Portal space, would that be ok? jaco♫plane 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because then you'd be using them in a portal. Fair Use on the main page is a problem, but two wrongs don't make a right. ed g2s • talk 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the point. A portal is nothing more than a way to display the articles, so I don't see why the fair use rational doesn't apply there as well. The images in question have not been separated from their text. This seems to be an objection out of technicality rather than logic. There's no reason to object to fair use images in the portal namespace. -- Ned Scott 22:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Portal:Dragonlance has also experienced these issues, because we were using a selected mini-blurb every week (41 total), with fair use pictures on them. Looking at this discussion, the yes's and no's seem to be about even, so I'm introducing a poll(below), to help see what are the opinions.

Since I am here, opinions are always the same: "We want images in templates", "We want images in lists", "We want images everywhere". Thus, these kind of polls will always give the same result, as people who don't agree rarely "vote" as polls don't change policy. If you want to modify it, create an amendment, where you will get response from everyone, including those who stay away from polls. -- ReyBrujo 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean take it to WP:RFC. I'm not really acquainted with that aspect of Wikipedia so much, what exactly has to go in the "amendment"? Perhaps somebody more involved with RFC would take it up? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a poll is a perfectly valid way to see if there is consensus to ammend the policy. Everyone is welcome to participate and there is no reason to shop around for a different forum to discuss this. Johntex\^talk 04:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss, don't vote summarizes everything pretty well. Also, when you have a strong policy, people are most likely to want weaker rules, which I understand. The problem is that the policy suggest a determined behaviour regarding a gray legal area in order to stay as away from it as possible. The modifications that have been suggested at Fair use images in lists and now here bring the policy much closer to that gray area. You don't need to forget that, while policies like No personal attacks, Verifiability or What Wikipedia is not are relatively easy to modify in order to add or remove restrictions, this one has a legal background which makes things not as straightforward as with the previously mentioned ones. -- ReyBrujo 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The poll is just to see if we want to take this to the next step in the process, but not being the process itself. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there appears to be support to continue the process, I'm submitting this to RfC to get some more ideas on this.ddcc 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so nobody ever answered my original question... why is it ok to display fair use images on the main page? I'm not really advocating policy change, but if fair use images are being used on templates on the main page, it just seems that administrators have little credibility when they attempt to remove them from other portals. jaco♫plane 02:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'd say we definitely have a case at RFC, no? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Portals are by their very nature a non-essential part of the encyclopeda. No matter how good a Fair Use claim is, we can still make do with portals without images. The argument for allowing Fair Use in articles is that certain articles would make no sense without them and that they are therefore essential. Yes the main page is basically a portal and we really shouldn't use Fair Use on it, and it is recommended that it not be done, but two wrongs don't make a right. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's really the policy of Wikipedia to use only essential images, then we should get rid of 99 percent of all images, because the vast majority of articles would be comprehensible without any images at all. If we want to include fair use images that are not essential but helpful to the encyclopedia's educational mission, then thumbnails are one type of fair use that has particularly strong legal protection. Nareek 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, people just like uploading images of high resolution even when there are free version available. I would like that tagging an image would put it automatically in deletion in 2/6 months, and encourage uploaders to replace it with a free version. -- ReyBrujo 17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Created an amendment, see here. I've introduced some more restrictions, noticeably that the image must be used in one article outside portal namespace, to prevent blatant uploading, and added some other obvious criteria, including the ones stated by TKD below. Also submitted to village pump. ddcc 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Agree with fair use images in portals

• Agree: The fair use images in the Dragonlance portal and also in the film portal are used to introduce and explain something related to the topic of the portal, essentially a mini-article. ddcc 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree: As I have stated above, featured articles are essentially extracts from real articles. They happen to fall under a different namespace, but the content is no different. It seems unfounded and generally bizarre to disallow images in portals simply because of their "namespace." I will stipulate, however, that images should only be used for selected articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as long as fair use images are still accompanied by the significant portion of text that the image relates to. -- Ned Scott 23:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as long as fair use requirements are met. The Portals are meant to be read by readers (as opposed to being working spaces primarily used by editors) therefore images are just as likely to be "fair use" on portals as in articles. Johntex\^talk 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Case law would seem to support such use as being fair:

A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).) [1]

• Agree This is more or less a joke. I think we should a firm policy, either way, since there are some portals with removed images, but featured portals, with fair use images intact! I know that isn't the point, but I belive FUI should be allowed in portals, since "portals are for not only editors, but readers" (someone said that, I think it was TitoXD) and there is no reason why something intended for readers of the enclyopedia should not contain images which would improve quality, because it has "Portal:" at the start of the title? Thought not, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as long as the same standards apply as in article space. Fairsing 02:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree provided that (1) there are no free alternatives for the article in question; (2) the selected image is still relevant to the excerpted prose; and (3) the prose excerpt is at least the length of a typical FA blurb (a substantial paragraph), not a one-line "in-the-news" or "did-you-know" item. — TKD::Talk 10:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Good points, I think that would help pass this, if we had portal image regulations. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 10:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree per restrictions by TKD. See also previous talk: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Fair_Use_Images. feydey 11:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, per TKD. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Gronky 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Above poll cancelled - new poll underway

Hello, it was deemed more proper to conduct a new poll on the Amendment page. Please see Wikipedia:Fair_use/Amendment/Fair_use_images_in_portals and join the discussion! Thanks! Johntex\^talk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Repeatability" criterion

Further to discussion on IRC channels between Jimbo Wales and verious admins and editors a review of how well (or otherwise) 'fair use' is working resulted in the changes just made. Effectively, even though an image, etc. may meet a strict application of the legal terms for fair use it was felt that images are being adding which could easily be replaced by free and open content which would be far more useful to Wikipedia projects in the long term than the restrictions imposed upon the re-use of fair use images. Such things as car publicity shots, buildings and current events will not, in future, receive a blanket clearance for 'fair use' and editors are asked to replace such images as soon as possible. The criterion that will be applied in future will be that of 'repeatability', ie can the same image - or one which supplies the same information - be taken by someone now. An historical event clearly cannot be, but a picture of a building or car certainly can be. --AlisonW 13:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand for apple or Great Blue Heron. I even understand for people who could reasonably be photographed. But I'm unsure about people (and things) which it would be very difficult to photograph. How about a photo of a celebrity, such as a pop singer? It's very difficult, yet hypothetically possible, to take your own photo of, say, Prince or Madonna. How about Thomas Pynchon, who has managed to avoid being photographed since 1957? Or for that matter, the Black Stone, for which it would be a death sentence to photograph? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Already some images have been removed (mostly cars and buildings) and it is hoped that the 'fair use' images we presently have of celebrities and entertainers will be replaced over time. Clearly some (Elvis, for example) will be difficult to obtain new images of! The clarification is not intended to give a blanket permission to particular types or classes of images, not to completely ban a type or class. --AlisonW 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the currently used unfree images of cars, celebrities and buildings be deleted? Should only the ones uploaded after this clarification (September 9) be promplty deleted? --Abu Badali 10:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, and those that can more easily be replaced (current cars, buildings) sooner than later, but all will need to be eventually in the interest of having an open and free Wikipedia. Whilst this 'clarification' has only recently been added it is only making more explicit a requirement that has always been there and the date of upload of an image makes no difference to our Fair Use policy. --AlisonW 12:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I suggest the addition of a new counter-exmaple to WP:FU#Counterexamples for the case of celebrities image, (as this seems to be one of the most problematic issues). The counterexample 9 could read: "An image of a living public person used to show how this person looks like.".

The counter-example is important so that we have something to point people directly at, as poiting to item #1 of WP:FUC ("No free equivalent is available or could be created...") is usually not enough for a large number of editors. --Abu Badali 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --AlisonW 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, though I don't see anything new here. We've certainly never had a blanket clearance for fair use of current events pictures. See User:Haukurth/Reuters for a bunch I orphaned yesterday. Haukur 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In essence there is nothing new, merely a clarification that copyrighted images that may have been considered acceptable by some in the past are no longer fine. There is no blanket clearance of any type or class of image, "event" images continue to be a class that may meet other criteria if it was not possible to obtain a free and open image. --AlisonW 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also just tidied up the content of the page as there were some content duplications. --AlisonW 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Atomium under fair use?

Can images of the Atomium in Brussels be used under fair use in the English-language Wikipedia? --84.61.41.109 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, if an editor was to go to the Atomium and take a photograph of it that could provide Wikipedia (en: and commons:) with a free image and not require 'fair use' to come into play. --AlisonW 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

that isn't the case. The sculpture is protected by copyright with the result that it is imposible to create a free image. However I feel that it is likely that a fair use case could be made.Geni 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Nuisance, then. Copyrights in architecture and sculpture which are visible by the public from a public-accessible location seem specific to only some jurisdictions (I believe a similar ruling applies on public buildings in France?). I think it is necessary to separate an image of the Atomium into two parts then. An image taken afresh by an editor would, for me, be acceptable under a fair use defence, but using an image taken, for example, by a photographer on behalf of the Atomium (ie copyright in the image as well as the subject) would probably not be. Proof, I suppose, that there are always edge cases to our rules. --AlisonW 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

geni is right. Under current law the Atomium will not enter the public domain until January 1st 2076. Haukur 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that the pre the renovation or post the renovation?Geni 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two copyrights to be concerned with here: the copyright of the photo, and the copyright of the sculpture. If we use Adam's photo of Betty's sculpture, then the photo is copyrighted to Adam, but it's also a "derivative work" of Betty's sculpture, so our use of the photo has to take both copyrights into account. So far as Betty's copyright is concerned, there's no way to illustrate the article on Betty's sculpture without creating a derivative work, so a fair use claim can be made. But so far as Adam's copyright is concerned, there's no reason a Wikipedian couldn't take a photo of the sculpture - so a fair use claim would fail when considering Adam's copyright. We should find or create a free-license photo of the sculpture, and also claim fair use with respect to the original artist's copyright. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's important to also note that Quadell's scenario only applies to certain countries (including Belgium, as in this case, and the US). Commons:Derivative works has more information. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - and that's a subtle point frequently not understood. See my problems at Image:NI murals NI football.jpg for example. Haukur 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In the United States and many other countries photographs of publicly displayed buildings are explicitly allowed regardless of the copyright status of the architectural design. See [2] for the US and [3] for Germany. I think we should probably make a special template for images like this which explain that in some countries their copyright status is in question, though in some it is protected. --Fastfission 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fastfission, we should create an special template for those images, and upload in the local projects only, not commons. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

news magazine

When a newsmagazine features a person on the cover that means the magazine's editors have made a decision about the person's importance. That decision is what is represented by Wiki's use of the image--we do not crop the image to show just the face, we use the entire cover to show that TIME or NEWSWEEK (etc) has proclaimed importance. Thus the showing of the whole cover falls under Wiki's fair use rules. Rjensen 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid a "fair use" claim requires more than just that the subject be important. There are several requirements at WP:FUC, and we must satisfy all of them in order to use the image, regardless of how important the subject is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the legal tests for us to defend a claim of Fair Use include "The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work.". In this instance it could possibly be argued against us that our use of such a cover did detract from the copyright holder's use of the material. --AlisonW 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Magazines are sold as entire copies, not merely the cover--that is because their income comes from the ads inside. It seems extremely unlikely TIME will lose sales of this week's edition of the magazine because people can get a free cover from 1956. TIME does sell back covers--they sell a full-size reproduction rather than the tiny version. TIME of course gives away free the miniature version Wiki uses, placing a commercial value of zero on it. 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All of that may well be the case, and what TIME chooses to do with its *copyrighted* front page image is its choice. Still doesn't make it a 'free' image though nor 'fair use' in most circumstances. --AlisonW 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes use of covers fair use according to Wiki policy. What circumstance would it not be fair use???? Rjensen 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:FUC. The use of this cover to illustrate the New York City skyline would not be fair use, for example, since anyone could take a photo of the skyline. Neither would using this photo to illustrate New Orleans, since, again, anyone could take a photo of the post-Katrina wreckage in NO. Or this to illustrate teenager. In fact, there are very few TIME magazine covers that could pass WP:FUC. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is this: if a newsmagazine makes an event or person newsworthy, then that historic editorial decision by the magazine is the key. For Wiki to use the cover to show the event/preson was considered newswortrhy at the time fits the Wiki criteria exactly. For example, a different picture would NOT convey the point that TIME decided the event was newsworthy. Again, it is nonsense to say that a 1956 cover will make a person NOT buy the current 2006 issue. Rjensen 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that newsworthiness is only one factor. We also have to look at other factors when determining fair use. Of course it's newsworthy if TIME puts in on the cover, but we can only use an image if it passes all ten criteria listed at WP:FUC. If it's newsworthy, but it's a high-res scan, then it fails criterion 3. If it's newsworthy, but it doesn't add anything significant to the article, then it fails criterion 8. If it was used to illustrate the subject itself, and not to illustrate the fact that the subject was on the cover of Time, then it fails criterion 1. That last point is an important and subtle point, but I don't feel like going into it with you until we can agree on a basic fact: Wikipedia policy demands that a "fair use" image follow all ten points at WP:FUC, and not just that the image be "newsworthy". – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes using a historic TIME cover to prove a person/event/topic was considered newsworthy by the experts (TIME editors) at that point in time fits all 10 criteria. (We're not talking about hi-res scans but the sort of reduced pixel images that TIME itself gives away. I have not seen any actual uses in Wiki that don't fit--are there real examples???? Rjensen 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. To pick one example, this image was removed from the Mohammed Mossadegh article. It had been used as the lead image for the article, and was simply being used to show what Mossadegh looked like. If this image had been used in a section of the article that dealt with the fact that Time made him their "man of the year", and if the caption said something to that effect, then it would probably have been a fair use of the image. But since it was only being used to show what he looked like, it was deemed to not be a fair use. So a free image was used in its place. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in counterexamples list

I believe No. 8 on this list -- that FU can't be used to show what a person looks like MUST be vandalism. I have never seen anything so stupid in my life. And I don't recall seeing this example the last time I read this list. If this is a new rule then it pretty well means every single image of a person on Wikipedia needs to be deleted and it's one step towards a full ban on images which I've been predicting for awhile. I'd like to think this is a rational place, however, so I must assume that it is vandalism. 23skidoo 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

we have lots of free images of living people.Geni 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and refrain from hyperbole.

First off, we're not talking about all images. We're not talking about all images of people. We're talking about unfree images of people. Nearly every Wikipedia besides the English one gets by just fine without "fair use" images, and if the English Wikipedia decided not to use "fair use" images too, we'd get by fine as well. But we're not deciding that. We're merely talking about what our fair use policy is. So let's discuss this rationally and non-sarcasticly.

As for your specific concern, please read the first criterion at WP:FUC. This says that we can't use an unfree image if a free image could be made that would provide the same information. If Wikipedia has an article on Person X, and we want to provide an image for it to show what Person X looks like, can we use someone else's copyrighted photo to do so? The answer is no, and the reason is that a Wikipedian could take a photo of Person X and release it under a free license. A free replacement could be made that provides the same information.

Now there are exceptions, of course. If the person is dead, then we can't well take a new picture of him, so a free replacement isn't possible. If the image shows the person at a non-reproduceable event, then we can use that photo (so long as the image article discusses the event, and the image is used to show the person there). But in that case, the image isn't being used to show "what a person looks like".

If you don't like the policy, I'm sorry. I didn't create the policy, and I didn't add No. 8 on this list. But I support the policy as a good way to keep Wikipedia safe from lawsuits, and to encourage the creation of free images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:AlisonW did that in this edit. I agree that the wording is ambiguous and should be clarified. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use on Wikipedia in other languages

In a thread above Quadell said: Nearly every Wikipedia besides the English one gets by just fine without "fair use" images. I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Many people find it very hard to accept having no images in articles like Tintin or Pokémon and the articles do look rather drab. At any given moment an article on the other Wikipedias on a subject like that is reasonably likely to have a copyvio/fairuse image. See here for an example I removed or de:Pikachu and de:Lara Croft for rather silly attempts to get illustrations of these copyrighted fictional characters into their respective articles by hook or by crook. And this is from the German Wikipedia which is generally well administered - I could show you much worse from some of the smaller ones. Haukur 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that some Wikipedias do allow fair use, the one in my native tongue, for example. See is:Star Trek or is:Thích Quảng Đức for examples. Haukur 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec) If the image is used following the criteria, there is no problem having them. Unluckily, most times people just stamp their images becuase they look "cool", or because the article is too long and needs more images. The Vegeta article had, at one time, around 50 images: Vegeta standing, Vegeta crouched, Vegeta jumping, Vegeta eating, Vegeta sleeping. That is abuse. The faster people undertand it is not possible to just upload and stick an image to an article, the less discussions we will be having about this topic. -- ReyBrujo 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I know some Wikipedias have copyright violations, as do we. But as I understand it, very few Wikipedias have an actual policy of allowing "fair use" images. But if I'm wrong, point out those policies and let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, starting with the big languages the Italian Wikipedia has a fairly liberal fair use policy. Some categories to browse: [4][5][6] Haukur 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Acording to meta:Fair use only FR, ID, RU and SR allow fair use, but it seems to be a bit out of date... --Sherool (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Useful link, nevertheless! We should also keep in mind that even languages which say they disallow fair use may still allow images which could only be used on :en: under a fair use claim - the German one allows logos, for example (as in de:Pokemon), under what may be a rather generous interpretation of German law on the creative threshold. Haukur 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The links I looked at in IS; though they could be fair use images in EN, the fair use tags that were used seem to become red links now. Plus, I am in the process of getting one Wikipedia, the Chechen one, to not use image uploads period, so the list that allows fair use is going to shrink. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* That T'Pol image on :is: was uploaded by a bureaucrat/developer and has stood unchallenged for a long time, I think the fairuse template may simply never have been created. Haukur 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed [7] Haukur 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe every ruling that allows to circumvent copyright must be used in our quest for providing more information. If there was a country where there are no copyright rules, the wise move would be to move Wikipedia servers into that country and allow all images. So, these Wikipedias that prohibit fair use only make it harder for their readers to get necessary info. If I'm reading an article I don't give a damn whether an image is free or not. If it adds to the article, it's fine with me.  Grue  06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine if we only wanted people in that one country to be eable to use our content. However seeing as Wikipedia's goal is to allow the maximum number of people possible to be eable to use our content the only solution is keep the amount of unfree material to a bare minimum. If material from enWiki is to be published outside the US for example they already have to either remove virtualy all fair use material (a few limited things might be allowed under various exceptinos in local laws, but nothing exactly like fair use exist in most countries) or obtain special permission for using each and every image. So clearly relying heavily on fair use and other "loopholes" that only exist on one or two countries in the world is a Bad Thing when the project goal is free content and maximum reusability. --Sherool (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They'll also have to chuck out a whole lot of 'free' images because a big proportion of them is only in the public domain in the US. Haukur 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not rely, most other countries (unlike the US) follow the rule that if something is public domain in the country of origin then they consider it public domain too. There are a couple of exceptions though wich is why the tag says it may not be PD everywhere, but by and large {{PD-US}} stuff is also PD in most of the world too, at least if it was first published in the US. --Sherool (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing prevents accessing Wikipedia from any country (except China and so on, but that's not because of fair use). Nothing stops you from looking at these pictures from any point in the world. Removing pictures from an article before reproducing it is trivial. So, what's your point again?  Grue  12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there is more to the Wikimedia projects than creating some good looking website. A big part of our mission have always been to create free content that is reusable to anyone. So saying "screw reusers" and using every excuse to pile up on the unfree images goes against the very core values the project is founded upon. If you want to set up an online ensyclopedia project in Iran or somesuch place with few or no copyright treaties you are welcome to try, but don't expend Wikimedia to do so. --Sherool (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like

I believe this point should be removed. This would fall under the "purpose and character of the use." Using a low-res copyrighted image of a living person in an article about the person greatly enhances the character of the article and should be allowed.

Also, there is a belief that getting an image of a living person is "easy." It is not that easy. If it is, I invite the folks making those claims to start providing images. -Nv8200p talk 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be easy. See User:Garion96/Images. Garion96 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed above. According to the first criterion at WP:FUC, we can not use a copyrighted image if a free image could be made that conveys the same information. Whether it can be created "easily" is not the point. I do agree, though, that these images enhance the articles they are in, and it's unfortunate that we can't use any picture we want, but we just can't. We're still bound be criterion 1 of WP:FUC, which comes from a decision made by Jimbo Wales. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the Publicity Photo criteria in Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images is incorrect for living persons. Right? That needs to be changed. There are a lot of fair use images of living people that need to be deleted, I guess. -Nv8200p talk 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I know there was a discussion of cleaning up that category. But would this point indeed mean to delete all (or close to all) publicity photo's? Garion96 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

since it probably contians more copyvios and poor fair use claims that anything else we are likely going to have to do that in time.Geni 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also accept the invitation. Take a look at my uploads at commons. --Abu Badali 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs about how easy it is to get freely licensed images of living people are likely to be based entirely on what types of articles one usually edits. If it is articles about United States federal politicians, it is extremely easy. If it is African novelists, it is extremely difficult. We're just going to have to get (back?) into the habit of writing nice polite letters requesting that people donate freely licensed media. Jkelly 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and as Jimbo pointed out, we're big enough now that most people will oblige. ed g2s • talk 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All right. You guys have made a believer out of me. I'll start looking for more free images and deleting (or nominatng for deletion) fair use use images, (starting with my own). Doing that should increase my hate mail substantially! -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said creating a free-and-open-to-reuse content encyclopedia was going to be easy. To do the right thing is also to do the sometimes difficult thing. --AlisonW 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An artist's rendering could be made based on an analysis of several photos, as such an image would not be a simple retracing of a fair-use image - thus, it is an original work, and no copyright is violated. Another method would be to indicate the person as a figure, then surround him or her with his or her life's work and/or what makes him or her notable in an artistic and informative manner. 204.52.215.107 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could I raise a point. Suppose we are trying to obtain an image for Fanny Craddock (an article for which it seems there used to be an image, but no longer) Now if she were a living person we could ask her for a freely licensed picture, but I strongly suspect she would object to that article and how she is portrayed and would therefore refuse to supply one. Another person, say Aaron Beck might not have such objections. So articles will, over time, tend to be 'enhanced' with an image where the 'celebrity' approves of her/his portrayal. Is that right?--luke 08:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a photo is not the only way to get one, in fact, most of our free photos of celebrities are not acquired this way. ed g2s • talk 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Tightening up on fair use will mean this particular image source will assume extra significance, and this means the issue, to some extent, becomes more problematic. Earlier in this topic thread (16:46, 13 September 2006) it was said:- 'I do agree, though, that these images enhance the articles they are in, and it's unfortunate that we can't use any picture we want, but we just can't.'

'We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.'--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

Of course the problem is still there (although it should inevitably be less significant overall) if we do have full fair use. However, is it not right that if we were simply to disallow any photos of living 'celebrities' then the problem is quietly eliminated, and we'll have a more level playing field for this type of biograhical article. Then there can be no question of the more flattering bios tending to become enhanced with an image in this way over time. Another possibility could be to completely disallow freely licensed images provided by, or on behalf of, the subject of the biography. But perhaps this could become the subject of dispute, so maybe an overall ban is the clearest and most equitable option--luke 07:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Translating non-English Quotes

Has the issue of how to tag a (properly attributed) quote that has been translated from the source into English been addressed here? If so, please point me to it. If not, please advise. Thanks. Lethiere 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this has to do with fair use policy. My suggestion would be to put the original in a footnote. --Fastfission 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you reword that question? It's not really clear what you want to know. If the issue is about attributing the translator as well as the original source (when the translation is copied from a published source), then yes, you should probably do that. If it's about a quote you translated yourself, Wikipedia:Citing sources says: "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." - Bobet 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My question concerns the latter. I translated the text into English and originally inserted it in a Block quote within parentheses immediately following the original French. But it seemed likely that a reader would glance past a large quote in a foreign language, so I switched the two. But the doubled size of the blockquote still seems massive. I'm uneasy about deleting or re-locating it because 1. Nowhere is it stated that the text is translated (let alone by me, and though I don't crave credit I don't want to give the appearance of having anonymously altered the author's words); and 2. I would actually prefer that the original be visible so that other editors can better my translation and/or readers can verify it. I like the idea of putting the original in the footnotes (I'd like to add more translated quotes) -- are there examples of this being done in other Wiki articles? If I mark the French as "original version" in the footnote, is that adequate notice that the blockquote is a translation? The article in question is at Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. Lethiere 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scans of a Toy's Package

Hi! I'm a wikipedia newbie, but I have created a Wikipedia article for an old, 1980's toy line called R.A.T.S.. I scanned the back of one of the toy's packages which featured a sort of "cast line-up" for the line. I uploaded the image, however, it was deleted (User_talk:Botch_the_Crab), apparently for violating. The deleter, User:DVD_R_W, suggested that I inquire on this page about the Fair Use aspects of the picture. Looking over the Wikipedia:Fair_Use page, I see many similar items, such as Promotional, or Gamecover, or Character-artwork, etc. However, I cannot honestly find a tag that exactly corresponds with "toy package art".

Help! Is there some category into which this should probably fit? I just can't see why this wouldn't be allowed. (Please forgive me if I'm going about this wrong, I am agog at the meta-workings of Wikipedia.) Botch the Crab 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no special tag for toys. Note that the Fair Use for today's Featured Article, Jabba the Hutt, uses a Promotional tag. What I use at times is a "fairuse|articlename" tag.

It's also important to say why, in your own words, you believe it to be Fair Use. I have a little Notepad file template that I paste in and fill out. It goes like this:

Although this is still under copyright, inclusion here qualifies for Fair Use under US Copyright law because:

• It is used for a non-commercial and educational purpose. (<=we are an encyclopedia)
• It is representative of the work (<= explain why here)
• It is only a small part of the overall work (<= This is usually appropriate)
• It will not devalue the commercial viability of the copyright. (<=a scan of a toy package definitely will not devalue the package)

Hope this helps, Madman 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your template is missing a few critical bits. In particular, you need to explain why it won't reduce the value of the copyrighted work, and you need to explain why it isn't possible to find or make a free-license replacement. --Carnildo 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just too much of a newbie, but I still don't really have an understanding of how I need to tag this image. I appreciate everyone trying to teach me how to fish instead of fishing for me, and I appreciate that no one answer may be 100% corrent, but I would be indebted if somebody would possibly just give me an example of "when you upload the image, put exactly this" and then maybe explain why? And then, I promise, next time I will fish for myself. Botch the Crab 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A new record? 11 Fair Use images in 1 article

I note that today's Featured Article, Jabba the Hutt, has 11 Fair Use images. In fact, every image in the article is tagged Fair Use. Woohoo! Is this a new record? Do Featured Articles get some sort of dispensation, or can I add 11 Fair Use images to my articles too?? Madman 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is nowhere near a record, we probably still have articles with ten times that number. It is worth noting that Jabba the Hutt could only be illustrated with unfree images. We probably don't need the Mel Brooks and South Park parody shots, however. Jkelly 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Jabba the Hutt could only be illustrated with unfree images" Of course, and it points out why unfree images are necessary to Wikipedia. Madman 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

de: isn't Wikipedia? Jkelly 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said "the best quality Wikipedia". Take a look at the German article (actually it's an entire Star Wars article here) and you'll catch my point. Madman 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an extremely ugly, text-heavy page with one logo shot (an unfree image?) and a random image of a character from Phantom Menace. In fact with so many people espousing the virtues of De:Wikipedia as some sort of pinnacle of virtue I spent some time exploring the site (I don't read German so I was just looking at the format). If En:Wikipedia ever goes this way I'll never visit this site again. The Internet is a visual medium and you need visuals. 23skidoo 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are at risk of putting to much emphasis on "free content" and not enough emphasis on "best encyclopedia". We already have Wikipedia commons to carry the torch of gathering free images. We should worry more about making the best possible encyclopedia, even if that means allowing fair use images when legal to do so. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All Wikimedia's projects are based on free content. That you don't appreciate the importance of this goal is sad. ed g2s • talk 17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use?

I am learning my way around fair use and I have a question. Yesterday I replaced a red link on the Image use policy page with a fair use image. But upon revisiting, I am not so sure that the image qualifies as fair use. The image in question is a painting Image:Ali-Baba.jpg and is used in the article Ali Baba which is not about the painting at all. What needs to be done in such a case? Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 05:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the image may be considered big, try reducing it to a 300 or 400px (keeping ratio). As for its usage, as you guessed, I don't think it is allowed under Fair use, unless that particular picture is universally accepted as Ali Baba's representation (which I don't know). If you create a new section in the article talking about the different representations of the character through different painting techniques, or by different artists, then it would qualify. But get more replies before taking any action (however, I suggest to make the image smaller, as I would tag it with {{fair use reduce}}). -- ReyBrujo 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're in luck! Since the painting was created before 1923, it's in the public domain, and you don't need a fair use rationale afterall. If it had been a copyrighted image, it probably wouldn't have worked under our fair use criteria. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was only for texts, and only if someone else hasn't claimed the rights because of inheritance or representation... -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would contest that (from what I understand), because to be in the public domain, the author must have died 70 years before today, and since apparently Maxfield Parrish died on 1966, the art would still be copyrighted. I would be happy to be corrected, of course. -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that particular image was published in the 1909 version of Arabian Nights. In the United States, it's public domain, but may not be in other countries, but most countries state that if it's the public domain in its home country then it's public domain there too. howcheng {chat} 06:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have replaced the link on the policy page with a better one. -- Lost^(talk) 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of copyrighted text

See Talk:Thomas Eckert. An argument is being made that it's fair use to chop up text from copyrighted sources and use it in articles without attribution... I think this is incorrect and that doing so is a copyright violation. This policy seems to support that, but is slightly vague... so a bit of a rewrite might be in order. Also opinions about this issue are appreciated. --W.marsh 00:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Another fair use question

Would the Image:Prakashambedkar.jpg qualify under fair use? The image is of a person but is used in an article about a political party (headed by this person). Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it qualifies, as the image is a promotional image, and the article is talking about the subject of the image in the political party context. -- ReyBrujo 15:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

the total lack of evideince that it is a promotional image in the wikipedia meaning of the term suggests otherwise.Geni 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So it is not a fair use image? -- Lost^(talk) 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's no secret that a lot of images claimed as promotional fair use are not legit fair use.Geni 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it counts as fair use or not depends on a number of things. But first off, the image needs a source. Without one, it's moot, and it'll be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems to have been tagged now. Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of an image made out of several copyrighted images

The image Image:LOZTP linkflutegrass.jpg is a collage of three independant images, each probably released by Nintendo or captured by a site. The image is copyrighted by landofthelegend.net, the site that created the image. We are discussing whether the copyright information of that particular image is correct. I have recommended to orphan it, and search for other fair use images, as I don't think there is enough artistic modifications to the images to claim copyright. I would appreciate ideas about it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

oh dear collage copyright. In this case the copyright is probably held by two people. The images are copyright Nintendo. The arangement of the images is copyright landofthelegend.net. There are other complexities though.Geni 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Geni is correct. The separate images are copyright Nintendo and so the image should be tagged "screenshot" (if there's sufficient justification to use the images in Wikipedia, which I doubt), and the collage is copyright landofthelegend, so we would have to use a second tag for that copyright. It would be preferable (and much simpler) to use straight screenshots, so we only have to deal with one set of copyrights. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question on plot summaries

I was hoping for some advice. We're having a debate in Wikiproject comics over whether including 1-2 sentences of plot summary per issue of a comic book, together with other information such as writer, artist, publication date, etc., would be a violation of the fair use policy on this page. (The most recent debate is here[8]).

I'm not asking at this point whether including two sentences of summary is a good idea, only whether it is forbidden by the FU policy. Assuming that there are no quotations, images, etc., and that there are 2 sentences of summary per 24 issues of comic book, would we really be violating the policy? Thanks, TheronJ 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Raw information can not be copyrighted, so as long as you write the summary yourself in your own words there should be no copyright issues to worry about. --Sherool (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The questioner is asking about someone else's summary, which is obviously copyrighted, not about the uncopyrightable facts. All text must be GFDL, and it is against policy to include "unfree" text. Now if you're quoting someone (Roger Ebert stated ". . ."), that's acceptable. But if you're just copying someone else's summary, that's a copyvio, and if you don't credit them, then that's also plagiarism. Either way, it's forbidden by FU policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant summaries written by Wikipedia editors subject to the GDFL, and therefore subject to the WP fair use policy, if at all, as derivative works of the comic books themselves. (Assume, as an extreme example, that wiki editors write two sentences per issue, together with obvious non-copyrighted info such as writer, artist, and publication date, for all 533 issues of Detective Comics). The argument is that the summaries are derivative works under the Seinfeld decision (I forget the case name) and therefore impermissible unless they meet the 10 factors of the WP fair use policy. Thanks, TheronJ 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Postdlf (talk · contribs) commented on this in an earlier discussion on WP:WAF's talk page, if this helps further understand the discussion. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use?

I've been referred here with the following question:

The image (Image:1antiamericanism.jpg) is used at the top of the GA candidate Anti-Americanism with a fair use claim, yet the article does not discuss the particular book pictured. None of the footnotes even cite the book. Could someone with legal expertise determine whether this is a copyright violation? Durova 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

no fromal legal expertise but almost certianly since we could use a different image in much the same context.Geni 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's a copyvio. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

policy quandry?

1. Heavy metal music is a featured article. It features many album covers as decoration.
2. Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images explicitly mentiones album art and its allowed fair-use connotations: "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)."

This strikes me as one hand not knowing what's in the other. I removed similar images per the policy some time ago, and being asked about doing so, I would like to validate said actions. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in that article the albums are being used primarily for decoration and are not within the guidelines of the fair use policy. --Fastfission 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need to use the cover each time we discuss the album. Unless the cover art is the subject of discussion they are most definitely not covered by our policy. ed g2s • talk 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Low/web-resolution

Many of the templates use rationale such as low resolution/web resolution, but are these terms really well-defined? I mean how small does something have to be to be considered low resolution and what is web resolution? The web allows any resolution. --WikiSlasher 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I define web-resolution as no bigger then it needs to be, ie. If it was viewable at 200px and there was no need for it to be any bigger then 200px I would resize it to 200px. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think over time we've managed to hash out a pretty good definition, though we've never tried to codify it in policy. I was thinking just the other day that we might try to do that.

Here's what I would put forward as an overly-wordy first draft approach (something to start with):

Defining "low resolution"

Courts have held that the physical size of a reproducible image can consistute a factor in the "amount of the image used" consideration of whether an image is "fair use" or not, and have implied that in a digital medium pixel size can be considered analogous with physical size. Additionally, it is practical to keep unlicensed images as low a resolution as is necessary for their use here in order to avoid unwanted attention and ire of copyright holders. Our goal is not to provide an archive of high-resolution copyrighted images, but to use such images sparingly when illustrating an encyclopedia — there is little justification for high-resolution unlicensed images in almost all cases.

A general rule of thumb about image size is that the image resolution should be no more than the minimum necessary for the image to convey its information within the context of the Wikipedia article. In most cases anything which is not obviously too high of a resolution is probably fine. Another approach to the rule of thumb is that if Wikipedia's software is forced to use a thumbnail of the image on the image description page, it is probably too high of a resolution image.

As a few examples, a scan of a magazine cover with a 400 px vertical height is probably large enough to read almost all of the text on the cover of any importance, as well as clearly see the image on the cover. A scanned CD cover should probably not need to have a vertical height larger than 300 px to accomplish this task. In both of these cases, the medium on which the scan is based exists in the non-digital world and has a much higher original resolution (around 300 px per inch, depending on the printing quality), and our scans would not be using much of the original material (and could not possible serve as a substitute for it).

In the case of screenshots from video games, though, because the original source image exists only digitally (and has a resolution of around 92 px per inch), resizing the image could cause the loss of important information contained in the screenshot, and would ultimately make the final image noticebly less useful for an encyclopedia. (Additionally, in video games there is a well-established culture of using screenshots for discussing and identifying games, potentially making it a less problematic legal category in any case.)

If certain images must be used in a somewhat high resolution to convey their point, then a detailed explanation of why this is so must be on the image description page. In cases where only small parts of the image must be magnified to coney the point, these should be separately cropped from the image and displayed alongside a low-resolution image of the total work. (Images like magazine covers should not, in general, be cropped in any way which would make it unclear which magazine they came from.)

That's me just blue-skying a lot of things related to discussions we've had on here and WP:WPFU over the last six months or so. No doubt it could be made a little clearer on some points and certainly written better, but perhaps it can serve as a base on which to build such discussions. --Fastfission 11:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to consider making a subpage for it and make it the place where people can mercilessly edit it - I propose calling it /Resolution of fair use images. --WikiSlasher 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put it at Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" for now. --Fastfission 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that any "fair use" claims are for its use in an article, so the image size and resolution should be no greater than what is used in the article. After all, if you "thumbnail" an image in the article, then we're only claiming fair use for the size it's shown in the article, and the extra (wasted) resolution is used without a fair use rationalle. So I think we should only use "frame" and not "thumb" for fair use images, and resize the actual images appropriately for the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessarily draconian—there are many cases where I can't really see a thumbnailed image enough to be clear on its contents, and an extra 100 pixels in these cases can make all the difference (and are still well below the threshhold for legal difficulties). It also enforces a hard limit on what the size in the article will be, when as we know different editing to the article can make different sizes more appropriate in different situations, and would in the end enforce a very hard rule for horizontally-aligned images (which suffer more from Wikipedia's vertical alignment than vertical images). --Fastfission 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that fair use images are only allowed in the article namespace. Of coures they have to also exist in the image namespace, for technical reasons, but the idea behind it is that we're only willing to claim fair use for articles the images illustrate. If we're keeping the image at 400 pixels, when it's only needed at 300 pixels for the article, just so that someone can click the image and view it in the image namespace at a higher resolution, then I think that goes against the spirit of what we're doing: using fair use images only to illustrate articles. I don't think it's draconian at all to insist that fair use images be no larger than necessary to illustrate Wikipedia articles -- in fact, I thought that was already our policy.

Also, you indicated that a small size would be "still well below the threshhold for legal difficulties", but the law doesn't set a size limit for that. The law looks at all four factors at fair use, including "amount of copyrighted work", but also including "nature of the use". It is very possible -- even likely -- that a judge could rule it to be fair use to use an image in an article, but not fair use to place the same image in a collection of images for browsing. If we're using a larger image simply for seperate viewing, outside of an encyclopedia article, then that could, in some circumstances, open us up for a lawsuit. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that it's in the article namespace. I just don't think that trying to hardcode in the exact dimensions that it must be displayed in an article is a good solution. I think that even when we enter the image namespace, if it is doing so just to "zoom in" a little from the version in the article namespace, that is fine. The image still has to be within our fair use guidelines, and I don't think that the extra 100px makes a big difference in most cases. I'm aware of the ambiguities of the law. Why don't you look at the version of the proposal I posted to the subpage for now; the first footnote there goes over in some detail what the relevant caselaw is. I would say that an image in an article, even if you can click to enlarge it slightly, is still an image in an article. And again the difference in pixels would only be 100-200px maximum under my definitions. --Fastfission 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image without source

While answering a help call by a new person, I came across Image:Ernests Blanks.jpg. He says he has scanned it from a photograph of a painting that he doesnt know about. Another editor put a fair use rationale for the image. Should the image be tagged as unsourced? -- Lost^(talk) 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see its been done already -- Lost^(talk) 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't good fair use anyway. If it's during WWII, it can't have been 70 years since the artist died (assuming that's what it is in Latvia), so it goes against policy. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Its fun learning about fair use. I'll try to find more such images and educate myself in the process -- Lost^(talk) 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Using unaltered fair use images on user pages

I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly rediculous that Wikipedia forbids the use of images on your own user page, even if this isn't necessarily forbidden by law "just to be on the safe side". Come on... if a certain image is licensed for use on Wikipedia, then why can't I use it on my userpage just for illustration purposes. I could understand it someone forbid that I altered a copyrighted image in any way, but this... I think the fair use policy is quite subjective and open for interpretation. Who determines what a "significant contribution" or a "significant improvement" is, and what isn't? Besides, just a question, but who makes these rules? RagingR2 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The fair use policy is subjective and open for interpretation because the law is subjective and open for interpretation. I'm not sure who "makes" these rules, but I'm sure they are fully supported by the Wikimedia board. Our aim here is to produce a free content encyclopedia, not push the boundaries of fair use for the benefit of your user page. the wub "?!" 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. But I really don't see the difference between showing a fair use image on your user page or linking to it, and I'm not sure the law sees a difference. RagingR2 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

fair use images are not lisenced for use on wikipedia. The rules are made by a mixuture of the US courts and US goverment.Geni 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is widely believed that "fair use" means licensed for use on Wikipedia, that explains a great deal of people's behaviour. Jkelly 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The rule was made by founder Jimbo Wales. Sorry if you don't like it, but it isn't likely to change. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Source question again

After some random patrolling of fair use images, I am back with a question. I opened about 10 images at random, of which 8 had no source information. I tagged two of them with subst:nsd, but want to reconfirm here whether this is the right thing to do. I have notified one of the uploaders but not the other one yet. At the risk of sounding dumb, I want to reconfirm whether fair use images also need to have source information mandatorily? -- Lost^(talk) 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

unless it is obvious (secreenshot, logo) then yes.Geni 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe screnshots still need a textual description of where they come from (the movie, not a site), like "Source: Screenhsot from Star Wars...". etc.

Also, I'd like to take this oportunity to place another source-related question. For promotional images, can we give as source some site using the image, or we need to point to the original source (press kit, whatever) of the copyrighted material? I believe the original source is necessary, but I see a lot of cases where fan-sites using images are given as source for such images. WP:IUP describes the source as "The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" but is the "URL of the web page the image came from" really usefull when it doesn't identifies the copyright holder? --Abu Badali 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That sentence makes it clear that the URL of the web page the image came from is enough, otherwise it would have used an "and" clause instead of an "or". Dionyseus 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So I can chose on either provide the copyright holder information or a url for some random webpage that happens to use the image? It doesn't sounds reasonable to me. --Abu Badali 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. We need to know who the copyright holder is in order to claim Wikipedia:Fair use. This is one of the reasons why most of the images one finds around the 'net are not useful for us. Jkelly 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, as a matter of interest, why do we need to know who the copyright holder is before we can claim fair use? A fair use claim depends on the type of image, the context within which it's used, whether it has commercial value that might be affected by our use, and so on. The name of the copyright holder doesn't affect any of that. When we claim fair use for a photograph from the Holocaust, we usually have no idea who the copyright holder is, and there's often no way to find out. That's just an example, but there are many others. Here, for example, the source is the BBC, and the copyright holder might be the BBC, but they use a lot of non-BBC material, so equally it might not be. My guess is that we almost never know the name of the actual copyright holder when we claim fair use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The boring answer is that identifying the copyright holder (usually the author) of media is best practice to avoid infringement (although Stanford notes "Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. In some cases, such as advertisements, acknowledgments can backfire and create additional legal claims, such as a violation of the right of publicity."[9]). The more interesting answer is that identifying the author is best practice ethically and academically. I think we should care about both. Historic photographs all presumably come from somewhere, and there's a reasonable discussion to be had about where we set the bar for identifying a source. I'd opine that "This photo, taken by an unkown serviceman, is from the Library of Congress / Library and Archives Canada / USHM archive collection number x..." should be treated as sufficient sourcing, in a way that "This photo of this rock band came from fansite (url)" is not. As Wikipedians, we're all, in a way, publishers, and we can take as examples what other publishers do, which includes the former but not the latter. As for the other, we shouldn't be using images from the BBC at all. Jkelly 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should follow whatever is regarded as best practise. I was just wondering what difference the name could make, because either we've used it in accordance with the fair use rules (laws, not WP rules) or we haven't, and the name of the copyright holder doesn't change that. I can also think of circumstances in which the copyright holder wouldn't want to be named, but might not know that he has been, and therefore wouldn't know to object. So it gets very complicated. I came across a situation recently with an old school photograph. In order to claim fair use properly, we would presumably have had to track down the name of the photographer, and also find out what his legal relationship was with the school in order to be sure that he owned the copyright and not the school. Both of these avenues would have been impossible to pursue because of the age of the photograph, and yet it wasn't old enough to claim PD. So even though no one minded its use, the consequences of WP policies is that it could not be used within the rules. And that is very frustrating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Book series logo in the article about a publisher: do any tags suite for this?

I'm currently writing an article about a publisher and encountered the following question: the copyright tag {{book cover}} requires uploaded image to "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". I want to say a few words on the series of books (in particular - describing logo of that series), published by a publisher. May I use a scanned image of a book cover with the logo of the series to illustrate that piece of text? Or maybe I should just upload that logo alone under {{logo}} tag (although it seems, that it's not quite suitable too)? Any ideas, which would be better and whether this may be qualified as fair use at all? Cmapm 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I have rewritten the lead section to be slightly more specific, but also to more accurately reflect how we really work. We do not routinely remove a "fair use" image just because it could be, in principle, replaced. If we tag it as needing replacement, we generally keep it as a placeholder until a fair use image can be obtained. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have reverted that. The policy is supposed to say how we should word, and not only to describe how most wikipedians work. You know Jimbo's statement that says "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo". --Abu Badali 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu Badali is correct; language like "should be replaced at the earliest opportunity" is at best confusing, and at worst a license to violate WP:FUC #1. The prose in the lead needs to support the policy, not suggest (especially to new uploaders) that it can be circumvented. Much of the rest of Jmabel's now-reverted edit was helpful, though, and should be restored. ×Meegs 03:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that most of the edit was ok and helpful. And I'm sure it was done in good faith. But as I felt I could ruin the good prose trying to fix the incompatibilities on my own, I prefered to revert it as a whole. I suggest changes to this page to be more granularly to avoid such problems. --Abu Badali 04:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC #1 does not say that a free alternative is not required in order to delete the fair use image, I have therefore reverted back to Jmabel's version. Dionyseus 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... WP:FUC #1 reads "No free equivalent is available or could be created... ". --Abu Badali 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a version from the 18th, the time before dispute. At this point, there is a dispute on the wording, so no change should occur until it is settled here on the talk page. For a guideline that is so heavily used as this, even these kinds of wording changes need to be discussed first and accepted via some form of consensus before the change is made. -- Ned Scott 09:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If images should not be used on a fair use basis if they could in principle be replaced, then there can be no justification for any fair use of images in Wikipedia, not even (for example) of a person who died in 1936. In principle, we could successfully negotiate for any existing image to be released under a free license. - Jmabel | Talk 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on how we want to interpret "..or could be created". I believe it's not written in any police, but the trend seems to be that unfree pictures of live people is bad, unfree pictures of long dead people is acceptable. But fair use is more than just aboout celebrities pictures. Historic images, images from unaccessible places, notalble images (one that deserve an discussion about) are the main reason we need to accetp fair use in Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The guideline says "or could be created", not "or could be relicensed". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So, just to make sure I understand (I tend to think about these things better when we consider more concrete case), you seem to be saying that no photo (other than a historically important one) of a living person or existing group can pass muster. For example, the official Canadian portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I that we use in the infobox of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should be deleted, since its Crown Copyright certainly makes this a fair use issue, and Her Majesty is very much alive. Similarly for the photo of Philip Roth. Both of these are, of course, images that I'm sure their respective creators are happy for us to use, and there is certainly no legal risk in posting them (or hosting them!), but both are technically fair use. If I read this right, Abu Badali, Quadell, and others are saying that the presence of these pictures is a policy violation. - Jmabel | Talk

Personally, I would say yes. However, there are two interpretations of the policy: a liberal interpretation, and a strict interpretation. A liberal interpretation would be that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to obtain a high-quality, freely-licensed image of the Queen. (Less so for Philip Roth.) A strict interpretation would say that it is quite possible. The gamut extends between some notable college professor (who would gladly pose for a photo) on one end, and Thomas Pynchon or Osama Bin Laden (who are distinctly not available for photographs) on the other. Even a strict guy like me would say copyrighted photos of Pynchon and Bin Laden are okay, and even a liberal interpreter of policy would say it would be quite "possible" to get a photo of a friendly college professor. I don't think we yet have consensus about how liberal or strict to be, but it's obviously somewhere in the middle.

(The same applies for objects, by the way. It's uncontroversial to say that anyone could take a photograph of an apple. But what about the Black Stone at Mecca, where taking a photograph could be punishable by death? There's a lot of gray area in between those two examples.)

So in my view, we should deal with the obvious cases (like apples) first, and only deal with the stricter cases (e.g. the Queen) when we start running out obvious cases. By then, perhaps policy will have evolved to the point where we're more confident about what consensus is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming fair use in Portal: namespace

The same thing's talked about on this very page (Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use in portal-namespace). Please read that thread too so everyone won't have to make the same arguments again. - Bobet 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion to that section for better discussion organization. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reprint yellow page ad

Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png asserts fair use as a yellow page ad, but it does not appear to qualify under fair use. Also, this is a re-creation of a previously deleted image. --rogerd 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it isn't obvious to me that it could be replaced by a freely licensed image, that it has any commercial value to impact, and we can be certain that our use of it is transformative. That said, I am unsure why we need it at all, and we shouldn't be rendering it in talk space. Jkelly 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(The ad is used to show that the subject was, in fact, a trial lawyer.) The ad could definitely qualify as fair use, if it meets our criteria, which it seems to. U.S. courts have granted the widest "fair use" latitude when reprinting advertisements. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

the words "small number of fair-use images"

is "too many" in terms of the number of FU images in general, FU images from a particlar genre (say pokemon), FU images from a specific medium (TV screen shots), or FU images from a single context (single TV episode). -Zappernapper 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It means use only what you need. If a second image doesn't show anything significantly more than the first, then you can't use the second image. If each image is unique (and passes the other parts of WP:FUC then it wouldn't really matter on an exact number or a number per article. That being said, a general attitude of trying to use as little as possible is also what that is being directed towards. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

k, thnx! -Zappernapper 13:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

fair use images debated at Poké Ball

on Sept 9th User:A Man In Black removed several images tagged as fair-use from this version of the Poké Ball article, giving his explanation as, "variations on a theme, no need for an image for each of them". I asked him about his actions on his talk page. While agreeing that a table of mostly FAQ-ish knowledge was better replaced by summarizing prose (seen here) we have failed to reach an agreement as to whether the images on this most recent version can remain (as seen by this version). Further discussion has occured at Talk:Poké Ball#Images. In summation for those of you who don't want to read through the lengthy discussion between the two of us, my point is that the images are depicting what's being discussed in the article - the subjects of the images are specifically referred to by name and discussed in varying degrees of detail. Their cosmetic differences are even discussed in one instance. AMIB's point is that the images are "unneccessary" so do not qualify as fair-use, stating that "they are all variations on a single design so we only need one design." It would be appreciated if replies and input were made at Talk:Poké Ball#Images. -Zappernapper 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson Bridge

I don't believe Image:Woodrow Wilson Bridge.jpg, a photo taken by Scott Kozel and placed on his personal website, qualifies as fair use. Is this correct? --NE2 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. It might legally qualify as fair use, or it might not, but it certainly violates are first criterion at WP:FUC. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Abducted people images

Where dose copywright stand when it come to writing articles about people who are abducted where the only images avaliable are from news outlets this is especiall the case in abducted children where few images of the child exist to start with.--Lucy-marie 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would be OK, considering criterion 1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." It would be pretty hard to just take another photo if they're abducted. Not entirely sure though. If you reread the fair use criteria, thinking each time "Does this image comply?" that could help --WikiSlasher 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted images

Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions. For the sake of maintaing one thread, could we have all responses there?

There may be a reason for this that I don't understand, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is losing hundreds of images every day because they have been tagged with licenses that we are not able to use on Wkipedia. These are then replaced with speedy tags, the picture's gone, everyone's lost out.

My question then is:

• Why is it still possible to use these tags
• If they can't be removed, why don't we create a new notice/process, something similar to WP:PROD, which proposes that these are deleted if not re-tagged. The uploader can be notified and if nothing is done for a week, then it is deleted.

This would save a lot of time and stop us losing valuable images over technicalities. --Robdurbar 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)