File talk:Suzi Quatro In the Spotlight album cover.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for 19:34, 23 April 2013 version of the image file

NFCC#2 not being breached by the current revision --NtheP (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel that the 19:34, 23 April 2013 version of this file may contravene WP:NFCCP item 2: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Suzi_Quatro_In_the_Spotlight_album_cover.jpg&curid=33484103&diff=551844143&oldid=551844108 indicates that the disputed version of the file came from http://en.metal-tracker.com/torrents/38161.html and introduced a link to that web page from the Wikipedia page. The en.metal-tracker.com web page appears to be used to download the songs in the album, without making any payment to the owners of the copyright in the songs. So the image shown on this Wikipedia page now seems to be used to encourage people to avoid paying the copyright owners for buying their songs, in contravention of WP:NFCCP item 2. This problem could be solved by reverting to the original 10:52, 21 October 2011 version of the image file, etc — Peter Loader (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This good faith edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Suzi_Quatro_In_the_Spotlight_album_cover.jpg&curid=33484103&diff=552366711&oldid=552012796 was made by an editor who did not upload the disputed version of the file. The edit summary says "better source". Some outstanding problems with the disputed version of the image file are:

It is unclear whether the source of the file was http://en.metal-tracker.com/torrents/38161.html (as indicated by the editor who uploaded the image file) or http://blog.albumartexchange.com/?m=201110 plus search for "In the Spotlight" (as indicated by the editor who did not upload the file).

It is unclear whether the bloggers who originally uploaded the images to en.metal-tracker.com and blog.albumartexchange.com were authorized to do so.

My (UK) copy of the original issue of the album has an unusual rectangular cover image printed on cardboard, not the usual square image inside a rectangular perspex jewel case. The original image file on this page is also rectangular (290 × 270 pixels). The disputed version of the file is square (299 × 299 pixels).

Incidentally, the images on en.metal-tracker.com and blog.albumartexchange.com are both square: 240px × 240 pixels and 450 × 450 pixels respectively.

The later Deluxe Edition of the album is a 2-CD box set which has its own cover image. The CDs within this set have square cover images, printed on cardboard. The front cover of one CD from the box set is identical with the front cover of the original CD, except for its shape. So it is not clear whether the disputed version of the file is an image of the original CD or of a cover from within the box set.

I downloaded the original 10:52, 21 October 2011 version of the image file from the web site of the official Australian distributor of the album, WJO Distribution. The URL was http://www.wjodistribution.com/product.php?id_product=2020 which is now dead. However, it is still available via Wayback, from http://web.archive.org/web/20110825192858/http://wjodistribution.com/product.php?id_product=2020.

Since I copied the 2011 version of the image file from Australia to the US via England, I imposed restrictions on the use of the file to make quite sure that I did not break the copyright laws of Australia or England. These would need to be restored if, as I hope, 2011 version of the image file is restored — Peter Loader (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion surrounds the interpretation of WP:NFCC#2 "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." and whether the good faith upload made in April 2013 sourced to en.metal-tracker.com breaches NFCC#2. As en.metal-tracker.com gives links to free and probably illicit downloads this would appear to be a breach of NFCC#2 as a reader following the source link could bypass payment to the artiste and the record company. Subsequently the revised upload was re-sourced by another editor to blog.albumartexchange.com. This site also links to a site where the music can be downloaded but in this case it is Amazon.com so following this link is not going to lead to any breach of NFCC#2.

The resizing of the image and the removal of white borders I think is fairly trivial and does not breach any of the non free content criteria and the current uploaded image is that used by Amazon.co.uk to advertise the album. Based on this I don't think it is appropriate to revert to the version originally uploaded. Should anyone wish to continue this discussion I would suggest that the matter is listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. NtheP (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.