Template talk:Non-free promotional

Survived Deletion Vote

This Template survived a vote for deletion. Here is the record from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.

Template:PromoPhoto

"promotional" != "fair use" [1], and, given the ubiquity of "promotional" websites, this template is an advert (and attractor) for copyvios. Unlike book/album covers, lyrics, screenshots, logos &c., the source/copyright holder/author of the "fair-used" promo pic is seldom credited, consulted, or shown any of the courtesies we expect others to show when reproducing our content. [2] [3] [4] chocolateboy 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an image tag that is absolutely appropriate to have. Image tagging does not relieve uploaders from the responsibility of identifying the source, nor was it ever indicated as doing so. Promotional photos from press releases, etc. are widely used here, and it is definitely appropriate to have an individual copyright tag for them. Maybe reword, but certainly keep. -Lommer | ^talk 23:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the requirements for an article to achieve featured status is to have an illustration, so unless a Wikipedia is lucky enough to snap a celebrity and avoid having their camera slagged by a bodyguard, the only way we're ever going to manage this is with a promotional photograph. It is the responsibility of the uploader to make sure they have acquired the proper permission to use the photo on Wikipedia: surely we should assume good faith without evidence otherwise. --Phil | Talk 12:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. IIRC, Fair Use doesn't actually require that the source be credited. (GFDL does). Tagging an image ((PromoPhoto)) is a useful part of supplying a fair use rationalle. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Images should be tagged with their license or copyright status by the uploader. That the image is promotional does not provide any real information about its license, source, or copyright status. It could be fair use, or it could be "free to use given that.." or it could be any other license. That it is believed to be promotional does not provide any information about its actual source. All image pages that use only this template should be changed to "unverified" IMO. --ChrisRuvolo 09:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This template should only be used on images where the source has been verified and the image's status as "promotional" confirmed. --Phil | Talk 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, that would be reasonable to me if the text is updated to reflect that. However, this is not how the tag is being used. See for example Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, it's talk page, and Wikipedia:Image sleuthing. Use seems to have been "it looks promotional. fair use?" "sure, works for me." "ok. {{PromoPhoto}}" --ChrisRuvolo 22:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No offence to them, but on Wikipedia:Image sleuthing there is a lot of that logic eg:"this looks like it was made by a wikipedian, therefore we can tag it GFDL.".

More on-topic, I vote to keep the promo tag. Any tag can be mis-used, but that's not grounds for deletion IMO.

Boffy b 19:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep. The reasoning for deleting this is not really correct. A promotional work has a strong effect on whether an item is fair use and it's useful to highlight items which have this as a significant part of their fair use reasoning. The reasoning is correct that it would be nice to credit the author of a work used for promotional purposes, even though that author knew that the work would be used for promotion and would hace broad fair use as a result - we should always seek to properly credit the creator of visual works, in part to address moral rights. We've already seen at least one copyright complaint from a UK photographer in relation to a fair use of an album cover: the photographer objected to the use of the original image, not to the modified form used on the album cover, showing that yes, the photographer did recognise that the prmotional use was OK, as it is, under fair use. The combination of promotional material and use in a public education work such as Wikipedia makes for a very strong fair use situation. It is good also to explain the rest of the fair use reasoning, though, instead of simply relying on this template as the only text. Jamesday 17:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just used the tag on a publicity photo I uploaded of an actress that was taken in 1969. Maybe Fairold might have been a more appropriate tag, but I think Promophoto has its place. 23skidoo 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not just about fair use; there's also implied or probablistic license. AaronSw 23:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with earlier comments. Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need to crack down on people slapping a fair use template on anything they want. Fair use is useful to have and I don't object to it per se, but very rarely do I see the source of the image credited or any copyright information or fair use rationale stating which legal provisions relating to fair use the uploader is taking advantage of. The Alexis Bledel photo above is a classic example: "I want to use it therefore it's a promotional photo and fair use." There may be a place for promotional photos where a link can be provided to an official website or something where it's clear that a gallery of photos is provided for promotional purposes, but all too often an image from a professional photoshoot of someone that's been copyvio'd somewhere on the internet is wrongly labelled "promotional". — Trilobite (Talk) 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Another reason to delete this template might be because Template:Promotional and this one are redundant. --ChrisRuvolo 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Some Things

They can change the category Publicity photographs into Non-free promotional images? and a change for the template: Template usage:

{{Non-free promotional|http://www.urlofterms.com}}

This is an optional parameter, if it is not supplied the template will read without terms listed.

An optional parameter, image_has_rationale is available; if it is set to yes, the text at the bottom of the template requesting that the uploader provide a fair use rationale is removed.

An optional parameter, image_is_of_living_person is available; if it is set to no, the text detailing the fair use policy as applicable to images of living persons and commercial reuse of the image is removed.

{{Non-free promotional|http://www.urlofterms.com|image_has_rationale=yes|image_is_of_living_person=no}}

---

Non-free promotional This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material:

• to illustrate the object in question
• where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free promotional images.

To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the image and copyright information.

I discovered some improper grammar on the template

I discovered that the following words going after “fair use” read “under Copyright law of the United States.” There is supposed to be a “the” after “under” and before “Copyright”, which would have it read as “under the Copyright law of the United States.” Adding the “the” would make it proper grammar. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)