This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People
So, it's been talked about, hinted at, and finally, appears to have happened -- a group of editors have decided that there should be NO "fair use" rationale for promotional photos of living people.
The short version: If an image is a press hand-out or other "for media use" image, and it depicts a living person, the image is deemed to be "unfree" (the horror!) and replaceable with a "free" image, usually one from a Flickr stream (and usually, an image without the subject's approval). Several hundred of these images have been deleted over the past week; many, without following the proper guidelines for image deletion.
Of course, there are a large number of people who feel this course of action is perhaps emphasizing the wrong word in the Wikipedia goal to "create a free encyclopedia" - valuing the "free" far more than the "encyclopedia." And, I have to say, I'm one of them -- If a promotional photo is distributed for wide media re-use, with the approval of the subject, photographer, and copyright holder, and the image is sourced and tagged appropriately, who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia? Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable.
Please note: I am aware of Jimbo's feelings on this, and would encourage editors to refrain from the tired "But Jimbo says..." posting that even now, some editor is composing. I am more interested in OTHER EDITORS feelings about this. Should Wikipedia replace all professional promotional media images with images such as this? :Image:Kristen Bell.jpg Or should we hit the wayback machine a bit, and allow sensible fair use of copyrighted promotional photographs, such as was done until this most recent spasm of anti-promophoto editing?
Jenolen11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. A press photo is by law 100% usable for any purpose here on Wikipedia. and should not present an issue for us. It is nutty to think otherwise.--BenBurch14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project. The use of horrible photos such as the one you present above supports your argument that such personalities may wish to have no association with our encyclopedia after seeing such an image of themselves here. Badagnani14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost at least 32 images in the past week as well, not to mention countless hours of work both creating and defending the images. In many cases said images were obtained directly from the artists themselves, and involve persons from around the globe who don't walk into major public forums. In my case, the rule applied has been nearly universal - if the person is alive, your press or promo photo gets deleted, and nothing you can add to a fair use rationale can change it. Period. After this experience, I have stopped loading any images onto Wikipedia at all, and I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward. Many of them will not give up control of their images in such a wholesale fashion, and they have otherwise been major Wikipedia supporters. Tvccs05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvccs said, "I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward."
Also keep in mind that any "free" (read: "permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes") images of celebrities people create are only going to wind up showing up on sites like this. I can see Wikipedia becoming the premier site for obtaining such photos for alteration and profit, and I absolutely refuse to upload any free permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes image of any celebrity because of these ethical considerations. This anwers the questions below of "why not just bring a camera and take a picture?" Copyrighting is not without excellent cause in many cases, after all.
I haven't seen this level of deletion going on but if you're in contact with the person and have a chance to meet them, why not just bring a camera and take a picture? There are some pictures that we'll miss, but for a lot of the media figures (minor actors and so forth), if they don't want to give us a picture that fits our requirements, it hurts them more than it hurts us. They want their picture in Wikipedia and are constantly trying to spam us to insert articles about themselves (hang out on AfD sometime). An awful lot of our articles about actors, musicians, etc., except for the most important ones are basically spam (material created by publicists). We're not a publicity agency and we don't need those pictures. 67.117.130.18116:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Material created by publicists" is not spam. Spam is material with no useful content. Material created by publicists, although perhaps pov, perhaps hyperbolic, is still not spam. Wjhonson18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At the very least, the amount of prior discussion with the parties involved should be proportional to the number of images affected. If you are going to delete one photo because you think it's wrong...fine, "Be Bold". If you plan on deleting ten of them for the same reason then you'd better talk with some other editors about it first. When you plan to delete hundreds to thousands - the entire community needs to be involved on a much larger scale discussion with full consensus before proceeding. Talk first, delete later. SteveBaker14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't come to Wikipedia because the images are free, they come here because of the information. Never remove a (properly tagged) fair-use image in favor of a free one, if the fair-use image illustrates the subject better. -Freekee15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. Do replace fair use images with free ones; yes, even ones that are of slightly lower quality. (The example is too blurred to be useful, but anything better would qualify.) Promotional photos will always be of somewhat higher quality because they're taken by expensive photographers; fair use images will be taken by volunteer editors, very few of whom meet those qualifications. If we don't replace them, there will be no incentive to take truly free photos. However, don't remove fair uses images until free ones become available - it is unrealistic to expect volunteer editors to go to the lengths that paparazzi go to to snap photos. AnonEMouse(squeak)15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern. I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding — or worse, misrepresenting — the choices available to us. We are not forced to choose flatly whether to allow fair use or not. We have before us a more nuanced choice. If it is possible to replace a 'fair use' image with a genuinely 'free' one, we should definitely be doing that. Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case.
If a 'free' image exists, it very seriously weakens any 'fair use' argument associated with a promo photo; it also weakens Wikipedia's claim to be a 'free' encyclopedia when we include non-free images in our articles. You ask rhetorically (I presume) "who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia?". I'm going to answer anyway — you're not required to decide or interpret. If the image hasn't been explicitly released under a free license (GFDL, CC, PD, etc.) then it's not copyleft enough, and we should seek a genuinely 'free' alternative. It's kind of a no-brainer.
Note also that it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to make stars look pretty. Their agents ought to be well aware of Wikipedia by now; if they want the promotional value of a pretty Wikipedia picture, they can provide us with one under an appropriate license. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one releases images to Wikipedia. That is pure BS and deceptive to say to someone and agents can see through the euphemisms. You are asking them to release images to the world for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes. Wikipedia just gets to use the images after that fact, in the rare instance it occurs. If I were famous much because of my image and my agent released an image of me for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes, I would fire that agent as a completely irresponsible idiot. So many editos and admins have deluded themselves that "people just don't know about the GFDL and Creative Commons. Nonsense. It is that they have heard about them, and dismissed them as stupidly against their interests. Hello Wikipedia Paparazzi. CyberAnth00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case. -- But this is not how the policy is being implemented. As has been noted, a "delete all promotional photos of living people immediately" campaign is already well underway. As for star agents/publicity people, they DO make their stars available for promtional photos all the time... it's just that the current system (stars pose for studio photographers, in character, for photos released by the copyright holder) seem to mandate "fair use." You're not going to convince the entire entertainment world to release to Wikipedia, alone, images that are in totality, "free/libre." There will ALWAYS be rights reserved by the copyright holder, which is why fair use MUST be used. But there are plenty of editors who would rather have NO IMAGE than a fair use image, and these editors have been especially vigorous in implementing this new "no promophotos of living people" ban. To me, that's counterproductive, and not making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Jenolen21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly concur with TenOfAllTrades. I also note that a lot of the photos used are not actually promotional photos released as part of a press kit, and their use is questionable. I am also of the position that having an unfree image up tends to discourage people from taking free photographs: they see that something is already there and will not have the incentive to go out and do so. Unless the image is genuinely necessary to discuss in the article (Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blowing up is a classic example), where it is possible to get a free photo (i.e., the person isn't dead, retired, or otherwise out of public life) I would prefer to see nothing, in order to provide that incentive: promoting future value in the creation of new free content rather than going for the short-term quick-fix but worse solution. In most cases photos of celebrities are nice but not absolutely necessary for the value of an encyclopedia. There are plenty of reference materials on the web available at no cost to view; what makes Wikipedia different is its being free-as-in-speech rather than simply at no cost and we need to act to further that, our mission. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with the deletion is that too many mass image taggers are failing to consider what relevant information the photo actually provides relative to what a free alternative could actually provide. A current picture obviously could not replace a publicity photo taken many decades ago (though this is arguably relevant only if we're dealing with a celebrity whose specific appearance is important, as opposed to say a scientist), and a free picture could not substitute for an in-character publicity shot or screenshot from an actor's work (yet I have seen pictures of all of these natures inexplicably tagged as "replaceable"). "The subject is alive" is obviously not a catch-all justification for deleting any fair use photo without qualification. Our policies rightfully require that the replacement be able to "adequately present the same information" as the fair use image, and anyone tagging an image as replaceable should not do so if they don't understand what that information is. Postdlf16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably changing the subject a bit, but how does wikipedia reconcile discouraging editors from doing original research in articles with encouraging editors to take their own pictures? Shouldn't pictures come from a reliable source, and why wouldn't original pictures be original research? It seems contradictory to me. --Milo H Minderbinder16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone else sees the inherent contradiction between an insistence on prior publication and no original research in written content and an insistence on original images. Tvccs12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's discussed over on Commons. Remember also that the original historical reason for the NOR policy was to deal with physics cranks. OR isn't inherently bad, it's just that we couldn't find a better way to filter out crank stuff than to exclude OR completely. 67.117.130.18116:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jenolen says, "Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable." Well, no, it hasn't. The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created -- not where free images already exist. Policy on this issue has not changed in the past few weeks. All that has changed is that people are finally starting to enforce the previously ignored criterion 1. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for using copyrighted images of living people who regularly appear in public. —Angr17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best excuse in the world; If the picture makes the article better, and it is actually fair or permitted use of the material, then the BETTER picture is the one that ought to be in the article. We want to have the GREATEST encyclopedia, not simply the freest one. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Break the rules. Be Bold. And if you have looked, a lot of the replacement pictures SUCK.
No, we're about having the freest encyclopedia. Having a free encyclopedia means that our work here will outlive all of us, no matter what Jimbo or the board may do. It means that the encyclopedia can be spread to poor families in third world countries, whether whether it's spread solely by non-profits or by market-driven methods. --Interiot18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia grows by being a great source of information. Reducing the amount of information here by removing pictures, and replacing them with images that don't well illustrate the subject (or not replacing them at all) is counterproductive. I would have an easier time accepting this rule if someone could explain the harm in having fair-use and promotional pictures here. -Freekee19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You're discussing how Wikipedia grows — and certainly, nobody will dispute that adding non-free images and other content to Wikipedia will make it larger. The concern is the effect that non-free material will have on allowing Wikipedia to spread or to be distributed. Mixing free and non-free licensed content in our articles greatly complicates (and curtails) the ability of people or organizations to reprint, republish, mirror, or otherwise redistribute Wikipedia's content. For instance, having non-free images makes it difficult or impossible for an article to be included in a book — or, for that matter, a digital CD compilation — and sold.
I feel that the bigger and more helpful the encyclopedia is, the more it will be spread around, but your point is taken. What I don't understand is why we're more concerned about others passing on our information, than we are about having the best information available. And to TenOfAllTrades, just below, I wasn't suggesting we push the boundaries of "what we can get away with", I was questioning why it isn't within the boundaries in the first place. -Freekee22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a great deal of information here is only one part of what we do — we also have a responsibility (and specifically enumerated aim!) to make our content freely available to as many people as possible. Encumbering our work with images bearing restrictive licences hinders us in achieving that goal. Remember that we're building a free encyclopedia; we're not just assembling a large collection of whatever we think we might be able to get away with on this one particular web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. The whole damned point behind a press release photo is that you can, with attribution, us it in any publication whatsoever. The rights have been given. You'll have to come up with a better excuse to justify this Political Crunchiness than that.--BenBurch21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity photos I see are usually not so explicit. If they do have explicit releases like that, then we can use them. Here is a photo gallery of U.S. Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar and these are professional publicity photos without any explicit license. News media have been using them but it's problematic for us. (Once she's actually sworn into the Senate, some government photographer will shoot an official portrait and we'll be able to use that since official US govt publications are public domain). 67.117.130.18116:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ones where permission is granted for use, they're not free content. You do not unless explicitly granted have permission to modify them, to create other derivative works from them, or to sell them (though you may in many cases sell publications which include them). You might also get better responses by taking a less antagonistic tone. The "political crunchiness" of which you speak is on the part of the project, not on the part of the individual editors you're talking to. (Well, said editors may hold those views too, but that really doesn't matter. :-)) We aim to create content that is free for those uses, not just reprinting, and so content that we cannot do that to is a poor substitute. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a non-sequitor that if mirrors and other reusers of Wikipedia content are unable to use fair use material for whatever reason, that Wikipedia should be unable as well. Fair use images are all tagged and categorized as such and so should be easy to filter out; why shouldn't it be up to mirrors to find "free" images to fill in the gaps left by the exclusion of fair use images, rather than Wikipedia removing what it has a legal right to use based on applicable U.S. copyright law?
Regarding "free encyclopedia," the repetition of this mantra does nothing to advance understanding, and suggests that it's an all-or-nothing prospect of a "free" encyclopedia "or" one that "gets away" (?) with fair use. I can understand wanting to minimize fair use, as 1) it makes sense legally to be more cautious than we think the law permits; and 2) there is no need to go out of our way to increase the burden on reusers to filter out fair use content. However, it should be acknowledged that Wikipedia cannot become devoid of fair use-reliant content and "free" without making far more drastic changes than deleting some images, such as the removal of all textual summaries of copyrighted fictional works and textual descriptions of copyrighted fictional characters, the removal of all quotes from copyrighted works... Postdlf22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are images that can't be included in a hard copy of wikipedia (or part of it), isn't the obvious solution just to omit those images in that version? Since wp is technology based, it should be possible to have images that are tagged as not being free identified and omitted automatically. And is there a reference to the "law" that says that publicity photos can't be used in a hard copy? --Milo H Minderbinder22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angr says, "The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created." That may well be; the change I was thinking of when I wrote that may have been in the {{promophoto}} template, which, until October 2006, had a more liberal wording with regards to that criteria.
However, I think it's fair to say that the images I uploaded -- and worked with many admins to properly tweak and tag under the fair use policy when I uploaded them (mostly spring and summer, 2006) -- seemed to meet the criteria as they were being applied at the time. Admins I contacted to MAKE SURE my images were properly tagged and sourced agreed that they, in fact, were. And then, the log rolled. A whole new interpretation bubbled up - this "no promophotos of living people, at all" kick that many editors are currently on. I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I disagree with their implementation of the policy. And I'm glad to see some sensible discussion about it here! Jenolen21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents; promotional images are used as such because (in theory) they are excellent samples of the subject (case in point: Image:Davidsedaris.jpg). In my opinion, it makes perfect sense for us to use such photos until a better photo can be found; to remove a photo just because the person is still alive is a poor concept that does more harm than good. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what of the idea that it discourages volunteer photographers from making the effort to find/take free pictures themselves? In the long term, I think that's more harmful, because we don't get anyone with the incentive to take these photos. (For example, does he ever do book tours and signings? If you knew a picture was already there, would you make much of an effort to go seek out one of these events?) If you can find a digital picture of the person to use as "fair use", anyone else can find it on the web too, and we can link to the official site which presumably has them; it's a small inconvenience but better furthers our long-term aims. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what discourages people from taking their own pictures. If I take a decent quality picture of David Sedaris, I know it has a good chance of replacing that publicity photo on wikipedia because "free" photos are preferred if they are available. And for the record, I've met David Sedaris at a reading, and he's incredibly friendly and accessible - I'd be surprised if he didn't agree to having his picture taken. Now I wish I had brought a camera, but now that I think about it, I do have other pix that could be useful to wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that disincentive argument either. People are too competitive and prideful; they like to point to pictures they took of an article's subject (or maybe that's just me). Furthermore, all fair use pictures should be reduced in size so that they're no larger than needed to be legible; there will therefore always be the incentive to improve upon these fair use shots with a larger, high-res GFDL photo. Postdlf23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The practical experience we've had, however, suggests very strongly that image removal does trigger replacement; already a number of fair use images that had been around for months or years have been replaced in very short times after being removed. I suspect this is largely a question of the need for an image becoming much more visible. --RobthTalk23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not one of the promotional photos of very obscure Asian liquors has been replaced, nor likely will be. Despite my justifications to this effect, every single photo of this type was deleted, almost all without serious discussion. The deleting editors, of course, have not lifted a finger to find such replacements, nor likely will they. I certainly will never upload another photo to Wikipedia, after the treatment I was subjected to in this regard. This campaign has impoverished us all, and really for nothing, as our own guidelines state that it is extremely unlikely that one of the producing companies would ever object to our use of photos that they placed online for the very purpose of promoting knowledge of their products. Badagnani06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a digital camera, you bet your ass I'd take a picture of a celebrity that I meet and summarily check Wikipedia to see if I could replace a non-free image with the one I took. I think the only people who could be discouraged to replace a non-free image with their own are the same people who wouldn't think about uploading their own pictures in the first place. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope one of the GFDL only admins will buy you a digital camera and send you out as the first member of the Wikipedia free papparazzi,and pay all of your expenses. Tvccs05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a real clear answer on this, and I'm hoping someone such as Postdlf will jump in, but let's say EVula DOES take a digital photo of a celebrity he/she meets. I understand that EVula can license his contribution under the GFDL, but how are the personality rights issues addressed? How are the rights of the person photographed handled? Remember - 28 states in the U.S. have 28 different laws; doesn't it make more sense to go the fair use route in this instance? So, and this is the crux of the matter, is EVula supposed to contact the person after the photo has been taken, and get THEM to sign off on it, too? Just because they're in public doesn't mean they've given up all rights to their image, of course... Jenolen23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated, and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will depend greatly on the use. Making your own "merchandise" (e.g., t-shirts and posters) featuring your favorite celebrity in your own GFDL photograph is undoubtedly going to get you sued. Publishing and distributing a hard copy of Wikipedia articles with a full cover GFDL photo of a celebrity might as well. The most ironic thing is that the First Amendment protection in the United States that gives Wikipedia the right to make informative uses of celebrity likenesses in our own photographs to accompany articles is arguably as jurisdictionally limited and use-contingent as fair use. Postdlf23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have a simple study? So why do we want to remove promophotos from wiki? -Because it increases the amount of "Free" content. Why do we want to increase the amount of "Free" content? -Because it makes our work survive even if something happend with WMF, because it increases it usability and because it protects WMF from litigations. Right? Now lets consider each point.
Survival: We do not need freeness for our work to survive. We only need forkability. If an image was a fair use in the contest of a wikipedia article it is a fair use in the context of a fork. For the purposes of forking the fair use is as free as GFDL as far as the "Fair Use" laws in the USA and anological clauses in other countries are valid.
Usability: Wikipedia without images of models, actors, dancers, singers is less usable no questions about this. Most of these images would not be replaced by free images. On the other hand, the fair use image has more limited usage over the GFDL. Users can not use fair images in e.g. an open-source game or as a decoration of a website. In most cases both GFDL and Fair Use are equivalent: we cannot put a GFDL image on t-shirt (without providing the GFDL license and the list of contributors), it is impractical to put anything GFDL into the commercial software, etc. Does a small increase in the potential usage of some images compensate for the removal of many others? I do not think so.
Safety: The less fair use images we have the more we immune to the litigation over abuse of the fair use clause. Since our policy is already strict we are already quite immune to this. Is it the only danger? How about privacy laws? For the fair use images they are the problem of the copyright owner. For the GFDL it is owr problem. The ban on promophotos encourage users to claim copyrighted pictures as their own work. Do you see problem here? By posting images with free licenses we become responsible if the images will become used in an inappropriate way by others (on a website advertising condoms, for example, or in producing photoshopped pornography). Do you know who will be the subject of litigation from the angry celebrity? WMF will. In short I strongly doubt we are to become safer after we remove all the promophotos.
If the deletion of promophotos (even if it is followed by the increased uploads of free images) does not increase our chances for survival, have questionable effect on usability and does not make us safer from litigation, then we do we do it? Alex Bakharev01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the increase in usability of GFDL over fair use images as small as you think; some of the most prominent media in which Wikipedia content will hopefully be reused someday (such as commercially produced books) would be on much surer ground with GFDL images than they would be with fair use images (even promo images).
I'm not sure where you get the statement that "For the GFDL [privacy and other liability issues] is our problem." Wikipedia is no more liable for GFDL images that it hosts than it is for promotional or other fair use images; remember that the holder of copyright over an image retains that status even if they release it under a free license. --RobthTalk02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL require copy of the license and list of contributors. It is not very convenient for most book publishers. Fair use in the context of the Wiki will be in the most cases the fair use in the context of book. The difference between responsibility for the promophoto and the GFDL image is one is a product of a known and accountable person the second is a product of an anonymous uploader. When wikimedia accepted this product on its servers it surely accepted some responsibility in the case it was a violation of privacy, libel, etc. I guess it could be an important point for the publisher of a book as well. Alex Bakharev02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find a Wikipedia article about a celebrity, it's very nearly certain that same individual is capable of using Google to find an image of that celebrity. (After all, that's more than likely how we got the promo picture in the first place.) For that matter, our article probably links to the celebrity's website. A handful of 'Wikipedia wouldn't be as pretty without this picture', combined with a dash of 'None of our editors can be arsed to get out and take a picture of this public figure', sprinkled lightly with 'It might take weeks or even months to get a picture, and we can't stand to have an incomplete article about my favourite celebrity for that long', baked at gas mark 7 for thirty minutes, does not a fair use soufflé make.
Regarding your point about 'safety', I would strongly recommend that you consult a genuine lawyer about...well, all of your legal assessments. I'm also a bit confused about the use of the term 'usability' in this context...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the information on Wiki can be found elsewhere if you spend some time doing googling or doing some research in a good library. In the best case the image is just one click away, sometimes the click goes to a dead link or to a foreign language site, sometimes the image shown on the celebrity's site is not exactly one needed for the text, but who cares about such small things, surely all the readers of wiki do not know what to do with their free time anyway. Alex Bakharev06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that most of the promotional photos on Wiki have provided much encyclopedic information. An article about singer/actor X is going to stand or fall on the content of the text, not on whether the picture is pretty. What encyclopedic question is answered by saying "person X looks like this" ? In most cases, as far as I can see, none. Thus, although I respect the work that many people have put into finding, tagging and uploading these images, I can't say I'm sorry to see them go. I've noted an unhealthy image-focus in many new contributors, as well... If we treat our encyclopedia like a photo blog, we end up attracting users who think it *is* a photo blog. It's imperative that we keep focused on our goal which not just to create a great information resource, but to create a great freeencyclopedia... things which divert energy from that are best done away with. -- Visviva07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Remember that guy? He was in Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? And I think he was in Memento, too? That guy? You know, he's got that thin kinda' face? Glasses? Damn... uh ... Stephen something? Stephen Tobolowsky! That's it! Yeah... What's he look like?" It seems to me that this is the kind of question that Wikipedia should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat (or having a massive policy dispute). Promotional photos help answer these types of questions, and in no meaningful way affect the "free-ness" of Wikipedia content. Jenolen08:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the kind of question Google Images should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat or having a massive policy dispute. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic information about him in the form of free content. —Angr08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an interesting line of thought. I'm fairly certain that you don't think an encyclopedia should be devoid of images. And there's quite a difference between a series of random Google Images results and a Wikipedia entry, I think we would both agree. I would even go so far as to argue that images, and the ability to actually illustrate an article, are what make an encyclopedia much more than just a dictionary on steroids. At the end of the day, I still have no idea why people are so supportive of content that is GDLF free, and so against promotional content that is, under reasonable fair use standards, equally free. It's just odd. Jenolen09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course an encyclopedia shouldn't be devoid of images. But a free content encyclopedia should be devoid of unfree images. In the absence of free images, images (which are secondary to encyclopedic content) should be left out altogether. This is what German Wikipedia does, and its quality as an encyclopedia does not suffer for it. —Angr09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are very important fair use images in the Wikipedia that are not secondary at all. Marilyn Monroe's skirt was cited above, Elian Gonzales and the INS most of us know, even I uploaded one, Gary Hart with Donna Rice. Those are all easily worth any other thousand words in their article, not just "what does X look like"? So we will always have some fair use images, as long as we try to completely cover the topic. Given that, the argument that we should exclude promotional shots to be completely free is invalid. AnonEMouse(squeak)14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't? Well, let me say it more clearly then: pictures are secondary to text when describing a subject. If a picture is worth a thousand words, but the only picture is unfree, I'd rather have the thousand words. And this includes things like Marilyn's skirt and Elian Gonzales. We aren't the only site on the web. For historical but copyrighted images like that, we can provide links to noncommercial websites that make no pretense to being free content and so can use fair-use images without compromising their principles. Better yet, if there is one, we can link to the copyright holder's own website showing the picture. —Angr06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. To me, ANgr's attitude is the electronic equivalent of using the technology of the Internet at the level of the Gutenberg Bible. I never knew pictures (shudder) were such an evil thing until now. Tvccs05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your post says "pictures". The commentary to your post says ads. Which do you mean? If the latter, I'd say that they decrease the signal to noise ratio by adding noise to the page. By noise I mean something that doesn't contribute positively to my experience with the page. Victor Engel20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument above what should be how is purely hypothetical as it is based on fairuse images banned from Wikipedia altogether. This is not the case. As such, the fairuse images should be based on existing policies. WP:FUC #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. " (in the specific context as any fairuse claim applies to a specific article.) --Irpen10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite heavyweight enough to address all the issues being discussed here, but I'd like to chime in that I think that the anti-fair-use crusaders are making a mountain out of a molehill. Outside of this little enclave, the distinction between fair use and free images is hardly noticeable. Promotional photos are provided for the purpose of public release, and I don't see why downstream use of Wikipedia's content wouldn't be acceptable under the fair use doctrine. So why is this an issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia. That does not mean using everything we can get our hands with low likelihood of getting sued. —Angr08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, as an intellectual matter, the difference between fair use and free content. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, is there any discernible difference, for the purposes of Wikipedia and its downstream uses? I'm not sure that there is.
Remember this is a free culture project, it's being done out of ideological activism, and that activism is why many of us spend our time here doing professional quality writing without getting paid. If all I wanted was a good practical encyclopedia, I'd buy a Britannica cd-rom from Amazon instead of trying (alongside lots of other people) to write a free encyclopedia from scratch. There are more considerations than pure practicality. We're aware of practical concerns and we do things to accommodate them, but those who want us to ignore the ideological side are missing the point of this project. 67.117.130.18115:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new Wikipedian, with no previous experience in the policy-making end of things, let me throw out my perception of the situation to see if it has more than a passing relationship with reality. 1. Official policy directs that a "free" image should be used rather than a "fair use" image, even in the case of promotional images clearly intended to be widely distributed (which legally constitutes an implicit waiver). 2. Recently, rigorous enforcement has begun, including deletion, as if the policy stated that free images "must" rather than "should" be used. 3. Even the most casual glance through this discussion would seem to indicate that nothing approaching consensus has been reached on whether these deletions are appropriate, let alone advisable. Am I missing something? Is there a mechanism to put a hold on the enforcement until consensus is reached? --Jgilhousen00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no reason to exclude promotional photos. The purpose that they are released is to make it easier for the media to add the likeness of an artist, author or notable person, when traveling to that person to take a photo might be inconvenient. They are commonly used in newspapers, which follow guidelines on notability, neutrality and conflict of interest that are similar to Wikipedia's.--Dgray xplane23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself is supposed to be notable, neutral, etc., but Wikipedia material is supposed to be re-usable in publications that do not have to have those characteristics. Even within Wikipedia there's issues with these FU images. If we use a promotional photo of Brooke Shields (famous for bushy eyebrows) in her biography, we might have a problem if someone cropped the photo to just show an extreme closeup of one eyebrow, to illustrate the article about eyebrows. We want content that we and others can re-use like that. 67.117.130.18116:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something to be said for reducing our use of fair use, to ensure that we remain a free encyclopedia. Having said that, I would suggest that there are better ways to do this than to mass-delete stuff that's been here for a long time without problems. These ways would include focusing more on getting rid of new unfree images, and to increase efforts to create/obtain free photos/images. These are probably more productive than deleting ancient images, for which the benefit is more than negated by the alienation of long-time contributors. JYolkowski // talk23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHackajar I'm concerned at the requirement of Promotional images being forced into "Fair Use" when the original publisher is dumping images into Public Domain for use. Why does the WP:FU caluse even apply in this case? Hackajar01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern Just something minor no one's addressed very well - I noted that one other person suggested 'free' images taken without permission could expose WP to as much, if not more, liability due to using a likeness without permission, but one other thing that I didn't see any mention of - did anyone consider that a lot of celebrity appearances outside of "the general public" are conducted in a "closed" manner such as to prevent people from taking such pictures? It hardly seems a good idea for us to be promoting that WP editors deliberately violate venue rules in many cases to snap GFDL pictures that don't carry the picture subject's permission and risk having venue staff confiscate their photography equipment. UOSSReiska13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell your saying "If I bring my camera to a concert to procure an image that is "Free" for use on wikipedia do I risk 1.) Loosing my camera during entrance search and/or during concert by security. 2.) Open wikipedia to liability because image was procured illigally at concert that prohibits photography." Right?Hackajar05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first thought I'd stay out of this debate but Jgilhousen (talk·contribs) has brought up a point that's being lost in the debate storm. Noone can in good faith say that the mass-deletion of fair-use images is massively supported by the community and it's not right for anyone to go on crusade without getting community approval. Pascal.Tesson07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have seen many high-quality free images added to articles after the existing fair-use image was removed. Clearly, restricting fair-use images from being used to depict subjects which still exist (such as living people) has, in many cases, resulted in a freer encyclopedia as there's no doubt that freely-licensed images are freer than fair-use images. That said, the law certainly allows us to use promotional images to depict living people, provided they are promotional images of the people and not of a character that person played. Still, our goal is to produce a free encyclopedia and I believe we should rely as little as possible on fair-use; in fact, I understood this was a core principle. --Yamla05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(That is, creating a free encyclopedia is a core principle, not necessarily relying as little as possible on non-free content) --Yamla05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with replacing, when one is available, a promo or press photo with a GFDL image of generally equivalent quality. I ran into one of these some months ago and after a revert, left the free image alone, even though I don't think it's as good, and it was of a car, and it least it was properly exposed. However, on the now "magic" subject of living persons, what in some cases is happening is members of the GFDL club are out hunting Flickr for images which may be of bad quality, editing and cropping, and using those. Furthermore, they don't even have the courtesy of verifying with the Flickr user what they are doing, and just take the CC license and run with it. I had one of those with an image on the Keith Emerson page, where a period-specific promo photo of Emerson at his peak was replaced with an awful fan image that was washed out, over-exposed and off-color. When I notified the Flickr image holder, a fan of Emerson's, of what had been done, and sent him the link, he immediately chose to relicense all of his images, some others of which have also been "nabbed" in his words, to prevent any such use. Said discussion can be found at the Chowbok Rfc page, If you're going to be changing policy here, you need to have these Flickr grabbers obligated to send a note verifying the use of the image on Wikipedia as being acceptable, especially when they are cropping it as they did in the Emerson case, or you'll open of a far larger can of potential hornets than a thousand legitimate press photos ever could. This copy and run without notice attitude towards Flickr CC images is frankly, disgusting. Tvccs06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying here. If the image was posted on flickr with a license that allowed modification of the image (not all CC licenses do), what was the problem as far as licenses were concerned? There's no requirement to notify the original owner of the image, though this may be good etiquette. That the flickr account owner changed the license does not mean that the original image could not still be used under the original license offered by the flickr account owner. The owner of the image clearly and specifically wanted the image to be used elsewhere, this is the whole point of choosing a CC license. This is of course an entirely different matter than the possibility that the image could have been of very low quality and, for this reason alone, unsuitable for use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I find almost amazing in this instance is that Wikipedians who may be "copyright junkies" don't accept the concept that many of the general public loading images onto Flickr have no real idea how a CC license can be applied, and when they see how, could change their minds, having not understood a CC license in the first place. Tvccs12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I really wonder just how much the average Flickr user understands what CC means. I swear some of them use it because it sounds cool. (Not that I mind when I'm image hunting). Daniel Case06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example image. This image is a fair use image. Please help us replace it with a free image. Maybe if someone was a bit smarter instead of mass deleting images they could have advertised the need for a new image (using a template) similar to that shown at right. Just a thought. —Mike06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "help us replace it" caption seems like an excellent idea. Deleting images without replacing them makes the encyclopedia less informational, and seems disruptive and contrary to current wikipedia guidelines. Is there some action that can be taken to get people to stop doing this? --Milo H Minderbinder14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, change the policy. At the moment, images which are replaceable must be deleted after seven days. It is not considered disruptive to follow Wikipedia policies. --Yamla18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about interpreting the policy correctly though. For instance, the Woody Allen article is now illustrated with a picture of a statue of him. Is that as good a representation as the picture that used to be there? Of course it's not and it's not even close. So the quality of the article was downgraded. I understand the objective of free-ness but if we have a fair-use guideline, isn't it precisely so that we can use fair-use images in the event that no alternative of similar or at least close quality? I think editors who are against fair-use altogether are in essence proving their point by deleting them as fast as they can find them. Pascal.Tesson19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this one out - it's indicative of the absurdity of the policy being enforced as it is now. In cases like this, Wikipedia appears as a joke. This helps Wikipedia? Tvccs12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more absurd than you think, and illustrates another one of my minor concerns.
That image of the statue is currently dually licensed as CC and GFDL. But it can't be — it's a statue. Statues and sculptures are not specifically exempted from copyright when photographed by themselves, per §106 (as opposed to architecture and fashion). Therefore (and I learned this the hard way), no picture of a statue can be a free image. It must be licensed under {{statue}} instead. And guess what? This kind of fair use is only permitted when you're writing about the statue.
This is dangerous because, by suggesting any pictures of anything taken by a user to represent something are automatically free use, we are conveying a misleading impression of U.S. copyright law.
Agreed completely. I've had three promotional images tagged for deletion recently. All three are of African artists, and all three came from the website of the National Museum of African Art. Which is part of the Smithsonian Institution. Which allows such images to be used for educational purposes. Now granted, they're articles about artists, which means that they might be better served by being illustrated with an example of the artists' work. But the images are there, and are available, and I don't see why they oughtn't be allowed for use in this instance. --User:AlbertHerringIo son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I preface my comments by saying that I support the use of "fair use" photos at Wikipedia, even of living people.
I think the policy on "fair use" needs to be revised before it will be possible to come to consensus on the issue "fair use" photos of lving people. Currently, the the fair use policy does not have aclear definition of "free content". It's not clear whether "free content" is meant to apply to only content produced by the individual supplying it, or whether it also includes proprietary photos which a company has decided to make publicly available free of charge. Clearly those people that are indiscriminately deleting photos that are tagged as "fair use" seem to think that promotional photos are not "free", yet I don't see anything in the "fair use" policy that invariably leads to this conclusion.
Where the policy is clear is on the preference for "free" photos over "fair use" photos. The relevant portion of the policy is:
"Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:
1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.......However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."
Whoever wrote the last sentence seems to think that any "free" photo that can be created will adequately give the same information as any "fair use" photo. While I think this is true in many cases, I don't think it's true in all cases. The biggest set of cases would be photos of actors as characters in movies, plays, tv shows ect. Another case would be people whose fame came decades ago, have since faded from the spotlight, and who no longer look anything like they did when they were famous (ex. child actors who only acted in childhood, and who ceased being famous after they stopped acting).
The definition of free content that I would be in favour of would allow for the use of "fair use" photos that have been provided by comapnies free of charge for public use. If this could not be agreed to, then at least the line "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." should be removed. We shouldn't make it impossible to post photos that identify a character from a tv show or movie.Librarylefty11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free content is any content that gives you the following freedoms:
The freedom to distribute the content by any means.
The freedom to modify the content in any way.
The freedom to distribute modified versions of the content by any means.
This seems like a case of wikilawyering to push an agenda. The rules say that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". But "could be created" is being interpreted to mean "has any possibility, no matter how slim, of being created". Saying that a picture "could be created" for all living people uses a very unnatural interpretation of that sentence. People aren't just enforcing an existing criterion; they're enforcing an extreme reading of it that nobody who just reads the rule will get from it. Ken Arromdee20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the word that's being misinterpreted in "No free equivalent is available or could be created" is "equivalent". Some editos have dicided that all photos of living people are "equivalent", so that they can use that sentence to justify removal of all proprietary photos of living people. The thing is, all photos of living people are not equivalent. A screen shot from decaeds ago is clearly not equivalent to a photo of the same person taken today.Librarylefty11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could be created must also be open to interpretation. Could be created - at what level of difficulty? In the Automotive project area, we are constantly removing 'free use' images scanned from car makers brochures because unless the car is really rare or ancient, it's very easy indeed to get a high quality free photo of that car - so we prefer GFDL to free use in almost 100% of the cases. But if we considered...I dunno...a photo of a flag planted at the top of Mount Everest that we were using under some free use criteria - it's almost impossible for us to get a Wikipedian to the peak of Everest with a camera...but one could argue that a GDFL image "could be created"...hypothetically...well, yeah - but if it's impossibly difficult then that's not a fair test. We'd have to agree that such a photo would fall into the "could not be created" category. This issue with celebrities falls somewhere between those extremes. It's actually very hard indeed to get a decent GFDL photograph of a celebrity for an article you are writing. - it could be years before a Wikipedian with a camera gets a good shot. So while you can definitely argue that a free image "could be created" - that's just not a useful measure. The criteria needs to be "could reasonably be created" or something. We need flexibility in these rules - some celebrities are easy to get photos of - others stay hidden and are virtually impossible to photograph. SteveBaker11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Deleting promotional images is damaging the project. It is placing the free part of our mission before the encyclopedia part of our mission. I welcome an effort to replace unfree images with free ones, but let's not delete promotional images if we don't have a replacement. Images, free or not, strongly benefit a number of articles in Wikipedia and this stricter approach to images is not helping the project. Cedars02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly disagree: We are here to write a free encyclopedia. One that can be redistributed freely. Think beyond this pathetic little website—it may be the 12th most popular in the world, but that's nothing compared to the impact that it could have. That is, if it is free. If it isn't free, there's no more growth beyond this website. If it's free, it can be redistributed around the world, to places without internet connections, without restrictions. Promotional photos with free alternatives do not fit in this mission, and must not be used. --Spangineerws(háblame)15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This website is Wikipedia. There has been very little success in creating a offline version of it. Most offline versions would also be able to use the images as fair use. If this wasn't the case, such images could easily be removed since they are all tagged as promotional images. Cedars16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with every fiber of my being. I hate taking as much time away from editing as I have to argue about this, but this is the right forum for this knockdown dragout. (Also, interested readers might want to check out the guidelines for when images are replaceable or not that I've started drafting. We need to settle that).
I incorporate everything I said here as if fully included on this page, and add the following thoughts about what happens when this policy comes face-to-face with the law of unintended consequences:
The creation of fraudulent "free-use" images: Does anyone really, honestly and truly believe that people won't cheat on this? I'm not the only one whose Adobe Photoshop skills are such that I could disguise an unfree image as an original free one. And, given that one of the most infamous pictures in Wikipedia history was only recently discovered to have been impermissibly enhanced, to the point that it has been taken out of the article in question, after a year or so within with the evidence of enhancement in plain sight, if I were the sort of person so inclined to do this, I would do it. Especially given a strong encouragement to show that quality free photographic content can be created to replace a deleted fair-use image.
All you'd need would be some flopping (without a telltale giveaway like something in the wrong hand), putting in a different background and perhaps reorienting the subject a bit, then changing the lighting and I bet no one would find for ... months. Do we all remember the last time it took months to catch the sort of thing we like to brag that our million or so pairs of eyeballs will find and quickly remove?
The policy direction we are headed at the moment will absolutely encourage this if we continue to send a huge message that we want free-use images and we're not too picky about where they come from as long as we get them.
The whoring of Wikipedia. I got into this when I was notified that the book cover photo of Alice Sebold I had found and uploaded was being bounced. So, I tried to do the right thing and emailed her agency about getting the photo released. They don't own the rights; instead, Jerry Bauer, the photographer, does (makes sense). Well, I was given a phone number in Italy to call and ask him about this. If one of the free-use junkies wants to front me about US$20 to handle the phone bill for that, I'll gladly take it and refund you the balance (But how "free" is the image then?).
Now, if and when I do call him, I have every intention of asking him if he'd like us to create an article on him as a way of sweetening the deal. As someone who's published several books and taken a number of book-jacket photos, he's undeniably notable so I'm not worried about that.
But what about the borderline cases? I'm certainly not the only editor to see the quid pro quo possibilities here if free images are to be easily acquired. Can we, will we have to add to WP:BIO: "The person has taken quality and representative photographs of a notable person, place or thing that would otherwise not be available to Wikipedia"? Will we create an article on Alan Light? How will this affect the public's perception of Wikipedia? How seriously will editors in deletion debates be taken in arguing for non-notability?
It inextricably involves us in the commercial process, with all the attendant ugliness. I have always liked about Wikipedia that decisions here are taken with absolutely no regard to the market, just our own ideals. We don't have to worry about advertisers pulling support, we don't have to worry about keeping our page counts up, we can decide things purely on the basis of whether they're good for the site and its ideals.
But paradoxically, going to more free-use images would actually commercialize Wikipedia more than permitting the current level of fair-use.
Why, you ask? Well, the proponents of all free-use images of living people imagine that publicists will eventually see things our way and provide us with pictures of their clients of suitable quality for online distribution (but not as good as what they send out in press packets). Suppose that actually happens, arguendo. Even if the same publicists can somehow stand up to their clients complaining about detailed, unfiltered (and likely vandalism-prone) coverage of their drug arrests, messy divorces or rumored homosexuality right next to the picture they gave Wikipedia and not threaten to relicense them unless we write it their way or get rid of it entirely (in which case, of course, we can respond that we'll put the mug shot in the infobox, but what kind of Wikipedia is that where that would be SOP?), we would thus be more explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia's role as a promotional tool merely by that level of involvement. We have enough "fun" on AfD explaining to angry garage bands that Wikipedia is not there to promote them; imagine trying to make the same argument to someone who can point to Wikipedia's active relationship with the entertainment industry. Yes, the article would probably still get deleted; but maybe you just created a future Willy on Wheels.
Nope, the current arrangement of sort-of picking up publicity photos second- or third-hand helps us keep that discreet distance from "the industry" that works well for both us and them.
Another scenario: someone here is able to take a bunch of high-quality free-use pics of some celebrity, uploads them to the Commons at a high resolution and then gets featured picture status (And as an aside, when we consider image quality we should consider that currently our featured picture collection includes only one free-use image of a notable living person (McCoy Tyner) ... and that one is 30 years old). Naturally, media outlets glom onto this and use these images, as well as it being widely reused on the Internet. There is thus no commercial market for most pictures of said celebrity, at least for a while. How will the photographers who make their living taking this sort of picture feel about this, especially when they get emails from Wikipedia editors asking them to release rights or change the licensing on other images?
Oh, wait ... there would still be one market left for these images: Paparazzi shots of them getting out of cars to buy groceries in sloppy clothing without makeup, or canoodling with spouses of people other than themselves? If that were about the only way to make money taking pictures of celebrities, do you think they'd be even more amenable to allowing free images of themselves to be created and distributed? And if the reverse were true, if we got free images from paparazzi, how do you think they or their publicists would feel about giving us those pictures?
I think that I support, in that I agree with Jenolen, et al, that the current way policy is being enforced is both legally dubious and unnecessary. I'm not sure I accept Daniel's doom and gloom predictions as particularly likely, but I don't see any good reason for the current policy, except what I've described before as a kind of Leninist attitude that sometimes we have to make things worse to make them better, which I don't think we follow in any other content related area (and, personally, a really really terribly written article that is focused on some really idiosyncratic aspect of a topic and is full of two barely literate POV warriors arguing with each other would seem to me to be generally more worthwhile to delete "to encourage creation of a better article" than a perfectly good fair use picture.) john k03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly hope most of these don't come to pass, but right now that's all I can do, and as they say in the Army, hope is not a plan. Daniel Case06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would stand by the common sense idea that using copyrighted publicity photos is a fair use, as long as we attribute it as a promotional image provided (first or secondhand) by the person in question, or their associates. However, I would prefer use of GFDL images if such are available and of comparable quality to the publicity photo in question. (The use of Flickr CC images concerns me for the reasons others have stated.)
Implicit license is a tricky thing. (I Am Not A Lawyer)
Just as the purchase of a music CD includes the implicit license to play the CD on a single CD player, but not the implicit license to copy that CD, and the purchase of a book implicitly allows the gifting or loaning of that book to a friend, the handing out of a "publicity photo" by a "celebrity" implicitly allows its use in "media".
What is the legal status of the licensing of "publicity photos" or "promotional images" in printed books? In encyclopedias? In tracts handed out on street corners? Online? Until we answer these questions, we have a mess on our hands.
In addition, I would support creation of a new license, modification of an old license, or research into the existing licenses, to explicitly allow such images to be used, with reasonable modification allowed for size/resolution/cropping, and reminding our mirrors that they are as liable for violations of fair use as we are. --BlueNight23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fair use images and free-use copyright press photos should be allowed. In my opinion, some of these 'completely free' materials are ... well ... not good. I'm not saying ALL are not good, but here's a prime example: Kirsten Dunst - her press image was replaced with a fairly low quality user-taken free image. Now, WHY would you want to degrade the quality of the publication just to satisfy an overly zealous policy of "everything should be free use" etc?
You'd want to portray an image of reputability & quality media to the outside world, AND, keep things free at the same time.
If the subject is not being an issue (say, Kirsten Dunst wants her Wikipedia page to portray her beauty as it is - rather than having a grainy yellow-hue photo of the top of her head ....) - then leave it as it is, with the copyrighted, but free-to-use-and-distribute press photo or publicity image.
Plus, whether we like it or not, a quality image portrays a notion of you're a good source. I'd go to cite a shiny new page - like Wikipedia - vs some 1996 crusty HTML3.0 relic. We like to say otherwise, but people do judge the book by its cover more often than not.
Keep it free, maybe with a little limitation, but I'd say quality & reputability comes first over 110% free.
Strongest Possible Oppose Against Not Being Able To Use Promo Photos- If there is any reason why a photo can be used without Wikipedia being used, why would Wikipedia not want to use it? Some might say that commercialization of Wikipedia will follow, but guess what -- that's going to happen anyway unless Wikipedia removes the dynamicism that's made it so big. It's best to move that future into a positive direction -- let people make money off Wikipedia, but while being transparent about it, and with the first goal being contributing to the collective knowledge of humanity. Just H02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion of images In my view it amounts to institutionalised vandalism. Changes to and deltion of templates and tags plus the use of 'bots as part of the deletion process has only made it worse. --Henrygb15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One counter-example for NO fair use photos: photos of criminals (mugshots, newspaper photos). There's usually no practical and safe way to get picture of a mafioso, yet such image may be valuable for an article. Pavel Vozenilek21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear [whoever],
I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the
most-visited sites on the Internet, ranking near the top ten according
to the estimates of Alexa Internet (alexa.com).
Unfortunately, our article about you at
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[Whoever]) currently lacks an image.
I am aware that there are publicity images of you available, but since
Wikipedia aims to be reproduceable even for profit and even in nations
where generous United States "fair use" provisions in copyright law are
inapplicable, we cannot use an image that is not released under a
so-called "free license". Essentially, the copyright holder of any image
that we use must irrevocably permit anyone else to use it, modify it, or
sell it, with the only permissible requirements being that the author be
named and that any modifications be released under an identical license.
Example licenses that would permit us to use an image would be: the GNU
Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode), or a simple
"no rights reserved".
Given Wikipedia's great popularity, I was hoping that you could provide
us an image under such conditions. Please do consider this, and feel
free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kim Scarborough
I find the sample letter he offered very interesting but unclear.
I thought I would therefore suggest a much more clear wording of the letter. This version avoids euphemisms and jargon. It also responsibly lets the celebrity know of some important implications of their decision to release a "free" photo of themselves.
Since our Jennifer Love Hewitt article currently lacks an image, I thought I'd just go ahead and address this letter to her, to make it more realistic.
Here is the sample letter:
Dear Jennifer Love Hewitt,
I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and use for any for-profit or non-profit purpose.
I am aware that you have already made copyrighted publicity photos of yourself available for fair use, and that these depict you as you yourself wish to be depicted in media such as Wikipedia. However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. This is because we must maintain the encyclopedia's entire contents, including all images, as reproducible and alterable for for-profit purposes by anyone anywhere.
We are therefore requesting you to legally and irrevocably release to the world an image of yourself, an image that
However, we can require that attribution is always made to the producer of the image.
After you have released in perpetuity a photo of yourself under this type of for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable licensing, we at Wikipedia along with anyone anywhere can then use the photo.
We hope you agree, and thank you for your time and consideration.
Joe Gotdagall
I for one cannot see any possible reason why a famous person would not wish to eagerly fulfill such a request.
I agree that the letter is somewhat wordy (the response I got when requesting a picture of Morningwood included "that's the wordiest photo request i've ever received"), so thanks for writing up a new one. The new one seems a bit too direct to me though. Would it be possible to rephrase the part about keeping content free so that people know that's one of Wikipedia's objectives and then remove the word "anywhere" (since if anyone can use the image, where they are doesn't really matter)? —ShadowHalo06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out job to explain the extremely unlikely down-sides of free-licensing. Providing a link to both licences is enough, and it doesnt actively discourage permission... Oh, and that "big boob" site is blocked at my work, so I can only guess at it's content! But, parodies are usually protected by fair use... so licensing under GFDL/CC doesnt actually increase the risk. ---J.S(T/C)21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't understand. Like Tvccs, CyberAnth wants to discourage free images. Their position goes beyond most of the fair-use advocates in that they are actively against free images in any event, at least for celebrities. Don't make the mistake of assuming this "letter" is meant seriously. —Chowbok☠22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that they're against free images. What I think they're against are crappy, fuzzy, poor quality free images. And they're trying to make the point that when Jennifer Love Hewitt or whomever actually understands what it means to release a photo under one of these licenses, they're gonna say "forget it".
Please note that Chowbok does not dispute the accuracy of any of the claims in the exaggerated boilerplate. (Which, I think, makes its point rather nicely...) Sadly, all these things are true... or, at least, so close to current Wiki-truth that they cannot be challenged. I would submit the only fib in the letter as written is: However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. only seems like it's true. Actually, fair use images are allowed... you just wouldn't know it from the number which get deleted for "no copyright info" or "replaceable" or "a photo that only shows the person"... Jenolenspeak it!04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prime example of the abuse of the free image license. [1] This photo, which someone apparently uploaded to the commons, appeared in a newspaper article (Daily Mail comes to mind, but I could be mistaken), is copyrighted by that newspaper, and is 100% a fraudulent upload. Yet, here it is uploaded to the commons under a PD author license. And we're worried about fair use images? Give me a break. TheQuandry04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, dare I ask - have any actual lawyers weighed in on this? Surely there's got to be a few out there who'd be willing to do pro bono advisement work. IANAL, but my brother is - and in discussion with him, it turns out that the what the law actually means is rarely as "clear" as some people make it out to be. --moof04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against "free" images per se, especially when it comes to photos of things or anmials. What I wish to do is responsibly make full implication disclosures to living persons before they release a photo of themselves to the world under a for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable license. Once that is done, of course, 99.9% of especially the most famous people will respond by summarily discarding the letter in the trash where it rightly belongs. In contrast, this bluebird has no rights it cares about. During its very brief life, it cannot really be harmed by someone snapping a "free" photo of it. And it doesn't care what happens with its photo. I do not think the accuracy of any of the claims in my satirical boilerplate to a famous living person can be countered. Fair use images of living person they release for use is the way to go. CyberAnth06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, excuse me Chowbok, I have never discouraged free images, I have discouraged bad "nabbed" images from Flickr and other sources. I have specifically and publicly stated that I have no problem at all with quality free images replacing promophotos, and have also publicly supported the template proposed that would identify promo photos and ask users/editors to help locate free images. I support an artist or celebrities' right to control the use of their likeness when they are the ones providing it, and fair use images on Wikipedia. The above Jennifer Love Hewitt letter suggested is a very good one in explaining the realities of a GFDL license, something you seem loathe to do to Flickr users. What I do not like is bad amateur images, such as your Keith Emerson Flickr-nabbed image, being substituted for good ones, and not telling people posting on Flickr that their images can end up on Wikipedia as a primary artist image, or notfying Flickr users of your intentions. While some photographers may be flattered, many others do not want their images used in this way. And I do not support the illusory claim that free images are readily available for all of the people we need them for, as has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt, despite the oft-offered flowery statements otherwise. All of the above are facts which, has often been the case, you seem to have trouble dealing with, and others simply ignore or deny. Tvccs17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to resurrect this topic, for I believe it is far from settled. Many have argued that the use of fair use non-free images somehow limits the for-profit distribution of wikipedia content. However, they seem to have no problems with for-profit distribution of all the other wikipedia fair use material. This appears to be internally inconsistent.
The purpose of wikipedia is educational. If you want to highlight the "free" aspect of wikipedia, then the current image standard should also be applied to all other media currently approved under fair use rationale; otherwise, said non-image media is somehow "not free".
The removal of fair use image for the purpose of encouraging users to find free images is nonsensical. What is more important to the educational purpose of wikipedia: to provide accurate information, or to unreasonably try to force editors to go out scampering for similar but "free" information in order to facilitate for-profit distribution, especially when such a standard is not applied to other media?
And I say unreasonably because it is not reasonable to expect editors to track down the subject of an article, wherever they may be around the world, to provide a free, still dubiously legal equivalent (acquiring said photographs does not shield wikipedia and its derived content from litigation: photographs taken without the subject's permission or in an unathorized venue are illegal in many if not most jurisdictions, subject to prosecution. And asking people whose living is influenced by their image to release pictures of themselves under a GNU license is both unreasonable and an ineffective way to build content [most artists do not want their image altered for unknown and unauthorized purposes, which the GNU allows]. Using images that said people have already approved, such as promotional/press kit/professional website images, under fair use rationale is much easier to defend as fair use, more likely to elicit the person's approval and much more effective when building content).
Lastly, as I mentioned before, applying the current draconian prohibition on fair use images as opposed to all other forms of wikipedia-approved fair use media appears inconsistent and nonsensical. If someone wanted to distribute wikipedia material for profit, how would it make sense that they could use all other fair use media but not images?
I thus suggest that all forms of fair use media be held to the same standard: either images of living persons or buildings should be allowed under fair use rationale (with a narrower interpretation of the nonsensical "reasonable possibility of procuring free image equivalents" idea), or all non-image fair use media should have the current draconian image standard applied; ie, they should not be allowed in place of free equivalents. Maybe the idea of fair use media should be altogether banished from wikipedia (would that make sense for an encyclopedia whose ultimate apparently implied motive is to be educational)?
Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barret_2002.jpg){kind=link}
