Wikipedia talk:Fair use images in templates: exceptions
I notice that another proposed amendment to WP:FU added a link to their proposal on the actual WP:FU page itself. Should I have done that? It seems kinda wrong to me. SteveBaker 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to the exception
[edit]I feel that it's coming a bit too close to a legally contentious area, and we'd be better off without it, even if we lose slightly on nice category/similar images. --Improv 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Too much hassle for very little gain. No thanks.--Sean Black 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also object per reasons stated. If you look at the given example, one can always take a picture of a mini car and use it in the template. And if that's also fair use (not a fair use expert here) than just too bad. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- The template in question (which is only an example of a general principle) is about the car COMPANY - not one particular car. No single car photo would do the job that a corporate logo would cover and there is no way to put a company logo onto a template other than under fair use because even a re-drawn or re-photographed image of that logo would have to be used under fair use rules. SteveBaker 13:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The template in question doesn't need the image to illustrate what it's talking about. That's the main criterion for fair use as far as I'm concerned. An image is fair use in an article if it illustrates the topic of the article or if a portion of the article would be less understandable without it. Fair use images should not be used for decoration. In templates, all images are used for decoration, so only free images can be used. Angr (t • c) 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:LOGO? Logos are a special case of Fair Use. SteveBaker 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything at WP:LOGO that suggests logos should be treated differently from any other fair-use image. Angr (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:LOGO? Logos are a special case of Fair Use. SteveBaker 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The template in question doesn't need the image to illustrate what it's talking about. That's the main criterion for fair use as far as I'm concerned. An image is fair use in an article if it illustrates the topic of the article or if a portion of the article would be less understandable without it. Fair use images should not be used for decoration. In templates, all images are used for decoration, so only free images can be used. Angr (t • c) 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The template in question (which is only an example of a general principle) is about the car COMPANY - not one particular car. No single car photo would do the job that a corporate logo would cover and there is no way to put a company logo onto a template other than under fair use because even a re-drawn or re-photographed image of that logo would have to be used under fair use rules. SteveBaker 13:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also object per reasons stated. If you look at the given example, one can always take a picture of a mini car and use it in the template. And if that's also fair use (not a fair use expert here) than just too bad. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There are already way too many questionable claims of fair use on the Wikipedia. We should be looking to further restrict the use of fair use images, not trying to expand the use. BlankVerse 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Fair-use images are a serious threat to Wikipedia and violate its principle of being a free encyclopedia. I don't think Wikipedia should allow any image that isn't allowed on Commons (German Wikipedia already doesn't). Angr (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose this for the reasons stated above. Logos of a car company don't seem particularly useful in the context described. Tuf-Kat 05:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)