This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd like to propose a clarification of fair use criteria number 3, namely "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Screenshots of copyrighted computer software need to be kept at full resolution or else they cannot be seen clearly. If they cannot be seen clearly, then they don't really illustrate the software in question. I can tell you from personal experience that reducing the resolution of screenshots greatly decreases their usefulness.
For this reason, I would like fair use criteria number 3 to be clarified to state that software screenshots do not need to be of low resolution. Instead, articles about software should just be made to use a limited number of screenshots. —Remember the dot (t) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are only using as little as possible then there shouldn't be a problem. Use only enough to get the job done, is what it's saying. -- Ned Scott08:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, rather than providing a bunch of low-quality screenshots that don't do much good, articles should just use a limited number of full resolution screenshots that effectively illustrate the software. —Remember the dot (t) 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days and no one has voiced any objections, I propose that the following statement be added beneath fair use criteria number 3:
Because low-resolution screenshots do not effectively illustrate software, screenshots may be left at full resolution. However, the number of fair use screenshots used should be kept to the minimum required to illustrate the software in question.
Again, I don't think the change is needed, and it is not always true for all situations. If an image needs to be full res for it to be of any practical use then you can use the full res, since it would still be only what you needed. -- Ned Scott02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to avoid good faith editors scaling down screenshots to 300px wide in the quest to use as little unfree material as possible. This is why I'd like to see an explicit note in the fair use criteria that explains that it is OK to use full resolution screenshots where necessary. —Remember the dot (t) 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that detractors for the upcoming stricter policy towards fair use images are ignoring how much this policy will empower Wikipedia. It's been my experience that those Flickr users who I have asked to donate their photos into the Creative Commons have been honored to have them displayed in articles, and were thrilled that their permission was asked first. Everyone walks away better for the experience. More awareness needs to be raised about free use images, because the entire planet should know that we value and need their photos. This conversation and the efforts of many Wikipedians are located too deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. This cause should be placed front and center.-BillDeanCarter04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about the recent major changes to this page and others that make it difficult or impossible to include content that was not released under a free content license. I don't see how this is helping anything, though. It degrades the quality of the project and impairs its usefulness to everyone, including downstream users. — Omegatron01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sample of artists work.
I am sure this policy will be somewhere, but I cannot find it.
The Fair use licence says for critical commentary on
* the work in question,
* the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
* the school to which the artist belongs
How about if the article is the artists biography. Is showing a sample of his works constitute Fair use? It doesn't really fit the above criteria. MortimerCat08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Depends on wether or not the article comment on those works or not. Just displaying a bunch of samples of his work without any spesific commentary on those works would not be ok. But if his bio contain for example non-trivial commentary on a particular technique he is known for then it can be ok to use an image that ilustrate said techniqe. Displaying multiple such examples would however most likely not be ok unless you can make a strong case (in the fair use rationale) for how it is impossible to adequately ilustrate the techniqe with just one example. --Sherool(talk)10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What if no technique is necessarily being illustrated, but the images display different aspects of the artist's work that are discussed in the article? I'm thinking of something like Ansel Adams here. Some of the images in that article don't depict any particular photographic technique, or a specific work discussed in the article, but they do illustrate aspects of Adams' artistic style and chosen subject matter that are discussed in the article. A strict, legalistic interpretation of the policy might eliminate several of those images, but I think they're within the intended spirit of the policy.
There's a modern artist whose name escapes me who almost always paints fat women. We probably have a page on him (I just can't remember his name to check). If his page doesn't include a sample of his art, showing the way that he depicts overweight women, it probably should — but that's not exactly a technique. Perhaps the second line should be changed to "the artistic genre, technique or style of the work of art" and a line should be added about artists with a typical subject matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No — I think that the person I'm thinking of is a Spanish or Latin American man. Hm. Now that's going to bother me. I don't know Beryl Cook, but if that's her subject matter too the argument would work as well with her. The point is that sometimes subject matter is also an important aspect of an artist's oeuvre, and should be represented as well as technique, genre or school. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if on the image description page is explains how we want free images and our fair use policy and such. Someone might just go "Oh, I know I can grab a "free" image off of this website and help Wikipedia!" which isn't the desired goal. Also, such images should be protected, since they are likely to be high-use and an image vandal could put something bad in there and affect many articles easily. However, since the images are on commons, having image description pages here isn't typically allowed (they're a speedy delete). But perhaps we could allow an exception and protect the page as well. --MECU≈talk17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer if these images were not used. If there is no free image available, there's no need to proclaim that within the article. Also, as Mecu stated above, this would encourage inexperienced users to upload "free" images they found somewhere. —Remember the dot (t) 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It would perhaps encourage editors to search for a free photo. It reminds me of a stub notice or Image:Nocover.png which is found on a lot of album/song infoboxes. Concerning the 'free' part, would it help change 'free' to 'free content'. Garion96(talk)23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am remebering seeing the no album cover photo used in a lot of places, but I am willing to give the no freely licensed photo a trial. If it works, great, if not, let's go back to the drawing board. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I recommend against this for just Remember the dots's two reasons. The obvious downsides — that the image takes up valuable space (particularly in infoboxes), that it is inevitably going to be uglier than no image at all, and that it adds nothing to the experience majority of our readers (non-editors) — may not be a huge deal. I'm more worried that the suggested upside of advertising for free contributions will be overwhelmed by the image acting an bullseye for unfree uploads by uninformed editors. Making the image more verbose might help, but it would also further hurt the articles' aesthetics. In any case, even with a trial, I think we'll have a very hard time estimating the image's effectiveness. ×Meegs21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is then with the image and not the idea. The image should maybe be clickable, bringing to you a page explaining how to pursue a free use image. Maybe there should be a whole slew of steps you can follow to put in a free use image.-BillDeanCarter22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
More info in the image (or a click away) would surely help it achieve its primary goal, but my experience tells me that there are many uploaders will just not heed directions, period. I'm skeptical that there is any message for the image that is so clear that it would decrease, rather than increase the frequency of unfree uploads compared to no image at all. That said, I'd be much happier to give this a shot were it not for the peripheral damage to the articles; we should always avoid allowing the back-end of the encyclopedia to encroach on the product exposed to readers. ×Meegs23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. There already exists a page for these images that merely add them to categories here. If you click the image (or the links above) and click edit, you'll see the category and how you can add many things. The Commons items might get in the way though. --MECU≈talk01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware it can be done however for various reasons it is not generaly considered a good idea (also if the image appears on lots of pages the ability to lock it would be useful.Geni01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok a more complex version can now be found on David Mamet. The backend behind it is a hack from hell and only partialy complete. however it is the best I can do untill the dev rewrite the upload system.Geni02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'll correct that. itisnow incomplete because the devs are faster than I am but it is still a hack from hell.Geni02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys are aware of the thumb=<image> feature right? Basicaly MediaWiki let you override the thumbnail for an image with another. So you can link to one image page while using another image as the actual thumbnail. Only limitation is that the resulting thumbnail can not be resized, so it needs to be fairly small. See my red X example here. Can be handy for things like this maybe... Also why not just redirect the image to a Wikipedia: namespace page, rater than using the CSS trick. A clear to the point "how to release your own images" page would be good to have anyway. Yes I know cross namespace redirects are generaly a big no-no, but this seems like a usefull purpose, so I'd say WP:IAR applies. --Sherool(talk)09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that what you describe can be done however it breaks various standards and cause problems with certian browsers. ~there ar other work arounds.Geni12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think adding #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:How to donate your own photos]] (or whatever) to the image page would break any browsers. Redirects are entierly server side right? I know it breaks the standards, but sometimes it's worth making an exception. If the image says "click here for instructions on how to donate a free licensed image" or whatever, then I don't think it would cause too much confusion if people ended up on a guideline page rater than a "css hacked" image page if they actualy clicked on it. Though you could naturaly do away with the placeholder image altogeter and just add a template that show an apropriately formated "needs a free image" message, though you could not easily integrate that in existing infoboxes and such... --Sherool(talk)13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it. But can we add something to Wikipedia:Fromowner under the "if you don't own the image" about what it means to be ownership and not just "owning" an image you get from the web? Or maybe something like "Most images from the internet are not compatible with our FREE! goal. If you have questions, please ask first." I'd rather keep this simple than add too much to the page to be overwhelming. Perhaps we could link to the "walk-through" or "tutorial" that someone recently created to determine the license. I don't remember where it was though. --MECU≈talk15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to have images uploaded through the "fromowner" system to be automatically added to a category, such as Category:Images uploaded from owner, where we could then track to see how effective the system is? A bot could then track all the images to see if they are deleted via some copyright/source/license/orphan problem, etc. Just would like to know how effective this is, and if we're really getting usable images or just images "from some website". --MECU≈talk17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to use this image a lot, we should set it as a standard in some infoboxes. Just like Image:Nocover.png which appears automatically in an album infobox when there is no album cover. Garion96(talk)22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean step 4. There could be an extra explanation but since not all infoboxes are alike in that regard it would be too complex I guess. Since in some infoboxes you have to put image=free.jpg or just free.jpg or [[image:free.jpg]]. Garion96(talk)02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting some pushback on this no-image-available convention. A few people are saying that the placeholder is ugly and unnecessary. I can see a lot of edit wars breaking out over the issue, esp. with no decree over whether the placeholders should be used and when. Is there some official stance? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The question was not how does it work, the question was who decided that this has to be done. I'm one of the ditors who thinks the place-holder defaces the articles, no pun intended, and I think this should not be forced on editors. Since when is that policy around here? Tvoz| talk06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fine - I didn't say you did something wrong in adding this to pages in the first place. My point is that if the editors of a page don't like it and remove it you should not be going around reinstating it with the implication that it's new policy. Put it up if you must, but accept its removal if editors don't want it. Isn't that more in keeping with wiki culture? Tvoz| talk04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding me. What is the "wrong thing"? I'm not saying that the pictures that are deemed unacceptable should be allowed to be posted because the editors want them - that would be "doing the wrong thing". I'm saying that editors should be free to choose not to include your placeholder and opt for no picture until someone gets an acceptable one. PLenty of articles have no pictures - more and more as some folks narrow down what they think is acceptable under fair use - and some editors object to having articles marred by that large placeholder. That is what I am asking. Seems to me wiki culture is not to impose a requirement that such be added everywhere that there is no acceptable image. So I think if you put it up and the editors of an article remove it - leaving no picture - you should back off and accept the removal of the placeholder. "Lack of policy saying we couldn't" doesn't give you free reign to ignore other editors' wishes and impose your own. Tvoz| talk08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
and they are not free to ignore my wishes and impose their own. 150px*150ps isn't that big.Geni09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to start a debate to establish one. I would suggest submitting an article to the signpost.Geni18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think these images are a good idea, but there isn't a broad enough consensus to revert editors who remove them. If that's what's happening, and it's almost inevitable that that will be what happens, then we should have a big fat RfC on it. Or maybe I missed it. - Peregrine Fisher08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, PF, Geni doesn't seem to agree with you. I would hope that the concept of consensus isn't getting lost here, but I'm not hearing that in Geni's comments above. Tvoz| talk14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not getting it, Geni. I am not saying there should be mass removals, any more than I think there should be mass insertions. I think that if editors of an article remove it, you should back off and leave it off. And if that happens on multiple articles, so be it - maybe that might demonstrate that people don't like the thing. I don't know what will happen. But what I am saying is, if the placeholder is on an article and then it is removed because the editors don't want it, accept that and don't reinstate it as you have done. That is what Peregrine Fisher said - you don't have consensus to just revert. Are you agreeable to that? Because if not - if you insist on reinstating it when someone removes it - then PF is right, it would have to go to an RfC or the like. Tvoz| talk08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I value your contributions to Wikipedia, so I ask that your comments above are over-looked. You may want to read what "canvassing" means on wikipeda: Wikipedia:Canvassing before accusing me of doing it. (You may also want to read what WP:POINT says before accusing people of breaking it.) In the interest of centralized discussion I am posting on relevant policy talk pages because this copyright violation is not the usual copypasta. I was for a while there at a bit of a loss as to what was the appropriate process here. You posted a link to this on the Stargate project. [3] Does that make you desperate? No, that was entirely appropriate. --GunnarRene18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to be desperate (hehe) - I've already told you you're wrong, and it looks like several other editors as well have. Also, I'm not accusing you of violating WP:POINT, I'm telling you that you've violated it, Because really, come on, you still haven't provided any evidence to show that it is indeed a copyright violation nor have you provided the citation for the artificial limit. As it stands the one you posted to copyright violation is only around 2k words. Anyway, I must urge you not to take the path of joining the fair use police, PS: I hate argumenta ad ignorantiams, however, I'm wondering why you've not applied your holier then thou concept of fair use to List of RahXephon media? There are some members of the fair use police who wouldn't hesitate to excise all those images. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77118:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That plot summary puts the screenshot, and indeed all the images in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes in danger. When we summarize plot here on Wikipedia we are using fair use even if we don't tag the text. If I had made an episode article with 100 images from the episode, or put 800x600 screenshots in List of RahXephon media that would also be beyond fair use. But also for images, there is no numerical limit where everything above is illegal and everything below is A-OK. It is an argument where several criteria have to be evaluated - and when it gets to the proportion of repesenation, it also matters which parts of the work are reproduced. So your quest for a number will likely not succeed, unless we make a new policy. I'm not a fair-use abolitionist - i want a free and fair encyclopedia, but over-long plot summaries put us at risk.
As for this particular article, I suggested a length and balance similar to Pilot (House). As it stands now that Stargate episode plot summary is more than 70% as long as the actual dialogue, by rough calculation. --GunnarRene18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this talk page be a little more about Fair Use and a little less about you two arguing? I'm sure if you took it to your user talk pages, nobody here would mind. --Milo H Minderbinder19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say this is more copyright and WP:NOT than WP:FICT actually (there's no question that the subject is notable), but I've tried to centralize discussion on the copyright log instead of starting debates in individual talk pages. --GunnarRene21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For this reason we do not accept images which are licensed exclusively for Wikipedia, or licensed exclusively for non-commercial usage (which is not "free enough") (unless of course they also qualify under fair use).
The part: (unless of course they also qualify under fair use) should be deleted. As this creates double standards and contradicts the above statement.--Vaya12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How so? It may need to be worded better but the gist of it is just that fair use apply equaly to all unfree material. We don't "care" if something is "all rights reserved", "for non-commercial use only" or "Creative Commons Attribution No-derivatives", either way it's unfree. However any unfree material may still be included iff it meets our fair use criterea, regardles of what license it's released under. --Sherool(talk)13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well then I guess I should be worded better. As now, in few words it says: "non-commercial images are not allowed, but they are"--Vaya13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article, Avatar: The Last Airbender, has a ton of fair use images. So is this OK or not? Aren't featured articles supposed to serve as a reference when writing other articles? It seems ridiculous that that Aaron Sorkin should have zero (and not show a single film or TV show he created) while one on the front page has eleven. --Milo H Minderbinder13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images would be perfectly acceptable in the article Aaron Sorkin, provided that they are providing critical commentary on text and have a good strong fair use rationale. What people seem to realise (and to a level, what fair use policers are promoting) is that fair use is not allowed at all in BLPs, this is strictly and certainly not true. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77113:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The main difference is that the Avatar: The Last Airbender has images that can't possibly be replaced by a free version. The only questionable one is the image showing "An example of Chinese calligraphy", and the rationale doesn't explain why this screenshot showing the calligraphy is needed, vice some other (free) method of showing Chinese calligraphy. --MECU≈talk13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, as long as it's on a West Wing article or in an actor BLP placed next to commentary on the actor's physical appearance in that show for example.--GunnarRene16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just close to borderline replacable because the image doesn't just illustrate Chinese calligraphy, but Chinese calligraphy in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Using that image on Chinese calligraphy would usually not be allowed, but in the Airbender article, the use is proper. --GunnarRene16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So an article on a director can't show a single frame of his work? Seems ridiculous to me, and I don't see anything in WP policy that supports that. --Milo H Minderbinder16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, showing representative shots of his work in the article about him is most likely defensible and OK if the other fair use criteria are followed accordingly. Shots from his work are not in any way replacable usually, but an image of himself would likely be replacable. --GunnarRene16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No no no Gunnar, that is not what I am getting at. My point is this: was the calligraphy created specifically for the Avatar series or is it used in Chinese writing today? If it is the later, we could use the software that we have and make the symbols ourselves and do away with the fair use photos in that section. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me how the use of fair-use rationale images of cartoon characters is okay, but (as seen in arguments above) using fair-use images of real-life characters on tv shows (movies, etc.) is not? If the argument is that you cannot use an image "just to show what something/someone looks like" (which leads to a whole argument in itself), what on earth are these images doing other than that? Providing critical commentary? Discussing anime hairstyles? I think not. This featured article example just shows how no one is on the same page on this issue. So why haven't the fair use image taggers marked these for deletion already today? Please, be consistent so that we can have a consensus on what's "right" and what's not.Jmdustin18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me summarize - this may not be my personal opinion, but it's my understanding of how it works now: "Fair use image showing a character portrayed by a living person: Usually OK, because they usually dress and act as the character only in the show. Using the character image in the infobox on the biography for the actor: Usually not OK." --GunnarRene22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
However, using a screenshot to show a real person on a television show who is not portraying a character, (i.e. Jamie Oliver), is not allowed... even when discussing the television show. Seriously, where are you guys hiding the magic Kool-Aid? Jmdustin23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
fair-use images get deleted from biographies of living people because you could conceivably obtain a free image of them, however fictional characters do not exist outside of their copyrighted works so there's no free alternative. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Plot summaries with and without critical commentary
Based on the recent discussion above about a possibly overly long plot summary, I cross-referenced "plot summary" and "derivative work" on Google. It only turned up about 468 results, so I am still not convinced, but I did find this:
One man's excessive is 1k words, another's is 2k, but the 3rd man's is 800. Which man is correct? We should certainly not have any artificial limits, they all need to be judged on there own basis, for example some shows have complicated plots, some don't (i.e. cartoons) thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77118:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In the event of a complicated plot, is a WP summary of all the "complications" really the best encyclopedia article? Isn't the whole point of a summary to summarize, or narrow the plot down to simply the main points? I don't know if we should set a number on plot summaries, but I think it would make sense to have a mention that overly long and detailed plot summaries, particularly those that make up most or all of an article, are potential copyright violations. --Milo H Minderbinder19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would guess that most of the super-detailed plot summaries aren't transformative enough to truly be fair use. "Ross and Rachel contemplate marriage, while Phoebe gets a new job" is one thing; A scene by scene breakdown of a show that starts, "The scene begins in Rachel and Monica's apartment, with Phoebe looking through the classified ads" is another. Both are summaries... but only one belongs in Wikipedia. Shouldn't TV Guide-style plot brief summaries be the goal? Jenolenspeak it!19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Tranformative would be WP:OR. If you want to know what's fair use, look at some web sites that contain plot summaries and have legal teams. I'm sure imdb has a bunch of lawyers, and apparently they are of the opinion that a plot summary is legal. imdb is commercial, so our plot summaries can be at least as detailed as theirs. Note that I'm saying nothing about using imdb as a reference. - Peregrine Fisher19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The length of plot summaries in articles is limited by WP:NOT#IINFO. This alone should be enough to push the length below the threshold of concern—if that policy was actually applied, of course. —xyzzyn20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Which would actually counter the arguement...if PAPER didn't say "...other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Paper just means we shouldn't limit length just for the sake of length. Indiscriminate limits things for other reasons. --Milo H Minderbinder20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that there is a lot of controversy on this subject. so whatever is there now, clearly isn't enough. I suggest we at the very least should have something that says: "scene-by-scene plot descriptions are BAD, summary/synopsis is GOOD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
‘SG-1 goes to a planet where they meet that guy who they think is a good guy, but he turns out to be a bad guy and almost manages to trick them. Three new technobabble words, one planet-wide genocide, one joke about science fiction and Daniel Jackson dies.’ However, I don’t think the WP:STARGATE crowd would approve. Their example for a good plot summary is Thirty-Eight Minutes—the plot section has ca. 900 words and 5.1 KiB (measuring rendered text only). —xyzzyn20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Note how I said ‘their example’. I’d rather have ‘steno’ plot summaries in an article otherwise consisting of sensible secondary information than format they currently use, but I did not allege that you would, too. (And, for the record, I find your tone and your choice of edit summary offensive.) —xyzzyn21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a free use image for David Mamet yet. I currently have the "no free use image available" image in the David Mamet article. I'm wondering, would it be possible to commission an artist to create a caricature/sketch of David Mamet, and donate it into the public domain? Is that a workable solution?-BillDeanCarter21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two things to keep in mind with this. One is that sketches have not always been warmly embraced by editors here, and the other is that the sketch must not be based on a photograph, as it would then be a derivative work. Have we tried contacting him or his agents with a nice, polite request? Jkelly21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't tried to contact him or his agent. I'm just spitballing ideas. I was impressed by this sketch of William Monahan here [4] and thought it is an interesting alternative. The artist did a very good job. A well done sketch could even complement available free use images. If I had that skill level I'd do some interesting stuff with certain articles. It's another way to bring in different talents to Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, with Jkelly’s caveats (but be sure that the artist does ‘donate’ it). In the meantime, is this the same guy? (Sorry, I don’t know what he’s supposed to look like.) If yes, you could use that image—it’s CC–BY–SA. —xyzzyn21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I removed two images from Howard Wyeth to be conservative (one, two). They are likely to be the only images available of the subject's most notable tour. Both were copied from YouTube which I understand had partnered with Sony BMG last October. But now I suspect that Sony doesn't have time to police their artists even one so obvious as Dylan. The creators of the videos (WTTW-TV Chicago, aired on PBS; and TVTV, aired on NBC) are credited clearly on the image pages. Both are lousy reproductions, very low resolution and I have scaled them down or cropped them farther, so they have little value. #2 pictures no one but the subject. Do you think it safe to reinstate the images? Thanks for your thoughts. -Susanlesch04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if youtube is following copyright rules, it just matters if we are. These images would have the same fair use restrictions as any other FU images in WP. Youtube and the uploader didn't gain any rights over those images, because they didn't add anything artistic to them. Stating that it came from youtube is all that youtube has to do with it. Linking to the youtube video may be a no-no, though. We don't want to promote any copyright infringement. - Peregrine Fisher04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Peregrine Fisher. The two links have been removed, the note "YouTube" has been added to the source on the image pages, and the images are back in (because I believe that if fair use is allowed these are fair use). Best wishes. -Susanlesch04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are these acceptable under fair use?
The user Motion Picture Guy has been adding a number of images from IMDb and posting them to articles under a flag of fair use. I'm not really all that knowledgable about fair use and every time that I think I've got it pegged, someone says I'm wrong. So, could someone look at this person's contributions and see if the images are actually allowable under fair use? For examples, see Fairuza Balk and Adrienne Barbeau. Thanks, Dismas|(talk)15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, we can't use pictures from IMDB. I am not sure if they paid for the pictures themselves or not, but if they did and we take it from them, then that will fail fair use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The images are acceptable under fair use, but they aren't acceptable under wikipedias policy of replaceable fair use. Because it is possible to go and take a picture of these people (or find a free version), there arent' supposed to be any fair use images used. They make people think they don't have to go and take (or find) a picture. - Peregrine Fisher16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we use this opportunity to clear something up once and for all? You can (try to) take a free/libre picture of an ACTOR, but you cannot take one of a CHARACTER. If these IMBD photos were of characters, and met our fair use criterion, then why should they be deleted? Comments? Jenolenspeak it!10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes but a free picture of an actor could adequately replace a picture of a character - especially when there is no special costume or makeup involved. Unless you are specifically discussing the details of their physical appearance, "picture of actor X who plays Y wearing own shirt" is an adequate replacement for "actor X who plays Y wearing a shirt he wore in one episode of the show". ed g2s • talk16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed - Sadly, you are wrong. All pictures of William Shatner are NOT pictures of Captain Kirk. All pictures of Captain Kirk ARE pictures of William Shatner. If I'm talking about Kirk in an article, I'm going to use a picture of Kirk. If I'm talking about Shatner, I'll use a picture of the actor. But I submit that your interpretation is way, way too narrow, very much wrong, and symptomatic of how this at times ridiculous fair use campaign is hurting Wikipedia's mission to create a more-than "adequate" encyclopedia. Jenolenspeak it!19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But what's the reason for not fairly using a photo of Harmony on a page about Harmony? Doesn't the encyclopedic value of such a photo - and its completely legitimate fair use, both in Wikipedia policy and U.S. law - make it worth using? A photo of Mercedes may tell me something about Harmony... but it completely ignores the contributions of the make up person (and yes, character make up is different than personal make up; and no, I'm not talking about Vamp Harmony), the costumer, the lighting designer, the photographer, the show runner, the studio, etc. -- Harmony is a creation, and we deserve to know as much about her as an encylopedia can tell us. Mercedes is an actress. If I'm writing an article about Harmony, I'll use a photo of Harmony. If I'm writing an article about Mercedes, I'll use a photo of Mercedes. Why is this even controversial? Jenolenspeak it!19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Because IMO the difference is so little, it's not necessary to use the fair use image. You know, the whole standard free content etc etc. Garion96(talk)19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And this is where the argument really falls apart. We're building an encyclopedia. And now - the standard of "Well, this isn't really the thing, but, it's kind of what the thing looks like" is being used?? I mean, really, people... THERE ARE NO FREE PICTURES OF CAPTAIN KIRK. There are no free pictures of Harmony. If I'm writing an article about Captain Kirk, I'm going to use a picture of Captain Kirk, in line with both Wikipedia policy and US Copyright law. If I'm writing an article about Harmony, the same thing goes. Any other standard is fundamentally contrary to the primary mission of Wikipedia - which is, after all, to build an "encyclopedia of the highest quality", not to build a "free". Jenolenspeak it!00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
How about someone creates a Wikipedia page that gives examples of what is appropriate for use here, and we all come to a consensus? Based on examples, more than rules. You make a good point about Captain Kirk, and as I understand it if you're critical of Kirk in the article you could use his image under fair use. Shatner is another matter. BUT how about a Wikipedia page with MANY MANY EXAMPLES categorized under the set of circumstances Wikipedians will undoubtedly come across while prettying articles with images. And how about we then come to a consensus on what you CAN and CAN'T do.-BillDeanCarter01:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead of rehashing old arguments, we'll just agree to disagree on this. You'll never convince me and I don't think I'll ever convince you. :) I do agree about Kirk. Garion96(talk)01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This makes me wonder. If we used a random free image, say of a carrot, to illustrate an actor, would we be breaking any copyright laws by misrepresenting it? Now, an image of an actor out of character is a lot closer than an image of a carrot, but it seems to me to be only a matter of degree. - Peregrine Fisher19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we would state that this article is about character X who is played by actor Y (see picture). If we would say this carrot is actor Y, it still wouldn't be breaking copyright laws, but more libel laws. :) Garion96(talk)19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ed - Sadly, you are wrong. All pictures of William Shatner are NOT pictures of Captain Kirk. All pictures of Captain Kirk ARE pictures of William Shatner." - that statement implies that I said pictures of William Shatner are pictures of Captain Kirk. If you could actually reference what I've said when you so sadly thought I was wrong that might make more sense. What I actually said was that it some cases we can use a picture of the actor, identify it as a picture of the actor ("Y is played by X in the show") and still "adequately give the same information" (FUC#1) because a picture of the character does not contain significantly more information that is relevant to what is being discussed. "Well, this isn't really the thing, but, it's kind of what the thing looks like" - except it is, it's exactly the same person - when an actor is in character it's still the same person, they don't morph into that character - acting is just make-believe you know. Unless the makeup and costume differ in a way which is significant to the article (which in many cases it can do) the two photos convey the same information. ed g2s • talk12:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
...it (sic) some cases we can use a picture of the actor, identify it as a picture of the actor ("Y is played by X in the show") and still "adequately give the same information" ... Uh, what? This is the best you can do? You still haven't given a good reason why, when writing an article about Captain Kirk, I shouldn't use a photo of William Shatner IN CHARACTER as Captain Kirk. You claim photos of the actor are an "adequate" substitute for a photo of a character. This indicates to me that in many cases, you think actors and characters are interchangeable; however, they clearly are not. So, just to be clear, it appears to me that you think using photos of actors is an acceptable encyclopedic substitute for a photo of their character; for the reasons listed above, and many more, I certainly do not. Among the problems here: How do you propose to objectively determine whether or not a Shatner photo is "Kirk-y enough" to meet YOUR standards for Kirk-ness? And won't those just be YOUR standards? One person's Kirk-ish-ness may well be another's not-that-Kirky-at-all. But hey, we're in luck! There's a simple solution -- If you're trying to illustrate an article about Kirk, then just use a photo of the character, Captain James T. Kirk! It's guaranteed to be 100% Kirk-y goodness!
Unless the makeup and costume differ in a way which is significant to the article (which in many cases it can do) the two photos convey the same information. And this conveyance of the "same" information -- this is a judgement call that should be made by, who? You? Chowbok? Thanks, but I prefer my encyclopedia photos of Captain Kirk to actually be of Captain Kirk, not the guy who played him at one time.
It's absolutely ridiculous to get so caught up in this fair use mess that you're actually now arguing that we should illustrate Wikipedia articles with photos that are similar to the article subject. ("The Apollo rocket, similar to the Gemini rocket seen here, took man to the moon..." would not be acceptable, nor should this misguided "similarity substitution" policy be...) That's plain wrong. If you're writing an article about a character, there is no good reason not to use a photo of the character, this petty fair use ridiculousness be damned.
And I thought we were shooting for a little higher than "adequate"? Or is the whole "highest quality" thing out the door, trampled in the rush to venerate libre above all else? Jenolenspeak it!13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not arguing the Kirk/Shatner case specifically. Each case needs to be considered individually. "you think actors and characters are interchangeable; however, they clearly are not". I do see how this is so clear - in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. A photo of a character is just a photo of an actor in some specific clothes and makeup. If those aren't significant to the article, then a photo of the actor is adequate. Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument, nor is going to change our policy. ed g2s • talk13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
*shakes his fist in an impotent rage*. Your self important and incorrect viewpoint and the stubbornness with which you stick to it encapsulates a whole category of what is wrong with this project.--Jeff13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Please keep your comments to the matter being discussed. Incivility helps no-one. ed g2s • talk
..in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. I am sorry that you lack the professional skills or credentials to analyze the numerous differences between a studio promotional photo of an actor in character, and a blurry Flikr photo (where, often, the other person in the picture has been cropped out)... But your lack of ability to note differences in make-up, lighting, composition, presentation, etc. is no reason for Wikipedia to reject a picture of Captain Kirk in an article about Captain Kirk, assuming such a photo abides by both our draconian fair use guidelines, as well as U.S. fair use law. Similarly, there's no reason not to use a picture of Captain Jack Sparrow, instead of Johnny Depp, in an article about Sparrow. I should be free to use a picture of Sky Captain, in the Sky Captain article, as opposed to Jude Law. But what you appear not to get is that I have no interest in using a picture of Sean Connery if I'm writing an article about Captain Marko Ramius, his Hunt for Red October character. There are a thousand little things that make a character different than an actor, from hairstyle choices to how he/she presents himself... and I want to be able to see those things. That's why we have pictures. And why we should always have pictures of the ACTUAL things that are the subject of our articles, not things that look like them.
Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument... While this is partially true - I do believe in minimum quality standards - I understand the significant limitations Wikipedia is working under when trying to write and illustrate a libre encyclopedia in a copyright-crazy world. However, in this case, my preference has nothing to do with libre or copyright; I simply prefer the images of our article subjects to actually BE the subject of the article, not the most free semi-equivalent. Jenolenspeak it!20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You cite some cases such as Jack Sparrow and Sky Captain - but in other cases where there are "a thousand little things that make a character different than an actor" unless these differences are relevant to the content of the article then there is no use the image. ed g2s • talk21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be asking, "Is a photo of the subject of the article relevant?" I mean, that whole "relevant to the content of the article" part -- well, I guess that depends on if you think a picture of the subject of the article is relevant. I say yes. For example, if the subject is -- just to change things up -- Pavel Chekov -- should the article include a photo of the character, "Pavel Chekov"? I say, of course yes. And a photo of Walter Koenig simply isn't the same. Because there can be NO libre image of Pavel Chekov, you're going to have to grit your teeth and allow fair use in these instances. If we decide to write high-quality articles about these types of fictional characters, we have to accept that fair use is inevitable. And, for that matter, fair. Again, why is this even controversial? Articles should be illustrated by images which show the subject of the article... not something that is similar to the subject. Jenolenspeak it!22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Fictional characters do not exist. All that exists it the actor who plays them. If we feel that how that actor looks is relevant we need a picture, which could be free. If we feel that how that actor dresses on the show is relevant we need a picture which probably isn't free. If we don't justify the latter - we can't use Fair Use. ed g2s • talk00:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Jenolen here - fictional characters actually have multiple renditions, in comics, in art, played by actors, etc. "Pavel Chekov" cannot by definition have a free picture, any more than Guernica (painting) can. Stan01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"cannot ... have a free picture" - a free picture of what? We use Fair Use for critical commentary, if we are commenting on the actor who portrayed the character - then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the facial appearance/hair colour, then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the stuff which we can't get a free picture for then we can use unfree pictures. ed g2s • talk01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ed here. Unless the makeup/costume differs significantly. If we are to look at Michael Dorn as Worf and discuss the makeup required, then an image is justified. If we talk about Marg Helgenberger portraying Catherine Willows, then the image is not required for the article, makes it pretty, but that is irrelevant. It does not, in my opinion, justify the use of the image. I mean, an actor is a suit is an actor in a suit. Such as Image:GeorgeMason.jpg. Pretty for the article, maybe, does it significantly improve the article it is included on? I don't think so. --Bob16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless the makeup/costume differs significantly... Fantastic. You'll be setting up the new "WP:Significant Difference" guidelines, then? Or perhaps chairing the "Wikipedians Who Would Like To Spend Time On Character Photos Comparing Them To Actor Flikr Candids" subcommittee? Why bother? Instead, we should feel free to use pictures of characters to illustrate articles about characters, providing they follow both U.S. and Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. I don't know quite how to describe this, other than "We should illustrate article subjects with pictures of the subject of the article." Which seems fairly self-evident to me, but, of course, can cause problems when viewed thorugh the Wiki-vortex that is Wikiworld's fair use frenzy.
Just because YOU see no encyclopedic value in the contributions of people OTHER than the actor to the creation of a character doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to make that call for myself. Jenolenspeak it!18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"providing they follow both U.S. and Wikipedia's fair use guidelines" - you mean our Fair Use policy which requires significance and irreplaceability. It will always be up to the uploader to demonstrate that the image contributes significantly and is irreplaceable, and I don't think when uploading character photos this will always be the case. "We should because we can" is not our policy. ed g2s • talk20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Significance - Broad consensus exists that a photo of the subject of an encyclopedia article is significant. Irreplaceability - Broad consensus exists that there can be no "free/libre" photos of fictional characters, such as George Mason, James T. Kirk, Pavel Chekov, etc. Unless you want Wikipedia to delete those entries -- and you may well want that, I have no idea -- our current policy clearly allows photos of the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Jenolenspeak it!21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't have a broad consensus on subjects that haven't been discussed, which most of these haven't. My point is not, and has never been that an actor shot can always replace a character shot, but that each case has to be considered individually. I see no broad consensus that illustrating minor make-up and costume changes always constitute a significant addition to the article. ed g2s • talk23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't have a broad consensus on subjects that haven't been discussed, which most of these haven't... And which of my two main points do you think there is no broad consensus on? The idea that a photo of the subject of an encyclopedia article is significant? (Does that really need discussion?) Or that no free/libre photos exist of fictional characters? Is there anyone here who disagrees with that?
You'll forgive me if your plea for careful individual consideration of each images use rings hollow, coming as it does in the middle of a campaign which has seen repeated, massive "accidental" deletions of tagged RFU images, deletions of images which have had no complaints against them, etc. People here are not interested in carefully considering individual "cases" for images, as has been proven time and again. This is an example of creating problems where none exist. There have been NO problems using studio released character photos to illustrate Wikipedia articles on those characters, and I welcome anyone who knows of any issues relating to this area to pipe up!
As for your whole "I can't always tell what the differences are between actors and characters, so let's delete character photos" argument, I don't think your standards -- which are, by definition, subjective -- should apply. An article about McIntosh Apples is illustrated by a picture of a McIntosh Apple. An article about a hydrogen atom is illustrated by an image of a hydrogen atom. An article about Captain Kirk should be illustrated by a photo of Captain Kirk, as long as it follows WP:FU ... which is, contrary to your bolded point above, a guideline. End of story. Jenolenspeak it!00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't think anyone disagrees on the Kirk example. But just be curious I did some searching. [5] is a screenshot of Kirk. [6] is a promo of Shatner in a Kirk costume. There, unfortunately, is probably no way that paramount will release the image under a free license. But there is almost no difference in the picture (disregarding a small age difference). The same, I feel, with Harmony Kendall and the actress Mercedes McNab. Yes, one is made more professionally, but that's it. Garion96(talk)00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You look at the two, and see only "one is made more professionally..." Which, I think, speaks more to the limitations of YOU than the limits of the respective photos. When I look at the Harmony photo, I'm looking at choices. What is the actress telling me about the character with her face? With her eyes? With her hair? What about her hair color? What about the amount of make-up she's wearing, or lack-thereof? What about her costume? Does the choice of blouse reflect something in the character's emotional make-up? How about the skirt? Fun and flirty, like Harmony? Or something more serious, indicating a deeper "there" there, than might otherwise be thought? Of course, kill this photo because "Mercedes McNab looks just like Harmony," and this wealth of information about the character... and believe me, I truncated the analysis because I believe the point had been made... is lost. Jenolenspeak it!04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Than that should be explained in the article. Also, I am not deleting the image or placing the fairusreplace tag on the image, I am just discussing this. I see it more as a limitation of YOU (see how annoying capitalizing is?) of working on a free content encyclopedia. Garion96(talk)12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be explained in the article; I use my eyes and my experience to determine that information (if it's there). This falls under the "things an image in an encyclopedia should be able to tell you" category. The Harmony image itself is clearly being fairly used under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines... and yet, I'm sure there are those on this page who are just salivating to delete it. Of all the fair use vs. libre issues, this one is especially dumb - since there can never be a libre picture of Captain Kirk, Harmony Kendell, Jack Bauer, etc., how does Wikipedia handle that? By running around like chickens who have been "libre-d" from their heads. If it's now the official policy of Wikipedia to not use copyrighted photographs to illustrate copyrighted characters, that's fine. Legally unneeded, and contrary to other policies, which clearly state fair use of images IS allowed, but fine. That needs to be made clear. Also, {{promotional}} needs to be junked... but that's another story. Jenolenspeak it!20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you find the idea of trying to create a completely free content encyclopaedia a pile of liberal nonsense, what are you still doing here? We're not going to change our founding principle just because a load of users think we could be better with loads of unfree content. It's just not going to happen, no matter how "dumb" you think we are for doing it this way. ed g2s • talk13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1) "Liberal nonsense"? What on earth gives you that idea? 2) But Wikipedia is not a "free content" encyclopedia. That's what it aims to be, but for now, it's as free as can be. As we've seen, time and time again, Wikipedia has made the choice to allow fair use of copyrighted material. EN has not gone "German," with no fair use allowed, at least not yet, because when it does, it's signing its own death warrant. I think this insane campaign against things like the international wheelchair symbol ("not free enough," please!) and state government photos is hastening Wikipedia's slide from useable resource to sad joke. I live and work in the real world, not the hypothetical Wiki-GFDL-utopia that many seem to think is just 'round the corner, Ma! Well, great! And I'm down with "as free/libre as possible." But I'm not okay with people who trample over that to "Free, or nothing." Or "Poor Quality Free, over Professional Quality Negligible Unfree" (See Jennifer Granholm). Maybe you think we should use blurry Flikr photos instead of a state issued portrait of the Governor of Michigan ... I do not. I don't see how blurry Flikr photos help Wikipedia's primary mission - to create an encyclopedia of the highest quality. (You can't create a "free" of the highest quality... people don't come to the website looking for "free", they come looking for information.) And, I guess, that's why I rail against what I see as the completely unneeded ridiculousness that has characterized parts of this debate. But don't worry; I give it another month or so before I wash my hands and feet of the whole thing... See, I actually am a working media professional, and what started as a fun hobby has become increasingly less so, thanks to a variety of factors, but primarily the general "high-school debate" feel and repetititve amateur Wikilawyering which characterizes so many of these discussions. Jenolenspeak it!20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think that the "Wiki-GFDL" is a "hypothetical utopia" you should realy really find another hobby. Please, take this as a serious advice, and not a "you're-unwelcome" message. Our "hypothetical utopia" is surely not "round the corner", but our goal is to ride towards it, instead of accepting the status-quo.
"people don't come to the website looking for free..." Stop thinking of Wikipedia as a "website". Do you realize that our greatest contribution may be for people that can't afford to buy books, let alone internet access? A geography school teacher from a third world country trying to build a resource for his students will look for reusable information, not pretty copyrighted images. Stop thinking of Wikipedia as a website. we're far more than this. Even if the Foundation runs out of money today and shuts down the "website", "Wikipedia" (the free encyclopedia, not the website currently at http://wikipedia.org) will still be highly useful (and used). --Abu badali(talk)20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Abu, after reading your argument here and below and reading Wiki is not Paper and Key Policy #2 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." I'm honestly confused. Just really, really confused.Jmdustin23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why, he hasn't contradicted either of those. He's saying that Wikipedia is more than just a website - it has other uses as well, which is why we chose the GFDL. While using as much Fair Use as we can may not harm Wikipedia the website, it may hinder other uses of our content, which are just as important to the foundation. ed g2s • talk13:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So this comment: ""I though we were here to build an encyclopedia". Yes, this can be easily noticed by reading yours (sic) opinions, and this is what make some of us look as lunatics to you. You believe we're here to build something that's already available for some centuries. --Abu badali (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"" Doesn't imply that we're not building an encyclopedia? That's odd. My point, however, is that we all have different goals. Just brutally forcing your opinion of the goals on others by running over them time and time again does not make you right. Citing rather strange arguments about third-world teachers somehow having access to a cd or printed version of Wikipedia without access to internet or the ability to purchase a book, but also being concerned about copyright issues in the same circumstance is absurd. This has really just devolved into a "we're right, you're wrong" type of argument where common sense and what people are actually using Wikipedia for has gone out the window. I for one am tired of being strong-armed. Open your mind, look at reality instead of an unlikely possibility, and face the fact that while you may want a utopian Wikipedia, it's probably never going to happen. I'm an anarchist at heart, but that doesn't mean that I don't vote! Jmdustin15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"Doesn't imply that we're not building an encyclopedia?" It implies we're not here only to build an encyclopedia. That would be Britannica's goal, not ours. We're here to build a free encyclopedia. I'm not "brutally forcing (my) opinion of the goals on others". The goals are quite clear, but some people insist on start counting from the 2nd pillar. If you see the situation of a teacher whose students don't have internet access or "the ability to purchase a book" as "rather strange" that's because you had far better opportunities in life than I did. --Abu badali(talk)15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1)The no internet access and/or the inability to purchase a book was not what I stated was rather strange. The idea that the same person would be worried about the copyright status of a fair-use image was. Sorry if there was confusion. I am well aware that the luxuries that the US can afford are not available all over the world. Ironically, even this argument is one of those luxuries. 2)Nowhere in the five pillars does it implicitly or explicitly state or imply that fair-use images cannot be used. That is your interpretation of "Wikipedia is free content." Just like constitutional issues, until I get a supreme court ruling I won't be satisfied. And even then, I can still disagree. Just another luxury for me, I guess. Jmdustin15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah the good old "are photos of characters replaceable?" debate. The bane of admins closing replaceable fair use images. Personally I tend towards sometimes. You all appear to missing the other half of the debate though. What counts as a character. A recent case would be are playboy centerfolds a character?Geni04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A related question, if I may? It was really the repeated references to Captain Kirk that reminded me of this, and I thought I could engage your ... fervent minds on it. Image:Kirk001.jpg (wholly independent the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale; a previous point of contestation) is a picture of Captain Kirk in his 23rd century-era Starfleet uniform. This image is used to depict the style of uniform Kirk is wearing, not Kirk himself or anything specifically significant in this image. Attending a Star Trek convention or the sets of Star Trek: New Voyages would provide me with enumerable opportunities to take pictures of people wearing identical (or equivalent) costumes. Therefore, can't this image be (easily?) replaced by a free-use one that "would adequately give the same information."? — pd_THOR|=/\= | 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Another related question. This same image, Image:Kirk001.jpg, has as it's source information a link to Wikipedia's article on Paramount Pictures. Is it enough just to say that this image is copyrighted by Paramount Pictures to use it as a promotional image?
A lot of startrek images in use on Wikipedia are just like this one in regards to (lack of) source information. They all have more likely being downloaded from the official website startrek.com, or from some website engaging in copyright violation. The point is, our use of an image of kirk to illustrate an article about kirk is competitive with startrek.com intended use for the image. And indeed, they make it pretty clear on their's terms of use that the images on the website are not to be reused by other sites when it says (yes, in allcaps): "UNAUTHORIZED USE, COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING, POSTING, TRANSMITTING, DISTRIBUTING OR DUPLICATING OR ANY OTHER MISUSE OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED". Why don't we simply stick to user-taken screenshots when illustrating a movie's character's look? --Abu badali(talk)21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There's some debate at John Edward about whether a cover scan (picturing the author) is an acceptable fair use image on the article about the author. Input from knowledgable folks here would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Use of Fair Use Images outside Article namespace
Of course, the use of fair use images is not allowed outside the article namespace, but in relating to the main page, it seems to occur often. Worse, all these images are kept in a "historical archive" sense, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2007 for an example (Feb 1 to start). BJBot is currently seeking approval for going through fair use images and removing them from non article space. Are these "archive" items for the main page acceptable to keep? I would think turning the image to a link would be acceptable, there's no need to keep the image displayed there. But, the bot owner wanted to see some support for this (or any option related to this) before tackling this, since it will likely already be a highly sensitive project anyways. Any input will be appreciated. --MECU≈talk22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it's much ado about nothing. This is yet more wiki-fairuse where real-fairuse law is more than adequate to protect the way we use copyrighted images; even in the front-page archives. To me, it seems obvious, then, that this is more of a social question than one of any practicality, which thereby lends itself to endless arguement and will ultimately have no satisfactory resolution. Thanks for posting it here, always good to get more input, regardless how futile any discussion might be :).--Jeff02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these images should be removed. We shouldn't use them on the main page either - but people would get all upset if some days the "featured article" didn't have a nice little thumbnail next to it. ed g2s • talk22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reason to remove FU images from FA templates in non-article space, or from the main page, for that matter. The policy against FU images in non-article space—primarily user space—obviates the need to argue with innumerable people over whether the image is being used legally in their own personal space and to be overprotective against the legal risk of use outside of articles. As part of the FA template, however, whether on the main page or elsewhere, individual user discretion over whether and how it is used is removed, and it only appears in the context of the article summary, where it serves the same informative function as in article space. Postdlf22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not necessarily the case. If the only image on an article is company logo, then it can be used for critical commentary of said logo - and should have a rationale to that effect. If used just with introduction about the company, to which the logo has no significance, then the claim may well be invalid. The Main Page (and the FA archvie) is a navigation page - it is not intended to contain unique content. While it is nice to have images on it - it still functions adequately without them. ed g2s • talk23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Precisely because we don’t want to have to watch non-free images outside of encyclopaedic articles case by case, we should not make a simple rule complicated by adding exceptions for FAs or anything else. —xyzzyn23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Ed's comment: As with any article, the substance of the textual article summary in the FA template must justify the fair use claim of the image that is chosen to accompany it. My point was that the template summary can justify an image fair use claim, regardless of where that template content appears on this site, because the summary functions like a stand-alone short article.
Re: Xyzzy's comment: There's nothing to watch, because the template uniformly (not "case-by-case") dictates the content and guarantees that the image is always seen in that context. There's simply nothing complicated about this. Postdlf23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In all practicality, I question how effective BJBot will be going through all of the FA templates, especially the ones that have not been on the main page yet. Whenever Raul654, our ratified featured article director, selects an article and writes a TFA summary, he immediately protects that template. So unless BJBot or its operator User:Bjweeks has sysop powers, it cannot remove any image from them. Furthermore, a majority of the old TFA still in the archives are currently under protection; nobody has been regularly unprotecting them for the past few years once they fall off the main page. Zzyzx11(Talk)23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, images have been removed from old TFA templates in the past such as this edit. But most of the time it is because the image has been deleted for one reason or another. Zzyzx11(Talk)23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Discrepancy between policy and counterexamples
From an ongoing dispute over the use of an image in the article 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings I wanted to bring up a discrepancy between fair use policy and guideline counterexamples. In articles about something akin to a carbombing, there are usually a number of photographs taken by the press during/immediately after the event has occured. Because these events often take place in rather exotic places and are cleaned up quickly, there is no chance of ever creating a new image of the event.
Many of the press images of the event would fit under all fair use policy. One could argue that it violates criteria 3, but most of these images are freely viewable on the internet, are not large resolution, and would not detract from the market of the original. Because a very limited number of photographs were taken, and those taken were by press agencies, it is safe to assume that in the foreseeable future, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
The problem comes with the guideline counterexamples. Counterexample 5 states that "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." Obviously a single car bomb or other such incident would not fall under either the "iconic" or "newsworthy in itself" categories, so by this reasoning it should not be used in the article. However, as explained above, the image is permitted under WP "policy". If we were to follow the counterexample criteria, that would basically mean that these articles will have no images of the event until the copyright expires on the few photographs taken, which would be decades hence. I was hoping to hear if others had any input on this dilemma. Joshdboz23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding, so let me clear this up. There ARE NO "throw away" images. They don't exist. (And, if such a thing is possible, they doubly-don't exist for AP, Reuters, or other "work for hire" photographers.) There are images that are under-marketed, perhaps under-capitlized, and certainly, under-sold... but no amount of a professional photographer's work output should be lumped in to the quite ugly category, "throw away images." Photographs that aren't published or sold yet are no more "throw away" material than a first writers draft is "throw away" material, or the first cut of a film is a "throw away film." Here's a perfect example: See how big copyright holders (movie studios) now capitalize this so-called "throw away" material? By selling it to you as "Bonus Scenes" on a DVD! There IS NO THROW AWAY material!
Sorry to jump in on this, but it's just really, really frustrating to hear amateurs, yet again, take shots at professionals -- who, remember, are being asked here to donate their bread and butter, and not only donate it for use on Wikipedia, but also to donate the rights to it, as well, so someone else, down the line, can make money off it. Let's try to remember that professional photos don't simply appear out of the ether. And you should never think of an unsold or unpublished photo as a "throw away" photo. Jenolenspeak it!08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
given that I've seen a professional photographer describe thier upload to flickr useing that term I would suggest it is not completely unjustified. Also please remeber that in the US many historic movie trialers were thrown away copyright wise and as a result are PD.Geni08:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen's right, you're wrong. I wrote something up longer and more insulting but I'm restraining myself.--Jeff13:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are professional photographers uploading free images to commons as we speak, so apparently it's just as possible for professional photographers to donate their work, as it is for everybody else to donate their time working on WP.Stan14:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about pictures of flowers, bees, landscapes or sheep. We're talking about photos of unique events for which there are no free versions. Please limit your examples to this area of discussion. Yes photographers are releasing photos under free licenses. I am not a pro but I spent good money on a kit and I've been releasing free photos for a while. But getting back on track, you'll not find AP photos of unique events (eg. Elian Gonzalez, IRAQ battles or any event in which an AP photographer is present) "thrown away". Each photo is marketable and valuable. So please, in your off-hand examples, please at least make sure they are relevant and applicable.--Jeff01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In such cases, we’re simply out of luck. No free images exist, no free images can be created and while we can ask for some images under a free licence, we probably won’t get any. That does not justify using news agency images for illustration in an article about the event (especially since getting organisations to pay for this privilege is how news agencies make money) and I don’t see why it should be generally possible to claim fair use of such images. —xyzzyn06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
But as I said above, the only possible policy that it can be argued it violates is The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work. The fact that these are low resolution pictures used in a non-commercial way and already freely viewable on the internet would qualify, would it not? I'm not trying to claim broad fair use powers, but this is a very specific instance in which fair use is not only allowed, but the only possible way to illustrate an article. Joshdboz14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP is big and popular enough that it's probably leaching significant numbers of pageviews (aka ad $$) from news sites now. Even if our fair use of a news agency photo were to be legally defensible, it would still feel like theft to me - I would rather drive people to the news sites via extlinks in our references. Stan14:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your correct that some of these are questionable, I apologize for the confusion. I'm just trying to get some examples of the dilemma that occurs when you have an image which works under WP policy but not under counterexample guidelines, as I explained in my first post here. That's the issue I would like to address. Joshdboz17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?
Some of the uses are just for decoration, but many, like on Olympic (MTR) and Long Island City (LIRR station), convey information in the standard way, since this is an international standard.
We actually already have a policy in place to deal with this: WP:IAR would seem to apply. Killing this image would in no way result in a "better" or "freer" Wikipedia... and, in fact, it would seem to be extraordinarily counter-productive. So leave it alone. Jenolenspeak it!06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of our free text and images are copyrighted. So what usage guidelines or licenses are available from the copyright holder in this case? Rl07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Being unfree, replacing this image would, by definition, make Wikipedia "freer" and, in terms of our goals, "better". IAR does not apply to our Fair Use policy. ed g2s • talk14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with WP:IAR Except Our Fair Use Policy... Ed, can you provide a citation to that? Thanks! Also, I think its wonderful that there's now an international wheelchair symbol, one that means the same thing to everyone, everywhere in the world... except, of course, on Wikipedia, where people are so tied up in knots and intent on re-inventing the wheel(chair), that there's a special wheelchair symbol that is NOT universal, nor will ever be, used only because, I don't know, people have too much time on their hands? Way to go, Wikipedia! Blaze that trail... Jenolenspeak it!19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a stupid Idea from ICTA to copyright an image intended for being widely used world wide to begin with. There's a tendency to copyright and tag with "All Rights Reserved" everything, without thinking, and projects like Wikipedia, Creative Commons and GNU are here to change this dominant world view. But of course, you don't care about this all. Let's get back to building or great and beautiful website. --Abu badali(talk)19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Changing world views? Goodness, I though we were here to build an encyclopedia? Shows what I know... BTW: five minutes ago, I took the dog for a walk, and, strangely, saw the International Symbol of Access about ten times, on various parking spots, signs, etc. Somehow, the real world is coping with the horrific crime of "copyright"... Wikiworld, not so much. Jenolenspeak it!19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"I though we were here to build an encyclopedia". Yes, this can be easily noticed by reading yours opinions, and this is what make some of us look as lunatics to you. You believe we're here to build something that's already available for some centuries. --Abu badali(talk)20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to use Image:wheelchair.svg to mean accessibility, I believe we're doing plagiarism. Isn't the idea of representing accessibility trough a "stylized image of a person using a wheelchair facing right" part of what was copyrighted by ICTA? --Abu badali(talk)16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by copyrighting a "person sitting down on a toilet". My concern is about copying the creative idea of representing accessibility by a "stylized image of a person using a wheelchair facing right". Supposed you had never seen the International Symbol of Access before and someone commissions you an image to represent the concept of accessibility world wide. Would you come out with the same idea yourself? --Abu badali(talk)17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to represent wheelchair access, you use a diagram of a wheelchair. I drew this from scratch using several photos of wheelchairs. It is about as different from the copyrighted logo as you can get while still showing a wheelchair. --NE218:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to have a wheelchair. Accessibility in not only about build access for wheelchairs. It's also for blind (or otherwise visually challenged) people, for deaf (or otherwise audition-challenged people), etc. I agree that a wheelchair is a great choice, that's exactly the point of being concerned about plagiarism (we're copying the "good idea"). By the way, is the "handicapped-Aiga-man" idea copyrighted?
…OK, so we just need to design a completely new symbol for accessibility. Is there a page for this sort of thing? —xyzzyn20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I created it based on AIGA's Symbols and Signs collection, that are released in the public domain. But the idea of a "stylized handicapped man holding a crutch" is surely not original. We need to know if there's someone in the world holding a copyright on such a thing (what wouldn't surprise-me at this point). --Abu badali(talk)20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The symbol is used primarily to indicate transit facilities with elevator or ramp access, not escalators. People on crutches (if that's what the icon at right is supposed to represent) can use escalators, but wheelchair users cannot. --NE223:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The image has been released to be used for identification of handicapped facilities, which is exactly what we are using it for, and it's a pictogram whose use is mandated by law. Also, what possible freedom are we gaining? No downstream users would be in anyway hindered by our use of it, and it's obviously within our rights and well justified to use it in these articles to identify facilities. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Freedom in ‘free encyclopedia’ means the freedom to display, copy, sell and make derivative works for anybody and any purpose. That’s what we’re gaining. —xyzzyn09:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And 'encyclopedia' in 'free encyclopedia' means a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge... It traditionally doesn't include a category of "Graphics and symbols that are made up by website users to replace widely accepted international standards..." But that's Wikipedia for you... always breaking new ground! ;) Jenolenspeak it!17:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If the symbol is irreplaceable, which it sounds like it is, then we ought to use it wherever appropriate. I don't like the idea of replacing it with an obscure replacement that detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. —Remember the dot (t) 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: the possible replacements for the ISO symbol, "ideas" cannot be copyrighted, only specific expressions of ideas. Is anyone actually concerned that because someone has created a simplified graphic of a man in a wheelchair, or a man with a crutch, that now no one can? It has to be substantially similar to infringe the original, and even then it won't be an infringement if it is similar only to the extent necessary to portray the subject (how else do you make a line drawing of a wheelchair from the side? see merger doctrine).
That being said, I think it's completely absurd to replace an internationally standardized–and recognized–image with a self-made one that attempts to serve the same function. We should either not use any image because anything but the standard will confuse or just be uninformative, or just use the ISO image for its intended purpose, under a license tag clarifying what those purposes are, i.e., that ISO permits anyone to use it for free to indicate accessibility, etc. This is purely a licensing issue, not a fair use one. Yes, ISO owns the copyright, but it has licensed it to the public providing it use it as intended.[15] How else would we need–or want–to use it other than according to those standards? To illustrate wolves? Pokemon? Any uses that do not comply with the license should simply be removed. This should really be an easy issue, and it also should not be decided on this irrelevant page. If there are other similar ISO images, it would be worth making an ISO-specific licensing template for such images. Postdlf21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently we have two kinds of images:
free images, which can be used liberally, and
fair use images, which can be used in very few cases;
I don’t see how
images that aren’t free but that some people want to use all over the place anyway because everybody else does
Considering how this is an international standard image that can be used without specific permission or payment by anyone for certain clear uses, and for which there is no free alternative, policy should permit it. I see ISO images (I assume there are other useful ones) as sui generis, and I would support a special case being made for them. Honestly, it makes a lot more sense legally and for the goals of this project to allow ISO-approved uses of ISO images than fair use images. But again, this is not a fair use issue and so not a discussion for this subpage, so we shouldn't pretend to decide it here. Fair use is only relevant for uses that don't comply with the ISO standards. Postdlf23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As xyzzy stated there are only two types of images, free and unfree. This is not going to change, in fact it is soon to be made official project wide foundation policy. ed g2s • talk23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Using "ISO images" only for "ISO-approved uses of (them)" means non-free. If we can't use it for any purpose, it's simply non-free, period. There's no need for a special case to define this situation. And yes, this is the right forum to discuss the use of unfree material. --Abu badali(talk)02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As xyzzy stated there are only two types of images, free and unfree... Example #3,201 of how hard it is to have a rational, nuanced policy discussion with an absolutist. Ed, Abu -- are you even reading Postdlf's posts? Or does your binary view of image copyright status preclude you from responsding rationally to what he's written? It's rather like explaining the Z-axis to inhabitants of Flatland, I suppose... Abu - you, especially, have been remarkably rational recently -- why not continue that march toward sensibility?? Jenolenspeak it!06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, their boilerplate comments don't show any sign that they actually read anything I had written. I've already asked both of them not to do this, because it's not constructive or even civil to try and smother discussion in this manner rather than substantively respond. It just feels to me like authoritarianism rather than honest communication, and it's disruptive. Postdlf17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy towards unfree images boils down to this. Unfree images can be used:
Where no free equivalent could be created
Where use of the image significantly improves the encyclopedia
Where use of the image won't get us sued
Use of the wheelchair symbol where appropriate meets all three of these requirements. Please try to understand that there is a spectrum between free and unfree images - some images are more free than others. We strive for images that are free as in freedom, but understand that this is not always possible. Images under partially free licenses may still be used when necessary, and logically, use of partially free images would be a little less restrictive than use of "all rights reserved" images.
As long as the "won't get us sued" part means "It's impossible to sue us" and not "It's unlike someone will sue us", your summary pretty much captures the spirit of WP:FUC (imho). That said, the use of the international symbol of Accessibility on the article International Symbol of Accessibility is ok with these rules. But its use in other articles seems to fail itens #2 and #3.
I disagree that there's a "spectrum between free and unfree". I see there is as spectrum of freeness, and a clear threshold where something is no longer free. --Abu badali(talk)16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a hypothetical example. Two images are uploaded to Wikipedia and used outside the scope of fair use. The first image's licensing conditions permit commercial and non-commercial use, but not derivate works. The second image is All Rights Reserved. If I understand you correctly, you view both as equally unfree. But use of the first image on Wikipedia is merely undesirable, whereas use of the second is illegal. The first image is free to use in many circumstances, just not on Wikipedia it's just that Wikipedia doesn't want it. It is free, but not free as in freedom. —Remember the dot (t) 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... pretty much. Being legally "ok" is far from enough for an image to be acceptable on Wikipedia. It's necessary, but in no way sufficient. --Abu badali(talk)11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, we are trying to create a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia, but there is definitely a spectrum between free and unfree. Another example is public domain images, which are certainly more free than GFDL or Creative Commons images. —Remember the dot(talk)02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I still says there's a well defined threshold in this spectrum, that divides things in free and non free. PD is surely more free that certainly more free than GFDL or Creative Commons ("Attribution" or "Attribution Sharealike") images, but they are all certainly in the "free" side of the threshold. --Abu badali(talk)11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that there is a spectrum. It ranges from:
All Rights Reserved to
partially free to
free as in freedom to
public domain.
Images that are partially free may be legally used on Wikipedia, though their licenses may prohibit commercial use or derivitave works. The question is how much we want to use these partially free images. Obviously, because we are trying to use free as in freedom (or public domain) images as much as possible, we would want to place restrictions on the use of partially free images. These restrictions do not have to be quite as restrictive as those for All Rights Reserved images because there is no danger of us getting sued over their use. —Remember the dot(talk)04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To Remember the dot: Wikipedia talk:Copyright would be better, or even the Village Pump, because as I said above, this is a licensing issue, not a fair use concern, because ISO gives permission for relevant uses. The question is whether we should permit images that are only usable under ISO licensing conditions? We should first discuss what encyclopedic need is served by 1) giving information on handicapped access in articles, and 2) how necessary/useful is the symbol to indicate that, because if this isn't all that useful, we shouldn't bother getting into the licensing issues. Postdlf17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh....I think so. I still do not know how the Foundation feels about these logos, but if these deviations are considered fair use, the lot needs to go and the image needs to be deleted from the Commons. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia foundation own the project logos, and no they are not free licensed (see the image tag). They are used by permission from the fundation, wich is kinda ironic considering theyr stance on "by permission" images, but it's aparently one of those special cases that's been around since the dawn of time where the normal rules do not apply. --Sherool(talk)00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the foundation won't sue its self so "it's perfectly fine to use non-free images that belong to the foundation even though we say you can't use any non-free...." - had this discussion over the admin userox once. thanks/Fenton, MatthewLexic Dark52278 Alpha 77110:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The main issue is about the use of the Foundation logo all over the site, in images and other stuff. It is their logo, so they have to give us an OK. That is why the CVU's logos were deleted; they misused the logos of the Foundation. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
merge of Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
I suggest we merge Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline to here. I don't "disagree" with this page, but I'm not sure why it needs to be separated. We can easily move some stuff off this page (listings) and place the instructions here, which would make a lot more sense. -- Ned Scott10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at it the more I think it could just be labeled as a how-to rather than being called a guideline. It's just a stripped down version of what's already said here in the form of template instructions. If anything, just put it on the template's doc page and put a simple link. It also seems to be missing a lot of important parts. -- Ned Scott10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's Help:Image page#Fair use rationale and not the best solution. The Help: namespace pages are preiodicaly overwritten by new versions taken from the meta wiki, any changes we did to it would be overwritten fairly soon. That's why the seperate guideline page focusing on EnWiki policies where created in the first place. --Sherool(talk)22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess some user copies text from meta, but he doesn't remove the added text, you can see it from the history. But I do aggree with you merging this two articles might be not the best solution, then maybe there should be a separate artical concerning Fair use rationale.--Vaya01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Barack Obama on cover of TIME magazine
Opinions please on this usage of an October 2006 TIME magazine cover that was recently removed from the article by an editor asking for its replacement with a free use alternative. Please be sure to note the section's last paragraph. Thanks, --HailFire10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The unfree image does not adds any information that isn't already conveyed with text. The paragraph in question already fully identifies the magazine issue when it says it's the "October 2006 Time magazine cover". This non-free image is only being used as a visual aid. As we should keep unfree material usage to a minimum, this image should go away. --Abu badali(talk)13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph discusses the "significant career achievement", and the use this unfree magazine cover doesn't add any information that isn't already discussed in the paragraph. We should use unfree material only when it's necessary, not whenever it's makes a paragraph better. --Abu badali(talk)13:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps you should read them (or reread them?), as it states:
"An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." - Does not appear to only used just illustrate the person, it's being used to illustrate a significant career movement.
"An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." - Which it does not.
Decorative use. The article paragraph doesn't talk about the cover, just the fact he was on it. There's nothing critically important about that cover that it needs to be shown. --MECU≈talk13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. (bolding mine). The may leaves room for doubt. I think the article will live without the image. --MECU≈talk14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The key is, does showing the cover convey any information that can't be expressed by just saying "Obama appeared on the cover of Time Magazine"? Putting the cover on the article would be valid when something about the cover itself is relevant to the article in an important way (I'd argue, for instance that this belongs in the O.J. Simpson murder trial article. The outcry when Time darkened his portrait is an important aspect of the racial tension surrounding the court case. Borisblue14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have over 100,000 Google hits myself, doesn't mean I'm notable, just that I've touched a lot of free software. TIME puts lot of public figures on their front cover, Barack's appearance is expected, not unusual. Stan15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The TIME cover does convey some additional info, most notably the headline "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President" is different from the one contained inside the magazine, and back in October 2006 was a shocker to many (which is why it got so noticed–I read somewhere that this was TIME's number one selling edition for 2006). The picture itself is an unusually high-definition closeup that provides a graphic complement to the theme of the section in which it was placed: "Cultural and political image" (the same reason TIME used it, I'd guess, because Joe Klein's cover story is also mostly about cultural and political responses to Obama's "image". All of that said, I am persuaded by the reasoning that has been presented here, and I am a true believer in all things that make Wikipedia free. I have already replaced an Obama '08 campaign logo that was on the article with a free use photo substitute. For the Time cover we have been discussing here, I'm trying this solution. Does that work for everyone? --HailFire15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that discusses the quality of the Obama cover and how unusual the high-definition close up is, in my opinion you would have grounds for adding the cover in the article. That said, I think you've made a good decision with the article with that edit you pointed out. 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark uses a campaign logo from 2004 as a purley decorative feature - scores of other pictures, including campaign appearances aplenty, illustrate that yes, he did run for president in 2004. A number of users are edit warring to retain this replacable, not important fair use image. Hipocrite - «Talk»21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's be honest now Hipocrite, it's not a number of users, it's you and me. And I am merely using the image in line with numerous other uses of logos, particularly campaign logos, to display that section until a free version of the logo is available. This does not violate FUC, as FUC only (obviously) requires using a free version when one is available. I've scoured every source I can think of, and have turned up nothing useable yet. I continue to look, however. Staxringoldtalkcontribs21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with hipocrite with this one- unless there was something notable or controversial about the design of the 04 campaign logo (and the controversy is discussed in the article), or if the design was somehow needed to identify Wesley Clark, then it should be taken down. Borisblue21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well, there's nothing distinctive about it, it doesn't illustrate anything, and it adds nothing to the article. I don't think there needs to be any search for a free image to replace it, it can just go away and not be missed at all. --Milo H Minderbinder22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also agree. We don't use unfree images to make sections look pretty. Unless the image itself is notable, it should not be used. --Abu badali(talk)22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And, barring an article who's subject IS the sign itself (if it's controversial or groundbreaking or something) is there a justifiable fair use for using a candidate's campaign sign or logo? Staxringoldtalkcontribs18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say there's a fair use argument if someone had a campaign sign or logo that was unique or controversial enough that the logo itself got coverage and became notable. Otherwise, what does the reader learn from seeing it? --Milo H Minderbinder19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Team of Decade in Crusaders (rugby) article.
Hi, I have submitted Crusaders (rugby) for WP:FAC (see comments page here). A point has been raised about the "Crusaders team of the decade" in the article and whether or not listing it is a copy-right violation. Neither myself, or the contributor that raised the point are experts on this, could someone please help clarify it? The discussion can be found on the candidates discussion page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusaders (rugby)). Shuddatalk22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Under some circumstances, lists of names can be copyrighted, such as when a list is expressing the opinion of a group or individual. Such lists can sometimes be included in Wikipedia under fair use, if the list itself is under discussion. --Carnildo21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
promophotos in other language editions
I'm a sysop from srwiki, which still allows fair use material and in particular the promotional photos obtained from official sources when (and only when) no free replacement is available. Personally I find the recent crusade against promotional photos at enwiki frustrating, particularly because I could not locate the discussion at which community consensus of some kind was reached. My question is whether - given that this is all about a certain "higher mission" of this project and not legality - this interpretation of fair use is something that would eventually be pushed in a similar way in other language editions without consent of the respective communities. --Dzordzm07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem we had is this: a lot of the decisions that happened recently didn't come from the Community, but from the Board of Wikimedia itself. We cannot override the board, we cannotr question the board. They pretty much said cut it out on the overuse of fair use. I am not sure how that will affect srwiki (Serbian?), but I am sure we will let you know what happens here. BTW, the discussion was in many places, so I am not sure if there is a way to link to them all. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If no one from sr: is reading the foundation mailing list, someone with reasonable proficiency with English should definitely volunteer to do so. Even if there was an easy answer to your question, local editors at en: aren't any more likely than you are to know the answer. Jkelly18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We do have people following foundation-l but they had not informed us about anything. No problem as I am reading the archives now to gain more understanding. I dutifully apologize for assuming that decisions of this kind are made by local communities. --Dzordzm00:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For now, most of the decisions are made by each Wikipedia, but I honestly think in due time, the people making the rules now on fair use could be not us, but the Board. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the first thing to say is that the autonomy of local Chapters was recognized in a Board Resolution of December 2006:
There is certainly no consensus on EN Wikipedia as to the allowability of fair use. See for example this edit which has resulted in our Copyright Policy page being protected against edits by non-admins. It certainly appears that particular edit was made stealthily, and with knowledge that consensus would not be achieved if a discussion were to have been initiated, after a previous heated discussion about promotional images had been closed down by executive fiat (Jimmy Wales intervened).
There are some excellent photographers releasing there images under free licenses here, which is great. The problem is, however, that there will images of people who are truly irreplaceable. Matthew19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm glad to see the GNU photo licensing used for this image also addresses the rights of the Boston Celtics, the NBA, Robert Parish (the other person depicted in the photo), the visiting arena in which the photo was apparently taken, the terms of the photographer's employment when he took that photo (for example, I would love courtside seats at an NBA game to snap photos, but I'm not credentialed for such; as the sole rights holder of his unused exposures, this photographer is very lucky he wasn't doing work for hire!)... I'm glad there's no need for any of those yucky rights issues to be addressed! Because, you know, that would be a hassle! Yay, GNU! Jenolenspeak it!06:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the issues you raise are not copyright issues. The terms of the photographer's employment are indeed such, but by licensing his own image under GFDL he is asserting he has the right to do so. In some cases, all we are doing is pushing the 'fair use' argument a level back, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...by licensing his own image under GFDL he is asserting he has the right to do so... And, can I assume that he's being subject to the same "burden of proof" or convincing that characterizes these debates? (Many people here want uploaders to "prove" the most basic and obvious details about photographs, or else the images will be deleted.) For example, he says these are his photos; he says he is the sole copyright holder, but is he sending in statements or e-mails or notarized documents to the permissions board? Or is WP:AGF good enough for someone who wants to GFDL something, but not enough for someone who makes a pretty simple and uncontested fair use claim? Jenolenspeak it!02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since he was in phone contact with the Wikimedia HQ down in Florida, especially Greg and Danny, I assume they would have handled the details. It would be best to ask them. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What does "uncontested" means for you? You say something is "uncontested" but at the same time provide a link to a 3 pages long discussion about this something's validity. Doesn't it count as contesting? --Abu badali(talk)03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The consensus to keep that image was uncontested. In fact, it achieved a strong consensus in favor of being kept. It was then deleted for procedural reasons; namely, people (or rather, one person) didn't "trust" the uploader was being honest when they said the image was what they said it was. The original uploader said that image was from a Virgin Records press kit or was a Virgin Records promophoto. No evidence was presented that it WASN'T, the image lived happily here on Wikipedia for more than two years (or so), and then, poof, it was nuked after a strong "keep" consensus developed, by an editor who insisted that it had to be proved that the image was what the original uploader said it was. All I'm asking is, does the same standard apply in these cases? Will editors who submit GFDL images be subject to the same amount of "sourcing scrutiny" that editors who submit promotional photos are? Jenolenspeak it!03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My answer is: yes, we should ask for verifiable source info for any image, may be it tagged as fair use or as free. I understand that we have a problem with self-created works in this regards. I for one, have published half a dozen images I created on Commons, but wouldn't know how to prove I really created them (for most of them) if asked to do so. In an opportunity to be constructive, do you have any ideas for a mechanism to deal with self-created free works? --Abu badali(talk)04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to expect that we will always be able to verify the source of an image. Self-made-GFDL images are an obvious problem. So too, however, is a website that changes or a contact person who moves away. We have to understand that we can't expect to verify every image precisely. We have to rely partially on the reputation of the uploader. Johntex\talk04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Jenolen, I don't review en: images myself, but yes, on Commons every day we have people make totally unlikely claims of licenses for things they upload, and every day we have to scrub them out, and even so a bunch get overlooked for long periods. There are a set of heuristics that work well in practice, and just having multiple eyeballs viewing each image improves the chances that someone will remember having seen that image before. Stan05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That's great... for Commons, where copyrighted material isn't allowed is strongly discouraged. But it is allowed (at least for now) on EN Wikipedia. And fair use of copyrighted material is allowed on EN Wikipedia, as well. So let's say, in the Boy George example, it's NOT a Virgin Records promotional photo. What happens? Is the fair use of that copyrighted material in any way different if the original photo was taken by, say, a hypothetical photographer "Bob Johnson," or done as work for hire by some Virgin Records contractor, lost to the mists of history? I say no; if it meets the U.S. legal standard for fair use, and the insanely twisted Wikipedia standard for fair use, then really, what difference does it make if the copyright holder is Bob Johnson or Virgin Records? This is what no one ever has a good answer for; they simply revert to their simple argument of, "Well, it's not libre free! And not libre free is bad! So the image should be deleted."
I'm reminded of the scene at the end of Contact, where the alien intelligence asks Jody Foster's character to "prove" that she loved her father, stumping her. We can insist on any level of "proof" we want when it comes to copyright origination, but if a fair use claim is properly being made, under both U.S. law and Wikipedia guidelines, then really, what difference does it make who the copyright holder is? That shouldn't matter, if the fair use claim is valid. A fair use claim, which meets both U.S. and Wikipedia standards, is not something to be feared! And it's not the enemy of libre so many seem to think it is.
As for self created free works, the only way to see if they're truly free is to put 'em out there, and see who complains. (Obviously, you're not going to raise a fuss about things that are truly your own work.) If you release a painting or photograph in to the public domain, then kiss it goodbye and send it out in to the real world. But if someone has a complaint about a possibly unfree image, or can prove that, contrary to WP:AGF, an editor has made a mistake when uploading a copyrighted work, then, of course the image should be deleted. That happens all the time, and rightly so. But for images that have been on Wikipedia for two or three years, with NO complaints or copyright counter-claims? Leave 'em alone. Or, if you must, adjust the useage so it DOES meet WP:FUC. I could do with a whole lot less "instantly deleting" and a whole lot more of the "working to help save the good faith and previous policy-compliant (until the policy changed) contributions from valuable editors"... Jenolenspeak it!09:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since part of a fair use claim involves determining the impact on the market for the original work, it's hard to make a valid fair-use claim without knowing the copyright holder. --Carnildo10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And these concerns are not already addressed by WP:FUC? Please... "WP fair use" is so much more restrictive than any legal standard required for fair use, the two share only the same name. Don't confuse WP's draconian fair use policy with real world fair use, which, you know, works pretty well.
Actually, the problem is that people now aren't happy with images where the copyright holder is the same as the source; for example, a Virgin Records promotional image that is copyrighted to Virgin Records. An editor wouldn't let go of the idea that a promotional image is, I don't know, not sourced adequately if it's simply sourced as being from the distributor of the image, regardless of whether or not they were one and the same. Also, note that WP:FUC calls for ...Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different). But if it's the same? Nope, not good enough, apparently... Bizarre and frustrating. Jenolenspeak it!11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Not everybody lives in the USA. That somebody doesn’t complain about their work being misattributed and used without permission on .wikipedia.org doesn’t mean they also won’t complain about the same work being used elsewhere (and we should make sure this doesn’t happen when we claim that our content is free). And Contact sucked. —xyzzyn10:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
But you're asking me to be concerned about things over which I have no control. I'm talking about very simple examples where copyrighted work is improperly posted to EN. What happens? The work is deleted. Why? Because someone either challenges the license under which the work was uploaded (someone uploading copyrighted content, and claiming it's free), or provides evidence that the copyrighted content is being used unfairly. As Jimbo has said, he knows of no instance of copyrighted material on Wikipedia that has been used illegally; that is, no material posted (and remaining) on Wikipedia has not met the LEGAL standard for fair use. Material that doesn't is properly, and promptly, deleted. But since EN is USA based, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and use USA standards when it comes to the legal aspects of the fair use debate. It is the responsibility of the users/reusers in other jurisdictions to make their own judgements/choices about these issues; EN can't follow every law in every country, nor should it be expected to. And I'm glad you enjoyed Contact... Jenolenspeak it!11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It’s en, not en_US. If we wanted to sacrifice the ability to reuse our content for more usable material, we could just put the servers in a country that has little or no copyright legislation and no copyright treaties with other countries. And, yes, it’s generally a good idea to look for causes of concern even in things over which you have no control. —xyzzyn11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Japanese prefectural symbols in prefectural navboxes
I realize this question is essentially answered in item #9 of the policy section, but I feel like I should ask before I start undoing some of my work. I was making my way through the navboxes for Japanese prefectures (ex: Aichi), adding prefectural symbols and fixing formatting, until I had the bright idea to find out why some were missing the symbols. Sure enough, someone had gone through and removed them based on criteria #9. I suppose I had a vague idea that the symbols were copyrighted, but extended exposure to flags and such in navboxes led be to believe it was alright.
Is there caveat for official insignia in navboxes, or is that irrelevant? I realize the flags are often from Open Clip Art images, or released into the public domain by authors, but many are simply 1:1 replications of the official images. If I went ahead and created my own versions of the symbols to be licensed as PD used in templates, what steps would I have to take in order to make sure they're not too derivative to remain unprotected? Might a better idea be to use flags from Vector-Images.com considering their terms of use concerning preview images? Thanks in advance for your help. ― El Cid∴∵00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into the IP law of Japan and see how long the symbols are protected for. I did some prefecture symbols before, Okinawa and Nagano, and put them as creative commons with no problems. However, I am not sure if they were being removed or not. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use on Portals
What is the consensus on using a Fair Use image on a Portal - Article of the week page. For example see Portal:History The policy states 9 - Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace, however it does not specifically exclude Portals.
I personally think that Fair use should be allowed. An article of the week is merely a copy of an actual article. MortimerCat08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a full copy - it's a glorified link. Portals are navigation pages, and are not the article namespace, so they are specifically excluded by the policy. This has been discussed here a number of times before, if you want to trawl through the archives. ed g2s • talk14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But as it has been mentioned before, should section 9 read They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), Portals or on user pagesMortimerCat18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Because those aren't the only namespaces. "Everywhere but the main namespace" is far more concise than "not on: Media, Special, Talk, User, User talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, Image, Image talk, MediaWiki, MediaWiki talk, Template, Template talk, Help, Help talk, Category, Category talk, Portal or Portal talk". ed g2s • talk20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This hardly appears to be the open/shut case you are making it appear... there seems to be broad consensus for an exception to be made, and also a broad consensus that there shouldn't. Apparently much discussion waned after wikipedia's lawyer, Brad Patrick, made an opposing satement. However it should be noted that he did not make any legal claims and any interpretation of his view on the legality is speculation from other editors. ed_g2s, you grossly misrepresented the case, and considering your past involvement with the issue, it appears you did so intentionally. I waded through the archives and such and here are the discussions in chronological order:
The subject is not closed, just inactive, it seems nothing has really been discussed on the subject since December. In all fairness i think it would be useful to reinvigorate the discussion on the old amendment page or create a fresh one. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You said "...it appears you did so intentionally". Small advice: When someone does something that appears to be not-good, but there's no completely undeniable proof supporting this theory, assume good faith. --Abu badali(talk)17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed some fair use cover galleries from several articles, mostly comic book related, feeling such galleries violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY #4, WP:FUC #3 & 8, and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Since one of these galleries has immediately been re-added in the article Janus Directive, I and Basique, the editor who re-added the gallery, thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here and get some outside oppinions on it... --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any commentary of any of the covers themselves, which is the most straightforward justification for the fair use of artwork. It might be reasonable to use one or two unfree images in the article if they contribute greatly and are tightly integrated with the discussion about the comic, its artwork, plot, or characters. Even in such a case, though, the images should not appear in a gallery far removed from the related text. Fritz's links are pretty comprehensive; even by itself, though, fair use criterion #8 completely bars this kind of use. ×Meegs16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Galleries have never been covered by our policy, and are explicitly mentioned in the draft foundation policy as a Bad Thing. I'm also concerned about the editors comments - "I'll add a brief critical commentary to the gallery which should hopefully help" - this is not a case of how much do we need to write to justify all these images, but what images do we need to illustrate what we've written. Unless you are going to write an article on the artwork, and discuss all the covers in detail, there is no need for a large collection. You may need one if you are discussing the general style and need to give an example. ed g2s • talk17:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I see this practice to "patch" articles to justify the presence of random selected unfree images very detrimental to Wikipedia. And it's really annoying how common this practice is. --Abu badali(talk)17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, and it is a really common reaction. Adding content solely to justify images is terrible practice and almost never results in a better article. ×Meegs20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well seeing as you've made up your minds before I've had a chance to respond and you've already removed the gallery, you may as well finish the conversation your selves fill in the spots of my impossibly telegraphed opening and closing statements as you deem appropriate, adding coughs and grunts where needed. _____ opening statement _____ question _______ harrumph ______ response _______ closing statement. --Basique21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't our intention, Basique. It's just that situations similar to this one come-up quite frequently and are well addressed in policy. Please say whatever you have to say. ×Meegs11:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
hi, just responding here too furthering our talk page discussion between our own talk pages. The copyright page says that the text is GFDL, but the screen is just a recording of the text (the image is also GFDL per Essjay already). Lets get others' concensus... and thanks for your help. - Denny23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your talk page DennyColt the problem lies in the fact that there is no editing history to trace the contributor's edits on that content. That's a big part of what {{GFDL}} tagging is about. For others following this discussion this WP:AN thread is very pertinent to this talk here. (→Netscott)23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to understand this. By this rationale... is any screenshot of GFDL content not usable as a screenshot? That seems completely counter to the license agreement itself which says all derivatives are fair to use... - Denny23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Screenshots should be useable provided we link to the contribution history of the content used to generate them. Since these histories have been deleted, they might be problematic. Cool HandLuke23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
<wrap> Luke, question for you... is linking to the 'live' history of the edits the only acceptable way for law? A lot of the licensing seems to rely on the idea of trust in the presentation--would (I don't have this, just curious) including the text of the history (or a screen thereof) of the text be OK? I'm half-inclined as it is to db-delete tag the image as creator if it's not fair to use, but just want to be sure first. - Denny01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this line of reasoning either. There is nothing about the GFDL that requires the full edit history, and the GFDL only recommends that approximately five authors ought to be mentioned if there are multiple authors. How hard this provision would hold up in a strong legal review of the GFDL is something I would rather not try to find out, but I doubt it would be a significant issue in any copyright situation that would involve the GFDL. Having the full edit history only makes it easier to create this author list, and allows you to use multiple standards to note which authors have actually contributed to a particular article. --Robert Horning20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I reread it again, and... I agree. This should be fair to use in GFDL as a derivative/copyleft... whether it's text, a screen shot, or an oil painting on canvas shouldn't matter... - Denny21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Precisely, so since these images are fair use, why are we pretending them to be GFDL? If we don't want to enforce our own licenses, we're pretty much estopped from requiring anyone else enforce them. Unless anyone object, I'll retag them to fair use with an explaination. Cool HandLuke19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Author permission for a straight public domain
The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you/the author mean by "for a straight public domain"?
In general, you can only use this material if the author (assuming he's still the copyright holder) would agree to give permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose. Simply giving "permission to post materials of his book on the web" is not enough for Wikipedia. --Abu badali(talk)16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "for a straight public domain" was used by WP advisor in response to my above question. If it is confusing for you, it must be even more confusing for me. I understood that the "straight public domain" is synonimous with "permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose". Granted that, what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Barefact17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you please advise me what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Can you advise me? Barefact14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use and pictures of former Members of Parliament
I've been writing articles about former United KingdomMPs, such as Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, almost all of whom are now dead. Many have been tagged for image requests and I'd like to include images where possible. The only source I have is "The Times House of Commons", which is a guidebook published after each general election containing biographies of MPs. The book contains low resolution black and white pictures of MPs. So, my question is this: are copies of these images acceptable as fair use images? I think the majority of them were distributed by the MPs depicted in them, in response to picture requests by the press. There is no separate copyright acknowledgment on the book, which is long since out of print. Sam Blacketer16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
If we don't know who the copyright holder is (the don't have reasons to believe the image's copyright has expired), we can't use them. It's usually not possible to make a sound fair use claim when we don't know the origins of the copyrighted material. --Abu badali(talk)16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The book itself is copyrighted by The Times, and no different claim is made for the photographs. I'm just assuming the source of the photographs might be different. It was not unknown in those days for the newspapers to organise to take photographs of the MPs themselves: the Daily Herald did so, for instance. Sam Blacketer17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfree images on Templates, using includeonly
I noticed some templates using unfree images, but with the help of <includeonly>, so that the image doesn't appears in the template namespace.
Does this make any difference in regard do WP:FUC #9? I believe the problem with unfree images in templates is not only their appearing in the Template: nameespce. The problem is that we can't have rationale that would justify the use of the image in any article the template could be included.
(Besides the point, in the examples templates above, the use is purely illustrative, and gives no information that couldn't be achieved with text).
Well, if the problem is the fair use rationable, the only thing we must add is...this image will be used in the Evanescence article and all the articles with the Template:Evanescence. Don't you think so? Armando.Otalk • Ev18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a test of a concept and I'm glad it is being discussed. The images are logos and should be fair use in band-related articles. Along with the technology in the template, there should be a list of specific articles where the fair use is justified, and noting that the template/image should not be used in other articles. What sort of specific rationale is needed for the fair use of a logo? There are few articles using a logo (of any sort) that discuss the logo itself.
The image could be provided as a parameter to the template, as in infoboxes, so it would only appear in the article. However, the images were linked, and the imagemap extension doesn't play nice with parameters. The other option for linked images, the click template, is generally discouraged because of accessibility concerns, and also makes it difficult to get to the image description page (ie, the licensing info). This could be fixed by simply not having a linkable image. Gimmetrow18:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you need to have an explicit rationale for each use on each page. Just because they may be legally fair use does not mean we should use them. There has to be a sepcific reason why it adds significantly to that article. Having a band logo on each page is just decorative (FUC#8). No "it helps identify the band" nonsense please, linked text does that perfectly adequately (FUC#1). ed g2s • talk20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As I understand what you said, it would mean that all sports logos are forbidden from articles, unless there is a specific reason for it, such as the article discusses the history of the logo itself. Is that what you are saying? If all sports logos are going to be removed from all articles, that's fine with me. I just want the policy clear. Gimmetrow20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The context of navigation box never justifies a fair use image. Navigation boxes can be very useful, but are non-essential parts of the article (in fact, they are often marked as not part of the article). As fair use is only allowed when the article demands it, it is clearly never required in these cases. ed g2s • talk20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I fear the approach used, replacing with a free image to avoid the edit warring over the template, is also going to kill this discussion. So what exactly *is* the fair use rationale for the thousands of logos in sports and music articles? Gimmetrow02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
A good question. The logo is usually considered historically significant to the particular entity, although it should really be discussed, rather than just thrown in an infobox. ed g2s • talk16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you learn everything there is about a sports team without knowing what their logo looks like? I would say not. I would also say no article about a sports team could be featured article quality without the logo. --MECU≈talk17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone releases an image under CC with attribution specified, is it enought that this goes on the image page, or should we say "taken by" or something. - Peregrine Fisher04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the people I have contacted were happy with the attribution in the image page. However, a search for "photo by" delivers a number of articles where, apparently, attribution was needed. So, if someone releases an image under CC-BY, upload it crediting his work, and contact him telling about the image, an article using it, and the attribution in the image page. If he is not happy, I think you could add a "photo by" note in the image caption (although it directly conflicts with the GFDL, because that line becomes "unfree" at the cost of losing the image). I remember asking about that at Jimbo's talk page I think, but never checked for an answer. -- ReyBrujo04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that that specific requirement conflicts with the GFDL? Section 4(D) of the GFDL requires distributors of modified versions to "Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document". My objection to using images under a Creative Commons license in a GNU-licensed work comes from the credit removal clause. Section 4(a) of each CC license allows the upstream author to require a change of attribution in future downstream copies, including deleting them, a requirement that the GNU licenses do not allow authors to make. See commons:User:Damian Yerrick#Licensing. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The image is under fair use. A group of people available in the image.Is it replaceable? If not then why? It is quite confusing.--NAHID00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Replaceablity is often something of a judgment call, as in this case. Here we have a cast photo of a TV show that is no longer in production. Is it reasonable to expect that a user will be able to reassemble this cast so as to make a similar photo to release under a free license? Since these people are all still public figures, individual photos of them ought to be replaceable, but opportunities for an ensemble picture would be orders of magnitude more difficult to find. This show has furthermore been out of production for several years, and many of these people's appearances have changed somewhat. A current picture of them would not depict them as they appeared in the show it's illustrating. It is not therefore replaceable in such a way as to serve the same purpose, if at all, and we can therefore use it under fair use for analysis and criticism of the show in question. TCC(talk)(contribs)01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems to fly in the face of the "We don't use fair use to identify living people" orthodoxy that I've seen plastered across the RFU pages. (For one thing, it's rational.) Does anyone who believes "we don't use fair use to identify living people" want to take a shot at explaining why we shouldn't delete the Buffy cast photo, and hope someone on Flikr goes to a Buffy convention, where, against all evidence and hope, Sarah Michelle Gellar decides to appear for an on-stage reunion with her cast mates? After all, it's possible that could happen...("Likelyhood of it happening" being an unwelcome consideration in similar debates...) Jenolenspeak it!00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the general consensus was that images of actors in character, used to illustrate that character, or the program, play or film in which that character appears, were not replaceable. That's why, to take a random example, we have an image for Gwen Cooper but none for Eve Myles, who plays her. Why wouldn't a cast photo be considered an image of the characters, rather than the actors who play them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where you're confused. It's because there are many on these pages who consider actor and character photos basically interchangeable, barring some mystical level of outside influence. Of course, they never really say how much different a costume or makeup must be, instead preferring to go with an updated version of that old porn definition, "I know a character photo is interchangeable with an actor photo when I see it..." Sadly, there's no way to construct a guideline that would cover every situation ("If the character has make-up or prosthetic appliances attached to more than 50% of the face..."), so this is one of the very simple ways to delete character photos (usually while squawking something about "more free") and replace it with a photo of an actor who looks nothing like the character without the benefit of costume, make-up, a photographer with more than a rudimentary understanding of F-stops, etc. It's a con, see? All a con... all about setting up "rules" and then finding violations in them. It's why WP:FUC has 10 attributes which all must be perfectly satisfied, while the U.S. Goverment somehow struggles along with a simple four part test. A con game, pure and simple... Jenolenspeak it!07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ten points come from the fact that it's a free-content encyclopedia written by volunteers rather than a general-content website written by people with access to an expert in copyright law
#1 comes directly from Wikipedia's mission of being a free content encyclopedia.
#2 corresponds to the government's #4.
#3 corresponds to #3.
#4 avoids one of the trickiest points of fair-use doctrine.
#5 is a restatement of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
#6 is inclusion-by-reference of our other image policies.
#7 stems from the government's #1: an image cannot be fair use if it isn't used.
#8 prevents cases where any claim to fair use would be weak.
#9 prevents cases where any claim to fair use would be weak.
#10 is basic record-keeping
The government's four points are there to give lawyers a framework for arguing in court. Wikipedia's policies are there to help build a free-content encyclopedia. --Carnildo19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site?
Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site? I know the copyright on the paintings has expired, but does that mean I can use any image of it I find? In particular, I would like to take this from here. It would make a nice addition to The Hunt of the Unicorn. - Peregrine Fisher07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can. That is a univeristy website, but you could do it even if it was a commercial entity that claimed copyright to the reproduction. That is because a faithful reproduction of a work is not classified as a "derivative work" and thus not covered by a new copyright term. But as always, the real disclaimer is "it depends" and "we don't give legal advice here". --GunnarRene07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The image copyright tag {{PD-art}} can be used when you are confident that a two dimensional work of art is in the public domain due to copyright expiration, but copyright expiration of the reproduction of the artwork can't be confirmed. Note that the legal case that the tag mentions, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., may only apply to "slavish copies" of two dimensional artistic work. Accordingly, it not permitted to use {{PD-art}} on such things as photographs of a sculptures, even if the sculptures are in the public domain. Similarly, don't use {{PD-art}} with reproductions that, despite being derivative of a work in the public domain, introduce their own creative elements. These may still be eligible for copyright. —RP8810:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about the first part: It has to be a "slavish copy" for a reproduction to have the same copyright status and date as the original. But by the language of copyright law, a slavish copy is NOT a derivative work. It is only a derivative work if a new creative element is added to the original work. --GunnarRene11:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... I agree? Either I wasn't clear, or you've misread what I wrote. I thought I was clear that derivatives of works in the public domain may be eligible for copyright protection. —RP8813:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded to the fragment "despite being derivative of a work in the public domain, introduce their own creative elements". The point is that if it's has to be a derivative work, then it needs a creative element, making it sort of redundant at the time I read it, because I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that.--GunnarRene20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Quick test change
I believe the recent edit to the quick test section on WP:FUC should be reverted. The test is really intended to say that, if an image is not unique, it's probably not suitable for being used.
I know the current practices on Wikipedia is far for this (even considering the recent huge clean up in replaceable images). But this policy is far too tightly connected to our founding principles to be changed based on common (mis)practices (let alone without discussion). --Abu badali(talk)16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's reminiscient, but you can't copyright fonts or styles—anyone can make letters with round swirls off of them (and Evanescence certainly wasn't the first). Postdlf17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a trademark case more than a copyright case, and it seems to me to be infringing on the trademark of Evanescence, though I know a lot less about trademark law than copyright. --GunnarRene19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I was also under a strong impression that you could copyright fonts.... and that trade dress was protectable.--GunnarRene20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It uses the exact same font with the same decoration. The author is claiming copyright of the new work, when clearly they have brought nothing new to the piece. Either they are both copyright to the band, or they're both PD-ineligible. ed g2s • talk20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As always, it's not as simple as your two opposite possibilities (of which I think both being PD-ineligible is more likely)—it could also be that the band logo is such a simple graphical arrangement of uncopyrightable elements that, while it is copyrightable, it would have to be copied exactly to be infringed (courts would refer to this protection as "thin"). Choice of font is not a copyrightable decision, and the text "EV" is also not substantial enough. All that's left is the use of similar decorative elements to intersect with the lettrs, but these are just simple black-line arcs that aren't even intersected with the same letters or in the same way. I agree with the above comments that the similarity between the official band logo and the user-created one would at most raise trademark issues (and not even that since it's being used to refer to Evanescence itself instead of a competitor of theirs).
A much better question is what use does Wikipedia have for a logo that is not actually used by the subject it is supposed to represent, but that's for the article editors to deal with. Postdlf22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, being "made up" - it certainly shouldn't be used in the related articles, thus implying it has some encyclopaedic value. ed g2s • talk11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Policy wording proposal regarding fair use historical images (such as logos)
I have submitted a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. The goal, essentially, is to allow historical images where their use would be transformative (and thus legally fair use) and provide visual historical information, even without so-called "critical commentary" (but where a caption identifying the significance of the image is still important); specifically in the case of galleries of historical logos. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical about an actor?
2. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical not concerning an actor or a film? E.g. there is a building on a screenshot and the image is used in an article about this building.
1: Only if discussing the actor's appearance in that role, and not in the bio box/top of the article. As for how detailed that discussion should be, others will need to answer.
2: No, only, again, if the building appears in a special way in the movie. Did they cover it with white chocolate for example? Or perhaps a news image shows it burning.
3: There's no limit on the number per article but there is a limit on the number we use from each film. This so-called "proportion of reproduction" can not be given as a limit on number of percentage, because it depends WHAT images you use. Here on Wikipedia, we usually say that if you have more than five fair-use images total in one article, you'd better have good rationales. Hell, you need a good rationale for even one.--GunnarRene16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure as to where GunnarRene pulled the arbitrary number five, "a limited number" is the "number", that's not one or two or three, you are expected to only use fair use when needed however, and you should write a strong fair use rationale explaining why it's fair use. --Matthew
It's silly to invent arbitrary numbers because it's always a matter of whether the article content is substantial enough and relevant enough to justify the use of the image. A long multi-section article on a film could support several images. A stub stating little more than a film's title and its year of release should not have any. Whether the relevant content is in a film article or a biography article is irrelevant to whether fair use is justified; content is content regardless of what title it happens to be under. Postdlf16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's the arbitrary number that I remember hearing in the featured article process. But as I said, you have to justify it whether it is 1 or 100 images in an article. (Not silly if it's an episode list. --GunnarRene17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should avoid stating—or suggesting—any arbitrary number, because it inevitably conflicts with and distracts from the need for justification. The number will be misused both as a blanket permission ("so what if I only wrote one complete sentence—you said I could use five images!") and as a senselessly blind limit ("sorry, I know your article devotes three paragraphs to each of ten separate films, but..."). Postdlf17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression bands are "creative works" and thus any picture of them would be inherently copyrighted? Thus it would be impossible to retrieve a free picture with the cast as the band, thus fair use would be appropriate? --Matthew.
No offense intended, Matthew, but your comment suggests you are very unfamiliar with copyright, so you might want to read through the basics at copyright and fair use before participating further in any discussions here. People cannot be "creative works" protected by copyright—only what people make can be. How easy it is to take a free picture of a band is purely a matter of practicality...
And re: Ed g2s' comment, if we're interpreting "inadequate quality" to refer to artistic or technical quality (how attractive, well lit, composed, posed, etc.), then that "quality" is irrelevant to fair use and WP irreplaceability requirements, because you can't claim a right to use someone else's picture just because they take better ones than you. The question is purely a matter of what information you are reasonably capable of capturing in a free photo. Postdlf14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It was actually a bit of sarcasm, if you look in the archives there was a discussing about bands being creative works (hence the quotations marks). Matthew19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://i19.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/4b/ac/5a_2.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.northernstars.ca/actorsstu/Media/shatner_250.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2003_Istanbul_Bombings_Levent.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.madrid2.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London2005Bus.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Img1608.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Australian_Jakarta_embassy_bombing.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2005_Bali_bombings_SCTV_screenshot.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nalchik2005.jpg){kind=link}
