Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 9

message: It has been over a month since comments were made on amendment 2 and it doesn't seem to have wide acceptance. --Trödel 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of us who weren't here, what are you referring to? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he's referring to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. howcheng  {chat} 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, there seems to be more discussion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Amendment2 notice? 

message: * Often, the back jacket cover of book covers will have a photo of the author, along with a biographical description of the author.  Would not a low-resolution of these types of images fall under the same fair-use-rationale as that of low-resolution book covers themselves? Thank you for your time, Smeelgova 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back Jacket Cover

message: I've proposed a "fair use" photograph from Reuters for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 2. IfD doesn't usually get much attention so I thought I'd advertise it here, I hope that's all right. Haukur 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters image 

message: ====Agree with fair use images in portals====
*Agree: The fair use images in the Dragonlance portal and also in the film portal are used to introduce and explain something related to the topic of the portal, essentially a mini-article. ddcc 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).) 
*Agree This is more or less a joke. I think we should a firm policy, either way, since there are some portals with removed images, but featured portals, with fair use images intact! I know that isn't the point, but I belive FUI should be allowed in portals, since "portals are for not only editors, but readers" (someone said that, I think it was TitoXD) and there is no reason why something intended for readers of the enclyopedia should not contain images which would improve quality, because it has "Portal:" at the start of the title? Thought not, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: *Agree: The fair use images in the Dragonlance portal and also in the film portal are used to introduce and explain something related to the topic of the portal, essentially a mini-article. ddcc 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).) 
*Agree This is more or less a joke. I think we should a firm policy, either way, since there are some portals with removed images, but featured portals, with fair use images intact! I know that isn't the point, but I belive FUI should be allowed in portals, since "portals are for not only editors, but readers" (someone said that, I think it was TitoXD) and there is no reason why something intended for readers of the enclyopedia should not contain images which would improve quality, because it has "Portal:" at the start of the title? Thought not, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree with fair use images in portals

message: Hello, it was deemed more proper to conduct a new poll on the Amendment page.  Please see Wikipedia:Fair_use/Amendment/Fair_use_images_in_portals and join the discussion!  Thanks! Johntex\talk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Above poll cancelled - new poll underway

message: Can images of the Atomium in Brussels be used under fair use in the English-language Wikipedia? --84.61.41.109 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I am aware, if an editor was to go to the Atomium and take a photograph of it that could provide Wikipedia (en: and commons:) with a free image and not require 'fair use' to come into play. --AlisonW 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that isn't the case. The sculpture is protected by copyright with the result that it is imposible to create a free image. However I feel that it is likely that a fair use case could be made.Geni 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. Nuisance, then. Copyrights in architecture and sculpture which are visible by the public from a public-accessible location seem specific to only some jurisdictions (I believe a similar ruling applies on public buildings in France?). I think it is necessary to separate an image of the Atomium into two parts then. An image taken afresh by an editor would, for me, be acceptable under a fair use defence, but using an image taken, for example, by a photographer on behalf of the Atomium (ie copyright in the image as well as the subject) would probably not be. Proof, I suppose, that there are always edge cases to our rules. --AlisonW 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: geni is right. Under current law the Atomium will not enter the public domain until January 1st 2076. Haukur 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the pre the renovation or post the renovation?Geni 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's important to also note that Quadell's scenario only applies to certain countries (including Belgium, as in this case, and the US). Commons:Derivative works has more information. howcheng  {chat} 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed - and that's a subtle point frequently not understood. See my problems at :Image:NI murals NI football.jpg for example. Haukur 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In the United States and many other countries photographs of publicly displayed buildings are explicitly allowed regardless of the copyright status of the architectural design. See  for the US and  for Germany. I think we should probably make a special template for images like this which explain that in some countries their copyright status is in question, though in some it is protected. --Fastfission 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomium under fair use? 

message: When a newsmagazine features a person on the cover that means the magazine's editors have made a decision about the person's importance. That decision is what is represented by Wiki's  use of the image--we do not crop the image to show just the face, we use the entire cover to show that TIME or NEWSWEEK (etc) has proclaimed importance. Thus the showing of the whole cover falls under Wiki's fair use rules. Rjensen 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid a "fair use" claim requires more than just that the subject be important. There are several requirements at WP:FUC, and we must satisfy all of them in order to use the image, regardless of how important the subject is. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the legal tests for us to defend a claim of Fair Use include "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.". In this instance it could possibly be argued against us that our use of such a cover did detract from the copyright holder's use of the material. --AlisonW 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magazines are sold as entire copies, not merely the cover--that is because their income comes from the ads inside. It seems extremely unlikely TIME will lose sales of this week's edition of the magazine because people can get a free cover from 1956.  TIME does sell back covers--they sell a full-size reproduction rather than the tiny version. TIME of course gives away free the miniature version Wiki uses, placing a commercial value of zero on it. 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that may well be the case, and what TIME chooses to do with its *copyrighted* front page image is its choice. Still doesn't make it a 'free' image though nor 'fair use' in most circumstances. --AlisonW 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes use of covers fair use according to Wiki policy. What circumstance would it not be fair use???? Rjensen 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:FUC. The use of this cover to illustrate the New York City skyline would not be fair use, for example, since anyone could take a photo of the skyline. Neither would using this photo to illustrate New Orleans, since, again, anyone could take a photo of the post-Katrina wreckage in NO. Or this to illustrate teenager. In fact, there are very few TIME magazine covers that could pass WP:FUC. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is this: if a newsmagazine makes an event or person newsworthy, then that historic editorial decision by the magazine is the key. For Wiki to use the cover to show the event/preson was considered newswortrhy at the time fits the Wiki criteria exactly. For example, a different picture would NOT convey the point that TIME decided the event was newsworthy. Again, it is nonsense to say that a 1956 cover will make a person NOT buy the current 2006 issue. Rjensen 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that newsworthiness is only one factor. We also have to look at other factors when determining fair use. Of course it's newsworthy if TIME puts in on the cover, but we can only use an image if it passes all ten criteria listed at WP:FUC. If it's newsworthy, but it's a high-res scan, then it fails criterion 3. If it's newsworthy, but it doesn't add anything significant to the article, then it fails criterion 8. If it was used to illustrate the subject itself, and not to illustrate the fact that the subject was on the cover of Time, then it fails criterion 1. That last point is an important and subtle point, but I don't feel like going into it with you until we can agree on a basic fact: Wikipedia policy demands that a "fair use" image follow all ten points at WP:FUC, and not just that the image be "newsworthy". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes using a historic TIME cover to prove a person/event/topic was considered newsworthy by the experts (TIME editors) at that point in time fits all 10 criteria. (We're not talking about hi-res scans but the sort of reduced pixel images that TIME itself gives away. I have not seen any actual uses in Wiki that don't fit--are there real examples???? Rjensen 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are many. To pick one example, this image was removed from the Mohammed Mossadegh article. It had been used as the lead image for the article, and was simply being used to show what Mossadegh looked like. If this image had been used in a section of the article that dealt with the fact that Time made him their "man of the year", and if the caption said something to that effect, then it would probably have been a fair use of the image. But since it was only being used to show what he looked like, it was deemed to not be a fair use. So a free image was used in its place. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  news magazine 

message: In a thread above Quadell said: Nearly every Wikipedia besides the English one gets by just fine without "fair use" images. I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Many people find it very hard to accept having no images in articles like Tintin or Pokémon and the articles do look rather drab. At any given moment an article on the other Wikipedias on a subject like that is reasonably likely to have a copyvio/fairuse image. See here for an example I removed or :de:Pikachu and :de:Lara Croft for rather silly attempts to get illustrations of these copyrighted fictional characters into their respective articles by hook or by crook. And this is from the German Wikipedia which is generally well administered - I could show you much worse from some of the smaller ones. Haukur 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that some Wikipedias do allow fair use, the one in my native tongue, for example. See :is:Star Trek or :is:Thích Quảng Đức for examples. Haukur 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) If the image is used following the criteria, there is no problem having them. Unluckily, most times people just stamp their images becuase they look "cool", or because the article is too long and needs more images. The Vegeta article had, at one time, around 50 images: Vegeta standing, Vegeta crouched, Vegeta jumping, Vegeta eating, Vegeta sleeping. That is abuse. The faster people undertand it is not possible to just upload and stick an image to an article, the less discussions we will be having about this topic. -- ReyBrujo 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I know some Wikipedias have copyright violations, as do we. But as I understand it, very few Wikipedias have an actual policy of allowing "fair use" images. But if I'm wrong, point out those policies and let me know. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, starting with the big languages the Italian Wikipedia has a fairly liberal fair use policy. Some categories to browse:  Haukur 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acording to meta:Fair use only FR, ID, RU and SR allow fair use, but it seems to be a bit out of date... --Sherool (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful link, nevertheless! We should also keep in mind that even languages which say they disallow fair use may still allow images which could only be used on :en: under a fair use claim - the German one allows logos, for example (as in :de:Pokemon), under what may be a rather generous interpretation of German law on the creative threshold. Haukur 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links I looked at in IS; though they could be fair use images in EN, the fair use tags that were used seem to become red links now. Plus, I am in the process of getting one Wikipedia, the Chechen one, to not use image uploads period, so the list that allows fair use is going to shrink. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *shrug* That T'Pol image on :is: was uploaded by a bureaucrat/developer and has stood unchallenged for a long time, I think the fairuse template may simply never have been created. Haukur 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed  Haukur 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be fine if we only wanted people in that one country to be eable to use our content. However seeing as Wikipedia's goal is to allow the maximum number of people possible to be eable to use our content the only solution is keep the amount of unfree material to a bare minimum. If material from enWiki is to be published outside the US for example they already have to either remove virtualy all fair use material (a few limited things might be allowed under various exceptinos in local laws, but nothing exactly like fair use exist in most countries) or obtain special permission for using each and every image. So clearly relying heavily on fair use and other "loopholes" that only exist on one or two countries in the world is a Bad Thing when the project goal is free content and maximum reusability. --Sherool (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll also have to chuck out a whole lot of 'free' images because a big proportion of them is only in the public domain in the US. Haukur 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not rely, most other countries (unlike the US) follow the rule that if something is public domain in the country of origin then they consider it public domain too. There are a couple of exceptions though wich is why the tag says it may not be PD everywhere, but by and large  stuff is also PD in most of the world too, at least if it was first published in the US. --Sherool (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing prevents accessing Wikipedia from any country (except China and so on, but that's not because of fair use). Nothing stops you from looking at these pictures from any point in the world. Removing pictures from an article before reproducing it is trivial. So, what's your point again?  Grue  12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there is more to the Wikimedia projects than creating some good looking website. A big part of our mission have always been to create free content that is reusable to anyone. So saying "screw reusers" and using every excuse to pile up on the unfree images goes against the very core values the project is founded upon. If you want to set up an online ensyclopedia project in Iran or somesuch place with few or no copyright treaties you are welcome to try, but don't expend Wikimedia to do so. --Sherool (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use on Wikipedia in other languages

message: Has the issue of how to tag a (properly attributed) quote that has been translated from the source into English been addressed here? If so, please point me to it. If not, please advise. Thanks. Lethiere 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this has to do with fair use policy. My suggestion would be to put the original in a footnote. --Fastfission 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you reword that question? It's not really clear what you want to know. If the issue is about attributing the translator as well as the original source (when the translation is copied from a published source), then yes, you should probably do that. If it's about a quote you translated yourself, Wikipedia:Citing sources says: "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." - Bobet 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question concerns the latter. I translated the text into English and originally inserted it in a Block quote within parentheses immediately following the original French. But it seemed likely that a reader would glance past a large quote in a foreign language, so I switched the two. But the doubled size of the blockquote still seems massive. I'm uneasy about deleting or re-locating it because 1. Nowhere is it stated that the text is translated (let alone by me, and though I don't crave credit I don't want to give the appearance of having anonymously altered the author's words); and 2. I would actually prefer that the original be visible so that other editors can better my translation and/or readers can verify it. I like the idea of putting the original in the footnotes (I'd like to add more translated quotes) -- are there examples of this being done in other Wiki articles? If I mark the French as "original version" in the footnote, is that adequate notice that the blockquote is a translation? The article in question is at Philippe I, Duke of Orléans. Lethiere 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translating non-English Quotes

message: I note that today's Featured Article, Jabba the Hutt, has 11 Fair Use images.  In fact, every image in the article is tagged Fair Use.  Woohoo!  Is this a new record?  Do Featured Articles get some sort of dispensation, or can I add 11 Fair Use images to my articles too??  Madman 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is nowhere near a record, we probably still have articles with ten times that number.  It is worth noting that Jabba the Hutt could only be illustrated with unfree images.  We probably don't need the Mel Brooks and South Park parody shots, however.  Jkelly 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jabba the Hutt could only be illustrated with unfree images"  Of course, and it points out why unfree images are necessary to Wikipedia.  Madman 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de: isn't Wikipedia?  Jkelly 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should have said "the best quality Wikipedia".  Take a look at the German article (actually it's an entire Star Wars article here) and you'll catch my point.  Madman 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's an extremely ugly, text-heavy page with one logo shot (an unfree image?) and a random image of a character from Phantom Menace. In fact with so many people espousing the virtues of De:Wikipedia as some sort of pinnacle of virtue I spent some time exploring the site (I don't read German so I was just looking at the format). If En:Wikipedia ever goes this way I'll never visit this site again. The Internet is a visual medium and you need visuals. 23skidoo 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All Wikimedia's projects are based on free content. That you don't appreciate the importance of this goal is sad. ed g2s • talk 17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new record?  11 Fair Use images in 1 article 

message: I am learning my way around fair use and I have a question. Yesterday I replaced a red link on the Image use policy page with a fair use image. But upon revisiting, I am not so sure that the image qualifies as fair use. The image in question is a painting :Image:Ali-Baba.jpg and is used in the article Ali Baba which is not about the painting at all. What needs to be done in such a case? Thanks -- Lost(talk) 05:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the image may be considered big, try reducing it to a 300 or 400px (keeping ratio). As for its usage, as you guessed, I don't think it is allowed under Fair use, unless that particular picture is universally accepted as Ali Baba's representation (which I don't know). If you create a new section in the article talking about the different representations of the character through different painting techniques, or by different artists, then it would qualify. But get more replies before taking any action (however, I suggest to make the image smaller, as I would tag it with ). -- ReyBrujo 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're in luck! Since the painting was created before 1923, it's in the public domain, and you don't need a fair use rationale afterall. If it had been a copyrighted image, it probably wouldn't have worked under our fair use criteria. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was only for texts, and only if someone else hasn't claimed the rights because of inheritance or representation... -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would contest that (from what I understand), because to be in the public domain, the author must have died 70 years before today, and since apparently Maxfield Parrish died on 1966, the art would still be copyrighted. I would be happy to be corrected, of course. -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that particular image was published in the 1909 version of Arabian Nights. In the United States, it's public domain, but may not be in other countries, but most countries state that if it's the public domain in its home country then it's public domain there too. howcheng  {chat} 06:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I have replaced the link on the policy page with a better one. -- Lost(talk) 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use? 

message: See Talk:Thomas Eckert. An argument is being made that it's fair use to chop up text from copyrighted sources and use it in articles without attribution... I think this is incorrect and that doing so is a copyright violation. This policy seems to support that, but is slightly vague... so a bit of a rewrite might be in order. Also opinions about this issue are appreciated. --W.marsh 00:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of copyrighted text 

message: Would the :Image:Prakashambedkar.jpg qualify under fair use? The image is of a person but is used in an article about a political party (headed by this person). Thanks -- Lost(talk) 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think it qualifies, as the image is a promotional image, and the article is talking about the subject of the image in the political party context. -- ReyBrujo 15:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- Lost(talk) 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the total lack of evideince that it is a promotional image in the wikipedia meaning of the term suggests otherwise.Geni 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is not a fair use image? -- Lost(talk) 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no secret that a lot of images claimed as promotional fair use are not legit fair use.Geni 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, seems to have been tagged now. Thanks -- Lost(talk) 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another fair use question 

message: The image :Image:LOZTP linkflutegrass.jpg is a collage of three independant images, each probably released by Nintendo or captured by a site. The image is copyrighted by landofthelegend.net, the site that created the image. We are discussing whether the copyright information of that particular image is correct. I have recommended to orphan it, and search for other fair use images, as I don't think there is enough artistic modifications to the images to claim copyright. I would appreciate ideas about it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh dear collage copyright. In this case the copyright is probably held by two people. The images are copyright Nintendo. The arangement of the images is copyright landofthelegend.net. There are other complexities though.Geni 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geni is correct. The separate images are copyright Nintendo and so the image should be tagged "screenshot" (if there's sufficient justification to use the images in Wikipedia, which I doubt), and the collage is copyright landofthelegend, so we would have to use a second tag for that copyright. It would be preferable (and much simpler) to use straight screenshots, so we only have to deal with one set of copyrights. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of an image made out of several copyrighted images 

message: I was hoping for some advice.  We're having a debate in Wikiproject comics over whether including 1-2 sentences of plot summary per issue of a comic book, together with other information such as writer, artist, publication date, etc., would be a violation of the fair use policy on this page.  (The most recent debate is here).
I'm not asking at this point whether including two sentences of summary is a good idea, only whether it is forbidden by the FU policy.  Assuming that there are no quotations, images, etc., and that there are 2 sentences of summary per 24 issues of comic book, would we really be violating the policy?  Thanks, TheronJ 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raw information can not be copyrighted, so as long as you write the summary yourself in your own words there should be no copyright issues to worry about. --Sherool (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The questioner is asking about someone else's summary, which is obviously copyrighted, not about the uncopyrightable facts. All text must be GFDL, and it is against policy to include "unfree" text. Now if you're quoting someone (Roger Ebert stated ". . ."), that's acceptable. But if you're just copying someone else's summary, that's a copyvio, and if you don't credit them, then that's also plagiarism. Either way, it's forbidden by FU policy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant summaries written by Wikipedia editors subject to the GDFL, and therefore subject to the WP fair use policy, if at all, as derivative works of the comic books themselves.  (Assume, as an extreme example, that wiki editors write two sentences per issue, together with obvious non-copyrighted info such as writer, artist, and publication date, for all 533 issues of Detective Comics).  The argument is that the summaries are derivative works under the Seinfeld decision (I forget the case name) and therefore impermissible unless they meet the 10 factors of the WP fair use policy.  Thanks, TheronJ 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   commented on this in an earlier discussion on WP:WAF's talk page, if this helps further understand the discussion.  --NewtΨΦ 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on plot summaries 

message: I've been referred here with the following question:
:The image (:Image:1antiamericanism.jpg) is used at the top of the GA candidate Anti-Americanism with a fair use claim, yet the article does not discuss the particular book pictured.  None of the footnotes even cite the book.  Could someone with legal expertise determine whether this is a copyright violation? Durova 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no fromal legal expertise but almost certianly since we could use a different image in much the same context.Geni 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it's a copyvio. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use? 

message: # Heavy metal music is a featured article.  It features many album covers as decoration.
# Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images explicitly mentiones album art and its allowed fair-use connotations: "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)."
This strikes me as one hand not knowing what's in the other.  I removed similar images per the policy some time ago, and being asked about doing so, I would like to validate said actions.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that in that article the albums are being used primarily for decoration and are not within the guidelines of the fair use policy. --Fastfission 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we don't need to use the cover each time we discuss the album. Unless the cover art is the subject of discussion they are most definitely not covered by our policy. ed g2s • talk 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  policy quandry? 

message: While answering a help call by a new person, I came across :Image:Ernests Blanks.jpg. He says he has scanned it from a photograph of a painting that he doesnt know about. Another editor put a fair use rationale for the image. Should the image be tagged as unsourced? -- Lost(talk) 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see its been done already -- Lost(talk) 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying. Its fun learning about fair use. I'll try to find more such images and educate myself in the process -- Lost(talk) 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image without source 

message: I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly rediculous that Wikipedia forbids the use of images on your own user page, even if this isn't necessarily forbidden by law "just to be on the safe side". Come on... if a certain image is licensed for use on Wikipedia, then why can't I use it on my userpage just for illustration purposes. I could understand it someone forbid that I altered a copyrighted image in any way, but this... I think the fair use policy is quite subjective and open for interpretation. Who determines what a "significant contribution" or a "significant improvement" is, and what isn't? Besides, just a question, but who makes these rules? RagingR2 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair use policy is subjective and open for interpretation because the law is subjective and open for interpretation. I'm not sure who "makes" these rules, but I'm sure they are fully supported by the Wikimedia board. Our aim here is to produce a free content encyclopedia, not push the boundaries of fair use for the benefit of your user page. the wub "?!" 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. But I really don't see the difference between showing a fair use image on your user page or linking to it, and I'm not sure the law sees a difference. RagingR2 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: fair use images are not lisenced for use on wikipedia. The rules are made by a mixuture of the US courts and US goverment.Geni 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is widely believed that "fair use" means licensed for use on Wikipedia, that explains a great deal of people's behaviour.  Jkelly 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using unaltered fair use images on user pages 

message: I'm currently writing an article about a publisher and encountered the following question: the copyright tag  requires uploaded image to "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". I want to say a few words on the series of books (in particular - describing logo of that series), published by a publisher. May I use a scanned image of a book cover with the logo of the series to illustrate that piece of text? Or maybe I should just upload that logo alone under  tag (although it seems, that it's not quite suitable too)? Any ideas, which would be better and whether this may be qualified as fair use at all? Cmapm 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book series logo in the article about a publisher: do any tags suite for this?

message: ::::The same thing's talked about on this very page (Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use in portal-namespace). Please read that thread too so everyone won't have to make the same arguments again. - Bobet 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming fair use in Portal: namespace 

message: :Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png asserts fair use as a yellow page ad, but it does not appear to qualify under fair use.  Also, this is a re-creation of a previously deleted image.  --rogerd 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it isn't obvious to me that it could be replaced by a freely licensed image, that it has any commercial value to impact, and we can be certain that our use of it is transformative.  That said, I am unsure why we need it at all, and we shouldn't be rendering it in talk space.  Jkelly 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The ad is used to show that the subject was, in fact, a trial lawyer.) The ad could definitely qualify as fair use, if it meets our criteria, which it seems to. U.S. courts have granted the widest "fair use" latitude when reprinting advertisements. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprint yellow page ad 

message: is "too many" in terms of the number of FU images in general, FU images from a particlar genre (say pokemon), FU images from a specific medium (TV screen shots), or FU images from a single context (single TV episode). -Zappernapper 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means use only what you need. If a second image doesn't show anything significantly more than the first, then you can't use the second image.  If each image is unique (and passes the other parts of WP:FUC then it wouldn't really matter on an exact number or a number per article. That being said, a general attitude of trying to use as little as possible is also what that is being directed towards. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the words "small number of fair-use images" 

message: on Sept 9th User:A Man In Black removed several images tagged as fair-use from this version of the Poké Ball article, giving his explanation as, "variations on a theme, no need for an image for each of them".  I asked him about his actions on his talk page.  While agreeing that a table of mostly FAQ-ish knowledge was better replaced by summarizing prose (seen here) we have failed to reach an agreement as to whether the images on this most recent version can remain (as seen by this version). Further discussion has occured at Talk:Poké Ball#Images.  In summation for those of you who don't want to read through the lengthy discussion between the two of us, my point is that the images are depicting what's being discussed in the article - the subjects of the images are specifically referred to by name and discussed in varying degrees of detail. Their cosmetic differences are even discussed in one instance. AMIB's point is that the images are "unneccessary" so do not qualify as fair-use, stating that "they are all variations on a single design so we only need one design."  It would be appreciated if replies and input were made at Talk:Poké Ball#Images. -Zappernapper 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use images debated at [[Poké Ball]] 

message: I don't believe :Image:Woodrow Wilson Bridge.jpg, a photo taken by Scott Kozel and placed on his personal website, qualifies as fair use. Is this correct? --NE2 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. It might legally qualify as fair use, or it might not, but it certainly violates are first criterion at WP:FUC. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodrow Wilson Bridge

message: Where dose copywright stand when it come to writing articles about people who are abducted where the only images avaliable are from news outlets this is especiall the case in abducted children where few images of the child exist to start with.--Lucy-marie 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine it would be OK, considering criterion 1: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." It would be pretty hard to just take another photo if they're abducted. Not entirely sure though. If you reread the fair use criteria, thinking each time "Does this image comply?" that could help --WikiSlasher 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abducted people images 

message: Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions. For the sake of maintaing one thread, could we have all responses there?
There may be a reason for this that I don't understand, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is losing hundreds of images every day because they have been tagged with licenses that we are not able to use on Wkipedia. These are then replaced with speedy tags, the picture's gone, everyone's lost out.
My question then is:
* Why is it still possible to use these tags
* If they can't be removed, why don't we create a new notice/process, something similar to WP:PROD, which proposes that these are deleted if not re-tagged. The uploader can be notified and if nothing is done for a week, then it is deleted.
This would save a lot of time and stop us losing valuable images over technicalities. --Robdurbar 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deleted images