Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 4

message: "…certain projects never accept fair use". Is this really true? Are there projects that (for example) do not allow any quotation of copyrighted work, or any mention of a trademarked name? There are certainly projects that do not allow fair use justifications for images, but I'm unaware of any that literally allow no fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Commons.  And I wouldn't be surprised if it was true about Wikisource or Wikinews. --Carnildo 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many trademarks (possibly even most) may be used without resorting to a fair-use justification—brand names are too short to be copyrightable.  Fair use would have to be invoked for slogans or logos, since those are subject to copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of the other language Wikipedias do not allow fair use.. For example dewiki, and dutch wiki. This has, however, resulted in an increased amount of non-free content being called PD on these wikis, and is just one of many reasons why caution and commonsense should be used when copying content from other Wikimedia projects. --Gmaxwell 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the de:Pokémon example you mentioned elsewhere uses exclusively fair-use images under US law.  Some people don't seem to think that derivative works are subject to the copyright of the base work . . . maybe true in Germany, but that seems unlikely to me.Anyway, I think the assumption behind the question was that Wikipedias that prohibited fair use only prohibited fair-use images, not (for instance) brief quotations.  From using Google's translation tool, I deduce that in the German copyrights page the paragraphEin Fair Use von Bildern gibt es nur nach US-amerikanischem Recht; die Verwendung urheberrechtlich geschützter Bilder unter Fair Use ist in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia deshalb nicht erlaubt. Im deutschen Recht kommt das de:Zitatrecht in Betracht, aber auch dafür gilt nichts anderes. Siehe Näheres unter de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte.means something along the lines ofFair use of images is an American right; the use of copyrighted images under fair use is therefore not permitted in the German-language Wikipedia.  Under German law quotation is permissible, but nothing further applies.  See Wikipedia:Image use policy for details.So it seems that de:, at least, does allow some things that in America we would call fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, sites such as Wikisource will typically not use any fair use whatsoever.  Wikipedias, however, will always need some degree of fair use, if they want to have any article at all about modern copyrightable entities. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other projects 

message: Template:Fair use reduced was recently created, to have high-resolution fair use images deleted in favor of low-resolution.  I think that in most cases this is unnecessary and a bad idea.  I'd appreciate your comments at Template talk:Fair use reduced.  User:dbenbenn 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it. I support limiting the resolution of fair use images. I will discuss there as well.--Jusjih 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Fair use reduced 

message: In a recent discussion, there was a (now solved) disagreement about a fair use image- that being, that if a free image can be created as opposed to a fair use image, that the "fair use" image must not be used. However, I noticed that it doesn't appear that anywhere in the fair use guidelines that any reference to offensive material comes into play. This opens a loophole; a person could theoretically replace a fair use image of, say, a Macintosh with a Goatse as long as the Macintosh is the main focus of the picture. I think that there should be an exception to the "always use a free image" rule if the free image contains offensive/slanderous or otherwise obscene content. What is the opinion of the group? Daniel Davis 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me that a free version of an image as you described would not be a suitable replacement for a fair use image. However, I don't think it's necessary to amend the rule. I think in situations where a free replacement could be created, the fair use image should just be removed. For a period of time there might be a blank spot in the article, but it's (usually) not a huge loss, and it would encourage people to come up with a replacement. I guess it's a somewhat eventualist view, but in general I don't see any reason why an article must have an image with it now, instead of waiting for a free one to come along. ~MDD4696 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mind that, if the free version is offensive, neither the free nor the fair use could be used, as one is offensive for few and the other can't be used due Wikipedia's Fair use policy (exists free alternative, then no fair use version of the image), right? -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mdd6's policy would condemn many images on Wiki to a premature death. Images for items like the GameCube, for instance, sat as "fair use" images for close to a year before another one was created. I don't think the present rule has to be CHANGED neccesarily, just added to so that an offensive fair use image isn't REQUIRED to take precedence over a nonoffensive fair use image. Basically, I think an appopriate policy should be such: if someone uploads a free image, and that image is appropriate (no goatses), then the free image should take precedence. But if no free image has been created, or if the free image is inappropriate, then the fair use image can be used instead. Daniel Davis 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... I believe having an important article without an image describing it draws much more attention (and we can for sure expect fanboys to send pics of their consoles just to get it chosen so that they can boast to friends ;-) ) than keeping the same Fair use image. I am not sure how fast request for images are fulfilled, though. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jesus, what's with the rulelawyering? For heaven's sake, do you honestly believe anyone would take this policy to mean what you have just laid out? This is an obvious case of Wikipedia:Use common sense. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already happened, Johnleemk. For example, someone replaced a fairuse image of the PSP with one that was prominently placed on a person's crotch a while back; several editors noted that we were forced to use it because of the "Fair Use" provisions on this page. It was solved when another user cropped the pants out of the picture, but it HAS happened in the past. Daniel Davis 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wonderful thing about free-license images is that you can crop the pants out or make whatever other modifications are needed to get a reasonable image.  You can't do that with a fair-use image. --Carnildo 01:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but until that time, the bad free image will sit there in all its pantsy glory. The discussion at hand isn't whether a good (pantsless) image should be used, it's regarding what to do with the article in the time in between, Carnildo. Daniel Davis 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the best thing is to just remove both images, announce in the Talk page why both have been removed, and post a note requesting a picture (or that someone edits the offending image). As MDD said, nobody will die if the article spends some time without pictures. -- ReyBrujo 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean it takes an intolerable amount of time to crop an image? Just take both images out, download the free one and Photoshop it, reupload it, and stick it back in. It shouldn't take longer than half an hour, at the most. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  So that's the consensus then? The deletion of fair use images? Daniel Davis 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...yes? If there's a free alternative that isn't unencyclopedic (it isn't encyclopedic to pose Goatse-style with a PSP in your ass; at the very least, the irrelevant stuff ought to be Photoshopped out), there's no reason to use a fair use image. We're here to build a free encyclopaedia, first and foremost. As long as the free image is of encyclopedic quality -- even if it is slightly inferior to a fair use image -- it ought to be used. Johnleemk | Talk 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the question was so much about one being inferior or not, it concerned Wiki policy regarding what to do if someone posts something inappropriate that is still topical (such as a PSP in the butt). That was what the heart of the matter is- appropriateness doesn't seem to be directly addressed in the Fair Use article, only the word "suitable" (which can mean a lot of things) is used. I suggest that a small blurb be placed in the article about being able to replace or delete a fair use image that is wholly inappropriate. Otherwise we may very well see more debates about pants. Daniel Davis 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (deindent) If anyone is rulelawyering, just thwack them on the head with a cluestick. There's a reason a general word was used. We don't codify policy; we write simple points of principle and expect people to use common sense. This isn't a sufficiently major issue to justify instruction creep, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, that is nothing wrong with that version of the image. The cropped version is more desirable, but something like that shouldn't be replaced with a fair use image. ed g2s • talk 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use amendment question 

message: Can I get some feedback on this image tag template: :Template:Fairuseair. It's based on Fairusein template but tweaked for aircraft images within WikiProject Aircraft. The modern and popular aircraft are well documented on Wikipedia with free images but the older and more obscure stuff is almost always impossible without resorting to the Fair Use clause. As explained in the optional tag in the template, a lot of these aircraft have been out of existence for decades so an equivalent free image is impossible until a time machine is invented. A large percent of the time there is only one or two photos that were EVER taken. IMHO it's reasonable to include a single photo for illustrative purposes when a good faith effort has been made to obtain a free equivalent on what is becoming the dominant aviation site in the world. The promophoto clause could probably be invoked for many of these photographs since they are usually manufacturer PR but I think it's more weasely than a straightforward explanation presented in the template. Sorry for the long post. All comments would be appreciated. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Fairuseair 

message: This image is claimed as a promotional photo for the Beatles, but it appears on the Rolling Stone website without any credit so it is not clear if the copyright is owned by Rolling Stone, the photographer or The Beatles. Any opinions as to whether the fair use claim is valid? Thanks Arniep 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I'm not aware that the owner of a base work's copyright is ever relevant to the validity of a fair use claim. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my point is that may be considered a promotional image for Rolling Stone, not the Beatles (if it is a promotional image). If your interpretation is correct then all photo agency images or images in magazines which we have previously avoided would be considered fair use. Arniep 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Arniep is correct. We avoid images taken by media agencies, etc. because reusing them causes significant commercial detriment to the copyright owner. The only exceptions are, for instance, when the image itself is noteworthy (such as in the recent Jyllands Posten scandal). Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I suppose so.  That would be factor four, which I guess only applies to how it affects the value of the work to the owner.  The guy whose photo was taken would probably benefit from our reproducing it promotionally, if anything, but the photo-taker likely wouldn't.  Okay, then. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Beatles 1969.jpg]]

message: I'm wondering if fair use can be claimed from a series of similar images from User:Ipaat including, for example, :Image:Stalker2.jpg. These are about 10 photographs of "behind the scenes" filmmaking tagged "NoRightsReserved", which is clearly inappropriate. The uploader got them by scanning prints at a museum in Russia, but doesn't have information about the photographers or the current rights-holders. Can these be claimed fair use because they're being exhibited in a museum? The images appear in galleries at the bottom of Stalker (movie), Solaris (1972 film), and The Mirror (1975 film). Thanks- Staecker 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence supplied of the images' copyright status, and therefore they must be presumed copyrighted.  They need to be retagged  or similar.  One or two images of a movie may be appropriate under fair use in the movie's article, but this many seems rather excessive—some should probably be deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarkovsky museum images 

message: I have seen two recent examples of images which have been disputed and ultimately removed from an article's page: EK-32009.jpg and SecretariatBelmontStakes.jpg. The first is a picture of an intact aircraft which was ultimately destroyed in Armavia Flight 967. The second is a picture of Secretariat's 1973 win in the Belmont Stakes, illustrating the final moments in the race and the margin by which the horse won, discussed at length in the article. As I understand the  template, both images reasonably fit the definitions of fair use put there:
* to illustrate the object in question (in the first case, illustrating the plane involved in the flight; in the second, illustrating the margin by which Secretariat won)
* where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (in the first case, the plane has been destroyed so no new photo can be taken, and no free image is known to exist; in the second case, the picture illustrates a moment in history in which again no free photo is currently known to exist)
* on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation (both are hosted there)
Now, this being said, both images have been removed from their respective article pages not for the above reasons, but because of onerous terms of service on the respective websites from which the images were taken (See  and ):
* Airliners.net: You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web browser and to use them as your personal computer wallpaper (or background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved. You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission from the photographer. 
* Secretariat.com: All images are the copyrighted work of Secretariat.com or specified owner. These photographs/text are available for viewing solely on this website. Any reproduction or redistribution of content on this Secretariat.com website are prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. Elements of Secretariat.com website are protected by applicable Federal, State and local laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from Secretariat.com website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted in writing by Secretariat.com.
I get the impression that were it not for the above two sets of terms of service, that both of these images would still be in articles without objection to fair use - in other words, that in essense the terms of service have created a chilling effect preventing Wikipedia from using the images; they are being seen as 'less free' as other copyright images on the Internet that don't have terms of service attached, or for which terms of service have not yet been found.
It is my understanding that fair use provides a framework by which an image can be used without the owner's permission, and if this is true, it doesn't matter what the terms of service on a website are, because ultimately they are talking about enforcement of copyright law, and fair use is a part of that.
My question, then, is, do a website's terms of service matter to whether or not an image should be used? If we assume that a website without terms of service is 'more free' than one that threatens legal action, then I would propose that the  template should be modified to say something like 'A website with specific terms of service with respect to its material forbidding copying should be avoided when declaring free use.' If, in fact, the reverse is true, I would suggest that an addition like 'A website's terms of service are not relevant to the use of an image on Wikipedia if the requirements of fair use are met,' would instead be appropriate.
At the moment, the validity of either statement seems to be unknown and decisions made about it arbitrary. The only postulate I can make is that when onerous terms of service are found at the source of an image, it tends to create a fair use dispute that ultimately results in a deletion of the image.
A clear stance by Wikipedia one way or the other would be very useful to expedite discussions about where a fair use image can reasonably come from. Skybunny 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Site TOSs are completely irrelevant and should be ignored when it comes to copyright questions.  All images are considered maximally unfree until demonstrated to the contrary, so claims of unfreeness are immaterial.  Even if these sites were the copyright holders (which they aren't), nothing they say or do can impair our legal right to use their images under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is unanimous agreement on this (and there seems to be), can someone put something into the main article explaining that fair use is not derived from the license or terms of service under which something is released? This definately is a 'Comes up over and over again' issue, and it would be nice to be able to point somewhere to say 'your reasoning is incorrect.'. Skybunny 15:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a website's terms of service matter with respect to fair use images? 

message: I find it hard to fathom that we cannot use magazine covers to illustrate the work of notable personalities and, in particular, models who appear on said covers. There's a keener who I expect at this moment is gearing up to remove magazine covers from pretty much every model article on Wikipedia. Surely these can be allowed since they clearly are being used to illustrate the subject included in the illustration. If not, I figure there are hundreds upon hundreds of articles that will loose their images. 23skidoo 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much. It is posible to set up an article in such a way that the fair use claim is legit but it is pretty uncommon.Geni 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can really only use magazine covers in somebody's biography when you are talking about how they appeared on that magazine cover. ~MDD4696 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. Didn't we clear this up with the recent hooha about Time? Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to clear out the fair use magazine cover gallery, but it's hard going. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By which I mean, find the images which aren't fair use and take them out. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like a small clarification about MDD4696's comment. I am in a situation where the only image from a character at an advanced age is found in a novel cover (The Silver Stair), nowhere else. The article Goldmoon (about the character) has a section Goldmoon#Age of Mortal series where it is explained the character development in that novel. My belief is that it qualifies as talking about how they appeared on that magazine cover. However, I tend to be on the safe side and always go with the option that would protect Wikipedia better (in this case, not uploading the image). Can anyone here enlighten me? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine covers

message: An interesting point has been brought by a new user in the PlayStation 3 article. Today Sony released images of the new console, which include a new controller :Image:Ps3stock.jpg. Until now, the PlayStation 3 article was using a free image :Image:Sony PlayStation 3.jpg. When I reverted to the previous version, in a section in the talk page, two users claimed that we should go with the newer image under Fair use license since it was up to date, while the free one was 7 months old. The free image shows the old controller; other than that both consoles are the same one.. My own opinion (expressed in the talk page) is that the license is more important, especially when the change between pictures is minimal. I would like to hear opinions about this. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I'd say the license is more important, as long as the controller is noted in the caption. There's nothing special about the controller in the new image, so nobody's losing anything by not seeing it. ~MDD4696 04:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say keep the fair use image for a few days, there are bound to be GFDL images coming as soon as the expo actually starts and people can take pictures of the new controller. jaco♫plane 11:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All one needs to do is mention that the new controller is almost identical to the PS2 controller, and use a free image of that if necessary. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't personally beleive that out-of-date information counts as an 'alternative' or a 'equivalent' since they aren't pictures of the same thing.  It's not a question of free vs fair, it's a question of whether they're even equivelent images (I am personally in the camp that they are not) 216.221.88.108 13:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be a free image showing the new controller within a day or so when pictures can be taken by people on the show floor. Until then, we should stick with the old image. jaco♫plane 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  A small caption explaining that the old controller has been replaced by a DualShock 2 style controller is an alternative. If anything the new image gives less information about the console, due to the lack of angle. ed g2s • talk 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still misleading, as there are differences between the form factor of the "dual shake" and the dual shock 2 - there's a new 'dashboard' button, and two of the triggers are larger, not to mention the lack of a 'shock'.  And really, do we want wikipedia full of images that are wrong but it's okay because it says they're wrong underneath?  What's the point of having images at all if they aren't going to show what it actually looks like? 216.221.88.108 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If the free images are insufficient to illustrate the object in question, unfree images are acceptable until free images can be obtained (which they can't yet).  It sounds like the differences are nontrivial, so for now sticking with the unfree image is most informative. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It can be justified if the current version is radically different from the previous one. However, in the PlayStation 3 article, the different used images were similar to each other. The black :Image:PS3 - Front Side (60GB HDD).jpg is the up to date Fair use image. However, there are no visible differences between that one and :Image:PeaceThree.JPG, a year old free image. The other free image, :Image:PS3 at CES 2006.jpg, is considered by Havok as void because it is a mockup. If the picture was taken from the front, there would (again) be no differences between the fair use and that one. Look at the browser's title, you will see it says Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We are trying to make a free encyclopedia, even if that means having to sacrifice image quality. -- ReyBrujo 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up-to-date information more important than license? 

message: I think it's extremely unfair and rude to come down hard on people for using images in their sigs. Ardenn 03:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice.  Would you rather have the copyright holder of whatever non-free image you were using in your sig come down hard on you and all of Wikipedia? --Carnildo 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is copyright, why is it here in the first place? Ardenn 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's being used under the fair use clause of US law to allow us to illustrate it, and only to illustrate it (because if we do anything else with it, unfortunately, we are infringing on their copyright). --Rory096 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the page you're actually commenting on. WP:FU clearly bans the usage of fair use images outside the encyclopaedia space. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Screenshot_galleries_on_video_game_consoles. ed g2s • talk 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot galleries cont. 

message: Are collages fair use or public domain? If all of the pictures came from the public domain, can they be tagged with the  tag? If there is at least one copyrighted image, would that be fair use? Apologies if this was the wrong place to ask, I dunno where to go. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine that using a copyrighted image in a novel work of art (the collage) would qualify as fair use. I think any collage uploaded to Wikipedia would have to consist of images either in the public domain or released under a free license permitting modification. Angr (t • c) 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your reply. So that means collages cannot carry a fair use tag, and if a  tag will be used, all of the images should not be copyrighted. Again, thanks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Derivative works require permission from the copyright owner; typically a fair use claim for anything other than satire would be on dubious legal ground (at best). Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the best tag if the images contain copyrighted material? --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't upload it unless there is a valid fair use claim to be made. ed g2s • talk 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all of your replies. Ironically, we're working out on a collage on a "People of X" article, and I'm advocating for an all-public-domain and GFDL images, with no copyrighted images. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too sure that we couldn't use some fair use images in collages, probably head shot promos which were released by that person or their agent would probably be OK, but definitely not photo agency images/screenshots. Arniep 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collages 

message: The policy currently states that fair use images are allowed only in articles, but we routinely display such images on the Main page and portals... particularly to provide an image in conjunction with the 'preview blurb' for the Main page 'article of the day' or portal 'selected article'. The Wikipedia:Featured content page displays past 'articles of the day' and thus also routinely displays fair use images despite not being an "article".
Based on this policy, :Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg was recently removed from the Portal:Middle-earth 'selected article' for J. R. R. Tolkien. If the Tolkien page, which is a 'featured article', is eventually chosen as the 'article of the day' should this image not be used? Should all fair-use images be removed from prior 'articles of the day' displayed on the Wikipedia:Featured content page (and banned from future 'articles of the day')? Or should the policy be updated to allow the continued use of fair-use images in 'article previews' like these in addition to the full articles? --CBDunkerson 16:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know FU photos ever appeared on the main page. AFAIK, User:Raul654 is responsible for main page content; maybe you should ask him about it. Angr (t • c) 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it has happened, actually.  Jkelly 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OH NOES!!! Arniep 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It happens from time to time (just like Raul654 mistakenly uploads obvious copyright violations from time to time). Mistakes happen, and are usually corrected when someone notices.  I've personally caught it a couple of times and found replacements.  I think it's time for us to start opposing featuring articles which have zero free illustrations, but thats another matter.--Gmaxwell 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already started. I opposed three FAC's yesterday because they had too many copyrighted images. Today I'm getting messages on my talk page pointing to all the previous FA's about movies that have tons of them, hinting that precedent suggests they can get away with it. Angr (t • c) 19:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have an article about a TV show which is only illustrated with free pictures. So don't let people argue that it's not possible to have free illustrations for these things. --Gmaxwell 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A featured article? Which one? Angr (t • c) 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not featured.. Um. Some british show, I'll have to look for it. It's just evidence that we can have free illustrations for these things as well. For example, the starwars article up on FAC right now, ... no pictures of the fans waiting in line! Shameful! It would be trivial to get a free picture of that... people aren't even trying. --Gmaxwell 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hrrrmm. Actually, fair-use images on the main page happens often enough that I had assumed it was just allowed. For instance :Image:Perfect_dark_box.jpg was up there two days ago when that game was the article of the day. Three of the 'articles of the day' so far this month have used fair-use images and that's pretty much par for the course. Thus, 'I think it has happened' and 'It happens from time to time' seem a little understated... I'd estimate fair-use images are on the Main page one day in five on average. What is the rationale for not allowing these images (except for all the times we do) in 'article preview' blurbs? I'd think that the same conditions which allow them to be fair use in the articles would apply to these short introductions to the articles. --CBDunkerson 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently fair-use images are used whenever an unfree work needs to be illustrated.  Makes sense, if you think about it; sine Gmaxwell, free images are really no substitute for fair use on such topics.  Presumably Raul is resigned to this.In any case, the idea is that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia, and should therefore avoid showcasing fair-use images if possible. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are sometimes a fine substitute. For example, Dr. Who was put put with a picture of the TARDIS from the show, and we replaced it with a free picture of a police box taken by a Wikipedian. It's not always the case that we can avoid fair use, which is the only reason we permit it at all (and I do support our limited inclusion of fair use)... that doesn't excuse us from trying to find free illustrations, and from being honest about what can and can't be replaced with free images. --Gmaxwell 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could be tricky. Police boxes ceased to exist a long time ago.Geni 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not hard: :Image:Earls_Court_Police_Box.jpg and :Image:Police_Box.JPG. Thanks for making my point: most of the time people say there can't be a free illustration they are wrong.--Gmaxwell 03:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. For a counter example there is the original image listed above... J. R. R. Tolkien has been dead for thirty years, so there aren't going to be any new 'free' pictures of him. He was also notoriously camera shy so there aren't even that many copyrighted pictures of him. Sometimes it really isn't possible to come up with a 'free' image. We could always go without a picture of the man, but that doesn't seem appropriate for an article on him or even a Main page/Featured content/Portal 'blurb' linking to the article. --CBDunkerson 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok in the case of doctor who stuff we could probably get photos of a lot of the props one way or another (there certianly used to be various traveling exibitions). In the case of dead people I'm sure there are some wikipedians with parents at least who were alive 30 years ago and may have taken photos (certianly we have one such photo of John Lennon.Geni 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have exactly this problem as I am going to make a new collage for Irish people, and I'd really like to include an image of Samuel Beckett but I can't find any that are free of copyright. As the image is so small, basically thumbnail sized and is actually being used in a pretty complimentary way I find it highly unlikely anyone would complain about their image being used. Arniep 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not convinced that such a small thumbnail image being used in a complimentary manner (i.e. as representatives of the whole Irish people) would ever be regarded as a violation of fair use. Arniep 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on that, but it's making our content less free because we happen to really like Beckett.  Jkelly 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I made a drawing from one of the copyrighted photographs could I release that under a free license, or would it be regarded as a derivative work made without permission? Arniep 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you made it based on one, it would be a derivative work.  But if you made a composite sketch based on many, that should be fine.  I see such images at Commons fairly often.  Jkelly 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go if it comes out no good maybe I can see if I can get a thumb released under a free license. Arniep 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair-use in 'article previews'? 

message: If our goal is merely to make an encyclopedia why do we not accept images that are permitted to be used for non commercial use? Arniep 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because our goal is in fact not merely to make an encyclopedia, it's to make a free licensed encyclopedia available to anyone (under the terms of the GFDL license wich expliclity allow for commercial use). --Sherool (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but why do we want other people to profit from it (which would actually be a bit of a con considering it is availiable for free here)? Arniep 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?? Oh! When we say Free we speak of freedom and not price, and denying people the ability to make commercial use would be to reject a fundamental freedom and to discriminate against a perfectly reasonable class of use. When you say "to profit from it" and "a bit of a con" you're implying some things are necessary which are not. For example, what if someone took an copy, cleaned up all the vandalism, and pressed a DVD version for distribution to schools and libraries, charging only a modest fee to cover their effort and materials? This would quite possibly be a commercial use, yet there is no exploitation.--Gmaxwell 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't that just be considered a non profit, charity type setup i.e. still non commercial? Arniep 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the spirit of the law/licence? Perhaps. But within the letter? Highly doubtful. Unless said person/organisation is registered as a charity, it would probably be considered for-profit and thereby illegal. Also, I think non-commercial licences make life a bit difficult for our commercial mirrors (though IANAL and could be wrong). Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-commercial" is a very vague term.  Not only would it make trouble for commercial re-users like Answers.com, it could make trouble for us: if we were to do fundraising by selling CDs of Wikipedia, that could be considered commercial use, even if the money goes to a non-profit organization. --Carnildo 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I brought it up is I contacted a professional photographer on Flickr asking if they would change the license on the images from CC NCD, to CC share alike, he then responded, "does that mean a photo agency could sell my images as long as they credited me" which just made me think umm.., yeah, that would be pretty unfair (although I did eventually convince him to release low res versions under the share alike license). Arniep 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that it's unfair, it is the nature of free content. But keep in mind exactly what they could do: A photo agency could sell access to his work so long as they comply with the license (which, in the case of the GFDL, is somewhat incompatible with purely exploitative business models since it requires the distributor to include a copy of the GFDL). They could not sell the work itself as the author still retains the copyright. It is important to note that no sane photo agency would try to make a business out of reselling GFDLed images, because the attribuition and license transmission requirements are considered somewhat annoying for such purposes (they can't hide the fact that it's free content). This is true, to some extent, with all copyleft licenses although it's more true for the GFDL because the CreativeCommons licenses were designed to be more compatible with including free content works which are non-free where as GFDL is only has low overhead when the entire work is GFDL (unless you think it's low overhead to include a copy of the GFDL in small print in your full page advert that used a GFDLed image. :) --Gmaxwell 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the Creative Commons license appropriate for these low res images or should I use the GFDL? Arniep 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone concerned about both commercial use and making their work available to Wikipedia should use the GFDL. It effectively makes life so difficult for offline reusers that only those who really want to use free content will bother. Everyone else will find a less restrictive licence or resort to non-copyleft content. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You can use both. If you upload to the commons, the drop down box will give you some recommendations. ed g2s • talk 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the situation may be slightly complicated as the licenses say self created work. While I did crop and reduce the resolution of the images, I did so with agreement of the photographer and I want him to be attributed as the creator of the work, not me. If anyone here is a commons user I would appreciate any support on an RFAd Commons:Commons:Administrators#Arniep which was effectively hijjacked by another admin who got in a huff when I restored speedy on an image which clearly should have been deleted long ago (tagged no source since February 12th). It seems there is effective meltdown there with nosource and speedy delete categories with massive backlogs. Arniep 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: probably not a good idea. we got in enough troble over the whole strong armingmeta thing.Geni 15:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's not a good idea? Arniep 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Useing en weight of numbers to ger our way on the various bits of cross project stuff. It tends to upset people.Geni 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there are many people watching this page so I don't think it could be considered ganging up on all the other projects. The problem is there seems to be lack of action in deleting bad images on Commons which directly affects us here on en-wiki. Arniep 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer, but as I visit WP:IT, I have found fair use tags possibly acceptable but noncommercial tags unacceptable. How are we going to claim fair use here on images with noncommercial licenses or licenses forbidding derivative works?--Jusjih 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noncommercial or no-derivative licenses are not sufficient to permit us to use a work, but neither is their absence necessary.  If such a license exists, ignore it and apply a fair-use tag instead.  For our purposes, noncommercial/no-derivative/Wikipedia-only licenses are equivalent to no license at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we not accept non commercial clauses?

message: Could we please clarify what the above talk is about? Does it concern claimed Fair Use of images on user talk pages, or in articles, and if the latter, then is there a particular issue? Thanks. Tyrenius 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Travb has just been blocked. ed g2s • talk 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: He's annoyed that someone's been removing non-free images from his userpage. --Carnildo 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and other userpages, and he's taking up the issue in a completely pointless place as well as making attack pages in his userspace... Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, that is the way it works.  If someone has an idea that differs from you, Ed, or from admins then he/she is blocked?  If this continues wikipedia is doomed. Many people send comments to user pages for different things, what's wrong with Travb sending comments to peoples user pages??  You guys are just imposing your views, the same thing you are criticizing from Travb.Shame on you! Cjrs 79 14:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Travb was warned by three separate admins, and blocked by a fourth for vandalism and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He was not blocked for disagreeing with me. ed g2s • talk 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: This category seems to be an excuse to use photo agency images. Surely anything could be claimed to be a "non-reproducible historic event". Arniep 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw one in there that seemed to qualify.  I think that is a better percentage than some of our fair use cats.  Jkelly 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, IMO. Like any other category of images, it will have some obviously inappropriate ones, but many claims made here have a basis. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wasn't there some case about a video of Kennedy's assassination or something, where it was ruled that it went against the public interest for the only record of such a major event to be irreproducible, or something?  I can't recall the case name. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the bar for that would be very high, and I doubt that that case in particular would stop anybody from sueing if it came down to it. It is probably not a good basis for policy on here as a consequence. I think the original intent for this category was just as a way of subcatting "fair use" images, not on the basis of it being a unique legal category (which for our purposes it is not, as I understand it). --Fastfission 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well previously we seemed to have decided that photo agency images were very very rarely fair use, this cat however seems to be challenging that by saying the only image availiable of xxx is a photo agency image so we are justified in using it. Arniep 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is for this to be used where the image itself has historic significance: things like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Zapruder Film where we've got an article on it, or things like the lead image on Hindenburg (airship), where the image is an iconic representation of the event. --Carnildo 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a lot of them seem to be portraits of people rather than events. A few agency images and those that are likely to be: :Image:18-inside-malvo.jpg, :Image:20040807202726.JPG (AP), :Image:2003 Quebec general election, Charest on election night.jpg, :Image:2004gopconventionmiller.jpg (AP), :Image:2004OlympicsOpeningCeremonyAmerica.jpg (AP), :Image:5 Feb 2006 Danish consulate in Beirut Fire.jpg (Reuters), :Image:AmberFrey.jpg (AP), :Image:BassamAbuSharif.jpg (from BBC website, though prob a screenshot), :Image:KarlaHomolka 1993.jpg (AP). Arniep 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Fair use historic photographs]]

message: For your reference: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6031 , I couldn't find an existing bug for it. ed g2s • talk 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, I brought this up once before. I think it's a good idea. ~MDD4696 21:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we sort images if we couldn't see the thumbails? Arniep 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually use the thumbnails for something on those cats? Too slow to be useful. 90% of what you need to know should be in the text anyways... then you bring up the image page to be sure. --Gmaxwell 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't really tell from the text what sort of image it is but you can usually spot a likely commercial image from a thumbnail. Arniep 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use cats are intended to contain commercial images, so a commercial image there wouldn't be interesting. I do use something simmlar to the galleries (but local and fast) to review things like "GFDL presumed". --Gmaxwell 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a test gallery over at http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images so you can see when it gets enabled. ~MDD4696 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use in categories 

message: Previously I had thought that we didn't regard any photo or press agency images as fair use and whenever I've seen them I've ifded them. Was I correct in doing this or are they fair use if no other type of image exists of a person (i.e. screenshot, promo) or if there is no possibility of taking a free image in the future? Arniep 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While agency images could be ruled out under FUC#2 (replacing the original market role), low-resolutions images could probably be used if the other criteria are met. ed g2s • talk 13:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if an image could be taken (i.e. the person appears in public at known times) , would that mean we should not use an agency image? Arniep 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless the picture of the person also showed a historic event they were part of. ed g2s • talk 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah but if you allow that, people will claim anything as a historic event. Arniep 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of what people would claim as a historic event- sports events, film premieres, academy award speeches, election rallies, crime scenes, disasters, a celebrity opening something... etc. Arniep 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm pretty wary of the "historic event" aspect. The only legal aspects relating to "historic events" are for really, really historic events of which they are no other pictures of it (the Zapruder film), not just "this is something which is technically historic and I couldn't find any other pictures). --Fastfission 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key thing is that it should only be used in an article about the event. ed g2s • talk 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the key was that the photo itself was the subject.  For instance this famous kiss on VJ day or the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.  Other photos taken the same day, of the same larger event, by the same photographer, wouldn't be fair use (even in articles about what's depicted in the photo).  Somehow, the photo itself, should be notable, in its own right.  This is what I thought, but I could be wrong.  --Rob 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant... ed g2s • talk 13:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we clarify- if no other image of a person exists except a photo agency photo and there is no possiblility of taking a photo in the future can we use it under fair use? Arniep 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Do you have a specific example in mind - I'd be reluctant to say what is always fair use, as one can usually find a counter example. ed g2s • talk 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are probably right that there are very few examples, but I suppose another argument could be that while a member of the public may have taken an image of somebody or the person may have appeared on TV at some time, the only image that "seems to be" availiable "despite extensive searching" is an agency image. Arniep 23:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agency images

message: I asked him a simple yes or no question:
Hopefully with four or five typestrokes he could end this argument about the policy tag.
signed:Travb (talk)   13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I asked Jimbo

message: You still don't seem to understand that the procedure by which this became policy is not really that important.  If you think this should not be policy, you need to say why it is bad policy.  You have yet to do so, at least not here (although there are some hints of this on your talk page finally).  Why don't you just take five minutes to elucidate what you think is wrong about this policy, instead of wasting all this time on procedural maneuvering that will never succeed anyway?  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You still don't get it

message: Wikipedia:Fair use images in templates: exceptions -- Please read and comment on that page's Talk area.  Thanks! SteveBaker 14:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your example is the car manufacturer templates - I will have to respectfully disagree. The name of the company can adequately be conveyed using text. Adding the logo is a luxury we can do without. ed g2s • talk 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (For the benefit of those new to this, ed g2s is the person who removed the logos and provoked this debate). SteveBaker 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't completely see through the logic. Just because an image has something to do with the text of the template does not make it fair use at all. The template is not commenting on the image nor using it analytically. It is still, in this case, essentially decoration, as ed g2s points out. --Fastfission 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in templates: exceptions 

message: Seems to be a growing problem. Almost every popular seems to have one now. When I challenged List of Family Guy episodes, a user there added fair use rationales to each image, such as :Image:FGMrSaturdayKnight.png. The claims have little do with its use in the list. Specifically:
:it allows for identification of the character: the jouster 'seargent';
::when the article doesn't discuss the character in any particular detail, and:
:it illustrates the film in question and aids commentary on the plot outline in particular peter training to become a jouster.
::when the article dedicates just one line to the plot outline.
We need to set out the rules clearly on this as we are getting articles with 50+ fair use images, for about as many lines of text. ed g2s • talk 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a serious problem. Check out List of Dawson's Creek episodes. I don't think this is fair use, but I'm not really sure. What to do? ~MDD4696 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could start looking at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates in an attempt to prevent this from being held up as an ideal practice.  Jkelly 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That Fair use rationale is for Mr. Saturday Knight, not the list (although it is being indicated as a rationale for the list). Unluckily, there is no tag for Fair use rationale missing (). I suggest tagging them with :Template:Fair use disputed, explaining in the talk page the fair use rationale is missing for a determined list. The suggestion for checking the list candidates is a good one, but there are already many precedents (like the list of Final Fantasy games). -- ReyBrujo 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really agree with that vision. Out of 20 episodes in a season, a determined numbers are trivial for the storyline. Who is going to determine the "best" image to recognize the chapter? In a episode in 24 a lot of things happen, usually three or four important events. Which event to choose? A list does not need images to be a good list, nor we are supposed to help the casual reader, in a single article, to define the episode and season number of something he saw but does not remember. For someone who has never watched the series, images in the list are not necessary. There are sites created to just provide the casual user an understanding of every episode, there is no need for Wikipedia to become one. However, this does not mean a list should have no images at all. Images of DVD sets, promotions for the seasons, etc, could fit the list. -- ReyBrujo 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots on lists 

message: Not sure where to ask this question, but every stamp in :Category:USPS large-letter greetings stamps is used to illustrate the subject of the stamp not the stamp itself. That seems contrary to what the  says.
Are the bullet points in the template AND or OR?:
* to illustrate the stamp in question
AND
* on the English-language Wikipedia
Or is it:
* to illustrate the stamp in question 
OR
* on the English-language Wikipedia
Many of the copyrighted stamps that use the  template are using the stamps to illustrate things appearing in the stamp's design, not the stamp itself despite the words on the template, is this proper usage simply because it is on the English-language Wikipedia? Does each stamp require a separate fair use rationale? Thanks, --Dual Freq 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely AND. Copyrighted stamp images can be used to illustrate the stamp, not the subject on the stamp. A stamp with Joe Blow on it can only be used in the article on Joe Blow if the article explicitly discusses his appearance on a postage stamp. Angr (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there is a serious problem with the way it is being used here. A quick glance at :Category:USPS stamps will illustrate the problem. I'd wager that most of those images are being used incorrectly to illustrate things appearing in the stamp's design, not the stamp itself. --Dual Freq 15:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least some of those articles are going to make some sort of big deal about the stamp issuance, I assume.  If you're interested in cleaning up spurious fair use claims, I find that the least-controversial way to clean that sort of thing up is to find unused images on Wikimedia Commons to replace the unfree images here.  One gets a lot less resistance when one does the extra work if tracking down another image.  Jkelly 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no intention of mass removal of stamp images, but I wanted to clarify the template meaning. I would expect that a featured article wouldn't contain an image of a stamp, just to illustrate the article as opposed to discussing the stamp. --Dual Freq 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify stamp fair use

message: Here: Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#Put_all_the_pictures_back. ed g2s • talk 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion needed