Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 7

message: I need some other opinions on whether the use of fair use logos on 2005 Texas Longhorn football team#Game notes passes FUC rule #8 - if they are just decorative or do they significantly add to the article, and thus can be kept. Here is a list of match details of an American football team during the 2005 season. In each individual game description, the fair use logo of each opponent is placed along with each match summary. And in each championship game summary, the fair use logo of that specific championship contest is also included. According to the discussion, Talk:2005 Texas Longhorn football team#Fair use images?, the arguement is the logos are used alongside of discussion pertaining to those teams. However, I would like other opinions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely decorative and should be removed, in my opinion. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, using icons text to team names is completely unecessary. If unfree media can be avoided, it should be. This has been applied to numerous sports pages. ed g2s • talk 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that policy is being applied in an inconsistent and overly-strict manner here.  We allow a sports team logo to be used in an article about that team.  If we have an article about a particular game played by that team, we would still allow the logo.  In this case, what we have here is thirteen miniature articles about thirteen different games.  If they were split out into seperate articles, there would be no issue with the use of the logos.  The fact that they are merged together into one article covering a single season should make no difference.  The logos still represent the teams being discussed, and the article features discussion on each game.  Johntex\talk 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, one could note that the logos are a very low-value addition to the article that transforms it from being freely reusable to being unfree content.  Really, in an article about the team it would be strange to not show our readers the team's logo, so we make an exception and allow unfree content there.  But there is no compelling reason to make every article that mentions every sports team less free by attaching a decorative icon to the team's name at each appearance.  Jkelly 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular article being discussed would not be free-use even without the images of competing teams because (a) the team's own logo is used there under fair use (b) the article contains discussion of commemorative magazine covers which are included in the article.  Also, in terms of it being strange to ommit the image, sports-news websites (E.g. Sports Illustrated and ESPN) routinely use both team's logos alongside information about a specific game.  Therefore, I would argue that readers would find it "strange to not show" the logos in this context as well. Johntex\talk 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not ESPN or SI; they probably got licenses to do the things they are doing. The article looks a lot better now with the icons being removed. I still think a bunch of photos could go from that article, but the removal of the logos is a good start. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, read the intro to WP:FUC again. This is not what fair use is allowed for. ed g2s • talk 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I have re-read and I invite you to do the same.  It says that free image equivalents are preferred when available.  There is no free image equivalent to a logo.  The use of the text name instead of the logo is clearly not an equivalent.  If it were, then we would never use a logo. Johntex\talk 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That only applies if the image should be used in the first place. Decorating a name is something we can do with out. ed g2s • talk 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: After removing the web-banner, the article looks alright in my view. Some of the photos are free, so I think this is a good balance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely have a hard time understanding this. Rule #8 specifically states that an image is allowed if illustrates a section within the text. These logos do. The game summaries are a vital part of the page and the logos illustrate the main point of the sections, the opponents. How this doesn't comply is beyond me. I don't see how the "less free" argument is valid if the reason falls within the rules stated for fair use.--NMajdan•talk 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As used in rule #8, "illustrates" means "demonstrates a point".  The logos provide no information beyond what the team names do -- less, in fact, as people are more likely to recognize a name than a logo -- so there's no reason to use them. --Carnildo 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For many sports fans, the logo is synonomous with the name. And if you're taking such a strict stance on this issue, when does a logo demonstrate a point. By the definition "demonstrates a point," a school's logo wouldn't even belong on the school's page and the logo does not "demonstrate a point." The image should be allowed to be used if there is an article-critical discussion about the subject of the image on the page.--NMajdan•talk 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The main focus of that section is the game, not the opponent. It is much like using the ESRB logo in the game infoboxes.  Just make yourself some questions: Does the casual user need to know the logo of the opponent team in a match? Does the casual user improve his comprehension of the article with the image? Does the casual user understand the information without the image? -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a logo on the school's page. Does the reader need to know the logo of the school? No. But its beneficial. Is his comprehension improved? No. Does he understand the information without the image? Yes. This seems like a very draconian interpretation of the guidelines.--NMajdan•talk 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why some have suggested to remove images from albums and book covers. Fair use is a gray area, and as with all gray areas, the most you can "remove" from there, the better. -- ReyBrujo 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Per current policy, the logos' use is clearly prohibited in this instance.  They add nothing to the article.  It is of value to our readers to know what the logos of various teams look like, should they wish to learn about the team; therefore, the logos are permitted in articles about the teams.  But in this context, the reader learns nothing from the images, and they don't aid understanding. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is of value to our readers to know what the logos of various teams look like, should they wish to learn about the team  Can't the same be said of the logos in the sections of questions?--NMajdan•talk 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  The logos are informative to the reader.  Some people are more visually oriented than others.  Also, as I mention above, it is common practice to use both teams logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated and ESPN). Johntex\talk 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As already explained, it is likely they have paid license fees to copyright holders in order to be able to use them. As for information, the cover of a book is useful to the reader in an article about the book, not in an article about a character. -- ReyBrujo 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Should I remove the text of team name and just leave the logo as is done []?--NMajdan•talk 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! That is worse! Casual readers don't know what each symbol means. Someone must go there and begin cleaning those articles up. Seriously. -- ReyBrujo 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, use text but never logos (except on the team's page). ed g2s • talk 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has presented any evidence that news organizations are licensing these logos.  I think that is unwarranted speculation and I don't think it is correct. Johntex\talk 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Excuse me?  Broadcast and cable television spend millions of dollars every year for the right to broadcast games, and somehow that doesn't include team logos? Thatcher131 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excuse you?  what is that supposed to conttibute to the discussion?  Paying for the rights to broadcast a game is one thing, using the logo in a news story is another.  None of the examples I give above are from a game broadcast. Johntex\talk 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it is, but it doesn't actually matter. ed g2s • talk 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the same cannot be said of them.  Anyone who wishes to know what a team's logo looks like will, naturally, go to the article on the team.  That article has the logo.  Since that resource is available, there's no need to add the logos elsewhere as well.  One instance of the logo satisfies this need. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they should be kept, they aid the article. You may not know the team, however you may know a logo :) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For whomever that actually applies to, this is not a luxury we can afford them. ed g2s • talk 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No dispute resolution process will override our policy, which is quite clear on the matter at hand. I appreciate your diplomatic efforts, but you are wasting your time with this. ed g2s • talk 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helping editors understand something is not wasting someone's time. That's a very bad attitude to have. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a waste of time here. This is just a rehash of every debate we've had on fair use. Simply put, there are people who think we should be exposing the Foundation to a minusucule (but real) risk of a lawsuit, which even if we win, will divert significant resources from funding the servers to legal fees, and these people won't budge. Likewise, those who think that sprucing up an article a little isn't worth the minusucule legal risk it poses are equally set in their ways. Dispute resolution, short of arbitration, won't help. I'm beyond caring. Which side I stoutly agree with is obvious from my depiction of the situation (and from a cursory examination of the time I've devoted in the past to explaining why the fuck we're screwed when it comes to fair use). In any case, I couldn't care less now. If we want to screw Wikipedia over just so we can stick some pretty logos on an article, while serious and justified uses of fair use are marginalised, it's perfectly fine by me. Johnleemk | Talk 10:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about a poor attitude. I heard this argument many times: "It's been discussed before and resolved before." I asked for links to discussions on the matter and was only provided with Talk:NHL Entry Draft which fails miserably in a discussion and only re-presents a single side of the argument from one person who may or may not be over-zealous in his fair use interpretations (and we're to assume, since they're a expert in the field, we must trust them -- that's a terrible argument, especially since how can we ensure they are an expert?). And it doesn't matter if it has been discussed and settled before: If a subject is unavilable for critical discussion, it become weak in it's support (religion? domagic belief?). Even the US Supreme Court (for another example) has reversed itself. Would you still want slavery? Slavery was widely accepted, but through dicussion, it was determined to be wrong. There is no harm in rediscussing issues, especially since some of the people involved will be new to the topic and may advance the discussion in new ways. I'm not saying that if it were to be resolved today, we should reopen it for discussion tomorrow. So, I put forth my request again: Please provide directed links to discussion of this issue before. I am also bringing in dispute resolution to help the process and hopefully organize and cool down everyone. They won't solve it, they will help us solve it. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth. I never issued an injunction against discussion of this topic. My point is that any further discussion of fair use in general when it comes to lists is fruitless because we have covered the same ground a billion times. I don't intend to dig up every discussion in this vein, but List of Lost episodes comes to mind. If you want more, dig through ed2gs's contribution list, since he's active in this field. My point is simple: we've discussed everything there is to be discussed. There is no sign that anything new will be presented. Both sides understand each other clearly. We just disagree, and nothing the other says can alter that, short of something new being put on the table (e.g. a significant addition to fair use case law). Dispute resolution short of arbitration is focused on discussion, but there is nothing that discussion can add here. You fellows are free to try, but mark my words: it won't work. How you interpret fair use law and Wikipedian fair use policy is a subjective thing, and further discussion won't solve anything when it's clear what both sides think. The only way to change the other side's mind is to present something new, and I've been around enough to know that (at least for now) there's nothing that can be added to alter the way we (as in we Wikipedians) think. Achieving compromise may be possible, but I find it highly doubtful. From my experience in dealing with lists that utilise fair use images, nobody is going to back down. The only dispute resolution here that will work is arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your withdrawl and failure to continue discussion is the downfall of the process and will only harm Wikipedia and is self-serving. Mediatian must be attempted before Arbitration (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). Perhaps advancing beyond the first, informal, mediator level would have been more appropriate, but any step towards the dispute resolution process will advance this discussion since it has grown stagnant. Further, I did not know this was as large as it was until after I submitted for the level of mediation. Perhaps the arbitration committee should allow us as an exception, since this is a policy and they have the power to issue policy and so forth, but I believe we should attempt mediation -- which shall require everyone to calm down and discuss issues and their intrepretation of the policy and stop attacking eachother. --MECU≈talk 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to note that there is no legal risk to the WMF from such logos.  It's merely a content provider, and is shielded from suit by OCILLA and other laws.  The reason we clamp down so hard on fair use is ideological, not pragmatic.  (Consider what straits a site like Geocities would be in if they could be held liable for things their users post.)  I'm still in favor of enforcing the policy, note. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OCILLA only applies to lawsuits filed in the US, and it only applies after the Wikimedia Foundation is hauled into court.  As legal shields go, it's flimsy and damned expensive. --Carnildo 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WMF is a US corporation and I don't see how it would be bothered by lawsuits filed outside the US, for one.  For two, nobody's going to bother suing without first asking for the images to be removed, because a) it would be very expensive for the plaintiff as well and b) would be certain not to gain the plaintiff anything, whereas asking for the images to be removed is essentially free and not unlikely to succeed.  Someone could file a frivolous lawsuit without first filing an OCILLA takedown request, but it would be spectacularly stupid and therefore quite unlikely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using logos in a detailed list of a sports team's season games 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_and_magazines and post your comments! --M@rēino 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and magazines 

message: I have temporarily hidden :Image:ADmarschall.jpg in Shipwreck, because it does not look like valid "fair use" in that article. I would appreciate confirmation of my intention to remove the image from the article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  There's nothing special about that particular image or that particular shipwreck that requires it to be the lead image in the article. --Carnildo 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My only concern is that the article does not have a free equivalent.  Besides the removed image, there are two images on the page.  One is a copyrighted image of an actual shipwreck.  The other is a free image of a painting.  I don't think that the painting is a suitable substitute for an actual photo.  Therefore, I support using one of the two photos.  To me, the one removed is the better photo.  I don't see a legal distinction between which one we use, so I guess this is an editing question I should probably raise on the article's Talk page. Johntex\talk 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: commons:Category:Shipwrecks.  Jkelly 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call - that category includes a Featured Picture that is at least as good as either of the two copyrighted images.  I will put on the free image and replace the unfree one.  If anyone things the unfree one adds something different to the article, please restore it. Johntex\talk 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I re-read the text and I see that the copyrighted image is being used to make a specific point - about the preservation of ship wrecks.  I added the free image at the top and left the other image alone. Johntex\talk 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could perhaps suggest :Image:Bow Scorpion.jpg and/or :Image:Bow part Scorpion.jpg as potential free alternatives, depending on exactly what it is they want to demonstrate. --Daduzi talk 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:ADmarschall.jpg in Shipwreck 

message: I have added a sentence to the baseball card counter-example to make it follow the same pattern as the News and Art counter-examples: "If the card itself is noteworthy, then it can be used only if it is discussed in the article where it appears." Johntex\talk 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what is says already - no need to repeat ourselves. ed g2s • talk 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ed.  On second reading, I agree with you. Johntex\talk 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball card counterexample

message: *There has recently been some disagreement on what the intent of the policy is with respect to use of sports team logos. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\talk 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim that we can't identify a team without using a logo is nonsense, I'm afraid. ed g2s • talk 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth isn't an excuse for incivility. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, my comments are not meant to be personal, however I stand by opinion that your claims are nonsensical. ed g2s • talk 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.  Johntex\talk 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy clarification with respect to logos

message: the policy disallowing fair use images in a template seems like prior restraint.   why are the templates held to a higher standard than the images themselves?    can't we just remove the use of the template when necessary?  Justforasecond 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're asking here.  The rule is that unfree content cannot be used in template space, just as unfree content cannot be used in user space, talk space, etc. Jkelly 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, let me try to clarify.   templates make it easier to make good articles.  sometimes fair-use images could make templates better and would not be copyright violations.   so why do we not allow them to be used in templates?   the rationale seems to be that the templates could be placed on user pages, etc.   Justforasecond 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason may be that it is hard to imagine how republishing unlicensed unfree content at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Example could be justified as Wikipedia:Fair use.  Using unfree content in a template means that it gets rendered in template space, even if the intended use of that template is article space.  Further speculation; it is likely that when the issue was first decided there was less of a "put unfree content everywhere" environment, and using the template functionality for convenience didn't seem like a big gain.  Jkelly 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Templates don't have to actually *render* the images in the template space.   They can be created to only render when included somewhere else.  Justforasecond 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is all irrelevant. 'Fair use' is defined in terms of how an unfree image is used in a particular article. An image that meets the 'fair use' test in a particular article almost certainly will not meet the 'fair use' test elsewhere. Most unfree images can be used under 'fair use' in only a single article, or possibly in two or three related articles. There is no justification for putting such images in a template. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an image doesn't belong in an article, why not just simply remove the template from the article?  Justforasecond 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example. Suppose we include the Nightwish logo (a fair use image) to the  template. Now, Tarja Turunen is their former singer, and includes the template because she has sung every song for 10 years. However, while it is informative to have the template there (as some articles about albums and songs may give information about Tarja, and the template includes a "former" section), the Nightwish logo may not fit in her article. Putting a fair use image in the template limits the ability to use the template, which is exactly the opposite Wikipedia is aiming. -- ReyBrujo 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Images on templates are decorative by definition. Templates do not discuss theirs images nor does all pages that include the templates. This alone is a reason for not using unfree images on templates. --Abu Badali 22:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abu Badali said everything I wanted to say. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've yet to see a justification of them that wasn't just "it looks pretty". That doesn't really cut it, it is far easier to just take it off the table for debate. --Fastfission 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template use 

message: I may be missing something here, but what is the point of the  template and the category it defines? What's a "Fair use Formula One image"? --Abu Badali 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it ironic that the Fair use template is using a Fair use image, which FUC does not allow. I suggest asking in the creator's page, it is a pretty new template. -- ReyBrujo 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe redirect it to , since this is trying to organize photos that are used in F1 articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of a class of images that are automatically fair usable in articles about F1. I will point the creator to this discussion. --Abu Badali 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:FairuseF1]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Abu Badali 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst: FairuseF1 }} 

message: Is there a template we can use to tag an image as "Non-compliance" (WP:FUC#Non-compliance)? I've seen several fair use images get uploaded after July 13th that still don't have sources or a fair use rational written up, and I'm ready for some tough love. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's  if that's any use? The JPStalk to me 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: for no source it would be .Geni 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliance 

message: What if there is no free content available for that image, as is the case for all logos that are trademarked and therefore copyrighted? Most, if not all, of these images aren't from Google Image search. --MECU≈talk 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other people will be able to discuss logos, as they are not my specialism. I mainly look at the fanboy celeb stuff. But, at the end of the day, logos don't actually educate either. The JPStalk to me 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say someone finds a product with the logo of a corporation on it and has a single word. They type that single word in, end up here looking at a corporation page that has that logo and they learn that all about that corporation. Without that use of the logo, they would not have known for sure it was that corporation. That is education. Just one of many possible examples. --MECU≈talk 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which the external link{s} would do anyway. I'm not overly convinced by that example. The JPStalk to me 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Has there been serious discussion about removing logos from the articles about the organisations that the logos represent?  Jkelly 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, in the sense that people are wanting to remove the logos from related articles.  The article on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team is every bit as much about that sports team as Colorado Buffaloes is.  The logo belongs on both articles, not just the second.  The fact that we organize our logos into bite size chunks is irrelevant to whether the logo is appropriate.  The logo is appropriate in both cases. Johntex\talk 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some admins have gone rabid.   I put a little democrat donkey logo in democratic presidents infoboxes right next to the word "democrat" -- someone went and deleted them.  Is this logo trademarked?  Not so far as I can tell.  Copyrighted?  Umm. no.  If it were a trademark would fair use apply?   Yes, we are referring to the Democrats right next to the logo.  Does having the image in wiki damage the Democrats?  No.  Are we stealing or trying to steal away profits from the Democrats?   No.   Are we serving the public interest?  Yes.   Is this a violation of fair use...would the Democrats come along and sue wikimedia...would any court in the country distribute damages for such use if the owner never didn't give wiki a chance to remove it?   No, no, and no.  Is there any more possibility that anyone could take this logo, from an article about a President and use it illegally that would end up getting wikimedia sued by the democrats and the case not thrown out of court, than there is possibility that someone could take this logo from an article about the Democrats themselves?  Absolutely not.  So please, lay off deletions.      Justforasecond 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use images can't be used in templates. It is in the policy. -- ReyBrujo 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Logos are almost always under copyright. Saying that we can get away with unauthorized use of images under copyright because the copyright holders don't care is like saying it's OK to steal candy from a store because the owner won't notice. And if Wikipedia displays a pattern of repeatedly using copyrighted images until asked to not do so, the courts would quickly lose sympathy for us. Look up 'scofflaw.' -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logos in articles on the relivant company are probably fine. Anywhere else less so and risks bring up trademark law as well as copyright. Thus in order to keep things simple as well as keeping our fair use policy simple fair use images are resticted to the article namespace.Geni 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One trouble with that reasoning is that, as we grow, we have multiple articles on related topics.  The logo can be equally appropriate on each of them.  Please see above for my example relating to the Colorado Buffaloes. Johntex\talk 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos again/still 

message: I see a problem in all this use of the term 'fair use images', which I think is misleading many editors. There is no such thing as a 'fair use image'. The law provides for 'fair use' of images. An unfree image may be used without license for certain stated purposes in a particular context. Just because use of an image in one context meets the 'fair use' criteria does not mean that the image may be used anywhere else. The justification for using an image under the 'fair use' criteris must be made separately each time the image is used. While Wikipedia may be able to forestall legal actions by taking down an occasional unfree image that slipped through the cracks, any evidence of deliberate flouting of copyright law may result in vigorous legal pursuit of Wikipedia. If you want to test the limits of copyright law, do it on your own nickle, not on Wikipedia's. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually when someone says "fair use image" on here they just mean it to be shorthand for "an image uploaded to a Wikimedia server which is not free and as such can only exist on them safely if it satisfies the 'fair use' clause of U.S. copyright law." As for the rest of it, yes, that's what the page currently says, I believe. --Fastfission 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if no "injury" (say significant harm in financial or any other way) is caused to the copyright owner by its use anywhere, then it is a fair use image ....Counterexamples in case law please?--luke 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth criteria is only used after its fair use criteria is established, to determine if excessive damages should be awarded. There are plenty of examples of this, see the Stanford Fair Use Center website for some of them. --Fastfission 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth criterion is used during the fair-use determination, not after.  Literally any fair-use case after the codification of the four criteria in the Copyright Act of 1976 will explicitly consider all four factors before arriving at a decision. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have read, in the courts it generally becomes relevant only after the first three. The reasoning is because potential loss due to infringement is only really relevant if it is infringement, which is exactly what the fair use determination is all about. See this page for a concise explanation. Now personally I think from a practical point of view it is the one which is most likely to make someone want to sue you in the first place, so it is worth avoiding, but that is a practical, not a legal, view of it. --Fastfission 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always treated after the first three, because that's the order they're laid down in in the statute.  It's always treated before a decision as to the legitimacy of the fair use claim is reached.  I'm serious, any case after 1978 will follow this pattern.  Take this as an example, say.  (2)(d) is "Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market for and Value of the Copyrighted Work", while (2)(e) is "Conclusion Regarding Fair Use and Direct Infringement".  And the wording in the latter is "The first, second, and fourth fair use factors weigh slightly in favor of P10. The third weighs in neither party’s favor. Accordingly, the Court concludes that [the infringements] likely do not fall within the fair use exception." (emphasis added)  This will be true in every fair-use case: the fourth factor affects whether the fair-use claim is valid in the first place, not just whether and what damages are awarded. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Direct injury obviously never occurs in copyright cases; rather, there's indirect injury caused by loss of marketability.  There are many cases where there was no harm to the copyright holder other than the fact that the user didn't pay licensing fees.  Steinberg v. Columbia and Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, for instance, are two cases where the use in question didn't actually compete with any of the copyright holder's works, but which were decided in favor of the plaintiff. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Fair use images' vs. 'fair use' of images

message: I would like to enhance the Stephanus pagination article with an image showing what a page from Henri Estienne's 1578 (obviously public domain!) edition of Plato actually looks like.  This is not likely ever to happen if it means finding a rare books library that holds this edition and is willing to subject a volume to scanning.  However, the image I want is out there on the web (, part of this page).  Every fiber of my being says that a single sample-page image from a 16th c. book should qualify for fair use.  Is it acceptable to upload this image to Wikipedia?  If so, how should it be tagged? Wareh 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's even better than fair use: it's in the public domain (scans of public domain images are still public domain). Use the  tag. --Fastfission 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Download the image. Crop out everything but the top page from the image. It is now a two-dimensional scan of material in the public domain. Our template for that is . Jkelly 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the extra content in those scans are anything which would count as creative, I don't think the cropping is necessary. --Fastfission 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is specifically for 2d recreations. The book part is 3d so they could claim it is a creative photo of it, best just to crop. ed g2s • talk 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, this strikes me as some pretty useless nitpicking. You can see some of the edge of the book in the photo. Whoop-dee-do. It's still 2-D in my book, unless you're positing the edge of the book and its inclusion would be interpretted as creative content. --Fastfission 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation was based solely on what I understand best practice to be.  If we need to show the sides of the other pages and edge of the book, one should make a  claim on it, I suppose.  And, yes, this is nitpicking, but what is the gain for us in not going to extra effort?  Jkelly 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick advice.  To be safe, I've cropped the image to be 2-D.  My next project is a similar sample page at Bekker numbers.  This is a book published 1831-1870, so it is public domain, and the editor died in 1871.  So I will use PD-Art again.  In any case, I will be making my own scan from a library copy of this one. Wareh 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you make your own scan you don't have to worry about anything. PD-Art is for when the work is public domain but the person who made the copy hasn't freely licensed their contribution to it. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Page from a Public Domain Book: Fair Use?

message: Apparently the tag is not working with categories (in example, :Category:Pokémon images, :Category:Ayumi Hamasaki DVD releases, etc). Anyone can check this out? Was this expected? -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported it on bugzilla a day or two ago. It is still working on commons (:commons:Category:English_pronunciation), so I assume it is something in a new release that has broken it. ed g2s • talk 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There seems to be some issues, for example I've worked on deleting images from one of the orphanded fair use subcats that had nogallery added, but after deleting a few dozen I reloaded the category and the thumbnails where showing, I checked the source and the nogallery tag was still there. Doing an action=purge on the category caused the nogallery tag to kick in again, not sure what the problem is, paging though the category tend to cause the thumnails to appear too. --Sherool (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOGALLERY tag 

message: The fair-use policy includes, for example, the statement that "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace." Does this apply to other unfree images, such as noncommercial-only images that were uploaded before May 2005? —Bkell (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no straight legal reason why it should. However it is probably better practice to not use non-commercial  images in templates, since that will likely increase their use, and we have explicit directions to try and reduce their use. --Fastfission 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A non-commerical license is not a valid reason to use an image on Wikipedia, in fact, it's a criteria for speedy deletion. The only way such images can be used is under Fair Use, so on the article namespace only. ed g2s • talk 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a criterion for speedy deletion if the image was uploaded after 19 May 2005, which is why I included that little clause in my original post (see CSD I3). The instance I have in mind is :Image:US PA PHIL.JPG, which is under a noncommercial-only license, was uploaded on 29 March 2005, and is used all over the place. —Bkell (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be either IFDd or just relicensed as fair use.  Noncommercial images from before that date can't be speedied, but they're supposed to be systematically deleted according to process. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I was the one who tagged that image for non-commercial use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of fair-use policy to other unfree images 

message: Hi, sorry for the slightly off-topic question. We have a policy debate (again) about non-free images in HuWiki and I'd like to know which major Wikipedias permit fair use images. I thought that only the German Wikipedia could resist the temptation. :)
Thanks,
nyenyec ☎ 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that pt does not use them. --Abu Badali 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and es: doesn't use them, although has some grandfathered in.  See :es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo for details on es.  There's a list on meta somewhere about which projects allow claims of "fair use".  Jkelly 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That list is here. meta:Fair use. Garion96 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most popular non-English Wikipedias do not permit unfree images at all" 

message: What is the status of using fan art to illustrate a wikipedia article? (Editors claim parody, FU, and copyright holder apathy to fanart.) What is the status of using fan art to illustrate an article that is about a work of fanfiction?  (I'd try to have it deleted, but it likely wouldn't pass:it's a "webcomic". The images have been deleted several times by admins, but the editors keep re-adding.) --Kunzite 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not allowed.  Fan art is generally either a derivative work of the original and thus a copyvio, or original research. --Carnildo 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this stated specifically anywhere that we cannot use derivative works? --Kunzite 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but for our purposes, fanart is a copyright violation of the original work.  Fanartists can attempt to justify their works under the "parody" protections of fair use law, but Wikipedia can't claim parody and still remain an encyclopedia. --Carnildo 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That something is an unauthorized derivative work doesn't mean it's ineligible for fair use.  If a piece of fanart were genuinely important to an article, it could be fair use with all the usual provisos (low resolution, etc., etc.).  If we're using it for "purposes such as . . . news reporting" (e.g., writing an encyclopedia), and we're commenting on the work itself, and we use as little as possible to make our point, then it's likely to be fair use for us even if it's not fair use for the one who actually made the fanart.  This is because fair use is determined per use, not per work.However, it is important to note that fanart can never be free.  That's a misconception that many have. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's a rare enough case that I try not to confuse people with it.  Right off-hand, I can't think of a single work of fanart that's notable enough, with the possible exception of some doujinshi manga. --Carnildo 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairuse and fan art... 

message: Ok, I realize this is pretty basic question, but I'm having trouble figuring this out. Hopefully someone can help my clarify this.
My understanding is (or was) that screenshots are supposed to be used only when there's a sufficient amount of critical commentary about the image in question in the article, or for identification, if it's identifying the subject of the article. This is pretty clear-cut (in my mind anyway) when we're talking about, say, the use of an image from a film in an article about that film. But recently, I've been working on an article about a person involved in television. I actually haven't added any images to the article -- there were a few there when I got there -- and I've even removed a few on the grounds that they seemed like they were being used for decoration. Now another editor has come along a pulled all the screenshots from the article. I'm not hugely into images, but I'd like to know for future reference what the rule is about screenshots in articles about people. My interpretation was that it was okay to use, for example, an image that represents a significant performance by an actor that is a landmark of his or her career, provided you're actually discussing that work in a significant way. Is that incorrect?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is correct. Could you link us to the article in question? Johnleemk | Talk 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The mystery article is actually Stephen Colbert... compare versions here  and here  if you'd like. Actually, now that I'm looking, some these were uploaded without fair use rationales. If that's the problem, that's easy to fix. I'm not really that concerned by this, and the last two images on the page are ones that seem to me like they may not have enough commentary (the Mr. Goodwrench and "other roles" images), but regardlless, I would like to have a firmer understanding of what's fair-usable in cases similar to this.    -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have no fair use rationales and were uploaded recently (I'm not sure about the specifics off the top of my head), they can't be used. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added rationale for the Daily Show screen; and there appears to already be one for the Colbert Report screen. The impression I got from the edit summary of the removing editor, though, was that the problem was that the use of the image wasn't acceptable in this context at all, which puzzled me. Can you look at these two images now (with rationale), and tell me if they're okay to use? You can use this version [ of the article for reference, although I'm only concerned about the Daily Show/ Colbert Report screenshots.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I personally think those screenshots are fine, the issue might be that the article never mentions Colbert's role as a "Senior Washington Correspondent" (although this is the how he is depicted in the screencap from TDS) or the "On Notice" board, which is depicted in The Colbert Report screencap. Maybe by adding a sentence or two on these (having seen Colbert on TDS a number of times, I'm sure one could easily expand on his role as a correspondent there), the issue would be resolved. It wouldn't hurt. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I've been intending to expand both of these a bit anyway, so that seem like the best way to approach this. Thank you.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about fair use of screenshots