Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists/Archive 1

message: *There's simply no need for any fair-use images in lists. Lists do not provide critical commentary, least of all on the specific scene shown by the screenshot. They should all be removed without exception. User:Angr 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is where I don't agree, as I stated above. The Fair use claim that appears in the  template requests that the image must be used to "illustrate" only, not for critical comment. I suggest changing the wording of the template for one similar to the  to achieve this effect, otherwise they should be covered according to that template. -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (This is directed at Angr's comments) You say that lists 'do not provide critical commentary', however, there is nowhere in WP:FUC that says an article must provide critical commentary for images used to be classified as fair use. --Temers contrib  talk 19:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's more of a list vs article debate. I think a pure list, one that doesn't have summaries or useful notes, is a "list", while articles such as List of Lost episodes is an article in a list format. Also, I think Temers has a point, since both sides can agree on the template messages for images being misleading.  This really should be about what WP:FU and WP:FUC says. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * Perhaps you could explain exactly how one-sentence episode summaries can possibly constitute criticism, or commentary, or news reporting, or another of the valid fair use purposes? --bainer (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Identification of the subject(s) of the article. Identification is a given example of proper fair use in WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *...so they don't provide critical commentary. Also that one screenshot can identify a whole episode is arguable, whichever frame you choose. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ned, see my comments below (under "purpose") as to how the use of "identification" in WP:FUC is not clear. Also, note that I am referring to the established categories of fair use at law, which is of course what is determinative. --bainer (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you arguing that Wikipedia should republish any and all unfree content that someone uploads to our servers?  Jkelly 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're doing the series a favor, it's a way of encyclopedic publicity. 200px to 300px is a reasonable size. Smaller than the pictures most pages use.--T-man, the wise 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No need

message: Since fair use involves using a small quantity of copyrighted material, and 20-30 pictures can in no way be considered a small quantity, I think there is no way that we can justify this as fair use. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a "limited number", not necessarily a "small" number.  Considering a list of episodes contains the subject matters of each episode, I'd say this would mean only one image per subject / topic is "small" or "limited".  This does not seem to be a number of images per article requirement.  In other words, use as little images as possible to explain subject A.  If picture 1 explains subject A, and picture 2 doesn't add anything more than what is given from picture 1, then picture 2 fails fair use.  -- Ned Scott 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use involves a small quantity 

message: Is this debate just about fair use vs. non-fair use? If not, can someone enlighten me what the big deal is? If so, shouldn't it just be fair to allow lists with fair use images to stay and lists without fair use images to go until fair-use status is obtained and verified? If the debate is what constitutes a fair-use screenshot of a television episode, then we need to get some criteria together and use that to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I feel like I'm stepping in over my head, but I don't see why there has to be such a big deal over this.--Will2k 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the debate? 

message: I think that it's OK to use images if they are a way to concisely convey iformation about a list item.  An image and 1-3 sentences can sometimes tell you what you want to know.  This image is appropriate for the "Starvin' Marvin" episode entry from List of South Park episodes. On the other hand this image is not appopriate for the "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" episode entry.  Peregrinefisher 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems much of the objection is due to the improper use of images not qualifying for fair use, rather than all images not qualifying. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to both uses. A picture of Marvin would be appropriate in an article about him, but in an article that only references him as "a boy from Ethiopia" the use of a picture is excessive. The point here is that when we are trying to minimise unfree content, have a fair use picture for every two lines of text in a forty line article is excessive. ed g2s • talk 12:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my question. You are arguing against using images in a list on the basis that it isn't proper for a list and you haven't even included fair-use in the argument. That's a seperate debate is it not? This one is about fair use vs. non-fair use. If you want to argue whether images belong in lists or not, this should be debated entirely seperate from this RFC. This page (and others of similar nature like the talk page for Lost episodes) seems watered down with different opinions which do not even touch on the real debate of fair use vs. un-fair use. For this reason, I recommend (if this is fair use vs. non-fair use), building criteria for what constitutes fair use, and then yanking out all images which do not meet the criteria. If there is reason to debate images on lists or not, then we can debate this elsewhere. This doesn't have to be difficult. --Will2k 15:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not as simple as fair use vs non-fair use. Wikipedia does not want to have unfree media when it doesn't have to. ed g2s • talk 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You talk as if you mean everyone, well you are obviously wrong ed, some people wish to have the images as they aide the article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree whouleheartedly with Matt. Besides- when images are used on lists they assist the user in finding the information they want more quickly. That means they are not just decoration and thus quailify for use. Ronan.evans 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to my original though then. Who is Matt, you or me to decide which frame (out of the several thousands that are displayed during an episode) gives enough information to identify the episode? If it is a list of DVDs, where the cover of the DVD is displayed in the list, then I would agree the image is used for identification of the DVD set. But for screenshots, that is not true. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He is not assuming people want that. The policy is what Wikipedia wants, and FUC #8 is clearly giving Ed the reason. Whether the images are used as decoration or not in lists is what was being discussed. -- ReyBrujo 21:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we're trying to detremine if they make a significant contribution or not. Being decorative is ok if it makes a significant contribution, otherwise you end up removing certain DVD covers because an actress is too pretty. Jay32183 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case by Case Basis

message: Just an idea to throw out there, since the big drive against fair use images is for the sake of redistribution and the GFDL license, would making it easier to filter out the images help?  This might be a bit much to suggest, but like I said, just an idea that came to mind.  Something that would make it easy for mirrors or anyone wanting to re-distribute to strip the fair use images out of the articles (and hopefully not break any formatting of the articles).  The idea came to mind when I was in a discussion about spoiler warnings, and someone mentioned that now readers could actually turn off the spoiler warning text via CSS.  This is probably something one should probably suggest to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, but heck, for the sake of discussion I thought I'd throw it out there :) -- Ned Scott 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just mirror use either - fair use images have been quite a pain for various Wikipedia CD selection and publication projects, especially outside the United States. Free, redistributable content is great (and the German wikipedia has got on quite nicely with almost zero fair use), and the more we rely on U.S. "fair use" provision, the more problematic redistribution outside the U.S. becomes. Strippable fair use seems a great idea - maybe it should be a provision that if a fair use is used, editors should make it strippable (including alteration of text in the article if it refers directly to a "see image, right" for instance). That would make things a lot easier for reusers. One problem would be whether it encouraged the "un-stripped" version to comply even more sloppily with fair use policy though. TheGrappler 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically what we're discussing here is a software-enabled automatic forking of Wikipedia articles to make a free, reusable encyclopedia.  That's an interesting idea.  Jkelly 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting concept, sure. But would be extremely hard to implement. We can't use a bot to check every article to see which parts should be marked with this special tag and which ones not. Nor we could keep that up to date unless the image upload is modified. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think JKelly is being sarcastic. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free, reusable encyclopædia. ed g2s • talk 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guessed so, that is why I answered to the OP instead of Jkelly. Last time someone though my comment was sarcastic he told me I was being uncivil. -- ReyBrujo 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was aiming for wryly ironic, but I may have hit snide accidentally.  Jkelly 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking it would also be of much use when someone wanted to use the content outside of the US, where most if not all fair use images wouldn't be allowed at all, regardless of requirements. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There already is a marker:  & friends.  To strip fair use images is merely a matter of determining if that image uses that set of templates or not.  If so, then remove it from the article or replace it with an image of "image redacted because it is not a Free licensed image" or something.  This is an exporting issue, not an editting issue since this part is done with templates and categories. Cburnett 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image stripping 

message: How? - Peregrinefisher 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it appears that only three issues from the anti-image side remain. They will either have to concede all three of them, or will have to undeniably prove that one of them can never be met. Either way the discussion is over. The three points should probably be argued uder separate headings on this page to allow each of them to be debated properly. We shouldn't have some one refusing to concede on one point because the pro-image side hasn't provided enough proof for the other two. And if we decide that the policy needs to be reworded each of the three points will be exclusive enough that it is easier to clear up confusion in any one of them. As a reminder the questions are "Is the use excessive?" "Are the screenshots encyclopedic?" "Do the screenshots contribute to the article?" There is one more question from the original ten, however its answer is dependant on the answers to the other three "Do the screenshots meet the media specific requirements for fair use?" Unless of course there is an additional policy within screenshot use that isn't covered by the general image use that we are still discussing. If it comes down to arguements that are pure opinion then we will not be able to make a blanket ruling at all and will have to go case by case on each of the contested pages. Please don't respond with pro-image or anti-image points as this is just a suggestion to clean up the debate and not have to argue multiple points at once. Jay32183 18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we decide this?

message: Appearently, Ed g2s has gone around this debate to propose and amendment to the guidelines that would directly spell out that images cannot be used in any list of articles and I haven't seen mention of it on here anywhere. This maybe an attempt to prevent any pro-image editors from participating in that debate. It can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Clarification of FUC#8. This could cause the policy to change before we actually conclude the policy was intended to mean. Jay32183 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he did not notify this discussion make me more suspicious it is an action in bad faith--Will2k 20:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  I'm almost speechless that Ed can't argue his definition of "decorative" so his recourse is to redefine it to suit his goal & purpose.  Compound that with not notifying the discussion that is hinging on this very point and you get an editor acting in bad faith. Cburnett 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is pretty clear that screenshots do currently meet the guidelines and policies for fair use images. Whether or not it's a good idea or bad is irrelevant.  Until the policy is changed/re-worded, when screenshots identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, etc, they have met all fair use requirements set by Wikipedia. And, as a certain editor (who will rename "nameless") has found out, nothing really can be done without addressing the policy first. It would just have been nice if he had let us know about it. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FUC Amendment

message: It's taking a long time to load and I'm not sure how to do it. - Peregrinefisher 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable but having participated in most of it I see the discussion repeating itself.  I think archiving will just make it repeat yet again. Cburnett 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Would someone please archive this page and start a new one?

message: #Ned Scott 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Good reasoning on both sides.  I used to be 80/20 in favor of images in lists but now I'm 60/40.  Even if I become 50/50 or 40/60 in favor of the images does that mean we remove them?  With so much doubt shouldn't we leave the decision up to the uploader?  Why not? - User:Peregrinefisher UTC 07:46, July 29, 2006
:Huh? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the issue so dependant on one's opinion, shouldn't we leave the decision to the uploader?  Why not? - Pergrinefisher 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should leave it to the uploader to decide if the image is used, but there are some editors like ed g2s that will stop at nothing to have them removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most users don't understand copyright law and our image use policy (not referring to anyone here, but newbies in general). ed g2s • talk 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then help them, write help pages a newbie can understand. I've never seen you a help a user. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That only makes sense if the argument were solely about what is and isn't fair use, which it clearly isn't. ed g2s • talk 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Cburnett, you're advancing the argument that until copyright holders complain, we don't have to worry about how their work is used. Again, I'll say that that is a foolhardy position to take. Neither I nor anyone else with access to the OTRS queues can reveal information from them, but complaints about images do occur. Ask someone else with access if you don't believe me. --bainer (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not foolhardy, its actually a practical position and in keeping with Wiki-policy tweaks; we change policy as little as possible ... until something merits action. Sparodic complaints are taken seriously and should be acted upon, but one persons/companies complaint does not translate into a need to broad actions. What if certain copyright holders prefer their images be on Wikipedia within reason of fair use. Removing them en masse because of a few squeaky wheels seems unnecessarily preemptive. - RoyBoy 800 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: Shouldn't we let the lawyers decide?—msh210℠ 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has really been too worried about the legal aspect here. Wikipedia has stricter policy to minimize unfree content. This discussion is about whether or not "List of..." articles violate that policy. Jay32183 12:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a legal question. 

message: We're going back and forth.  Can we agree the result is No Consensus?  This issue is being argued in several places and the result is probably the same everywhere.  Now what do we do? - Peregrinefisher 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result is No Consensus

message: It seems to me that no one has any problems with these.  Why is that?  (Or correct me if I am wrong.)  --154.20.217.225 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most of those articles are more clear about meeting WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Episode Page Images 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_in_Playboy_1990-1999&oldid=42581362 
Is there any rule? Please tell us. Thank you 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the covers that are used elsewhere in wikipedia (like Julie Clarke) have been kept and the images that were only used in that list were removed.  There's a rule about deleting fair use images that aren't attached to a page.  They were probably orphaned when images were removed from that list page. - Peregrinefisher 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why some covers are deleted and some not?