Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 3

message: the question is whether or not we can reprint the rating scale itself in wikipedia under fair use.  It is four bullet points excerpted from the book PiHKAL, the copyright of which does allow non-commercial reproduction- which of course is not GDFL compliant.  The talk page has a brief run-down of the situation and links to the text and whatnot.  thanks --He:ah? 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shulgin Rating Scale]] 

message: If someone takes several fair use images and merges them into larger image, do they become the creator of the work, or are the images still fair use. Specifically, see :Image:Friendlies_All.jpg. Sue Anne 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would still be Fair Use, as its just a collection of fair use images. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about fair use 

message: I have a Spanish documentary I bought in Spain that covers the time periods of Primo de Rivera, the Second Republic, Civil War, and Franco.  Some of the video and still images might be considered historically significant, such as shots of the aftermath of the assassination of Luis Carrero Blanco.  Would certain screenshots from this film qualify as fair use? What criteria should I use?  Would the Primo era shots (1920s) be in the public domain?--Bkwillwm 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this for a good summary.  Photos published before 1923 would be public-domain, and could be taken from the film; after 1923 this gets very confusing.  Salient questions are whether it was published "in compliance with US formalities" (not entirely sure whether that's just the following two points), and more specifically whether it was published with a copyright notice, whether it was registered with the US copyright office, and when (if ever) its copyright in Spain expired.If the photos turn out to be public-domain, it's fine to take them straight from the film.  Putting them in the film doesn't add to their copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary screen shots 

message: Many years ago, I met David Lloyd at a convention, and he drew a sketch of V For Vendetta for me.  What's the score on using this to illustrate the V For Vendetta article on a fair claim basis?  Where's the copyright lie?  Vendetta's a thorny property, given Moore and Lloyd assigned the work's copyright to DC, with a reversion clause that kicks in after the work is out of print for 18 months, but I'm not sure who owns the likeness and character copyrights. Hiding  talk 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright to the sketch is probably with Lloyd but the copyright to the character/idea is probably with DC, if that helps at all. I don't know the details of their contract but I imagine Lloyd is allowed to use the DC copyright for purposes such as these, if they really own it completely. --Fastfission 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - but either way, User talk:Hiding can't use it - even though the image was drawn specifically for him and given to him for free. SteveBaker 04:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come?  Does it not qualify as fair use because it's unpublished? I'm not really discussing the copyright so much as using it under a fair use claim. If it was published, would that change the issue? Hiding  talk 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use claims are generally weakened greatly if the work in question is unpublished.  You could of course argue that he had no intent to publish it, but you can't say that of his estate once he dies, for instance.  So yes, it does make a difference.  Unpublished works can rarely be used under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V For Vendetta sketch 

message: The template  has: This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. What is meant by the word unlicensed, examples? (Difference between fair use copyrighted licensed/unlicensed pictures?) feydey 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on template  wording

message: I wish to exend my most sincere regrets for getting this discussion off track. The best that I can do for this discussion is leave the arena and look for other ways around the policy (ie finding/creating original works of art that are in the same vein as the logos which can be released without restrictions). I also would like to say that I have learned a great lesson about myself, and about others.  Stude62 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An apology

message: Can fair-use images be used on portals? Our images recently got nicked but other Featured portals have images of the same nature on them. We also went through a Featured portal candidacy without anyone saying anything.. please help. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." WP:FUC, that is, no. ed g2s • talk 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think portals should be treated the same way that the main page is: non-free images should be avoided if at all possible, even if this means using a lower-quality but free image, or no image at all. --Carnildo 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But what if it's like Portal:Pokémon? You can't have free pictures for something like that. However featured portals like Portal:London are walking around with them. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make do with text. The existence of such a portal is slightly worrying anyway. A portal is a way of coordinating material on very large subject. Pokemon can't be much more than a few base articles and far too many character articles. ed g2s • talk 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ¬_¬ Let me guess "Fancruft shit"? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't be so absolute. Dewiki manages to fully illustrate their pokemon article with free images, so I suspect we could illustrate a portal. There are some subjects where this is harder than others, but you'd be hard pressed to find one where it's outright impossible.  This is the free encyclopedia, not the kinda-free-but-only-when-its-easy encyclopedia. --Gmaxwell 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The de:Pokémon article's images would not be free under US copyright law, although I can't speak for Germany.    The images of Pokémon characters are copyright Nintendo, and all the images in the article are derivative of those characters in one way or another.  (A photograph of a three-dimensional doll or airplane design, for instance, is a derivative work of the original design, and drawings of Pokémon or Pokéballs are also derivative.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals 

message: A fair use debate of this image has been brought up on this image.  Those interested may want to participate. VegaDark 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Image talk:Orly.jpg]]

message: This may have been brought up before (any links to previous discussions?), but what is the status of categories of fair use images? I was under the impression that galleries of fair use images were not permitted without supporting text. If these categories are not legal, should we simply get rid of the categories, or ask the devs to implement some feature in Mediawiki that would let us turn off image thumbnails? ~MDD4696 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefits of the categories for the internal maintenance of the site far outweigh the hypothetical legal troubles they could cause (which are indeed pretty hypothetical). (The same cannot be said for galleries in articles.) I don't think they are a problem, at least not a big enough one to warrant any strange ad hoc fixes. Without the categories (or the thumbnails) we can't monitor what is being labeled as "fair use" easily, and as such would be putting ourselves into a far riskier situation than would possibly exist with having them. --Fastfission 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of fairuse images in non-maintenance categories, such aa :Category:Michael Jackson?  -Rob 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an artifact of the software, basically.  I doubt anyone cares, and if they do, the devs could cobble together a patch. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Categories 

message: There doesn't seem to be a official policy for fair use images in portals. I've seen some editors not allow any fair use images while otheres let any image go on the portal. Thats why I propose that this project make a policy on it. Aren't portals similar to the main Wikipedia page. I propose that a section is added to teh afair use policy allowing fair use images in portals only in news articles/selected images and only if there is corresponding text and an article. Also the fair use image can only be used if there is not free image alternative. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there has been talk above but I must disagree with the thought of no fair use image in portals in anyway. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main page sometimes has fair use pictures for breaking news, but free alternatives are found to replace them as soon as possible. Portals, which are more like fan sites than a news front page, are completely different. ed g2s • talk 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas thats from Wikipedia:Portal so I don't see how the main page and portals aren't related. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use on the main page is a mistake and often removed on sight. Need me to dig up examples of this happening? --Gmaxwell 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an official policy for fair-use images in portals: no.  Fair-use images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: link? Jedi6-(need help?) 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see item 5. Also please realize that this project is dedicated to producing free content, fair use is to be minimized wherever we can. --Gmaxwell 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link really doesn't mention portals only the deletion of articles. Also I'm talking about only having them in selected articles which are previews of articles and only if there is no optional free image. I'm not talking about letting portals use fair use images in any form Jedi6-(need help?) 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FUC #9. ed g2s • talk 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it says that fair use images may be deleted why they are not in an article. --Gmaxwell 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, portals did exist when that specific guidance was produced (WP:FUC is about the same age as portals, and that text was introduced even later). Again, the guiding principle is that the purpose of this project is to produce a free content encyclopedia. We only permit the introduction of unfree content at all because in order to be a complete encyclopedia we must sometimes have articles on copyrighted works, and it is often necessary, in order to have a complete discussion, excerpting from whatever we are discussing. Thus, the use of fair use in portals would go beyond the minimum required for encyclopedic purposes and thus is not accepted. We also wrap back around to the legal issues, because portals often lack sufficient descriptive or critical commentary to meet the bar we normally apply to permit fair use images. --Gmaxwell 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would effectively make some portals imageless since some are about topics that have only fair use images. Wheather fair use images are allowed or not the policy needs to be amended to acknowledge portals. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard this sort of argument repeated many time for many things. Can you tell me what subject can not have free images? I don't argue that there is no need for unfree images in Wikipedia, just that I don't believe we have subjects which must remain totally unillustrated without unfree images. As far as amendments go... Again, the policy acknowledges portals, and the policies answer is no. The above claim that the current policy predated portals was proven to be incorrect. --Gmaxwell 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you are incorrect. For 'entertainment' portals two places we can find free images are images of the creators, and images of the fans... and I'm sure there are many other sorts of images which we could include which would also be possible to obtain in free forms. It is even possible that you could get such content makers to release low resolution, single frame excerpts of their work as free content. Here is an existence proof of entertainment illustrated with free content, it's a TV show whos article is illustrated with a free image. I agree that there are portals which would be more attractive if they were decorated with unfree images, but it is bogus to claim we can't find free illustrations. We can not compromise a core goal of the project (to be free content) to achieve a non-goal (have attractive portals). We only ever permit fair use on English Wikipedia because doing so allows us a reasonable compromise between our two goals ('Free content' vs being a useful 'Encyclopedia'). Portals are outside of that balance. --Gmaxwell 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey, I had thought these guidelines were older than that.  I apologise.  I totally agree with the point about where  portals lack sufficient descriptive or critical commentary to meet the bar we normally apply to permit fair use images they should be removed, that goes without saying, and is the same as article space.  The point I'm making is, don't you think there could be leeway where a portal mirrors an article?  The fair use then is just as strong as it is in the article, it's simply a namespace issue in which there is wiggle room provided.  I haven't been through portal space for a month, but on that visit, all portals were using fair use images.  I'd say there's a strong opinion they should be used in an article mirroring manner.  I'd offer portal:comics as an example, although I think this month it was possible to go public domain.  Is this something we can sort out here or is it something for the wider community? Hiding The wikipedian meme 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No image based on a copyrighted character is going to be free, even if the one who actually draws it releases it freely.  It's a derivative of the character's appearance, and therefore the owners of the actual content have to release it as well.  Do you really think that J. K. Rowling's legal department will agree to license anything Harry Potter-related under a free license? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is George Lucas likely to release Star Wars images as a free license :-( Jedi6-(need help?) 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portals Again

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A-Bill_Haley%27s_autograph-Liege-Belgium-May_1974.jpg Stephan KŒNIG 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a question...? Also, please tag the image with its source. If you are the photographer, say so. ~MDD4696 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ~Bill Haley's autograph in May of 1974... 

message: What is the correct way of dealing with articles like Vegeta, which currently has 47 FU images? I have tagged most (if not all) as , since they lack source. But if the uploader takes his time and adds both source and Fair Use Rationale disclaimer, which is the "suggested" amount needed for an article? Also, the "low quality" FU exception is a bit too open. Any approximation of the maximun size that should be allowed? Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention of the 'low quality' requirement is to limit our potential impact on the commercial market(s) for the copyrighted work. For example, if there is a commercial market for poster sized copies of magazine covers, then it's best if copyrighted magazine covers we reproduce are too small to make an acceptable poster. Togeather low quality must be combined with the other considerations in making a decision about the acceptability of a work. In Vegeta the amount of fair use is clearly excessive, but at the same time each of the images is attached to some approiate discussion of an aspect of the copyrighted work which the image illustrate. As such the fair use claim is fairly strong. I think if the copyright information for the images is cleared up, and we we downsample most of the images to  the minimum size required for our purposes, that we'd be in an okay position on that article in spite of the large number simply because the other aspects of the fair use claim are fairly solid. --Gmaxwell 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I noticed that one of the policy points states that The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. With that claim it would be possible to delete redundant images, which I have seen happen in the past, sometimes in extreme situations. So, the conclusion I am making is that, unless the article wants to become a Good or Featured article, there is no limit to the amount of FU images in an article as long as they are correctly tagged, and as long as they do something more than just decorate. Another question: Does the lack of a Fair Use Rationale hinders the image in any way? In example, would these images be deleted in a future change, or that is likely to never happen? Thanks again. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're beginning to discuss what to do with media tagged as :Template:Fairusein but lacking any rationale.  Jkelly 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing that includes any other fair use tag (, , etc, right? -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps eventually, but for the moment no one seems really motivated to take on that task.  Jkelly 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the number of images in that article is a bit excessive.  A number of them do not contribute to the reader's understanding of the material.  For instance, the image accompanying the Shadow Dragon saga section doesn't give the reader any additional knowledge of the material, so it doesn't serve the purposes required by fair use.  The images under Forms/Transformations and Special Abilities are fine, though, since they inform the reader. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I thought. I am in contact of articles that are usually subject of a heavy number of fans who usually upload images without even tagging the images, and before beginning cleaning them up I was looking for some advice. So far, extremely useful insights, thanks! -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about FU images in articles

message: like found at List of South Park episodes are surely not acceptable. Although there is nothing in our policy about fair use in galleries. Either way they hardly "add significantly to the article". ed g2s • talk 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did, at one time, have a clear and explicit prohibition against galleries of fair use images. Seems it was edited into oblivion. Hm. I wonder where it went? oh well. It needs to be restored, it follows naturally from the rest of our policies but it should be spelled out.  The hard problem are pages which otherwise meet our requirements, but are just voluminous in their use of unfree works .--Gmaxwell 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is more a table than a gallery. It is just being used for indexing purposes which is allowed under fair use (i.e. google images). Arniep 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read the findings there?  As I understand it fairuse in the google case because they are just directing you to the source of the copyrighted work... I don't see how that extends to our use.  Furthermore, even if the use were legally permissible the use of unfree content as a mere navigational aid fails to meet the "only if it's absolutely needed to illustrate the subject" test for compliance with our goal of being a free content encyclopedia. 
--Gmaxwell 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google indexes images on a huge number of websites where the original source is not given and which are basically blatant copyright violations, whereas the table above credits the actual copyright holder and only helps to sell the copyright holder's product so I doubt they would object, but anyway.. Arniep 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you issue a takedown request to google for a site who is violating your image copyrights, they will pull them out of the image search. In any case, it's not about who will object. We only permit unfree content when the copyright holder would like not be able to force us to take it down if they objected to the use. This is why we do not allow with-permission images unless we also have a solid fair use claim. --Gmaxwell 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Arniep, we discuss the Google case when we discuss the fact that our Category-space renders these images independently from articles.  I don't think there's much of a connection between the Google case and using stills to decorate a list.  Jkelly 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot galleries 

message: I've always understood that it's acceptable fair use using an album cover as an image in an article about the artist who created the album. Am I incorrect in my assumption? If it's not considered fair use, why not? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is widely done on Wikipedia and it's far from the worst of our claims of fair use, but it's not very good. Just as we can't crop a rose off an album cover to use as a general illustration on roses, it's not really correct to use part of an album to illustrate the artist.  To use an album for the purpose of illustrating a discussion about the album in the artists article? sure.  ...  Really though, we should go get a free image of the artist. Presuming the artist is still alive we can expect that there are chances to get pictures during a public appearance, so if thats the case we have no excuse. Remember, this is a free encyclopedia, and we mean free as in free content not free as in not bolted down.--Gmaxwell 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding my question. I'm asking about using the full album front cover in an article about the artist who produced the album. I've seen plenty of printed articles in major magazines and periodicals, as well as articles about an artist on major online sites (not fan sites), and all of them use one or more album covers as examples of the artist's work. I could see an argument against someone creating a gallery page of a whole bunch of album covers, but I don't see any merit in an argument that an album cover couldn't and shouldn't be used in an article about the artist in question. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite confident that I understand your question and your position, but I do not agree with it. Here is why: First of all, you don't know what arrangements those other publications have: it is quite likely that they have permission for their use as such permission is usually granted for promotional materials. Secondly, fair use would be valid if you discuss the copyrighted work you're excerpting from, which is often the use of album art.. but wouldn't be the case if we were merely using the album as an easy source of a picture of the artist. Third, even if it's legal that is not the only consideration, the goal of Wikipedia is to produce a free content encyclopedia and when we make articles depend on unfree content unnecessarily, we are failing at one of those goals. Our long-term policy is to use non-free images where no free alternative is possible, although we'll sometimes accept them temporally when a free image is not yet available. Forth, because our content is redistributed by others (and intended to be redistributed) any willingness on our part to play fast and easy with copyright places additional legal liability on third parties who expect our claim of free content to be true. Finally, just because someone else has done it (or because we've done it in other places on Wikipedia) that doesn't mean its okay. Why not visit some of the photography forums on the internet and find someone who took a photo at a concert who is willing to release their work under a free license? --Gmaxwell 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying there should be a limit on the amount of album images in a singer or band's article? Arniep 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be kept to the minimum amount needed to illustrate the discussion in the article. More importantly perhaps, if it's possible (i.e. they still perform), we should have a free image of the singer/band to illustrate the artist, at the top of the article. --Gmaxwell 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So could you justify every song or album on an artists page being illustrated by an image? Have a look at Mary J. Blige, Kate Bush, Madonna, Weezer. I did suggest a "rule" before that the number of fair use images permitted should be linked to the word count but was informed that rules were "bad". Arniep 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Improperly tagged; it's a "derivative work" under copyright law, and the "creator" has no rights to license except under an agreement with the original copyright owner (or an assignee). Monicasdude 19:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of album covers in artist articles

message: Do promotional images need a source to fulfill requirements of Fair Use? When I requested a source for an image I had tagged with the  tag, I was told it was not necessary because it was the publisher the one who released it to promote their work. Until now, I have thought images needed to comply with what has been stated in the Fair Use policy, including demonstrating the work has been previously published (guideline 4), and a source was needed in all the images, even promotional ones. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that image maybe not, but many images tagged promo are not promo but photo shoots from magazines, agency images etc. which are never fair use. Arniep 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A source is needed so that we know it's a promotional image and not some other type of image.  This has nothing to do with fair use; all images must be sourced unless the uploader asserts that he/she is the sole author. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional images and source 

message: There is a disagreement between the uploader and myself over what exactly should :Image:003photo 01.jpg be tagged with. The uploader tagged it with , but I argue it should be tagged with something else because it is more like an uncredited photo of a banner or sign of said logo, instead of the actual graphical image of the logo. Who is right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a derivative work of the logo, so the one who took the picture (namely, in this case, Getty Images) has rights to it too, which may complicate the fair-use question.  It would probably be better to get the logo itself captured from a TV screen or something, if possible.  I'd say delete it, personally, and get an actual logo if possible, but I don't think the article is suffering terribly from the lack of such anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeech. Agree with the above. Get one without the complication of a third party. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no Getty images are allowed so I ifded it. Arniep 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{li|003photo 01.jpg}}