Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 14

message: I reworded the preamble as it seemed to suggest that the inclusion of "fair use" images is a necessity for a high-quality encyclopedia. Since, as the preamble goes on to say, most popular Wikipedias in other language don't allow "fair use" images, but are just as high-quality as the English version, this is demonstrably not the case. —Angr 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is highly debatable as to if the other wikis are of the same quality as en. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. They're probably of higher quality since their admins don't have to waste time hunting down, tagging, and deleting "fair use" images that violate policy, as we do here. —Angr 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As it currently reads, the implication is that one cannot produce a quality encyclopaedia without Fair Use. Whilst some here may agree with that, many don't and it is not the philosophy of Wikimedia projects, as demonstrated by the languages which don't use it. Angr's wording (along the lines of "we use Fair Use because is can increase quality") is much more neutral and considerably less objectionable to both sides. ed g2s • talk 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What I take issue with is the idea that this is an accurate comparison. There's more than one way to add quality to an encyclopedia. The other Wikis are not of a higher quality because they lack fair use images. If the images are not a factor, then maybe it's because they're doing something that others are not. Maybe they're able to compensate for the lack of visuals by making the article a higher quality in a different way. Apples and oranges. To say that images are not required to make a high quality article is just placing a generic measurement of "quality" that is not accurate. If you take some images out, then it might still be possible for over all quality to be high, but could weaken the article in other areas that are just as important as the rest of the article. We have articles that are well written, but can be a lot better. We have featured articles that can be a lot better. (in many ways, not necessarily talking about images) Not being bad is not the same as an article's full potential. Keep in mind, I feel that the quality added by a fair use image should be very significant and encyclopedic. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see a fair use image that has improved the quality of the article it was used in. —Angr 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't possibly be serious.  Abbey Road (album).  Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.  john k 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of which would be equally good without "fair use" images. And what I take issue with is the idea that the goal of being a high quality encyclopedia and the goal of being a free content encyclopedia are somehow in conflict with each other. They aren't. It is the freeness of our content that makes us a high-quality encyclopedia; every "fair use" image detracts from our quality. —Angr 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they really wouldn't.  There are certain aspects of a picture that you can't convey verbally.  The articles could become good while imageless, but not as good as they would be with the images.  Those pictures are great examples of why we should use some fair use, and of the reason the legal concept of fair use exists. --RobthTalk 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can argue this by assertion?  Would an art history textbook without pictures be "equally good" as one with pictures?  For discussion of visual medium, [cliche alert] a picture really is worth a thousand words, and sometimes that picture has to be a fair use picture.  You can't impose your own idiosyncratic ideas on everybody else. john k 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An art history textbook would require permission to copy paintings from recent artists and would make no pretense to being free content. And even in an art history textbook, images are helpful but not absolutely essential: blind students can also learn art history without the benefit of images. Given the choice between a "fair use" image and 1000 free-content words, I'd rather someone wrote the 1000 words. —Angr 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really find this hard to take seriously.  Would you like a music history teacher to describe The Beatles music to you, as opposed to playing any?  And while YOU may prefer "someone" -- that's another Wikipedia editor, by the way -- wrote 1000 words to describe a painting, I think I'm safe in saying yours is a distinctly minority view.  Not just a minority view, but perhaps even a fringe view.  I would further say that anyone wishing to put forth the argument that a description of a painting is in any way, shape, or form an adequate replacement for actually SEEING the painting in question would seem to be poorly qualified, at best, to make fair use judgements, especially when concerning images. Jenolen  speak it! 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was deaf, I wouldn't really care if the music history teacher played the music at all, but I would certainly feel disappointed and discriminated against if the teacher felt that playing the music was a sufficient replacement for describing it. Is Wikipedia to exclude deaf and blind people from its target audience? —Angr 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an argument for adding a more detailed description of the music, not for eliminating a music clip used under fair use, which provides more and better information for those who can hear. Should we eliminate all visual and auditory content (except for spoken work versions of articles) to avoid "excluding" deaf and blind people from our target audience? DHowell 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was to show that the images and sound clips are not absolutely, indispensably essential to the article, because the article has to be written in such a way as to be comprehensible to those incapable of perceiving them anyway. Including freely licensed or public-domain audiovisual material is of course an added bonus. —Angr 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems ridiculous.  An article on music would be more or less incomprehensible to someone who'd been deaf from birth.  Similarly, an article on visual art would be more or less incomprehensible to someone blind from birth.  I don't think there's anything to be done about it, and removing fair use images (and sound clips, assuming there are any) is hardly going to help anyone. john k 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, not everyone who is blind or deaf was that way from birth, and people who only became blind or deaf later in life may still want to read articles about art or music, and for them articles need to be comprehensible even without the media. Secondly, I don't think art and music articles are necessarily incomprehensible to those blind and deaf from birth; after all, articles on string theory are still comprehensible to people who can only think in 3 or 4 dimensions instead of 11. —Angr 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If Alessandro Moreschi had not made the recodings he did we would have no recordings for Castrato. Would the article have been imposible to write under those conditions? What about Farinelli? No recordings of him or  his style exist.Geni 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is suggesting that articles on art or music would be impossible to write without images or sound clips. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that the recordings on Castrato enhance understanding of that article (at least for people who are not deaf), and that the article would be a lower quality without them. This would be true whether the recordings were in the public domain or copyrighted and used under fair use. DHowell 03:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one is suggesting that articles on art or music would be impossible to write without images or sound clips." Well, before the preamble was changed from "we must permit some non-free material" to "we may permit some non-free material", it did actually suggest just that. The change to "may" is good, but the preamble still suggests that including non-free material will somehow make the encyclopedia higher-quality, which of course I don't agree with. —Angr 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What does "quality encyclopedia" mean anyway? Too subjective IMHO. There are lots of editors who don't think images are important at all, others (like me) who think they are essential, although I can't explain well *why* I think that. :-) In any case, the prelude should have a more precise explanation that ties into the rationales. Stan 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Angr - the preamble specifically does not refer to "fair use images," but to "fair use content" more broadly.  Fair use includes summaries of fictional and other literary works.  As such, fair use is necessary to create an encyclopedia.  See, for instance :de:Harry Potter for an example of the German Wikipedia employing what would, in US law, be considered fair use. john k 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure summaries are not a problem. Facts can not be copyrighed, so as long as you write a neutral factual summary of plot events using your own words there should be no need to invoke fair use or simmilar. --Sherool (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not a problem, because they're fair use.  Plot summaries are not external facts separable from the creation of the author.  Thus, to give them, we need to invoke fair use.  The plot summary is pretty clearly a derivative work from the original copyrighted work, and as such, any effort to use it must be done based on a fair use defense.  Various people have addressed this issue, but nobody has actually refuted it, save by this kind of "Pish posh, plot summaries can't be copyrighted" defense. john k 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note, for instance, comments by Postdlf, who is an actual American lawyer.  As opposed to you who is, you know, a Norwegian non-lawyer. john k 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, so I have no idea whether a plot summary that involved no direct quotation from the work summarized would require a "fair use" defense if legally challenged. But I do know that for Wikipedia to be taken seriously, it has to reduce the amount of "fair use" content (not just images, but predominantly images) to a bare minimum -- far less than would be allowed by law. Not violating the law isn't enough; we have to actively avoid violating the spirit of being a free content encyclopedia. —Angr 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that many of us don't see including fair use images as "violating the spirit of being a free content encyclopedia."  Certainly most of us don't see including irreplaceable fair use images like album covers, recent works of art, famous news photographs, and the like, as violating said spirit.  You can disagree, but you can't disagree on the basis that you are the guardian of what wikipedia's purpose is.  Who exactly is it who will take Wikipedia more seriously if we have lengthy descriptions of famous album covers rather than showing the image itself? john k 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our readers, who will come to Wikipedia expecting to find a free content encyclopedia and then be disappointed to find it overflowing with unfree content. If they wanted an encyclopedia full of information they're unable to reuse, they'd use Britannica. —Angr 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the current estimate on the number of readers who come to Wikipedia expecting to find free content, as opposed to the number of people who come to Wikipedia expecting to find encyclopedic content?  I have, during my time here, "met" exactly one person who really, really, really wanted all Wikipedia content to be free, because he himself had re-use intentions.  I would submit that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are more concerned with the "encyclopedia" than the "free."  People come to the site because they desire knowledge.  And it's cost-free.  Very few, I would wager, come because it's libre/free.  And while that libre/freeness is an important part of the Wikipedia story, it's not the only part.  You can't build a free encyclopedia without... wait for it... the encyclopedia!  (You are, however, free to build your own "free."  It seems unlikely that will attract many contributors, but hey...)  As for myself, I have never once looked at a Wikipedia page, and cursed it for "overflowing with unfree content."  I have, however, found many pages to be lacking in a number of areas, and an illustration of the subject is often one of them.  Jenolen  speak it! 12:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one do use Wikipedia as a source for free content I can reuse, and I have become frustrated with the amount of material I'm unable to reuse. When I find an article lacking an image illustrating its topic, 9 times out of 10 all I have to do is either look at the "External links" section to find a site that does have images, or enter the article name into Google Images. I find out what the thing or person looks like, and Wikipedia remains free. A win-win situation. —Angr 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, when one finds an article about a book or a movie that lacks a (fair use) plot summary, 9 times out of ten all one has to do is either look at the "external links" section to find a site (IMDB, Amazon, whatever) that has such a plot summary, or else to enter the title in Google and find such a site.  The user finds out what the book or movie or whatever is about, and wikipedia remains entirely free of fair use.  It's a win-win! john k 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Accepting for the sake of argument the truth of the "9 times out of 10", fair use images are still being systematically deleted even in the 1 time out of 10 that we can't easily find the images throught External links or a Google image search. Also, ironically, many times the images found by a Google image search are from Wikipedia mirrors, meaning the image wouldn't even exist on the internet if someone didn't first upload it to Wikipedia. DHowell 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble 

message: Hi! It's me again. After failures in getting any image deletion stopped or even to get the other side to listen, I'm trying a new tact. I believe people who share my viewpoint (That publicity stills of people have a rightful place on Wikipedia) needed a better place to organize our dissent. So, I set up the framework of a Wikiproject to help save fair use on Wikipedia. Everyone's welcome, especially people who disagree. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Promotional_Photo_Advocacy. --Jeff 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Promotional Photo Advocacy 

message: Per my own petition, I would like expanding the counterexample 7 to include album covers, as they are used even more often than book covers. I am reposting this to get more feedback about this. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much that the album cover needs to be significant. More that it's cover art is significant. So Virgin Killer (so so not safe for work or some legal jusristictions) would be significant but say Live: P-Funk Earth Tour would be somewhat less so.Geni 14:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: discussing the album is not not enough you would need to discuss the cover.Geni 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem I have with a guideline like "you need to discuss the cover."  So, would adding something like, "The cover of the album also featured this image" be enough?  This is, after all, a "discussion" of the cover. (Well, technically, a "discussion" requires at least two people.  This is more of a monologue.)  Or does it have to be a thoughtful, reasoned anaylsis of the album cover imagery?  Or somewhere in-between?  And who decides how in-between?  This is why slicing these fair use criteria so finely makes no sense.  Wikipedia's inclusion of album covers on pages where they rightly belong is no threat to anyone's freedom, or copyleftness.  It is silliness to believe otherwise.  Jenolen  speak it! 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the cover adds so significantly to the article that it warrants inclusion, then it deserves discussion. The significance of an image should not be left to the reader to infer, which is why we only use fair use for critical commentary. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't get why people have such a hard time writing *about* the image they're so keen to include. Many album covers are quite visually striking - why those images? why that composition? is there a connection to the music, or was it just artist randomness that "seemed cool"? Most of these album articles are stubs anyway, quite likely the cover is the most interesting thing there is to say about the album... 1/2 :-) Stan 14:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really advocating an open season on deleting all images of album covers where the article doesn't discuss the cover itself?  This is so insanely ridiculous.  Nobody anywhere could ever possibly in a million years get in trouble for including album covers in an encyclopedia article.  Why are we going around making problems for ourselves? john k 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think so destructively. Mass deeltion would be such an ineffecient solution. Would it not be better to comment on the album covers?Geni 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but we ought to think about the likely consequences of such a change in policy.  I would be astonished if we made your proposed change and didn't end up with people deleting scads of album covers on the basis that they aren't discussed in the article.  john k 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not planning on changeing policy don't need to since there should be other solutions in this case.Geni 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I really can't tell you how much since there is a lack of case law that I know about. However even a couple of sentances would be a start. I would rather be dealing with debates over how much comment is needed that the currect situation.Geni 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because Wikipedia is changing the focus of Fair use. While the  claims that "identification" qualifies as fair use,  indicates that "identification and critical commentary". Why they are different? If you were to choose one of the two, which is the "safer" option? -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The album is indetified by the title. The most logical fair use defence is that you are commenting on the album cover. However when the article does not even mention the cover this position is somewhat difficult to defend.Geni 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, cover art is not even a particularly good way of identifying an album (unless you've seen it before). ed g2s • talk 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For God's sake, are you people for real?  Why on earth do you want to do this?  Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? john k 22:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "cover art is not even a particularly good way of identifying an album"  Yes, it is (for most normal people).  Badagnani 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like, I said, only if you've seen it before. Text is free, and a much better way of identfying. ed g2s • talk 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, it is not a question of either text or an image.  It is either text and an image, or just text.  And there are times when one has seen an album cover but doesn't know the name, in which case the image identifies it to someone who wouldn't be able to from text alone. john k 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: except we have no effective ways to do image searches.Geni 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the next step would be removing the __NOGALLERY__ tag from :Category:Album covers,  until we can create such algorithm :-) -- ReyBrujo 22:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand I hear there are still some people on dialup and they don't like pages that take a week to load.Geni 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The RIAA thinks otherwise. You volenteering to take them on?Geni 07:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a totally different case. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. We have established a searchable gallery of album covers. That they are not on one page would be of only limited use as a defence. The problem is worsened by the numbe of articles that consist of nothing more than the name and the track listing.Geni 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't think the RIAA demand regarding the cover gallery site is at all persuasive or relevant.  We're not copying the cover art for its own sake, as an end in itself, as that site was doing—it's always to accompany an article about the album to identify that album.  I agree though that use in insubstantial articles as you describe might be problematic, but that's another issue, and one not unique to covers.  I'd definitely support a requirement that any article have a certain quantity of prose (not satisfied by text such as track listings) before a fair use image can be applied, as a cautionary measure.  Postdlf 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that the RIAA is interested in online collections of album covers. However I tend to feel your suggestion goes too far at least for initial attempt at a solution (I really don't feel like deleting a load of images we will only want to upload again once the articles improve). Instead I would suggest the tagging the talk pages of problem articles and leaving messages on uploaders talk pages approach.Geni 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly won't try to dissuade you from encouraging people to expand articles.  Postdlf 21:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterexample 7 again

message: ...so I am adding a wikilink to Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos. -- ReyBrujo 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To save you the bother, it's just a repeat of the discussion we've had here a dozen times, with a "let's have a vote!" on the end. Never going to change policy. ed g2s • talk 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but it is just that this is informed in related pages. Now that Jimbo spoke there, it may have the same effect as Brad's comment during the Portal issue. -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is absolutely hilarious that the page has gone from "Jimbo spoke there" to "Jimbo blanked the entire page and told people to go away."  Nice consensus building, JW!  It's an entirely appropriate welcome to Wikipedia, where if the debate gets too hot, you can always count on the founder of the place to step in and shut it down!  Abso-freakin'-lutely hilarious... Jenolen  speak it! 10:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He stopped a poll, because that's not how things work here. It was the wrong way to go about it. -- Ned Scott 10:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I haven't seen this in this page...

message: I've never uploaded an album cover to Wikipedia, so I do have a couple of questions to help guide me along. Basically, where are some proper places to retrieve album covers, old and new, for uploading to Wikipedia? Is allmusic.com (which does feature album covers) a good place to retrieve these images (if not, again, where)? This is for a project I'm doing on the "year in music" pages. Thanks for your help. [[Briguy52748 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic.com is a good resource, as are any images at all of albums you can find anywhere (just use a search engine look Google). The important thing is to follow our fair use policies and guidelines, especially those related to fair use rationales - that's a lot more important than where you got the image from, in the case of album covers. Johnleemk | Talk 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just hope to do it right — I know people make missteps (such as forgetting to fill in various blanks, etc.), but I want to try to get it right the first time. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if a better idea is to scan in a CD cover one's self (or 12" album cover, givent a sufficiently large scanner) and upload the scanned image. Seems unlikely, but might allmusic.com, et al, somehow claim ownership of their electronic copies of album covers? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course one should only publish here what one feels comfortable with defending, but I'd suggest that it is really very unlikely that Allmusic.com would ever pursue that line of thinking.  Jkelly 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have the ability to create cover scans yourself, then by all means do so.  If you take cover images from somewhere else, it's theoretically possible that the person who created the images will get annoyed with Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not necessary or worthwhile at all.  A cover scan has zero creative effort, and it should be irrelevant where the scan was taken from, because scanning it yourself will just produce the same image.  A person who reproduces the work of another without modifying it in any way has no copyright over the copied version -- it is retained by the original creator.  As long as you have fair use rights to use the album cover, no one has any justification for prohibiting you from using their scan of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't say they had any rights to the material, but a lot of people know very little about copyright (judging by the number of "GFDL-self" screenshots and albumcovers we get), I can totaly imagine some guy who spent ages scanning albumcovers and putting them up on his site getting anoyed at us if we "rip off" all his work without giving him any credit. It's hardly a major concern, but the ORTS handelers might still get an angry e-mail or two over it. --Sherool (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album covers

message: I was browsing Campbell's Soup Cans due to its recent GA promotion and am concerned about the images and their use in the article.  I'd appreciate it if someone more versed in Fair use would take a look.  Thanks.  Appraiser 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the version I see now, where is only one photo in the infobox, that looks fine to me. Just make sure the image has a rational and it will be good. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The image should be reduced in size to how it appears in the article; there's no need for it to be larger than that, and the larger it is, the more it could potentially supplant the commercial market for prints of the original.  Postdlf 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is currently credited to a Wikimedia user, tagged as being licensed under the GFDL, and being hosted at Commons, so it really isn't fine. Someone needs to upload a local copy and make a fair use claim, crediting the actual artist. Jkelly 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch; I didn't even notice that.  There are a lot of images improperly uploaded to Commons under the rationale "but I took the photograph [of that copyrighted work]."  Postdlf 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What??? You mean everything in Commons isn't "libre gold"???  I am shocked... shocked, I tell you... ;)  Jenolen  speak it! 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite ironically, it's more of a "I took the photograph [of a copyrighted painting (of a copyrighted product)]. I was curious as to if Warhol actually got permission to draw the cans, but I didn't see that anywhere in the article. --SeizureDog 09:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent GA promotion

message: * Illmatic This article quotes 4 multi-sentence blocks of text from a single source. The single source is a short interview in a magazine, so that this amount of quoting creates a substantial use of this other source for this one Wikipedia article. Please comment, is this allowable, is this within fair use guidelines?  KP Botany 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly questionable, at best - to play it safe, I think the amount of quoting needs to be reduced. At any rate, it's bad encyclopedic style to have so many lengthy quotations, with a section devoted just to quotes (without any commentary) - so even if we were well within the bounds of fair use, I'd say the article has gone overboard. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this fair use? 

message: Hello. Is the use of this image in Sketchpad, Ivan Sutherland and T-Square (software) considered  fair use (fairusein3)? I checked Google and found no previous instances of the Sutherland Sketchpad video being removed from Wikipedia but University Video was sponsored by Apple Computer who is careful so I had better ask. Also, is Computer History Museum permission and the rationale I gave sufficent for this image and the alternate crop linked to it? I believe somewhere I read that permission is about meaningless but am not sure. Thank you. --Susanlesch 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I guess the images passed muster here, when the article was in DYK, and in the Computing Reference desk. That's good news. If there are comments later on, feel free to add them to my talk page (sorry I have run out of time to check on this thread). Thank you. -Susanlesch 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of images 

message: It seems that at least one agency is now taking action against online use of their photos; check out Perez Hilton and . A little scary to ponder that he's being sued over probably 1/100 of the copyvios that WP has... Stan 14:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only scary if you ignore the facts and are abusing this for your purposes of destroying fair use on Wikipedia. If you read the article at all, which obviously you have not, you'll see that it is filed by a company called X17 which operates X17online.com. They are a paparazzi photo outfit. They take photos of celebrities and sell them on to tabloids and other rags. Perez Hilton is stealing these images from X17 and putting them on his/her own website. Absolutely no one in this arguement is saying we should use any images except those officially released by the person in question, or their representatives, as publicity photos. Try harder next time to find a more appropriate example. You're reaching.--Jeff 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And secondly, the type of photos as shot by X17 are exactly the type of photos I want to avoid having on Wikipedia. They're all trashy paparazzi shots. They do have the benefit of being professional but they are trashy and have the look of tabloid magazines. Do you want Wikipedia to look like a tabloid? Worse yet, a tabloid shot by amateurs with their camera phones? Obviously you do. I do not.--Jeff 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you don't know me well enough to successfully ascribe motives. Seeing as how I maintain a whole category of fair use images, many of which I've personally scanned and uploaded, I'm hardly desirous of "destroying fair use on Wikipedia". Stan 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: How is a true GFDL "Free as in speech" image different from "Public Domain"?  Please use the example of putting said image on t-shirts and selling.  --BlueNight 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion (this is just my own), the GFDL is a poor free as in speech licence, because such a usage is quite impractical and legally dubious. The GFDL requires that a copy of the licence be included with every work distributed under the GFDL, making it extremely difficult to release a GFDLed t-shirt (seeing as how you'd have to include a copy of the GFDL with every t-shirt given out or sold). For such purposes, PD media are the best (no strings attached) - but since many people want to retain the copyright to their work, there are copyleft licences which do not have as stringent requirements as the GFDL. One of these is the CC-BY-SA licence. Many Wikipedians (including myself) multilicense our edits under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA because we want to make things easier for people who want to reuse our works. In short, it is practically impossible to use a GFDLed image on a t-shirt without providing a copy of the licence with the t-shirt - so public domain images are highly preferable, or failing that, less stringently copylefted images. Johnleemk | Talk 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the GFDL is not that similar to public domain, it's more like a creative commons attribution, sharealike license if you are familiar with that. the full text is here if you would like to read it. If you were making a shirt, you would need to include the full text of the license, and the creator of the work. Also any changes that have occured to the work, and you would have to allow anyone else to change the work and reuse it. - cohesion 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of GFDL for a non-GNU geek 

message: The first article I created when I joined Wikipedia last year was Powder Alarm and I think the first image I uploaded was a city seal that shows the building, the town, and the importance of the event all in one image. When I uploaded that image in early 2005, I wanted to place a proper copyright tag on it but the image copyright instructions on Wikipedia were pretty damned confusing at that time, so I stuck a coat-of-arms tag on the thing, which seemed like my best option then, and forgot about it.  Recently, a bot added a note on my talk page with instructions that I needed to fix the tag on this image and I remembered how difficult things were for me last year and approached the task with a sense of dread. But there are now clear instructions on how to do this along with appropriate tags. I'm operating under the assumption that some of you who are engaging in this debate were directly or indirectly responsible for this improvement, and I'd like to thank you. I'd also like to point out that the fact that you're able to discuss the topics you are debating instead of scrambling to write good instructions for uploaders is an indication of the success of work that you've done previously. Finally, I'd like to advocate patience about changing or not changing policy. For such a complex issue with so many sub-issues, the real reason why debate doesn't end is becuase reasonable people disagree about the nitty-gritty details. Flying Jazz 19:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind and well thought words :) - cohesion 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like what you said, but isn't there a time when all reasonable people have said all that needs to be said? It seems we've reached a point of saturation whereby our arguements are recursive and repetitive, and we all know what the others' responses will be...--Jeff 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think such a point has been reached then that may be an indication that consensus to change the status quo hasn't taken place. If I were you, I'd consider suffering through the current state of things for now, paying attention to articles and images on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps returning to the policy issue in a few months. It seems a little pointless to create a new topic heading here in order to engage in a debate when you already know what everyone else will say. Flying Jazz 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An interruption for a compliment and for a defense of not ending this

message: I am taking a break from my extended wiki-break to chime in with a potential avenue of comprimise on the promotional images issue. Here goes...
The first thing to realize is that we're not going to please everybody. There are idealogues on one side loudly shouting "freedom-as-in-liberty" (to use a crude and overly political analogy, we all know how well the "transformational power of liberty" worked in Iraq...), and there are those on the other side who I'm sure would love to turn Wikipedia into a giant fan-site for their favorite TV shows, movies and celebrities, complete with as many "fair use" goodies as they can cram in (I have no analogy here, but Wikipedia-as-a-fan-site is a depressing thought). Neither of these extremes will ever be happy with any comprimise before consensus is reached and policy is changed (or not).
Both sides bring valuable points to the table. Quality and freedom are both important. Since quality and freedom are both stated goals of the encyclopedia, it is left to the judgment of the community (I hope) which goal becomes more important (or perhaps, as I believe, they should be equally important). This is the crux of the issue.
Beyond the "freedom-idealogues" and "promo-junkies", I have noticed an interesting segment of users who are opposed to promotional images on pragmatic grounds. They fear (perhaps rightly), that allowing promotional images will lead to a decline in free material being added to the encyclopedia. There are also pragmatic users on the other side who dislike the low-quality or absent free alternatives in the current paradigm.
If these two groups could be pleased, I think consenus could fairly be reached (as long as Jimbo plays nice).
My idea stems in part from my occasional browsings of the featured picture candidates. Of any place on wikipedia that I have encountered, WP:FP has perhaps the most virulently savage critics that I have ever seen--tearing apart lovely images for the most minute flaw (on a side note...I know why WP:FP is like this...I don't need people trying to justify WP:FP to me...it is what it is). 
As we know, getting an article to featured or good status is a clear motivator for article improvement. People like the meaningless social reinforcement that comes with a little star and others saying "job well done". Nobody but a professional photographer has any real shot at getting a featured picture--ergo, no real motivation for good, freely licenced photographs.
My proposal is this: Why not create a Wikipedia:Good pictures page? It needn't have some strenuous criteria. Just that the image be freely licenced, newly uploaded, used in an aritcle and be of good quality (however that may be decided). People like meaningless social reinforcement. People like being able to put a userbox on their page that says "I have uploaded X good photos". Give people a little thank you or award template on their talk page and they'll upload more photos. We need to operate around the confines of human behavior to create our encyclopedia, not just abstract ideology. Quality is also important. Some promotional photos really are very difficult to get. We can keep those select few promotional photos and the rest of the problem will gradually fix itself.
Both sides need to give a little bit of ideological ground, and we need new tools to solve pragmatic issues. Perhaps freedom can trump quality, while still allowing for promotional images to exist until they are replaced?
Those are my two cents, now that I have offended both sides. :-) Hopefully this thread attracts some of the pragmatic users and not just the idealogues/fair-use-junkies.  Irongargoyle 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse. I like it and I also like that it's by an, until now, uninvolved party. But I hesitate to feel it will get any traction as it requires compromise, and the "live free or die" folks haven't had such a good track record. I like the idea because it is a valid positive incentive to creation of content that will encourage the replacement of "non-good" photos (being technically non-free, a publicity photo would never be a "Good" photo). It also defines a nice corolary to the "Good article".--Jeff 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is actually two entirely unrelated proposals. The first is setting up WP:GP, which sounds like a fine idea in theory, if people can be persuaded to be less stringent there than they are at WP:FP. The second proposal, which has nothing to do with the first, is "We can keep those select few promotional photos [of people who are very difficult to get free images of] and the rest of the problem will gradually fix itself." How are we to define which celebrities get stuck with promotional images in their articles and which ones are allowed to go without an image until a free one is found or created? —Angr 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleasantly surprised to see questions asked instead of an immediate dismissal. Instead of stating my opinion on that, I want to ask what do you think it should be?--Jeff 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They are related because together they give something to the moderates on each side. Anti-promo moderates get a stronger incentive tool, and pro-promo moderates get a stop to mass-deletions. What are the criteria? Good question. "difficulty" criteria could be hammered out. I don't doubt that if we can hammer out notability criteria (e.g. WP:BIO), we could also hammer out "difficulty criteria" once we are beyond the ideological wrangling stage. Perhaps fair use promotional images that an editor (in good faith) believes could be easily replaced could be nominated for deletion in a process similar to AfD. This would let the community decide image by image and would discourage mass nomination because sophisticated justifications for each image must be given. I second Jeff in asking what ideas you might have. Irongargoyle 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Angr was suggesting there was a good answer to his question but rather pointing out a flaw in the proposal. Setting up "Good Images" may help us find replacements, but it in no way addresses the problem of whether or not a given photo is "repeatable", and whether or not we should delete it. If anything, making ourselves better at replacing photos should encourage us to delete more. ed g2s • talk 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean like Commons:Commons:Quality images candidates? It's no longer fashionable to upload free images only to en: , after all... Stan 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be uploaded to Commons, that would be fine, but they would need to be used in an article on the English Wikipedia (much as our featured pictures differ from their featured pictures). Commons is great, but we can't expect every user to use multiple Wikis. Should we really look a gift horse of new, free, quality images in the mouth simply because the pictures are only uploaded to en: and might possibly be from **gasp** new users? :-) Irongargoyle 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being made was that all new free images should be uploaded to commons. There is no reason to upload them to en. ed g2s • talk 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are still people uploading free images to here, newbies and some oldtimers doing it out of habit, but there's no reason to encourage it. Most likely any free image deemed of good quality will be re-uploaded to commons by somebody else so other WPs can use it, requiring admin intervention to clean up after. Stan 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As Angr noted, GP is a wonderful idea - but it doesn't really address the problem. If we take the analogy further, WP didn't just put FA and GA in place (and mind you, the latter has been a relatively recent addition) and sit back to watch the articles roll in. It also strictly prohibited the usage of copyrighted content in the writing of articles, unless the content was licensed under the GFDL. (I believe I've seen this analogy used before somewhere in a discussion on fair use policy...) All we are doing with present policy is making our image content policy consistent with that of article content - eschewing copyrighted material except where it is absolutely necessary to write a comprehensive encyclopaedia article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Johnleemk's comment, and I think GP would be great as a seperate issue.  I don't see it solving the larger problem, but I don't think that was necessarily the intent.  Offering encouragement and acknowledgement may not inspire everyone, but if it encourages some users to start looking for good quality free images, that's got to be an improvement on the current situation.  I agree with Irongargoyle in saying that people respond to "meaningless social reinforcement" - at the moment most of the feedback given is negative and editors only hear about their uploads if there's something wrong with them.  That is clearly causing a lot of ill-feeling and distrust.  I think it would also be helpful to have GP in place, so that in the event of a dispute the aggrieved person could be pointed in that direction - a collection of "good" examples could be more persuasive than the thousands of words that have been written on this subject. Rossrs 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A pragmatic 3rd approach to replacing promotional images without mass deletions or exclusionary policy

message: From the main Fair Use page:
There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.
While they do represent marvelously constructed bits of multiple condition ("generally," "good faith," "likely," etc.) nothing-speak, it's time for these sentences to go.
I'm hoping to re-write them in English, the official language of the English language Wikipedia.  Won't you help?
There are a few categories is a poor substitute for actually giving useful information, as opposed to a generalization.  ...where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved...  Uh oh.  Stay on target!  ... as likely being fair use...  Stay on target!!  ...when done in good faith... Say what???  ...in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis.  Oh dear God, really?  I'm fairly certain all of our encyclopedia articles include either critical commentary or analysis, but I trust you, my fellow Wikipedia editor, have ready a list of "72 Wikipedia Article Categories That Contain Neither Critical Commentary Nor Analysis."  Put that aside for the moment, and let's get this sentence into the ER, stat!
But first, sentence two.  (Yikes!)
"Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead" is a sentence about to collapse under the strain of mis-used words and its basic inability to communicate its own meaning.  This sentence is silently screaming for help... and help it, we shall.
First off, general approval (a fellow officer of General Blanket?) has to go.  ...seen in the light...  Hmm, if anything, this sentence is moving toward the light, by this point.  ...copyright... should be copyrighted.  And it's all just too much.
I propose we replace both these sentences with the much simpler and more direct:
"Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own fair use guidelines.  Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
Comments?  Questions?
Jenolen  speak it! 12:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's so much less subjective!  How can the poor contributer wiggle out of the requirements, if we make them so unambiguous?  Appraiser 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever said it was going to be easy... ;) Jenolen  speak it! 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea. It's a lot more readable. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: with the number of articles out there that don't contain "critical commentary and analysis" I think the removal of that sentance would be a bad idea.Geni 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, the number of "List of *** episodes" pages that contain a hoard of screenshots without critical commentary on them is quite alarming. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in almost every example that follows this sentence the words "For critical commentary" are given as part of the requirement for using that particular type of image.  I think the rewrite is much clearer and easier to comprehend. Rossrs 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the "critical commentary" claim has become so common that it's essentially worthless. At any rate, the rewording says that fair use images must be used in line with Wikipedia policy - and presumably policy already states that fair use images must be used only for commentary, so I'm not sure what the problem is. (Unless we want to highlight that fair use images should only be used for commentary, which wouldn't be that bad an idea...) Johnleemk | Talk 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The "critical commentary" rationale is being used so frequently that I have to wonder how many users are actually thinking about it and how many are just copying and pasting the rationale in an attempt to comply with policy.  Perhaps the policy should use more specific language in explaining what is meant by "critical commentary".  ie that the image is used to illustrate something that is discussed/analyzed/critiqued/examined etc in sufficient depth as to warrant an illustration, rather than being used to illustrate something that is mentioned in passing. Such as 'celebrity X featured on the cover of Magazine Y on August 1, 1999 ..... and here's a picture of it'. (Example Pamela Sue Martin, one of numerous).  But I'm digressing.   Jenolen has only rewritten the opening sentence of a section, and the "critical commentary" is well and truly referred to (about 6 times) in the points that follow,  so retaining it in the opening sentence is unnecessary.  Rossrs 11:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Week's Paragraph for Translation 

message: Jimbo agreed with sending a letter to major publicists for Hollywood stars requesting free images for Wiki[mp]edia. So, we should create a kind of template he can use. To do it, I suggest checking Declaration of consent for all enquiries at Commons, plus Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Anyone willing to give a hand with this? Should we keep this new thread here, or somewhere else? -- ReyBrujo 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia talk:Requesting copyright permission or Wikipedia talk:Example requests for permission might be a better place for the thread... --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am starting a new WikiProject at User:ReyBrujo/WikiProject Free Images. Feel free to drop by there and help polish it :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official letter to publicists and agents to request free images 

message: Is there any sort of consensus (or even an official pronouncement) regarding the use of album cover images outside of album-related articles?  Frequently an article about a musician will have an album cover instead of a free-use photo.  Some even have a gallery of album covers as part of the discography.  To me, both uses are not free use, but I've yet to hear that Wikipedia has reached a consensus about it. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's title is irrelevant, as long as whatever article it is used in actually discusses the album enough to justify it; it shouldn't be used just to exploit the image on the cover.  Discussion of an album is discussion of an album whether it occurs in a biography, a musicology, or an ethnography (pardon the strained attempt at homoly).  Postdlf 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the album cover to illustrate the artist is definitely not allowed. Using in a discography shouldn't be done either, as it's not being used for critical commentary. Unless specific discussion of cover art is present, a discography's purpose is to list the albums an artist has release. This information can be conveyed freely and adequately using the album titles, so FUC#1 applies. ed g2s • talk 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Album covers in discographies serve the clear and useful purpose of helping to identify albums to those who may be familiar with the covers and not the titles.  (Can everyone who knows the Velvet Underground's "banana album" tell you the name of that album?) The use of thumbnails of copyrighted material for identification purposes on the Internet has been upheld as fair use in Kelly v. Arriba--and that case involved art photographs, a much easier thing to claim copyright violation on than album covers, whose purpose is primarily promotional. Nareek 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiproject Music quality guidelines says not to use album covers in discography listings, it also strikes me as violating the Wikipedia policy of keeping the amount of fair use to a minimum. The images are already (usualy) present in the album article, the cover art doesn't rely contribute significantly to the artist's article when just used in a discography list. --Sherool (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of album covers

message: A question about rear covers and covering our rears (sorry, couldn't resist). Are we allowed to include an image of an album's back cover, if the back cover is mentioned in the article (i.e. an article about the album itself)? I would think this does indeed qualify as fair use. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rear covers?

message: bbc article.--Pierson's Puppeteer 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no reason to think that the clip is free with regards to copyright. But yes under us law there is "Right of Publicity" and simular but they are not really matters for this page.Geni 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  free,but still illegal 

message: There has been some discussion on WT:CSD about WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5.  I would like to propose that we formalize it as a CSD.  As it is now, there are tons of media photos that have no justifiable use.  Please see WT:CSD#What would everyone think about adding a criterion for news media photos? if you are interested in this discussion.  Thank you. --BigDT 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, despite the law being quite clearcut about this (if there's substantial "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", it's not fair use), a lot of people are attempting to justify borderline images by claiming they are irreplaceable. I was surprised to see the number of people at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 5 arguing that we can use photos taken by news agencies under fair use, even if they aren't really iconic. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me also, but the argument would break down on the same lines it always does. - cohesion 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what (little) it's worth, even though I support the use of legal fair-use images on Wikipedia, I'd support making this a CSD, since it's clearly not legal fair use.  The "lines" aren't completely uniform. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to formalize [[WP:FAIR#Counterexamples]] #5 as a CSD 

message: Our fair use policy states that:
:"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately."
I was wondering how much web-resolution is? Since the highest custom setting for thumbnails in a user's preferences is a width of 300 pixels, that could be regarded as an indication of a upper limit for an image to still be considered low-resolution. There is a tag for images which have a too high resolution: , and it links to Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files#Embedding_internal_images. I usually apply it to images above 500 - 600 pixels. There is currently a backlog of images waiting to be reduced, but the question is to which resolution? --Oden 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I resize images in that category, I do it with Microsoft Office Picture Manager. The resize function there has a prespecified "Web - small" setting of 448×336 (i.e. the long side is at most 448 px and the short side is at most 336 px), which is what I use for resizing. —Angr 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As small as necessary. If the current image is being shown in a 250px box, and there is no justification for having a bigger size (in example, it is a logo), then 300px should be enough (regardless of any SVG suggestion). I think anything bigger than 800x600 should be tagged, because you don't usually need bigger images. -- ReyBrujo 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you talking about resolution, or about image size? Resolution for screens is 72dpi, necessarily, because the screens display an image at 72dpi. I realize that people conflate the terms, but we should try to be precise here. --lquilter 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) We have discussed this before, here and here "recently". There was even a proposal for amendment in the second link. Apparently DPI is a measurement of resolution used in printed documents, and not the definition itself. Also note Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". -- ReyBrujo 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-resolution fair use images 

message: I find the introduction to be a bit vague. I suggest changing the second and third paragraphs to
:“Fair use” content on Wikipedia must meet the legal tests for fair use. Furthermore, Wikipedia permits the “fair use” of copyrighted material only if the image or content is, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting an historical event such as the Hindenburg disaster, but a simple publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person will be subject to much greater scrutiny.
:
:An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed fair use rationale; otherwise the uploaded material will be deleted.
My rationale for the changes in the second paragraph is that some people (see below) seem to understand it as allowing the use of any content that is difficult or impossible to reproduce, disregarding the normal fair use requirements, and this misunderstanding (if it is one) will be rarer if the legal requirements are mentioned in a separate sentence and unconditionally (also, it’s spelled ‘Hindenburg’). In the third paragraph there should be a stricter requirement because a fair use medium without rationale qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion I6; alerting uploaders to the necessity of a rationale might prevent somebody’s future frustration with the process.
My motivation for proposing this change is a set of current IFD debates, ,  et al., regarding non-free photographs from Iraq; that it would be difficult to obtain equivalent replacements is one of the major arguments for keeping them. Since I participate in those debates, my opinion on the matter is biased (to the effect that that argument is not valid). I apologise if my understanding of the intent of the relevant paragraphs is wrong and would appreciate an explanation if that is the case. —xyzzyn 11:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the changes, FWIW. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it too. Please wikilink to Fair use rationale, and make it clear that lack of one qualifies the image for deletion. -- ReyBrujo 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (I assume it’s too early to link to WP:FURG.) —xyzzyn 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro phrasing 

message: Not that there is a reliable source cited, but http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/1750216 demonstrates fair use is a gray area where anything can happen. Sure, it is not something we are doing (we upload still images, not videos, and we try to stay neutral and verify information), it is something to be careful about. Note that, apparently, the site was doing critical commentary as well. -- ReyBrujo 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I could tell, the guy hosted clips of radio programs on his site. We host audio clips, mainly for speeches, songs and interviews. However, I also wish to stress to just be careful. With this, and the mention of the youtube video a few headings up, we need to link long and hard about if what images/audio/video that we host are going to be worth saving or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a bunch of templates regarding external links at User talk:Thadius856/templates/badlink. An external link to a web page which infringes someone's copyright can be regarded as contributory infringement (see Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --Oden 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there was some plans for creating a WikiProject YouTube, one that would review every YouTube link added to check if it is copyright infringement or not. I think it was proposed at the WikiProject Spam some time ago. -- ReyBrujo 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard about the wikiproject, but for all we know, this could be another YTMND situation where we might have to block all of youtube and put the exceptions on the whitelist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my ideal world, YouTube, MySpace, Blogspot and most others Web 2.0 sites should be blacklisted by default :-) But if that is not possible, better to start purging. My last count was around 7,000 YouTube videos, I am willing to bet it is over 9,000 by now. -- ReyBrujo 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some Wikipedia users link to their profiles on youtube, but that is still a lot of links to youtube. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You use  search, but it will take long. Note that, in case of copyright violation, we can agree that the link should be removed, even if it is in a talk page. Anyways, that is not a topic to discuss here, better for WP:SPAM or WP:EL. I was just pointing that fair use is a pretty gray area, and any assumption we can do is just a gross estimation, not something sure. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Should be noted that wikipedia hosts both video and audio files in places.Geni 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen video around, but it is possible. Hopefully those files are being categorized as something other than just "media". -- ReyBrujo 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three at the bottem of this page Controlled_Impact_Demonstration. Most videos are held on commons mind.Geni 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with those videos then. This has been picked up by http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2007-01-05/tv/5 IMDB as well. -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC/Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use