Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 18

message: Is it accepted that fair use pictures of artworks would be in a section of the works by an artist, from any kind? For example, the section "Shows" in the article Andrew Lloyd Webber? Tomer T 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I could imagine a way in which some of these works could be used within the spirit of Wikipedia:Fair use, it is a safe bet that something has gone wrong when gallery formatting has been used.  Jkelly 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, it looks like the editors of that article might actually be trying to do the right thing, even if they've perhaps gotten a little carried away.  There's actually commentary in the main article text for every show that appears in that gallery. Perhaps they originally had the pictures spread out through the article and then later decided to consolidate them into a gallery? —RP88 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But nothing said about the posters. If the posters have anything to do with Lloyd Webber then we should mention that before putting up a whole gallery of them. ed g2s • talk 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the issue of the gallery, the question you've brought up is interesting, i.e. "is it fair use to illustrate the discussion of a theater production with the production poster, without discussing the poster itself?"  On one hand, we don't specifically require that an article about a music album actually discuss a CD cover before using the cover.  On the other hand, its clearly inappropriate to use an image of an actor appearing in character in an article about the actor without discussing the role in question (and maybe not even then). —RP88 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, recently I read the justifacation for using the covers in game articles is that it's the "most easily identifiable visual aspect", or something of that nature. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Please comment at the discussion regarding fair-use images on the main page at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions.  Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page Fair Use 

message: I'd like to know if I' right?
To use copyrighted material, for example in Russian Wiki, this material must meet US Laws, Wikipedia's policy, and Russian copyright laws. Is it correct?--Vaya 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Russian copyright laws apply, since the servers are based in Florida. Borisblue 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about any other country? Does local laws apply to Wiki?--Vaya 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each Wiki makes their own choice about fair use. From what I can tell, ru.wikipedia might accept fair use, but as with the policies on en.wikipedia, the policy on ru.wikipedia could change. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's true. It would make sense for ru.wiki to want to follow russian copyright laws even if they don't have to, to make it easier for their users (presumably predominantly russian) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: generaly the US has the most liberal copyright laws so following your local laws is not normaly a problem. There are a few conflicts but generaly people are sensible about dealing with them.Geni 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with you. As far as I know, The US has one of the world's longest copyright expiration periods (not counting that the laws are consistently changed to expand this period every time pre-1923 works are about to enter public domain). Also, the US is one of the few countries where a work may still be copyright protected even after it has entered the public domain on the country where it was first published (see Un chien andalou, for instance). Of course, IANAL. And would love to be wrong on this. --Abu badali (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: copyright length under US law is ah messy. At the present time stuff tends enter the public domain under US law (basicaly everything published in the US before 1923 is PD in the US) before it does in europe  (where life +70 is increaseingly solid). This will change over the next few decades to the poitn where the two should be about equal (there will be a few local oddities but not of massive significance) While other countries do have shorter terms for historical reasons they far less material that we are interested in. However length of time untill PD is only one part of the law. There is also the issue of fair use. US fair use is rather more liberal than fair dealing (britain and it's former colonies) and right of citation (various).Geni 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Which foreign wikipedias allow fair use?  I keep hearing how germany doesn't, but I haven't heard much about the ones that do.  Until recently, I thought we were the only one.  Since then, I think I've seen it on the Russian and Chinese wikipedias, but it's hard to tell what really going on without being able to read the language. - Peregrine Fisher 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find a list at m:Fair use, but I'm not sure how up to date it is. sr: doesn't appear under the "allowed" list, for example. Jkelly 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As an FYI, Wikibooks has a substantially different fair use policy than Wikipedia, and can be found at b:WB:FUP.  While not "enforced", blantant violations of this policy are likely to be deleted.  I should also note that this policy was modeled after the fair use policy on it.wikipedia (which is not noted for large numbers of American contributors). --Robert Horning 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of fair use in other Wikis 

message: Talk:Pete_Townshend#Revert_war_on_photo --Guinnog 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion on Talk:Pete Townshend 

message: The WNYC studios have released a photo they took of David Mamet to the Creative Commons.  I uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons here and here.  It's getting easier all the time to find free use images.-BillDeanCarter 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free use image of [[David Mamet]] found! 

message: Can someone explain to me (In English)why I can't put pictures on my subpages?
Wikiman232 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can put pictures on your user page, but they must be freely licensed pictures, not copyright violations. For a collection of freely licensed images, try the Wikimedia Commons; you can include any image there just as if it were hosted here on the English Wikipedia (no need to upload a copy here). —Bkell (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Not sure if you're talking about a user page, but if you are, there's just a rule that says we can't have fair use images on our user pages.  Imagine if you created a user page that was an exact copy of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. It would meet all legal requirements just as well as the real article does, so that isn't the problem, it's not a legal thing.  We just have a rule that fair use images aren't allowed in user pages, also known as user space.  I think the rule is because if we did allow it, then people would abuse it, with images of Superman or whatever on their user page. Then, we'd have to evaluate each one, and decide if someones user page discusses Superman enough.  Instead of going through that 100 times a day, we just don't allow it. - Peregrine Fisher 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is it fair to use the synopsis from the back of a book verbatim?  If it is OK, what kind of references do I need, and what about in-line references.  It it isn't, why not?  If it's a grey area, what's grey about it?  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You can easily write your own synopsis of the book, so there's no need to plagiarize the one from the back cover, unless you need to quote the synopsis from the back in order to critically analyze the synopsis itself. —Bkell (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured the answer would be no, but I'd like to know more about why.  I don't think the ease of writing my own synopsis has any effect.  Kind of like a screenshot from a movie, it's a small sample of a larger work that won't hurt the copyright holder financially.  The synopses I'm thinking about are maybe 3 sentences long, which wouldn't be too long for a normal quote.  Is that fact that it's a synopsis change something?  It probably does, but what?  Anyways, I want to understand the reasoning, not just get a "No." - Peregrine Fisher 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The synopsis is copyrighted and (almost always) non-free. This is a free (as in ‘freedom’) encyclopaedia and in particular we expect text to be licensed under the GFDL. Since this is not the case for the synopsis from a book, you can either bug the publisher to get the material released under the GFDL or write something more original. The latter option has lower effort and a higher probability of success and is therefore recommended. —xyzzyn 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn. So the answer is that it isn't replaceable like an image of a living person, so it's up to the editor to decide?  I'm an editor in favor of using fair use images when they would markedly improve an article, as long as they aren't replaceable.  But, I was hoping there was a hard/fast rule that would dissallow it, so I wouldn't have to make the decision myself. - Peregrine Fisher 07:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hard, fast rule is that, except for quotations (to be used sparingly), all text is replaceable and no fair use is permitted. —xyzzyn 08:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I use a book synopsis from a back cover verbatim? 

message: I have been reading through the above threads and some of the archives, and I can't find a direct answer to this question.  Is it acceptable to have an album cover in a discography in a band's article?  Assume that there is no critical commentary on the album or the cover.  The reason I ask is that I've been going through the list of articles linked to :Image:Nocover.png and finding and adding album covers, but I don't want to continue if the covers are going to be eventually deleted.  --Joelmills 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there shouldn't be album covers in discographies, per WP:FU#Images (cover art should not be used without critical commentary). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Those album cover galleries will need to be cleaned up at some point; but we may still find those images useful for an article about the album.  Perhaps you would like to spend some time creating some album stubs for those albums?  Jkelly 17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is certainly an area where Wikipedia is hamstrung by its fear of copyrighted material (or, alternately, its dedication to libre principles).  Any number of discographies on the web are more helpful to record collectors, when it comes to disambiguating (is that a word?) various versions of the same release; for example, on Wikipedia, there's no real good way to note the minor variations in cover art and track listing between U.S., European, and Japanese releases of an album, especially if each release would seem to require "critical commentary" on the cover in order to enable its useage.  Is there a way to do this, and not run afoul of policy?  I mean, since it appears Wikipedia can't simply help note these differences by including the specific cover which goes with the specific version of the album -- that information, apparently, failing the literal interpretation of "critical commentary" -- I think the current policy toward album covers is pretty useless.  (I'm not sure why pages like The Eagles haven't had their album covers removed... but I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually.)  Jenolen  speak it! 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see this.Geni 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link is to an article dated 28 November 2002 -- five lifetimes ago on the Internet -- and refers to a site that is not Wikipedia.  And, for the one millionth time, fair use (such as of an album cover) is not a copyright violation; fair use is an affirmative defense which PERMITS a legal use of copyrighted material.  Wikipedia's fair use policy is much, much stricter than U.S. law; and, of course, all of this may be superceded by the new directive...  Jenolen  speak it! 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on album covers 

message: I noticed some Television station articles were using the company logo's in front of their company names of the affeliations and owners. This would be a FU violation in my eyes because they do not provide critical commentary to the article and don't discuss the company that the logo directly references. This has been judged similar on  over a year ago. If not, then every TV article would now have the network logo in the infobox by now I guess. Anyway. I removed them from a ton of pages, but subsequently got reverted by User:Orangemonster2k1, who is saying that "The logos are already loaded into Wikipedia and just shorted down to size. If fair-use is put into effect for use this way, it would have to be for the logos on the pages already used."  Before I revert again, I would like to confirm that my interpretation of WP:FUC and WP:FU is correct. opinions anyone ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, use in this way is probably a fair use Wikipedia:Fair use violation, as fair use images may not be used for a purely decorative purpose. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But wouldn't the same apply to sports teams? (see above, or in the recent archive) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what discussion you are referring to directly, but in general I would think that any use of such logo's in articles that don't directly have a connection to the team, are not allowed. "visual identification of links" is what the use is, and that has never be an appropriate fair use rationale on wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at "Unfree images on Templates" above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's important to remember that "fair use" applies to each use of the image, not the image itself. There is really no such thing as a "fair-use image", only a "fair use" of the image. —Bkell (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is used in the main article (ie: NBC) and that is OK, then how is the 30px version of it on the TV station infobox a violation?  It can't be OK and a violation at the same time.  I think we need specific rules about fair-use and so-called "fair-use images" as people are using their own interpretation on it and we have seen what lengths that has gone to. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  using company logo's in infoboxes for Television stations 

message: A user has recently objected to this image on Andrew Van De Kamp on the grounds that it of Shawn Pyfrom and not the actor and thus cannot be used on the character's page. I disagree because I think it is of Shawn as Andrew in a publicity still (as in this one of Alexis Denisof as Wesley Wyndham-Pryce we have on his article), as Shawn Pyfrom looks nothing like that outside of Desperate Housewives, as shown on his website. The website it was taken from the official DH site uses the image for both Shawn and Andrew's bios. I would much rather use this image than the screenshot currently up, as it was taken almost two years ago and is now somewhat inaccurate. But I'm not prepared to break policy. So, can this image be used as a fair use image of Andrew or not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is fair use as it shows the actor in-character. This image has no indication of it being of Andrew (I watch DH, yes..), I know for certain Andrew never appears in a scene like that. Also, if you believe it to be of the character does you have a source to corroborate this? It's my understanding ABC released them as "x, who portrays y", not "x, portrayed by y". Matthew 08:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this discussion irrelevant so long as this image is unsourced?  ShadowHalo 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the official DH site. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that work?  That image is of a much lower resolution.  ShadowHalo 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  No where on that site does it say the image is of Andrew and not Shawn. Matthew 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I've stupidly been looking at the bio the whole time and didn't see the much higher resolution image in the download section - that is very specifically labelled Andrew. It would therefore that the same rules apply to it as the other image, which seems to have also been taken from the downloads section before it was updated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's to vague for me, it could mean "Shawn Pyfrom, who portrays Andrew", personally if that image was used within the article I'd list it at IfD, firstly it's a posed image, secondly it's not in the slightest bit representative of the character. Matthew 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think "Andrew" actually means "Shawn Pyfrom"? Right... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yay!  Sourcing makes everything better.  I'll scale down the image, tag it with , and feel free to add it back in.  ShadowHalo 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait...There's no watermark on the image, so it couldn't have come from the downloads section.  I'm gonna tag it with  and notify the uploader.  (He's still an active contributor, so he should be able to source it soon.)  ShadowHalo 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you create a new image from the download section? It seems easiest. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images there have a giant watermark which can't just be cropped out.  At this point, the image just needs a source, so the everything will be good once that's provided.  ShadowHalo 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What watermark? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The giant logo at the top right.  There's no way to crop that out without cropping part of Pyfrom/Van Der Kamp.  ShadowHalo 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I hope the guy replies soon, I'm intrigued as to where the hell they got that image from now. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think that a screenshot has a much better fair use claim than a promotional photo, considering "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". A screenshot is a small part of the copyrighted work (an episode), whereas a promotional photo is the whole copyrighted work. The use of the screenshot has probably almost no effect "upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" while that may not be true for the promotional photo. (quotes from WP:FU#Law) --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  We also need to take into account "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes".  The screenshot does not appear to be provided by ABC, and the episode is being used to generate profit; however, a promotional shot is being provided for download and for promotional purposes.  ShadowHalo 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm intrigued, where does it say they're promotional? They're websites TOU do say this though: "No information, content or material from any WDIG Site or any Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the information, content or materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only" - clearly not promo. Matthew 14:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that downloading the image was a promotional purpose as opposed to a profit-generating one.  The purpose of the photo is to promote the show; the purpose of the video from which the screenshot was taken is solely to generate profit.  ShadowHalo 14:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No the purpose of the show is to entertain, it's the purpose of the adverts to generate profit.. there's nothing on that website stating the image is to promote the show, it could just as well be to give the fans professional images of their fave. actors/actresses. Matthew 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semantics.  People either pay for videos with the television shows, pay to download them, or watch the television show with advertisements, which generates profit for ABC.  The purpose of a downloads section of characters of a TV show is to promote the show and get people to watch it; ABC doesn't get money whenever someone downloads an image.  ShadowHalo 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  /me is still waiting for the citation.. :-) Matthew 15:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andrew Van De Kamp]] image 

message: The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Riya Book.png]] 

message: Template:Fairuse has approximately 3500 images using it, Template:Fair use has ~500 images using it, and both redirect to Template:Restricted use, which has ~3500 using it, but it's not clear to me if those ~3500 are duplicate to the ones using "Fairuse". Anyways, the tag states that "This tag should not be used" and refers to the list of fair use tags or to use Template:Non-free fair use in. Would anyone oppose to my changing the tag to look nothing like a image license tag and simply has directions to use another license tag? After the change is made (in hopes of eliminating new use of the tag(s)), go through and mark all the existing licenses as no license after the tag has been removed for at least 1 month to allow hopefully the license to be changed to a valid tag? I'd even be fine with notifying the uploader that the tag is invalid and they should put a new license tag on it and put the images into a special category. I think changing the license tag to prevent new use is critical, but what to do with the 3500-7500 images using it is not clear. Any thoughts? --MECU≈talk 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good plan.  And overdue.  If the images using the template were uploaded after the grandfathering date, they should just be tagged .  The older ones will need to handled differently, under our current rules. Jkelly 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suspect most of the ones with that tag are older images that currently can't be speedy deleted for lacking fair use rationales. I also fear the plan of contacting all the uploaders about the tag beeing depreciated will be futile. In my experience less than 1% of the uploaders will turn out to be active, and of those only a fraction is likely to actualy go back and update the tag, and maybe add token "rationale" along the lines of "It's beeng used for informational purposes"... A systematic run though the category would probably be a good idea though, and I guess just list older ones with no rationale on IFD or something... --Sherool (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken a few bites out (used to be 15,000+ images there), guess it's time for a final push. In practice, most are no-source with uploader long gone, but there is a little bit of everything, including PD and other legit images that have been misclassified for years because nobody ever looked at them. Stan 12:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To try and stop the flow, and perhaps alert others in the problem with this template, I'd like to propose changing the Template:Restricted use with User:Mecu/RestrictedUse (the categories and such would remain). Images should not be marked with "no license" because of this tag. Perhaps including this in tandem with the existing tag to prevent this confusion? Feel free to edit the example tag. Suggestions & support welcome (criticisms too). --MECU≈talk 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It couldn't hurt, although in practice uploaders will use the tag up until the very minute it is deleted, which is why I've focussed on emptying the category first. Stan 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Fairuse 

message: Are pictures posted on the MySpace profiles of notable musicians fair-use? For example, John Mayer has a profile here. If he were to theoretically not have a suitable free image on his article, would a picture from his MySpace page be an acceptable substitute until a free one were to be found? --Hemlock Martinis 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to claim Wikipedia:Fair use we need to have verifiable copyright holder information and be able to offer a convincing explanation of why the image could not in theory be replaced by a freely licensed image.  I recommend using one of our standard requests to ask Mr. Mayer or one of his agents to provide a freely licensed image.  Jkelly 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that :Image:JohnMayer.jpg is freely licensed, so I am now puzzled by the question.  Jkelly 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Hemlock was using John Mayer as an example. Substitute any singer for John Mayer. The answer is then: No. The images would then be considered "replaceable" and fail the first part of the fair use criteria. We don't want just any image because we can grab it and it's there, we'll wait for a free one which serves us better in the long run. --MECU≈talk 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace images 

message: Since the last amendment lost steam four months ago, i'm reinvigorating it at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2.  There is clearly a strong desire from many people in the community to see portals given the same availability to fair use images that the main page has.  I hope that we can reach something everyone can deal with. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2 

message: "in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed" - surely this means we have to comply with UK, Australian, Canadian (etc.) ... law, i.e. all the interpretations of fair dealing? ed g2s • talk 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make your problems go forth and multiply: The English wikipedia is accessed worldwide, because English is the current Lingua franca. O:-) --Kim Bruning 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but to make our task actually achievable, we'll have to limit ourselves to predominate users for whom en is the main Wiki. ed g2s • talk 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's quite achievable without any sort of limit like that, thank you very much! --Kim Bruning 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We cover a lot of countries, so we should try to balance out as much as possible. At least, we have to comply with US law, but our fair use policies go beyond it. I believe our policies go beyond what UK, Aussie, Kiwi, Indian and other laws require. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law 

message: look at the article. theres a section which is the content of the file. The file explicitly states that u may not publicly display this file in whole or in part. But the file is being displayed on the article itself. And under the doctrine of "Fair Use" does he (the person who posted the content of the file) have the rights to do so?
:The copyright holder saying you can't display the text has no effect on whether it is a fair use or not. - Peregrine Fisher 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peregrine Fisher. --Gmaxwell 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's illustrating an important technical aspect of the technology. A technology that coincidently was rendered useless the first time it was publicly published. Regardless of what Apple can claim, this information will not disappear anymore (look at the way people found ways to publicize DeCSS http://decss.zoy.org/). As such to describe the technology encyclopedically, I'm 99% sure a court would rule that this would be a fair use. It might possibly be a DMCA violation, but again I doubt it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Granted I'm sure no one really.. cares.. but that whole article is rather trivial.. Forget the fair use considerations, wtf is up with that being it's own article? -- Ned Scott 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, but I agree with Ned, why does this have it's own article? Just merge it already. :D User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext]] 

message: Um. In Penny Arcade (webcomic)#American Greetings, we have a comic that the publishers of said comic took down because of a C&D from American Greetings. Is this a good idea? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really interesting point.  What's our liability in such a situation? - Peregrine Fisher 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IANAL, but I'd say not very much.  The question is whether or not it's parody.  If it is parody, then the image was legal for them to use and is legal for us to use.  If it's not parody, it's not legal for them to use, but we're still covered under fair use since there's critical commentary on the image and incident.  ShadowHalo 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it is in a different context here doesn't mean American Greetings will feel differently.  I wouldn't be surprised to see them send a C&D to the office here as well, if they knew.  In addition, the image seems to be pretty high in resolution, at least for a fair use image.  --Tom (talk - email) 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it with ; Mecu will probably reduce the image sometime soon.  ShadowHalo 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the stated opinion of American Greetings was that it wasn't protected use as parody, because it wasn't parodying their copyrighted property (Strawberry Shortcake) but instead parodying American McGee's various game projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that AG's position is interesting, but doesn't speak to our use; our claim here is not that we are republishing this image as a parody, but are using a small (-ish, as of now) part of the original as part of a discussion about the image itself and the impact that the original publication of that image had.  Jkelly 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um if that's our claim, then the fair use rationale should say it is. Currently the fair use rationale says it's a parody. It doesn't say anything about it being used to discuss the impact the publication of the image had (it just say's it relevant to the article). The webcomic thing provides some detail but is insufficient in itself (Remember there are 2 copyright holders here. The copyright holder of the webcomic and the copyright holder of the original work which this allegedly violates. We have to assume both their claims are valid) (Edit: Actually make that 3 holders. American McGee's copyrighted work which was being parodied applies so I guess the parody template is appropriate altho the fair use rationale details still need to be expanded) Nil Einne 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In a situation such as this, since a C&D has occured about that very strip even if not directed at us, I suggest we take it down and ask our legal counsel for advice. We could ask User:BradPatrick but might as well wait for however is going to replace him Nil Einne 11:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this is necessary, but it would be courteous to inform the original uploader about the conversation and inquire as to their comfort level with continuing to publish the image here.  Jkelly 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not publishing it as a parody. We're publishing it so that we can demonstrate the why the controversy occured. I think we have a clear fair use claim. Borisblue 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Penny Arcade (webcomic)#American Greetings]] 

message: Please see this. The resolution by the board specifically says that "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Does this mean that we have to change our FU policy? What about the large number of publicity photos of living people that we have here? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered with the "image or content can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content"Geni 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it's more explicit and makes the point more strongly: "almost all portraits of living notable individuals". I see this as meaning cases where it is essentially impossible that a free photograph of the person could ever be found or created (very, very rare) rather than cases would it would only be extraordinarily difficult to get a free photo, as is often used now. I think the page should be changed in some way to reflect this emphasis. For instance "...not concieveably replaceable with a free content" Herostratus 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution:Licensing_policy 

message: I agree that we need some form of machine readability, at least to easily generate reports about fair use usage, non-article space usage, etc.  How about, for the time being, we simply create a null template, Template:Non-free media and add it to every known non-free image copyright tag?  I'll go create it and provide a list, and an admin can add 'em in.  Be right back.  --Iamunknown 04:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good way to spread the effort of finding all of them out among many people. Once thats done the actual transition can be entirely bot driven with only basic human supervision. --Gmaxwell 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great point!  About the actual implementation, I just added it to the templates in :Category:Non-free image copyright tags from Template:Alberta-politician-photo through Template:Cvg-titlescreen (except for Template:Albumcover, Template:Book cover, Template:CrownCopyright and Template:Cc-sampling, which were protected) and I don't think I can do anymore for a while.  Normally I am totally fine doing repetitive tasks, but I think I'll wait until tomorrow to do some more.  If an admin sees this, please add  to those protected templates!  Oh, and don't add them within "includeonly" tags...I thought it might be good to leave 'em out so that we can keep track of which image copyright tags transclude this template.  --Iamunknown 05:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the protected ones, I can help out later today also (around midnight utc), unless you finish by then :) - cohesion 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to a few of the "big ones" that are protected: (,  and , that should keep the job que busy for a while... --Sherool (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am totally in favor of having all free license templates start with  and all non-free license templates start with .  I realize this requires identifying and renaming just a freaking buttload of templates, but that's what robots are for, neh?  Kelly Martin (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't realise it, but Cydebot is already churning.    --Iamunknown 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  There is a list of non-free templates that have been tagged with the non-free media tag on Wikipedia:Non-free_content/templates. Cyde is running a bot to add to the list as more non-free templates are found. On that page we should list the new names, and discuss templates that should just be deleted rather than being renamed. --Gmaxwell 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox German Location is using a parameter named "Art" that's causing some weirdness in the what links here for  . (I think that's the cause) I left a message on the template talk page. - cohesion 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually.. it was transcluding Art. I fixed it. Man I hate our template syntax. I had to write a parser to find that unmatched brace.--Gmaxwell 04:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks Gmaxwell.  I searched through the template and was trying to figure out what was going on, but didn't find the transclusion.  --Iamunknown 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was thinking it was some weird bug, ignoring the obvious. What's not to love about a syntax that makes you count on your fingers open-open-open-open-open-close-close-open ;) - cohesion 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the discussion 

message: A user has placed this image of a sword at Excalibur, because the item in the picture is a "replica" of Excalibur. It's a copyrighted image of a commercial product, and there must be dozens of free images that can be used to illustrate King Arthur's weapon. Anyone care to comment?--Cúchullain t/c 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged the image as replaceable and warned the uploader. Unless something new comes up in the next 48hs, the image will be speedy deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excalibur

message: I need someone to drop by Ayumi Hamasaki discography to explain, in better words, why covers there are decorative. As you can see, there was an awful edit war between AMiB and an anonymous. -- ReyBrujo 04:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this is no longer needed, a user understood, anonymous is blocked and AMiB is apparently gone forever. -- ReyBrujo 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins leave the project for various reasons; I'm sorry this admin was chased off by fair use issues.  Jenolen  speak it! 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodBye. However, this was not the issue, his modifications in several videogames templates (that usually ended in templates fully protected or even a block for edit warring) were the cause (if I may say so). -- ReyBrujo 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayumi Hamasaki discography

message: I read a post recently which said Fair use abuse is a constant presence and must be fought as hard as possible, and it got me thinking - shouldn't this person be devoting their energy to fighting copyright violations?  (Fair use, of course, being a legal way to use copyrighted material...)  Anyhow, I don't know where to find a list of the copyrighted material that has been found to actually (not hypothetically) have caused a fair use problem here.  (I mean, there must be something in Wikipedia's history, in the past four years, that failed a legal test for fair use, right?)
So, I've created a place on my user page for just such a list.  If anyone here knows of copyrighted material, uploaded to Wikipedia, and later found to be in violation of fair use laws, please stop by User:Jenolen/Fair Use Convictions and add it.
Not unrelated side note:  Can we just go ahead and stop all this pussyfooting around, and go "German" already?  Put a bullet through the head of silly arguments like the wheelchair thing, the state government photos thing, the "should we make an exception for the Main Page?" thing ... and just ban fair use!  The most vocal, influential editors here hate it -- so why isn't it banned?  It's the hypocrisy of those who claim "Free! Free! Free!" and yet won't put their quite considerable free time behind a simple, well-thought out and Jimbo supported proposal to simply ban it which I find so off-putting.
In the spirit of consensus, I'll even help with the press release:  "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, today announced a rededication to one of its core principles, deleting thousands of copyrighted images from its database, and encouraging users to replace the discarded content with material that is free of copyright concerns.  As part of the plan to expand its rights-free offerings, Wikipedia also announced the elimination of "fair use" within the project, a legal doctrine which until now had permitted the limited use of copyrighted material."  
Take it away! Jenolen  speak it! 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: found by a court Sorry, but these cases do not reach the community. That is what the Foundation does (through WP:OFFICE if necessary): keep legal hassles away. I can tell you that Carlson Twins had an image dispute, where the copyright owner of the picture that was being used requested it to be removed because it was a commercial picture, and after some conversations the copyright owner accepted to release the current picture under a free license to end the discussion. -- ReyBrujo 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, my sarcasm sense is tingling, but I prefer to think it is because I haven't washed my hair tonight. -- ReyBrujo 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sarcasm intended; I simply am trying to get a sense of the history to better understand what has caused this virulent opposition to a free use -- which is what fair use is, after alll; a free use of copyrighted material. Jenolen  speak it! 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And the report from Anonymous Coward continued, after quoting the Wikimedia Foundation press release: "Google and Yahoo have both set up editable forks. The quick emergence of these forks suggests that both companies were prepared for this move; but will Wikipedia editors flock to either? And what is Microsoft's move here? Editable Encarta?"--GunnarRene 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of anything that has reached the courts.  If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair-use criteria, it gets speedy-deleted as soon as we get an informal complaint (at any given time, OTRS has one or two in the queue); if it does, we usually don't delete unless we get a formal DMCA takedown notice. --Carnildo 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I think the point being made here is that if a cardinal principle becomes an aspiration then who decides where to draw the line. DE recognizes that point. If the compromise is to be allowed, however it is described, then libre is just no longer a cardinal principle.--luke 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's actually a healthy situation.  The 99%ers are rarer than the 95%ers, and so on.  If you look throught the edit histories of a hardcore anti-FU editor, there's a ton of removals.  But, for every one of them, there's tons of less prolific users that have uploaded images.  Replaceable FU images may be going away, I'm not sure, but non-replaceable images are sticking.  If you look at the comments on this page, it may seem dire, but the users here are self selected.  This is just where the hardcore from both sides gather.  Basically, to end up in the middle, both sides have to push. - Peregrine Fisher 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt any of the so called "99%" have an interpretation of the policy that isn't agreed upon by a much larger percent than 1, even if it isn't the majority. Your example of a such a "hard-core" opinion, removing promo shots of living celebrities, is now Foundation Policy. ed g2s • talk 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I find it so fascinating that fair use is being slowly bled out, rather than simply removed altogether.  Why prolong the hassle?  Why not commit to the German solution now?  I mean, really, what are you guys waiting for? Even MORE hostile conflicts with editors who have a poor understanding that what they're doing is against Wikipedia policy, logic, the law, the technical ability be damned?  Jenolen  speak it! 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not "waiting for" anything (to "go german"). We don't necessarily want to ("go german"). I like, for instance, the idea of using a unfree material when it's necessary for making critical commentary on the unfree material itself. Can you understand/accept that? That some of those who would like to see less unfree material on Wikipedia may also still accept some unfree material on Wikipedia? Don't group together all opinions you don't agree with as if they were only one opinion (conveniently absolutist, to facilitate your counter-argumentation). --Abu badali (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that there are valid fair uses, not least the ones that I personally uploaded :-), so I for one don't want the German solution. Repeatedly misrepresenting my position isn't convincing anyone of anything, so why do you keep doing it? Stan 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What We're Dealing With; Lack of Fortitude? 

message: I suggest protecting Wikipedia:Fair use--Vaya 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many reverted edits.--Vaya 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect the page 

message: A discussion about how we should use the International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol]. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - we've already been told, see above. ed g2s • talk 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International wheelchair symbol discussion 

message: I have drawn this image myself. Can I tag it  and use it to describe Gmail logo?--Vaya 10:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Borisblue 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But it is nice, though.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gmail and [[:Image:DSCN2734small.jpg]] 

message: Critical and criticism have several meanings, so "critical commentary" is vague. Unfortunately the meaning of the phrase is not explained on this page. Critical can mean to pass judgment upon the qualities of something; clearly we do not mean that here because Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. Critical also means accurate and precise; while Wikipedia encourages our commentary to be accurate and precise by following reliable sources, I don't see how this is relevant to fair use. Maybe it does mean we should be critical in the accurate and precise sense, but just so it is clear that our purpose is scholarship, one of the six fair purposes listed in the law. But if that's the case, why not just say "scholarly commentary"? (though it is not clear why we should do that, since commentary alone is one of the six examples). I gather from my dictionary that critical, especially in scientific contexts (critical mass, critical pressure), also means the point or threshold something must obtain before something can happen. In this sense, I suppose "critical commentary" means our commentary should be in-depth as opposed to superficial. For example, an album cover in the article about the album is accompanied by a sufficient amount of text, whereas an album cover in a discography article is accompanied by a superficial amount. This seems to me the intended meaning, but I can't be sure. If it means that, it should  say that; if it means something else, it should say that. It shouldn't cloak what is meant using words with a cornucopia of definitions.
"Critical commentary", a phrase seemingly invented by Wikipedia, can also be confused for language used in the Fair Use law. "Critical commentary" looks like a hybrid of criticism and comment from "...for purposes such as criticism, comment..." But in that context: (1) Criticism and comment are distinct. (2) They refer to one of several purposes you can select from, and the purpose is only one of the four considerations which all must be taken into account. In contrast, you either have "critical commentary" in Wikipedia or you don't: if you do the image's inclusion might be justified, if you don't it can't be. Having Wikipedia policy that is confusable with U.S. law is a problem.
In short, "critical commentary" is a problematic phrase that should use clearer terminology and be explained more thoroughly. Punctured Bicycle 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical commentary" is vague and confusing 

message: With this edit, Jimbo his own self seems to indicate that Fair Use, while (allegedly) acceptable within the pages of Wikipedia, is no longer welcome on the Main Page.  Thanks for the clarifying "guidance," Jimbo!  People who claim to be in the 90% and 95% categories above - Abu, Ed, etc. - the 99%'ers are gaining on you.  And when they eventually take away your Darth Vader image, even if only to discuss Vader's fearsome appearance ("because text can adequately describe what he looks like!"), I don't want to hear any complaining about how you didn't see it coming...  Jenolen  speak it! 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't that a derivative work? - Peregrine Fisher 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a blue/green vw bus (and other vw inspired autos) with flowers painted on is nowhere near the threshold of originality required by art. Similarly painted vans predated the show. :) --Gmaxwell 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reproduction is subject to the same terms as the original work. Translation: Unfree image!  Hide the children!  Yakuman (数え役満) 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It says mystery machine on the side.  Looking at the original, the only difference is that this has two flowers, and this has three.  That image should be taken down from commons, and slapped with a fair use tag. - Peregrine Fisher 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is indeed a derivative; it has also been deleted from commons now. Matthew 10:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if the van in the picture used completely different colors, pineapples instead of flowers, and had a dolphin hood ornament... once you say, 'hey this is the Mystery Machine from Scooby-doo', it is a 'copy' of the original (technically the term 'derivative work' applies to authorized copies). Otherwise someone could take the next 'Harry Potter' book and make a 'free' movie of it provided they get alot of details wrong. It just doesn't work that way. If you seek to represent something as being some part of an earlier artistic creation then you need the permission of the owner of that earlier work. I'd like to see that reality understood a bit better here and on Commons. Then maybe someone will be able to explain to me why our three time picture of the day :Image:Villianc.svg isn't a violation of the copyright on Snidely Whiplash. --CBD 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I want to know is why the villian pix is illustrating the article Snidely Whiplash when it's claimed to be an original work and not a picture of the character??  --Minderbinder 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of that page is rather amusing. --NE2 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should slap :Image:Villianc.svg with a fair use tag.  It's a derivative work.  Look at this, they just changed his color. - Peregrine Fisher 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm not seeing that at all?  Are you really resorting to stooping so low to attack free content?  I understand that you have a big thing for unlicensed images, but turning around and attacking free images reeks of sour grapes.  Get over it; Wikipedia is a free content project.  If that's not what you're looking for, you're free to leave.  --Cyde Weys 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, this encyclopedia allows fair use images.  Get over it.  If it's not what you're looking for, you're free to leave. Johntex\talk 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Snidely Whiplash and the :Image:Villianc.svg image have the following characteristics in common: black attire, top hat, long curling mustache, bulging eyes, toothy grin, hunched back, hands clenching, and cartoon drawing. These can be described as 'stereotypical' traits of 'villains' (Montgomery Burns of The Simpsons shares the bulging eyes, hunched back, clenching hands, and cartoon drawing), but you put them all together and alot of people immediately think of Snidely Whiplash. I can't recall any other villain who'd share all of those traits. Nor do I see any notable differences from Snidely. The claim that an image draws from the same PD inspirations as another IS a valid defense against copyright infringement - up to a point where the similarities are considered too close. I'm not a copyright lawyer/judge so I don't know which side of the line this would come down on, but it's definitely in the realm of 'open to question'. --CBD 11:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Has the main page ever had non-free content? unless you're talking about non-free imagery? Matthew 11:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images are content. ed g2s • talk 11:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  The article itself includes non-free content.  The site's policies allow non-free content.  I still find it ridiculous that people keep calling this site a "free content project" when it explicitly allows non-free content.  It will be a "free content project" when only free content is allowed.  --Minderbinder 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so let's do it.  I'm ready; are you?  --Cyde Weys 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That would be a major detriment to our goal of creating a good encyclopedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  The vast majority of unlicensed images do little more than make the encyclopedia look prettier (in some people's estimations, anyway).  Quality doesn't really have much to do with having lots of images on each page.  Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, doesn't use any unlicensed images, and nobody would possibly suggest that they aren't a good encyclopedia.  --Cyde Weys 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EB certainly uses plenty of unfree images, they just license them, which isn't an option at wikipedia.  You honestly don't think EB would be regarded as the exact same quality if it got rid of all unfree images, do you?  If images don't add to quality, then why does EB go to the trouble of licensing them?  I think the fact that they do is evidence that they consider the images important and adding to the quality of their encyclopedia.  --Minderbinder 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Slow Bleed Continues... 

message: I know I've proposed this before, but I think this has more pertinence now that the foundation has explicitly advocated stricter rules regarding free content: have any of you guys who are opposed to the foundation's stance considered forking off wikipedia to a new project (say, Fairwiki)? You can pretty much copy all of Wikipedia's articles and add fair use images, audio, even video. Copying wikipedia in this way is definitely legal (an in fact, implicitly encouraged) by the GFDL license. FairWiki would focus on being "a publicly editable encyclopedia" rather than a "free encyclopedia"- I'm pretty sure you'd get sufficient support to get it off the ground. 
This is an analogy with the various linux distributions- some are more strict about their interpretation of free content than others. Debian, for instance, is so strict that the developers didn't even allow firefox because they trademarked their logo- hence the creation of Iceweasel. The GFDL is designed to be dynamic, so users can create variations of the GFDL-licensed software/product to meet their own goals or needs. Those people who share Wikimedia's goals vis-a-vis free content can use wikipedia, those who want to create the highest-quality publically-editable encyclopedia legally permissible can use FairWiki. Everybody wins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be our guest. You just need a big computer, broad band and a community. And some lawyers. -- ReyBrujo 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Boris wants to be part of such a project, but yes, I think the people who continue to express such disgust at the Foundation's view on licensing should either do something about it, or put up with it. ed g2s • talk 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an idea on Meta that some users wanted to create a Wikimedia Commons clone, except it only accept fair use images. My main concern is that if there is a fork, or even a sanctioned project of Wikimedia, that has nothing but fair use images, it would just become a dump of photos we are not going to use (in the case of fair use photos, we have to use them). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A public collection of non-free images practically without context is certainly not fair use (unless it’s Google image search or something similar). Which is why it will not (well, should not, at least) be implemented by the foundation. However, people who want to fork Wikipedia for the purpose of using more fair use images are very welcome to do so. Such a fork would be a lightning rod for copyright-related litigation and we could still copy most article improvements back to Wikipedia. Of course it would be impossible to mirror such a project outside of the USA (and risky inside the USA), but, hey, the Library of Alexandria didn’t have mirrors either… —xyzzyn 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a response to ReyBrujo's comment, I'm curious as to whether Wikipedia has ever actually been sued by anyone over the use of fair use images. I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone on that. (Personally I think it's more likely that we'll see Wikipedia sued for WP:BLP violations such as false declarations of death or libel). Regarding the topic at hand, if someone creates a competing Wiki that isn't as paranoid about "small stuff" like images, then I'm there. It's only a matter of time; right now Wikipedia is really the only game in town so people are putting up. But the same was said of, oh, the IMDb a few years ago. Or pre-cable network television. 23skidoo 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairwiki?

message: I uploaded this image at :Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg after finding that the article was lacking an image and had a red linked image. User:Jesse Viviano tagged it twice now as replaceable fair use, with the summary once, "This man is still living and not a prisoner nor a fugitive, so a free image could be created." I actually went and contacted the Canadian Parliament, who holds the copyright, and explained how and why Wikipedia would like to use the image, and was granted permission in response, which I posted to the image page and the image talk page. Jesse tagged it again as replaceable fair use to delete. Is this image given that I've received permission from the copyright holder (Canadian parliament) alright to use? - Denny (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I retagged for speedy myself, and will find a better free one. - Denny (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification: [[:Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg]] 

message: Some Idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alx 91 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images with that license on Flickr are not permitted on Wikipedia. Only images on Flickr with either Attribution () or Attribution-Sharealike () are allowed.↔NMajdan•talk 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I'm not mistaken, images flagged as non-commercial () are also not allowed. --Joelmills 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, () is not allowed either. () are the only limitations allowed. If you have an image that allows just this, please upload to Commons, where the license can be verified and help protect the image. You can then use the image here like it was uploaded here. MECU≈talk 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What tag i can put to Flickr Photos with the legend ©All Rights Reserved? 

message: There is a discussion on the above page, which could do with some informed participation, regarding deletion of what I consider a copyvio. Tyrenius 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:The 48 Laws of Power]]

message: There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. Tompw (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in Featured Lists 

message: There is a new proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. It's nothing new really, just a reorganization done a while ago. It never got the guideline header, and not a huge amount of people discussed it. If you have any input add it to the talk page to see if we have consensus. This page is transcluded into Help:Image page also. - cohesion 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed guideline 

message: Abu, Ed, GMax, anyone who has an opinion, let's figure out what a song clip needs to be on an artist page.  I'm thinking about adding some audio clips to artist pages, and I would like to avoid revisiting this discussion.  Give me some idea of what to look for to tell me it's OK, please.  Something more specific than "If some text passages feels like incomplete information that could never be fixed with free text only."  That kind of thing is a non-starter, since we have trouble agreeing. - Peregrine Fisher 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said you're thinking about adding some audio clips to artist pages. Explain the reasons that make you believe these articles need these audio clips and that would be a "starter".  --Abu badali (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restart 

message: Just as every Flickr image uploaded to Commons must be reviewed, why don't we just force a review of every fair use image uploaded here? I remember there was a template requesting a review of an image license; we could modify the image upload interface to include it to every fair use image. Yes, huge backlog, but at least we will have a more reliable way of determining which fair use images are acceptable (if only temporarily). -- ReyBrujo 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we centralize discussions on a specific page or list image talk pages that are currently undergoing discussion?  I kind of like the latter, but then again it would clutter the image talk namespace, so the former might be better.  Shall we archive or just have diff links?  (You can tell I'm in favour of your proposal.  )  --Iamunknown 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In case anyone is unfamiliar with the system ReyBrujo is referring to, instructions are at :commons:Template:Flickrreview.  Jkelly 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, after some brute force, I found the template, , and a page, Wikipedia:Fair use review. Not sure, but I don't think that page is very active, considering the amount of images administrators are deleting... -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are mostly hitting replaceable fiar use and orphan fair use. There are other posible problems with fair use images.Geni 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force review 

message: So, suppose a video is released under CC-NC-SA, if you take a screenshot of the video, can you claim fair use to it? I am thinking about :Image:Joannecolan1.png. -- ReyBrujo 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The license something is under have no bearing it's "fair usability". The image would appear to fail Wikipedia's inclution criteria for fair use though, seeing as it would be possible to obtain a free licensed photo of her. --Sherool (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image had met the fair use criteria, is there an equivalent template to , or should that be mentioned in the text of the image description page?  ShadowHalo 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since we already know the photo is licensed unded CC-NC-SA and we cannot host new NC photos since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I knew it would fail our "alive => free possible" test. I was looking for an answer that would be applied for all cases, in example, if it were a commercial of a concept car released under CC-NC-SA. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any non-free license (a license that fails one or more of the four freedoms) must be used with a fair use rationale and only if a free image of acceptable quality cannot be found or created to replace it.  So for a CC-NC-SA concept art of a car, it could be possibly used even though it is unlicensed for GFDL-type use under fair use if it meets the WP:FUC.  --Iamunknown 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use and CC-NC-SA

message: Hey Guys, I'm not certain if this is the place to put it, but if its not legal to put lyrics (full song lyrics I mean, not quotes) then how are there so many sites out there that devote themselves to them, and yet are left out of the RIAAs crosshairs? Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman (Talk) 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that loose enforcement of a law means the law does not exist?  ShadowHalo 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, the full printing of lyrics should not be done here, unless the lyrics are released under the GFDL, Creative Commons licenses or public domain. It would be ok to link to a website that contains the lyrics. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the law on lyrics?  If they are all a copy vio, then we probably shouldn't be linking to them, should we? - Peregrine Fisher 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves me right, the record label sometimes put out the lyrics of the songs on their own websites. I think that kind of linking is fine, since it is coming from the copyright holder itself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict]  Correct. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Links to lyrics should only be when the lyrics are legally hosted (generally on the artist's own website). ShadowHalo 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: Perhaps its not clear on the policy page, but should it not be noted here somewhere that Fair Use will be removed upon refusal to publish by copyright holder of the image?  Cary Bass demandez 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that done through WP:OFFICE, via a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice? We can remove it "as precaution", but nothing prevents others from adding it back unless there is an official complain. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the question here is to what degree we want to advertise this.  Jkelly 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already advertised on WP:C and WP:CP, which both link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. howcheng  {chat} 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't know that the foundation will fold in 100% of cases. Near 100% yes.Geni 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright holder objection 

message: This seems one of our worse fallacies really, we have tens of thousands of them. Personally, I cannot see how this benefits us. A logo or book cover, in that location is being used for identification purposes and is redundant to the text of the infobox, article title and lead section. As far as I can tell removing all the images used solely in this manner would slightly reduce the decorative appeal of articles, but would not really affect the informative qualitye. However, the fact that the majority of our fair use imagery is probably used in this manner suggests a change here is probably unlikely. Can someone give me links to prior discussions on this matter; I'm certain it has come up before.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where the old discussions on this are, but I can tell you this: We use fair use on infoboxes to help identify what company, school, or book we are talking about. This is especially helpful when distinguishing between companies/schools/books with similar names or titles. The fair use images are not in there just to look nice. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that applys in specific cases. However, isn't it pretty clear what this or this refers to? Those logos are being used solely for identification, and with those particular articles its obvious. That suggests that "fair use is useful for identification" should be part of the fair use rationales, and shouldn't apply instantly to all logos. Is "useful for ID in some articles" enough to make "good FU rationale for all"?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, showing those logos shows people what logos that company uses. For example, someone from another part of the world who is not familiar with the BBC or CNN might find it helpful to see the logos and be able to recognize them later. They might think, "Oh, that's the company I've read about! I've seen that logo before." —Remember the dot (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a particularly strong rationale really, and its conceivable that a free image could replace such an image (the Headquarters of the org for example). If someone not familiar that with those organisations read the text they would quickly figure out "its that company!". Its important to question things like this as with all things fair use, in particular I find the  boilerplate rationale rather weak - it needs bolstering for this sort of use.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that you do not think logos should not qualify under rule #8 of WP:FUC: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article...)"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logos do have use for ID purposes, but how much use are they for that in the context of a WP article is open to question. I wonder logos can be said to meet FUC #1, as can they really be said to be irreplaceable? Two things spring to mind: Imagine an organisation associated with an iconic building; a photo of that building could serve identification purposes as well or better than its logo. The second applies to older organisations, what happens when an organisation re-brands itself? Ultimately, its original logo would be in the public domain but its current logo would be copyrighted. It isn't obvious in either of these cases that a fair use logo would be superior to either of those alternatives. That means using the FU image needs justification, that in turn means a fair use rationale.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use in infoboxes 

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Limiting_the_use_of_WMF_logos_in_article_space.
This relates to some of the discussion further up this page, but that discussion has grown a bit stale and differs in focus from what I see as the core concern, i.e. of having incidental uses of unfree works distributed in our content dumps.  Please comment at the linked page.  Dragons flight 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to limit the use of unfree WMF logos in article space 

message: A screenshot of the front page of Something Awful has been up for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 4, but the rationale is one that would invalidate the inclusion of any web screenshot.  Basically the argument for deletion is that it includes too much content (never mind that it's only the taglines/leadins to a handful of articles, and no full articles) and that it would be easy enough to click the link that we shouldn't include an image of the page when people could go there themselves (never mind that we try to be medium-independent).  Could somebody else step in and provide a good explanation to this person of why web screenshots are legitimate? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Night Gyr, it's just been great discussing with you.  I love how civil you've been since your first comment, "What the hell?"  Best regards, --Iamunknown 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that there's over a thousand images tagged with web screenshot, and I've never heard that rationale for deletion (which would apply to all of them) claimed before, yes, I think shock is in order. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This does bring up a good point, many screen shots of other websites should also be deleted. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what of medium-independence? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion rationale proposing all web screenshots must go 

message: is the placement of this copyrighted image (screenshot from a film) in the article consistent with fair use guidelines? WP:FU criteria stipulate the presence of critical commentary discussing the image in the article and establishing specific relevance. it's a no-brainer that this commentary must be present in the article text (and not the caption), but we've had editors arguing over it because it apparently doesn't explicitly specify critical commentary outside of the caption itself. the article currently does not discuss the film at all, nor does it establish the image's relevance to criticism directed against the Qur'an. please also see this discussion. ITAQALLAH 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am one of the editors discussing this with Itaqallah. The caption does discuss the film in question, infact this film is highly relevant to the article i.e. Criticism of the Quran. The image shows verses of the Quran written on a woman's body to highlight (as the film claims) the oppression of women in the Quran. I didnt see any fair use violation in this case and have explained this in detail in the discussion linked above by Itaqallah.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't look like fair use to me.  It reminds me of the example of taking using an album cover with a rose on it to illustrate a rose.  The passage itself doesn't contain any discussion of the film, and the caption is really just identifying the image rather than providing any sort of commentary.  ShadowHalo 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, the caption is so well written that it seems to invalidate the fair use claim. The text alone was enough for me. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying if we discussed the film in the article more, then it would be fair use? Also note, that this is the only other article in which the image is being used.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because text has done the job of the image. -- Ned Scott 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this was more like using an album cover of a rose to illustrate an article about albums with roses on them. The editors decided to move the screenshot to Criticism of Islam.--GunnarRene 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of copyrighted screenshots in articles that do not explicitly discuss it 

message: Is material on house.gov pages fair use?  Here is the page , I want to use the image of the district () to fix this page Georgia Congressional Districts.  Thanks. Akubhai 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The URL is currently not loading for me, so I'm looking at archive.org.  If you mean GA12 109.GIF, that image is in the public domain!  (yay!)  Just tag the image with Template:PD-USGov-Atlas and provide a link to the URL of the page and the image (possibly the archive.org link).  Regards, Iamunknown 01:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iirc, anything produced or published by the United States federal government is in the public domain. Of course, I am kind of wondering what is wrong with :Image:United States House of Representatives, Georgia District 12 map.png? If you have an image editor, you can crop that image instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA got redistricted in 2005 so the maps on the wiki page (and the maps both of you linked to) are outdated.Akubhai 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional pages?