Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 10

message: Question: I put an image of a magazine cover on an author's page, because the author's story is listed on the cover (it is the cover story), and because the magazine is prominently mentioned on the author's page as the place where most of the author's stories have been published. I assumed, therefore, that this article about an author would qualify as an article about the magazine.  Does my interpretation seem reasonable?  If not, I can remove the image. PaulLev 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If especifically the magazine is mentioned in the author's page, then I see no problem. If you also include the magazine number and year, and explain what is inside (like The author's work has been featured in the cover of magazine XXX, number YY, on 1997. The number included criticism over the TTT story, overall good, and an interview with the author.), it would be much better. -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I already put in a caption to that effect.PaulLev 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use of magazine cover 

message: Can there be Fair use images on episode lists?? The images on the episode lists improve the article, and the images can idenitfy the key points of the episode, the summary can do that too, but some people like to see whats going on in the episode.  (Yugigx60 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, an episode list will have many episodes, and if each episode has an image, then that would be too many "fair use" images in a single article. It's a good rule of thumb to have no more than three "fair use" images in any one article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a good solution might be to include 2-3 images as representative samples of the series.PaulLev 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend one: the series logo/title screen/whatever. --Carnildo 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there is no actual number of fair use images per article that can realistically be applied to all situations. WP:FUC says to use a limited amount, which I would take as only one per episode, not per article. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's gonna be pictures next to each episode, please make them representative of that episode, not some random screenshot that hasn't got much to do with the episode --WikiSlasher 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images on episode lists 

message: There currently exists certain sections in articles like CBS#Logos and New York Giants#Logo and uniforms that describe the history of the logos of the subject of the article. However, many users are uploading every single logo they can find without adding anything substantial to the text on those new images. Should this be allowed? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where the "limited number" thing comes into play. I'd say unless it's a significant logo change, delete the rest. If image A does the same job as image B in the article, then image B fails WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use galleries in "Logo" sections 

message: If I notate an excerpt of a musical piece that is copyrighted (such as La Grange (song), the image I created being Lagrange.PNG), is it considered fair use (and the Template:Sheet music template should be used for licensing), or should I release my work into the public domain? Or is it a different kind of fair use? Who owns the copyright to sheet music, the person who notates it, or the composer (if you want to call ZZ Top the "composer," since they didn't notate the music)? I've been unsure as to what tag to use for uploaded examples when the music is copyrighted, but I notated the music (as in I listened to the music and notated it myself, rather than copying it from another source). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmn. Interesting one. The original composer of the music has copyright in the composition itself and will have presumably written down a score/notation at some point (if they didn't we can assume someone their music published authorised did so). Whether you copy from a written source or work it out for yourself from listening to the music, your notation is - by definition - a duplicate of that original whether you've seen it or not (probable a mechanical copyright only though). You can't release your notation as PD, GFDL or anything as the copyright remains in the *content* of the notation, not in the notation itself, and that right is probably the authorised publishers (which might have geographic limits). I would think that an assertation of fair use would be reasonable where an extract (as in your example) is used, but not if it were the whole or a major part of the piece. --AlisonW 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use for sheet music? 

message: In light of  "This page is dangerous" by Jimbo and the draft new GDFLs it might be an idea to begin fresh consideration of how Wikipedia is to treat fair use images for the future. I understand the present policy to allow such images in the English Wikipedia was decided by a vote, (see meta:Fair use) so maybe as a start we could have 3 options: allow fair use images but under very restricted conditions as Jimmy Wales suggests above, don't allow fair use images as most Wikipedias in the world seem to do (which would seem to be easiest to harmonize worldwide) - or thirdly to allow them under US copyright law as at present.
The debate, perhaps including invited experts in world copyright, image recognition, etc could lead up to a call for a unified policy for all Wikipedians at the next Wikimania conference in 2007. This would give very ample time for input and discussion from all sides so Wikipedians  muster well prepared and hopefully able to arrive at consensus during the Conference.
The advantage of a unified policy is that eventually we can perhaps more easily create a better World Wikipedia, as images would surely have significant input in such a project--luke 07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No fair use doesn't work because so many free images contian elements of fair use.Geni 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I don't yet know if The Foundation is working on a World Wikipedia, but the groundwork will surely need very careful preparation--luke 13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International [[WIKIPEDIA]] [[fair use]] and images 

message: I was edited two articles, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and noted that free images exist for the lead. For example, this and this, respectively. Both from government sources. However, one editor keeps replacing the Limbaugh one with a copyrighted image, and keeps reinserting an unneeded copyrighted image into the Malkin article. I feel that per the fair use policy in both cases the free ones are to be used, and the copyrighted second image in the Malkin case is not needed. Where does policy fall for a final decision in both cases? Thanks. · XP · 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered on the talkpages for both articles. I would completely agree that the free images should be used in preference to the non-free ones, and have suggested that the first one is edited for improvement. --AlisonW 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are trying to say when you write " this policy is being used as an excuse", but let me be absolutely clear. The wikipedia projects are about *open* content that is free to use and *re-use*. Every time 'fair use' is claimed for an image it is another occasion that the article and image are *not* free for re-use as they stand. I've no idea what pov you are trying to push, but I'm solely considering what level of freedom we are offering. When free images which can replace copyrighted ones are available the free ones are the ones which must be used. --AlisonW 14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe in disregard of AGF I am being accused of going after conservative American media pundits' articles in some fashion, by insisting we adhere to our fair use policies. · XP · 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I told you on the talk page its nothing to do with politics, but your bringing up Al Franken (I presume, by the Franken reference) indicates that may be your primary concern, rather than copyright protection for Wikipedia. The three Fair Use images of Al Franken are used to illustrate specifically his book covers in the appropriate sections, and thus are permissable. The other images are either free (Government sourced) or released under various suitable licensing. The Limbaugh pictures did not illustrate any specific points in an acceptable manner, but a small image of one of his book covers for example could be permissable as is the case in the Franken article. For the Malken Fox news image, as it's a small article already, with one free image, there isn't a need to have that extra fair use screen shot of her simply talking on Fox news. It would be like having an extra image of Sean Hannity on his article showing him talking on Fox News--extraneous fair use images are to be removed. · XP · 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification, two articles (same issue essentially) 

message: About 25 have been added to Sony α and the editor refuses to let them go. They are repeatable shots of very recent available products and so are clearly not allowed but he refuses to believe me. ed g2s • talk 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore we may have to review all of his contributions. ed g2s • talk 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for preserving myself from myself. I was obviously a bloody psychopath. --Marc Lacoste 12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the penalties of massive memory is we need a subtle knife to sort the wheat from the chaff to create a valued work of reference. *hug* from luke 13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional product photos 

message: There's a new tag in town: . Details and discussion are here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use 

message: I think these policy pages should do a much better job of disassociating between someone making a "fair use claim" and seperately explaining the reasons why Wikipedia chooses free content alternatives (regardless of fair use or not). People have preconcieved notions about "Fair use" and the legal criteria for that claim, free content is different, this page and especially WP:FUC confuse the two a lot in my interpretation. Instead of "Fair use criteria" it should be called "Criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia" which should be a superset of the former. In my interpretation a "Fair use criteria" page's scope should be limited to only what would qualify for inclusion within Wikipedia under the legal concept of "fair use". Just because a free content alternative can be created doesn't mean fair use doesn't apply for something, though that point is not as important as clearly conveying to readers the nuances and differences between "fair use" and "free content" generally. zen apprentice T 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that what you are saying is that these are murky waters, and more consistency and clarity in aims and procedures would help editors to take forward the project and with less hassle. Is that perhaps right? The aim of making an excellent encyclopedia — the aim of creating a GFDL free content work, able to be reusable, and even sold, without changes — broadest collaboration to make the project achieve its aims exponentially faster--luke 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that the waters need not and should not be murky. Having a policy page titled "Fair use criteria" that confuses the concepts of fair use and the encouragement of free content is one thing that perpetuates this murkiness. Basically, Wikipedia needs a giant fat red warning sentence on all these policy pages something to the effect of "Note: Fair use might be inapplicable because Wikipedia has a higher standard of encouraging free content alternatives". And I separately wonder why Wikipedia's policies care so much about content mirrors, under copyright law and generally it's fundamentally their problem, it's almost as if these other "sites" want Wikipedia to do their work for them and somehow this has been made Wikipedia policy. zen apprentice T 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disassociating between fair use claims (legal context) and free content policy 

message: Can someone adivse as to the accetpability of using screenshots of open source software taken from the developer's website? See links & discussion here User_talk:Ocarbone#Image_copyrights. The uploader believes that since it is open-source, the screenshots are in the public domain, and I don't know if that's true. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The screenshots won't be public domain, but will be the same license as the original software (usually GPL). Look at the screenshots for Battle for Wesnoth for example. Borisblue 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not public domain, but that application is aparently  licensed, alternatively the  tag might be apropriate or I guess a combination of the two. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot of open-source software 

message: Would it qualify under fair use if I took the picture from here, kept only the print set part of the picture, and uploaded it for a decription of Encyclopedia Britannica? Could  be used? Thanks in advance. NauticaShades 21:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally it might, but it would violate our fair use criteria, specifically #1, which requires that the image be non-repeatable. Anyone could take a pic of the EB books, so there's no need to use their copyrighted image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but why would anyone familiar with Wikipedia have a copy of Britannica?  :-)  Dragons flight 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering a full print set costs $1500... NauticaShades 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Libraries are your friend. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered that, but I doubt they would allowd me to take their entire set of the shelves, arrange it, and photograph it. NauticaShades 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't they? It'd be no different than if you took the whole set down to look for one entry in each book. Plus, if you put them back, there'd be no harm, no foul. Certainly easier than making at good fair use claim for it. --Fastfission 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We have students. They should be able to get pics of EBs.Geni 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a place where I could request such an image? The fact that I currently reside in a Francophone country doesn't really hlep me in finding a Britannica set. NauticaShades 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is Wikipedia:Requested pictures on wikipedia and Picture requests on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  The one on Commons is not really active though. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, I've posted a request. NauticaShades 10:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Britannica Set

message: Can box art fail FUC#1? (example:  , from the boxes at )  It's my understanding that any photograph that focuses solely on box art would be a derivative work.  If this is the case, then it would not be possible to produce a free version, so  would not apply in these cases, is this correct?  --Interiot 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tags.  User:Ed g2s also orphaned the images from the Xbox 360, and he was probably right, they weren't of too much use. (See before and after)  But can we please not tag box art as replaceable fair use. - Hahnchen 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with all the details of derivative work law yet.  Even with commons:Commons:Derivative works, it still seems a bit murky. --Interiot 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUC#1 and box art 

message: I've read the policies on fair use but I'm still not quite sure about this. Is it possible to use an image (a generic head shot) of an important public person -a politician- to ilustrate an article about upcoming elections? Does it qualifies as fair use? --Magicartpro 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, unless the photo is of great historic significanse to that particular election, but then again that would rule out a generic headshot. There is also the replacable aspect. There should be plenty of oppotunities for someone to take a free licensed photo of a politician, if there is an upcoming election there will no doubht be numerous public apperances. --Sherool (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flickr could help in the search, or emailing the campaigns for a freely licensed photo could work. If the politicians could find a way to get their names and faces known, they will sieze it, so I would not be surprised if the campaigns are willing to help out. :) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much!! --Magicartpro 07:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's nonsense.  Of course it's fair use.  Whether they comply with Wikipedia's far more restrictive fair use rules (which are, in practice, applied even more restrictively than they are written), I don't know, but publicity photos of candidates are created in order to be used to, you know, show people what the candidate looks like.  I can't imagine us possibly getting into any legal difficulties over use of such an image.  But Wikipedia fair use policy is run by people who don't think wikipedia should allow any fair use, so there's not much to be done.  I would recommend just putting in a fair use image, and ignoring the rules hobgoblins here who probably won't notice it, given the large number of fair use images on wikipedia that certainly don't comply with their understanding of fair use. john k 12:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians 

message: A quick question: why we have  and ? Which one should we be using? -- ReyBrujo 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is the older one,  is relatively new.  I was assuming at some point  would either redirect to the new one, or a bot would transition it to the new one over a couple days so we don't get a huge backlog.  --Interiot 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that  is for photos that should be easily replaceable (celebrities, buildings, etc), but  is for photos that conceivably are replaceable but much less easily replaced. For example, if we had a recent fair use picture of J.D. Salinger, this could be tagged with the latter. howcheng  {chat} 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, the majority need to be changed over, although it will have to be a manual task. ed g2s • talk 11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing this slowly, with a little help from a few other people. If anybody else wants to help, I'd be a very happy Quadell. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar templates: fair use replace and replaceable fair use 

message: Just wanted to mention that the Bose Headphone Family article is currently using 18 (!) fair use images, which seems a little much to me (especially since most if not all of them could be easily replaced with free images). --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove them all. Promo shots of current products which we could easily take ourselves are not allowed. ed g2s • talk 08:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: UKPhoenix79 is now claiming that the images are not repeatable becaue they are no longer on sale. I still think one could easily get pictures of these (email someone selling one on eBay, for example)... ed g2s • talk 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged them all as copyvios and added them all to WP:CP. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the word "easily" is not a good word choice here.  It is a fair amount of work to search for people selling discontinued models of headphones on e-Bay and then keep contacting them until a seller agrees to take their time to make a photo and upload it.  It is even more time to do this in sequence for each model.  The manufacturer is not going to object to this use of their product photo.  Even if they did object, fair use clearly applies.  We should use the images. Johntex\talk 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we shouldn't and we won't. Fair Use is a last resort, not an excuse for laziness. ed g2s • talk 03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it notable for the text of an article that the former manufacturer of a discontinued product and all owners of the product who have been contacted refuse to allow a Free picture of the product to be made? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if a product is old enough and in limited production, etc. However, this isn't the case for the Bose Headphone Family article. -- Ned Scott 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of fair use images 

message: It is stated in the article that stamps and currency can be used illustratively, which is a bit general and somewhat misleading. In the case of U.S. stamps, images for stamps issued prior to the founding of the United States Postal Service (July 1, 1971) are considered to be issued by a governmental agency (United States Post Office Department) and are in the public domain. Stamps issued subsequent to July 1, 1971 are copyrighted by the United States Postal Service and cannot be used without prior permission. This is especially true of stamps that may depict the intellectual property, logos, products or insignias of agencies who licensed them to the USPS. Other stamp-issuing entities also have copyrighted recent designs (last 20 years or so, give or take, depending on agency). Users should be advised to check with the issuing agency before snagging a scan, graphic or design from a web site, or scanning and uploading a stamp design themselves, new or used. (I write for the philatelic media and also work peripherally with the USPS, who actively defends misuse of their copyrighted stamp designs.) Ccmhg 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a related note, there is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#October 7. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamps & Currency: fair use 

message: Currently, we have phrasing in the that says "Fair use on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such an image with a free image," which isn't true as far as the law goes, only a matter of wikipedia's policy. I feel like we need to reword things so as not to confuse people into thinking that enforcing policy is actually enforcing the law.  I've seen too many cases of overzealous copyright paranoia claiming that we're going to break the law if we use images that aren't strictly policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording to clarify the difference between wikipedia's policy and the law 

message: Please change Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. to Coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. in the external links sections. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch - thank you. Johntex\talk 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. 

message: Current FUC#1 says "Also, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult." 
I think this is too wide-ranging a dictum to be just "thrown on" as an "also" at the end of it. This says, in effect, that no fair use photograph of a living person could possibly be used.
I think this is both far beyond the intention of FUC#1 and something which is bound to cause unnecessary grief. 
FUC#1, as I understand the rationale behind it, is designed to make sure that people don't use "fair use" indiscriminately. It is designed to make sure that we don't use "fair use" photographs where we could generate a free one, or just use "fair use" because we are lazy. I agree with all of that aspect of it. It evolved, as I understand it, out of concerns that people would use "fair use" photographs to illustrate commonplace things — i.e. using a copyrighted photograph of a table to illustrate a table. No reason to do it — get rid of it.
But there are limits to expectations about reasonable access. Any product which can be seen in a store is obviously within reach of someone with a camera. Things get dodgier when we start talking about items available only to the super-rich or in incredibly limited supply.  At some point the reasonability of replacing the copyrighted product with a free substitute begins to reach zero. There are possibilities that someone might have access to free photographs of incredibly rare things which exist today, but those opportunities cannot be relied upon. 
People can be just as rare, just as hard to get a good photo of, especially when we are talking about official portraits or promotional shots. When we have free alternatives, we should privilege them and feel free to remove copyrighted versions, but I don't think that FUC#1 is intended to mean that no fair use images should be used for 1. any people who are possibly alive, and 2. any object which possibly exists. This is unreasonable, and its unreasonableness is obvious, leading to hair-splitting debates between people over whether something is a reasonable expectation or not. Anything which involves stalking someone for a good photo is not reasonable—even if we have members of paparazzi as members of Wikipedia. 
I think we should either 1. prune this sentence back or 2. heavily clarify what it is supposed to mean. If there's an edict ruling that all fair use photographs of people who are living need to be removed from Wikipedia, I think we need to open that up to a much wider discussion, because that would require some serious guns both to enforce and to deal with the legion of people who will be upset by its arbitrariness and illogic. --Fastfission 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say makes sense and I'd have to agree. We have articles about people where no one actually knows where they live now, let alone how to even contact them about releasing a photo under a free-license. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think $1000 is a high-enough cap to say that it is out of the realm of possibility. I bet if you left a note on the talk page of the product it would eventually get seen by someone who owned one. --Fastfission 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I complete agree with Fastfission on pretty much all counts. john k 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Simply becuase you can't create a free-license photograph of something doesn't mean nobody can: Wikipedia has several hundred thousand active editors, editing in almost two hundred languages, from everywhere in the world.  Just because a video game console isn't available in the UK doesn't mean it's not available in the US, or in Japan.  And just because you can't afford to spend a thousand dollars on a Blue-Ray player doesn't mean that nobody has ever purchased one. --Carnildo 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Carnildo on this. FUC guidelines are adequate for this matter, and, if anything are too leniently enforced. Borisblue 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't adequate because they aren't clear. They hint at something which would have major implications for enforcement without clarifying it. Either we should make it clear that any image of a living human being cannot be considered "fair use" on Wikipedia or we should remove the line. --Fastfission 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fastfission. This policy change needs some major discussion. I'm happy to go with the "no fair use of humans whatsoever", but only so long as that is absolutely clear. While the current mishmash of policy exists, I will argue against this policy, as it is profoundly stupid. JROBBO 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FUC#1 and people

message: I can understand that an image copyrighted in the US, under the US laws, can be subject of the US law about fair use as well. But what about images whose copyright belongs to someone at another country, without fair use laws or anything similar? Can fair use be employed at such circumstances, or is it a mistake? Can fair use allow people in the US do things with foreign material that those foreigners themselves are not legally allowed at their own country to do? --Perón 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This  message in August 2005 from Jimmy Wales on the English language Wikipedia mailing list seems relevant to your question. Does that answer the problem, or was there something in particular you had in mind?--luke 08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just regarding whether or not we should consider material made in countries who are not members of international copyright regimes to be without copyright at all (i.e. in the public domain). --Fastfission 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, to my mind, is the nub of the issue:-..we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways. Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument.JW That seems to sum it up exactly for me.--luke 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Countries 

message: Is this checked with s/1 knowledgeable in law? This is relevant in  about a diagram of the spinal cord. Please help, if you can. thank you.-- ExpImptalkcon 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that this, along with most everything else in WP:FU has not been checked with anyone knowledgeable in the law.  WP:FU seems to be purposefully and explicitly much more restrictive than the law.  john k 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is one of the more vague questions in relation to at what point something is a derivative work or not. It is an attempt at simplifying into practical terms what is a very difficult legal question. There is always a floating line between what is considered a new work and a derivative work; this attempts to boil it down. --Fastfission 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagrams based on copyrighted material... 

message: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals seems to be winding up. Naturally a gathering of bemused portal editors have formed an apparent consensus that we need to allow even more Fair Use on Wikipedia where it's not really needed, however I still fail to see how decoration glorified navigation pages falls within our "very restricted circumstances" that gives us no choice but to use the images for the sake of the article. ed g2s • talk 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a very good idea to classify people as "bemused portal editors".  That would seem to show a profound disrespect for your fellow Wikipedians. Just because you don't agree with the consensus is no reason to go sticking labels on people. I know that a lot of people who have expressed their opinions on that page are valuable contributors in many ways, writing articles, reverting vandalism, enforcing appropriate image policy, and yes, even maintaning portals. Johntex\talk 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see it as an offensive "label". They are, in the majority, portal editors I assume (discounting yourself, and your "quality before free content" philosophy) and they often leave messages here complaining about not being able to use Fair Use. Just looking at the first seven voters after you, none of them have made any other comment of this page in the last month, which reeks of vote stacking to me. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you.  Perhaps I read too much into your comments.  If so, I apologize.  I just think that we have to try to be careful to welcome people who contribute in different ways.  Even if some of those people are primarily (only) active in portal space, it is still part of editing the encyclopedia.  It is well known that some administrators, once they get the extra buttons, tend to move away from editting articles and toward administrative tasks, policy questions, etc.  It takes different types of people to build the encyclopedia.  As far as vote stacking - I haven't seen any flagrant vote stacking by "portal editors" though I will admit I haven't gone looking for it.  This vote has been publicized both here and to other pages.  Your posting back here again could possibly be seen as an attempt at vote stacking, though.  Especially since you did not use neutral language in your posting.  Johntex\talk 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, it is obvious that any amendment will pass if it allows editors to increase the amount of available options for them, especially with Fair use being such a gray area. Maybe it would be possible to limit the amount of fair use images to one or two per portal, at least to prevent abuse such as character profiles. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I am kind of disappointed about the low amount of feedback we have had. Ta bu shi da yu's proposal got over 60 opinions. I think we` failed at advertising it. -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we posted a neutrally worded notification of the vote to at least 2 policy pages plus the village pump.  We could also post the same notice to all the portals if you want more participation from interested parties. Johntex\talk 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals 

message: Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists is revived, this time for a concrete proposal. The talk page has been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images in lists

message: In the second paragraph under policy, I changed "alternate" to "equivalent" in order to be consistent with the first paragraph. Johntex\talk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I think 'alternative' is a slightly better wording that 'equivalent'- for instance, there is no free 'equivalent' of this image from imdb:() but we do have a free 'alternative' (). Fair use definitely dictates that we have to use the second picture, despite the fact that it is not exactly equivalent (and maybe even slightly inferior) to the copyrighted photo Borisblue 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to add though, that I don't think the difference is significant enough to argue (or God forbid, have a poll) over. Borisblue 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate leaves too much room for clearly inferior "alternates" to be used as an excuse to remove a justifiably fair use image.  For example, US satelite photos are in the public domain for most of the world, but the presence of these "alternate" images shouldn't be acceptable to preclude use of a fair use photo showing more detail of the scene.  Johntex\talk 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sa "alternative that convey the same information" or something like that. Otherwise there is no end to the "fanboyish" cries of outrage when a glossy promo shot of theyr favourite celebrety is replaced by a candid photo from some public apperance. "Oh noez! That photo looks like crap, she's not even looking at the camera, it's not equivent!" etc etc. --Sherool (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually agree with Sherool that "alternative that adequately conveys the same information" is the most appopriate wording. And I like the emphasis on information, because it emphasizes that the main criteria for 'quality' is how informative it is, and not how nice the picture looks.   The Robin Williams image we have is clearly is a poorer quality image than the promo shot, but it is as informative, as it conveys how Robin Williams looks like as well as the promo shot. Borisblue 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word choice for consistency

message: Could someone comment on the following 17 clips that have been mass tagged for speedy deletion. I suspect that Arbitray Username is correct here, but the various arguments are discussed here and . To summarize, AU believes that 2-3 second clips showing a martial arts move from copyrighted but low quality and easily obtainable video are NOT fair use; Pereza beleives otherwise.
The clips have been listed at the speedy deletion category for well over 12 hours now, and I suspect that other admins (like me) are unusure exactly as to the rules here - advice please? --Robdurbar 08:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:FUC #1, if these martial arts moves could be performed, filmed, and released under a free license (and they could), then we can not use non-free media depicting them. They should probably have been tagged  instead of speedy-delete, but the effect is the same. – Quadell (talk) (random) 09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I just wanted another outside opinion. I'll delete away. --Robdurbar 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletable Clips? URGENT

message: I'm wondering about the use of a logo as a name in an infobox.  (For a very prominent example, see The Beatles.)  Clearly the use of the logo in the article is acceptable, as there's no possible free equivalent that adequately illustrates the logo.  But it's the use as a name that I'm wondering about.  We've been discussing some enhancements to the infobox to better support using logos as names, and I want to be sure I'm not wasting my time before I start coding.  TIA. --Xtifr tälk 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like a problem to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos as names in infoboxes