Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 1

message: Since Dolly the Sheep is a sort of test-case for this new procedure, I have a few comments to make.
Imagine if Dolly were still alive.  How feasible would it be to find out where she was kept and obtain permission to photograph her for wikipedia (it's not like we have a brand name like Britannica, CNN or the BBC)?  This can be expanded to anybody who is alive and notable enough to have an entry in wikipedia, and to resources not available to the general public (things in museums, in the vaults of museums, private art collections, the inside of famous buildings, military, etc).  We need to consider what is best to be done in these cases where it isn't feasible (or likely) that a wikipedian will be able to photograph the famous item or person, or to find a public domain image (because if these famous things/people are rarely seen then there are people who make a living from selling images of them, not by placing them in the public domain).
I would also like there to be a (well-thought out) policy on things like:
*which articles can be illustrated with cd/book covers if these are deemed to be fair-use (e.g. is it the same thing to illustrate an article about an album with the cover of an album, and to illustrate an article about a bird with the cover of a book about birds which happens to have a great photograph of that bird on the cover?)
*if it is permissible to freely copy images of paintings etc which themselves have no copyright (e.g. can we use an image of a famous 300-year-old painting held in an art gallery - these images of paintings may be considered copyrightable, art galleries certianly generate revenue from selling them, and they also prevent members of the public from photographing the works of art themselves)
*can artistic wikipedians base drawings/illustrations on copyrighted photographs, does that wikipedian have the right to release their image under the GFDL, or is it a derivitive work and a copyright violation?
I have long been confused by the copyright policy, and laws of the USA, and the impact of both on future editions of wikipedia (e.g. paper copies, which will presumably be sold in other countries).  If we have to delete all our images and start afresh, so be it, but I want the policy to defined now, to be in line with the law, explicit and easy to understand, and forwardthinking (i.e. we must consider these cd-rom or paper versions of wikipedia now, or face doing this all again in the future).  fabiform | talk 17:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You should always illustrate such articles with identifying artwork. Use of such images in association with the work they are promoting is going to be fair use. You also won't get a GFDL license except in extremely unusual cases. See Online service provider law for a selection of things which cannot be copyrighted. That answers your question about copies of artworks long out of copyright: not copyrightable in the US or UK. The only policy which will result in complying with all possibly applicable local laws and which will also avoid forking the project into different copyright camps is to tag and eventually develop ways to selectively exclude content which has not yet been replaced wiki-fashion with whatever license the requesting party wants to comply with. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolly the Sheep

message: Hi. The great majority of the found images I upload are from before 1923. There have been a few exceptions, I'll mention one to see if there are reccomendations for improving my handling of such cases.  The image I used in American Austin Car Company article, as I say in the image description, "American Austin motorcar, from ad in July, 1930 magazine. Presumed fair use in unlikely case that any copyright renewal was ever filed on ad. "  The company has been out of business for more than 60 years, making it unlikely that any renewal was ever filed to extend any copyright term. (Additionally, people who have worked with material from this era have told me that it was not common practice for companies to copyright their magazine ads in this era, so it may well not even have had any copyright to begin with, although I do not assume that.) What do people think about my use of this image? Ok, inappropriate?  Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure sounds low risk to me.  Though keep in mind that when a company goes bankrupt, someone ends up with the company's trademarks, copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property.  These always get sold, even if it's only for $1.00.  Tempshill 20:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: It'll be fair use in articles about the company or cars in the extremely unlikely event that it's not in the public domain. For those unfamiliar with US law, works during that time period entered the public domain as soon as they were published if they did not have a copyright notice, and again did so if the copyright wasn't renewed. Something over 95% (or is it 98%, I forget which) of all filed copyrights were never renewed. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for feedback in a certain type of case 

message: Specific case, rather than general policy. Dolly is now stuffed, mounted, and on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh. Assuming the museum allows visitors to take photos (UK museums generally do, don't they?), replacing the Roslin Institute's picture with one almost as lifelike is something any Edinburgh wikipedian could do quite easily next time they're up by Chambers Street. –Hajor 20:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the one with all the natural history (stuffed elephants and the like), then I remember taking photographs when I visited.  Although I don't know if photography's allowed generally in all UK museums.  I'm sure it is often discouraged, limited to non-flash, or outright banned in most places I've been to.  fabiform | talk 21:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm expecting in most cases we could either be rebellious and take photos anyway, or negotiate special permission with the folks in charge. Some effort required. Do we use a fair use image until that happens? Martin 21:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In some museums, the lighting and glass cases (when used) would make photography difficult, so special permission would probably work better than covert/rebellious photography (if they are willing to grant it).  :)  For what it's worth I just emailed the Museums of Scotland people asking on their policy on visitors taking photographs since their site had no FAQ.  fabiform | talk 21:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolly

message: As the author of this policy I have avoided specifically stating whether, in cases where remote alternatives exist (such as shooting a photo of a seclusive author), we are allowed to use fair use images in the meantime.
I hope this can be worked out in consensus over the coming weeks. As a fair use advocate, I feel of course that we should have such images. As an open content advocate, I must acknowledge that having these images will reduce the motivation to acquire open content pictures.—Eloquence 23:13, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
:This is a wiki. People rework and improve stubs all the time. Just tag the images, make sure there's a visible indication in the article which shows the image, so people know that we're looking for something better, and accept that wikis do produce improved works over time, provided there is at least something to start with. Trying to block fair use is essentially trying to force a fork of the project, in which those who want GFDL only look to be a small but very vocal minority, and I am strongly opposed to forking when we can filter and use the wiki improvement way instead. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using fair use images when alternatives are possible 

message: Anyone considering actually using this should realise that we can expect that the vast majority of images used in the encyclopedia will be used under fair use, fair dealing or similar provisions of law in other jurisdictions. The net effect: to add a vast amount of overhead for no useful purpose. If you see an image tagged as fair use and can find one which is more freely reusable, replace it. No need for lots of overhead for the most commonly used image category. Fair use is compatible with the GFDL (as are lots of licenses) in jurisdictions where fair use applies, so it's not necessary to eliminate them provided we describe them properly, so those who want to avoid a particular image type can easily do so. Jamesday 08:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason people like Jimbo want to remove fair use images is not of a legal nature, it is that they want us to create as much open content as possible, and they feel that removing these images where alternatives could be provided will create an incentive to do so.—Eloquence
Creating as much open content as possible is a legal argument. Jimmy started considering fair use images as a posible problem after he was told that fair use didn't exist in the UK. Then he over-reacted and headed in the wrong direction. In a jurisdiction where fair use exists, that fair use is a public domain right, one which was never granted to the copyright holder. That is, fair use is open content, provided only that the use is moderately conservative, so it will be applicable to the vast majority of GFDL-accepting reusers, which is the case for the vast majority of the fair use situations I've considered over at possible copyvios. In other jurisdictions, the people viewing the articles will see the image and be interested in getting one they can use without fair use... and it will encourage them to do so if it improves the article, just as stubs do at present for text. That's why those in the UK are uploading licensed images even where the image is fair use in the US - the UK people often require a license, so they are going out and getting those licenses or seeking replacements more compatible with UK law. Which is just what we want to have happen. That's why we don't delete text stubs and there's no reason to have a different practice for images. Jamesday 22:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A singularly unproductive exercise 

message: Is the blurb on the back of a paperback, or on the flyleaf of a hardback, fair game for inclusion in a Wikipedia article?
It would seem intuitively obvious, since the purpose of the blurb is to garner publicity for the book, but is there any hard policy?
I would of course assume that any such text would be clearly annotated as such.
--Phil | Talk 08:37, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
No, in general it's not.  The blurb is a work in it's own right.  Added to which blurbs are often wrong, sycophantic(1) or spoliers.  However short quotes from the blurb, or recycled review quotes should be OK.  ( (1) Be aware, for example of the London play which quoted a national paper "The best play ever" wher the full text was "The best play ever written on a Wednesday and performed the following night") Rich Farmbrough 13:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book blurb 

message: thumb|right 
Can we check that this would qualify?  I think not, but User:E7hgwfj6 thinks so. It wouldn't be too difficult to arrange a photo of a volunteer in his boxers would it? Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:U07.jpg]] 

message: Hi, a new user (User:Raj2004) asked me for help with contacting a website or some such in regards to quotations. They might very well be fair use for all I know. Any help is appreciated. Here is a link to his request on my talk: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Dvaita_and_Visatadvaita. I will direct him here, and a couple other places (like the pump, and Boilerplate_request_for_permission). Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for help 

message: Is an image of a person considered fair use?
AdamJacobMuller T@lk Sun Nov 14 20:15:28 GMT 2004
: The short answer is "sometimes, maybe". Serious effort should be made to find images with no copyright violation, as always. If no other such image can be located, use of a copyrighted image of someone famous might be fair use in an article about them. -- Infrogmation 21:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  images of people 

message: I don't know the legality of photographing/scanning Set cards: please see Talk:Set (game) for my question in detail, and please respond there. Thanks! —msh210 20:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of a marketed game 

message: In reference to my Solarquest page: 
*Is including the 1986 rules fair use? The copyright was originally Western Publishing Co., but I think it went to Universal Games, because they published the 1995 Apollo 13 edition of Solarquest. I have had trouble figuring out how to get in touch with them to request permission, because there are multiple companies named Universal Games. 
*Is including an enlarged image of the board (at the bottom of the page) fair use?
*Does the fact I own a copy of the game impact these matters at all?
Nathanlarson32767 16:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Board and rule book of out-of-print game

message: Would posting a small section of the Tube map for an article about the station it's centred on (just to show where it is in relation to other stations nearby) be covered under fair use? The current system of just writing what the next and last stations are is somewhat unsatisfying. Jisatsusha 03:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tube Map 

message: I'm still unclear on when I can claim "fair use" and put an image on Wikipedia, and when this would be a copyright violation. Would someone please tell me whether these examples would be "fair use" or copyright infringement?
*On iPod shuffle, taking an image of the product from Apple's web site and putting it into the article.
*On Star Trek, posting images of Star Trek spaceships from the TV shows and movies. (Someone recently decided half of these were copyvios and deleted them.)
*On On Your Mark, posting a screen capture of a drawing from the anime video.
*On Buffy the Vampire Slayer, posting a picture of the DVD release cover.
- Brian Kendig 21:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still unclear on the concept 

message: What constitutes low resolution? Should Wikipedia have a standard image size for such things?
Should there be a project to acquire these images?
Is it fair use to copy these images from Amazon?
* It would appear from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that we could in as much as Amazon added no creativity and use of the original would be fair use.
BenFrantzDale 05:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD/DVD Covers 

message: I have a nice photo I personally took of the Buddy Holly statue in Lubbock, Texas.  I would like to upload it for use in both of the above articles.  According to this website , I believe it would qualify for fair use since it is for a non-commercial educational purpose.  However, Holly's widow, Maria Elena, is well-known for strictly enforcing the copyright on Buddy's likeness and I don't want to even get close to the line on this one.  Would appreciate any thoughts.  H2O 05:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Buddy Holly Sculpture 

message: Can quoting one stanza out of a five-stanzas song be fair-use ? Another wikipedian claims it is the "heart of the song" and therefore fair-use cannot be applied. Note that the lyrics have political relevance to that article. Bogdan | Talk 12:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song lyrics fair-use 

message: I have a picture of a chemistry reaction formula that i downloaded off some site.  Its not a secret formula or anything.  I think this should be useable...I'm using it for Hoffman elimination.  If anyone knows anything more about this topic, mention it on the article's talk page.  Thanks. Bubbachuck 04:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific formulas

message: I know covers of comic books are generally fair use when used to provide information about the character or title, but what about interior panels? Are scans of copyrighted comic book interior pages fair use? I'm inclined to think not, and yet a huge number of pictures on Wikipedia are copyrighted comic book interior page scans which the uploaders have marked as fair use. —Lowellian (talk) July 1, 2005 10:27 (UTC)
:Well, it depends on their use. If they are used for purely educational purpose (i.e., illustrating an "important" figure), and are not of excessively high resolution, and have their source and the copyright holder clearly labeled, and no free alternatives have been found or likely available.. then I'm inclined to say that a single image per relevant page would not be infringement in the context of an article on the English Wikipedia. To be safe I think the caption on the page itself should be explicit, i.e. "Superman, from D.C. Comics" or something along those lines, so that there is no implication that Wikipedia claims any ownership over the image. --Fastfission 00:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scans of comic book interior pages

message: I think there is a mistake in the first sentence of this guideline.  The sentence says that copyright law and fair use allow for considerable "uses" of copyrighted material, but isn't fair use actually a copying exception?  Correct me if I am wrong, but does copyright law restrict the use of a legally obtained individual physical copy of a work or does it only come into play when copies or derivative works are distributed?  There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether copyright law generally, and the word "use" in "fair use" specifically, applies to either: the fairness of and allowance for making copies, or, how the original legally obtained physical copy can be used. zen master T 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but first and foremost there is actually a significantly large amount of language confusion surrounding whether copyright law itself and fair use specifically has jurisdiction over how a legally obtained physical copy can be "used". See a lengthy discussion here and also note this guideline had been errantly/ambiguously referring to "use" before I clarified it (was my change clear?). zen master T 09:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright law clarification question 

message: How long can a fair use sound clip from a particular song be? Is one verse or refrain ok if it is made "to illustrate the point"? --Salleman 11:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music clip 

message: Can images labeled as fair use be transfered to wikipedia commons to be used in other language wikis or does the US copyright law restrict this? --141.113.101.21 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving ''fair use'' Images to Wikipedia Commons? 

message: can sports cards be scanned and used as the picture on a sports player's page? Brun8 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanning Trading Cards 

message: For those interested in fair use issues, and improving Wikipedia's implementation of fair use, I encourage you to visit the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Thanks. --Fastfission 19:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject:Fair use

message: I think the ten point system for determining fair Fair Use needs more explanation.  How many yeses or nos are supposed to qualify an image for Fair Use?  The system should also probably be in its own section, and I might take care of this. Theshibboleth 03:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole ten point system is needlessly complicated and hence is rarely if ever used. It currently seems to function as a flowchart rather than an additive point system -- if you follow the instructions you should eventually get to a section which says you can or can't use the image. But I think this is a poor way to do it -- it would be better to just state the requirements in a straightforward way. --Fastfission 14:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten point system 

message: I have boldly updated this page in line with discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, the mailing list, and User talk:Jimbo Wales.  In general, it is widely believed that we need a policy on what sort of fair use material we are willing to accept, and this is my attempt at that.
Please edit it to make it better.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: All of these requirements are met or one? It should specify not imply. --None-of-the-Above 04:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: Is AFP.com a fair use site.  I would like to consider using this photo of President located at http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/photos_pl_afp/050901155931_hc7pmpn4_photo0
Kindly advise.Kyle Andrew Brown 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Assistance

message: Here are just a few problematic statements in the present version of the page:
*Publicity photos are permitted but are not fair use, see Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
To my knowledge, our use of publicity photos must be as "fair use", because we no longer allow the use of limited licenses.
*News and wire service photos published in 1923 or later. Not permitted. These are copyrighted and there is no fair use exemption for them.
What's the justification for saying "there is no fair use exemption for them"? I don't see why these are being treated different than any other copyrighted media. I do believe that there should be a special warning for using photographs whose copyrights are owned by companies who make their income exclusively off of photograph licenses (because the argument that we are defrauding them is a lot stronger), but there are many instances in which said use could still be "fair" in my mind. What's the rationale behind such strongly worded text?
*Photographs of plants, wildlife, and other natural history subjects. Not permitted. Fair use doesn't provide a general "educational" exemption for such material.
Same question as the news photos. Obviously if it is feasible to take our own pictures of the thing in question (no need to "fair use" a photograph of a dog, for example, as there are many dogs), "fair use" wouldn't apply. But if it is something more specific, I don't see why it wouldn't qualify as "fair use" ("Bruno, the wild dog of the Pampas, known for eating cattle" or something like that).
*Often an image will be both fair use and licensed use. The license protects the uploader and the Wikipedia, while others can use the image as fair use. This is particularly likely when the uploader is not in the US and may not be able to legally use fair use without infringing under their own local copyright law. It's always good to have the legal protection of even a very restrictive license for a work being used under fair use. To assist reusers, do give both the license details and the fair use rationale. In these cases, the license will govern use outside the US, while those in the US can use fair use.
I think this whole section should be deleted, personally (along with the similar tags). "Fair use" is a defensive claim because you don't have permission; a license is a form of permission — they should not be confused with one another. I think it also confuses the re-using issue. Images licensed only to Wikipedia are not allowed on Wikipedia. The only way to use a copyrighted image on Wikipedia which is not licensed for any use is to use it under a "fair use" claim, if one applies. --Fastfission 19:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use depends on the, well, use. Regarding news and wire service photos, there may indeed be a way for them to be fair use in certain uses by other people, but by the nature of this project and what it does -- basically as a news sort of site itself -- we would be using the photos for the exact same purpose that the wire service makes money off of them. If people could just use them legally for free for these uses then they'd never sell any. I don't quite get what whoever came up with the plants and wildlife sentence was thinking though... possibly along the same lines, in that there has to be some convincing reason to think we can violate copyright law and do fair use, and for those the person who wrote it thought there wouldn't be any argument. Really, fair use is just such a dog here, as 99% of the people trying to use it have no clue at all what it means, so we may have to write a policy more strict than we technically need to follow by law just to keep the editors from going amuck. And, that last section is quite muddled. The person who came up with it would have to explain the rationale, because I'm not really following. DreamGuy 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: If an institution such as a school puts an image of its building on the front page of its website, to describe and/or promote itself, it it fair use to copy that image and use it to describe that institution in an article about it? Kappa 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally?  Maybe.  Under Wikipedia's rules?  Probably not.  Since images of buildings are usually pretty easy to create, there's no reason to use a non-free image. --Carnildo 03:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Wikipedia will pay for my air fare? Kappa 03:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it will pay your expenses for contacting a Wikipedian with a camera in the general area.  See :Category:Wikipedians by location. --Carnildo 06:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of institutions

message: For some time now I've been thinking about and discussing more potential policy changes and clarifications for fairuse images, but finding something which strikes a balance between our many needs and many perspectives is very difficult. Still, the existing system leaves a lot to be desired, and there is a lot of argument related to fair use images. Some users believe we are overusing fair use and reducing the freeness of Wikipedia, while others counter with the fact that fair use is essential to our goal of producing an encyclopedia. Virtually all who have evaluated the situation agree that there are a lot of incorrectly tagged images. 
Recently, the new speedy delete criteria for unsourced images has caused a lot of additional discussion about all facets of image copyright handling on Wikipedia. After extensive consultation with quite a few Wikipedians I have decided that there is a lot more to gain by changing some details in our procedures rather than proposing a more comprehensive policy change. As a result I have created two new templates:  and . 
Both templates share a common characteristic: two variables. These allow (and encourage) the user of the template to provide both where the work is fair use, and why the work is fair use. This is necessary because all fair use is dependent on context and must always have a basis. I do not suggest we impose standards on what goes into the why field right away, but rather feel out what is most useful.  The two templates differ from each other because they separate fairuse into two broad classes. In one class we have fair use where there can be no alternative to that work. For example, if we are writing about a copyrighted painting there is no freely available work which could act as a reasonable alternative to the use of an excerpt of the painting in that context. The other class is for works where, while our use would be considered fair use by law in the US, it is possible to create free works which would act as a good replacement. For example, we might currently be using a fair use photograph of Steve Jobs but anyone can take a picture of him, and many possible pictures would do as good or better of a job as the fair use image. Because Wikipedia is the free Encyclopedia, we prefer the freely licensed image when we have an option. It is possible for a work to have multiple instances of both tages, because the replaceability of the work and the rationale of the use may differ from linking article to linking article. However, I think situations requiring multiple tags will be rare.
After the tags are in wide use, the plan is to convert the existing  into a message requesting fairuse review and disambiguation. We also have some subject-area fair use tags which may benefit from being split and being provided with where and why fields. Enjoy!--Gmaxwell 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template changes 

message: Apparently not everyone has the same idea as to whether a magazine cover may be used for the article of the person appearing on the front cover.  See User talk:Evil Monkey#Playboy covers for a discussion about this.  I think everyone should be agreed on this before a bunch of people remove cover photos and then a lot of other people see it the opposite way around.  Thanks Dismas|(talk) 16:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Covers of media should be used to illustrate the media in question, not the subject of the cover.  In cases where the media in question is quite notable, such as Playboy, this can usually be cleared up by a good image caption and the addition of a few sentences regarding the subject's appearance on the magazine cover to the article text.  However, magazine covers are not automatically fair use in articles about the subject; care is required.  I would also generally discourage this use because the fair use claim isn't as solid as one for an article that primarily contained commentary about the media itself, as well as the fact that it should be easier to get a free replacement (or at least a better fair use replacement).  JYolkowski // talk 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so if I understand this correctly, we can use magazine covers if the appearance on the cover is discussed in the article and it plainly states in the caption that the image is being used to show the magazine with said person on the cover?  Dismas|(talk) 12:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I believe.  There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use about this as well, and those discussions seem to have reached a similar conclusion.  JYolkowski // talk 20:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Photos 

message: Example image
Unless a city has a policy to put work generated by city employees as part of their job into the public domain, then that work is still protected by copyright. So, how does/should this apply to mugshots? The purpose of these images is somewhat similar to that of publicity shots in the entertainment industry with the major difference being the wishes of the subject. In that case, the images are copyrighted, yet the holder of that copyright let's them be used rather freely in order to drum up publicity. That makes it easier for us to make a fair use claim on those type of images. Does this also apply to mugshots? Is there even a market for mugshots that may be damaged by copyright infringement? What should our policy on mugshot use be? --mav 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that particular image is from the Los Angeles Police Department, who certainly seems to think they can claim copyright on their content (see ). I don't think the wishes of the subject are required to be taken into consideration for copyright questions, as they are not the copyright holder and would have no standing for a copyright-related suit. I do not think there is a market at all would damage the copyright holder in this instance, though, which would make it not terribly difficult fair use claim for Wikipedia. The images are certainly distributed with intention of potential reuse of some sort. I think it's a pretty low-risk fair use category. --Fastfission 01:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to consider is the fact that mugshots are very uncreative, which should help our fair use claim with regards to "the nature of the work".  JYolkowski // talk 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mugshots are no more uncreative than many portraits, and some are great pictures (the Hugh Grant one springs to mind), as people are in unexpected situations. I dont see how copyright is in any way different from any other picture. And most of the so-called publicity photos we have are not. I would be against using these. Justinc 12:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think they are as "creative" as anything else when it comes to the legal definition of creativity, but I don't think they are a dangerous category of images. I find it very, very unlikely that a police department would ever use legal action against an encyclopedia reprinting a mugshot of theirs. At least, I've never heard of anything like it. The lack of a true market for these makes it a pretty strong fair use claim as well. --Fastfission 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the sort of thinking that has got fair use into the horrible mess its now in. LAPD say "Trademark and Copyright 1998 by the Los Angeles Police Department, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. All materials published on the Site are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by the Los Angeles Police Department, or the party listed as the provider of the content, software or other materials. Commercial use of the materials is prohibited without the written permission of the Los Angeles Police Department." So they should at least be tagged as noncommercial if they are from LAPD, but its worse, they specifically forbid "UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING, POSTING, TRANSMITTING OR DUPLICATING ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED. You may download or copy any downloadable materials displayed on the Site for home, noncommercial and personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright, trademark and other notices contained in such material and you agree to abide by all additional copyright notices, information or restrictions contained in any material accessed through the Site.". These people are protecting their copyright. We are blatently ignoring this. We have no justification at all for this. Delete these images. Justinc 12:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're claiming that we believe we are allowed to blatently ignore their copyright because we believe our use falls under fair use (assuming that we agree it does).  We wouldn't need to claim fair use if we had permission to freely use the photographs or they were not copyrighted.  JYolkowski // talk 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But its much weaker than (say) a magazine cover or something, where there is a presumption that the copyright owner doesnt think its that important, as it is the whole magazine that they are interested in. This sort of notice puts them in a position where they assert importance, and it is not far off a clickthrough license (I see that the Apple publicity photo on Steve Jobs probably did have clickthrough). We arent using it for criticism (in case linked above), merely identification (the weakest grounds for fair use) not sure we should claim this ever, certainly not with terms like this that forbid it. If you got a dvd cover that said "Do not use this to illustrate this item for sale or other purposes", then using it to illustrate the film in wikipedia would be dodgy. Its only the (dubious) assumption that people dont care that supports this. If there was real critical use this might change. Justinc 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's discuss one kind of media at a time here, because you're mixing up the issues at stake a bit. It seems irrelevant to the "fair use" clause as to whether or not the copyright holder asserts a strong copyright claim. The two things that matter, as far as I can see, is 1. the possible interpretations of the four-factor test as applied to this instance, and 2. whether or not any of those interpretations are enough to likely get us into legal hot water (that is, give the copyright holder a good reason to think it is worth going to court over). Our "character of use" is educational, nonprofit, encyclopedic. The "nature of the work" is factual rather than imaginative (I take back what I said before about creativity -- with "fair use" the bar is higher than with establishing copyright, it seems), and if we have a copy of it on here it has almost certainly been previously published. I'm still not sure how to interpret "subtantiality" when it comes to images, but even claiming that we use the entire work does not seem likely to me to tip the scale very much in this sort of case. And lastly, the "effect on future markets" is nil, since these police departments derive no revenue from their mugshots, as far as I can tell. That sounds like "fair use" to me, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Fastfission 03:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I feel that I should mention that I discovered a few monthes ago that all mugshots originating from the United States from state and local governments are in the public domain. Not all states and cities have a policy that states that all work generated by employees as part of their job is in public domain, but only the federal government can grant a copyright, and some works have been deemed ineligible because of their nature. Mugshots are used as part of public arrest records, I sent an inquiry to the US copyright office and they assured me that public records are ineligible for copyright for public policy and also because public information cannot be copyrighted. --Fallout boy 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely true and needs to be highlighted. I don't know what the people above were thinking when they claimed the police would have to specifically release it as public domain. Work done by government bodies as part of their standard public works implicitly do not carry copyrights. Mugshots, reports by government organizations, etc. etc. If they hire an outside contractor for something it's possible that the contract doesn't purchase the rights, and if it's not part of their direct public official capacity, well, then, yeah, we need to be careful, but our taxpayer money already paid for all of us to own these kinds of things equally. DreamGuy 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Mugshots are public domain as per above reasons. What about photographs of most wanted men, say Osama bin Laden: :Image:Osama-med.jpg? A more interesting example is :Image:Laden.gif with a claim that it was created by the FBI !? In most cases, we don't know who are the copyright holders. Most likely, it belongs to the criminal or his affiliate, do we have to respect their copyrights then? (I'm only refering to the most notorious type of criminals with article in WP, and the photos are widely distributed.) In my opinion, these photographs were seized by government and released to the public, hence they are in PD, but I seek further comments here. Thanks. --Vsion 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I'm not sure if those would be public domain or not, but clearly they'd be at the very least fair use, if used here to accompany an article mentioning the search for them. DreamGuy 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mugshots 

message: I think the tendency to call unlicensed images used under the term "fair use images" tends to mislead editors into assuming they can use an image when they can't.  I, therefore, think we should avoid using that phrase and instead use the term "unlicensed images".  Images being used under the fair use doctrine are not licensed; the fair use doctrine merely permits the use of the image without a license.  We have to make it crystal clear to people that fair use is a per-instance doctrine that authorizes an image to be used only in a specific context and that the image itself remains unlicensed and is not available for general use outside that context.  Kelly Martin 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Zach (Sound Off) 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  Can anyone think of a term that has even more negative connotations? --Carnildo 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfree?  Non-free?  Restricted use?  Limited use? Bovlb 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Constrained-use? (also: subservient, captive, enslaved, enthralled, subjugated ;D) -- Sitearm | Talk 16:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlicenced? That is in essense what they are. The use in the article may be fair use, but the image is just plain unlicenced. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop calling them "fair use images" 

message: We legitimately use :Image:Afis.jpg this image at Great Romania People's Party. We currently lack an image for Corneliu Vadim Tudor, head of that party, depicted on the poster. The template claims fair use justification for "identification and critical commentary on the poster itself or the political movement it represents". Do I correctly understand this to mean that we cannot use the poster in the article on Vadim Tudor? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends how you use it. If you use it with the caption, "This is Vadim Tudor", yeah, that might be stretching it. If you used it with the caption "Tudor used as the symbol of X, Y, and Z, on the poster for the Great Romania People's Party", would in my mind probably be fine and count as "commentary on the poster itself". --Fastfission 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How flexible is fair use on a political poster? 

message: Does anyone have guidance on roughly how long a sample of a copyright sound recording may be and qualify as a "brief song clip"? --Tabor 03:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the total length of the recording. Rossrs 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's hard to put a real number on it, but one should be as conservative as possible on this issue. Rossrs' suggestion isn't bad. --Fastfission 13:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio clips question 

message: I would appreciate comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Newspaper.2Fmagazine_tag_anomoly with reference to: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Images_from_agencies_i.e._wireimages_and_ap. Thanks Arniep 14:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agency photos

message: The phrase "(not for identification without critical commentary)" recently added to "cover art" is pretty cryptic. I imagine if I'd been following this talk page I'd know what was going on, but I haven't, and the project page should stand alone. Can someone reword more clearly to indicate what is and is not acceptable use? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover art 

message: The article fair use is about the legal concept. This article is inaccurate in discussing the legal concept. I suggest this article be edited to refer to the article fair use for all uses of the legal aspect so we don't have the problems that go with keeping it accurate in two places, and I suggest this article be clear that it is solely about wikipedia guidance. The two uses of the phrase (fair use law versus fair use guidance) are not the same. WAS 4.250 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does refer to the fair use article, in the first sentence of the second paragraph.  This article is, needfully, much more limited than the fair use article, which covers a number of uses that occasionally have gotten confused with what can be used on Wikipedia-- for instance, some university "course pack" policies are much looser than our policies, but some users have tried to apply their language to our context.  What do you feel is inaccurate about this article? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This case has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia issues, because it does not deal with republication of copyrighted work under a claim of fair use. Monicasdude 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that in this case, the key thing was the medium of reproduction: a T-shirt. This allowed the 12-word phrase to be sold for a sum equivalent to about $15 today. An entire book might go for less. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note the context of this subheading. The previous subsection was "Entire works may be copied under fair use". and both were in furtherance of the point that summarizing fair use law as just don't copy too much is far off the mark and all four equally important factors must be identified (or none). The new intro does just this - name all four. I'd rather ALL the fair use law data go at fair use and the fair use guidance go here, but what we have now is good enough for now for me. WAS 4.250 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate and confused

message: The fair use doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
All of these must be taken into consideration. There is no magic formula.  WAS 4.250 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is fair use

message: WAS 4.250 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a good example of fair use guidance

message: WAS 4.250 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is where we should send people for more information

message: "In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the "Kojak" television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library-building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)"  WAS 4.250 23:43, 7 December 
2005 (UTC)
:This case has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia issues, because it does not deal with republication of copyrighted work under a claim of fair use. Monicasdude 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entire works may be copied under fair use

message: "In a 1979 case, a company copied two of Brilliant's phrases-'I may not be totally perfect, but parts of me are excellent' and 'I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy'-and altered a third phrase, all for sale on t-shirt transfers. The district court acknowledged that the phrases were distinguished by conciseness, cleverness, and a pointed observation, and ruled that they were protected by copyright."  WAS 4.250 00:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that in this case, the key thing was the medium of reproduction: a T-shirt. This allowed the 12-word phrase to be sold for a sum equivalent to about $15 today. An entire book might go for less. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note the context of this subheading. The previous subsection was "Entire works may be copied under fair use". and both were in furtherance of the point that summarizing fair use law as just don't copy too much is far off the mark and all four equally important factors must be identified (or none). The new intro does just this - name all four. I'd rather ALL the fair use law data go at fair use and the fair use guidance go here, but what we have now is good enough for now for me. WAS 4.250 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A phrase of twelve words may not be copied under fair use

message: I'm really not sure what you're proposing.  First, the "Entire works may be copied under fair use" is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, because the copied work is not being shared with the public.  And university fair use policies are at best a weak model for Wikipedia because they don't have to deal with the problem of pass-through to commercial users.  The UT example has the same problem, plus it rambles on about all sorts of stuff.
I think it's possible that if you took these sources and tried to distill them down with Wikipedia as your focus, you might get somewhere, but what you've got above, frankly, isn't much of a start. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are you proposing 

message: ===Intro number one===
Under U.S. copyright law, almost all work published after 1922 may have an active copyright (there are exceptions, however — see United States copyright law for details). The reproduction of any significant portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, and is illegal. As such, on Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States, we are normally only able to use material that is not under copyright or is available under a sufficiently free license.
An important exception to this rule exists, recognized in a clause in the copyright act that describes a limited right to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder — what is known as fair use (or "fair dealing" in other countries, where standards may differ).  This page is meant as a guideline for dealing with Fair Use materials on the English Wikipedia — it provides general guidance on what is or isn't likely to be fair use and how you can best assist editors when attempting to include material under fair use.  However, it is not official policy.  You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal. 
===Intro number two===
Under U.S. copyright law, almost all work published after 1922 may have an active copyright (there are exceptions, however — see United States copyright law for details). This page is meant as a guideline for dealing with fair use materials on the English Wikipedia — it provides general guidance on what is or isn't likely to be fair use and how you can best assist editors when attempting to include material under fair use.  However, it is not official policy.  You, as the uploader, are legally responsible for determining whether your contributions are legal. 
According to the U.S Copyright Office, fair use is roughly the right to use copyrighted work by others without their permission for parody, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. There are four factors determining fair use: purpose of use, nature of the copied work, how much was copied, and to what extent the copyright holder is deprived of potential markets for the work. 
All of these must be taken into consideration. There is no magic formula.  For more information about fair use law see the Law and External links sections below.
===comments and votes===
*We need a consensus on the intro. I vote for number two. WAS 4.250 20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments about "accuracy," "untruths," etc. miss an essential point: the Wikipedia guideline concerning fair use is not intended to say "Whatever fair use allows, Wikipedia allows." It is intended to assure that whatever material is incorporated under a claim of fair use so clearly qualifies as fair use as to avoid controversy and claims of copyright infringement. This means that the Wikipedia guideline must be more restrictive than the doctrine itself, and that it may include bright-line rules that are not strictly required by fair use law.  Monicasdude 14:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a consensus on the intro

message: *We need a consensus on the intro. I vote for number two. WAS 4.250 20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments about "accuracy," "untruths," etc. miss an essential point: the Wikipedia guideline concerning fair use is not intended to say "Whatever fair use allows, Wikipedia allows." It is intended to assure that whatever material is incorporated under a claim of fair use so clearly qualifies as fair use as to avoid controversy and claims of copyright infringement. This means that the Wikipedia guideline must be more restrictive than the doctrine itself, and that it may include bright-line rules that are not strictly required by fair use law.  Monicasdude 14:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comments and votes

message: I want to know some things, as I find the page Wikipedia:Fair use lacks information on this. Exactly how long is brief, I saw a discussion where it was said not more than 30 seconds or 10% of the original file. Does it mean 30 seconds is always the limit and if the file is not long (not qualified for 30 seconds sample) then I use the 10%, or is 10% usable for longer files which would give 60 seconds sample for 10 minutes surpassing the 30 seconds limit. Also, exactly how much samples should be the maximum for an album, not talking about singles but big enough album. If only there were numerical values like 10% of the number of tracks, more or less, it would help. At least something more appropriate than brief.--DarkEvil 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, more practically, on the English Wikipedia, don't use more than 10% or 30 seconds, whichever is less.  If you can use less than the limit and still get the point across, even better. --Carnildo 06:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure this advice is based on something. As I don't know what it is based on, and I'd really like to know, could anyone inform me as to what this (10% or 30 sec - whichever is less) is based on? Someone somewhere said something? a court case? I have no doubt a list of the top 100 songs of 2004 accompanied by song clips of 10% of EACH song could be successfully sued in court. But I'm not a lawyer, so I could easily be wrong. The person publishing (downloading to wikipedia) would be liable. Wikipedia itself wouldn't be liable unless it contributed, oh just maybe like saying 10% was ok. But I'm no lawyer, so maybe I'm wrong. I know I'd feel terrible if I told someone 10%, they got sued and got their wages garnished for the next x years. WAS 4.250 13:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: [Ninety-three] organizations representing for-profit and nonprofit publishers, the software industry, government agencies, scholars and scholarly societies, authors, artists, photographers and musicians, the movie industry, public television, licensing collectives, libraries, museums, universities and colleges spent untold amounts of money and more than 2 1/2 years of their time and their energy to find agreement on the scope of fair use in various electronic contexts. Now it seems that not enough of their constituents, and in some cases, not even the participants themselves, agreed with the result to qualify the Proposed Guidelines as consensus documents. Forgive the overgeneralization, but users thought the Guidelines were overrestrictive and copyright owners thought they were giving away too much. WAS 4.250 13:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Digital educational works (Works produced or marketed primarily for performance/display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks) or Unlawful copies (copies you know or reasonably should know were not lawfully made or acquired)"
Further the act only covers accredited, nonprofit educational institutions: "TEACH says it is not copyright infringement for teachers and students at an accredited, nonprofit educational institution to transmit performances and displays of copyrighted works as part of a course if certain conditions are met. If these conditions are not or cannot be met, use of the material will have to qualify as a fair use or permission from the copyright holder(s) must be obtained.". WAS 4.250 13:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: First, the court must examine the nature of the use: Is it for profit, is it for educational or other informational purpose, is it for entertainment? There are no clear lines to this inquiry; courts have rejected a categorical approach, such as to say that uses for entertainment purposes are clearly not fair use. Instead, courts have dealt with infringement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the infringer's use is fair.
The bottom line is there is no magic formula. WAS 4.250 14:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio 

message: says:
4.2.1 Motion Media
Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less, in the aggregate of a copyrighted motion media work may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of a multimedia project created under Section 2 of these guidelines.
4.2.2 Text Material
Up to 10% or 1000 words, whichever is less, in the aggregate of a copyrighted work consisting of text material may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of a multimedia project created under Section 2 of these guidelines. An entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology may be used. For poems of greater length, 250 words may be used but no more than three excerpts by a poet, or five excerpts by different poets from a single anthology may be used.
4.2.3 Music, Lyrics, and Music Video
Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work (or in the aggregate of extracts from an individual work), whether the musical work is embodied in copies, or audio or audiovisual works, may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as a part of a multimedia project created under Section 2. Any alterations to a musical work shall not change the basic melody or the fundamental character of the work. WAS 4.250 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 sec or 10%

message: says:
:[Ninety-three] organizations representing for-profit and nonprofit publishers, the software industry, government agencies, scholars and scholarly societies, authors, artists, photographers and musicians, the movie industry, public television, licensing collectives, libraries, museums, universities and colleges spent untold amounts of money and more than 2 1/2 years of their time and their energy to find agreement on the scope of fair use in various electronic contexts. Now it seems that not enough of their constituents, and in some cases, not even the participants themselves, agreed with the result to qualify the Proposed Guidelines as consensus documents. Forgive the overgeneralization, but users thought the Guidelines were overrestrictive and copyright owners thought they were giving away too much. WAS 4.250 13:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: there is NO consensus

message: says these are NOT covered
:"Digital educational works (Works produced or marketed primarily for performance/display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks) or Unlawful copies (copies you know or reasonably should know were not lawfully made or acquired)"
Further the act only covers accredited, nonprofit educational institutions: "TEACH says it is not copyright infringement for teachers and students at an accredited, nonprofit educational institution to transmit performances and displays of copyrighted works as part of a course if certain conditions are met. If these conditions are not or cannot be met, use of the material will have to qualify as a fair use or permission from the copyright holder(s) must be obtained.". WAS 4.250 13:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: university guidelines based on the TEACH act don't apply

message: says:
:First, the court must examine the nature of the use: Is it for profit, is it for educational or other informational purpose, is it for entertainment? There are no clear lines to this inquiry; courts have rejected a categorical approach, such as to say that uses for entertainment purposes are clearly not fair use. Instead, courts have dealt with infringement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the infringer's use is fair.
The bottom line is there is no magic formula. WAS 4.250 14:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: courts have rejected a categorical approach

message: This is DarkEvil once again, I just posted a question about audio which kind of made me more aware that fair use is a complicated matter and I wish for me as well as for wikipedia to not have trouble with the law. So, I'd like to know about something if someone takes a screenshot from a game using an emulator, which is illegal if you don't own the game. Then this person modifies this image by removing a black border around the image (crop). Then, the image appears to dark when it is reduced on Wikipedia so this person enhances the brightness/contrast of this image. I couldn't find information about slightly modyfing fair use images.--DarkEvil 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another, and perhaps more important, angle to consider it from is: Do the modifications cause the new version to be a misrepresentation of the copyrighted work?  Since we use fair use material for the purpose of discussing a copyrighted work, we obviously can't go around making changes which inaccurately represent the copyrighted work. So long as the changes are not material to our commentary (or indeed if they enhance it) they are not inconsistant with our claim of fair use. WAS 4.250's answer seems to be more targeted at the unasked question "if I take someone elses copyrighted work and modify it who owns the copyright on the result". --Gmaxwell 19:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification of images 

message: I uploaded this photo and got it from here.  I think this would qualify as fair use under promotional material.  Tell me if I am correct.  --MateoP 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No way to tell, since the site you took it from doesn't give an indication of the original source. Since some of the other images on that site don't look to be the IP of the site owner -- the cartoon in particular -- this one is problematic. Even if it's "fair use" for the blog to use them, that doesn't necessarily carry over to Wikipedia. Monicasdude 23:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That "blog" is the official blog of the presidential candidate who is in the picture.  The original source is almost definitely themselves.  It's promotional photographs of the campaign.  That's why I thought it would fit into that fair use license.  That's the official website of that candidate.  --MateoP 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't necessarily make it a "promotional" picture; the photographer may have just given permission for use on that one website.  I'd suggest writing a fair use raionale and using :Template:Non-free fair use in, being very clear about the fact that it comes from the candidate's website, and have the caption read something like "The photograph that the subject uses on their political blog". Presumably, the fact that the candidate has a blog is an interesting point that is mentioned in the article. Jkelly 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this fair use? 

message: There picture of the 4 people found here and here would make a great image for a presidential election article.  However I suspect that this probably can't fall under fair use.  So what can I do?  Can I email the web page and ask permission?  Thanks for more information.  --MateoP 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably not fair use, what can I do? 

message: There's a nice new template, , to request someone to review the fair use status of an image. But how does one actually encourage a review to happen? Does simply putting the template on mean that an expert is likely to look at it eventually? Or should I request a review here or on some other page? I'm not sure what effect  really has.
Thanks for any guidance, Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to ask for an image to be reviewed? 

message: Would an image, in musical notation, of a transcription of a brief section of music be fair use? A brief sound clip is fair use, but a transcription would differ in that it is an image and not a direct reproduction of the sound or the score. When attributed to the copyright holder can this be fair use? Hyacinth 15:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it can be; it's all a matter of where it is used and how. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be GFDL? Hyacinth 07:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there an image in that article in particular which is under question? The only one I see is of a piece of Bach whose copyright has surely expired. --Fastfission 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bach, in fact, predates copyright. Public domain from the moment of creation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image: Brief transcription of music