Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free/Archive 2

message: I posed this question here with little response, so maybe here is a better place. I'll rephrase my question :
Can a fair use case be made for a screenshot from a film, television program or music video, if it is used in a biographical article to either, identify the subject or to illustrate specific sections of text that discuss the work in question?
Examples : could screenshots from Psycho or Rear Window be used in an article about Alfred Hitchcock if they supported discussion of his directing style or his work in general?
Could scenes from music videos that demonstrate key aspects of a performer's career be claimed as fair use if they serve to illustrate the critical discussion within the text?  Especially considering that the music video itself is unlikely to have or require an article of much depth?
Could a scene from a film be used to illustrate a notable performance, or even a non notable performance that serves to illustrate the actor doing what they were famous for doing ie acting, and the screenshot depicts a film or role that is discussed in some detail in the article?
Please have a look at these examples.
1. :Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Kylie Minogue where it addresses specific information in the text. Could a fair use case be made?  I think it could.
2. :Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Better The Devil You Know. As the article relates to the single and video, a good fair use case could be made on the basis of the guidelines quoted in the , and yet the claim would come undone by the fact that the article itself is very weak.  I think it only marginally meets criteria at best, but probably does not meet it at all. 
3. :Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album).  Although discussed in the article, its relevance is less.  I think it's probably not fair use. 
4. :Image:SharonTateValleyoftheDollsnightclubscene.jpg used in Sharon Tate as lead image.  Taken from the film Valley of the Dolls which is discussed in detail throughout the article.  Can it be classed as fair use?  My opinion is yes. 
5. Finally :Image:SunsetBoulevardfinaleGloriaSwanson.jpg used in Sunset Boulevard (film) is fair use in the film article.  How about if it was used in Gloria Swanson to demonstrate her as an actress? 
6.  Same image, if it was used in John F. Seitz to support discussion of his cinematography?  I think it's relevant, so I think yes.  
7.  Or same image, if it was used in Billy Wilder to discuss his directorial style. I think yes to this as well. 
I'm not suggesting adding the last three as suggested - it's just a question. I'm not advocating random insertions of screenshots, or using them to fluff out pages or merely as decoration, but I believe from what I've read of fair use, that wider uses are allowable if they still meet the same criteria, and are used to support the text in related articles.   The template says  "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film or television program and its contents", so I am wondering  what is the significance of the and its contents phrase, and whether discussion for "identification and critical commentary"  can extend to related articles, apart from the actual film or television program? 
Sorry for the long question but this has been puzzling me for months, and I'd love some opinions on this.  Thanks Rossrs 14:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's allowable in cases where they are used to support commentary on the video/movie/whatever in the article, regardless of what the article's title is.  I didn't look through all of the examples that you gave but generally agree with you on the first few.  There was some similar discussion in #DVD/album/magazine covers; screenshots above.  JYolkowski // talk 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I figured that from the way the images have been used and comments about FA nominations etc, but it's not in the guidelines and I wanted to check my interpretation was more or less ok.  cheers Rossrs 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots from film, television or music videos in biographical articles

message: Are any images from these agencies promotional / fair use as they are not usually connected to the subject of the photo, i.e. they are independent companies trying to sell images, not companies trying to promote their own clients or product, take this image as an example :Image:Zane.jpg depicting the actor Billy Zane, probably at a movie premiere from the WireImages agency . Arnie587 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally say no.  Since they're trying to sell images, our use of them could be construed to have a negative impact on the work (fair use factor #4).  It's possible that such use could be fair in rare cases (especially in cases where the image is sufficiently old that it's no longer saleable) but I would think that would be rare.  JYolkowski // talk 21:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention, another case where they would be fair use is where the image is so famous that the article includes commentary on the image itself.  See Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for an example where an AP photo is fair use.  JYolkowski // talk 21:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification it seems a lot of people are unsure of this, maybe it would be a good idea to place a notice on the upload page making clear that photos from agencies are not permitted except where the image is famous in itself. I would be gratful if you could address my mesage below also. Arnie587 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that something being famous makes it fair use. We have permission in this case, but permission images are being removed. I would like to see a fair use justification better than "its really famous". And in theis case (raising the flag) you could use a photo of the sculpture which is generally ok. Mind you its 1945 so copyright may expire soonish. Justinc 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it doesn't.  However, since the image is being used for commentary (one of the purposes specifically mentioned in the fair use clause of the U.S. copyright law) on the image itself, we could create a good fair use rationale around that.  JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write a detailed fair use justification for the article on the image page. The more justification the better. I think this is a good case (and I have been trawling for good cases - this might go on my list of er now 3). Justinc 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that (and tagged it to request a fair use review, so scrutiny is welcome).  JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats a reasonable justififcation. However PA photos doesnt. "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." from  which I hadnt seen before. Justinc 11:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's definitely something to keep in mind, personally I'm not overly concerned about that (in the case of uses such as the one described above, not the dozens if not hundreds of blatant copyvios of AP images on the site).  While IANAL, I think that it wouldn't make any sense from a legal standpoint to say anything else; otherwise it might make it a lot harder to sue Wikipedia later if our use doesn't qualify as fair use (see Estoppel).  My guess would be that the same lawyer who said that they don't think anything is fair use might well hesitate to sue on the basis that this use is probably fair and so they'd probably lose.  Maybe.  Of course, we have permission for this specific image anyway so it's moot in this case, although third parties will have to make their own decision.  Also, I wonder if the original query included vague, incorrect, blanket statements about fair use that used to be quite common before we started rewriting the tags.  JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not so sure. I am very concerned about claiming fair use from people who make their living from images, such as AP. While we have permission for this images, we have decided to remove all permission images anyway, so we will have to delete this too. The claim of no financial difference is very hard to apply to photo libraries who make their only living from these pictures. I just ifd lots of other AP pictures (specifically downloaded under permission basis). If there was really serious criticism of images going on I might find more to defend, but you have one of the 4 criteria not available here, and a big legal department. You have to be much more careful. Justinc 23:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that if the AP said we could only use those two photos, and no others, then we would have to follow their request and delete the other photos. Zach (Sound Off) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images from agencies i.e. wireimages and ap

message: As you probably know, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use tag reform, we're rewriting existing fair use tags to be more specific about use.  Our generic fair use tags (, , , , , and   are a problem in this regard because, while our direction on fair use tags is to specify valid uses within the tag itself, these tags currently say nothing about use, and it's hard to write anything about use because they're used for a very wide range of stuff right now.
I think it would make sense to depreciate and eventually eliminate some of these tags for that reason.  So, I'd like to propose the following:
*Depreciate all of the above tags except for .
*Recommend that  should be replaced either by one of the specialized fair use tags, or, if none apply, with .
*Recommend that , , and  be replaced as above, and also adding a  tag, which would read something like "It is possible that this image is in the public domain, either due to age or for another reason, or has been released under a free licence.  However, further investigation is needed to determine the exact copyright and licence status.  More information may be available below.  This tag must be used in conjunction with another image tag.  If no other tag is present on this page, please replace this tag with ."
*Recommend that  be replaced as above, and also adding a  tag, which would read something like "In addition to being usable either under another licence or under fair use, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia.  This permission does not extend to third parties.  This tag must be used in conjunction with another image tag.  If no other tag is present on this page, and this image was uploaded after May 19, please speedy delete this image."
I think that, if this is something we want to do, it makes sense to get a start on it and discourage new usage of the tags.  That way, when we get to the eventual enormous retagging job, it will be that much smaller.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts.  I'd like to hear what other people think before doing anything major, so let me know your opinion, especially if you have a better idea.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My main problem is not with the tags per se but the procedure and practise. With regard to your specific suggestions:
*the unsure/old stuff is dubious, but I am not sure this is part of Project Fair Use. Hand it over to the copyvio police and ask them if they want a tag under unknown. Lets keep this out of our space.
*permission and fair use is another get out. One or the other please. Too much is dumped on fair use. Permission is now not allowed, so they will have to try fair use. Justinc 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on generic fair use tags 

message: Can anyone give any thoughts on whether any of these are images are fair use? Many wikipedians seem to be getting them from internet movie database  by clicking on an actors photo. There is a long statement about the The Motion Picture and Television Archive here  it says:
All funds generated by their efforts are shared with the photographers, and/or their estates, or rightful owners of the photographs and are dedicated to the continuing effort to collect, preserve, exhibit and publish this important work for future generations.
terms of use can be found on a javascript link here  one of the images in dispute is :Image:Peck.jpg Thanks for any comments Arnie587 18:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read that right, that means the IMDB is paying for the photos. In that case, it would violate the fair use clause, since if we steal photos from the IMDB, that shows we are in direct competition with them, which violates fair use. What I can suggest is that if the actor/actress has a website, then we go there and see what photos they have. Then, we could replace the dispute image, explain the fair use rules and tag it as a promotional image. Zach (Sound Off) 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi the problem is many of the photos in the mptv archive are of actors that are dead or old so probably don't have their own website ( also wouldnt it mean we are stealing from MPTV.net not imdb)?  Arnie587 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...I will see if some magic will help solve this problem. Zach (Sound Off) 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just as a note: if IMDB is not the copyright holder of the photographs, then it doesn't matter if we are in competition with them. The only place in which competition (i.e. future markets) matters is with the original copyright holder. Of course, the fact that IMDB has purchased said image means that there is definitely an existing market for them, which would be worth taking into consideration, but that's a slightly different issue. Just a small, somewhat pedantic clarification. --Fastfission 00:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that MPTV.net is acting pretty much the same as Associated Press images or Wireimages, i.e. agencies, just that MPTV.net specialises in photos of old movies and movie stars. Therefore shouldn't the same rationale be applied as to AP/wireimages that we had in the discussion above i.e. we can't use them without permission? Arnie587 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images from MPTV.net

message: The fair use tags clobber the EXIF metadata tables (on images that have them) resulting in something that doesn't look very nice and is partially illegible.
As an experiment, I changed the table format of  to see if that would alleviate the problem.  I changed the first line to:
 {| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="clear:both; margin: 0.5em auto; border: 2px solid #996; background-color: #F1F1DE"
This seemed to alleviate the problem.  I wanted to get feedback on this change.  Also, many of the fair use templates are protected, so I would not be able to change those if there is agreement that this works better.
For an example of the difference, see :Image:Web subservient chicken michael jackson moves.jpg, where  has been updated, but  has not.
--Tabor 21:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, it looks good, since my suggestions to get the metadata information into anothe format seemed to fail. I can make the changes for you once we get the OK from these guys here. Zach (Sound Off) 21:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good to me too. Rossrs 22:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good.  I've added "clear:both" to .  I'll go through the rest of them tomorrow to ensure they all have "clear:both" unless someone else gets there first.  JYolkowski // talk 22:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I'll assume someone will speak up if they notice further problems (-:  JYolkowski // talk 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags clobbering EXIF metadata table 

message: Is it ok to use ?  The reason I ask is that I created it about a week ago as part of a discussion  but I thought it was going to be looked at a bit more before anyone started using it, and have now discovered that a lot of images have been tagged with it.  If it's ok to go, then fine, I'm glad someone thinks it's suitable, but it points to a page Wikipedia:Fair use criteria which was written very quickly as a general guideline for people to refer to when adding images to pages, or when reviewing them.  That page needs to be reviewed, because (I wrote it) it's not up to scratch.  
Secondly, I notice numerous images have been tagged incorrectly with this tag and don't meet even the most basic criteria.  Other users have added the  template which is great.  But should the  tag remain on the page? Because the tag is still there,  :Category:Reviewed fair use images contains a lot of invalid entries.   Is the protocol to leave both tags and let it be sorted out at ifd, or should an incorrect tag be removed if superseded by another one?   Thanks Rossrs 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If  is being used, I'd like to suggest the following be used in conjunction with it -  for reviewers to isolate problematic images that seem to meet a majority of fair use criteria in order that they can be further reviewed by other users, and  so that anyone using an image and believing it meets fair use criteria, can seek an impartial review. Rossrs 13:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're still figuring some of this stuff out, but it makes sense to keep using the tags so that we can figure this stuff out.  I would suggest that it's fine to remove a review tag if the image obviously doesn't meet the criteria, although if an image is going to be deleted anyway I wouldn't worry about it.  Regarding the other tags, we already have a review request tag, .  The  tag seems useful, but probably no-one's got to the point where there's a dispute yet (-:  JYolkowski // talk 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  is much better than the one I was suggesting. Great. With regard to  - "disputed" probably has a stronger connotation that intended.  "disagreed" is more correct.  For example - in :Category:Reviewed fair use images there are images that have got the  tag even though they don't meet all criteria.  ie missing copyright holder, missing fair use rationale etc, just some of the basics.  Maybe they are fair use and because they "may be" I don't want to take it upon myself to put them on  just because the criteria has been met to 80% rather than 100%.  I thought having another category in which they could be put might encourage more experienced editors to have another look and either fill in what's missing or take whatever action is needed.  I agree there are no disputes right now.   I prefer the idea of removing a superseded tag only because it saves rechecking from :Category:Reviewed fair use images images that someone else has since moved to . I'll keep using the templates and see how they evolve through use.  Thanks.  (-:  Rossrs 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "fairusequeried", perhaps, as sounding less confrontational than disputed? "This is claimed fair use but I'd feel better if someone else looked at it"... Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kelly Martin appears to have added this template to several image description pages, when none (that I can see) contain fair use rationale and some don't even specify source and/or copyright information (e.g. :Image:Josh.jpg). Is this allowed? Extraordinary Machine 16:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She might have added the tags before the template stated that the image needed to meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and/or I redirected a few other templates there.  I would tag the images as  (or, if the source is totally missing, ).  JYolkowski // talk 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right.  the template in its current form was created September 24, and the Josh image was tagged September 21, so it looks like an honest mistake. Rossrs 21:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template reviewed fair use

message: Would images of all these i.e. planes, trains, automobiles come under fair use or PD? i.e. all the images of aircraft uploaded by user Vlaakko Special:Contributions/Vlaakko (would seem a shame to delete them) Arnie587 17:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of a source given makes it impossible to determine their copyright status. We should try to get that ironed out first. --Fastfission 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They have no sources and the user has not been back since July 2005, so what I could suggest is give Google a shot. But, since these are Bulgarian aircraft, we might need to search in more than one language. Zach (Sound Off) 17:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi isn't it the case that most images on google for this sort of thing would not be on a site owned by the copyright holder(the photographer, or plane manufacturer?). Often images on aircraft enthuisiast type sites have no copyright info at all. Arnie587 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. Maybe we should just delete the information due to the new CSD rules, and I do not think the uploader will come back. But at least we know what the images are, so if people want to look for new ones, we could tell them what to look for. Zach (Sound Off) 19:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: could we not make the judgement that using these images is unlikely to hurt anyones business, i.e. they are just for educational/informational purposes? Could we also use that sort of rationale for diagrams and maps taken from books i.e. :Image:AlAndalusmap 1248.jpg, :Image:Al-Andalus (Almoravids).jpg, :Image:ARAS.jpg? Arnie587 21:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, we can't be sure that the use of these images isn't going to have a negative effect on the copyright holder if we don't know who the copyright holder is.  JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of vehicles/boats/aircraft

message: Is this copy vio/advertising(including the images)? Emaar_Properties ? Arnie587 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is?  Can you be more specific? --michael180 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the images come under fair use (they are taken from the company's website). I am generally unsure how to tag images of buildings taken from company websites so any advise would be appreciated. Also I wonder how important a company has to be to deserve an entry in Wikipedia? Thanks Arnie587 15:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I marked the images as copyvios, the article was marginal - it is a real company, quite sizeable so the fact that it might have been created for advertising was marginal especially when the pictures go. Justinc 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Corporation pages

message: I've created the above page as a start to organising our efforts to re-tag the enormous number of images in :Category:Fair use images so that the numerous copyvios in there stand out better.  I'd invite you to re-tag some of the stuff listed on the page I've created if you have a few minutes here and there.  I'll also be fleshing out the page more in the near future.  JYolkowski // talk 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some of manual involvement, but it's not entirely manual.  I scraped a whatlinkshere for the template, and then ran it through a script to pick out images with names that included stuff like "logo" or "album cover" and reformat it to create an edit link.  I displayed all of the images in gallery mode before adding them so as to remove any obvious non-candidates.  Could be faster to do it manually in some cases, but probably not with 400+ logos.  If anyone wants to volunteer to write something automated, that would be cool with me.  JYolkowski // talk 02:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing this manualy for a while now, it's not so bad, I'll do one maybe two pages on a day, I'm up to P now (though the pages I've gone over are probably full of genericly tagged stuff again by now), just doing the obvius stuff, logos, coat of arms, albumcovers, stamps, money, film screenshots, dvd covers etc. Also adding  to most statues, buildings, cars, game systems and such I come across. --Sherool 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting]] 

message: Someone asked about this tag  on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags despite my best attempts, the Delaware govenment page fails to mention copyright anywhere. I though someone here might be able to clarify and list at TFD as necessary.--nixie 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PD tag

message: Before I had seen the WikiProject Fair use/Todo sub-page, I had been tagging some images as speedy deletes, criterion I5: orphaned fair use image.  Then I saw on that page that a bot was being made to do this.  There I see a comment about the task being complete, which I assume means the groundwork to make a bot possible is complete.  So my questions are:
* Do we have a bot doing this now?
* Is tagging images for speedy delete as orphaned fair use images at all useful, or should we assume the bot will take care of them?
* Will it address just the main fair use image category :Category:Fair use images or more specialized categories like :Category:Album covers?
* Is there any point in reclassifying orphaned images? For example retagging an image that is currently tagged  and happens to be an album cover as .  Or just wait for a bot to get them?
Thanks. --Tabor 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answers to your first three questions.  As to the fourth, I would suggest re-tagging them as .  JYolkowski // talk 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned fair use images 

message: :Image:25003.jpg Arnie587 01:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy? (re-upload of content deleted previously by due process) Lupo 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: speedied Arnie587 14:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: Yes, , not . See e.g. :Image:GeneralAdams.jpg, :Image:GeneralLente.jpg, :Image:ScolarVisari.jpg, :Image:HelghanFlag.jpg. What's that supposed to mean?? Uploader is a strange editor anyway, with the large majority of edits (I didn't count, but it looks like >95%) in his own user space only... Lupo 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like photos from Killzone, but from what I understand the template, GPL seems very unfree to me. It, to me, also shows it might not be used anywhere else, so that is very limiting its' use. Call me crazy, but I think all images under GPL should go. Zach (Sound Off) 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The GPL is not a suitable license for images (neither is the GFDL, really, but that's beside the point).  I think the images (and all others tagged "GPL") should be either relicensed, or deleted. --Carnildo 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what everyone else thinks about it. Thanks Carnildo. Zach (Sound Off) 00:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From GNU: You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.  In my opinion, it's not always clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work.  If an image is created using XyMTeX or SVG or POV-Ray and appears here as a GIF or JPG, does that mean we are responsible for making sure the "source code" for these is distributed?  It seems like a mess. P.S., there is some discussion on Template talk:GPL, but so far the strongest arguments are "it's not illegal" and "I don't see harm in it."  Might be a question for juriwiki-l.  --Tabor 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we do not have "source code" for many images at all, so it will be very, very hard to use this template for images. While other people who draw flags in SVG, we just release it either as GFDL or into the Public Domain. I strongly suggest that this template should be discontinued until we figure out what is going on. Zach (Sound Off) 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: it looks like about 70% of all these images are wrongly tagged, quite a few orphaned. Maybe we should just say from now all images wrongly tagged will be speedy deleted hopefully maybe this will act as a disencouragement for anyone trying to upload images without bothering to find the right tag in the future . Arniep 10:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arniep, if the image is wrongly tagged, we just retag it and we warn the uploader. If they do it again, they can and will be blocked from Wikipedia. Check the upload page now. Zach (Sound Off) 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL 

message: The new art fair use template isn't listed when you to try to upload a file does anyone know who can edit this and add it? Also I found this useful page Public_domain_image_resources. I think it might be a good idea to add a link to this on the upload page saying something like "STOP before you upload an image that is not availiable under a free license please check to see if there is an alternative here Public_domain_image_resources." Also I think it might be a good idea if the page is mentioned on all Wikipedia welcome pages and even when you register. Arnie587 15:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible edits to [[Special:Upload]]

message: Can someone clarify whether it matters what is the source for album covers and movie posters as I notice :Image:NKidman_Stepford_poster.jpg (which gives it's source as ) has been nominated for deletion merely due to the fact that the source is imdb. Surely the point is that whatever the source is, reduced size posters and album covers are not of commercial value so should be acceptable under free use. I would also argue that the studio stills photos on imdb are intended to be used to advertise the film and are given away freely to media outlets so should also be acceptable for fair use. Arniep 10:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a reasonable case, but I really dont want us downloading them from IMDB, because we are just guessing which ones are under which agreements. We can get them directly, we are as important as IMDB. If we had a fair use download site from each studio I would be happy, but if we simply download each image from IMDB I am not because we are only guessing at their terms (I am very unsure if all the pictures are publicirt for example). There arent that many studios, who wants to contact them? The ideal arrangement is that we say we wont charge them if they release free images that we can redistribute. Second best is they give us agreed fair use images, although that is basically  which is not allowed any more. Either we can draft a letter here, or someone can volunteer to do it, or if you want I will try contacting one of the studios and see what they say. Justinc 00:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I think it is clear though which images are publicity as imdb separates them out into their own category titled  "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends"  the other categories are "Awards, Premieres, Parties & Festivals from http://www.wireimage.com " and "Classic Stars Films and Events from MPTV". The same categorisation is used for all photo pages for all movies and actors on imdb. The last two image categories are agency photos which you have to pay to use so these aren't fair use, but I think that the publicity section can be considered fair use?  Re: writing to the movie companies, would we provide a list of images that we want to use or would we just say can we use all the publicity stills/album/DVD covers/posters that you ever released maybe with some rules like max two per page + no cropping? Arniep 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are "publicity photos provided to IMDB" not generic ones provided to the world. I see your point, I agree that they may be reasonable, but if they are the studios can provide them directly. I was assuming that we would have to negotiate over the terms, but I would have thought we could get 100px images of most people, posters, DVD covers from an authorised download site with reasonably unrestricted use; the harder things is the promo stills from movies, as they might be released under a permission/non redistribution license. But thats only a guess. Finding someone who understands the issues will probably take most time. Do you want to try or shall I, or shall we split the studios between us. Also, should we draft a letter here? Justinc 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for album covers, posters, imdb

message: Currently Wikipedia:Fair use says:
:The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images
I think this is possebly a little vague, people seems to have some strange ideas about what low-resolution and high-resolution means. I suggest amending this to something like:
:The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Images should be no bigger than what is needed inside the article.
In other words if you need a 200px "thumbnail" of an album cover in the article then that's what you upload, not a 1500px "wallpaper". Some people seems to think that as long as they only use a 200px thumbnail inline in the article it's ok to upload a huge image and still claim fair use. --Sherool 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and while on the subject of logos and sizes, how does SVG fit into the "low resolution" definition for fair use? They can be stretched to just about any size with no loss in quality (see for example :Image:BBC-newslogo.svg), and is very much a "high resolution" format. So should we "ban" fair use SVG images or should stuff that can best be represented by vector graphics be an exception to the low resolution rule? This gets more complilcated the more I think about it :P --Sherool 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to use the smallest logo size that will have a high-quality appearance in the article.  So, if a 300px logo is going to be used in an article, then we don't need an 1800px logo.  Maybe 600px or something is probably sufficient.  Not sure about the SVGs.  Personally, I don't think we should be using them unless the company themselves provides vector graphic versions of their logos; we should use "official" versions of the logos per Wikipedia:Logos.  JYolkowski // talk 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: SVG is rather dubious for this. I have tagged the BBC news as no source by the way, partly as I want to know if it was created by us or the BBC (it just has Adobe Illustrator tags in). Oddly it contains a jpeg. We should probably entirely forbid SVG for fair use unless there are very exceptional circumstances. Justinc 10:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Observation: A lot of companies do release vector forms of their logo through PDF documents.  For example, most companies have PDF versions of their Annual Reports online.  Questions of quality aside, converting such a logo into SVG is surely no different to converting a raster image from TIFF or JPG into a PNG. --Throup (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt mean we can or should use them though. Is possibly where the BBC one came from though. Justinc 11:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated :Image:BBC-newslogo.svg with an image definitely sourced that way.  It still doesn't answer whether we should use such images, but it does mean that image has clear source info. --Throup (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks exactly like the previous one (ie still has a jpeg image in and produced from illustrator) so I guess the previous one was too. I guess that means the BBC hasnt released an official SVG version. I am not convinced we should use it. Justinc 00:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you refreshed your browser cache?  This one has never even seen Illustrator or a JPEG!  But you are right that it is not an official SVG image, but as it has been converted from a PDF file released to the public (as quoted on the image page) it could be argued that it is an official BBC vector version. --Throup (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yes that was the old one. Yes, new one is technically better, and yes probably could be argued it is official. Justinc 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm against using vector graphics of fair use images. It is no different than using one which was 5000px across, which would clearly be out of bounds. Take the vector, resample it as the resolution we will use, then note on the image description page where you got it from, let other people (if they want to) pull the vector out on their own. There's no need whatsoever for such an image on Wikipedia itself. I don't think the company providing it has much to do with it (movie poster companies "provide" product which could be scanned at a high resolution -- doesn't mean doing so would be fair use). --Fastfission 02:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of fair use images 

message: I can see no reason why these should have "fair use" pictures, and have been tagging them  (and often  too). There are loads of them around and pretty much every one ever made could be photographed in a couple of months if people wanted to, so I see no reason to steal them from other web sites. They are easy to spot in the fair use category. There are also loads of pictures in commons if you can be bothered to replace them and do ifd - just did one. Apart from the odd one where the last one was crushed in 1957 I dont see any reason to keep any of these. Not sure if we should make a template for them to help though. Justinc 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the fact that they are easy to spot in the categories, and there can be no dispute. And I noticed that now German wiki is moving all images to commons (they have stopped local uploads I believe) there are loads there being uploaded as free images too.  Justinc 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a list of them (with edit links to make it easier) at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting.  I'll get around to adding a  tag to them, probably shortly. (I've tagged all 100ish of them now JYolkowski // talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobiles 

message: Is there a mechanism for deaing with disputed fair use images- the cateogry is certainly growing? One option would be merging them into PUI. --nixie 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One option would be to list them on ifd so they can be discussed. We shouldnt let this category grow out of control like the others if we can avoid it. Many are there because they are  too I think, so they can be ifd before being replaced. Justinc 11:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair use disputed is a little different because it needs some discussion (and its quite new and we need time to formulate a policy). I would be in favour speedy process and time limit for  though, and unifying this speedy process with no source images. Justinc 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a suggestion for the  images for now.  Remove them from the articles they're in (and leave a message on the talk page).  Then, come back in a few days, and if no-one's bothered to put them back in the article, speedy delete them (criterion I5).  This does have the disadvantage that people can just add the images back and we're back to square one, but it has the advantage of avoiding PUI or IFD.  Thoughts?  JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats not a very clear process. The main problem is also that people just add new "fair use" images if you do that too. I think if people are prepared to discuss the fair use or lack therof, ifd is best, at least for the near future. But tag them as fairusereplace or nosource or whatever if at all possible. I am happy to start ifding them and see what happens anyway. Justinc 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Disputed fair use images]]

message: I came across this one, I'm sure there are more: :Image:VakavanhaVainamoinen.ogg.  Where it has been added to pages, it has been added as an external link to the file on upload.wikimedia.org.  See for example, Samples of music from the United States or Kalevala.  That means it doesn't show up under File Links.  Just something to be aware of when doing speedies under CSD I5.  (Aside: this file is confusing anyway, because description says "public domain", but is tagged as ). --Tabor 17:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing to keep in mind is that media that are linked to, rather than inlined, don't show up in either the "File links" section or the whatlinkshere.  There's a lot of these, I think (e.g. Template:Audio does this).  Special:Search might be of help if in doubt.  JYolkowski // talk 21:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Samples of music from the United States is (as the talk page says) a completely awful article. Fair use is pretty dubious too, although there is a small amount of critical commentary. The link issue is a problem. Anyone know if there is an outstanding mediawiki bug on this? Justinc 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ogg files linked from page as external links 

message: Dunno if this is the right place for this, but I'd like some ideas on this new image tag I stumbled across.
This image has been released to the public domain by the Brazilian News Agency (Agência Brasileira de Notícias), or Radiobrás, an agency of the Federal Government of Brazil. See Radiobrás site.
As far as I can tell it's somewhat misleading, the site in question clearly states (on the English version).
: © Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as long as the source is acknowledged
So they allow reproduction, but saying that it's released into the public domain seems just flat wrong as far as I can tell. Dunno if this template can be salvaged somehow, or if it should be deleted. Any thoughts? --Sherool 20:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt say anything about modification, which is not helpful. Its clearly not PD, as it has conditions... Justinc 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly not PD. I would consider these images copyrighted, free use allowed, provided the photographer and/or ABr is credited. Brazilian government has a pretty liberal copyright policy, even releasing stuff under the GPL (software). We've been using ABr as a source of free images for quite some time. Lupo 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:PD-ABN]] 

message: On the side I've been trying to come up with a coherent Wikiquote copyright policy. I'm meeting resistance though from people who don't want to think about copyright issues. If anybody has a moment, I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look at the small Draft proposal I wrote (basically focusing on issues relating to fair use and quotations), take a look at the the Twin Peaks case and the Seinfeld case on this page, and then take a look at the discussion on the proposal talk page and chime in whatever you think is most effective.  Thanks. --Fastfission 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have written looks very good to me. The aggregate question is very important here too - one magazine cover from Time might be ok on its own, but all of them begins to look like a problem, despite each perhaps having a fair use justification on its own. Please report back here on the response too - we dont all have time to follow other things. Justinc 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote copyright policy

message: I just discovered this template out there.  Seems slightly dubious to me, but I'd like to see what others think.  JYolkowski // talk 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it was created by admin User talk:Quadell. It seems pretty sensible but I'm not a lawyer. Arniep 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would question "in a non-profit encyclopedia.", since the image policy is to avoid restrictions on possibly commercial downstream users of Wikipedia material.  --Tabor 17:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if no-one has major objections I'll reword it to make a better fair use tag.  If anyone had serious objections I would have pursued deletion instead.  JYolkowski // talk 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|HistoricPhotoRationale}} 

message: I'm utterly confused after about 2 hours of reading as to whether my use of an image is OK. Worse I'm not even sure where the best place to hold the discussion is, since I really don't want to add to my headache by distributing the debate across several different places. I guess the best thing to do is to ask for input here: Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works.  The discussion begins on a formatting issue which I essentially raised as a way of giving readers ready access to art images that are not hosted on WP as they read the article. However, I was then emboldened by another user to simply place those images in the article. But then further reading of policy left me back in doubt as to whether I'd done the right thing. I'm utterly, utterly confused and can think of perfectly great reasons for including the image and equally compelling ones why I absolutely should not! As I say, please respond at the location I specify, as it will be useful for all over at the Art Portal to see this, I'm sure. --bodnotbod 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good one.  This is exactly the reason why I worded  to indicate that it is for two-dimensional works only, because of the added level of copyright.  I'll think about this one.  JYolkowski // talk 19:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Utterly confused: Art images (and one in particular).

message: :Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Fair use
I have suggested at Template talk:Albumcover that the following two lines:
:*The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. 
:*The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.
...should be stricken from the Policy section of this page.  See, for example: Template:Album infobox 2 (and its  being kept per consenus at Templates for deletion).  However, this is not only the case with Album covers.  See also Template:The Beatles, which also uses "Fair Use" images as decoration for a template.  There are a number of other examples.  I'd suggest that consensus seems to be that such use is desirable, so review of the policy appears necessary.  If the policy should not be changed for some reason, I would suggest that nominating such Templates for deletion is unlikely to result in consensus to delete.  Jkelly 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone would like to reply, please do so either on Template talk:Albumcover or Wikipedia talk:Fair use so that we don't have a discussion going on in three places.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strike two lines from policy?

message: OK, here we have :Image:Sean_penn-shotgun-neworleans.gif which shows what is probably a press agency photo of Sean Penn. However I just csd'ed :Image:Sean penn bails out.jpg partly because it has been tagged nosource for over 7 days, but also because it is a AFP/Getty image . Presumably someone could readd the image appearing in any magazine or newspaper page. Therefore doesn't the newspaper + magazine tag currently include a loophole which will allow showing of agency photos? Arniep 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper/magazine tag anomaly

message: , , and  (which was rewritten as a "fair use" tag during TfD) are currently on TfD.  You may want to comment there.  JYolkowski // talk 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, I've added some listings of my own today as well.  JYolkowski // talk 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent TfD listings 

message: I nominated this for deletion as it was claimed that its copyright status was difficult or impossible to determine, yet on one of the links cited  it clearly shows copyright RF Callisto (probably an independant photographer) 1999. Can these type of images ever be fair use, if say small thumbnails are used? I presume any commercial photographer like this if asked would say non commercial use only even for the thumbnail which wikipedia doesn't allow? Arniep 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the copyright holder is a professional photographer that makes money selling images, it seems pretty unlikely that we could claim fair use since we're reducing their ability to sell their photo.  The person who tagged this image formerly had an incorrect concept of fair use.  I hopefully have corrected their perceptions, but images that they've tagged before that time might be incorrectly tagged.  JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeta Jones image [[:Image:2003icp.jpg]]

message: Do we need to include anything about law outside the US? fair dealing? And the issue of what country's laws apply in what circumstances... does anyone have an answer to that one?  Remember, we have servers located outside the US. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability outside the US?

message: This may not be a good idea (I've only spoken on this talk page once before), but here goes: I think that we could start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Featured articles with image copyright problems subpage, just as User:Taxman has done on a subpage of his user page with FA's that have reference problems. It could be used to log images with no source and copyright info, and also those which do not include fair use rationale. What does everybody else think? Extraordinary Machine 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be much needed. Check Talk:Eldfell for an example I noticed earlier today. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles with image copyright problems 

message: As I understand images that for whatever reason have a "non commercial use" condition attached are a big no-no these days per WP:CSD#I3, although it only mentions images licenced as such. I'm relatively sure that such images could still be used under the fair use doctrine (I mean "normal" copyright is more restrictive in many ways), but I'm not 100% sure. The reaon I ask is that I've come across a large number of art of Gundam mechs taken from http://gundam.anime.net/ and they have a note saying:
 All the site's artwork, icons, and illustrations are available for your use, subject to two conditions: That you credit the artist (me, Mark Simmons), and that you not use it for any commercial activity (including a revenue-generating Web site) without my explicit permission.
Emphasis mine.
So any Wikipedia commercial mirror using these images would be violating the artists conditions. AFAIK they might still be usable under "fair use" however in many ways I think the fair use "case" would probably be stronger if we used a cropped (low res) screenshot from the TV series rather than a verbatim copy of a copyrighted artists rendition. I don't think asking for permission would work eiter since we are not the ones using it commericialy (unless he's willing to GFDL the images, wich seems unlikely given the conditions and number of images used).
Here are some of the images I'm talking about :Image:RGM-79.PNG, :Image:RB-79.GIF and :Image:RGC-80 GM Cannon.gif, there are several more, see :Category:Universal Century images (they are not all from the source in question naturaly). --Sherool 12:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's pretend the author didn't mention anything and just had the pictures on his website.  I don't think these Gundam images would qualify for fair use in that case.  The author's more-permissive license to use the content doesn't apply to us because, as you say, noncommercial licenses don't help us here.  The images should all be deleted.  Tempshill 15:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non commercial only vs fair use 

message: Seems we have some images tagged as fair use on category pages (I goofed up while building the above query and checked the wrong thing). Obviously some of these are oddly tagged, but I thought someone might want to look into them:
*:Image:Jk_beatles_john.jpg
*:Image:Jk_beatles_paul.jpg
*:Image:Jk_beatles_ringo.jpg
*:Image:Postcard-large-letter-los-angeles.jpg del'ed
*:Image:Mac_OS_X_Box.jpeg
*:Image:Honolulucountyseal.jpg (three cats) rm'ed Jkelly 17:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use on category pages?

message: Speaking of limiting the number of images in an article, this one have 40(!) fair use images in it, and one paragrap of text (not counting the caltions), granted they are all of different indents used thoughout history, wich is the articles subject, but I find it ever so slightly on the exessive side to put it diplomaticaly. --Sherool (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[BBC Television Idents]]

message: I see that the fair use policy says that fair use images should not be used in templates, period. However, I was talking to Gmaxwell on IRC a while back on that subject, and he said he sees no problem with logos in templates, like in . The same might also apply to logos of organizations in copyright templates for images produced by those organizations. Can anyone comment? Should policy be changed to allow logos in templates? --SPUI (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the problem with certain fair-use images in templates either, but I do think each template should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Simply saying "no fair-use images whatsoever in templates" is over the top... -Locke Cole 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A template may be used on many articles.  Are you able to explain why the use of the image :Image:BobHawke.jpg on Edmund Barton constitutes "fair use"?  What about the use of :Image:Kingcrown.jpg (St. Edward's Crown) on Philip III of Macedon?  --Carnildo 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of BobHawke.jpg on Edmund Barton is in the form of a thumbnail, and it's relevant because they're all former or current Australian Prime Ministers. -Locke Cole 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems to me that fair use logos in a template on that organization or company are quite different from other images or art, especially if the template is not directly pertaining to thier author or organization. And if the template would only reasonably used for articles pertaining to that corporation or system (as in the SEPTA example), i see even more reason for the logo being in the template. But then, im new here :) --Lanoitarus 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'm (somewhat) new here too and what you said makes sense to me. Templates if anything should be more forgiving with fair-use images because the templates are ultimately included in an article. The sticky issue comes when the fair-use image is included (via template) into an article not related to the image (even in some minor way) to the image. I suppose the crown example above is one I'd have misgivings about. But certainly not a logo in a stub template for example. -Locke Cole 08:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is acording to Wikipedia policy all "fair use images" need a rationale to explain why it is considered fair use to use them in each and every article they are included in (and boy do we have a lot of "cleaning up" to do in that department already). If the image is added to a template you have very little controll over it. If you put a logo in a stub template for example you will suddenly have 50+ articles you need to justify the use of the image in, and there might be cases where the template is apropriate but the image is not. To further compound the problem there is a bug in the software so if you add a image to a template and then remove it again all the articles that used the template will still show up as file links on the image. This makes it very tricky to tell where the image is actualy used. So IMHO a "zero tollerance" policy for fair use images on templates is the best approach as it avoids a whole host of potential problems and leaves no "gray area" for people to "abuse". --Sherool 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed Template:SEPTA so that the image is <includeonly>.  That resolves the only big issue I had with it, whether the use of the image is fair use on Template:SEPTA itself.  JYolkowski // talk 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use in templates?

message: People on WP:AN/I don't give a shit; maybe you will. Boothy is re-adding the official (and thus fair use) SEPTA maps to Norristown High Speed Line and SEPTA Suburban Trolley Lines despite my creation of a free alternative. While the official maps show every stop, and mine only show the major points, I think this is something that's unnecessary on the map, but should instead be listed in the text. Bitch slap requested. --SPUI (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stick in the rest of the stops, and he'll have no reason to keep removing it. --Carnildo 06:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not sure the free version you've created is really quite equilivant.  Your map shows only the lines 4 major stops, while the  Copyrighted Version all 30-odd stops. I know i personally would prefer to see all the stops if i needed to get somewhere or research that particular line. --Lanoitarus 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Plus the copyrighted map just looks better overall in comparison. I'm sure the SVG map could be improved though, and probably should be, since I don't think the map would qualify as fair-use. (Unlike a publicity photograph of a celebrity or a company logo, the map is itself valuable). -Locke Cole 08:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: List the copyrighted ones on ifd and we can get rid of them. They are not fair use, they are permission anyway by the look of it. Justinc 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, disregard my fair-use concerns, it looks like Wikipedia will be OK using the SEPTA copyrighted images. Check out the license quoted on :Image:100map.gif for example. Reproduction is allowed so long as the copyright notice is intact. -Locke Cole 13:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's noncommercial use only, which means it has to be valid fair use to be allowed. I frankly don't see the point of showing all the stops on the map - they can more easily be included in the text, which makes the map more legible. --SPUI (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikimedia foundation is commercial? -Lanoitarus 18:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, but it's our intention not to encumber our articles with images that are "noncommercial use only", so that commercial re-users of the material can presume that all of our material is fair game. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  For that matter, a "no commercial use" license could prohibit the Foundation from selling copies of the encyclopedia on DVD. --Carnildo 08:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Boothy443]] including official transit maps when a suitable free version has been created

message: I would be interested on peoples views on whether there should be a wikipedia policy on this, as well as the recent Ian McKellen problem User talk:M Vallee has removed a free commons image :Image:Melanie Griffith.jpg, one of many Cannes photos being generously donated by a hungarian photographer which was recently added to Melanie Griffith and replaced it with a copyrighted image :Image:MelanieGriffith.jpg. Is there some way we can lock free images so they can only be removed by admins? Arniep 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real way to achieve that, and there are plenty of valid reasons to remove a free image, for example, to replace it with a better free image. :) I agree that we should not replace a free image with a non-free one, even if the non-free image is of a higher quality. I think the best way to achieve that is for diligent people like you to keep doing the good job you've obviously been doing in finding this sort of problem. --Gmaxwell 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can direct editors to Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, where it is stated: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible."  Jkelly 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replies. The problem is, I am not sure people are noticing when these free images are removed. For example, the image :Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg which was donated by Mckellen himself and appeared when it was a featured article, was removed in April and I only found it a couple of days ago after I removed the fair use image that User:DrBat replaced the original free one with which led me to check the history, discovering the original was removed back in April. Is it possible a bot could be created to generate a list of free images which are removed from articles or replaced by those with non free or no source tags? Arniep 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Twist the arms of the developers to get them to add the image undeletion feature.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Gmaxwell, that's great.  Another helpful thing for anyone to do might be to make liberal use of the 'wikimedia commons' tag, which is unlikely to be removed.  That will help future editors find any free images which have been replaced by "fair use" ones.  Jkelly 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, how much disk space is needed is it something we could all contrubute to (like Seti)? I also thought a Wikiproject could be created to watch free images, but maybe it could also be to revert any changes that your search finds? Re: the commons tag I have been adding it wherever I find commons images, I actually modified it to say "Wikipedia Commons has media related to..." from "Wikipedia Commons has more media related to..." in case only one image is availiable. Arniep 22:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule on not removing free images

message: The fair use page's section on images WP:FU#Fair_use_of_images states "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary". Some users are interpreting this as meaning it can be only used for identification only i.e. without critical commentary, so I think it needs to be reworded with (not for identification only) in brackets. I will make the changes if other people agree. Arniep 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover art

message: I think defining this is going to solve a lot of problems. Some people think critical commentary can be as little as xxx on the cover of xxx in xxx 200x, or xxx as xxx in xxx film. If this is accepted, then in theory someone can add 10s of images in a article with just small captions and we won't be able to argue it is not fair use unless we insist critical commentary is something more than the above examples. For it to be more than the above, the image needs to be notable which would rule out many magazine covers. However, people will soon learn how to write enough commentary to fit any new guidelines so I still think there needs to be a limit on fair use images tied to the article size or we have no way to prevent an article being made up mostly of 20 images and shortish commentaries that satisfy any new guideline that is made. Arniep 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another guideline that will only be read by three people beside the author is not the answer. I suspect the best method is going to be increaseing the number of informed users.Geni 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't know. Having something to point to is always helpful. I think the best approach to this would be to look at some of the caselaw and see what sorts of uses count there — it's the only real guide we have on this. --Fastfission 05:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my idea was to place examples of critical commentary on the Fair Use page, and examples of what it is not. But, as I said this still won't stop articles being overloaded with images. Arniep 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical commentary

message: I have now produced a live report of tagged orphaned fair use media. Everything in that list has been tagged as an orphan for at least 7 days and currently appears to be orphaned. Thus they all meet our criteria for speedy deletion. The list is uploaded whenever you load it. I hope to find it much shorter when I load it next. Enjoy. --Gmaxwell 04:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, :Image:Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock.jpg, :Image:Muhammad Ali.jpg, and :Image:Phillynott1.jpg, which have been listed for speedy deletion for a while now.  Jkelly 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Images have been shot. --Carnildo 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a more effective way to identify images that should be deleted after being unsourced for months than to put a db tag on them?  Jkelly 18:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Almost all the ones I click on, whenever I refresh it, have been deleted - is there a lag issue, or something at my end? The "as of Mon Nov 7 14:35:21" part seems to update fine, but not the list... Shimgray | talk | 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try images with names beginning with the letters M through T. It looks like the script can't differentiate between images that are linked to (usually by user pages) but don't exist, and images that aren't used at all, but do exist. --Carnildo 19:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it can tell, it's just that the server that it was running on was having database replication problems. They have been fixed and all images reported should actually exist... unless they are deleted while the page is loading. Please let me know if you find it getting lots of deleted images. I'm sorry for the problems before. --Gmaxwell 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Its too late at night to start now (well, maybe one) but will do some in the morning. Justinc 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  er, except your report does nothing at all. Blank screen. If you can dump a copy I will work on an offline version - a few false positives not a problem. Justinc 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It worked a little while ago, probably a temp server problem. I listed a few dozen random ones at CAT:CSD before it turned blank so you can kill those at least :) --Sherool 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's working again. Some mysql bug is corrupting my access to the backend database. I'm sorry for the interuptions. Next time you use it just leave it open or save a copy. :) --Gmaxwell 04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I shrunk it. A couple had slight extraneous circumstances, someone else can look at them. And no audio today so didnt even look at them. Justinc 10:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently at zero. Justinc 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently at 3465 and growing fast. Get back to work! ;)  (Also, the list now comes up in a different order for every user, so you should be able to work straight down the list from the top without running into another user too much). --Gmaxwell 02:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cunning plan indeed, the random thing. Its 3am but hey. Justinc 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 4467 now. Did E and Z. V looks like ajob for tomorrow though. Justinc 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How good is your script at identifying media that is linked to rather than inlined?  Music is generally linked, so the "file links" section of the image description page doesn't show anything. --Carnildo 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: It doesn't handle them correctly. --Carnildo 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, however I detagged all the ones that were linked after my last tagging run before they hit tagged for 7 days. If there are linked ones in the list it's because someone else tagged them, or because they were linked since. I'll be detagging the currently tagged orphans that are linked before they hit 7 days as well. There isn't an easy way I've found to report to look for linked content, especially since a few are linked via external links to upload.wikimedia.org. In order to remove them I parse the text of every article. --Gmaxwell 13:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention. Looks like one of the time fields in the database didn't do exactly what I expected (it gets reset by purges as well as a number of other things), and that caused the images to fall off the list. Brion doesn't think it was due to the image upgrade, but we couldn't quite guess what might have caused it. In any case I've amended my query and made a few changes which should also improve its load time. 2,911 media objects currently listed. Thanks for all your work! --Gmaxwell 08:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Get hitting that delete button!

message: I'd like some comments on whether the infamous O RLY owl would be fair use on O RLY?. I made my own public domain replacement, but part of the meme is the unique way the owl looks. --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: O RLY?

message: What are the feelings about the samples linked on Metal Gear Solid Original Game Soundtrack (one minute samples from each of the tracks of the album)? I say copyvio not FU... Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very very dubious indeed. No fair use justification that I can see. Justinc 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's worse than that: the samples are generally around a quarter of each track; :Image:Mixed_by_Quadra_.ogg was a minute and a half long.  Without any critical commentary on the album, I'd say that the use of any sound samples constitutes a copyvio. --Carnildo 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I added them to ifd. But if anyone speedies them I wont object. Justinc 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music samples 

message: Is the usage of :Image:Lilabner20985.jpg at Li'l Abner fair use or not? Hiding  talk 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. The use in Hillbilly certainly isnt, so I removed it. All the post 1978 US stamps are pretty dubious. Why did this particular one come up? Justinc 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're looking at a lot of the images in comics articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and we can't agree on this one.  I thought it was okay since the article referred to the stamp and the image was clearly captioned. Hiding  User talk:Hiding|talk 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In any case, the image is technically unsourced. Physchim62User_talk:Physchim62|(talk) 09:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and it probably swings it. Hiding  User talk:Hiding|talk 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a minor dispute about the sourcing of stamp images on my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Shoot 'em. --Carnildo 07:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when they're unsourced (as here)! Physchim62User_talk:Physchim62|(talk) 09:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it is tagged as a screenshot, and it looks like one from the game to me, would this be sufficient as a source? Arniep 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The image description file must contain the actual source of the image (is it from the user playing the game of his/her computer or is it as screenshot released by the manufacturer) and the copyright holder. A link to the main article is useful but not sufficient. Physchim62 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: they should go as orphaned fairly soon hopefully. Justinc 01:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concern has been raised about the removal of the image galleries.  Jkelly 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Help desk that I raise this issue here: Are we liable for usages other people make of "fair use" images when reusing content? If not, should we tighten the disclaimer in this area? Hiding  talk 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No we are not. Other people are responsible for all uses of the images (and text), either upholding the terms of the GFDL, US copyright law or copyright law in the country they are based or whatever. Anyone doing serious copying should hire a lawyer anyway. In the case of fair use they should consider whether they believe that copying fair use images is still fair use. It is slightly unfortunate that the image dumps in particular do not distinguish; I hope once tagging has been completed that this will change, but in the mean time anyone downloading stuff should filter images based on the copyright tags and their legal status. Justinc 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How are "fair use" images compatible with the GDFL?

message: I'm a bit unsure what happens if someone make a free image that contain copyrighted stuff. I mean for example most comic characters are copyrighted, so if someone for example draw an image of say Spider-Man from scratch could that be released under GFDL? Most fanart pages just have disclaimers like "This art is © all rights reserved me. The characters are © So-and-so I claim no rights to those", how exactly (if at all) would something like that fit into our licencing scheme here? Are those fanart guys on legal safe ground, or are they just left alone because it would be bad PR to go after them? --Sherool (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends very much on how it is used. The law doesnt recognise a single image as being composed of parts with different copyright statuses though, so the use of the characters within needs to fall within fair use or be considered original. If you draw a charcter that looks like spiderman a bit that might be ok. If it is a parody it is almost certainly ok. If you cut and paste a copy into a picture it probably isnt. Justinc 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-dwaring fanart etc. 

message: If this is going to become the de facto place by which legal advice on fair use doctrine is given to Wikipedia - which it has, deliberately or not, become, it would really be helpful, by which I mean essential, to label which people in the project are lawyers... Phil Sandifer 16:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it would make more sense to provide a way of getting in touch with those people that the WikiMedia foundation retains and who are willing to correspond with users.  We absolutely should not be providing legal advice on fair use.  We should be providing editing advice in order to meet Wikipedia:Fair use, which are not at all the same thing.  Jkelly 17:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, when I come here asking quesions I am only seeking consensus on the application of Wikipedia:Fair use and figure this is one place where you'll find editors who have an interest in such. User:Hiding  talk 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, that would be very helpful if there were more experts providing input here, though I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Previous attempts to involve or get the attention of the Wiki Judicial people have not been successful to my knowledge. --Fastfission 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need immediate legal advice you can get it, go to the contact details at wikimedia. I think they try to stay out unless necessary. No one on wikipedia who is a lawyer is likely to say so, as you are not covered by insurance in general giving unpaid legal opinions. Justinc 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I figured - in which case I'm kind of nervous about it being used to give what amounts to legal advice on fair use. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of where this project gives "legal advice on fair use", as opposed to advice on adhering to Wikipedia:Fair use?  Jkelly 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials

message: Hi, we may have a bit of a problem (by our new standards) about the maps of each of the the comarques of Catalonia and various other maps of the Catalan-speaking world. These were made by :ca:Usuari:Llull, but apparently he is no longer active, and back when he did them (and I imported them into the English-language Wikipedia) he had not thought to tag them about their being his original work, presumably because that was not routine at the time. I had enquired after him on the Catalan Wikipedia a few weeks back, and recently got this message on my user talk page:
:== About the Llull's images ==
:Hello. I'm user of the catalan wikipedia. I've seen you put a question in the Llull's discussion. The fact is that Llull is an inactive user (we don't know why), and he is being asked about the images he did without being the questions answered. Surely Llull did all the images by himself, but he had no time of putting the images description for some reason, and they remain without license. I believe it would be sufficient writing in the license that user:Llull drawn it and the license is GFDL ca:usuari:Arturo Reina
If you look at Llull's user page, you can see some pretty elaborate maps with explicit statement that he made them and that we are free to reuse them, but of course these are just some examples of his work. (If anyone needs something translated from that page, let me know, I read Catalan pretty decently.)
I would hate for someone to have to re-draw this vast array of maps. Clearly it was his intent to release these under GFDL: they are clearly his own work and he, himself, uploaded them to the Catalan-language Wikipeida.
Is there some way that someone other than Llull himself can tag them as ? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ? This seems like an ideal use of it. --Fastfission 21:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't quite fit, because I'm the uploader on en, and it's the uploader on ca who is presumed to have created the maps. Does this, perhaps, call for a new, similar template? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like  for example? Incidentally, the message on Llull's user page is fairly explicit: "I made these free distribution images". Physchim62 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's explicit, but of course it is not explicit about what images it refers to. I think his intent is absolutely clear, but I could imagine a shadow of a doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalonia maps 

message: Could this :Image:Beatles 1969.jpg be fair use? It is currently tagged as promo which I don't think it is, as it is probably a photo taken by a Rolling Stone photographer. Arniep 21:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatles image

message: I have created a centralized discussion page to invite discussion on and form a consensus regarding the fair use of images within articles regarding comics.
*Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics
All opinion welcome! Hiding  talk 16:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and comics images 

message: I'm trundling through this looking for stray comic images and it occurs me that there must be a better way of breaking this down, it's huge!  Can't we create subcategories for photographs of people, photographs of objects, movie posters, screenshots, illustrations and animation stills and so on? Hiding  talk 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some tags/categories should defenently be subdivided (:Category:Logos come to mind). Main problem is that the tags are mainly there for copyright reasons, so they focus on source and use rather than content. IMHO just "pictures of people" would not work as a fair use tag. If you just create a "tag" called "fair use images of people" users would just lump everyting in there ragardles of wether it was a magazine cover, screenshot, photo or painting. IMHO we would have to subdivide each tag, for example film-screenshot-of-people (that's probably 90% of them though), or whatever. That said "hadshot" photos make up a good portion of the "generic" fair use stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else so coming up with a unambigous tag for it would have been nice. --Sherool (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-publicity stills of people"? I take it illustrations would be images of art then? What about graphical drawings? Hiding  talk 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Fair use images]] 

message: I kinda hate to bring this up, but does it make any sense to put a fair use tag on an image?  It's not the image that is or isn't fair use, it is the use of the image that is or isn't fair.  Seems to me, what you need is a tag that you use on the caption that the image has in the article where it's used. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From an administrative point of view, we need it on the image, with an indication of in what article it is claimed as fair use. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: By putting the tag with the image, it indicates the copyright status (unlicensed) and serves as a warning to anyone who is considering re-using the image elsewhere. --Carnildo 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We have , which allows the user to specify which article the image is fair use for, and due to the hyperlink nature of the web that information is only a click away from the article.  However, it might be worth having a tag for captions. Hiding  talk 07:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should the tags go, really? 

message: I'm currently tagging stuff in :Category:Fair use which doesn't have a source attributed, but I want to question how stringent to be.  It's my understanding that the source is either a web address or the work from which it was scanned, i.e. title of work.  To me book cover doesn't really cut it since it isn't specified which book.  Is that right? Hiding  talk 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if you can read the publisher you can guess that they are the holder (although photographers often have rights). If you cant read it bes not to guess as there are often different covers in different countries, different paperback an hardback editions etc. Justinc 12:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess, but I hope we won't delete images on this basis, since they would still be presumed fair use. Or am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, having no source is a speedy criteria if such images have been tagged as such for seven days.  Having a source is part of Wikipedia's Image usage policy, regardless of whether the use qualifies as fair use or not.  It makes the copyright holder easier to establish, since, as I understand it, in certain instances the originator of the scan is able to claim copyright on the scan. Hiding  talk 05:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No source 

message: I'm finding this tag troublesome for a number of reasons:
* Perhaps it's just a poor name, or I'm misunderstanding it, but I'm bothered by the category name for images with this tag: :Category:Public domain unless fair use images.  When I first saw this category, I took it to mean: "Well, it should be fair use, but if fair use cannot be supported, well then I guess the image must be public domain."  After reading the template, I see that the argument is the reverse: "The image is likely to be public domain, but if not then the use is still fair."
* For the other generic fair use tags discussed above in #Proposal_on_generic_fair_use_tags, the template has been modified to indicate that a more specific tag or  should be used instead.  This one has not.
* In many cases, the way the tag seems to be used is: "We don't know the source of the image, but the use seems to be fair, regardless."  Elsewhere we have argued that we cannot claim fair use if the source is not given.  If we are to allow fair use claims on images of unknown origin in some cases, it would be useful to have some guidelines for when this is appropriate and what sorts of justification can be given.
--Tabor 17:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was unsure of what to do with it. I will have a look at them. Please retag if possible when you find one. I think it should go at some point soon. Justinc 15:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Lots are just rubbish. eg :Image:BBC-TCF.jpg which it is obvious who the holder is. BTW I have tagged this with  which still links to permission - can we fix this. I am not prepared to assert fair use, but I havent got time to ifd it right now. Justinc 15:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|fairuseunsure}} 

message: Do we need any guildelines for "multi tagging" images? Especialy with free and unfree tags at the same time. Sometimes it can give some wierd mixed signals, like :Image:Internet.png wich was tagged as ,  and . Now the first two are fair enough, it contain both copyrighted software and copyrighted webpages, but throwing the wikipedia screenshot into the mix seems redundant, and can only serve to confuse people into thinking the picture can be used under GFDL just because one tiny portion of the image is GFDL (so I removed the wikipedia tag). Another often ocuring mix is  or  and , wich also send mixed signals, coatofarms claim fair use and unclear copyright status and then there is a second tag that claim (virtualy) free use... --Sherool (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple tagging 

message: Anyone interested in helping improve Wikipedia:Public domain? See also its talk page. The page could or should probably also be linked from more places in the "Wikipedia" namespace... Lupo 09:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public domain