Talk:Fair use/Archive 3

message: Most of the links to wikipedia and wikipedia policy shold be removed from here.  But, I think there should be comments about it first. gren グレン 07:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Most of the discussion about wikipedia policy should be taken to the "Wikipedia:Fair use" discussion for wikipedia-oriented assessment. This talk page should be about the parameters of this article on fair use: how to define it, how to organize it, and so on. LQ 17:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references]] 

message: A group of Harvard Law School students are currently taking a class in Cyberlaw and contributing to this Wikipedia, coordinated through Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cyberlaw and a Wiki at Harvard is being used to organize notes on what they are learning, of which one topic is Fair use.  It may be of interest to some what is the latest interpretation of the laws they are learning.  See here for one of these overviews of where this is appropriate. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Students 

message: On a lighter side of fair use, sometimes there is a wikipedia entry for a toy. People will quote the several sentences of the description on the front or back of the toy box, saying it's fair use since it's openly printed to the general public. Others point out the copyright notice on the box bottom and remove the toy description from the wikipedia entry. Is there any official call on this? Is it fair to quote the words on a toy box in a Wikipedia entry for a toy. user:mathewignash 
:Copying above to Wikipedia talk:Fair use. __meco 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use and toy boxes

message: Text currently reads: "Some commentators have also suggested that some form of fair use defense is required by the First Amendment's protection of free speech, because without some 
amount of copying, some things simply cannot be said." I find this a little hard to grasp. Shouldn't the word required be replaced with provided here?
:Seems fine to me. First Amendment protection of free speech necessitates ("requires") the existence of a fair use defense. It'd be clearer without the passive voice though, let me go fix that. Jerry Kindall 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required or provided 

message: Is commercial use invariably unfair? --84.61.37.241 13:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Otherwise no movie ad could ever quote a review! - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always unfair? 

message: I don't know if this is the place to ask or not, but what is the consensus on "Low Resolution"? I read "thumnails" earlier, but what specific resolution? I ask because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Honda_WOW.jpg seems to me to be too high of resolution to be considered fair use. I was going to resize it, but was unsure as to what size to target. Thanks. --Douglas Whitaker 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Douglas, you'd do better to take that kind of question to Wikipedia talk:Fair use, the talk page of a project in community space rather than a talk page discussing an encyclopedia article. I'll copy it there for you. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Low Resolution" 

message: I have no idea why a section is here on fair use in Wikipedia. Why, for example, should that be more important than fair use in Britannica, or The New York Times? I think this smacks of navel-gazing. 
Furthermore, the section starts out with a statement that is uncited and probably wrong: "Fair use is used in Wikipedia, mainly for screenshots, persons and significant pictures." This seems to assume that the majority of fair use in Wikipedia is visual. I suspect that, in fact, the majority of instances of fair use in Wikipedia comes in the form of quoting a short passage, or simply using a choice phrase, from a copyrighted work. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. (And it looks like User:FidelFair did, too, since they got rid of the section.) LQ 12:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, why do pictures have to be low-resolution in order to qualify for fair use on Wikipedia?  (If this is the wrong place to ask that question, then please direct me to the proper talk page.)  --Luigifan 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fair use in Wikipedia" 

message: The Common misunderstandings section seems like original research to me. If it isn't, then it need citations, and if it is then it should be replaced with a non-original research. I'll see what I can find, but if anyone knows of an sites that specifically cover this topic that would be great. Koweja 01:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are indeed common misconceptions, and not original research. (And each of the points within it are well documented elsewhere, as well as in the article itself.)  However, a "common misconceptions" section seems, itself, a little non-encyclopedic in tone; list-ish, rather than encyclopedic-essayish. I think it's probably better to include the material within the relevant sub-parts.  Or, to flesh out this section, and explain that because of the growth of copyright and the related increase in reliance on the doctrine of fair use, a lot of misconceptions and confusion have arisen over time; e.g., X, Y, and Z.  Still shouldn't be list-ish, though. -- LQ 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common misunderstandings section 

message: The external links section is getting outta hand!  There are 20 links right now. -- LQ 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links section 

message: "Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work looks really bad…": surely, the judge did not say "looks really bad". - Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone