Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 13

message: This is an idea that has been floating around in these discussions, and I think it needs its own heading because it's of crucial importance: The legal justification for using copyrighted images is exactly the same as the legal justification for quoting from copyrighted texts.  Both of these are allowed under U.S. law (under which WP's servers operate) by the doctrine of fair use.
I've never seen any of the people crusading against fair use images suggest that we ought to replace all quotes with paraphrases--which could certainly be done, though it would clearly reduce the quality of many of WP's articles.  So there really is not a principled stance against fair use in favor of a "100 percent free content encyclopedia".  The opposition to fair use images has to be based on something else--from what I can gather, a misunderstanding of copyright law that holds that text is somehow different from images.
If someone can provide a more coherent rationale for why text and images should be treated differently, please make the case.  Otherwise, let's skip the accusations that wikipedians who don't approve of the wholescale deletion of fair use images are somehow out of step with the WP philosophy.  Based on the universal acceptance of fair-use quotation, what we have here is a factual dispute over whether using promotional images is less legally safe.  If we stick to that factual debate, I believe the routine use of promotional images to illustrate articles will be accepted. Nareek 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know if de: has quotes, and what their justification is? My German is not up to the polysyllabic tonguetwisters of legal discussion. :-) Stan 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How does that change the fair use argument?  If we're out to eliminate all fair use, then small quotations from larger texts have to go, too.  The point is we can't completely eliminate fair use, ever, period.  Going on a crusade against images in the name of fair use just hurts the project and is inconsistent with the policy used on other content. -- ChadScott 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To respond to my comment by saying that quotations are legally safer than text is to agree with me in saying that Wikipedia does not have a principled objection to fair use, but is concerned that some kinds of fair use may be legally questionable.  That's a factual claim that I think is wrong: Fair use is recognized for images as well as text, the lower resolution of web images has been treated as a kind of partial quotation, and there is no particular safety in quotation--the most famous defeat of a fair use claim was a text quotation of not so many words by The Nation.  Regardless, I think it will be healthy for us to move this discussion to what kinds of fair use are appropriate for Wikipedia to use rather than arguing about whether, in principle, Wikipedia should be using fair use at all. Nareek 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that would be the false dilema logical fallacy.Geni 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain the point please? TIA.--luke 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. This strawmanship isn't helping anyone at all. Nobody, except for a few extremists, has ever suggested that we halt the usage of fair use images (which has been done on many other WPs), let alone the usage of all copyrighted content. Wikipedia's approach to fair use content can be summed up as: Don't use it, but if there's no copylefted alternative and the fair use claim is as watertight as can be hoped for, then go ahead. (And as for why it's strongly undesirable to use fair use images, no explanation should be necessary.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about Jimbo's GFDL principles, which seem very clearly stated.--luke 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you referring to? Is it the comment Jimbo made as quoted by Borisblue 09:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already gone into a little detail as part of a discussion with Andrew Levine here. Check my point made at 19:11 on 6 November 2006.--luke 14:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting we ought to ban all fair use material from Wikipedia because it cannot be licenced under the GFDL? What about all those images we use under copyleft but non-GFDL licences? Should those go too? Johnleemk | Talk 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, we were discussing a particular class of fair use material there as you will see, not all fair use. As to copyleft, I believe there is a debate as to whether the GFDL is the BEST license for our purposes of those currently available. I've yet to be convinced, but this is surely not the best place to discuss these questions..luke 09:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Will Always Rely on Fair Use 

message: The problem here is only with th fair use pictures.We don't need do fork anything else.the isue is located only on wikipedia.Is it technicly possible to have a fork without forking the text.I mean that peopol will edit on the same version.in somewhay continue to use the resources of wikimedia foundation and work on a diff for the images.So that divergence is kept close to zero.--Pixel ;-) 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical feasability of a fork 

message: I know there's the rule on including photos of the living to see "what they look like" is not allowed. What would the stance be for someone who is long deceased (100 years, for example)? --Wizardman 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no known public domain/copyleft image available, a fair use image should be acceptable. Johnleemk | Talk 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even see the "published before 1923" thing, so (I assume) it works. You can review the image if necessary here. --Wizardman 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's safe. Johnleemk | Talk 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not quite problems kick in with works published in countries other than the US.Geni 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't matter if a valid fair use justification is made.  Copyrighted images can be used under fair use. Johntex\talk 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of deceased 

message: Questions have come up before about whether copyrighted images used to illustrated public domain books is acceptable under our policies.  Rather than go around tagging images, I've decided to start a project, here, to replace them (we can move it to project space if anyone thinks of a good place).  It's generally very easy to find PD images for books published before 1923, as you can see from my list.  I need volunteers to help me do this.  We can replace a large number of borderline fair use images with PD very quickly, I think, so come help out.  Chick Bowen 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I added a minor caveant to your instructions though. Books published before 1923 outsite the US may not nessesarily automaticaly be in the public domain AFAIK. --Sherool (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, true, though they often are (there are some discussions about this between me and Lupo #Joyce images).  But care is certainly needed for twentieth-century books.  Chick Bowen (book cover project) 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers needed 

message: I have put a warning on the , so the uploader would now that the images of living people are often unsuitable for the project and that they need some sort a rationale to keep the image.
I also think that we should put similar warnings on the  asking the tagger to briefly explain why the image is replaceable. And on  asking the closing admin to keep the talk page of the image with the discussion present. Alex Bakharev 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to have some templates for admins when they decide on an image, especially when they decide to keep it, so people know it wasn't just reverted per this discussion. These could be placed on the  tag also (small) for easy copying. I will do it sometime this week if someone doesn't beat me to it. :) - cohesion 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of the photos deleted during the recent spate of deletions that I've noticed while reviewing articles for edit are of individuals who are dead as a doornail.  As I said before, and maintain, it appears that nobody is looking at the articles which they are meant to illustrate, or whether they might qualify for a PD tag!  J-M  Jgilhousen 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point them out.  The deleting admin should certainly be able to speedy-undelete them, or if it's really obvious another admin may be able to speedy-undelete, probably after/while discussing with the first admin. Admins sometimes make mistakes, and they'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future if notified.  --Interiot 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings 

message: Does anyone know if satellite images (such as screen shots from Google Maps/Earth or other mapping places that allow a satellite view) of specific things are ok to use, and if so, what they should be tagged as? Thanks! (Liveforever22 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Earth images are definitely not okay... but, fortunately, NASA satellite images are all in the public domain.  You can find many NASA satellite images on Wikimedia Commons, or, of course, at the NASA website.  Jkelly 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depending on what scale you're looking for, NASA World Wind  can be an easy-ish way to make an image out of NASA data.  --Interiot 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Images? 

message: *Take this example Hayao Miyazaki.when he will die,is it in the policy to replace this PD drawing with a fair use photo?--Zigzag8 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad idea, IMHO. There's no quality control. - Stick Fig 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular drawing is well done though. Reminds me of the wall street journal-woodcuts. Borisblue 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, should Wikipedia come up with a quality-controlled solution to this problem? I'm not an artist myself, but I am a graphic designer and I think coming up with a sort of standardized vector art format would be a much better solution than nothing at all. I think if it was something that could be easily repeatable by anyone with average skill and if there was an active critique process, it would work better than just removing the images. - Stick Fig 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is a valid concern.  That is one of the many reasons why we should not act as if any free image, regardless of how bad it is, is always a better image and a free one of higher quality.  This issues involve more grey area than that and they need to be discussed on their merits. Johntex\talk 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And of course if you had access to a person in order to draw him, you could have taken a photograph...  Postdlf 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It would be funny if many of our articles on celebrities rendered them like this though. --GunnarRene 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, if we keep finding ways to complicate our lives, we'll never get anything done. Red tape, y'know. - Stick Fig 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is...  Postdlf 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to admit it -- this whole fair use thing is an extremely convoluted argument, and whenever we come up with a useful solution, someone puts out our fire. We either need to decide to do something and deal with the possible difficulties in reaching the goal or stop trying to solve a problem that isn't there. - Stick Fig 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  All photos are not equal.  All living people are not reasonably esay to photograph.  A truly crappy free photo is not a good justification to remove a really good one that has some restrictions.  Leave them both in the article if you want to provide a free one.  Johntex\talk 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  drawings as replacement to ALL fair use photos? 

message: Don't you agree that all this "living/replasable" buisness has gone too far.I want to ask if you agree to go and demand too the bord an election on the isue.I mean like with the bord election,to have a baner on every article to invite peopol to comme and vote for a refrasing of the rule.The composition of the users that are hanging around this talk page is havily biased with the over zealus free-image camp.By this mean we should have in the end a result closer to the real consensus of the users.I frankly can't imagine what kind of decent argument can anybody object to my proposal.--Zigzag8 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - invite people to come here...the more that come, the more democratic the discussions will be. When I started the proposal on 'Images of living people' I posted a few notices about it so that as many as possible would participate..The Board discussed the matter a few weeks ago, and decided they wouldn't interfere with Wikipedias decisions.--luke 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,and remind me what hapend with your proposal,why should it be diferent with mine,it will be just a fourt attempt to change the policy.Ok,your right,that the bord is about wikimedia not wikipedia.So what the official prosedure to start an election in en-wikipedia.--Zigzag8 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly why put a notice manually and panefully on some users pages,when we can put a baner like the one of the bord election with a link that redirects here?It cost nothing.--Zigzag8 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Board was being asked to set an overall policy for all Wikipedias on fair use v. free content and I guess it was within its remit to do so, but it was decided not to interfere, presumably because of autonomy considerations. So we set our own policy. You are right that this has become a big bone of contention so it would obviously be best if as many users as possible take part in the discussions. I think your banner idea is worth consideration.--luke 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,yes,but what about what do we have to do in practise for this?--Zigzag8 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I will revet any atempts to use sitenotice in this way.Geni 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you repeat that in englich?--Zigzag8 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi - not being familiar (by any means) with all the policies, I'm assuming there are policy considerations for your view. But the important point is that although Wikipedia is not a democracy the encyclopedia is the result of all its contributors so it would obviously be best if as many users as possible take part in the discussions.--luke 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're seriously not helping anything here. I think we'd all be a bit better off if everyone stopped playing either the heavy or the activist and we actually started working together. This sort of response, especially from an admin, is the kind of thing that gets people disillusioned about Wikipedia. - Stick Fig 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Broad participation is useful. In the past, however, attempts to use Mediawiki:Sitenotice or Mediawiki:Watchdetails to publicize policy proposals have been met with strong disapproval from the community. Publicizing a fair use policy discussion in such a way would not be a viable option. I believe that this is what Geni meant. --RobthTalk 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is generaly accepted that sitenotice should not be used to advertise policy discussions.Geni 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the rational of this?Please stop giving half ansers.--Zigzag8 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Site notice is generaly used for things on a foundation level. The reason is that it hits too many pages and causes too much dissruption for stuff below that level.Geni 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgive me, Zigzag, but you just registered your account yesterday. You may want to wait until you're a bit more familiar with the project before campaigning to change its policies. ×Meegs 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: spaming user talk pages is not regarded as aceptable.Geni 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but neutrally worded messages are not considered spamming - they are considered notification. Johntex\talk 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope after the rambot incerdent people made it quite clear that the content of the message wasn't that important in their objections.Geni 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with that.  Can you please provide a link?  In any event, we do a form of mass notification for elections by putting the notice at the top of watchlists.  That proves that we CAN do a mass notification IF we think it is important enough. Johntex\talk 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyet someone tried to use that to advertise policy discussion just after the last lot of arbcom elections had finished. it was removed striaght away.Geni 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very disrespectful view to a large number of Wikipedians and shows everything that's wrong with this policy. If we're going to debate this policy, we do it openly. The reason we're having problems right now is that a small group is trying to dictate policy, despite what a larger group may want. Do you seriously think that barring the very users pushing for a change in the policy is going to please anyone? - Stick Fig 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stan, Please comment on content, not contributors, thanks.  Personally, I wouldn't mind an across-the-board unified policy that editors are not allowed to have a voice in things like changing policy, voting on RfA's, commenting on AfD's etc, until they have reached 500 edits or something.  But we don't have such a policy.  Instead, we like to welcome all comers to Wikipedia, even anonymous editors are welcome.  With such a mantra, I don't think there would be much support for the type of limit your propose. Johntex\talk 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'm a little jaded, having personally processed several thousand images where the original uploaders couldn't be bothered to follow even our two basic requirements for sourcing and licensing. Not everything on WP is up for voting anyway; for instance, if 10,000 editors got together and decided that original research was now OK, I would just block them all. Ditto if some group of editors decided that it was "fair use" to incorporate the verbatim text of articles from the present-day EB, because "their writing is so much better". Stan 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think, no matter what their sins or errors in judgment, it's necessarily nice to slap them with the same brush. Your demeanor towards WP users in the last two posts also goes against a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, WP:AGF. - Stick Fig 07:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course my habit is to assume good faith, but what are we to make of the hundreds everyday who ignore everything they see on Special:Upload ?? When somebody says they "didn't see the warnings on the upload page", I really have a hard time believing that. I see by your edit history you haven't done any image cleanup work - you really should try your hand at it, to get a better sense of the scale of the problem. For instance, every image at the top level of :Category:Fair use images need to be given a better tag, sourced, etc. Stan 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If 10.000 editors deside too reck the boat,how do you think YOU are to stop them?Wikipedia is not a democracy and even less a dictatorchip,of you,the boad or Jimmy Wales.--Zigzag8 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are ways and means. while I probably would apeal to the board under those conditions there are other options.Geni 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Was that "rock the boat" or "wreck the boat"? I'm not about to let four years of my work go down the tubes, and as long as I have admin powers I'll block everyone and anyone who threatens WP. Indeed, it's one of the admins' jobs, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. 10,000 editors agreeing to violate a core policy is just as much a disruption as one doing it; you have no idea of the firepower that is available to deal with trouble. Now if you want to have a discussion instead of making threats, let's do that. Stan 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia elections

message: I have just submitted an RFC about the use of historical logos in galleries at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Specifically, a single admin has deleting galleries in articles about television stations claiming that they violate policy. I (and many in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations) believe they don't violate policy, and that they convey important encyclopedic information and thus should not be deleted. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine a consensus. (I'm hoping this doesn't get lost in all the debate about fair use of photos of living people.) DHowell 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical logos in galleries 

message: No response to my postings on how to bring our policy into some kind of order. Following on from that I propose a wholesale review of fair use policy taking all factors into account. It's suggested that the factors should include, amongst others:- 'free content' considerations - legal advice - technical advice on increased server loads caused by such media .... and any other factors whatsoever which are relevant. This is an invitation to all (including Jimmy Wales) to contribute to the review, and for you to propose any other factors which you think should be considered. If there is any interest I guess we should assign a generally agreed weighting to each of the factors to be considered. A lot of bad feeling has been caused by the policy as at present operating, and btw I notice Russell T. Davies's image is still there, large as life :)..luke 10:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection clearly wasn't just to the policy, but to the prolonged and ongoing campaign to impose one particularly extreme interpretation of this policy by a small clique of editors, while disregarding the valid comments of many more editors, often with extreme rudeness and sneakiness.  Badagnani 11:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the troubles is the policy as at present formulated can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's what's allowed all this to happen and that's why I think we need to take a long hard look at it.--luke 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of Fair Use policy

message: I was going to add this image to the article Doctor Who spoofs, to accompany the section Doctor Who spoofs#Robot Chicken.  However, I noticed at :Special:Upload that the licensing menu says "one per article" under screenshots.  I understand that we don't want dozens of screenshots from the same work on a page about a movie or TV episode, and "one per article" seems like a reasonable guideline for articles of that type.  But Doctor Who spoofs covers sketches and the like from dozens of different programs.  It currently has two images licensed as screenshots.  Is it inappropriate to add a third?  I guess I'm asking how strict the guideline of "one screenshot per article" is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a recent additon. One screenshot to identify a particular fictional work seems reasonable, but we might need more screenshots to comment on multiple aspects of a show, and not least for identifying characters in it.--GunnarRene 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The language is misleading as to the policy. It should be changed in the upload menu, to something more in line with the policy. Check out our article on Wikipedia for example: More than one screenshot. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: More than one screenshot. --GunnarRene 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one screenshot per article? 

message: I think it's important for Wikipedia to have not a looser or stricter interpretation of fair use, but a realistic understanding of what fair use does and doesn't allow.  Fair use does allow you to use promotional photos in a virtually unrestricted way, and cover images likewise.  However, there are claims of fair use, seemingly approved by Wikipedia, that strike me as almost certainly being copyright violations. I offer  as an example.
The claims that go along with this template are:
:This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the photographer who took the photograph or the agency employing the photographer. It is believed that the use of this photograph
::to illustrate the event in question where: 
::The photograph depicts a non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created, and 
::The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and 
::the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright, 
::on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, 
:qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. 
The important point here is that the copyright holder presumably took the historic photo because it illustrates the event in question, and hoped that people would pay him or her money because no free alternative exists.  Offering these things as reasons why you don't have to pay photographers for doing the things that photographers make a living doing is not likely to persuade any judge that you haven't violated copyright. And saying that the picture is no bigger than is needed to do the thing that it is economically intended to do isn't likely to help you much either.
When images of album covers are deleted because they are illustrating an article about the band rather than the album, yet uses like this are allowed to go unquestioned, Wikipedia needs to get some serious advice about what copyright law really says. Nareek 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The histroical photo bit is meant to be for the perpose of critical comment with the idea that the article will talk about the picture. The picture should be as small and low res as posible. It is likely we qualify under the 1st requirment and if the article is about the photo hopefuly the forth.Geni 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point of copyright is to protect creators' right to get paid.  If you're using for free an image that someone took hoping to sell it to outlets like encyclopedias, you're going to have a hard time making a fair use claim stick. Nareek 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most were taken to sell to news organisations not encyclopedias. Others were taken for propergander reasons. In practice you are looking at an abused tag. I suspect fewer than 200 could be considered legit.Geni 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Fair Use 

message: A number of logo tags have been nominated for deletion.  Please see Template:Zoo logos and other to help build a consensus on the best way to manage fair use logo templates.  Thank you. BigDT 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use logo tags [[WP:TFD|TFD]] 

message: While I'm sure this was probably said before, I don't know it has, so I'll say it now. How are images being used under fair use, actually fair use, if we have a non-commercial available. I expect someone will explain to me the policy on fair use and non comm., but I'm well aware of the two, so don't bother (unless it somehow, properly answers the question). But fair use should be an image we don't have an alternative to. While I realise the template says free alternative, how can that be fair use. While it is nice to have images that can be completely freely re-used, if we (English Wikipedia) have an alternative we can fully legally use, how is using one under fair use, fair? (Legally speaking, re-users of Wikipedia content, are not our problem). 
For example, a number of celebrities currently do not have free-use images of sufficient quality/clarity available. So we use non-free under fair use. But some of them could be replaced with (again, just an example) PETA ad campaign images (available under non-comm.) So when we have a suitable alternative, that we are licenced to use. An specific example of a case like this, is Sophie Ellis-Bextor. The current main image is an album cover. I haven't found any good free-use images on the web. But there is an excellent non-comm. image available from PETA. Like I said, this is just one example (I'm sure there are hundreds, or even thousands more - not of PETA ones, just more where non comm.'s could be used) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to burst your bubble, but we cannot use "non-commercial" images since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is a more complicated question being asked here, to which the answer is "The availability of a free alternative is a factor in Wikipedia:Fair use, not fair use."  As you know, and as Zscout370 reminds us, we treat all non-commercial licenses as just as unfree as any other copyrighted work that we have no license to republish.  Therefore, from Wikipedia's standpoint, the existence of a non-commercially licensed alternative is uninteresting to us.  That said, we cannot avoid the fact that there is good reason for individual editors adding a non-commercial licensed image to Wikipedia, and making a Wikipedia:Fair use claim, to be less worried about the consequences of doing so than if they were doing the same with an image not so licensed.  However, the larger point is that it is important to not conflate Wikipedia guidelines, common Wikipedia practice, and the United States doctrine.  The three are quite different.  Jkelly 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I not just say I'm well aware of the policy on non-comm. images? My point was (as Jkelly seems to get) is that how is an image fair use if we have a non-comm. available? Just because we don't want to use non-comm.'s doesn't mean that we can ignore they exist, and say we have "no alternatives" and claim fair use. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hhmmm, you have an interesting point.  To summarize, you are asking whether given the existence of both normal copyrighted materials and equivalent (for our purposes) noncommercial materials, whether the existence of the latter interferes with the fair use claim of the former.  I think the answer is largely no, based on the nature of the tests for fair use.  The core concerns for fair use are the nature of the copyrighted work and the nature of the use, and there is really very little in fair use law that adresses the availability of suitable alternatives.  (Judging what is a suitable alternative is likely something judges would prefer to avoid since it strikes at the creative process and free speech.)  My suspicion is that the existence of non-commercial and free alternatives will generally have little legal impact on whether or not a fair use claim is possible provided the basic requirements are otherwise met.  From a policy and practical standpoint, Wikipedia prefers free alternatives, but I suspect that we are not really legally obligated to do so.  Dragons flight 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I correct to say that an image released for non-commercial use could still be used on wikipedia under a fair use rationale?  john k 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to be more strict about an image released for noncommercial use than about a normally copyrighted image. Nareek 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's all kinds of aspects of our fair use policy that seem to have no rational basis, so I wanted to make sure. john k 06:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nareek is correct.  This is part of the two-policies-under-the-same-name confusion; obviously it doesn't need to be explained whay a noncommercial image meets the legal definition of fair use--we're not arguing fair use to use it; it does, however, have to have a rationale explaining why it meets our requirements for including unfree content--which, due to the current naming situation, is lumped in under the term "fair use rationale".  --RobthTalk 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmmm, as someone still puzzled by the policy are there reasons for preferring free alternatives to non-commercial images of better quality, and should this have anything to do with commercial reusers? Also I was thinking of e.g. the PETA image mentioned above - why shouldn't it be used in preference to a fair use claim...thanks--luke 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the preference for libre images over non-commercial is because our goal is to create content that can be reused by anyone, including commercial reusers.  As to the question of a non-commercial image vs. a legal fair use image, I would say that the former would probably be preferable, as it would be reusable without legal concerns by noncommercial redistributers; i.e., while not fully free, it would be free-er.  That said, I'm not a lawyer, so don't just take my word for that. --RobthTalk 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my main point. They are not "free" per se. But they are freeer than fair use. Also I just realised I was actually making a mistake in how I phrased my question. The Wikipedia tags say the thing about "no substitute" (not copyright law). Why aren't they usable if the only alternative is fair use? I don't see how anyone could argue, reasonably, that fair use is a better licence than non-comm. I know what you mean about being able to claim fair use on a non commercial image, but if you're gonna use fair use, then there's probably an even better alternative with all rights reserved, so you may as well use that (all rights reserved are usually best quality, followed by non-comm., and then by free images - just a rough generalisation) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use isn't a license.  Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement.  Wikipedia accepts fair use in certain circumstances as a rationale for including copyrighted images.  It does not consider release under a non-commercial license to be a rationale for including copyrighted images.  As far as I understand it, there are two basic rationales for including an image on wikipedia.  Either a) it is public domain, or released on a license that is sufficiently free for wikipedia's policies to consider it a "free image"; or b) it qualifies as fair use.  An image released on a non-commercial license does not qualify for A.  Presumably, though, such an image should be able to qualify under B.  If it is a choice between a non-commercial image and a regular copyrighted image of the same subject, I don't see any reason that the latter would qualify as fair use and the former wouldn't.  john k 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ....and a related point: in deprecating the non-commercial licensed image in comparison with a libre image which may not be as good aren't we in danger of impoverishing the project and enriching commercial reusers on the backs of contributors with no overall benefit to contributors or ordinary web users who will always be the major users? Or is this the wrong way to look at it.--luke 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use VS. Non-com 

message: I asked a question about self-made images modeled after a copyrighted work (like :Image:RebelAllianceLogo.png). I re-created the Rebel Alliance logo to avoid the restrictions of fair-use policy applied to the official logo. I also noticed that another user released his own work (:Image:Star wars galactic empire emblem.svg, based on the official symbol of the Galactic Empire) to the public domain, but has also been tagged with a fair-use boilerplate, so i'd like some clarifications whether i could release my work without infringing copyright. I did this mainly because i saw some images that appear to be modeled after copyrighted logos or items and have been released under free licenses (like :Image:Pegasus stargate with very detailed glyphs.svg, :Image:Unico_Anello.png). — Canderous Ordo 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you create a work based on a existing copyrighted work you are in essence simply creating a unauthorized copy of that work, so no you can not re-draw a (fictional) logo and release it under a free license. Considering photos of X-wing toys, Yoda action figures, Star Destroyer model kits and people wearing stormtrooper costumes at StarWars conventions have all been deleted from Commons as unauthorised derivative works I'd say those Stargate and Ring of power (a plain gold ring would be fine, the addition of the Mordor writing might however be a problem) images are most likely not entierly kosher either. --Sherool (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherool is correct here, but many such works will not be called an unauthorized copy, but rather unauthorized derivative work. --GunnarRene 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if someone, for instance, draws and illustrates a character from the Star Wars series, Harry Potter series, etc? Can the drawing be released under a free license, or it would still be an unauthorized derivative work? And what about photographs (Berniethomas68 uploaded a bunch of self-made photographs representing Star Wars characters.) — Canderous Ordo 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect unauthorized derivative work. However we are getting into an extereamly messy area of copyright and one best kept away from.Geni 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You suspect right.  A general principle is actually easy to determine: it is impossible to make an image of a copyrighted character that would be acceptable legally and/or under fundamental Wikipedia policy.  A visual illustration of a copyrighted character is a derivative of that character and the works of fiction in which it appears.  This is true even if the original work is purely in text form rather than visual.  Let's say that someone draws a picture that's supposed to be of a Harry Potter character that has not yet appeared in a film adaptation.  To the extent that it actually functions as an informative depiction of that character, it must have made use of and incorporated written descriptions of that character in a substantive way, such as facial features, distinctive elements of clothing, etc.  The picture adapts and derives from the original written work even though it's in a different medium.  If it doesn't actually do that because the written description of the character's appearance is too generic or minimal, or the illustration is instead a complete flight of artistic fancy ("I reimagined Harry Potter as a spandex-wearing, African-American transvestite from Miami"), then the illustration is original research and has no informative or encyclopedic value anyway.  Postdlf 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User-created images modeled after a copyrighted work

message: I've got a question about the use of screenshots tagged with , which states that they may be used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents." So may screenshots from the film which feature a certain person be used in a biographical article about that actor? I was under the impression that this was definitely not the case, so I removed :Image:18682256.jpg from the article on English model Keeley Hazell. However, another user (User:Certified.Gangsta) objected and reverted, saying "Well Keeley obviously is part of the film, so she is part of the content." I'm pretty sure biographical articles on the actors don't qualify as contents, but I hate reverting, so I thought I'd seek verification. Þicaroon 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer here must be "it depends".  For example, in Christopher Reeve, we have two stills from one of the Superman movies compared side by side to illustrate a point that the text makes about his acting ability and treatment of that role.  Most people would agree, I imagine, that this is the kind of thing Wikipedia:Fair use claims should be used for.  Grabbing a screenshot simply to illustrate what a person looks like (for example, the current lead image in Christopher Reeve), or to decorate our mentioning of that person's playing that role, however, isn't why we make this  exception on free content.  Jkelly 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "contents" in relation to {{tl|film-screenshot}} 

message: Under US Copyright law, the fact that a work is unpublished does not trump fair use rights ("The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." -17 U.S.C. S 107).  The "above factors" are the 4 the legal determinants of Fair Use. So if an item qualifies as "fair use", US law says that it really doesn't matter if the item is published or not, fair use rights still apply.  Why then FUC#4?  At least add a qualifier to the rule saying that Fair Use of unpublished works is allowed as long as it doesn't limit the work's potential market for or value to the author. Liffer 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unpublished, than wikipedia is going to be its place of first publication.  If new content is being published for the first time on wikipedia, we want it going out under a free license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to imagine a situation where publishing unpublished work would not be original research. Nareek 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean when I upload the photo of my cat that I took yesterday, I'm doing original research? Excellent, I'm going to add it to my resume! When I get to 5,000 uploads the Nobel committee will call for sure! :-) Stan 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it were a "fair use" image of your cat, then presumably, the article is about you or your cat, so there's probably a problem there somewhere. ;) BigDT 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished Work 

message: "Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." replace with "Used outside article space, they may not be covered under the fair use doctrine, and are not acceptable under this policy." Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 15  December 2006 (GMT).
:Good idea. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Rich. The law obviously does not distinguish between our namepaces. ×Meegs 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: Along the same lines as the above, what would someone think about adding some kind of language indicating that temporary use in user space, while preparing an article, is acceptable.  It's common practice to sometimes draft an article in your own user space before moving it to article space, particularly if it's something that would probably get speedied if it were just a stub.  It's always annoyed me that this exception isn't explicitly mentioned.  Does anyone else think that it should be or should we just leave it alone as to not invite abuse? BigDT 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest leaving it unwritten, both to prevent abuse and to avoid complicating the policy.   I think its true, but I would hope that all policy enforcers are understanding in cases where an article is being actively developed.  Also, if some userspace article writers think it is absolutely forbidden and wait until the move to the mainspace to add images, then that's not so bad, is it? ×Meegs 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the exception *was* explicitly mentioned somewhere... Stan 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it does say "'(...)  there may be good reasons why should these should [sic] not be deleted anyway. For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished." (gonna fix that typo now) on :Category:Orphaned fairuse images itself. --Sherool (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FU images in user space while preparing an article

message: in it's goals we can read
*Improve guidelines. At present, the guidelines are complex and overly liberal, with the result that people who do not understand copyright issues are, out of ignorance, uploading material for which there is no plausible fair use rationale.  There exists a further concern that material which could fall within Wikipedia:Fair use criteria lacks proper rationales, attribution, or other necessary information and is therefore eligible for deletion.
I mean what a wikiproject is this that has in his goals to "improve" guidelines.What i mean is that the presence of wikiproject fair use for more then a year has acted as slow passive canvassing for the hardliners.With the result of overly biaise in this page.--Bootstrapping 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiproject fair use,slow passive Canvassing? 

message: You can have for free the downgraded shity wikipedia with no pictures but you can buy the real thing with the images for 100-200€.Of course we have to be restrictive in our policies in order to promote free images creation,and ofcorse the quality of the free images is not important.She can be as shity as she can be,the more shity the beter,the commercial pruduct will be even more valiouble with it's fair use/propriatairy images.Thus the GFDL is complitly bombed away.and the volonter's(us) are completly fucked.How much jimmy walles has spent from his poket?And why is he suporting the new shift in the "policy"?and why is it not alowed to take the mater in the open with the baner for every one to vote.and why does it look like a kind of coup d'etat.--Bootstrapping 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been with us since the 9 December there have been no policy changes in that time.Geni 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikipedia commercial venture? 

message: I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a fair use rationale.  At present, it's kindof a moving target.  Some pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject".  Patroling :Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.  So I would like for us to formalize what is required.  I have also created Template:Fair use rationale that I am proposing we use as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. BigDT 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This general idea is a very good one. For a long time I've personally felt on a little shaky ground when deleting things that didn't have a rationale when there really is no good place that explains what we are even looking for. I mean, I know what people mean when we say no rationale, but I'm sure a lot of people think simply slapping  is rationale enough. - cohesion 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale guideline proposal