Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 15

message: I have nominated Campbell's Soup Cans as a featured article. Among the most serious complaints about the candidate article is the use of fair use images. The following images are included in the article:
*:Image:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.jpg from MoMA New York collection browse online.
*:Image:Campbell's Tomato Juice Box. 1964. Synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on wood.jpg from MoMA New York collection browse online.
*:Image:100 Cans.jpg from albrightknox.org collection browse online.
*:Image:Four Colored Campbell’s Soup Cans.jpg
*:Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg
*:Image:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg from edu.warhol.org
*:Image:Crushed Campbell's Soup Can (Beef Noodle).JPG from edu.warhol.org.
Additionally, I link to :image:Warhol-Marilyns.jpg.
Can you tell me what I have to do to pass the fair usage rules for these images. TonyTheTiger 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who does not favour extensive application of fair use, I can't see what's wrong with most of those images. I would not object very strongly over them. However, I do think that a few images are not really necessary and could be removed. The first image next to the lead and the last four images are solid, I think - they illustrate things mentioned in the article body. The other images are on shakier ground, though, because we don't really discuss them. The second image (the sketch) could use some explanation about how Warhol started his sketches. The hundred cans image and the box image aren't the subject of much (if any) discussion, so unless we can add something in about them, they should probably go. Johnleemk | Talk 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbell's Soup Cans Fair Usage 

message: These wikipedia maintenance space articles shouldn't be classed with the mainspace encyclopedic categorization. I created :Category:Wikipedia fair use as a better categorization structure, and linked from the mainspace; but I can't figure out where the category is on this page? Embedded in some template? ... also, the fair use media categories (e.g., :Category:Fair use media) are confusing. Do they have mainspace encyclopedic significance, or are they only used for wikipedia maintenance? Thoughts? --lquilter 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the mainspace category inclusion from this page. I agree that for maintenance, etc. the categories should be moved to :Category:Wikipedia fair use media or similar. I think it's important to segregate mainspace content from Wikipedia space content, and there are strong precedents for this. Mak (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mainspace categorization? 

message: I recently came upon a subpage in userspace with many screenshots of Wikipedia. Some are tagged with  and others are tagged with . Are these legal outside article namespace?--NMajdan•talk 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends...  is a hopeless tag IMHO, it just mention the license of the text and the software, but such screenshots usualy also include pictures and often the users entire browser interface as well. If all you can see is text and interface elements then fair enough. But if the screenshot includes (non-free) images and the browser and/or bits of the OS interface I don't rely think we can say it's a GPL/GFDL image (probably can't say that if the images are CC licensed either), and then there is the Wikipedia logo which is not free licensed either. Blah, composite works are a pain... Dunno of the "rule" about copyrighted stuff in the background of photos not beeing a problem would apply somehow. I have generaly just treated them as fair use in the past if there is any hint of non-free (or unknown) material in the shot. Dunno what the reasoning behind it is, or if there even is one. It's more or less been grandfathered in since the early days I think. --Sherool (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not the web-screenshot ones. ed g2s • talk 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Should this template be deleted? Most people aren't just going to take a screenshot of the window, they are going to take a screenshot of the whole screen. The wikipedia-screenshot license would just serve as a scapegoat.--NMajdan•talk 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy of Wikipedia screenshots 

message: Who wants to attack XXl List of Reviewed Albums first? Postdlf 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it. The list itself is copyrightable, invalidating the article itself. I believe all the images are used fairly in other articles, though. Mak (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I wasn't understanding what the posting was (not difficult considering the lack of context/content), but I thought it was just a list of albums the magazine had reviewed at one time or another, making it a list of editorial decisions, not a list that was an editorial decision. Contrast "List of 2006 movies Roger Ebert gave four stars" (not copyrightable) with "Roger Ebert's Top Ten Movies of 2006" (copyrightable). It was basically just a cover gallery with no content, regardless, so I just would have deleted it based on one of the other 100 or so reasons. ; ) Postdlf 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provoking a feeding frenzy 

message: This tag states the purpose of the given image is "to illustrate the DVD in question". What does this mean, exactly? To simply "illustrate the DVD in question" seems very broad, even to encompass the usage of the image to decorate the article in which it is used. Reading the fair-use policy, criteria #8 would seem to preclude using the images in this fashion, but both editors' practices as well as the tag itself would seem to indicate otherwise. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means the content of the DVD, such as a movie. You've got me thinking, though...in the case of theatrically released films, at least, should there be a difference between using thumbnails of the posters that advertised it to identify the film, or the DVD cover? The art may vary significantly, so these are not always even remotely the same image. Postdlf 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the fair-use policy requires that the image contribute significantly to the article it is contained within. Except in the cases where a DVD cover is more available than a theatrical poster to represent the article, when does the cover to a DVD contribute significantly to its article?Maybe if the article expressly discussed some important point about the cover of the DVD, that could be considered; but more often it is just used as decoration for an article, usually in the section listing DVD releases. (See Survivor_%28TV_series%29#DVD_releases & 7th_Heaven#DVD_releases for typical examples)But again, this may be a symptomatic problem with respects to the  tag which, again, only requires it "to illustrate the DVD in question" — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above sections you showed don't appear as decorations at all, they are providing critical commentary on the DVD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Matthew Fenton is mistaken, the DVD covers do not seem to be used to provide critical commentary at all. Perhaps he is looking at a different article. In 7th Heaven, they are used simply to depict the cover of the particular season, for example. Where is this critical commentary? It is entirely possible that there is a section in the article devoted to this critical commentary and I have just missed it. On another topic, I personally do not object to DVD covers being used to illustrate the DVD in question provided there is a detailed fair-use rationale, as required by the license, on the image page itself. That said, I believe such use does contradict the fair-use policy itself. Using movie posters does not seem to be significantly better than using DVD covers. Both would clearly be legal fair-use but both would seem to violate Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Yamla 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So I take it we're ignoring this subject because we're uncomfortable with the idea of making a decision on whether using DVD covers to show a list of DVD releases (or similarly "fair-use" images in similar fashions) constitutes "contributing significantly" to the given article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just too few people think it's really a problem. Postdlf 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|DVDcover}} 

message: Per the discussion on distribution (above) I would suggest trying to expand the section in the guideline on fair use and texts to provide better guidance on plot summaries. This subject is related to the Manual of Style, but I think that there should be a clear statement of what constitutes unacceptable references to or use of fictional material in our articles. --Oden 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and plot summaries 

message: Criterion 9 limits the use of fair use media to article namespace. Does that also apply to audio files? (See User:Hotwiki#Stuffs_on_Wikipedia_I_have_started_and_added, scroll down to music samples.) --Oden 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly yes, but by "usage", I think it is meant "inline usage". Links are acceptable; IIRC it is recommended that if you have a list on your userpage of fair use media you uploaded, you link to the media instead of including it inline. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it makes sense to link to the target in order to keep track of the files that a contributor has uploaded. If the user page looks like a fan site it would be a different thing. --Oden 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 9 and audio files 

message: MakeChooChooGoNow has twice removed free images, claiming they were fair use images being used for decorative purposes. I would appreciate "backup" if he reverts again. Thank you. --NE2 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He also did the opposite to Cairo Rail Bridge - added decorative fair use. Is this a case of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? --NE2 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so... they've spent quite a bit of editing time today appropriately adding . I think that they are just genuinely confused. Incidentally, I'm amused to note that we have finally done away with article writing and are now just producing very descriptive infoboxes. Jkelly 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One day Wikipedia will consist of only one article with an enormous infobox. The article will contain the collective knowledge amassed by humanity. Of course, fair use images will not be allowed in the infobox... --Oden 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of crossings of the Ohio River]]

message: :Image:Mensa_select_seal.jpg Are pictures of awards/prizes considered logos? For example, could I post this here List of Mensa Select recipients? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samwaltz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, the design of an award (an item given to people) is not also a logo (a graphic symbol that is readily recognised, used to identify an entity). AFAICT, Mensa logos are variations of this design; it’s part of the award, but the award itself is not a logo. (IANAL.) By the way, when referring to an unfree image on talk pages, please link to it inline (put a colon at the beginning of the link and omit any parameters). I’ve changed it here. —xyzzyn 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are other awards pages which use the award logo, too, such as Spiel des Jahres and Deutscher Spiele Preis. samwaltz 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And those probably need to go, too. Unfortunately, outside of recent featured articles, existing Wikipedia material is not yet a good place to look for best practices on image use. —xyzzyn 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards/Logos

message: Sometimes there are images tagged fair use as there are no other images available except copyrighted (or there can be more detailed description). However I found some articles where there are more then one copyrighted pictures related to only one fact of the article and all of them are marked fair use. It looks to me, that one illustration is fair use, but the others are only "decoration" - and should not be used. Is there any recommendation for that? Thanks. Okino 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one image should be used if the second doesn't really contribute any additional, relevant information, but whether this is the case has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Could you point to an example? Postdlf 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch, way too many fair use images in that article, there are even fair use images in a gallery there. Many of those can be removed/replaced. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I'm also concerned by the gallery use, otherwise I can't imagine anyone not being at least familiar with ballet generally (if not that particular ballet) being able to judge what information each of those images provide; I certainly cannot (it's all a bunch of hopping people to my eyes). I'll presume that a photograph of a dance performance constitutes a derivative of that performance (though I have not read case law on this), so fair use is necessary, but it's not even clear to me that the photographs themselves were taken by the uploader; at least a couple of them I saw just stated "from my collection," and no license info for the photograph was given. Those photographs need to be sourced, and if the photographs are themselves under copyright by another, that issue needs to be discussed as well. I'd start it on that article's talk page rather than here, unless we have a lot of ballet experts loitering around. I just hope no one jumps to conclusions (and deletion tags) before the article contributors can explain things. Postdlf 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a summary of the concerns on the article's talk page. Now we wait for response and then discuss. Postdlf 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You could leave a message on those articles like Postdlf just did on La Fille Mal Gardée and wait a while and see. You can always remove the fair use images if they really seem decoration and no on responds on the corresponding talk page. Of course if they are without a doubt just used for decorative purposed you can just remove them. Garion96 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two similar fair use images on one page?

message: Recently, User:Stan Shebs posted something to my user page about how I'm pushing my limit, I will likely get myself blocked from the site with one more harshly-worded talk-page edit. I find this to be somewhat bombastic considering that I've only been forced to be hard-lined with my words as a result of a lack of compromise.
He also noted that I haven't been doing a lot of edits lately. This is true. I've mostly been focusing my limited time and energy outside of work and play on trying to follow the fair use issues here lately, because I find them to be essential to the structural integrity of the site. Why focus my energy on editing articles when all the things I like about the site are about to be taken away over an interpretation of policy?
I'm sorry if you guys don't like my harsh words. But honestly, I feel like I've tried to compromise with your ideology fruitlessly and my anger and frustration is a direct result of that. I'm not out to make enemies here with my comments. But you have to be willing to work with us and figure out ways to push for free content realistically. Not in a lab-controlled "this is what we could do if the world was perfect" situation like the creators of Debian seem to think is possible. Not in a "we're only being hard-line and bold because it's the only way something's going to happen" way like we seem to be encouraging.
No, we need to do it in a way which makes sense to more than 1% of the site's editing population. If we can't, we're seriously wasting our time and damaging the site irreparably.
User:Stan Shebs, please understand that I do get the core principles of WP, but I'm also someone who has direct experience in dealing with fair use images. They – the ones we can obtain legally – are hard enough to get. Do you seriously think we're going to have a realistic shot of getting a good-quality photo of someone just because they're alive? Sure, some of our users might get lucky. But it seems like we're sort of banking on a giant what-if policy.
What if we figured out a better way to do things instead of slashing and burning with no regards to anything other than the fact that the image is free? Man, that's all I've wanted the whole time. It's almost like I'm asking you all to kill someone. - Stick Fig 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SF, as usual, is spot on. I too have recently been subject to accusations of personal attacks and can interpret it as nothing more than wiki-posturing because the individual in question disagrees with my opinions on fair-use. What a sad statement! "I disagree with you, so I'm going to apply a very liberal interpretation of what a personal attack is so that I can try and get you blocked". Hah! It seems the same is happening to someone else who shares an inclusive-leaning opinion on the manner; typical.--Jeff 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be entierly possible to disagree with the fair use policy without resorting to "name calling". As far as I can tell no one have objected to you disagreeing with them, but rater your labeling of opponents as "jihadists". Now I'm sure we could have a facinating debate about wether or not that word should be considered insulting or not, jihad pretty much just means "effort" or "struggle", but it has become a pretty loaded word these days, usualy asosiated with extremist Islamists, who in turn are usualy asosiated with terrorism. So why throw that particular arabic word around in a heated debate? Some people could easily get the impression that you where eluding to them beeing terrorists wether you intended to or not. --Sherool (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On why I'm investing so much into this fight 

message: I think the people who are arguing down the value of free content are forgetting about the many other valuable reuses besides simple mirroring. Consider all our featured pictures -- could someone make and sell a poster out of any of them that a kid can put up on his bedroom wall and be inspired by? Yes, because they're free. You couldn't get that with fair use. Could they be modified into a cutaway diagram and included in a book and sold? Sure. Could a newspaper reprint our diagrams to illustrate its articles? Sure.  Could someone take our text and stick it in a sidebar as background next to a news story?  Sure! There are many other ways that you can reuse free content, and far beyond simple mirroring or what's possible under fair use. Dismissing it as "oh we shouldn't worry about the mirrors" forgets about the infinity of other possibilities that the free content pillar is intended to leave open. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion republication by a non-profit is OK. My point is that if we adjust our policies for the benefit of for-profit downstream users we open Wiki to political and legal trouble. If wiki has fair use on ZZZ.jpg then so do all the non-profit downstream users. The issue comes from for-profit downstream users who have fewer fair use rights than Wiki does, and who do not qualify as educational users for whom Wiki gets its tax benefits (that's what Wiki promised the IRS). Rjensen 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about nonprofits outside the US, where fair use provisions may not exist? And on what grounds do you maintain that making content available for for-profit reusers unaffiliated with the foundation (as well as all other reusers) would be problematic? --RobthTalk 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I;m only talking about US laws, which are strict about a 501c3. Wiki went to IRS promising non-profit educational uses only, so when for-profit uses are contemplated Wiki can get in legal trouble. There are a thousand different scenarios. But if we say that such an such postings by editors are forbidden because that will hurt for-profit downstream operations, then it may be a field day for the lawyers and politicians. Would Wiki win a lawsuit? Would wiki get pro bono lawyers to donate hundreds of hours of free legal services to defend it? I hope so. Rjensen 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BradPatrick is that lawyer. He's also the interim Executive Director for the Foundation. I'm looking for a page to specifically answer your concern, but it seems to absurd too have been specifically addressed. No offense, but Wikipedia has now been around for a while and has a lot of legal consultation and help. This kind of thing would simply not go unnoticed. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FSF is a nonprofit for whom the commercial exploitation of its content is now worth billions of dollars, and it would be quite beneficial to Microsoft and others for the FSF to be shut down by the IRS, and yet nobody has ever tried this, so I think it's a pretty implausible scenario. Is the soup kitchen no longer a nonprofit because they give Andy an empty can and he then sells paintings of it? :-) Stan 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have made that more clear; my point was that the concerns of foreign nonprofits regarding image use are very similar to those of American (or foreign) for-profit companies, since no fair use provision exists in those countries. As to the issue of whether benefitting for-profit reusers threatens our nonprofit status, the provision of the tax code you are referring to "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual" is directed at preventing foundations from funnelling money to trustees, employees, or others with interests in the foundation; a "private shareholder or individual" is defined as "a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization." . A fishing rod given to a poor man by a charity inures to his benefit, but does not impair that charity's 501c3 status; similarly, if we provide content for free reuse, it inures to a number of people's benefits, but this does not impair our status, since it is not substantially inuring to the beneift of those with personal and private interests in the foundation. Allowing commercial use, and thus increasing redistribution potential, is perfectly in accordance with our mission of producing content to distribute to the world. --RobthTalk 03:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rjensen you do know that the wikimedia servers are in florida right? Why is this significant? Well you see under florida law it is illegal for someone who is not a member of the bar to give legal advice which would appear to be what you are attempting to do. In short you are not the only one who can do legal FUD.Geni 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Omegatron's analysis. Are these some legalese documents or opinions on the topic from the Wiki foundation? I'd sure like to read them--does anyone have the links? Rjensen 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Copyrights is a good place to start. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most agree with that idea, but it's to what extent we define this that is under dispute. You know, another option has always been to apply the fair use to one of the downstream versions, rather than the original. Wikipedia could even host that fair use fork and be "as legal" as we are now (I think). We could even use placeholder tags in the articles so the text would auto-update with the original copy, but have places for images to be added. Of course those images would still have most of the same restrictions that we currently have, but it would allow for a truly free original copy, and allow for more gray areas that are educational use only. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not just about mirrors

message: I see some arguments along the line of, "If we eliminate 'fair use' images, we need to eliminate all 'fair use' quotes from the text, as well." This is not a valid argument. 'Fair use' allows us to quote small parts of text under copyright. We can quote a line from a poem under copyright, but we can't quote half of that poem. Images are different. If we tried to quote 5% of an image, we would normally end up with something unintelligible. I can see 'fair use' of a small portion of an image under copyright in order to illustrate a discussion of a particular item in the image (that is not the focus of the image), of a painter's technique, etc. But, this wholesale slapping of images under copyright on articles because they 'look nice' has to stop. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a line from a poem is like a frame from a film. One frame is not the whole work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generaly frames of films are not being removed when they are used in the context of talking about that film.Geni 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, because they fall into clearly legitimate fair use like the text. Even among images, there can be the same distinction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly that but it is also fairly safe to say that when they are used in that context they are imposible to replace but yes a single frame used in the context of talking about that frame should be fairly safe.Geni 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately most screenshots are being used when the frame isn't being discussed, such as in "List of (TV show) episodes", where the text amounts to two lines of plot summary, or infoboxes about specific episodes. This is not Good Thing. ed g2s • talk 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The courts do recognize reduced-resolution images as being a form of excerpting, like a quotation from a poem. And the use of such thumbnails for identification purposes--not purposes of comment or criticism--has been upheld as fair use. See Kelly vs. Arriba Soft. Nareek 15:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as the screenshot is representative and informative of the A/V work, it should be fine. Have you seen a lot of articles where what the screenshot depicts does not seem to relate to what the article describes about the work? I'll assume that's what you mean by "the frame isn't being discussed," because literally that makes little sense ("In this frame, Superman has his mouth half open as he vocalizes the beginning syllable in 'hello'."). Postdlf 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In makes a lot of sense. in this frame superman is wearing costume X as designed by y yo atchive Z. He is lit in way b in order to produce a sense of j in the viewer. In a director trademark he has a small cholate bar tucked behind his ear.Geni 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I chose List of Seinfeld episodes pseudo-randomly from a search for "list of episodes". The first plot summary is "When Jerry gets a phone call from a woman he met out of town, George and "Kessler" (known as Kramer in all later episodes) weigh in on the situation." - and the oh-so-helpful image accompanying that is a picture of a man holding a microphone under a spotlight. To someone who has never seen this show, this image is completely an utterly useless, and has no apparent relevance to the text. If someone who has seen that show would like to tell my how that image contributes "significantly" to that piece of text and construct a strong Fair Use argument around it, I would be very impressed. ed g2s • talk 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see a problem with them, because they are mere thumbnails that, to my eyes, at least, often do help to identify the episode in question. That relationship is probably more evident from the individual episode articles, for which the list functions as a table of contents. Maybe more representative images could be chosen, but that is a matter of editorial judgment that mere repetitions of policy verbage can't resolve. Why don't you discuss with some of the regular Seinfeld article contributors whether better images could be chosen? Postdlf 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Ed's point is that we don't really need images on these case, the evidence being that an almost-completely-random image is being used to do the task. We should have been using unfree material only when it's necessary, and not when it makes the website prettier. --Abu Badali 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of you have presented "evidence" that the images are random, you've both just stated your opinion to that effect despite what appears to be your lack of familiarity with the subject or the articles. You and ed both need to stop brushing aside requests to consider subject matter more carefully, or, heaven forbid, take the time to talk to an article's contributors. It's as if you'd rather just quote snippets of policy and dictate outcomes than cooperate. The next step after you've formed your opinion that an image is not serving a sufficiently informative function should not be to immediately clamor for its deletion. Or am I misunderstanding something? Postdlf 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow. Well, even going beyond all of the reasons we've already argued about regarding fair use's place on Wikipedia and why it's good, I have to say that an impeachment of episodic screenshots of Seinfeld episodes is dire. To suggest that this content, which someone has labored significant on and with altruistic purposes, be removed is dangerous. Not only do you risk endangering the quality of the encyclopedia, but by doing so you also risk alienating some of the hardest working contributors. Adding images to Wikiepdia can be some of the most difficult and time consuming work and to have someone blow in as a tornado and destroy it all to uphold a flawed ideology is disheartening to the contributor and disastrous for the project's future.--Jeff 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: When you are uploading an Fair Use image the responsibility lies with you to provide a rationale of why it can be used, not with me to demonstrate that it is not relevant. Furthermore, as fair use is about context (the context here being a list), that it may make more sense upon reading another page cannot be used as part of it's rationale. We do not use unfree media as navigation aides. ed g2s • talk 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. Why don't you discuss with some of the regular Seinfeld article contributors whether better images could be chosen? You can also share your opinion with them that the images may be unnecessary. Postdlf 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For two lines of text no image is necessary. If those two lines are inadequate without an image then they're not very good plot summaries. ed g2s • talk 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the debate started here the the example was being used to further the debate. Case studies are a fairly standard part of debates.Geni 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, if the image does not have a relevance that is obvious to a non-Seinfeld expert, then the text/caption isn't doing a good enough job to qualify as fair use. Fair use is all about correct usage at the moment, not an intention to get around to it some day. I never understand why people can't string together two words to talk about an image - takes me two minutes tops to come up with something useful to add. Stan 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It took a while for others to get their head around the idea of us being free content. It took me a while and I made mistakes in the past with file uploads. It happens, everyone screws up and everyone changes their mind. That is what being a human is all about. What I would suggest is while photos can be removed from the lists in a phased matter, what should be done first is that if LOE's are being created now, I would not add photos to it. While we cannot stop others from doing it unless we change policy/get an edict from Jimbo, what we can do is just be examples on how to deal with fair use and either upload it under our strict guidelines or not upload fair use at all. It is a personal choice to use fair use or not. I am not sure what else I can personally suggest, since I stated my view that LOE's should not really have photos, but I am in the minority on that one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What seems to be the ongoing conflict here, of course, is the age-old conflict between what makes a good webpage or website (multimedia content - photos, text, links, etc.) and what a few people here have determined makes a "free" encyclopedia. And I don't think it's a stretch to say, given my experience here over the past three months, that the more Wikipedia runs away from being a good website, perhaps not coincidentally, the less useful it becomes as a good encyclopedia. Can you give away something nobody wants? By adhering to this extraordinarily strict fair use policy, Wikipedia seems destined to find out... Jenolen speak it! 10:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the statements by the anti-fair use folks makes me think they are utilize Wikipedia through a text to speech application rather than with their eyes. Illustration is paramount to a useful resource and should not be discarded so haphazardly.--Jeff 11:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you share your reasons to believe that the "anti-fair use folks" dislike images in general and not only the overuse of unfree images? --Abu Badali 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons, dozens of my own, and regularly vote on FPC. However when are article's purpose is to list episodes, a job that is performed at least adequately by using text only, I don't see the need to sacrifice our free content goals for the purpose of providing a visual cue on the off chance that it helps a few readers, but ultimately is not relevant to the article. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed we do have blind users of WP, who appreciate it when the text alone is useful. Stan 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "More free" is the cornerstone of our policy. As such it is not for me to reason why any media should be removed, but for you to reason why we really need to use it, something more opaque than "it might help you remember it if you've seen the show before". ed g2s • talk 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain in concrete terms how "more free" is accomplished by removing these thumbnails? What would this allow someone to do or not do that would not be possible with the thumbnails in the article? Postdlf 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These screenshots help to build a culture of unnecessary unfree material usage on Wikipedia. Also, if the effort that was concentrated on finding and uploading them were used to something else, our Free Encyclopedia would have benefited better.--Abu Badali 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Less unfree material => content more free. I don't see how that needs any more explanation. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you love your slogans, but if you're incapable of actually advancing the discussion, please don't bother. What would removing these thumbnails allow someone to do or not do that would not be possible with the thumbnails in the article? Postdlf 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That slogan by Ed ignores the fact that free alternatives to certain things will never exist. There will never be a way to make a free alternative to a fair use shot from a film scene, or of a painting, for example. Johntex\talk 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take advantage of all the benefits of free content of course. Surely you don't need me to spell out everything. ed g2s • talk 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked a very simple question (twice). If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know, but repeating "free" like a religious mantra is not accomplishing anything. Postdlf 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm puzzled here too. I've always approached the goal of free-ness from the angle of ensuring that the freely reproducible product obtained by removing the unfree elements from our overall content is equal in scope and quality to the product that would have been obtained by allowing only free elements in the first place (or in other words, that we do not include any unfree elements that impair the creation of free content). Do you believe that these images fail that test, or are you applying a different test for inclusion, and if so why? --RobthTalk 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Plot summaries of copyrighted material are not necessarily covered by the original copyright, but that is a completely separate debate. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the content of material that is protected by copyright, it is the expression. Facts cannot be copyrighted. We can easily include content as text if we present the content in our own expression, i.e., rewrite it. As we should be working from multiple sources, we want to blend those sources into the article anyway. The big problem I see with plot summaries is that they are often not based on reliable sources, but on the Wikipedia editor's personal analysis of the work. But that is another debate. I don't see how a properly written plot summary would infringe on a copyright. No infringement, no need to claim 'fair use'. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely legally incorrect. This has been discussed numerous times on here, and the case law clearly only supports one side. Elements of fictional stories and fictional characters are not uncopyrightable "facts," but instead part of the copyrighted expression. Otherwise, you could paraphrase any work of fiction to your heart's content as long as you didn't use the original, exact words. Fair use is necessary to justify the summarization of copyrighted works. See Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993). Postdlf 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A different perspective

message: I've spent many hours arguing about episode screen shots in Lists of episodes. To this day I believe they are a legitimate use of fair use images and significantly improve the quality of many LOEs. But what I've come to realize is that even significant addition of quality is not important enough considering Wikipedia's free goals. Do we significantly hurt our articles by excluding these images? Yes. Have I spent hours and hours finding good screen shots for many of these lists? Yes. What I didn't realize is that it's not important to help people identify episodes, not compared to our free content goals. Using screen shots in most Lists of episodes is the wrong priority. Considering the amount of time spent on this, I would really like to find a way to preserve the screen-shot versions, but they do need to go from the Wikipedia version. It's very hard for me to admit that I was so wrong about something I believed so strongly in. I wasn't fully aware of how important the goal of being a free encyclopedia was.
Not to say that this is how I feel about all fair use images, or even all screen shots, but the normal use of screen shots on a typical LOEs is excessive. As far as what I will try to fix this problem, I want to explore the options of a content-fork with fair use that would be practical (as in, people would actually use it, and it would update with Wikipedia's text right away, etc). If you've taken the time to upload screen shots for a LOE, then I suggest such a path if you don't want all that work to go to waste. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It took a while for others to get their head around the idea of us being free content. It took me a while and I made mistakes in the past with file uploads. It happens, everyone screws up and everyone changes their mind. That is what being a human is all about. What I would suggest is while photos can be removed from the lists in a phased matter, what should be done first is that if LOE's are being created now, I would not add photos to it. While we cannot stop others from doing it unless we change policy/get an edict from Jimbo, what we can do is just be examples on how to deal with fair use and either upload it under our strict guidelines or not upload fair use at all. It is a personal choice to use fair use or not. I am not sure what else I can personally suggest, since I stated my view that LOE's should not really have photos, but I am in the minority on that one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What seems to be the ongoing conflict here, of course, is the age-old conflict between what makes a good webpage or website (multimedia content - photos, text, links, etc.) and what a few people here have determined makes a "free" encyclopedia. And I don't think it's a stretch to say, given my experience here over the past three months, that the more Wikipedia runs away from being a good website, perhaps not coincidentally, the less useful it becomes as a good encyclopedia. Can you give away something nobody wants? By adhering to this extraordinarily strict fair use policy, Wikipedia seems destined to find out... Jenolen speak it! 10:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the statements by the anti-fair use folks makes me think they are utilize Wikipedia through a text to speech application rather than with their eyes. Illustration is paramount to a useful resource and should not be discarded so haphazardly.--Jeff 11:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you share your reasons to believe that the "anti-fair use folks" dislike images in general and not only the overuse of unfree images? --Abu Badali 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons, dozens of my own, and regularly vote on FPC. However when are article's purpose is to list episodes, a job that is performed at least adequately by using text only, I don't see the need to sacrifice our free content goals for the purpose of providing a visual cue on the off chance that it helps a few readers, but ultimately is not relevant to the article. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed we do have blind users of WP, who appreciate it when the text alone is useful. Stan 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "More free" is the cornerstone of our policy. As such it is not for me to reason why any media should be removed, but for you to reason why we really need to use it, something more opaque than "it might help you remember it if you've seen the show before". ed g2s • talk 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain in concrete terms how "more free" is accomplished by removing these thumbnails? What would this allow someone to do or not do that would not be possible with the thumbnails in the article? Postdlf 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These screenshots help to build a culture of unnecessary unfree material usage on Wikipedia. Also, if the effort that was concentrated on finding and uploading them were used to something else, our Free Encyclopedia would have benefited better.--Abu Badali 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Less unfree material => content more free. I don't see how that needs any more explanation. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you love your slogans, but if you're incapable of actually advancing the discussion, please don't bother. What would removing these thumbnails allow someone to do or not do that would not be possible with the thumbnails in the article? Postdlf 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That slogan by Ed ignores the fact that free alternatives to certain things will never exist. There will never be a way to make a free alternative to a fair use shot from a film scene, or of a painting, for example. Johntex\talk 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take advantage of all the benefits of free content of course. Surely you don't need me to spell out everything. ed g2s • talk 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked a very simple question (twice). If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know, but repeating "free" like a religious mantra is not accomplishing anything. Postdlf 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm puzzled here too. I've always approached the goal of free-ness from the angle of ensuring that the freely reproducible product obtained by removing the unfree elements from our overall content is equal in scope and quality to the product that would have been obtained by allowing only free elements in the first place (or in other words, that we do not include any unfree elements that impair the creation of free content). Do you believe that these images fail that test, or are you applying a different test for inclusion, and if so why? --RobthTalk 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Plot summaries of copyrighted material are not necessarily covered by the original copyright, but that is a completely separate debate. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not the content of material that is protected by copyright, it is the expression. Facts cannot be copyrighted. We can easily include content as text if we present the content in our own expression, i.e., rewrite it. As we should be working from multiple sources, we want to blend those sources into the article anyway. The big problem I see with plot summaries is that they are often not based on reliable sources, but on the Wikipedia editor's personal analysis of the work. But that is another debate. I don't see how a properly written plot summary would infringe on a copyright. No infringement, no need to claim 'fair use'. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's completely legally incorrect. This has been discussed numerous times on here, and the case law clearly only supports one side. Elements of fictional stories and fictional characters are not uncopyrightable "facts," but instead part of the copyrighted expression. Otherwise, you could paraphrase any work of fiction to your heart's content as long as you didn't use the original, exact words. Fair use is necessary to justify the summarization of copyrighted works. See Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993). Postdlf 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screen shots in LOEs

message: This is related to my question on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Question about pretty old photos taken in the U.S. If a photograph was donated to a library, and it satisfies the fair use criteria (it's not replaceable, etc.), can I use it as fair use, despite not knowing who the actual copyright holder is? --NE2 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still need to know who the copyright holder is and you still need to look. Most libraries have information on when the photo is taken, where it was taken and who taken it. As what they said at the other page, if the photograph is in the public domain, it would not matter if it was published in a 1965 book. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At least have one, so it can be used on the front page. I can help you with the search for free content, so come onto my talk page and I will see what magic I can do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some free images on Long Island Rail Road; the problem is with photographs of the early locomotives, which railfans seem to like. --NE2 12:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old images donated to a library

message: Could some Admin undo this edit? --Abu Badali 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit seems perfectly reasonable and please don't canvass either, you may submit an edit protected request, So say we all! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The rv that you made to this project page seems fairly questionable as well; clearly there's no consensus here, so let's stop pretending there is. I'm going to put that back in. If someone has a good reason to take it out, let's go for it, but for now, there's clear dispute on this issue, Abu Badali. - Stick Fig 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no consensus across Wikipedia for such mass deletions. Johntex\talk 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take out the warning, then the tag is purely decorative; there's no reason to pay any attention to it at all. Since that point of view also does not have consensus, it makes the tag just as misleading. It will just be another version of the old "please replace me with a free image" tag that everybody ignored for years on end. Stan 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that the warning is connected to WP:CSD - the template should be consistent with the policy page. Stan 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Complying with CSD is a fine arguement if such CSD existed legitimately, but we run into the chicken and egg problem again. Ill advised and poor policy implemented by a group that did not seek outside opinion, who's modification of policy did not garnish attention until after heavy handed implementation, hardly justifies anything contained in a template.--Jeff 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus for changeing the template.Geni 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be it that there was no consensus for the creation and implementation of the template firstly, except by those who were exclusively involved at the beginning and contrary opinions were only expressed later after heavy handed implementation became commonplace, I don't see a problem with changing the template to reflect the lack of consensus regarding it.--Jeff 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we are discussing current actions not past ones.Geni 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't dictate what we are and aren't discussing. That logic makes it all very convenient for you, haha. laughable.--Jeff 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA. The contents of the discussion are clearly documented and they clearly show we are dealing with current events.Geni 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of NPA is far too broad. Have you ever actually read WP:NPA? Maybe you mean WP:AGF.--Jeff 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected template [[Template:Replaceable fair use]] controversial edit 

message: In the "preamble" to the page, we currently have this gem:
An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed fair use rationale; otherwise the uploaded material will be deleted.
A rational reading of this would seem to be that if a user DOES provide a detailed fair use rationale, their material will NOT be deleted. And, as we've seen several times, there are plenty of editors who will work their little tails off to find some other reason to delete. I propose we change these sentences to: "An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed fair use rationale; failure to do so is one of many grounds for the material to be speedily deleted." Or something like that...
Of course, we could just strike this sentence altogether. The full list of requirements is immediately below it, so is this sentence repetitive?
Yours toward better writing, Jenolen speak it! 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your concept of "rational reading". From "not A implies B" we don't reach "A implies not B". (disclaimer: A = "provide a rationale". B = "the image gets deleted"). --Abu Badali 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read what your wrote four times, and still don't understand it. Sorry. But in the sentence we're talking about, in this particular instance, "otherwise" is being used in a "consequence" sense. As in, "Come in from out of the rain; otherwise, you're going to get wet." The implication is, of course, that if you come in from out of the rain, you're NOT going to get wet. That's what I'm trying to clear up. "Provide a fair use rationale, otherwise, your image will be deleted" does not describe current policy. "Providing a fair use rationale is one of several steps you must take to make sure your image doesn't get deleted" is a much more accurate summary of current policy. Jenolen speak it! 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what's rational or not, clear concise guidelines that lack subjectivity is always a noble aim. I like the changes, and perhaps wikifi the words "speedily deleted" to WP:CSD#Images.2FMedia--Jeff 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking as one of the people responsible for the ‘gem’, I do not see how you read it the way you do. Besides that, the main objective of the paragraph was to express exactly what it actually says in the most compact way, since it deals with one of the major reasons for deletion. As for your proposal, it omits actually saying that the image will be deleted; this is counterproductive. —xyzzyn 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem a bit defensive. :) how about... An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed fair use rationale; failure to do so will result in the image being [[speedily deleted.--Jeff 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it’s closer to my version, it’s obviously superior. Just fix the links. —xyzzyn 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick reminder -- maybe you were joking, but of course, you know there is no "my" version of Wikipedia. If your version is clearer, and makes more sense, then bless you! Jenolen speak it! 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Languange 

message: Appeals court rejects challenge to "opt-out" copyright at Ars Technica. Good stuff there. A pity it did not work out, though. -- ReyBrujo 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: eh mostly just keeping US law sorta in line with the rest of the worlds.Geni 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very insteresting article about recently finished appeal

message: : "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images"
It needs to be clarified whether this means low-res thumbs on the article itself, or if the actual uploaded picture should be low-res. Probably the latter, but is it use in the article or on the internal image description page that counts? — Omegatron 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the goal here is that we should not be providing high resolution, downloadable images of people's copyrighted and unlicensed work. It's legally iffy to do so; this is why we have the  tag. So yes, this applies to the images themselves, not just the use in the article. --RobthTalk 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the page to explain this. — Omegatron 02:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low res 

message: Why is this only 48 hours? Deleting images is permanent, and should not be done lightly. — Omegatron 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion of images has not been permanent for some months now. 48 hours, in theory, allows us to eliminate new problematic uploads in a reasonably time-efficient manner. --RobthTalk 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the ability to restore images, like how we restore pages from deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the problems is that people take uploading itself too lightly. Sorry if copyrights seem boring, but people don't really have a right to complain when they ignore all those messages that show up on the upload page. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ned that respect for copyright laws is extremely important. I would like to see a two-tier system where obvious copyright violations are disposed of immediately, but where we take time to deliberate more borderline cases. To keep things simpler and to aovid instruction-creep, I'm fine with just leaving it at 48 hours for now. It is not the main thing we need to be discussing, in my opinion. Johntex\talk 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a link onto the welcome temaplates on how to upload images and our copyright policies. If not, I would strongly include that in the future. I think half of our problem, as what Ned suggests, is that most of the population doesn't know (or doesn't care) about copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images that do not comply with this policy within 48 hours after notification 

message: The debate here is often framed as being between the idealists who want to promote a free ("as in speech") dictionary and the pragmatists who don't care about ideals and just want to create a good (or at least pretty) encyclopedia.
I actually think the defense of fair use is an ideal worth fighting for. To me, we're like people who like in a city with a beautiful park covered with "keep off the grass" signs, with the powers that be confining us to a few barren pathways. Citizens in other cities walk on the grass in their parks without destroying them, and courts have upheld the public's right to walk on grass in a non-destructive manner.
Rather than joining together in a campaign to get rid of the signs, however, activists are split: While some want to force the city to respect our rights to walk on the grass, others are trying to create little scraps of privately owned grass for the public to walk on. These latter activists object very strenuously to people who ignore the "keep off the grass" signs--because it reduces the incentive to create private grass.
The basic Wikipedia goal is to allow the public to understand their own world. Increasing amounts of that world are copyrighted, and stuff that is copyrighted today will remain copyrighted until all of us are dead (thanks to Sonny Bono). To say that that's OK because we can make our own freely-licenced images is to miss the point--no matter how many images we create, the world is still out there, and if we can't depict the copyrighted parts of it, then huge chunks will forever (for us, the living, anyway) remain off limits.
I don't mean to put down the open source movement, of which the GFDL is a part--it's an important response to the corporatization of our culture. But when people start hyper-enforcing the draconian rules that the GFDL was meant to be a response to in order to make sure that the GFDL is necessary--it's a classic example of the means becoming the ends with lamentable results. Nareek 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, what you're proposing is not part of the WP mission. Other people, such as the EFF, engage in that much more effectively than WP ever can. Two, don't underestimate the ability of free content to crowd out unfree. The oldest part of WP, its article text, is already squeezing traditional encyclopedia makers out of business. Even my own average-quality photos are gradually popping up here and there where once a paid-for stock image might once have been used instead. When people see their proprietary photos routinely passed over for free ones, they're going to get real interested in their free-licensing options. In software, it used to be that everybody made their projects proprietary by default, and now it's commonplace for software projects to be open-source right from the start; twenty years ago only a handful of visionaries believed that this could possibly happen. Stan 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't keep off the grass 

message: As this talk page is also serving as talk page for Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, I'm posting here. There seems to be an edit war going on at that page. I've protected the page. Please try to reach an agreement here. I'll watch the page anyway, but anyone can request unprotection at my talk page or at WP:RfPP. Musical Linguist 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, protection won't work because most of the ones discussing here are administrators, and as you can see, still edit the page. -- ReyBrujo 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I'm working on an article on particle physics (specifically, Oops-Leon), which I am planning to expand and would like to illustrate when I do. The article is about the discovery of a particle, and essentially the only way to illustrate that discovery (or the particle itself, for that matter) is to reproduce the plot that indirectly confirms its existence. Would this be allowed under fair use as an illustration of the discovery? -- SCZenz 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the source data for this plot in any way available to the public (that would generaly be needed to make an expermient verifiable right)? If so then no. That image would be replacable by a free diagram made by ourselves using the source data (raw data/facts can not be copyrighted), and as such not acceptable under our fair use criterea. --Sherool (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not common practice to make detailed source data available to the public in particle physics, so no the raw data is not available. In any case, repeating their analysis (original research) would not illustrate their discovery. -- SCZenz 12:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IANAL, but since that plot is part of what the article is about and has historical significance, its inclusion might well be fair use. Judging by a quick look at several relevant pages, Fermilab probably holds the copyright to works produced under government contracts (i. e. the plot is not public domain), so I suggest deleting the image from Commons, uploading a low-resolution version here, tagging it as fair use and writing a rationale. Concurrently, ask Fermilab whether they would release the image as CC–BY–SA or something like that—it can’t hurt. 
 —xyzzyn 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. By the way, if you have any insight about how to use improve the information Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE (which is 100% ambiguous for Fermilab), please go for it! Oh, and one more question... would an illustration of the apparatus from the same preprint qualify as fair use for showing the experiment and how it was done? Presumably not, but I thought I'd double-check. -- SCZenz 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. In legal terms, I guess the amount of fair use items matters, so you should use the absolute minimum. Here we have the additional constraint that if a free image can be obtained to replace the illustration, you shouldn’t use the non-free image. Would it be possible to make or obtain a free illustration? About Fermilab, I’ve changed the information to be more conservative for now and asked for expert opinions there. If you have the time to ask Fermilab about their copyright policy, feel free to do so. —xyzzyn 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the apparatus exists any longer. The diagram could be replaced by a similar diagram I made myself, but my concern is that this would be a derivative work and hence un-licensable under GFDL. -- SCZenz 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be a derivative work unless you derived your drawing from it. If you found a variety of sources of information, and then drew an original diagram based (perhaps) on the layout of the diagram you refer to, but used your own artistic technique, and included other information from other reliable sources, and perhaps illustrated aspects that had not been covered well in the diagram you ferer to, then the drawing would probably be sufficiently different to be unique. You could offer that diagram into the public domain, and fair use would no longer be an issue. Atom 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Legally, a derivative work is one that incorporates copyrightable elements from another work. Factual scientific data is, in most cases, not copyrightable as it lacks the necessary creative element. Similarly, placing data on an x-y graph is too obvious and common to be, by itself, copyrightable. A scientific image may incorporate creative decisions in how a plot is rendered (sizing, colors, line widths, labeling, etc.), and those creative elements may be copyrightable. As a result, any replotting should copy only those aspects that are strictly necessary to convey the same factual content. To be honest though, many simple scientific graphs are arguably , though we rarely mark them as such. Dragons flight 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The analysis that goes into making a mass histogram from a physical experiment would seem to make it eligable for copyright. The plots we're talking about here would be similar to :Image:Upsilon peak.jpg; although it's a straightforward histogram of a quantity, a tremendous amount of creative work went into turning raw data into that histogram. But does that not count because no creative decisions were made regarding the appearence of the plot? -- SCZenz 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of science, the guiding dichtomy is the distinction between "creative works" and "facts which were discovered". The latter class is entirely ineligible for copyright. The interpretation of this has been fairly liberal as regards natural truth. Science provides objectively correct ways of doing things. If the process of analysis follows an objectively determined sequence of steps such that another individual presented with the same measurements could reasonably produce an equivalent figure, then the process is not creative (in the meaning of copyright law) and thus ineligible for protection, regardless of how complicated that sequence may be. The US (unlike some other countries) has explicitly rejected the notion that the amount of work involved has any bearing on copyright. For example, an art restorer may expend hundreds of hours making an old painting look just like new, but because the goal is to reproduce the original (rather than create something new) the courts have ruled that the art restorer earns no access to copyright protection. But the exclusions in copyright law actually go further. The result of a "mechanical process" is never embued with more protection than the original. Where a mechanical process is any sequence of transformation, that once defined, can be performed correctly in only one way. And (somewhat strangely in my opinion) one gets no credit for the creativity that might be implied in choosing one mechanical process over another. Since most data analysis is, in this sense, a mechanical process, it is generally not possible to take raw factual data and produce data products that are copyrightable. Dragons flight 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say (and it is only my opinion) that the image that you gave an example of is not copyritable. If you drew a similar image, based from the data, your image would not be copywritable either. Atom 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a fine line there, the content is not protected but I believe the presentation of it can be. A sequence of numbers can be presented in a lot of ways, and at least in some parts of the world the mere choice of fonts, colors and layout or grap type to use can be considered creative enough to protect a spesific presentation of something, even if the underlying data itself is not. Hence it's generaly safer to redraw diagrams and such using the base data "just in case". --Sherool (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is, what I can make of it: if your conclusion is the same, thus you are not introducing new ideas/ conclusions, then it's ok? -- Ned Scott 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of scientific diagrams to illustrate discoveries 

message: Users Sherool and Geni are attempting to make an end run around consensus by simply changing our Copyright page, without any discussion--through sheer force. This deserves some scrutiny. Please have a look at this change. Badagnani 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a fair edit. Not "currently available" and not available at all are different and importantly so; it's misleading to say that "currently available" is the standard. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have been trying to point out for a while now removing that line is not a policy change, policy changed on that point a looong time ago, but somehow updating Wikipedia:Copyrights was neglected back when the fair use policy got implemented. I don't see why some people keep insisting that unless a seperate consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights the old wording can not be updated to reflect the current policy on this. --Sherool (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that any changes that were made to fair use policy are under extreme debate and disagreement, it is at the best disingenuous and at worst contrived and manipulative to go around deleting long-standing passages from other policy pages at this time. As I've stated numerous times, the policy and enforcement changes to WP:FU were made out of a consensus of like-minded individuals without outside input until they started pissing off people like me by deleting images en mass under the "replaceable fair use" rationale. So those editors who are changing policy need to leave it intact.--Jeff 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you would rather then images were deleted through other means?Geni 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users attempting to to change WP's copyright rules without first building consensus 

message: Some enquired what are the other silly reasons to abolish fair use images, so I compiled a nice list. I hope you'll find it entertaining.  Grue  11:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Name-calling and setting up straw men is not a particularly valuable form of discussion. — Matt Crypto 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent work Grue, really they are the only reasons the fair use police can come up with! I've yet to hear a valid reason from them about why fair use images are bad. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ridiculous and absolutely pointless. —xyzzyn 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: umm Britannica does have free images. Quite hard to illustrate stuff about the american space program without useing free images.Geni 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can legally scan an image from Britannica and upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Which makes it not free.  Grue  18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brittannica of course also pays for it's images from press/photo agencies and such. We do not. Garion96 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..Geni 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Ten Most Silly Reasons to Abolish Fair Use On Wikipedia 

message: According to WP:IUP, "Fair use icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such should be uploaded in PNG format instead of SVG." Should fair use SVGs be converted to PNGs and then deleted since they can be scaled to large resolutions (violating #3 of WP:FUC)? ShadowHalo 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love fair-use. Let me say that again: I love fair-use, especially for things like publicity photos and the like.. But I must live in an en.wiki where there are those who would have all non-GFDL content eliminated, post haste. Corporate logos are copyrighted works and I think this is a perfect area for compromise to an area where everyone can be happy where either side gives a bit. I'd be happy with png versions of the SVG logos.--Jeff 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In practice, it doesn't really matter. Anything that can be easily represented in SVG would also scale quite cleanly if it was in PNG format. --Carnildo 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and most SVG programs allow for the export into PNG. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  False. PNG does not scale up cleanly (information loss does not occur, but aliasing does occur). PNG does scale down looking ok, but still not cleanly by any definition (information loss occurs). PNG does not scale in the same way as SVG. PNG is not designed to scale in the first place. SVG is designed to scale cleanly (no information loss, no aliasing) . --Kim Bruning 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The line in IUP was copied from an obscure guideline a year ago, and was disputed then. It's not policy, has been disputed since, and I've now removed it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use SVG images 

message: :Maybe this is obvious, but... isn't that technically a derivative work, with all the legal baggage that entails? Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. These new images will be uploaded over the old ones, and adding a tag below an image is not creating a derivative image, as the original image is fully intact. This is simply adding more metadata to a lower part of the image that didn't exist before (if that makes any sense). --Cyde Weys 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggested a similar thing early on in my involvement here. I like it and I think Gmaxwell's method avoids the "derivative" problem by placing the watermark outside of the actual image, at the lower border. certainly a single image file can be governed by one part copyright and one part GFDL, just as our Wikipedia pages can be considered aggregates :).--Jeff 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Performing it in the image tag is not a good idea because rather than dealing with several hundred thousands images which change very infrequently, we'd be dealing with N times that number of image inclusions. Performing it in the image tag would also require adding an additional key to the thumbnail name, which would just be messy. Doing it fully in mediawiki for the entire image was considered of course, but it would basically work the same way on the backend. I'm already effectively using mediawiki for this. The biggest challenge there is that identifying fair use images from the wikitext is actually somewhat hard because there are many dozens of tags/categories that might indicate the status. and it's a moving target. Oh, and yes.. Jeffness above has it: The reason that the mark is under the image rather than on the image is in part to avoid concerns about creating a derived work (also to avoid problems with placement, and poor contrast). --Gmaxwell 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you offering to code it?Geni 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not have skills that area, which is why I also suggested a template of some kind for the time being. We don't even need to re-upload images to apply such a modification. It could be like . Then, if the idea seems good and we keep going after a while (testing, reactions, feedback), start to suggest that all new images be tagged with that as apart of our image requirement, assuming we still like the idea. Nothing particularly on my mind, just thinking out loud for now. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Thats sounds great. If someone else doesn't do it first, I'll make those changes (And whatever else is suggested. --Gmaxwell 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text can be pretty small and even in a medium gray - the extra block of white is going to be plenty attention-getting. Another possibility is to position at the top, and centered. What happens to images tagged as fair use that are actually PD? Doesn't happen often, but I've fixed a few. Stan 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of putting it top-and-center. Of course, I also like the idea of making it red and blinking, so my judgement may be a little suspect here :-) --Carnildo 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Two thoughts: people may begin tagging images with incorrect free tags if they discover their fair use images are being modified (this happens here and at Commons when someone tags an image with a non compatible license that automatically tags the image for speedy deletion, and then they change it to ). Also, maybe you could resize the image downwards? We don't need 2048x1024 fair use images :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Too spammy. We provide attribution in a manner which is consistent with text and universal to all mediawiki installs. Putting names more prominently will produce too much bad incentive: When someone wants in image on the article we'll never know if it is because they think the image is good or if it's because they want their "name in lights", a lot of opportunity for bad blood. Finally, it is feature creep. Lets solve one problem at a time. As far as multi-tagging goes, not only do I keep track of which images are tagged, I can detect the tagging in the image, and move it aside for human inspection. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too spammy only applies to individual photographers (the self-GFDL ones where random Joe Bloggs photograph some tourist landmark). I think it would be good to use credits in the historical public domain pictures we use. Stuff like the US Government, NASA pictures, and the Library of Congress pictures. The source of the photo is something that it would be good to credit in those cases. These are often unique photographic works, and we should be crediting the immense amount of archival and historical work, government resources, or space technology, that led to the creation and/or preservation of the picture. Carcharoth 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it wasn't clear what I was talking about when rejecting Greg's blanket characterisation of adding credits as being "too spammy", have a look at Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Four pictures being used there. Three are (or appear to be) historical artworks, and one is a present-day photo. The artwork in the infobox credits the artist in the caption, and the date makes it clear that the artwork is not contemporary, but was done over 10 years later. The two watercolours of Montcalm further down the page are less well described - the first one credits the artist, but the second doesn't even do that. You have to click through to the image description page to find out that the artist was born over a century after the events he is painting. It might be based on eyewitness accounts, but it is still misleading not to make all this clear. Having more of the stuff on the image description page appear with the image as it displays would force people to think more about the origin of an image, and what it all means in context. There is no reason not to have NASA and Library of Congress images (which have their own tags) display their origin by default, rather than leave people to click through to find out that information. In the case of the final picture, a Creative Commons licensed present-day picture of a tourist information board/map, there is clearly no need to credit the photographer. But there are clearly cases where crediting the origin of an image by default would be an improvement on the current situation where people fail to properly caption and explain the origins of a picture, even when doing so would improve the encyclopedic aspect of the use of the image. Carcharoth 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I would be one of those people tempted to revert. Such a tag only makes the images uglier for our primary audience, readers. It probably does little to help our secondary audience, reusers, since large scale reusers would have no way of processing those tags, and small scale reusers would often look at the image description page anyway to get the big version of the image. I will admit that it might encourage people to submit free replacements, but tagging all fair use images indescriminately would add an ugly footer to various logos, album covers, and other things where equivalent replacement is impossible. And after all, theoretically we want the only fair use on Wikipedia to be the irreplacable kind, right? So if someone did add "© Not Free" to an image I uploaded when I felt there was no expectation that it could be replaced with a free alternative, I probably would be tempted to revert. Dragons flight 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we coorect misunderstandings all the time... There is also an aspect of truth in advertising to this: We claim to be the free encyclopedia on every page, ... it makes sense if were going to have non-free things that we should identify them clearly. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good point; there's a kind of transparency to this that I hadn't considered. Jkelly 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly, a proposal to re-brand every copyrighted image on Wikipedia deserves wider exposure than this page affords; that's why I've cross-posted it to the Village Pump. Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#It.27s_time_to_tag., for those who are interested in what other, non-fair-use-obsessed Wikipedians might think of this plan... Jenolen speak it! 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion header 1

message: I think it would be a good idea to make the copyright info on all images and multimedia digitally readable as well. This would allow for rapid software based handeling. 
I'm paging through the EXIF specs and haven't found custom tags yet, but perhaps we could somehow diddle the EXIF tags to include this kind of info as well? For SVG perhaps we could introduce an object or tag in the same way. That leaves PNG. 
For bitmap based images, we might instead diddle the top left or bottom right corner, or some such. For other multi-media, like music, there's an ID3 or what have you.
--Kim Bruning 11:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the idea of using EXIF for stuff like this. Actually modifying the image is not that good an idea, because it will involve manipulating the image in software. Unless you are careful, you will lose image quality that way. Please make sure that the original images are kept so that things can be rolled back if needed, rather than modifying the image again to remove or replace the tag. Carcharoth 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You typically don't lose image quality in digital images, unless you have no clue what you're doing. Welcome to the digital age ;-) --Kim Bruning 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lossy data compression and lossless compression. That is pretty basic stuff, but it is still safest to assume that people don't know what they are doing unless they demonstrate proficiency with using tools like Photoshop and other advanced image manipulation software. Have you ever seen the results when someone who doesn't know what they are doing is let loose? :-) And have you never seen digital image 'experts' contradict each other in the same sentence? :-) Carcharoth 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know which digital image "experts" you've been talking to, but I rather suspect Gmaxwell(&co?) won't be using photoshop, or any other gui software (advanced or not). --Kim Bruning 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. Does that avoid the problems with generation loss? I've just been reading user interface#Types - interesting stuff. Which interface do you think will be used here? Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that lossy formats like jpegs were not going to be uncompressed, edited and then recompressed. Sorry if everyone knew that already. Carcharoth 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those image processing 'experts' you are talking about. I don't think we disagree as much as you think - perhaps we are oversimplifying things and each is doing that in different ways. So let me try to be concise: Yes, it is technically possible to manipulate lossily-compressed images (by this, we mostly mean JPEG - but perhaps also GIF) in some very specific and limited ways without losing image quality. You can certainly change or add to the EXIF data without messing things up. However, if you simply load the image into a general-purpose image manipulation program and change even so much as one bit of one pixel of the image and re-save it, the odds are extremely high that you'll degrade its quality in some way. In fact, in some programs, you don't even have to alter the image - merely loading and saving it again is enough to degrade it. Doing this repeatedly introduces 'generational degradation' similar to making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. Having said that, for some classes of very specific change, you can write specialised software that won't degrade the image - but that's a tricky thing to do just right and requires 'deep guru' understanding of the compression scheme and the confidence to write your own code for loading and saving the image rather than using an off-the-shelf image library such as libjpeg. For lossless-compressed images (PNG for example), there should be absolutely no problem. However, I still think this is a terrible idea. SteveBaker 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding this. Don't worry about explaining at length - that is precisely what is needed here. You probably want to make sure GMaxwell, who started all this, is aware of what you wrote, as I'm just commenting, not actually doing anything. My personal experience (having read about it, not being any kind of image expert) is that it is always best to save the original data, and as much of that as possible, and only manipulate copies. That way you can go back to the original later if needed. This applies especially to the rotation of images done by "off the shelf" viewing programs. I've had bad experiences where I've rotated images from a digital camera in a viewing program and later discovered that the image had been messed up in some subtle way. Even using the rotation option on the camera sometimes messes things up if the camera software has been badly written. Simple rule-of-thumb. Have an unadulterated original in a doubly-backed up archive somewhere - record the original names of the files in a database, then start manipulating the images (renaming, cropping, adding masks, sharpening, cleaning, adding copyright and other information, updating and expanding EXIF data, IPTC data, and so on). As you say, some of this can be done without changing the image quality, but there are so many stages of manipulations that it is best to have an original to go back to later, if needed. I wonder how this is handled over at Commons? Do you know? Carcharoth 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXIF (and other computer readables) 

message: Just to be clear, the idea is that this makes fair use images look "bad" or discouraged in some degree (without distracting or degrading the image's purpose of providing information)? I noticed some comments that say things like, oh lets make it less noticeable or this would look bad for pages with multiple FU images. Well.. isn't that the point? Like I said, whatever type of tag we use (below image, after image, on image, size, color, etc) that shouldn't hurt the reason we are using the image (to provide information) but it should make it look less desirable / silly / slightly tacky / less eye candy. As long as it doesn't stop the image from doing it's job, make it look inferior to free use images in its presentation. That is what we are doing, yes? -- Ned Scott 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to "trash" the images on hundreds of thousands of articles, and thereby trash the article, in order to discourage fair use?  That falls under "cutting off your nose to spite your face".  Let's face it, there are hundreds of thousands of fair use images for which there will never be a free substitute, barring some fundamental change in copyright law.  Trashing these images will certainly not produce a free replacement - it will only trash Wikipedia.  Let's look beyond narrow crusades and try to improve Wikipeda.  MapMaster 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought the point of this was simply to further emphasise the copyrighted nature of these images, and indicate the fair-use context within which they are being used, rather than to actually degrade the quality of the images. As long as it is indicated that a copyrighted image is being justified in its inclusion through fair-use, I don't see why there would be any need to actually make the image look worse. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this is an under-the-radar attempt by the anti-fair-use lobby to try to get rid of fair use images rather than a reasonable attempt to better label images. If it's the latter then I'd argue that any of our readers can find out the copyright status of any of our images just by clicking on it - and that's plenty good enough (since most readers don't give a damn). If it's the former - then this is the wrong way to promote that agenda. Note (above) people suggesting that the copyright notice be red and flashing - or that the entire image be tinted red or something. Lets be honest - that's not in an effort to inform our readers - it's an effort to make fair use images so ugly that they are utterly unusable. If there was a solid consensus on banning fair-use images then this tactic wouldn't be necessary. But since there is no such consensus, we should not adopt this change for that reason. So - the question comes down to "Do we need to inform the general public?" - and I think the answer is "No" - they would obviously prefer a cleanly designed, uncluttered page to one that's decorated with annoying little zits like this. SteveBaker 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no duh, of course it's to make the fair use images look worse. It doesn't matter as long as their function is not decreased, yes? Using fair use images should never be done to make our articles look pleasing to the eye (in such a way that is not necessary for the image's function). I see nothing wrong with this and fully support the idea. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how this could possibly be described as "under-the-radar". Jkelly 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - so it's "over the radar" - whatever. But the point is that there isn't yet (nor may there ever be) a consensus over what to do about fair use. That's undeniable - every time one of these debates starts up somewhere it turns into a flame-fest and finally fizzles out due to exhaustion. Without that consensus, the pro-fair-use lobby will see this as a campaign to deliberately trash legal and useful images. So this action would make this proposal turn into just another way to provoke a huge bust-up. Continually driving wedges into the community does nobody any good. SteveBaker 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, I would think that tagging them visually would help the argument to use more fair use images, because then you can say that people will still have motivation to find free images. Like I keep saying, of course we would not do something to the image that defeats the purpose of including the image. There may not be a consensus about fair use over-all, but there a consensus to use free alternatives as much as possible. We only use fair use when we have no free image (that is, an image that "does the job"). Are you saying we should not encourage people to find or create a free alternative? -- Ned Scott 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can certainly agree that we want to encourage the production of free images.  What I really, strongly, deeply object to is screwing up the normal functioning of a high quality encyclopedia in order to achive that goal.  My favorite example is the Andy Warhol page - and the equivelant page on German Wikipedia.  Take a look and you'll see what I mean - the German page is utterly useless - it's a total disaster.  How do you talk about Andy Warhol without showing his unique art style?  Try to stifle your laughter when you see the photo of a can of campbells soup on the German page...I broke out laughing when I saw it and it still makes me giggle to think about how pathetic that is.  Now, the question is, can we provide a sufficiently subtle indication that a picture needs a replacement whilst not detracting from the quality of the encyclopedia.  This worries me.  A real subtle 'watermark' tucked into one corner of replaceable fair use images - might be OK (although not for JPEG images because of generational quality issues - and not in really low resolution images because it'll look like crap).  But tinting the entire photo or sticking a bloody great flashing red label (as some people here are advocating) makes a perfectly good, legal article look like crap - and that's something I'll fight against.  In a rational, reasonable world, we'd come to some reasonable compromise - but a lot of people here are rabid extremists and we are in the "if you give them an inch they'll take a yard" realms where compromise and consensus has broken down.  SteveBaker 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, you've summed up things pretty well. I have to admit, I can be a bit borderline "zomg, don't give an inch" sometimes, but in general I do see the value of many fair use images. I don't think anything should flash, nor should there be a large watermark, but it doesn't harm the image (or the image's job) to place a small icon in the corner or just below an image. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I had no trouble following the conversation. It was a bit confusing for a while, but then it was pretty easy to follow. What I'd like is to hear back from GMaxwell. The bloke whose picture is up there alongside Jimbo's. :-) Greg (Maxwell) said "Barring any launch problems, I plan to start doing this on Wednesday in a low speed manually operated manner." - well, it is now Friday. Can we assume that this 'start' has not happened? It would be nice to get some feedback on the feedback. My position on fair use is that you will always need some fair-use content, but you need to actively educate the community on the acceptable boundaries, rather than go to extremes either way. Carcharoth 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to be clear

message: Apparently removing screenshots from a list (Talk:List of Heroes episodes#Images), where the critical commentary present amounts to less than one line of text, is a violation of the American people's constitutional right to freedom of speech . ed g2s • talk 10:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "fair use is a right which belongs to individuals; it arises from the constitutional right of freedom of speech, which includes the right to talk about things one is interested in" <- I see nothing inherently wrong with that statement. It's true that copyright law without some form of fair use would infringe somewhat on freedom of speech. Still, Wikimedia Foundation has no obligation to provide a venue for people to speak freely, and I have no obligation to listen (no matter what the Dixie Chix thinx). --GunnarRene 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the fair use criteria on Wikipedia include compliance with US fair use law, they are indeed consistent with the law. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be free, the additional restrictions on fair use material are consistent with Wikipedia’s ‘basic function’. As for similar language in other countries and individuals’ rights, you had better be specific; I’m fairly sure I do not have the right to use dozens of images from a TV show just so that others who have seen all the episodes don’t need to read the episode names. Finally, ‘critical commentary’ actually means ‘commentary in the form of a critique’, not ‘criticism’, and can usually be done without violating WP:NPOV. —xyzzyn 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no legal or common sense to state that Wikipedia content is not intended for research. And every law I've seen on "fair dealing" does specifically include research. Semantically your statement is illogical; a critique is a piece of criticism. It is by nature subjective. The text in Wikipedia is generally NPOV because it generally sticks to description, not critiques. Avt tor 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, ‘free’ in ‘The Free Encyclopedia’ means ‘free to read, copy, distribute, sell or modify for any purpose’. ‘Free only for research’ is not free in this sense. ‘Fair use under US law’ is not free in this sense either. I still don’t know to which other laws you are referring, though I do know the American stance on this issue is not representative of much of the rest of the world. As for ‘critique’ versus ‘criticism’, a critique is a work that examines the artistic aspects of another work. This may include criticism (statements negating the value of the examined work). In either case, as long as the critique uses only verifiable facts and does not give undue weight to any one fact or opinion, it will most likely comply with WP:NPOV. For an example, see Mona Lisa#Aesthetics. —xyzzyn 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not arguing the meaning of "free". If it's Wikipedia policy to remove all fair use images, so be it. I'm merely suggesting that fair use should accurately describe fair use. Avt tor 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, around here, ‘fair use’ is best understood as a Wikipedia jargon term with a meaning that strongly depends on the context. —xyzzyn 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um UK law? Fair dealing allows for private research (well study) only. Not publishing information that could then in theory be used for research.Geni 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UK has some quantitative guidelines for interpreting fair dealing that would not cause any problems. Also UK is a signatory to the Berne convention, if it's legal to publish a work in the United States, it's legal to sell/distribute that work in other signatory countries. Avt tor 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um the Berne convention really really doesn't work like that. Your claim that UK fair dealing law works the way you claim it does needs to be backed up by some pretty impressive evidence.Geni 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to the original issue, I do not believe the first amendment applies to Wikipedia. While based in the United States, I was told on numerous occasions that Wikipedia only offers two rights: the right to vanish and the right to fork. But, I still do not think preventing the use of photos violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, really. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:CENSOR anyone? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, first read the article on censorship so you know what it means - I'm sure I've told you this before. That Wikipedia is not a free speech forum does not mean it is censored. ed g2s • talk 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of episodes