Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 8

message: I've (self-)nominated Ace Books for FA, and I'd like to make sure the images in it are correctly fair use.  I see on the image page for one of the images that the fair use tag I used includes the phrase "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."  I took a look at Wikipedia:Image description page but wasn't quite clear to me where to add the text I wanted.  So I figured I'd find a featured article and look for how a magazine or book cover was supposed to have fair use justified.  I found this which was used in the Tony Blair article, but I can't see any justification written in anywhere, either in the article or the image page.  Can you tell me if there is one and I'm missing it?  And if it's missing, where should it go -- should I click the "edit" link on the "licensing" section of the image page and add text after the  tag?  Thanks for any help. Mike Christie 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've traditionally not been overly concerned with detailed rationales for the covers of books; the entire point of the creation of  was to save people the effort of writing the same rationale over and over again.  You are using this cover differently than our typical use (in the article about that book), and there is no reason not to pursue best practice for a WP:FAC.  See :Image:The Whole Of The Moon Waterboys Album Cover.jpg for where I claimed Wikipedia:Fair use of an album cover for an article not about that album.  Ignore Tony Blair; that article is a terrible example of how to use unfree content.  Jkelly 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a very helpful example.  I've replicated much of your text at the Ace image; however, I did notice that your rationale included the text "The image :Image:The Whole Of The Moon Waterboys Album Cover.jpg is being linked here . . .", which seems backwards to me.  Should it be "The article The Waterboys links here . . .", since it's the uses that require a rationale, not the original upload?  Or am I missing something? Mike Christie 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that it is just confusing boilerplate... edit it as you see fit.  Jkelly 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to post justifications 

message: The policy says that we should ALWAYS use a free version instead of a fair use item.  This may be a bit too extreme.  I note that originally the policy said "It is best to use a free version".  I am asking this because, rather than use publicity photo's for Mel Gibson a really horrible amateur drawing is used instead because it is "free".  This so substantially reduces the quality of the article that it seems egregious and a good example of how "Always" is not a good rule. I request comment --Blue Tie 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos for where the thinking is going on this.  Jkelly 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Always?

message: The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use in the article Jean Charles de Menezes for the following reasons: 
# The image is being used in an original encyclopedic article on the life of Jean Charles de Menezes on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. The image is being used to show the visage of Jean Charles de Menezes, a deceased person. The image was obtained from voluminous media coverage of Menezes' killing, and it is difficult to illustrate certain aspects of the story without it.
# The image is a photo of Jean Charles de Menezes dating to January 2001. It is believed to be a print of a passport or other identification photo kept by the Menezes family. It lacks a substantial creative element, being a rote representation of the individual produced for government identification papers.
# The photo is of the same resolution as various web sources, but using a lesser amount would make it more difficult to illustrate this individual's visage. 
# The photo is variously attributed to Reuters, AP, and Menezes family as a handout, and is thus believed to be have been given out by the family for free commercial distribution to aid in dissemination of their story.
::This one needs better sourcing.  We need to know who the copyright holder really is. Jkelly 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History on this: it was originally uploaded to the Commons as a PD image. I took that image and uploaded it to enWP because there were doubts about that status. I too wondered about the source, but had sufficient evidence to attest that I believe that the proximate source is the Menezes family. Out of all the extant pictures of JCdM, this is the one with the best fair use rationale. KWH 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think best practice would be to add some more reasoning why we think it came from the family.  If it is actually a passport photo, that must be a very different licensing arrangement than if it was taken by a relative.  Jkelly 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Menezes.jpg]]

message: The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use in the article Jean Charles de Menezes for the following reasons: 
# The image is being used in an original encyclopedic article on the life of Jean Charles de Menezes on Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. The image is used to illustrate to a reader the visage of the suspects in the London Underground bombings of 21 July 2005, of which Menezes was mistaken for one.
# The image is a collage of 4 frame images from mounted security cameras in the London Underground. It lacks a substantial creative element. 
# The photo is of the same resolution as the web source, but using a lesser amount would make it more difficult to illustrate the evidence. 
# The image is believed to be released for broad distribution by the Metropolitan Police, who would not lose profit from its further distribution. It is believed to be free for distribution and reuse.
::This one looks like it meets WP:FUC to me.  We're still using a reduced "amount" of the original work, which is the CCTV.  "It would make our illustration difficult" does not usually justify using the entirety of a work, and so should be rephrased to avoid giving that impression.  Jkelly 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is what is being illustrated; the reader is invited to judge whether the previous mentioned photo of Menezes has any resemblance to these suspects. I think that losing even a single pixel from this already low-res image makes it harder to illustrate that. Besides, the nature and effect on the work's value are pretty vocal in speaking in favor of the fair use. KWH 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I failed to make myself clear; I don't think we need to reduce this one at all.  I think we just need to rephrase the rationale to be clear that we're using a small amount of the original CCTV footage, and not give the impression that we're considering the web source for the image to be the original work.  Jkelly 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this would be of any help, but I was reading the discussion about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and I saw the image of the cartoons. The size was small enough to give a general idea of what they were, but not large enough to actually read them all. There was a link on the page to a page with a higher resolution image of the cartoons if the reader wished to view them. IMHO, that is a good idea. A small version of the image, large enough to give a general idea of the subject in question, but not of high enough quality to compete with the actual copyrighted image. Lauren 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:21 July London Bombing Suspects CCTV.jpeg]]

message: Can anyone tell me where the boundary is between low resolution and high resolution?
I was wondering because a fair use image I uploaded was 64kb, yet it has been tagged as high resolution. Yet in my personal opinion, I would consider only images over 400kb to be high resolution? -- Paxomen 13:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, and the image in question is :Image:Buffy the Vampire Slayer series-vol 1-(Dark Horse Comics)-62.jpg. When I tagged it, I was looking at pixel height and width, not how big in kilobytes it was. Probably make it around 400 or 350 pixels high and I will go ahead and remove the fairusereplace in tag I put. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 800px is pretty big. Especially in respect to how big it is being used—this page in particular seems blatantly against our fair use policies (there is almost no text at all). --Fastfission 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for replying, but are there any more concrete guidelines given anywhere on Wiki regarding image size height and width, because doesn't resolution take into account how detailed the image is as well (how many bytes of data), or just the height/width of the image, or a combination of both factors? -- Paxomen 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no set guideline from what I am aware, but I mainly look more into the pixel size when I tag the images. My personal rule is for CD covers, maybe 300x300 pixels (kb size doesn't matter), but not sure about book covers, art, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that "Low resolution" means that a copy is not competitive with the copyright owner who has on the market a high resolution image. (Ask: How would it look blown up to say 6x9 inches?) Fair use is about market value--and an image may have high informative value for the Wiki user but not be saleable on a market like ebay. Rjensen 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bytes are not a useful way to discuss resolution—depending on the compression and file type the file sizes can vary widely, and it is not the file size that has any relation to its copyright status. A good rule of thumb is "no larger than you need to do the minimum work the image needs to do." If you need more specific guidelines, anything which makes Mediawiki thumbnail the image when it is in the image description screen is probably too big (that's a little over 400 pixels wide, I think) unless there are really specific reasons for needing it to be bigger. --Fastfission 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is low resolution?

message: Our current fair use criteria does not grant exceptions for fair use images to be used on portals. The only place such images can be used is in the main article namespace. However, I can readily see how a portal entry, depending on the entry, does not violate the spirit of our policies; the image is used in direct connection to the content, not as decoration. 
I think we need to clarify out stance vis-a-vis portals and fair use image use. --Durin 13:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point 9 of WP:FUC should cover it, since the portal is not the article space. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use criteria and portals 

message: Durin seems to be on some sort of odd campaign to remove coats of arms from country infoboxes, see :Template:Infobox Australia. Almost all country CoAs have use restrictions (as do some flags) however as national symbols, and with the current design of the infobox, I think they are ok in specific country infoboxes. All flags and CoA are available on the commons - eventhough many are not free. However, there is a fair use problem with CoAs in other templates, like the politics of ... template series, which every country has, and a more constructive use of time would be fixing those templates.--Peta 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I quite understand the specifics of CoA copyrights, but I do think that infoboxes could be a specific exception to the "no fair use in a template". When the template is just organizing what would otherwise be the primary image on a page, then I don't think it breaks the "no templates" rule. --Fastfission 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *We just demonstrated at  that it is easy to add code to call the image when its rendered, thus allowing its use through the template on a main article namespace without having the image actually on the template. The template was deleted today though as it was a single use template. I don't see, given that reasonable fix, that we have to make an exception for info boxes. --Durin 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the fix is since none of those template links work. In any case I don't see the need for elaborate fixes in cases like this (where it is clear that it is not outside of the intent of the rule), but anyway. --Fastfission 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Because we need to draw a clear, and easy to understand line in the sand. No fair use outside of main article namespace is easy to understand. It's considerably easier than having a dizzying array of exclusions, exceptions, etc. --Durin 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Okay, since I'm running into lots of opposition over at Talk:Mel Gibson, I thought I'd ask whether anyone would clarify whether it is appropriate to include a fair use image of Gibson, despite the existence of his mugshot as a public domain image?  It seems to me that a generic fair use image would have a wholly different effect from the mugshot, and as such can be justified.  If this is really counter to our fair use policy, we ought to make fair use policy more permissive, because it's absurd for the only picture of Gibson to be a mugshot (or, alternately, fan art, which is apparently our other option). john k 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Little help. The mugshot is actually of good quality, I have seen worse around. Personally, I don't think there isn't a single free pic at Flickr, even an old one (as used in the Michael Jackson article). -- ReyBrujo 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This wasn't too helpful, I know. Similar discussions were held before (see should FU images be used when free alternative may be offensive and up to date information is more important than free content). -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Try asking the creator of this photograph to reconsider their licensing. Or try asking his agent to come up with a freely licensed image. Jkelly 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mugshots aren't public domain; they're copyrighted to the police department that took the picture.  In most cases, they are available under relatively broad licenses, but let's be clear about this: they are not public domain.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that trying to request his agent a free alternative is our better option here. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the website of the law enforcement agency that arrested Gibson, and according to them, the photo is not in the public domain, so it will have to be deleted off the commons. My sugggestion is that if they want to look at his mugshot, then link to it via the Smoking Gun website. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misinterpreted the statements there, Zscout.  All it says is that material on the site may be copyrighted; it doesn't assert copyright on anything other than their service marks.  Please be more careful in reading T&C statements in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you assume that? As I understand it, copyright is automatic these days. Whoever took the photo, or the agency the photographer works for, owns the copyright. The U.S. government and it's employees and agents cannot hold copyright, but all product of state and local governments and of private entities is automatically under copyright. Nobody has to register the copyright, or even assert it; it is presumed to exist. As Wikipedia:Copyrights says, Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming nothing.  The LASD site's copyright notice fails to make any statement at all as to copyright of mugshots on its site.  Such documents may be "public records" under the law of California, which may place restrictions on the LASD's ability to claim or enforce copyright.  In Illinois, for example, in some cases police records qualify as "public records" of the state, and the state and its subordinate entities are prohibited by state law from enforcing copyright.  However, every state is different in this regard; someone needs to review the applicable law to determine what the actual legal status of those images is.  Until we've done so, we must assume that the images are not licensed for any use, and that we may only use them as "fair use".  Kelly Martin (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are agreed, then, that we should assume an image is not free for our use until proven otherwise. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why on earth would we want that awful Flickr picture?  And the mugshot may not have to be deleted.  Why is there this incredible level of conclusion jumping with respect to images?  Why is it okay for Smoking Gun to use it, but not us?  The chances of us getting into trouble for having the mugshot image seem minimal.  If somebody wants to contact Mel Gibson's agent about a photograph, they should go ahead.  Assuming this is unsuccessful, what on earth is wrong with a fair use image?? Why is there so much distaste for fair use? john k 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their goal isn't to create a free product. Our goal makes us a little more restrictive about what can be included. :Image:Nightwish1.jpg is a much better picture than :Image:Nightwish Juhannus.jpg. However, the Nightwish article is using the later, because it is nearer to Wikipedia goal than the former. -- ReyBrujo 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of contacting the LASD to see what the copyright status of the mugshot photo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "free" business irks me, I must admit.  (As does the word "copyleft").  I understand that it is preferred that we use free images when possible.  But that means, to me, "all other things being more or less equal, we should use a free image."  It shouldn't mean, "if we can possibly attain any kind of free picture, we should not use a far superior fair use image."  A publicity photo is released for the purpose of being publicized.  I can see no problem whatsoever with using a publicity photo of an actor under fair use.  If people want to go further and see if the actor's people will release an image for free use, that's wonderful, and people who care about such things should make such efforts.  But as far as I can tell, the desire for free images seems largely to be used to delete existing fair use images on one pretext or another, and not to secure free images of comparable quality.  The flickr image is shit, and would be embarrassing to include in the article.  The mug shot should be in the article if possible, but it would be embarrassing to have as the principal image.  A fan drawing is an embarrassing principle image.  If we can't get a normal publicity photo to be released for free, we should use one under fair use.  john k 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, if it turns out the mugshot isn't in the public domain, wouldn't that mean a fair use image is acceptable, since no free alternative is available and the subject of the photo is discussed in depth?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion: if there is something about the mug shop that merits description (not just the arrest, and not just that a mug shot was taken), then a "fair use" argument could be made. We don't need any image to establish that Mel was arrested, and there are free images of Mel that better show what he looks like. If there were a situation in which, say, a mug shot showed someone with a black eye, and there was some question of how that person got the black eye, then I think a strong argument could be made for "fair use" to illustrate the reported injury. But, I haven't heard of anything about Mel's mug shot that would justify "fair use" of it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, however, the article has no images of Mel Gibson except for that one, which has been used as the primary photo to identify him in the past out of concern for freeness. From what I can tell, no free images of Gibson have been located, despite evidence of an ongoing effort at the article talk page. It seems to me like using a promotional image under fair use makes the most sense, especially if we can't determine the copyright status of the mugshot. That's what I'm trying to clarify. Is there a reason that can't be done?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No free image available is a problem. I would go with the promo photo over an unfree mug shot for identifying Mel. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If Gibson's publicity agent wrote a press release that was unquestionably better than our article, and gave us permission to post it here as long as we couldn't edit it and it couldn't be re-used by our mirrors or the CD project, do you think we should swap our article for the press release?  Jkelly 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, since that would be CC-ND, which has been "disallowed" on Wikipedia from what I remember correctly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we allowed to modify publicity photos anyway we want? I don't think so. Also, cc-nd explicitly allows the use of the licensed work for any purpose, what's uncertain in publicity photos.--Abu Badali 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What a total fucking strawman.  Do you really think that's a fair comparison, or are you just point scoring? john k 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perplexed by your response.  I was trying to help you understand our approach to images and licensing by drawing a comparison I thought would be helpful.  Images, sound, and video are only here as part of our encyclopedic content, and we want to give them away and modify them as we see fit in the same way we do our text.  Jkelly 02:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What legitimate reason would we possibly have for wanting to modify a picture of Mel Gibson?  I can understand something like this for maps, or something, but for a photograph?  Modifying the text of an article is a basic part of wikipedia.  I was not aware that we generally spent a lot of time modifying photographic images.  That's why it's a straw man.  Beyond that, I don't see why the top priority should be making wikipedia convenient for people who want to make a profit selling it.  If they want to do that, they can strip out fair use images, which should be clearly marked, in any event.  In the meanwhile, why should all the readers who don't give a damn about such things have to endure an article that has no picture, when it would be perfectly legal for us to include one? Why should our policies be designed for the convenience of entirely hypothetical entrepeneurs at the expense of actual users? john k 13:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies, though, for the vulgarity and rudeness of the previous post.  I was rather drunk at the time, if that mitigates the offense. john k 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need a Mothers Against Drunk Editing WikiProject.  If you go over to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, you'll get a sense of the kind of image editing that goes on at Wikipedia.  Look at the collages that are in the ethnic groups articles for another example.  The people who republish our content are our "users" as much as people who just read are, and our policies reflect the goal of giving away a freely reusable encyclopedia, instead of simply creating an informative website. Jkelly 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and of course if we can get a good free use domain, that's wonderful, as I stated.  I don't see what exactly is the compelling interest in preventing the use of fair use images.  If the option is an inadequate image that we can edit, on one side, and an adequate image that we can't, on the other, what on earth is wrong with the fair use image? And sure, the people who republish our content are "users", but why should we be more solicitous of them than of ordinary readers? john k 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see User:Jimbo Wales' thoughts on this at Template talk:Promotional.  Jkelly 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos. This comment? Garion96 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, right, thanks.  Jkelly 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Am I meant to accept without protest any opinion expressed by Mr. Wales? He himself admits that his own position is not official policy, and that it is at one extreme of the debate.  So you have led me to understand that Jimmy Wales disagrees with me.  So what? I've read these arguments, and I don't agree.  He's not laying down official policy by fiat.  Why not actually respond to my arguments instead of making an appeal to authority? john k 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you don't agree with my position, and now you've told me that don't think that his position is interesting.  Is nothing interesting, or serve as an explanation, if it wouldn't win an argument against you?  Your argument seems to be that unfree content should be treated more like free content, and I've tried to explain why it isn't.  You seem to be suggesting that aesthetically pleasing images are worth compromising our goals for, but I can't see myself agreeing to that anymore than I would agree that we should start getting people to write noncommercial textual content for us because so many of our articles are embarrasingly poorly written. Jkelly 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about "compromising our goals".  How does having an unfree image rather than no image compromise any goals?  And do you really think you can find people who would be willing to contribute non-commercial textual content, but are not willing to contribute at present?  That strikes me as ridiculous.  Pictures are not basically analogous to text.  Look, I agree with the idea that we should have non-free images where possible.  But I don't agree with the idea that any non-free image is inferior to any free image.  What if it turns out that the mugshot is unavailable?  And what if somebody then goes out and takes a picture of Mel Gibson sitting on the can, and releases it on a GFDL license.  Are you saying that we have to use the picture of Mel Gibson on the can?  Just think for a moment about the implictions of your position.  As to Mr. Wales's position, I find it vaguely interesting, but not in the least bit convincing, and, at any rate, it is basically the same position that you have been advancing here all along, which is why I affected boredom.  I don't find it convincing for someone to quote an authority figure making the same argument they've made.  If Wales wants to make his position official policy, he has the means to do so.  john k 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically I agree with John K. The ONLY problem I can imagine with Fair Use of Publicity Images is if wikipedia is going to somehow go commercial.  In which case, I'm leaving the project.  I don't want to be a free slave for someone else's pocket. I do not mind donating my time and effort to the cause that Jimbo Wales originally specified.. a free source of information for everyone, but I don't want to do that so that others can be enriched. My time is WAY too valuable for that. So is that the grief with Fair use?  Is it that wikipedia has commercial desires? Tell me now so I can stop wasting my time here and start a class action lawsuit for unfair enrichment through false representation --Blue Tie 02:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that there is money to be made by selling Wikipedia in part or in whole, why not give it a try?  It is just as freely reusable for you as it is for the Foundation.  Jkelly 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and incidentally, see Wikipedia:No legal threats.  People get pretty worked up about those, and it is best to avoid even joking about it.  Jkelly 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I thought saying that might get a rise :-) But I did not think it was a legal threat against another user per that policy!  But good point about not even joking.  I guess in this time, joking about such things is like jokes about bombs at an airport.  I suppose that wikipedia has its share of fear.  But my question really still stands.  Why are we so paranoid on this matter?  If it is really rational, the explanation should be given as a special page or subpage on the copyright or fair use policy pages.  But if it is not really rational why are we sticking to it?  This is like a burr under the saddle. Very annoying.--Blue Tie 03:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: [After edit conflicts with Blue Tie and Jkelly] Beyond that, let me quote the policy, which states that we can only use fair use things when No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. The key phrase here is "that would adequately give the same information." It is my contention that a mugshot of Mr. Gibson does not adequately convey the same information that a publicity photo would do. It conveys part of the information - Mr. Gibson's physical features - but it conveys them under a particular weird and stressful situation that is problematic as a general representation of the way the actor looks. As such, it ought to be acceptable to supplement this image by fair use images, if necessary. Again, what on earth can conceivably be the objection to this? I understand that we would like free images if we can get them. But we shouldn't accept an inferior product solely on the grounds of interpreting "adequately gives the same information" to mean "is a picture of the same person." john k 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that in a promotional photo the actor shows himself in a way that may not be his true representation in real life (?). I think that, if a well-standing editor contacts his representant explaining that, because of Wikipedia policy, we necessary need to use his mugshot instead of a promotional image, he may be convinced to release an image under a Creative Common license, just like with the twins in the past months (whose names I can't remember, thankfully). -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not wikipedia policy though.  Look, does a publicity picture of Gibson actually convey the exact same information as the mugshot?  Of course not.  As such, it is not the rules themselves, but an incredibly narrow interpretation of the rules which demands this kind of activity.  Telling Mr. Gibson's people this is a lie.  It is not demanded by wikipedia policy.  It is demanded by the narrow and bizarre interpretation of that policy taken by the people who've taken ownership of this talk page. john k 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just what information can only be conveyed by a mugshot? That he was arrested and booked? We have plenty of sources for that. Please explain what information about Mel Gibson can only be conveyed by the mugshot. -- Donald Albury 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Donald, I think you may have missed my main point, which was that a publicity photo conveys information that a mugshot does not.  At any rate, the mugshot conveys "what Mel Gibson looked like in his mugshot when he was arrested for drunk driving."  This is different from conveying "what Mel Gibson looks like in a professional photograph taken of him to be distributed for publicity purposes."  This is not the same information, and pretending that one is a substitute for the other is silly.  If we had a publicity image that was under a free license, and a mugshot that was public domain, we would have bsolutely no problem with including both in an article.  What about an older picture of Gibson?  From Mad Max days, say?  Would that convey "the same information" as the mugshot, and thus be inappropriate?  As noted before, the way the meaning of "adequately conveying the same information" is being construed here is incredibly broad - pretty much any picture of the same subject apparently "adequately conveys" the same information. john k 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think "what Mel Gibson looked like in his mugshot when he was arrested for drunk driving" is encyclopedic, at least, not enough so to justify 'fair use' of an unfree mugshot. We know he was drunk, we know he was stopped for a traffic infraction and behaved badly, we know that he was arrested and booked. I just don't see what a mugshot adds that is enough justification for 'fair use'. -- Donald Albury 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think we would every possibly get into any legal trouble for a fair use defense on that basis.  But you continue to miss my point, which is that I don't care about the mugshot.  My point was that even if the mugshot is free, we should still be able to use a non-free non-mugshot image under fair use, because the main image being a mugshot is incredibly problematic. john k 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that using a mugshot as the main image is problematic. I'm also uncomfortable with trying to carve exceptions out of general rules. I think there is good reason for saying a free image is always preferable to 'fair use' of an unfree image, and I don't think we should allow exceptions. That may be a problem on some articles, but I think it is best for WP in the long run. -- Donald Albury 02:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about exceptions.  I'm simply talking about interpreting the current written rule, which does not say that a free image is always preferable to fair use of an unfree image, but that fair use of an unfree image is only appropriate when no free use image that adequately conveys the same information is available.  This is already clearly allowing us to make judgment calls about what adequately conveying the same information means. The current interpretation appears to be "any picture of the same subject counts for this purpose."  I think this is ridiculous. john k 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with John k.  I think wikipedia has been damaged (despite that silly legal mumbo jumbo) by the removal of fair use images.  Fair use is a long-standing and valid legal application that helps make the encyclopedia better.  --Blue Tie 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule isn't "no other free image exists"; the rule is "no other free image exists that conveys the same information", right? That last clause seems important here. If the goal of having a photo of Mel is just to convey what he looks like as a person, a mugshot will do that. But in the case of actor/performers, isn't the person's professional image actually relevant to the article too? We live in an era where celebrities consider themselves 'brands' as well as people. If that 'brand' can fetch tens of millions of dollars and is highly dependant upon image, it seems reasonable to want to illustrate that professional image with at least one example of official, professionally taken photography. In that regard, a free photo would usually not convey the same information about its subject, ie, the public image a celebrity puts forward and is more or less selling. To me it seems within policy to use a Fair Use promo image instead of a mugshot to illustrate that specific aspect of the subject.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of Mug Shots is a problem.  Should we use Bill Gates Mugshot for his article?  The reason that most mugshots are inappropriate is because they do NOT represent what the person NORMALLY looks like.  Furthermore, Mugshots are not really "free" in many cases (I think federal mugshots might be).  But we are just assuming that they are.   --Blue Tie 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly certain that most mugshots show people as they actually look like, much more than most publicity shots. Look at candid paparazi photos of celebrities -- do they look more like the person's publicity image or mug shot? But publicity photos show how a person is usually conveyed to the public. . . which is probably more important for an article. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you find that your driver's license picture looks like you? A mugshot or paparazzi photo is going to capture someone looking their worst, while professional photos capture them at their best.  But I agree that what's most important for a celebrity is the image projected, not what they actually look like. john k 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson 

message: Hello,
I am wondering if others could give an opinion on this user's image contributions. Although there are several self-made diagrams and audio files which are both free and appreciated, in many of the other cases I believe the user has either incorrectly assumed a copyright license or has made an unnecessary claim of fair use. I don't want the user to feel like I am targeting them, so I am asking for second opinions before bringing some of these to WP:PUI. Thanks, KWH 07:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like most of the problems are with images taken in Iran. Iran has no copyright agreement with the U.S., so U.S. citizens have no legal obligations to honor Iranian copyright law; however Jimbo Wales has indicated that we should not use images that are copyrighted in Iran unless we provide a fair use rationalle. So I guess any of these should be given a fair use rationalle, or else should be deleted. The user's other images don't seem to be a problem. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User's image contributions 

message: I'm a bit confused about the licensing of mugshots created by state or local law enforcement agencies. The  tag states that a mugshot used properly on Wikipedia is believed to be covered under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law.
However, I am unsure which license to use with a state or local mugshot. If I choose "None Selected" or "I don't know" or some other license that mentions that the image is copyrighted, I get the message that my image is on the list for speedy deletion or automatic deletion.
The public domain license for U.S. Government images specifically says this does not apply to U.S. states, and if the  tag asserts that mugs qualify under fair use -- and thus are copyrighted, I can't use a public domain license anyway.
The other fair use exemptions in the Fair Use section (money, postage stamps, low-rez album covers, etc.) have license tags. Why not mugshots?
I've looked at images in the Fair use mugshots category and some have licenses, some don't, and some simply say "public domain" without any license tage while also having the  tag.
Any suggestions?
Marklemagne 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is disputed at the Commons too, so we are not alone. I generally go by what the department that took the photograph said, as I did with the Gibson mugshot case (still no email yet, so if I get no response, then I will still assume it is copyrighted). I could ask some local cops and see what San Diego County goes by. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. State/local agency mugshots 

message: Hmm...I seem to recall somewhere that cropping an image does not fall under fair use, but today I've read this policy 5-6 times and I can't find anywhere in that page that says that it's not allowed. Hbdragon88 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cropping an image is fine. In fact, the smaller the portion of copyrighted material you use, the stronger your fair use claim is; so a cropped image is actually more likely to be usable under our fair use policy. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful with that, some disclaimers state that the image is to be distributed without modification. Cropping is usually a bad idea because copyright notices are usually put in the border, top or bottom, and cropping tend to remove them. I find resizing images a better alternative than cropping. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cropping off a copyright notice is deceptive. But other kinds of cropping (and forms of modification) fall well within fair use, regardless of what the disclaimer says. What I mean is, "fair use" is a defence used when we don't have permission; if it's fair use to use an image, then it's fair use to use a cropped version even if the "terms of use" specifically prohibit alteration. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the answer would be it depended what the croping involved.Geni 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The terms of use are completely ignore when making a fair use claim. (If we were following their terms of use, we wouldn't need to make a fair use claim.) Assuming that it would be fair use to use the uncropped image, it's fair use to use the cropped version. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say the image is still in trouble because of its fair use rationale. It should explain what makes this image a "significant photo".
And of course, the item #3 in the rationale contradicts the "Note:" at the bottom of the  tag --Abu Badali 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image cropping? 

message: Greetings, on the article Seabiscuit there is an image of a  :Image:Seabiscuit.jpg used. The bookcover FU template states that fair use qualifies when the image is, "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". In a sense the Seabiscuit article discusses the book in question by mentioning that the cover has a picture of Seabiscuit and Red Pollard. Is that what this fair use logic was meant to allow for or was it actually meant solely for an article say like Seabiscuit (book)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the illustration appears to be fair use, and does follow the Wiki rules--which do NOT say the article has to be solely about the book. Rjensen 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is well within the norms of our practice.  Technically, however, when we are not using a book cover in an article about that book, we need to write a fair use rationale beyond simply using , because  makes that assumption.  In this case, however, that is the closest thing we have to an article about that book, so I wouldn't worry too much about this one.  Jkelly 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about bookcovers

message: See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#August_25. User:Jeffness wants to use the photo :Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg in the article about Michigan state university. Can the photo be fair use in such a context? According to the fair use tag does "the use of a picture
to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art  or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs (...) qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". The fair use policy #8 says that "the material must contribute significantly to the article and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". I will call it's use in this article decorative, what do you think? --Kjetil_r 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the statue is a very notable part of campus and the mascot of the university, I would say that you need to leave this alone, because it feels like a huge nitpick over an extremely minor issue, and I couldn't imagine in a million years the university getting angry about showing off their own mascot in a detailed article about the school. Fair use allows for fair comment and criticism, and as far as I can tell, that's not just limited to artistic endeavors. If it was, my newspaper would be screwed every time we ran an album cover and didn't write a critical review of its musical timing. - Stick Fig 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image does not fit that narrowly defined fair use tag.  However, fair use can still be argued, especially if the statue is discussed in the article.  Our specific fair use tags are very limited on purpose, so as not to give the impression that all uses are fair use; but they do not cover every eventuality. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fair use claim for a photo of a statue in the article [[Michigan State University]] 

message: There are a lot of discographies of recording arts on WP. Most of them are text-only or primarily text. However some of them are very little more than galleries of pretty large fair-use album covers with very short captions. (Or else the "album" section is even if the "singles" and "videos" sections aren't.) I don't think those galleries are allowed by WP:FU, especially since all the albums in them or almost all have their own articles with the same cover illos.  (When I say pretty large I mean the space given to the cover is usually larger than the space used for the text.) 
I think these "discographies" should have their galleries removed/reverted back down to text:
*ABBA discography
*Goldfrapp discography
*Nirvana discography
*Dave Matthews Band discography
*Rammstein discography
*Coldplay discography
*Bob Dylan discography
*Garth Brooks discography
*The Kinks discography
*Depeche Mode discography
*Duran Duran discography
I think this discography uses fair use coverations for decoration, I can't connect the selection of covers to the text.
*Eric Clapton discography
I think these discographies are borderline cases:
*Martika discography
*Jewel discography
*Shakira discography
*Sugababes discography
*Nas discography
*Europe discography
*Juanes discography
*Elton John discography
If fair used covers can be used extensively in discographies on WP I think these articles go about it the right way -- small cover images and significant lists of album information.
*Queen discography
*Genesis discography
*Megadeth discography
Anybody else want to comment? The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the proposed WP:MUSTARD guidelines for discographies at :Category:Music_cleanup:_Discography: "Do not use album covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not justifiable under fair use." Pages that do not follow the guidelines should be tagged with . --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these need to be removed. ed g2s • talk 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we use templates from a proposed guideline in articles that has yet to gain consensus? I mean, shouldn't we wait until it becomes at least a guideline? -- ReyBrujo 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries of fair use images in discographies 

message: Is this image different significantly enough from the copyrighted image found here to validate it's Creative Commons license tag? Thanks. (→Netscott) 10:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it to me.  The only differences are minor stylistic ones: the exact details of the layout, and the choice of font and color.  It's clearly derived from the image in the PDF. --Carnildo 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Carnildo, I'll tag the infringing image shortly. (→Netscott) 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivative work or not?

message: Has this been reviewed recently to find out if/why these items are necessary? Thanks, KWH 06:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like about 75% of these images are not even posters for events. Beyond those, as fair use categories go, this one looks about par for the course. ×Meegs 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them can probably be speeded per CSD I7... --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Fair_use_sports_posters]] 

message: Just wondering: if a cover is copyrighted (being it an album, book, single, etc), and need to be used under Fair use claim, would it make any difference to create take a pic of the cover, and dual license it under Fair use and a free license? I am thinking this because the Fair use criteria requests a relative small size of the cover, however by creating it yourself the cover could have a slightly bigger in size, while not affecting Fair use (as the quality would be too bad to replace the original cover, in example). Am I right?
In the same way, if I take a pic of the three books of a trilogy, all three together, such pic would be a truly free one because we are not focusing on the covers but on the trilogy set, right? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no creativity in making a faithful reproduction of a cover, so there is no copyright granted to the photographer.  In the case of arranging three books in a single shot, I'd still estimate that there's next to no originality involved, that the covers' copyright holders retain full protection, and that there's little advantage to complicating things with a dual license. ×Meegs 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur pics of covers 

message: Some articles -- especially about popular movies and television shows -- contain large numbers of copyrighted images tagged with a "screenshot" tag of some sort. (See this former version of BB06 for an example.) While each individual image might be justifiable by itself, the use of 27 "fair use" images is much more difficult to defend, since the "amount and substantiality of the portion used" is much larger. 
I had always heard to use the "rule of thumb" that an article should usually have no more than three "fair use" images, and I had thought that such a guideline was included here somewhere, but I can't find it. Fans of particular television shows and movies are sometimes quite unhappy to see their treasured images removed from articles, and it would be helpful to have a written guideline to that effect. What do you guys think? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: people have always been somewhat reluctant to have a guildline since there would be the problem of people then beliveing they have a "right" to three "fair use" images or whatever.Geni 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My own thumb of rule is having an image every 10kb of text, as a visual complement of what has been discussed in the article. If in no way the article talks about the action shown in the image, then the image should not go there. -- ReyBrujo 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think we have too many of these articles and lists with all of these fair use screenshots, but given how we got problems in the past removing them, this is one issue it will take months to decide. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images in an article 

message: Can anyone tell me why the guidelines have been given preferential placement at the top of this page over policy? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If no one has any disagreements then a switch should be made. Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been that way for a while now, so wait a few days for comments. -- Donald Albury 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can access the policy at WP:FUC. WP:FAIR appears to be meant as an explanation page for the criteria. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines over policy?

message: The template for character artwork only mentions comics and video games, so what about artwork featured in an artbook from the fictional Dragonlance campign setting? ddcc 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character artwork template question