Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free/Archive 1

message: I created this Project after some discussions about "fair use" on the WikiEN-l mailing list. A few of the threads which led to me thinking a WikiProject might work for this are  (long, gets to talking about "fair use" towards the end], , and . Nothing is set in stone here, though, and I am not a lawyer. Help is appreciated! Ideas are appreciated! --Fastfission 01:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're very much going in the right direction here. Personally I wouldn't try to introduce a high-maintenance double-checking system at this stage. Simply cleaning up the confusing fair use tags already existing will take a lot of careful work - which will hopefully trickle down to normal users and have a beneficial effect on the way images are used. That is probably well chosen as the project's initial focus. - Haukurth 01:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my thoughts. If we can get that done, it will improve things quite a bit, and will get some of the important things moving. The other stuff is a good goal but a bit much to contemplate at this early stage. --Fastfission 01:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Phroziac (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it makes you think about what you're doing before you do it, and tells others why you are doing it. Lawyers? With what money? Jimbo is not that rich. --Phroziac (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason not to make problems by being explicit about reasoning, no? - Nunh-huh 05:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're doing here is what I've been calling "pre-emptive fair-use". We're saying, "Look, we think our use of this would fall under the 'fair use' clause if we had to argue it in court. We think this because of X and Y and Z. You can still sue us, but we'll think we'll probably win for those reasons." We're not committing ourselves to anything, we're just putting out a little warning banner for people who think it might be copyright infringement, and making it clear under what rationale we think what we are doing is not infringement. If properly done, it should ward off trouble when properly applied ("fair use" is only "verified" in a court of law -- hopefully things won't get to that stage). As for actual lawyers -- sure, it'd be great to have their input. But there is a lot that can be done at the moment even without them, given a little knowledge of the "fair use" clause and the structure of U.S. copyright law. (For those looking for a quick though somewhat alarmist primer, I recommend Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which is available to download at the page for it. It can be skimmed over in about three hours.). Is this ideal? No, of course not. But if we are going to use images and claim them under the "fair use" clause, there should be some sensible system to it -- a haphazard approach results in a lot of copyright infringement, which is definitely a bad idea. Such is the goal of this project. --Fastfission 11:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I added a few subpages to help facilitate looking at the image tags, and another one about articulating more concretely a "preemptive" fair use policy, using some previous notes I had written up on it (not very much at this point). At some point, if we can get a good policy, perhaps we can run it by a few actual lawyers and see if it squares up with them, and then propose it as an actual policy. --Fastfission 15:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

message: One possible addition as well might be a detailed "Why this is fair use" blurb for every fair use tag on a different page. There could be one centralized page with separate headings for each tag (i.e., one for , another for ) which could be linked to from those tags, which would outline it more towards the point of view of the copyright holder (we're nonprofit, we aren't cutting down on your future profits, etc.). Any thoughts on this? --Fastfission 17:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the sort of thing I am talking about: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use rationale. Each of the media cover templates could have a small link to the appropriate section of this page. --Fastfission 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use tags detailed claims page

message: I think template:TIME is used for "covers of an issue of TIME magazine".  Fine, surely one or two are okay to illustrate TIME Magazine, but pinching every one from their gallery to illustrate articles on everyone who's ever been on the cover seems a bit off. Dunc|☺ 21:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that Fastfission's rewording of the template should help in this regard (at least eventually).  JYolkowski // talk 22:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an easy fix, the way I've worded it. Instead of the caption being, "Here is a picture of Joe Shmoe", you change it to, "Joe Shmoe was featured on the cover of TIME magazine August 1, 1945." This makes the picture an illustration of the event of the magazine's publication, for which any "freer" version is likely unavailable. Since TIME magazine is a big famous magazine (as they themselves would agree), it is hard to argue that illustrating someone being featured on the cover of it is non-notable or non-encyclopedic. That was my reasoning, anyway.  --Fastfission 00:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME Magazine covers 

message: I was told to come here and ask about this problem I'm having. Empty2005 uploads many images and doesn't add an image tag to them. I've asked them politely on their talk page twice, but they seem to be ignoring me. They have also been asked once before me (see their talk page.) Should something be done, such as a temporary block, or what? Thunderbrand 01:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:While blocking over copyvios have been done before, but I am not sure if that is needed in this case. However, I can suggest just speedy every image that upload until he/she gets the message. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with user 

message: Shouldn't this at least mention "Low-resolution", especially since it's the fallback-tag? - SoM 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of things this tag should probably mention that aren't on it.  Having said that, I think that we should generally be discouraging the use of this tag, and trying to fit as much as possible into one of the more specific tags.  Of course, I have no problem updating this template if we agree on what we want to put on it.  JYolkowski // talk 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was putting that one off for awhile. Re-writing other tags has made me think very concretely about what tags ought to say in different contexts, and the hope was that after doing that for awhile I'd have a better idea of what an ideal "generic" tag would say. --Fastfission 21:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Fairuse}} 

message: How can there be "fair use" on images where the source is unknown? We have , , and also  and , although the latter two are not "fair use"-related. BTW, why do we have duplicate templates for these? Do redirects in the template space not work? If they do, we could at the very least redirect the two "unknownsource" templates to the other ones. Lupo 09:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Jimbo's talk page. Lupo 09:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that  and  are the same sort of tag as  and : a quick way of identifying images that should be listed for deletion. --Carnildo 18:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've redirected  to  (it was previously transcluded).  Would anyone object if I re-tagged all  images as "No source.  ~~~~" and listed the template for deletion?  Also, that way we can browse the images in gallery mode (in :Category:Disputed fair use images) for future deletion.  If I don't hear anything by tomorrow I'll start going ahead.  JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No objections from me. Zach (Sound Off) 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'll go ahead.  If anyone wants to help, feel free.  JYolkowski // talk 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better, see User talk:Jimbo Wales.  These images are going to be gone soon unless someone comes up with a source.  If anyone wants to track down any sources before they're gone, I've created a list of them on User:JYolkowski/fuus.  However, a lot of them have a pretty dubious fair use claim anyway, so it might not be worthwhile.  JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images w/o source 

message: I've been thinking about a few things which I consider to be good "fair use" guidelines and it occurs to me that many of them are not necessarily codified in copyright law, but are good ideas for avoiding copyright infringement overall. I wanted to bounce this around a bit and see if there would be a good reason for trying to specify in our own policies which of these are specifically related to, say, case law. 
For example: one of the standard policies of "fair use" here going back a long way is that if there is an adequate "free" replacement, "fair use" cannot be claimed. This is not, to my knowledge, strictly in case law or copyright law in any particular place -- that is, there's nothing that specifies "if you used a copyrighted source when you could have chosen not to, that invalidates your fair use claim." Our policy in that regards is not one strictly of copyright law -- it's more along the lines of a principle of least liability; if we can avoid even creating a copyright question, then we should, because it saves us even the possibility of legal difficulties. 
I think delineating between these in our policies would make some of our policies and decisions more clear to others. But I haven't completely worked this all out yet. I'd be interested in any thoughts others had?  --Fastfission 15:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to add, which I think it is the most principle of fair use: use it. If it is not being used, it should be gone. Zach (Sound Off) 18:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well I think the best argument here is that wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", where we use Free in the freedom/free software sense. When we provide fair use images we are failing to provide free content, we fail at that part of our charter even if we can do it legally. However, when we fail to use fair use in a place where we have no alternative we fail to be a good encyclopedia. The comprimise is to only use fair use where are legally able and only we must because we have no free choice, and only in the most limited capacity required to meet our obligation of being a good encyclopedia. It is only a positive side effect that a policy to only use fair use when there is no other choice gives us a stronger defense on fair use grounds in the US. --Gmaxwell 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy vs. Copyright policy 

message: I removed the following item from the list because it is inaccurate:
:#They should make clear that in most cases, if "free" images are available, the use of a copyrighted image is probably not "fair". 
The availability of other works without charge or in the public domain is not a fair use factor. Jamesday 17:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I wish to contend that if anyone wants to use a fair use photo, they should try to check and make sure that a free image is available first. Zach (Sound Off) 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, this is actually exactly what I was talking about in the section above. I'll try to reword it as a Wikipedia policy. It is in the interest of Wikipedia to avoid using copyrighted material whenever possible because 1. it invites unneccessary trouble if there are free alternatives available, and 2. it is in line with the general goal of creating a "free" encyclopedia. --Fastfission 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats already policy at WP:FAC, and while there has been some confusion over it, pretty much everyone got the whole picture (pun intended) oh what Carnildo is trying to do. Zach (Sound Off) 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bogus fair use claim 

message: I stumbled upon these two fair use tags that aren't documented anywhere.  Do you think that one or both have sufficient potential to make rehabilitating worthwhile, or should I just TfD them?  JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PressKit seems like the same thing as . The SesameStreet one seems a little over-specific, but I haven't really taken the time to find out whether or not there are really that many Sesame Street images. I am a little fearful of these "franchise-specific" tags, mostly because they seem to encourage people to upload as many images as possible without any real consideration. They also seem to promote an idea about "fair use" which is entirely false -- that there are specific websites or companies which are inherently "fair use" (hence all the queries one gets about "is this a fair use website?"). But that's a somewhat different issue than this particular template... --Fastfission 00:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presskit has the advantage over promotional of forcing a source to be specified though, to look at it. - SoM 01:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the Sesame Street one is a problem, and that the Press Kit one is redundant but might possibly have some advantages.  So, I've TfD'd .   does overlap a fair bit with  and , but  could be a bit different.  I won't claim whether these differences are significant enough to merit a separate tag, but  seems to be primarily for advertising material, which might be slightly different, while  appears to be only for photos of people from press kits (as well as from a number of sources which don't seem to be fair use at all, but I digress).  I'll leave it for now and document it on the fair use tag reform page, and we can decide whether it serves a need or not later.
  JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:PressKit]] and [[Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture]] 

message: Did everyone on the project see this? Bovlb 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm busy deleting away. --Carnildo 06:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, I cannot join the fun, as I have no mop and bucket. Bovlb 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to help, you can orphan images with  (I find orphaning images the most inane part about deleting them, so that would probably be greatly appreciated).  Another way you can help is to tag images that have no source as  (a good place to find some is in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Fairuseunknownsource)  JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's pronouncement on sourceless images 

message: I've listed this template on TfD per suggestions above.  Please visit Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Fairuseunknownsource to comment.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|fairuseunknownsource}} on TfD 

message: Take a look at :Image:Brianabanks.jpg (only if nudity doesn't bother you :-). The uploader himself tagged it as ! Obviously, he knows it's a copyvio. Shall we speedy such bad-faith uploads? Lupo 07:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is from famousbabes.com, which if you look does not own copyright on any pictures, so it is not a valid promo source. Needs to be copyviod or sppedied. Justinc 13:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It this photo might be too big to even claim fair use, since this photo sized is used for the various adult websites. Zach (Sound Off) 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny upload 

message: "This image is of a movie poster..." - I've been retagging images which were previously labelled , and a few are posters for TV series. Should these be tagged as movies? The same basic rationale seems to apply... Shimgray 20:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a promotional poster, I would go with  (if it's for a special episode or the like) or  (if not).  I don't think it matters too much though as long as it's a promotional poster.  JYolkowski // talk 21:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the differences there are mostly for categorizational purposes. There shouldn't be any legal distinction between the two that I can think of. Just do whatever feels most intuitive on borderline categories. --Fastfission 01:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Posters for theatrical plays are going to eventposter, TV to movieposter, lots of the "not under our poster classification" stuff (say, :Image:Puckman-flyer.jpg) to promotional. Shimgray 12:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Fair use posters is now empty.  If anyone objects to  being listed on TfD, please let me know; otherwise I'll nominate it tomorrow.  JYolkowski // talk 22:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thankyou. I got about three hundred in and then couldn't face much more... Shimgray 22:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are, by the way, awesome. Sorry I've been very MIA lately myself; classes started up again and I'm positively swamped at the moment. --Fastfission 02:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  movieposter 

message: Here's a question for you: what should we do with non-US images from the World War II period? Many (if not most) of them are under unknown private copyright. I agree that we can't go about setting our own special criteria for each group of images, but I don't think we should delete them on mass without a bit of discussion first. Physchim62 15:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a few examples of this? I'm not sure I understand exactly what sorts of images you are referring to. --Fastfission 15:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To give you some idea, see :Image:17SSGrenadiers.jpg, :Image:Rheinbote.jpg, :Image:He 113.jpg, :Image:GerhardFlesch.jpg. There's quite a variety out there; others can be found at User:Physchim62/German images. Physchim62 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wartime images

message: Here's a little question I was interested in some input on. Consider the following situations:
# A person compiles public domain factual data and re-sells it in an un-creatively arranged (e.g. alphabetical, not selected) form
# A person compiles public domain factual data and re-sells it in a semi-creatively arranged (e.g. alphabetical, perhaps selected) form
# A person makes measurements of some factual quantity (e.g. temperature outside their house) and publishes it in some numerical form (e.g. in a table)
# A person takes measurements of some factual quantity and publishes it in some non-numerical form (e.g. as a graph)
What's the copyright status of the factual data itself in these instances, when taken from the forms as published? The first is easy: it is basically Feist v. Rural, which says that the sheer investment of compiling public domain data and re-selling it does not generate a copyright, as no "creativity" is in any way instilled. 
The rest I am less clear on. The question, again, is not about the specific published publications, which are clearly subject to some copyright on the whole, but on the informational content contained within. In particular, I am interested about this in the context of "fair use" — is it "fair use" to use the source data of a study from a given publication and turn it into a graph of the data (citing the study as a source)? I imagine so -- in fact the graph may itself generate a seperate copyright if the data itself doesn't count as a copyright. Does the form of the information have to change (i.e. from numerical to graphical) to make it so, though? Or is it the fact that the data itself is likely not copyrightable ("scientific facts" are not, I believe, copyrightable) that makes it so? How would this apply where the data is factual but the form is graphical -- such as in the drawing of a map? Would one have to recompile a map from the raw cartographic data (measurements, satellite photos, etc.) to make a map which could generate a new copyright? Or would using a source map as a data base, but applying new forms of information arrangement and selection, be enough? How strong would the connection between form and information have to be to make this derivative in a copyrightable sense?
I've been going back and forth in my reasoning on this. In particular, I'm wondering because I'm interested in developing better "re-creation" guidelines, that is, guidelines explaining what sorts of information can be "re-created" freely rather than being claimed as "fair use". --Fastfission 16:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure scientific data isnt copyright. But if you extract data from another source (such as another map) rather than raw data I think it might be considered derived in some circumstances, on a case by case basis. What you are working on sounds very useful. Good examples are the new maps of London Underground, done from GPS coordinates to work around the strong copyright enforcement on the famous topological maps. Justinc 12:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and "factual data"

message: Due to the various copyvios I have found at :Category:Flag images, I have changed and moved  to  ( was taken). I believe most flag images can be used under fair use, but most are copyvios or non-commercial images. Zach (Sound Off) 22:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Maybe we should create  and  tags?  That way, if we find things that really are fair use or public domain, we can remove them from the ambiguous category that they're in, and then we can deal with all the junk tagged with  afterward.  JYolkowski // talk 22:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, when I draw my own flag images, I just tag as . Zach (Sound Off) 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think there's a significant amount of stuff in :Category:Flag images that could be claimed as fair use?  If so, I think it might make sense for us to create a  tag.  On second thought, I'm not going to bother with  or anything like that; I'll let Wikipedia:WikiProject Public domain worry about that (-:  JYolkowski // talk 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still going through it myself and clear out the non-commercial images. After that, I will see what is left and make a suggestion of what to do next. Zach (Sound Off) 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag images 

message: currently says:
:It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use.
Many of our existing stamps, however, are used to illustrate articles about people, which is a bit of a grey area. It's clearly not fair use to have a stamp with a dog on it to illustrate an article on dogs; is it fair use to have an image of a stamp showing an individual to illustrate an article on that individual?
As an example, a lot of people have covers of Time magazine in their articles, claimed as fair-use, because appearing on the cover of Time is apparently a pretty big event. It strikes me the same logic must apply to stamps - in most countries, having yourself put on a stamp is A Big Deal, and thus the sort of thing worth mentioning in an article. Would it be worth expanding  to clarify that fair use can be claimed for articles relating to the issue of that stamp? Thoughts appreciated; let me know if I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick! Shimgray | talk | 12:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see DVD/album/magazine covers; screenshots above, where I had argued basically the reverse? I don't know who of us has the wrong end of the stick, but it's clear as fog that this is a gray area. Being on the cover of Time may be a big event, and so may having a stamp designed after oneself, but unless the article discusses this in some detail, I don't think such uses in articles not about the stamp but the event or person depicted would fall under "fair use". A simple caption like "X on the cover of Time" is not good enough, IMO, but maybe "Doing ABC generated much public interest in DEF issues, and made the Time magazine feature X on its cover" or some such might be. I just don't know. Lupo 13:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some articles use the stamp as an "easy" image although the text does not discuss the stamp or the significance of someone getting their face on one.  Discussion of the stamp would strengthen a fair use claim, but looking at a cross section of articles illustrated by the stamps at , I think few, if any, would genuinely qualify as fair use.  The template says "stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp)" and it's clear that the images are being used as illustration for the subjects.  Rossrs 13:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the previous wording of the template has probably caused some confusion about this.  I tend to agree with the above comments; the stamp images are probably only fair use if the article discusses the stamp.  Uses such as the one at Snoopy look like the person who added the image may have been misled by the stamp template and decided to use an "easy" image that probably isn't fair use.  JYolkowski // talk 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think being on a stamp would be A Big Deal. Changing any given caption to something along the lines of: "The U.S. postal service honored Mr. T by creating a commemorative postage stamp in 1986" would be an adequate way to do this for most. In any event, I think this is what I'd call a "low-risk" area (it's very unlikely that any governments are going to sue about their stamp use on here in any context), so I don't think a radical re-captioning effort is really necessary at the moment. --Fastfission 01:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that many postal administrations are now private corporations who license out their copyrighted images for other kinds of products (mugs, t-shirts, etc). Stamps honoring people are perhaps less likely to be used in this way than, say, a Christmas-related image. I would be inclined to only allow stamp images as adjuncts to main image, to illustrate "X was honored on a stamp". Stan 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamps