Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 12

message: My gripe right now is semi-related to this, so I'm adding to this section:  How did we come to FUC #1, exactly?  Because it would appear that it seems mighty unreasonable to expect that any living person could realistically be replaceable.  Obviously, we want as much free material as possible.  Shouldn't the policy instead reflect that the image be replaced when one is available, rather than assuming one is capable of being created?  Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine legal issues with using a fair use image in the absence of an actual free image.  Is there a backstory I'm missing on this, or should we adjust the policy to a more sane, logical approach? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FUC #1 is not based on legal issues, but on the direction we want to be going with our content.  The idea behind it is that if we just ask for the image to be replaced while leaving the old in place, there is very little incentive for editors who care about the topic to go to the effort to create a new free image.  If, on the other hand, we remove the image, there is a clear and immediate benefit to the creation of a new image; a number of cases have been observed where an unfree image is replaced rather quickly by a free image once it is deleted.  I don't know what the conversation that led to the introduction of the criterion was (its been around since the creation of the criteria page over a year ago, but here is my explanation of how the current activity on this front came about. --RobthTalk 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As was said above, the main reason that replaceable images are not allowed is that the lack of an image encourages Wikipedians to find or create free replacements. There have been many, many cases over the last few weeks where a non-free image had been used in an article for years without a replacement uploaded, and the non-free image was taken down as a violation, and a free replacement was uploaded within days. Why would I remove a non-free promo-photo and replace it with my lower-quality but free photo, if we're allowed to use non-free promo photos? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So this isn't based on anything logical, but instead using policy to direct behavior.  I'm not sure that's a good idea at all - we want to use free images, that seems to be enough incentive, and I'm not sure it's a net benefit that "no" image is better than a fair use replaceable one.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-related

message: I think this policy is very misguided, for reasons I posted on the other talk page:
There's only so far such a policy can go before it damages the overall quality of the project. Promotional photos designed for purposes compatible with Wikipedia's mission but not necessarily with the free licensing aspect put in mind, they shouldn't be removed.
Because, honestly, the bulk of Wikipedia's information comes from copyrighted articles which are not free by nature, but we source and credit. Why can't we do the same with photographs? All this is going to do is dilute the quality of the encyclopedia which a number of people have worked so hard to build, all for the purpose of following the mission statement just a little too closely.
I'm all for Utopian ideals to a degree, but this smacks of an unrealistic and unreachable goal that punishes many articles but benefits few. It smacks of the same sort of questionable licensing practices that keep Debian so far out of the mainstream. Wikipedia's well in the mainstream; let's not change that by following the interpretation of the mission statement so literally. - Stick Fig 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crosspost from "talk:Images of living people"

message: As I've mentioned above, screenshots and cover art do not necessarily need source information (ie. who scanned it), rather it should have information regarding the bodies which hold the copyright to the work.  Whereas sourcing is important for press photos or publicity shots, it's not so for whoever pressed the scan button.  I also noted how a user, User:Squreasdxde, had tagged a lot of album art such as :Image:!!!.jpg with  and pending deletion.  I also noted how even though many were erroneously tagged, the current lack of edits on Squreasdxde shows that admins are not looking at the content of images that they remove.
What has further alarmed me, is that there seems to be an entire bunch of users whose sole edits are to tag album art, or other non-source-important images with the "no source information" tag.  These users all follow the same simple steps:
#Create a new username
#Tag 50-100 images with  in the space of an hour
#Make no further edits
This absolutely screams of sockpuppetry to me, a user is obviously disgruntled at Wikipedia's provisions for Fair Use, or Wikipedia as a whole.  Their behaviour is too similar to be different users, in fact, which users first edit is ?  Checkuser isn't useful either, as it can't be used for fishing we won't be able to find the culprit, rather just a string of single purpose accounts.  I'm guessing that they don't use a single account in case of a backlash, after all, 2 weeks later, and all that's left of their contrib tree are a handful of non-deleted edits.
Here, take a look at some of the users I've identified:
*
*
*
*
*
What do you think? - Hahnchen 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt he's/they're being intentionally disruptive. The first user you listed, Dyuququ, has mostly correctly tagged images. As for the others, he may be trying to avoid having to deal with the controversy of it. Either way, the only thing we can do is identify these things, leave messages on their talk pages, and undo the listings. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It looks like orphanbot has removed the images from articles. It will take a lot of work to undo all this. Anyone up to it? If not, we'll lose a lot of album and book covers. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The latter ones look very similar to , who tagged nearly 200 on November 2.  I went through and reversed most of them after a user complained on WP:MCQ. ×Meegs 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also , reported here.  I'm not sure there are bad intentions either, but these single-use accounts are very hard to get a message to. ×Meegs 16:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a user who's obviously using sockpuppetry in order to escape the consequences of their actions.  I see that as being disruptive.  If a user did this with CSDs then I'm sure that new page patrol would be more careful, but with image tags, Orphanbot does most of the work so the closing admin doesn't really have to think about deleting it. - Hahnchen 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing admin really should think about it before deleting -- I always do when I close these. If it has a source, explicit or implicit, I don't delete. But there's a big backlog, so it's hard to be too critical of the admins doing the work, even if they aren't being as careful as they should. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be critical of the closing admin, I absolutely understand why it happens, especially when its so easy as Orphanbot's already done the legwork.  I mentioned this suspicious behaviour at WP:AN and Carnildo has mentioned that Orphanbot will ignore images in certain self-sourced categories such as album covers. - Hahnchen 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this include the 200 or so album covers which Aujin66 tagged and Orphanbot removed from their respective pages? DHowell 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not, you can see the thread at AN here. - Hahnchen 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I suspected, nearly all of those images got deleted by admins. Over 200 album articles had their images removed for no good reason. Can anyone really say this is to the benefit of Wikipedia? I wish I could say this is an isolated incident, but I know that it is not. A lot of collateral damage is being inflicted every day by Wikipedia's ruthless enforcement of the fair-use rules. DHowell 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Update I've notified the deleting admins, and they have restored these images. Unfortunately, there have been others which I had not been keeping as careful track of, and without admin powers I am unable to determine other images which may have beeen deleted under similar circumstances. This particular case only came to my attention because I noticed a greater than usual amount of images in :Category:Images with unknown source for that day. DHowell 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet Vandal / Deletion of Fair Use images 

message: Instead of the voting above, can people please discuss why Jeff's proposal is or is not a good idea? Arguments and rebuttals are more useful in a situation such as this. (Radiant) 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff's change discourages the use and creation of free content images. The change encourages people to leave an unfree image on an article rather than making an effort to create a free alternative.  Free content is as big a part of wikipedia as "publicly-editable". Borisblue 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe my change actually does that.  My change merely recognizes the value of illustrative images, and represents the apparent reality that people prefer something to nothing.  In practice, we know this to be true. --badlydrawnjeff 
talk 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that's not the intent, but it absolutely will be the effect in practice. If there's a beautiful, professional promo photo of Celebrity X on his page, people won't go and create a new picture of X because they know it won't be as pretty, and as long as they don't create it, the old one can stay. —Chowbok ☠ 18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a canard, I think.  Nobody is "discouraging" creation of free content images.  Many of us simply disagree with the current perverse program to "encourage" the creation of such images by deleting images that are perfectly legal. john k 16:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Where no equivalent free use image is available—not potentially available, available—we should explicitly allow the use of publicity materials, press kit materials, etc. This should not be misunderstood as authorizing the use of "anything that was grabbed off the net". This still must comply with the fair use standard of clear attribution: the image page must explicitly indicate the source of the press kit (or other similar) information and indicate that they hold copyright.
Quite possibly we would need to carve out other specific exceptions. I think each should be explicit and clear. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this was very well stated and conveys the concerns I have with regard to fair use.  I'm not "pro unfree content" or "pro lazy" or "pro grab whatever off the web."  I'm pro content and see nothing wrong with fair use content when no free equivalent is available.  Allowing fair use images when there is no available alternative doesn't make Wikipedia any less "free." -- ChadScott 09:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ChadScott that the above proposal is excellent, and makes perfect sense.  Badagnani 09:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Jmabel's idea, and with Chad and Badagnani's endorsement of it.  I think this approach - of explicit exceptions to a general policy to use "free" images - might be the best way forward. john k 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with Jmabel's proposal, although I agree that it is well stated.  This wording allows the blanket use of all fair-use images without regard to how easy it would be to create a free replacement.  In my opinion, this swings the pendulum far too far to the side of allowing all fair-use content with virtually no incentive to obtain free replacements.  Using a fair-use image when a free replacement is likely to be easily obtainable should either be banned or should require detailed justification.  Using a fair-use image when a free replacement is possible but not necessarily easily obtainable is more debateable.  --Yamla 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Yamla, it does not say that "all fair-use content" is allowed.  It says that promotional photos are allowed when no free equivalent is currently available.  Beyond, that, isn't the main "incentive to obtain free replacements" that people like you are ideologically committed to free content, and will thus create such material?  If the free replacement is easily obtainable, you or someone else should be able to, er, easily obtain it, and thus provide it so as to replace the promotional image.  I don't understand the idea that the only way to "encourage free content" is to prevent any other way of getting images. john k 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Consider this image of Britney Spears that's used in the infobox to identify her. I'm glad we found a free one, and that it's reasonably good quality. But how representative is it? If that were the only picture in the article, would you be able to tell what she looked like? She doesn't walk around all the time with her hair like that (well, maybe that's whay Kevin Federline left her, but anyway...), and so I wouldn't consider that image a representative one. Daniel Case 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representativeness needn't just be a matter of the subject's age 

message: I've been thinking- and this might not be the best place for this comment- but would a fork of Wikipedia with a less harsh fair-use policy be a good idea? There is a fundamental disagreement here concerning the goals of the project: one group of editors wants to use fair use as widely as legally possible, and the other group wants to uphold wikipedia's free-content principles as firmly as is practical. Three failed attempts at achieving consensus to weaken FUC#1 in this very talk page should demonstrate this. Despite being in the "free-content" camp, I would be interested in seeing how a fair-use encouraged wikipedia fork would fare. Thoughts? Borisblue 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand, as long as everything is GFDL-compatible, wiki forks aren't as big of a deal as organization splits in other lines of work might be, since both projects ultimately help each other.  And it's not unprecedented, the Spanish wikipedia split for issues of (IMHO) similar importance.  On the other hand, we already have a range of approaches to fair use across our projects (even within just english projects), so if you want to see how the various policies end up, there's lots of things to study.  And ultimately, it would be up to the potential forkers to decide if they want to go to the trouble.  Does anybody know what Citizendium's stance on fair-use images will be?  (for instance, Sanger has said that the concept of notability will definitely not be used on Citizendium, so it'll be interesting to see whether that's successful and whether it ends up influencing wikipedia) --Interiot 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to set up such a fork, of course. The trick is in getting enough money to pay the server cost for the world's tenth most popular website. A faster approach of reaching your goal might be to contact Jimbo, Brad or the Board and trying to convince them. (Radiant) 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be more likely to raise the money than to change Wikimedia's view on this. ed g2s • talk 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, "Wikipedia's view"?  Do you actually mean, "my view"?  Because it seems to me that wikipedia, as represented by the consensus of the opinion of users interested in this question, is, er, deeply divided.  The fair use policy you prefer is also preferred by the founder of wikipedia.  But it is not an official decree, and it is only your opinion that this policy is required by "wikipedia principles" about free content.  One side of this argument seems to rely largely upon assertion and arguments from authority.  This is deeply tiresome.  john k 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, this isn't a dispute about layout or formatting style; you are disputing the "free" in the free Encyclopedia; that is the goals of the  Wikipedia project. This is something more fundamental than policy. I'm not actually arguing that a liberal-as-possible fair use policy isn't viable, just that it goes against what wikipedia is all about. Any arguments are a waste of time, since your goals are different from the goals of the rest of us- there is simply no common ground to argue on. We quote Jimbo Wales and Wikimedia to clear up misconception on what wikipedia is and what its project goals are, rather than to argue that the changes you want are not viable. Borisblue 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense.  Nobody is disputing the "free encyclopedia" business.  We are merely disputing a particular interpretation of the idea, and a particular emphasis on this interpretation at the expense of other goals of the wikipedia project. john k 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fork?

message: Just figured I'd throw this in here as some people seem to believe that anyting deemed fair use can be freely used anywhere. Google recently released a Norwegian version of theyr news search. One of the features here is that thumbnail images from the news article appar next to the search results. Almost imedeately they had the "national asosiation of news corporations" (Mediebedriftenes Landsforening) on theyr back because they are using the images without first obtaining permission in violation of Norwegian law. They ran into simmilar problems in Denmark where they have been forced to aquire written permission from all Danish news sources before using any images from them in the Danish language version.
Moral of the storry? Remember that US fair use laws only apply within the US and our goal is to make content freely distributable as widely as possible. Many countries do allow limited use of copyrighted works for purposes of commentary and review of the works themselves, but nothing even close to as broad as what is allowed under fair use. So if you don't buy the "maximum free content" argument, then what about international use? Pushing US fair use law to it's limits in order to create a "better" ensyclopedia will severely hamper the ability to mirror (maybe even cache) and distribute Wikipedia material outside the US. Something to think about considering the majority of our users (readers + editors I guess) are not from the US and may at some point want to publish Wikipedia content in some form "localy"... --Sherool (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe anyone has said that anything deemed fair use can be freely used anywhere, whether by "anywhere" you mean "in any context" or "in any country."  This appears to be a straw man.  I believe such claims may have been put forward for promotional photos.  john k 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an odd comparison, freedom of speech is hardly something the US have monopoly on... It's also kinda moot since expressing your opinions is something Wikipedia explicitly is not about. Anyway, yes fair use images can be filtered out, but that would leave the articles using such images un-ilustrated. This is why we should be trying very hard to get free licensed images whenever possible, and only use fair use material where there are literaly no other alternatives.  --Sherool (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly an odd comparison, as there are clearly many jurisdictions with less speech protection than the U.S., and it's hardly moot as there are clearly many laws and government policies in all jurisdictions that restrict more than just POV "opinions" in ways that differ in degree and kind from what is restricted and what is permitted in the U.S.  I'll leave you to reconsider that comparison before I address the next point.  Postdlf 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few yes, but protection of free speech is hardly something that is unique to the US (nor is the US "best in class" at upholding that right), in fact most nations recognize this right. While there are various exceptions with regards to things like blasphemy, hate speech, inciting to violence, sedission and even insluting national leaders or national pride (and yes a handfull of dictatorships that don't give a crap about any human rights), Wikipedia content tend not to run afoul of these (at least not so long as it adhers to our own NPOV policy). Fair use on the other hand is pretty much uniqe to the US (and Philipino) law, and allow far more diverse and broad use of unlicensed material than any other "copyright exception" laws out there. That is one reason why I think "fair use images" in Wikipedia should be kept to an absolute minimum (the other beeing that we should focus on free content and all that). Used only as little as possible in articles where it is the only available option (logos in company artiles, album covers in album articles, screenshots in movie and game articles pluss the important "historical" photo elsewhere and such). --Sherool (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaguely related issue conserning the "international" portability of fair use content. 

message: "9. Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."
Those of us at WikiProject Sailor Moon have been wondering, does this mean that we can't use them in an article is still in draft as sub article on off our project Page? (please post an answer at our wikiproject or my user page in addition to here if you have the time, but don't fret over it.) Lego3400:  The Sage of Time 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a technical violation, but as long as the article gets moved to the mainspace in a reasonable amount of time, nobody's going to complain. --Carnildo 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on Draft Articles 

message: # Myself, of course Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support renaming 

message: # luke These quotes are from what I said earlier in this forum:-
#::But just changing names to try and dodge the real issues - once again leaving the real issues fudged - is not the answer. We should try and adopt a clear policy that everyone can recognise, understand for what it means and sign up to, as was stated earlier by user:khaosworks (I quoted it above) This means we either keep to a recognisably fair use policy as has been the case up until recently, or we abandon 'fair use' completely and move to a GFDL only English Wikipedia. (08:14, 2 November 2006) 
#:and
#::Wikipedia exists in the real world and there is no getting away from real world 'realities' such as copyright, open content, fair use, fair dealing....etc etc. Renaming doesn't change these realities within which our free encyclopedia must exist (07:39, 11 November 2006)
#:Since those remarks my proposal on images of real people - a proposal to move strictly to GFDL in a very limited case - has received no backing from even the most avowedly ardent free content supporters. How come?. --luke 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose renaming 

message: Most of the fair use template state that limited use of low resolution images may fall under Fair Use. However, this seems to be flatly ignored in many cases with high resolution images used instead of thumbnails, or even worse SVGs being used for logos (like :Image:Network TEN.svg); these are effectively arbitrary resolution. I'm not suggesting we should go on a deleting spree of high resolution fair use stuff, but I think it would be sensible to create a template similar in concept to  calling for a low-resolution version of the image to be provided.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* You can't generalize every fair use image into one that must be low resolution.  In addition, what exactly is low resolution, anyway?  It's totally subjective. -- ChadScott 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Low resolution is subjective to a point yes. However, as images in articles are rarely larger 200px, do we really need a 600px version (or worse a vector version) available? I agree there are cases where high res images are sensible (:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg springs to mind). However, I see can't see a benefit for high res s, s or s for example. As "low resolution" is a standard part of the template texts, perhaps a justification for high resolution should be provided in the FU rationale?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Promotional photographs have no real commercial value, so far as I can tell.  They are distributed for free so that people can include images of what the thing or person looks like. IANAL, but it would seem that that, at least, is an instance were there's no need to demand low resolution. john k 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but 1) reducing the image size and resolution can only help our fair use argument (in which we should never be 100% confident); 2) we don't have a need for the image to be any larger than the information it provides requires (we don't need to play count-the-pores); 3) the smaller it is, the more any arguments by some Wikipedians against the usage become even more trivial.  Postdlf 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And an additional potential benefit: A high resolution promotional photo is likely to be better than a typical free photo. If we reduce the size of our fair use imagery, its more likely that the available free images are superior in quality. This might provide an additional incentive to replace fair use images with free images, which can only be a good thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something I can definitely support, as much more considered and productive than the current fad of removing fair use images to motivate the posting of "free" images.  Completely removing a fair use image 1) leaves the article without any image, at least for the time being, and 2) makes it likely that someone will fill that gap with an image that doesn't even qualify as fair use.  Postdlf 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low resolution imagery 

message: Greetings,
 
I am new to Wikipedia as far as being a registered user,however I have always edited articles trying to make something more historically correct (prior to registration). However I was forced to register since those with AOL IP addresses are blocked. Besides this I want to make create a couple of pages however it seems according to the upload images rules "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted" one cannot upload anything. Last I recall some images are public domain.''
--Margrave1206 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most images are not public domain however many wikipedians take photos themselves.Geni 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images! 

message: I've seen this template applied to book and album cover scans, where the fair use tag itself provides the same rationale that will apply to every usage in an article on the author or product itself; the only thing the uploader did not do was restate that rationale with the variables "in article X" punched in.  How is it more productive for someone to apply this template than to just fix the problem themselves?  Particularly since this template practically screams "please sue Wikimedia for copying this image that we don't even think we have a right to use."  The fair use tags serve as our declaration to the copyright owner of our good faith rights to use the image, whether or not that declaration is restated with specific reference to the articles; we should not undercut that declaration (and thereby our good faith) needlessly.
The biggest problem I think is when this tag is just applied to the image description page and no one is told about it.  Notifying the uploader is woefully insufficient.  The articles in which an image is used are clearly stated at the bottom of the page; a notice should be posted on the talk pages of any such articles requesting a fair use rationale for that usage if it is actually more complicated than just plugging in the article names into a fair use rationale that is standard for that type of image.  Regular article contributors are certainly in the best position to explain what informational role an image plays in that article.  Postdlf 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Fair use disputed]] 

message: There are a whole bunch of replaceable fair use images uploaded by Badagnani, an established editor and a good editor. Fair use disputed, the uploader is claiming pretty vociferously that the images are allowable, and is feeling poorly used. Partly to give him his day in court so to speak, and partly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: User talk:Herostratus/Image RfC. Herostratus 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, his arguments for keeping the images do not address the issue of replaceability. I deleted one of those images last night because it was a photo of a tea tin taken from the company's web site, and it would be easy for someone to take a photo of one. -- Donald Albury 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, all the images listed are replaceable and he's made no attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Really no point opening an RfC on the matter. Deleting. ed g2s • talk 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a tea tin photo be replaced with a free image?  If the tin's artist died less than 70 years ago, then a photo of the tin has to fall under fair use, doesn't it?  I ask because I never tag photos that show copyright packaging artwork as rfu for this reason.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they mean that if you yourself shot a photo of such, and released it under a license, or if you got one with such a license from Wikimedia, or if you wrote to that company and got the company to agree to release said photo under a license, then it would not be "fair use" but would fall under the license which allows free use (keeping in mind certain conditions that the company might impose on the license such as that the photographer be credited, a link be made to the company's website, etc.).  Badagnani 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be replaced with a "totally free" image, but it can be replaced with a "more free" image.  While it is unavoidable that a photo of a copyrighted object is a derivative of that object, and so must qualify as a fair use, that doesn't mean that fair use will also apply to make use of anyone's photograph of that object.  Presuming that I identified the right image in Donald Albury's deletion log, the tea is still being produced, so that anyone could potentially take a photo of the tea tin that is just as informative as the promotional shot.  Postdlf 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that, although this particular variety of tea might be relatively readily available, many of the promotional images of products removed in recent weeks (such as the Chinese and Korean traditional liquors) represent products that are exceedingly rare, even in their nations of production.  This was brought up, as was the related example of the chances of a Wikipedian ascending the summit of Mount Everest to produce a replacement photo of such a shot, yet in my opinion no editor has seriously addressed either case here. The availability or replaceability of images falls on a curve that is similar to the calculus concept of the limit of a function or parabola, with some quite replaceable while others (such as photos of particular individuals at particularly meaningful times, photos of engines that are no longer used or the cockpits of airplanes that are not accessible to the public, to use some good examples provided earlier) getting closer and closer to impossibility.  Thus we see that fair use will always need to figure into our equation.  These facts will need to be faced, as will the fact that "judgement calls" will always be involved in the evaluation of such images.  Until now, however, over the past four weeks or so, I believe that the opinions of many productive and longtime editors has been dismissed essentially out of hand in the rush to purge fair use (namely promotional) images, which are clearly intended for such a purpose.  Badagnani 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure each image that cannot be feasibly replaced clearly states why on its description page, as it's necessarily a case-by-case judgment.  Just as no one can categorically say "all images of X are replaceable," no one can categorically say "all images of X are not replaceable."  In such cases, it would also help the fair use legal justification to crop and/or reduce the image in size so that it only copies as much of the original picture as it needs to in order to convey the information; consider also whether it's even necessary for it to be in color.  Postdlf 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, in fact that is exactly what happened. It was stated clearly on the image pages themselves that the products in question were exceedingly rare, yet every image (well over 100, added over a period of many months, at considerable investment of time and energy) was summarily deleted without meaningful discussion.  This is highly problematic as the input of productive and longtime editors has been, and continues to be dismissed out of hand in the rush to purge regardless of the validity of the justification or the fact that the images were placed on the Internet solely for this purpose (to promote said products).  Badagnani 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use RfC 

message: If FUC #1 is not improved,i would gladly jump to a eventual fork.As it reads,fair use is reduced to a joke.A picture worth a thousands worlds.--Pixel ;-) 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FORK 

message: So, does the  template in itself provide sufficient attribution of copyright holder? I have read the previous threads and it looks so, but then this appears to say otherwise (image in question is Teairra Mari - Second Round.JPG). Kimchi.sg 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Albumcover}}s and attribution of copyright holder 

message: A contradiction has arisen between the requirements of this policy and advice that is being dispensed elsewhere. The tenth clause of the policy says: 
:The image or media description page must contain:
:* Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).
:* An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.
:* For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.
Kimchi has provided me with the following talk page excerpts that contradict that part of the policy:
*Template talk:No source: "There are some cases when this tag should not be used. An album cover image, correctly tagged , already has a "built-in" source: its source is the album cover. If one were to provide a link to, for instance, an Amazon.com page that sells the album, that doesn't add any legitimate source information -- Amazon is simply a re-user of the original source, not a source in itself. Other fair use specific tags (like  and ) are similar." (from January 2006)
*WT:FU: "The rationale for sourcing is to make sure the status of the image is what the uploader says it is; since the status of the image tends to be extremely obvious in the case of album covers and the like, source is superfluous if not outright silly." (from June 2006)
*Lastly, ANI: "[tagging album covers as ] is (almost) pointless. The reason to identify the source is to make it possible to identify the ultimate copyright holder for purposes of investigating claims of fair use or infringement. In the case of an album cover the copyright owner is plainly obvious as the music publishing company. The intermediate source (Amazon.com or a person's scanner) is immaterial to the copyright. While you can make a techincal case that the record publisher should be cited by name (Capitol Records, etc) that seems like an overly technical point."
It seems that there is sentiment that the requirement to provide a source should not apply to items like album covers, DVD covers, book covers, etc. because it is obvious who the copyright holder is. On the other hand, if uploaders have found the image on the Web, then it is trivial for them to supply the source. If the uploader has taken the photo that is uploaded, it is also trivial for the uploader to supply that information. I think the source is important in case the image has been modified. After all, it is an important principal of Wikipedia that we can point to an external source for everthing in the encyclopedia. In any case, as this issue affects a great number of images, I've brought it here for further discussion. -- Donald Albury 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a link to the article on album/book/etc should be sufficient as identification of the source, at least if the article actually has the details on publisher and copyright holders and such. I've looked at a lot of cover images here, don't recall ever seeing one that had been modified, so doesn't seem like a burning issue. There are an amazing number of uploads that don't even remember to say what the image is *of*, so even the album link will be a step up for them. :-) Stan 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have run across a couple of cover images for albums that are not due for release for months to come (in pure crystal ball articles), and I would really like to see where those cover images came from. That may not be a burning issue, as the images go away after the articles are deleted. -- Donald Albury 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As it's so easy to do, anyone who finds an unsourced cover scan should just find and provide the source rather than tagging it "unsourced."  Postdlf 18:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, tagging these as unsourced should not be a priority right now, given that there are so many unsourced public domain and GFDL images (e.g. images where a lack of sources could really be a problem). Even without a source, we can be pretty sure that an album cover can be used under fair use, while we generally need a source to verify that a pd image is really pd... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is trivial for the person who uploads the image to supply the source. It is often far from trivial for someone else to find the source. -- Donald Albury 19:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing sources for Album covers, etc. 

message: I suggest rewording counterexample 7 from
An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply.
to
An image of a magazine or album cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue or album itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply.
Working with WikiProject Albums, I find artist where an album cover is being used in the artist infobox, and although I already point to counterexample 7, it would be nice if it covered album covers, which are misused more often than book and magazine covers. -- ReyBrujo 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently removed 6 album cover images from one singer's article. It is very tempting to use an album cover to illustrate an artist or group (I did so myself a while back), so we need to take extra steps in educating editors. -- Donald Albury 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If six albums were separately and sufficiently discussed in that article, then six album covers would be justified.  Postdlf 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterexample 7 rewording 

message: I found Roll on Columbia, where most (if not all) the song's lyrics has been written, along with critical commentary. Although it can be considered original research as there are no references, I am guessing it could be considered to fall under fair use because of the comments examining each sentence. Am I right? -- ReyBrujo 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes beyond fair use since we're including the entire work, instead of just the parts necessary for commentary.  It could easily be trimmed to straight commentary with a handful of quotations where necessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of lyrics being used under fair use claim 

message: An RfC that touches on some issues related to  tagging has been opened here.  (I'm posting this here in the hope of ending recruitment-like notifications to individual talk pages by RfC participants). --RobthTalk 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant RfC 

message: SSIA - Any suggestions? ...luke 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I just did. That should be all there is to it, WP:CR predates WP:FAIR, but this is where fair use policy is laid out these days, WP:CR had an old paragraph that was not up to date. I think there is little doubht wich of the two are the "more correct" policy per debates above and elsewhere, and if anyone is waiting from the "word from abve" there is this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok#Outside view by Jimbo Wales. --Sherool (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No good to make such a significant change without allowing for discussion first. You seem to have made the change, then posted to "discussion." Please undo the edit, then we'll discuss the change here. Thanks. Badagnani 06:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "change" have been debated to death multiple times already (see for example archives of this talk page, mailing list archives, policy vilage pump archices , various RFC's linked above etc.), don't see why a "rematch" would be needed just to remove a inconsistency between a summary of the fair use policy on a related page and the actual fair use policy wich is detailed on this page (well technicaly at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria), and backed up by speedy deletion criterea for things that fall short of this policy. --Sherool (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, clearly it was a "stealth" discussion, conducted in remote areas frequented by editors concerned primarily with policy.  It was not conducted nor reproduced here, the page in question.  Please restore the original wording and we will discuss it here first.  Thank you for respecting the community rather than making unilateral changes of such significance that are not disussed on the actual page where the change was made.  Thanks.  Badagnani 07:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to bring [[WP:FUC]] and [[WP:CR]] into line? 

message: I've been thinking about the issue of newly discovered, or highly inaccessible species for which the only available images are copyrighted ones taken by nongovernment scientists, explorers, journalists, etc.  I don't actually know how common this is a problem, but it's a frequent hypothetical raised in fair use discussions.  As only the expression contained within a photograph is copyrighted, but not the information it provides about the species' appearance, I wonder if it is possible to instead create a drawn illustration of the animal that can source its information to such a photograph, but that does not constitute a derivative of it because it does not use any copyrighted expressive elements (i.e., does not use the composition and angle, etc. of the photograph).  A body outline "template" (in the visual sense, not the Wikipedia sense) may be possible to create for usage whenever the species' form is of a general type, such that all that would be necessary would be the filling in of coloration or other superficial structures to show that species' particular varations from the general type.  The only problem I see with this is ensuring the accuracy of the illustration, and ensuring that it is not such an extrapolation from the photographs as to constitute OR; I guess this would depend upon how informative the available photographs are.  Thoughts?  Postdlf 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that would be fine. In fact, a drawing may be better than photos, each of which may only capture one element of the species adequately. As far as I know, nobody has tried to copyright bird appearance, although if genes can be patented, surely copyright on animal appearances can't be too far behind... :-/ Stan 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But does that drawing truly convey the same information as the image it is replacing?  In my opinion, the drawing would have to be of equal or better representative quality to replace a clearly taken photograph, free or not. -- ChadScott 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might, I guess that's part of the question.  Let's take an extremely simple hypothetical: explorers discover a blue and red striped species of Frog genus X.  It looks exactly like every other known species of Frog genus X—same body shape and proportions—except for the color of its skin.  All that an image would therefore need to convey that is specific to that new species is its coloration, the only relevant variable.  A representative image could therefore be made that communicates all the information necessary even though it falls short of being a photorealistic illustration.  But I'm really less concerned with the effect of this on "replaceable" "fair use" than I am with whether these illustrations can be successfully made without being derivatives of the copyrighted photos and without being OR.  Postdlf 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On exceedingly rare birds 

message: I've noticed lately an increase in tagging logos and other more or less "obvious" fair use images as not having a rationale.  This really annoys me for two reasons.  (1) The specific fair use tags (like , , , etc, themselves contain a rationale.  The rationale for including a corporate logo on a website about the company is obvious.  The rationale for including a screenshot of a piece of software in an article about that program is obvious.  (2) All adding the  tag does is create work for someone else.  When the rationale is obvious, you could add it in the time that you can complain about its absence.  Really, all you are doing is forcing someone else to go add the rationale or, worse, if an administrator actually deletes the image, someone else has to go to the trouble of re-uploading it.
In short, the bottom line is this - if an image is missing a rationale, and its rationale is painfully obvious, FIX IT rather than just asking someone else to. BigDT 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging logos, album covers, etc as {{tl|nrd}} 

message: A new RfC of relevance to the subject of Fair Use may be found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali here].  Badagnani 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief ... I'm all for replacing fair use images of random celebrities with free ones.  But rather than just tagging the things with deletion tags and letting someone else handle them, wouldn't it be more helpful to write to the subject and ask them to release a photo under the GFDL?  Some will, some won't, but it's more helpful than just just tagging them as replaceable without helping to find a replacement. (Needless to say, I have a very low opinion of the "somebody else fix this problem" tags.) BigDT 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. Oden has been doing a lot of this and won't listen to feedback from other users regarding this issue, using Wikipedia policy to basically nullify concerns from other users regarding images. I'm not condoning personal attacks on individual users here, but this method of burn and pillage editing seems to cause more problems than it solves. - Stick Fig 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New RfC

message: Tattoos can be protected by copyright as graphical works.  Discuss.  : )  Postdlf 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and :Image:Times Square (Tall).jpg contains copyrighted images. But that's a side issue. If you take a photograph of me, you hold the copyright to that photograph, even if it contains my copyrighted tattoo within it. You may be restricted from publishing your own photo if the use of the tattoo is not fair use -- but it would be in this case. Anyway, you would hold the copyright to the photo, not the tattoo artist. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say that the Times Square photo could not be uploaded to Commons, because its a derivative of the copyrighted billboards?  Postdlf 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it can be uploaded to the Commons, and many similar images exist on the Commons, because the copyright to the image is held by User:NoClip, and NoClip has released it under the GFDL. The image is a free image. It is also a derivative image of several non-free ads, but that doesn't change the copyright of the image. Only non-free images are restricted from uploading to the Commons, not free images that contain incidental non-free material. To put it another way, NoClip has to make his own fair use claim, to himself, in order to publish his image. Wikimedia does not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd distinguish it from, say, a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture, which is undoubtedly a derivative work (and therefore can't be uploaded to Commons), because while the sculpture would be the image's subject in that photograph, in the Times Square photograph the billboards are only incidentally copied?  Postdlf 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pretty much. If you were to crop the image so only one billboard was displayed it could no longer be cosidered free in any way shape or form.Geni 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still uncertain over whether that incidental use is permissible because it qualifies as fair use, in which case it's a derivative work; or because that incidental use is de minimis—i.e., too insubstantial a copy of the original to be legally significant.  Is there a third legal alternative?  Postdlf 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: depends on the country you are in. I only know of those two in the US but I haven't cheacked. Some countries have their freedom of panorama which can simplify matters but I'm pretty sure the US isn't one of them.Geni 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Copyright Act excludes photographs of buildings from being considered derivatives, but that's the only relevat categorical exception.  Postdlf 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A photograph of a photograph is not creative and thus the license (or lack thereof) would be the same as the source photograph. BigDT 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A photograph of a photograph can be creative. It depends on the specific photograph of the photograph.  What about a photograph of a painting? john k 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I'm sorry that I didn't notice your question until just now, but if you take a photograph of a 2-d painting, photograph, etc, no rights are conferred.  See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and the  tag. If someone in the US takes a photo of an old painting (and there isn't something else in the photo), you are perfectly free to use their photo. BigDT 17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another consideration with "free" photos of people 

message: I found this image through an interwiki link. All the text is in Thai, but it appears it has been marked as a fair-use copyrighted image. Language barrier notwithstanding, does it appear the copyright tag on Thai Wikipedia is correct? Although I would like to use this image to illustrate Asian arowana, I believe this is not allowed under fair use (although it is used that way on Thai Wikipedia). --Ginkgo100 talk 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: while I can think of ways it might legitimate end up in the article the use you describe is somewaht unlikely to be considered fair use.Geni 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To expand on what Geni said, a general rule of thumb is that you can use person A's work for commentary on the the work itself or on person A him/herself, but you cannot use A's work to comment on B.  If you were writing an article about that stamp (if the stamp itself were iconic) or perhaps about the Thai postal system, it would be a legitimate example of fair use.  But it is not an example of fair use to take their picture of a fish to talk about fish in general. BigDT 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of these days I'm going to write more about all the ways that stamp designers alter images to look "prettier". Even if it were legally OK, stamps are almost never good illustrations for an encyclopedia that aspires to scientific accuracy. Stan 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your two comments together gives me another thought: The reason I wanted to use the image was not to illustrate the animal itself (there are already several photographs with free licenses), but to demonstrate that it has an importance to local cultures. Would that be appropriate fair use rationale? I believe it would be because I would be talking about the stamp in the context of an article about the fish. --Ginkgo100 talk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: might be okey but then the question is do you really need the pic or can you make your point without it?Geni 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Theoretically yes, but 99% of modern stamps worldwide are produced to sell to stamp collectors, and the topics are chosen to appeal to collectors interested in particular topics, such as fish, sports, cats, dinosaurs, etc. Unless it's a definitive stamp, regular people in Thailand will probably never even see it. Stan 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of a copyrighted image from Thai Wikipedia 

message: U.S. law is pretty clear that any works created and published in the U.S. before 1978 without a copyright notice are in the public domain, and that any works published in the U.S. before March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice are in the public domain if they haven't been registered with the Copyright Office within 5 years of publication? How many "fair use" images that are being wontonly deleted might fall within this criteria and actually be in the public domain? DHowell 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Limited. Experence suggests that most of our "fair use" images are of people of recent note.Geni 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hard to tell. You need evidence to support a PD claim, and given the quality of source information many of these images have there is just no way to tell when they where first published, let alone wether or not all the copyright paperwork was in order at the time. For "bigger" works such as movies and books from that period it's usualy a bit easier since there are sites out there to keep track of such things, but for individual "loose" photos it's near impossible to say unless you have first hand knowlege or a heck of a lot of time on your hands (and I think you need to pay for access to the copyright offices archives as well). --Sherool (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very difficult to determine whether the copyright was renewed for such a work. When documentary film-makers, for instance, want to include a clip made before 1978, they have to hire a specialist lawyer to dig through the records, a process which takes many hours (charging by the hour). There is just no way a layperson can confidently assess whether the copyright was renewed or not, unless you're lucky enough to have a statement by the original copyright-holder saying whether it was renewed or not. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images published in the U.S. before 1978 or 1989 without copyright notice 

message: What's the benefit of the  template? It seems like it mostly just confuses people. I realize it was part of the move away from using , but why not go all the way? Redirect  to , and go through removing the "with permission" templates (It's not transcluded much anyway). If these images are valid fair use then whether we additionally got permission isn't relevant. It could be mentioned on the description page, but I don't see any reason to have a whole extra set of tags for classification of an attribute that doesn't matter. - cohesion 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might help to make a fair use claim, for borderline cases, if we also have permission. It's really just informational though; it doesn't affect the copyright status. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm not saying we shouldn't mention if we also have permission, but that it isn't so important as to warrant another tag scheme. Also, if you make people write out their permission in text rather than a tag I think you would end up with more accurate permission statements, since right now after looking at a random sampling many that say  don't have any obvious actual permission anyway. (not that it matters a whole lot since hopefully they have a fair use rationale). Anyway, I'll let this sit for a few more days and if there are no objections move it over to WP:TFD etc. - cohesion 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do this in a bit :) - cohesion 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withpermission template