Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Amendment/Fair use images in portals

message: *I support ammending our policies to allow fair use images in portals.  Quite simply, the portal is there for the reader, and it is not some secret back-room working place.  As long as we are presenting content to the reader then fair use applies, regardless of whether we call that page an "article" page or a "portal" page. Johntex\talk 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Unfortunately, it could be considered that this amendment is tainted, because of votestacking. I suggest contacting as many users who had expressed opposition to this amendment as possible (at least equal to the amount of contacted people) to prevent further problems. -- ReyBrujo 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand what you're talking about there.  Perhaps we should simply end the discussion now, to prevent this from going further, and encourage those of us who have voted to stay out of the actual vote. DoomsDay349 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be interested in participating when an actual vote does occur. --Masamage 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just a comment. Contacting others who had opposed should be a good argument to prevent the closure. -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just tell anyone who's posted in that topic on the talk page about this, excluding those I've told already. ddcc 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose not to vote as I had already been involved in the discussion (on the talk page of WP:FU). I thought the point of bringing it here (as we had discussed there) was to broaden the range of voters, not simply have the same voters vote in a more public space. So, if people who were specifically contacted about this retract their vote, we can continue to maintain a vote from people who legitimately saw this at the VP and came to vote because it's a topic which they saw there, not because they were directed to it from parties supporting the amendment. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You could reword that to "No free alternatives available, or alternatives cannot be created without a unreasonable effort." Getting a free alternative to replace a fair use image of Mount Everest's peak (as in, a pic from up there) or Osama bin Laden is possible, but the effort can be considered excessive, while getting a free replacement for Mel Gibson or a Boeing 747 is not that hard. -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could say that all the criteria at WP:FUC must still be met, but criterion #9 should be changed to say "only in the article or portal namespaces." That would be the most succinct and accurate way of putting it. (That way we don't have separate sets of criteria for different places.) In fact, now that I think about it, it should really say "only in the article, image, or portal namespaces." Really, images do exist in the image namespace. . . but that may be outside the scope of this proposal. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better now? ddcc 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as a supporter of this amendment, I don't think fair use images should exist in the image namespace… that would be out of the question. ;-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: what is unreasonable about gettting a fee pic of the summit of Mount Everest? so many people have been up there it would probably only be a matter of writeing enough begging letters.Geni 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support rewording to "No free alternatives available, or alternatives cannot be created without an unreasonable effort."  The Mount Everest example is a decent example.  There is no guarantee that any amount of pleading letters would produce a free photo, and going there and doing it yourself is a big task.  If you think Mount Everest is too easy a target since it has been climbed by "many people", here is a tougher one - A view from the top of Mount Anderson (Antarctica) - the higest unclimbed peak in Antarctica's Sentinal range.  Eventually, it will get climbed.  If we contact the team that does so and ask for them to make their summitt picture free and they refuse to do so, then we should absolutely use their picture under fair use.  The possibility of some Wikipedian repeating their feat should not be considered reasonable. Johntex\talk 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the US navy aparent photogrpahed the entire range from the air so a photo of the summit and the souranding area should be availible through some meanse or another (a FOIA request might be overkill).Geni 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your creative thinking, but an aerial view is not really a substitute for a view from the summitt. They are very different vantage points.  If we just wanted any-old view, then we could use a view from a sattelite photo to show practically any location on earth.  We have to face the fact that sometimes a free alternative is not reasonable to obtain or not a reasonable substitute, and in those cases we should not hesitate to rely on fair use. Johntex\talk 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since there is to be little of interest to the average person or the militry there the airial photos will likely be of a higher resolution than any satilite pics.Geni 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which goes towards my point.  We should not be content with the sattelite photo if the aerial photo is available, and we should not be content with the aerial photo when a picture from the summitt is available.  We should not be afrair to use fair use when it makes a substantial improvement to an article. Johntex\talk 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've cleaned up the "Restrictions" and "Rationales" sections.. Any comments and/or suggestions?--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kelly v. Arriba Soft is so specific in most of its constraints that I don't think it should be listed there. It gives a false legal pretense to the "for" aspects. I am not saying that there is necessarily a reason to think that using images in the Portal namespace would necessarily be not found to be fair use, but Kelly certainly doesn't guarantee it, and in any case it is relevant only to the question about thumbnails in general, not their use. (For a more thorough discussion of the relationship between fair use and image size, see Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution") --Fastfission 22:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: So how do we conduct a valid vote?  Can someone with some experience or knowledge in the procedures iniatiate one?  Thanks. Gronky 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted all editors who posted on Wikipedia Talk: Fair use, as well as posted it on signpost (polic). ddcc 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, then I guess we need some new section headings. Johntex\talk 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: might want to leave something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use.Geni 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 10th: What now? 

message: #Johntex - The portal space is intended to be browsed by readers, so fair use applies just as for articles.
#As long as fair use images are only allowed in the "Featured Articles" box and not the "Featured Pictures" box.--TBCΦtalk? 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support this Amendment

message: # "we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopedia, we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary." - Portals are not articles, they're essentially glorified navigation pages, as such they will never meet the criteria for requiring a Fair Use image. We did without portals for years, so we can do without images on portals. If we can do without an image, we can't use it under Fair Use. The Main Page is technically in article namespace, as so has evaded this rule on a technicality, but two wrongs don't make a right. ed g2s • talk 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose this Amendment

message: Should we close this on Halloween? ddcc 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 31st seems like a good time...though I still don't think the issue has been resolved.  DoomsDay349 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Also, this is the final vote, correct? ddcc 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote has been very well publicized, so yes it should be considered a measure of the consensus. Johntex\talk 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is your belief than get Jimbo or any paid member of the foundation to come and say so.  Ohterwise it seems like you're just whining becuase you don't like how policy is being clarified. Johntex\talk 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, this is the final vote for the passage of the amendment?  Are you sure?  DoomsDay349 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with ed_g2s - this is a legal safety matter, and cannot be overridden by this poll. We can't vote to put the project at risk or ignore laws. --Improv 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the next stage of voting?   DoomsDay349 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Though I don't think fair use is needed in portals I will say that I don't think a simple appeal to legality means the question can't be asked. There is no strict legal reason why fair use images can't be used in the portal namespace and it would not necessarily open up a dangerous legal door. Personally I suspect it would not be a legal problem at all — the number of portals is relatively few and if it were made clear that any fair use in the portal could not be "purely" decorative (i.e. it must accompany some form of relevant article text and not just a listing of names) it would probably be fine. However I've yet to see any real damage caused by not allowing it in the portal namespace so my inclination is to think that it shouldn't be expanded if it doesn't need to be. But again, despite this, I don't think one can just cut the question off citing legal reasons. --Fastfission 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restoring the closing notice.  Concnesus for policy changes and/or clarifications are commonly made by poll.  Again, if you think Brad Patrick would have an issue with this, you need to get him to come here and say so. None of us should try to speak for Brad or what may or may not be a legal issue. Johntex\talk 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I still don't think we need to expand fair use to portals, I don't see why this contradicts any of our basic principles any more than fair use in the article space already does. There are so few portals anyway that I doubt it could possibly compete. I'm not sure I find any good reason to say this is something which is fundamentally against any policy of WP in a way that our existing fair use policy is not even more so. --Fastfission 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To restate my previous question; is this the final vote?  It can't be, can it? Thanks.  DoomsDay349   Happy Halloween! 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't it be?  It's been duly advertised and its been running for weeks.  I consider this poll official.  I hesitate to call it "final" because this is a wiki.  Things can conceivably change again at some date in the future. Johntex\talk 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ....I still don't feel that all the issues have been addressed.  All of the "support" comments are short snippets and then they never speak again, whereas most of the opposed are long and present big issues, and all of the opposers have been active in voicing their opinion.  I think that considering the gravity of this we should let the discussion continue, advertise it more to get more users involved, and vote again.  DoomsDay349   Happy Halloween! 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "support" commentors did exactly what they were asked to do.  They left a short snippet explaining why they support the ammendment.  The "oppose" commentors chose to leave lengthier comments rather than directing their lengthier comments to the discussion area as they were asked to.  We will never have unanimity.  This has been discussed for weeks.  The point of the poll is not to reach a unanimous conclusion, it is merely to measure whether a strong majority of people feel one way or the other. Johntex\talk 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, I suppose the best thing is to admit defeat for now and wait until this resurfaces...for now, I suppose I can accept fair use in portal...bear in mind I don't think it's a bad thing, just that it's not neccessary...It's not that I wouldn't like to see fair use in portals, but I just don't like the current rationale and the abundance of arguments.  DoomsDay349   Happy Halloween! 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing vote 

message: If Wikipedia is not a democracy, why did the Wikiadmins phrase the Arbitration Committee selections as "The Arbitration Committee elections have started. Those who qualify may vote here." Note that it says Vote. In addition, if you look at :meta:Stewards, it says that if you wish to become a new steward, you need to "Gain at least 30 votes in favor" and have "At least 80% overall votes in favor" among others. Again, it says "votes" not  "Gain at least 30 well-formed explanations on why you are a good candidate with no major character issues" and "At least 80% user support with no major rejection issues." Ddcc 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting on some things does not make us a democracy. It only means we vote on a few things, and generally avoid voting. Voting for an arbiter or a steward in itself does not cause any action, but rather, chooses a person who then uses discussion, with others, to make action. Arbiters and stewards are vital for running Wikipedia, and we don't really have a choice but to have a vote in order to choose people in a timely manner. Other issues that are non-vital should not use votes, and no vote process on Wikipedia is ever binding. We do this because it's better to discuss and try to develop a true consensus, rather than make "sides" and blind votes. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ned on this. We should make policy by consensus. But how about it, Ned? Would a bot that enforces no more than one fair use image per portal (including sub-pages) modify your position somewhat? --GunnarRene 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Not mine. Either we allow fair use on portals or not. One image or twenty, it's a violation if it's a violation. If it's not a violation, 20 would be fine. Also, policy is not always created by consensus. Some policy has been established directly by the foundation. Fair use policy is one of these. --Durin 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia is not a democracy" 

message: I'm working on cleaning up this amendement, rewriting it, etc, at User:Ddcc/Portalfairuse. What are some issues that you guys still might have with that version? Ddcc 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite