Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 16

message: Are we actually implementing this anywhere? ed g2s • talk 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no.Geni 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, my question really was 'why?' ed g2s • talk 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is hard to implement within present systems. Not imposible but not really worth the extra effort.Geni 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that could be the case... please elaborate. ed g2s • talk 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we currently have a bunch of cats that result in things being listed for deletion once they are 7 days onld. spliting those cats would be a pain and given the backlogs unlikely to make much difference.Geni 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't require any category splitting - the categories are defined by when the image should be deleted. If we just adjusted the tag to add 2 days instead of 7 days the changeover would be seamless. ed g2s • talk 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of things that get tagged replaceable fair use were uploaded before the cut off date.Geni 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then create an rfu2 template. As the categories are automatically populated I still don't see how it would cause any problems. ed g2s • talk 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, with some exceptions, and we're very contradictory.  WP:CSD generally allows seven days, as do various tags like .  The WP:CSD page's image section is based on the premise of deleting blatantly bad fair use (e.g. no source, no rationale, etc...).  It says little or nothing about insufficient/inadequate claims.  But WP:FUC makes clear, any failure warrants 48 hours deletion.  WP:FUC even calls for instant deletion of unused fair use.  It seems different people are editing WP:FUC and WP:CSD.  These two policy pages need to be made consistent, and then all the "fair use problem" tags need to be updated as appropriate. --Rob 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy was brought in months ago - so it's about time we did something. No source/no license images should also be subject to this, but there's no reason why ,  and  shouldn't be fixed immediately. ed g2s • talk 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A significant number of images that recive those tags were uploaded before the cutoff point.Geni 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A hand full of templates have been updated, as well as WP:CSD, to reflect the 48 hour deadline, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect timing, this user is about to expire on his 48 hour notice. A message like this worked almost every time I've used it, IIRC. The problem is that most users are not aware that they can give this deadline, etc. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Libby0-2.jpg and Cynthia_watros0-2.jpg have now passed their 48 period. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 hour policy 

message: Can someone clarify this sentence for me:
From WP:FU#Publicity photos
:"Fair use on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such publicity image with a free image"
Does this mean fair use doesn't apply when a free Image is available on Wikipedia or does it mean it's not fair use when there is a free Image on the Internet? semper fi — Moe 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it means when it is not posible to make a free image.Geni 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we delete Fair Use images based on the fact that no one has made a free alternative yet? semper fi — Moe 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, that's what they are doing thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We delete unfree images on the basis that it would be posible to create a free one.Geni 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all seems rather silly to me. All that makes it seem like is encouraging people to go buy a camera and do it themselves. Why delete Fair Use images when free ones aren't available right then. semper fi — Moe 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you would almost think our mission was to produce free content or something.  Jkelly 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I don't buy the argument that Wikipedia pages are presented with text and images as independent entities.  The images and links, including external links, are presented as an integrated whole.  On the other hand, I would call the whole of the article, including the images, text, and other media including audio clips, movies, anamated images and more to be perhaps related to at least the philosophy of the aggregate works concept.
Still, and this is where my point about fair use and the GFDL still apply, you can only distribute that aggregated work under the terms of the GFDL.  If any part of that aggregation violates the GFDL, it must be removed from the whole collection.  Or to the point here on Wikipedia, you shouldn't include fair use images (or text for that matter) that would not be permitted under the terms of the GFDL.  In particular, fair-use justifications for non-commercial and educational activity are in particular excluded explicitly because of the GFDL, as you couldn't redistrubute the aggregate work under the GFDL if they are included.  This is not changing the terms of the license of those images, but it is stopping their use and would therefore have a very strong justification for deletion from this project.  Fair use in particular would simply be a copyright violation if the only justification is educational applications.
If in an agggregate work something doesn't work with the GFDL, it must be removed.
I know there is an alternative philosophy here on Wikipedia that would suggest that perhaps the licensing of images is completely independent of the text, and the only real concern here is if the image is legal at all on Wikipedia.  Each Wikipedia image is under this philosophy a completely seperate work, and can be viewed without context to any Wikipedia article.  I don't know how you can justify fair-use under this sort of rationale, as such an independent image is simply a copyright violation, but that is a seperate issue.
This philosophy encourages Wikipedia contributors to push the limits of fair use to the very edge, and is giving us the current situation we have today.  I believe that fair use on Wikipedia is way overdone, and I know I'm not alone here.  At the same time it seems as though the people who are trying to scale back fair use have as the only substantial argument that fair use should be eliminated completely.  And there is a very substantial body of Wikipedia users (and even more general Wikimedia users) that feel this is the best option.
For myself, I would like to strike a more middle ground between what is currently accepted and those who would simply kill all fair use.  I am insisting that fair-use content can (and should) be used in conjunction with GFDL'd content, but the number of situations where this is done is substantially and strongly limited in part by the GFDL itself.  In addition, as as a matter of official policy on Wikipedia, the number of applications and scope of fair use ought to be substantially reduced from even what might be permittted under the terms of the GFDL.  We should not be riding the very edge of fair use doctrine, but rather use a very much smaller group of fair use images that would be permitted in nearly every country, and for en.wikipedia in particular should be something that nearly every predominently English speaking country would find acceptable under similar situations.  In this case I'm merely trying to suggest that as a first step the GFDL be the major limiting factor and to kill, for once and all, any notion that the non-profit status of the Wikimedia Foundation be used as a rationale for fair use.
There are whole categories of fair-use images that I am not comfortable with, and I have called for their deletion.  But that is for another fight on another thread.  Perhaps I'm totally wrong here, but I don't feel comfortable about trying to include some of the images when it seems to me that they are simply a copyright violation instead.  --Robert Horning 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggrigation 

message: Suppose we have users that put fair use images on their page.  If they refuse to remove it, obviously, we could remove it for them.  But what do we do with users that insist on restoring the images?  Is there a warning template that I should use? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very clear violation of policy (and they are quite possibly breaching the original image's copyright too) - so this should be a matter for admins to deal with.  This person needs to get a series of formal warnings - then an outright block/ban.  I'd take it through the Wikipedia dispute resolution system.  You'll win easily. SteveBaker 05:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I regularly remove fair use from user pages and I haven't had a complaint in quite a long time (some have even thanked me..). There's no need to ask first when the policy is so clear cut. ed g2s • talk 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images that violate Rule #9 on user pages 

message: Over at commons, someone pointed out ETS-HOKIN v SKYY SPIRITS, INC. US 9th circuit court. I wanted to post it here because I found it very interesting and informative. The case deals with whether a bottles' shape is copyrightable. The court found that a shape is not copyrightable and that derivative works of sky vodka bottles were indeed welcome to their own copyright. However, in the case, they make it very clear by stating "In this case, the district court did not identify any artistic features of the bottle that are separable from its utilitarian ones." that they were only discussing the shape. Coke bottles, etc, do have artistic works that are separate from their utilitarian function, so this case does not seem to apply to the situation involving coke bottles or cans with art on them.--Jeff 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - but I believe that the distinctive grille pattern on the front of a Jeep was successfully defended as a registered trade mark.  Urgh. SteveBaker 00:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in this opinion (and the dissent) its' acknowledged that courts just seem to rule differently and in conflicting ways. I don't think we'll ever really know.--Jeff 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: remember tradmark isn't copyright.Geni 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ‘Over at commons’ presumably means :Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pepsi cappuccino.jpg; I’ve posted my opinion on the applicability of the case there. —xyzzyn 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: trademark is not copyright though.Geni 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I knew that and did not assert or imply the opposite. —xyzzyn 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Same idea, different page. :Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Dietcokecherry.jpg--Jeff 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. So, any dissenting opinions on this stuff or do we add a section about photographs of labels somewhere? —xyzzyn 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a common enough problem on en for us to need a special mention as yet.Geni 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very important people know what they can and cannot license. It's gross negligence if we don't make it clear in policy that just because you take a picture of an object does not mean you can license your photo, necessarily.--Jeff 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case law concerning copyright of utilitarian objects

message: I looked at the Coca-Cola website Jeff linked to, and it says:"The trademarks listed are owned or used under license by The Coca-Cola Company and its related affiliates, as of December 31, 2006. These trademarks may be owned or licensed in select locations only.  © 2007 The Coca-Cola Company, all rights reserved." How does that square with those proposing to use them under fair-use?
I would say we can write about the history of the different images, where you can find the history, and link to the images. What an encyclopedia would really do well in all this is in describing the history of the brands. When was each one introduced, which country, what the names of the brands are, what the names have been said to refer to, critical reception of the advertising campaigns, critical reception of the drinks, market share, and so on. If, and only if, you research, source and write enough about each brand, then you might be able to justify fair-use under the commentary clause. Just identification alone is not enough. I've looked over the material about Coca-Cola, and there is a lot of commentary and information there, which in some cases justifies fair use of images like this. Carcharoth 12:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the website says

message: I notice that Jeff (above) has replaced the GFDL (etc) tags on some images with "Fair use". Before we go further, let me show that I accept this is fair in some cases, e.g. 
*This image that I had already de-CCed earlier this year as it was blatantly a direct reproduction and nothing more.
*I also de-GFDLed an image of a box- now gone- where its intended purpose was clearly to reproduce a photo on the box which *wasn't* GFDL).
However, the question is how far this goes, and how expert those discussing the subject above are in interpreting the law. In short I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL) and I assume neither are most of those contributing to the discussion.
For something that has very wide-ranging implications on WP's use of images and of their ownership, we should have a consistent policy based on informed legal opinion. At present, it looks more like a bunch of IANALs trying to interpret law (common on the Internet and a poor substitute for legal advice).
With respect to Jeff, are you an expert on copyright law and/or how do you decide to draw the line when you are replacing the tags on images? Perhaps it would be a good idea to make clear when the license on an image had been replaced by other than an the original photographer (e.g. by scoring out the claimed license, or by pointing out that the license was changed by other than the original uploader) if there is any grey area whatsoever. If nothing else, it makes the status/history of the image clearer.
In short, I am very uneasy at the prospect of people's GFDLed and CCed images being opaquely retagged (and the attribution possibly lost) when the basis for doing so is open to any doubt, which is why we need a consistent and well-grounded policy here.
Fourohfour 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IANALs and policy

message: :Support as nominator --MECU≈talk 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Support - I think this helps to define an unfortunately grey area in the current policy, yet allows a little bit of flexability.  --Robert Horning 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: :Oppose.  What is reasonably adequate for a given purpose will vary with the image in question.  Sometimes fair use is applied to graphics and images that include text, and in many cases that text would be barely legible at 300px.  Contrarywise, I can think of a variety of logos and things where even 300px seems excessive.  Nor does this proposal deal well with images that might have a large aspect ratio (e.g. 1200 x 200).  Deciding what size is reasonable is a judgment call, not simply one size fits all.  I don't think we are benefitted by inserting specific numbers into the policy.  Dragons flight 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conditional Oppose I only oppose because I believe the inclusion of "72x72 resolution" is a mistake and misunderstanding. If an image is 300 pixels wide, it is 300 pixels wide. The resolution is simply a configuration setting that has to do with printing an image. Besides being unnecessary, would be impossible to tell in a browser if an image complies or not, and is confusing to users who are unfamiliar with the idea of resolutions outside of "width * height". I would also like to see the width limit raised to 400px because 300px is too small for images that are wider than they are tall, but I'm not as vociferous about this point. With some small changes, I change to supporting this amendment.--Jeff 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you can forgive my technical ignorance with this: Is the resolution used to save any additional information within an image? That is, would an image saved at 300x300 px/inch be larger than one saved at 72x72 px/inch, whereas they both were the same size? If so, then the 72x72 should be used, if not, then I would be happy to drop this proposal. I agree it's difficult (if not impossible) to tell from the browser what the resolution is, but it would only be a secondary consideration. The devs could probably add the capability to the image description page to show the resolution of an image. As for 400 vs. 300: I stated my reasons for the non-random 300. Why 400? Because you can see it better? If you wanted to see it better, you just click on the source URL (for about probably 90% of images) and see the larger size. Why do we need the larger size hosted here on WP? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pushing the issue, I apologize if it sounds like I'm being confrontational, it is not intended) --MECU≈talk 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. The answer is no; the "print resolution" aka "pixels/inch" setting of an image has nothing to do with the data or how that data displays on a monitor. It's only a configuration to allow the translation of images to a physical medium (paper) easy and accurate. Say you have a 5px * 5px image and then you define "5 pixels per inch". On the screen and in the data, that image would by only 25 pixels total, but when you print it to paper it would print 1 inch wide and 1 inch tall, despite being only 5px wide and 5px tall.--Jeff 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose now what is exactly the reason for this except to bother our readers? Does fair use law mention resolution anywhere? Why 300px and not, say 500px? Because both look equally small on my LCD monitor. Totally arbitrary, unnecessary and paranoid rule. I just have to wonder if you wake up in the middle of the night thinking up this sort of stuff. Grue  08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 300px is not arbitrary, I explained above. Your comment directed at me is borderline not civil. --MECU≈talk 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: I agree with Postdlf's statement above that there is little call for keeping fair-use images larger than we are actually using them.  However, Matthew Fenton brings up a good point about SVG and other vector-image formats.  I don't believe we can arbitrarily specify a maximum size; there are just too many times where it may be appropriate to break the maximum, and then the problem with vector images.  Perhaps a wording such as "Images shall be no larger than strictly required", though I don't think that's any better.  --Yamla 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we shouldn't have non-freely licensed vector images.  Has this been discussed before?  Postdlf 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly above: #Fair use SVG images. --MECU≈talk 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say the H&R Block logo (used as an example above) is even copyrightable, just protected as a trademark; it's only a green square with some text.  Do we use SVG for anything that is complex enough to be indisputably copyrightable?  Postdlf 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) It's been discussed a lot before that too, we just never seem to get anywhere. Usualy just 2-3 people disagreeing and then it dies down and get archived. Various logos keep syceling between SVG and PNG versions depending on who has been going by lately. Some people are replacing PNG logos and such with SVG versions in good faith because our image use policy says that linart should be SVG. Other people are going around replacing SVG logos and stuff with PNG versions in good faith because the fair use policy says to keep fair use low resolution, and around and around it goes. Can't recall any real "fights" over it, but it probably would save some wasted effort if we could make up our collective mind about it. --Sherool (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found at least one SVG logo that is probably pictorial enough to qualify for copyright protection.  I would recommend that we make it policy to not use SVG for any fair use images.  Is there a good argument against this?  Postdlf 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this philosophy so far as the emphasis is that it should be no larger than as defined on the website in the article where it is being used.  This guideline can be heavily abused if you say that the image needs to be substantially larger if it is going to be used in a print version of the article... putting us back to where there is no limit at all.  One of the keys here as well is that a reasonable fair-use justification is to have a thumbnail of an image, and the size limits need to be defined to ensure that what we are dealing with here really is a thumbnail.  While you may like a larger image in the article, you should seek a free image instead if you really want to see the details that a larger image will present.  --Robert Horning 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: tab reset

message: Just wanted to ask. If the fair use rationale for the following picture (there are many that use the same rationale) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bcuzofu_title.jpg valid? It says "To encourage the readers to watch  it." Aren't we not supposed to have ads on wikipedia? I believe the rationale goes against what WP stands for. Shrumster 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That 'rationale' is so bad, it's not even wrong. --Carnildo 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked into this a little bit and it seems to be as though the source article that this image is used for, Star Cinema is subject to a rather extensive self-promotional editing. Wikipedia isn't meant to be for self promotion, so one would think that image (and many others on that page, and possible most of the article itself) could be justified for deletion. This battle isn't one I wish to wave a banner for, so good luck with that one.--Jeff 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid Fair Use Rationale? 

message: Any objection if I removed no. 8? I would like to be able to display an image of a living person that merely shows what they look like. Thanks. El_C 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you jest? If not - then I object - that would breech the "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." part of WP:Fairuse#Policy. See endless endless debates here and elsewhere about it. Megapixie 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am voicing my opinion. That new "No free equivalent" is especially problematic; it often effectively means a highly remote possibility of finding an equivalent — all the while there's a perfectly legal fair use one that could be used. I find this area of the policy too narrow. El_C 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But it's probably best to wait until the dust from Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#IMPORTANT_NEWS_FROM_THE_FOUNDATION diktat settles. After that (assuming we still have fair use - which is pretty likely IMHO) getting policy changed at WP:Fairuse#Policy would probably be the first step to changing the counterexamples. Megapixie 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely certain how that announcement applies to my specific fair use challenge. El_C 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The counterexamples reflect policy, and copyright law.  The interpretations of those would need to change first.  The policy is narrow because copyright law is narrow.  Use of an image for anything other than critical commentary of the artist, or style (or parody) is not within legal fair use, which is why it is not allowed by policy.  Inconvenience of not having a free image does not override the rights of the copyright holder.  Atom 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm certainly interested in where to start. Not sure how "artist" is applicable — the image which led to me this was of a former Israeli Justice Minister. See some of my (somewhat refractored) thoughts on the talk pages of either Danny or Raul654 for further detail. When I added the image to that entry, it was fine — now suddenly it isn't because, theoretically, a free equivalent could be found. How (and why) did this happen? And how does this help the encyclopedia. El_C 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change you mention came about as a result of a decision by Jimbo several months ago (perhaps someone can find the exact reference, I don't archive the mailing list). As to the image use you're worried about, I don't think an image can ever be used under fair use simply to illustrate what a person looks like. To be fair use, the person's appearance would have to be so distinctive (or particular in some way) as to make it a subject of discussion in the article: Viktor Yushchenko would be an example where this would hold for me. The fact that the subject is a former Israeli minister changes nothing: "we see no warrant for expanding the doctrine of fair use to create what amounts to a public figure exception to copyright" Justice O'Conner for the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1984). Physchim62 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii El_C 09:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes to counterexamples

message: I've started a discussion about the use of the Wikipedia logo and Wikimedia copyright images at the village pump that's relevant to "Fair Use" issues that people here may be interested in contributing to. Thanks! -137.222.10.67 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Wikipedia logo and Wikimedia copyrighted images  

message: Could we perhaps note that fair use images in a user space are permissiable if and only if those photos are part of a work in progress that is actively being worked on? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary? You can always link to the image instead of showing it. When the aticle you're working on goes 'live' you can change that again. Garion96 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is removal of such files an actual problem? If you need more than a couple of weeks to put an article togeter it's probably best to not upload any images untill it's close to finished anyway, and the admin instruvtions do say to use common sense and give active in-progres articles time to finish before nuking it's images. --Sherool (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrites and #9

message: "We don't use unfree images of living people..."  Is this now official Wikipedia policy?  I've seen an especially vigorous anti-fair use editor use this line in explaining why he deleted someone else's contributions to Wikipedia, and I'm just curious.  Is this the current consensus of our fair use policy, that "we don't use unfree images of living people"?  Because I can't find that anywhere on WP:FU or WP:FUC, and frankly, if this editor is helping to delete material based on this criteria, I think he/she needs to be stopped.  Jenolen  speak it! 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably was truncated and should have read "...to illustrate what they look like."  It's Counterexample number eight on the page.  Jkelly 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An unfortunate addition to policy made by limited, interested parties who didn't open the change to vetting until they started implementing it and caught ire of those like myself, which should be removed.--Jeff 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: it is posible to replace fair use images of people and in general the fair use claim on the images are somewhere between poor and painfuly bad.Geni 10:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's theoretically possible, but as a practical matter, it's possible in some cases but not in others.  If it were truly possible in every case, I'd have to ask why haven't you replaced them?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: because I don't travel outside the UK a lot. Not saying it will be effortless or instant but is will be posible.Geni 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What will be possible?  You're not actually saying it's possible for wikipedians to get free pictures of any living person with an article in wikipedia?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than recluses yes it should be posible to get a free pic.Geni 14:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The ironic thing is that almost everybody in the public eye, is, well, out in public a lot. Musicians play concerts, actors appear on stage and at openings and publicity tours, sportspeople are in the arena, authors do book signings, professors lecture, etc etc. "Hi Dr. Foo, I'm a great fan of yours and would like to get a good photo of you for Wikipedia - would you mind standing right there for a moment?" Tell you what, if anyone tries this, and the prof's posse :-) knocks them down and smashes the camera, we can officially upload an unfree picture and declare it unreplaceable. I'm not opposed to fair use, but c'mon, at least make some effort. Stan 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this, I need to ask to whom I should make out my invoice? As a freelance writer I charge $100 per photograph (rights revert to the client) and $50/hour plus gas and mileage... If we're being asked to basically put in this sort of effort then Wikipedia better be ready to remunerate folks for time and effort. 23skidoo 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How much do you charge for writing texts for encyclopedia articles? I may have a job offer for you. You can even keep your copyrights on the text, as long as you accept to released it under gfdl. --Abu badali (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for working as an admin on a collective project to write an encyclopedia, how much would you charge? --Abu badali (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So 23skidoo, are you saying you've been getting paid for the 28,926+ edits you've made so far? Even for a fast typist, that adds up to a lot of hours to be giving away. That's another thing I don't understand about all this - people who put in thousands of hours on text edits, and then gripe at the prospect of investing a couple hours to get some photographs. Stan 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia the free encycopedia. It has been policy for an awfuly long time not to use fair use if a free replacement is posible. In the case of most living people they are posible.Geni 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-free images should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with a free image that would serve the same educational purpose. That's the official position. As people above have noted, it's reasonably possible to obtain free images of most living people. — Matt Crypto 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, hasn't it generally been "when a free replacement is available"?  Parts of the policy still say that.  Was "possible" a recent change?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The fun comes in defineing posible.Geni 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You probably mean "There is no valid argument that I'm going to accept". I, for one, see a lot of "valid" arguments. Today, for instance, I have seen one: After removing all unfree headshots from List of freshman class members of the 110th United States Congress four days ago, today I noticed that some nice user started adding free replacements for some of the removed images (,  ). Slow work? Yes, but it would be a stalled work if the unfree images were to remain in the article. Is it worth giving up dozens of unfree images in exchange of some few? Yes. --Abu badali (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We kind of do: Wikipedia:Requested pictures and :Category:Wikipedia requested images and Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service. I looked into the latter one and could take a picture of one of the requests in Colorado. I work about 5 minutes from the place. We just need to advertise these programs more. Everytime someone says "I searched the internet and no free image exists so we need this fair use image" I cringe. --MECU≈talk 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We don't use unfree images of living people" 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Excessively long plot as a suggested focal point for debate about long plot summaries. --GunnarRene 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries redux 

message: I'm trying to decide exactly what "critical commentary" means.  I was looking at the definitions of both words at answers.com.  It seems critical commentary is a series of explanations or interpretations characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment.  Does that sound right?  Is there an essay/guideline/policy page that has a paragraph explaining what CC is, exactly?  Also, how does the CC definition avoid encouraging original research? - Peregrine Fisher 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally take a pretty broad view of what constitutes "critical commentary", that it's any text that talks about the bits in the image in some meaningful way. It's true that one needs to be careful about injecting personal opinion - "the red disk represents the rising sun" is a critical commentary that is easily sourced, while "this Pokemon's horn is clearly derived from a type used in ancient fertility rites" may be an interesting but likely original observation. Stan 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where/what is the definition of "critical commentary"? 

message: Have we specified a threshold for what is replaceable?  Someone mentioned a photo of a recluse may not be possible to get, leaving room for a FU image.  Is it a hard/fast rule whether they are alive or dead?  What if it was some image of a super criminal, where maybe only one image exists of them?  Anyways, you can imagine a lot of scenarios where it's not impossible to acquire a free image, but you can also be sure that it will never happen.  What's the rule?  Or are we left to decide this on our own? - Peregrine Fisher 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are situations (jail, recluse, etc) where I think it would be ok to make a fair use claim, even though it's a living person.. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there can be a simple rule. For instance, if someone is still living but in a nursing home or hospital, it seems unreasonable to insist that we invade the institution to get a shot of the person - on the other hand, that person's relatives might be happy to donate a photo from younger days, if we only asked them. So I think a good-faith effort to determine replaceability should at least include an attempt to contact potential image donors. Conversely, someone who is making regular appearances in public should be considered replaceable, irrespective of location - we have Wikipedians all over the world. It would be worth developing a page on the topic; I don't think we have one, and it's an interesting bridge between our fair-use policy and instructions to photographers. Stan 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretically replaceable images 

message: Movie posters are rarely used for critical commentary - rather for identification. The standard FUC tag on such support this use-> . I have modified the guideline to reflect this.
I have also modified the guideline for  to reflect it's standard use in identification. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it's a good idea to change guidelines or policies to reflect the common practices. Would you modify WP:NPOV to say "It's acceptable  that some articles or sections may, sometimes, choose a point of view for the information it provides, according to the editor's own bias"? --Abu badali (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If protected templates included a protected and blessed  template, then yes. Either this guideline or those tags need to be fixed. I cannot fix the protected tags, so I fixed the guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you point. But note that theses templates are not protected because what they say is settled in stone. They are protected because, for being heavly used, they are a common target for vandalism. You can request some admin to change a protected template in the template's talk page. And taking into account this thread above, I would suggest changing , and not . --Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is confusion as to what "critical commentary" and "identification" mean.  If I'm not mistaken, the term "identification" was imported from the Google images thumbnail court decision, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation.  In that case, the fair use copies of the thumbnails were being used to identify the images themselves, as they could be found on the web.  But on Wikipedia, images such as book cover scans or movie posters in articles are often said to help "identify" the article's subject, much in the way that giving the publication date or author does: it helps us know exactly what we're talking about.  The simple fact of what the cover looks like is also generally considered a key fact of the subject.  This means that the images do function as critical commentary by contributing to the articles, because "critical commentary" is what Wikipedia articles are.  There have been many discussions evincing a strong consensus that such scans substantially contribute to the articles, even where the articles do not expressly "discuss" (i.e., describe) the cover itself, simply based on the intrinsic relationship of the cover to the subject.  Or, to put it simply, Abu has no support for this change and it is not a necessary and unambiguous consequence of policy, provided that he is targeting the latter use of "identify" and not the former as used in Arriba.  At a minimum, the express exclusion of "identification" will only invite equivocation on that term.  Postdlf 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a "change", it was a reversion. Comment on the edition, not the editor. --Abu badali (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I support that revert. —xyzzyn 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't it be better to wait to change this policy until the foundation comes with that declaration Kat Walsh was talking about. See a few sections above. Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Commentary/Indeitification 

message: :Image:OhioTurnpike.svg is the logo used by the Ohio Turnpike. But it is rather simple; is it simple enough for template:PD-ineligible or is it fair use? --NE2 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no lawyer but I think the whole concept of juxtaposing a white silhouette on a field of green, then having "OHIO TURNPIKE" in capital letters in the same shade of green as the field is a copyrightable concept. Remember, my opinion is not qualified whatsoever. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PD-ineligible is for things like chemical compounds, math formulas, musical notes -- things that if anyone were going to create that kind of image, it would basically turn out the same. howcheng  {chat} 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this eligible for copyright?

message: Is it OK to use an album cover picture in articles such as "discography of..." or "list of best selling albums...", while the album itself has an article and uses the picture?  and if it's allowed here, is it allowed in other editions of wikipedia?<BR>Thanks. GODFATHER 16:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. Also, each edition (language, I assume what you are trying to say) has their own policy on fair use photos. Some, like the Russian, might accept fair use photos. Others, like the Spanish and German, do not accept fair use photos at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a quick question...