Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 5

message: Do we really need Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria like duplicated policies? They look like identical duplicates.--Jusjih 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually of you look at the wiki code in the Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy section, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is being used as a template there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your answer. I now see what you mean.--Jusjih 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated policies 

message: Hello. I recently added :Image:Magical Stela.jpg and applied the  tag to it. However, this is an image of a sculpture, which is not a two-dimensional work of art. I couldn't find a more appropriate tag, and I wasn't sure why "two-dimensional" was listed as a criterion for fair use. If this is an inappropriate use, please let me know and I'll list the image for deletion. If this use is acceptable, perhaps the template's wording should be changed. I still consider myself a fair use newbie, so any guidance is appreciated. Cheers, Lbbzman 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing what is the "work" in this instance: it is not the object photographed but the photograph itself. The fact that it happens to be of a very old artifact does not matter in this case. --Fastfission 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification and the quick response. Lbbzman 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of a sculpture? 

message: I have just uploaded a scanned image of a Phonautograph, a precursor to the Phonograph. {See :Image:Phonautograph ncd.jpg) I can't find a category to put this under. I think that is fair use. Can anyone tell me what to put this under? -- Auric 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the phoautograph is really as old as it seems to be, you might be able to find an illustration from a pre-1923 dictionary, in which case such an image would be in the public domain.  Alternatively, the patent application should have some suitable images you can use.  There's also the possibility of finding one in a museum somewhere and taking a picture of it.  In any case, there's no reason to use a fair-use image for this. --Carnildo 06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you're using the image for the same purpose as the original author was, it's unlikely to be fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of Dictionary illustrations? 

message: Quick question: Can an image be tagged with both  and  because the uploader scanned the image him or herself? I am guessing no, but I want to have some backup. The image in question is :Image:Usagi_Manga.jpg. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, copying a copyrighted work does not give you any rights to the copy. AFAIK it is never apropriate to combine a free license tag with a fair use one, if the material contains parts that are unfree the entire image is unfree. It makes no sense to say that parts of an image is free licensed if people can't actualy use the whole thing anyway, well IANAL but I think that's the gist of it (as long as we don't delve into the murky gray areas of "how about a photograph of a magazine shelf in a store" type issues). --Sherool (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible for material to be partially unfree.  For instance, if I make an artist's impression (a derivative work) of, say, an anime character, I can release my modifications under the GFDL while the base work is still copyrighted by the anime creator.  This means that to use the work, you must a) get permission from the anime creator (which satisfies the base-work requirement) and b) either i) get permission from me, or ii) use it under the GFDL (either of which satisfies the derivative-work requirement). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Merely scanning an image grants no rights.  In the case of a genuine derivative of an unfree work, I would tag it with the appropriate fair-use tag and make a text note that the derivative part is licensed appropriately; putting both a free and an unfree tag will probably confuse the copyright bots. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comiccover and GFDL-self 

message: Why is everyone so obsessed with copyrights? Are they scared Wikipedia will be sued? If that's the case, why hasn't MySpace been sued? Look at anyones MySpace or some message board avatar, and I guarentee you will find some sort of Fair Use violation. It is completley unjustified, this behavior. The Gerg 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are supposed to be creating a free, reusable encyclopedia.  Jkelly 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, Wikipedia's use of copyright content can often put it into direct competition with copyright holders, increasing the possibility of legal action. Myspace avatars generally do not do this. --Fastfission 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not that we're afraid of being sued.  We just have respect for intellectual copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear 

message: Can song lyrics be put on Wikipedia? What is their status?  I was thinking of adding lyrics for Chantilly Lace (song). --Howdybob 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entirety of song lyrics that are freely-licensed or in the public domain can go to Wikisource.  Otherwise, use only the amount that is absolutely necessary for discussing the song and claim Wikipedia:Fair use.  The lyrics to "Chantilly Lace" are under an unfree copyright.  Jkelly 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note that English Wikisource now forbids fair use and non-commercial licenses. If a lyric is copyrighted with non-commercial license only, claim fair use here but do not post at Wikisource.--Jusjih 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song lyrics? 

message: Is a photograph of an object, as in this image of a Pikachu model, acceptable as free use, or is it still fair use? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, that's considered a derivative work and therefore subject to the same copyright as the original. It can be used on English Wikipedia if you can make a convincing fair-use rationale for it, but it will be deleted from Commons, where fair-use images can't be used. Angr (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this :Image:PikachuANAplanepic.jpg? Arniep 07:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been on Commons since February with no complaints, and they're usually pretty good about catching copyvios there, so either it's OK or it's slipped past under the radar! Angr (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of objects 

message: I recently nominated The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) for good article status, but it failed because "none of the images have Fair Use Rationales." I checked the pics and they have the TV tags on them. I'm new to this fair use picture stuff, so can anyone help me out or explain what to do so I can re-nominate the article? Thanks - Zone46 01:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See how a rationale should look like. -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone help me out? 

message: From my understanding there is no problem with :Image:Arby's-Midland-MI.jpg, but the uploader tagged it as FU because a copyrighted logo can be seen on the image. Is this really necessary? I think this could be tagged  without problems. Just because something shown on the photo is copyrighted doesn't mean the photo itself can't be pd, right? It's not like it's a photo of just the logo... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My gut feeling is that such photos would be ok, but then again gut feeling is a very poor judge of copyright issues. For exampel a bunch of Star Wars related images was recently deleted off Commons for infrindging on copyrighted characters (photo of a guy in stormtrooper uniform taken at a Star Wars convention for example, pluss photos of action figures and other such movie related toys),and it would never have ocured to me that such images might be a problem. I think it's ok to release a photo under a free licese even if there are a logo somewhere in the background, asuming the logo is just "accidentaly" part of the image rather than the subject of it, but IANAL. --Sherool (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the image did constitute a derivative work, I do believe (note: IANAL) that the use of the logo in it would certainly be fair regardless of how the image itself is used.  However, the real questions are: a) does it actually count as a derivative work at all, and b) whatever the answer to A, how should such an image be tagged on Wikipedia?  Note that the answer to question A may depend on the jurisdiction (see, f.ex. de:Panoramafreiheit), although in this case it would seem clear that U.S. laws apply.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Amusingly I had a pretty good discussion with some other folks about this subject a few weeks ago (I was in the Bay area and briefly pondered going around and getting a lot of sign images for German wikipedia, but then I realized that, in the US at least, such images would probably have the same copyright problems as using the logos directly)... In the US it apparently depends on if the the copyrighted work is the primary subject of the image and a critical aspect of it, or if the inclusion is merely incidental, just as Sherool said. In cases which are not black and white the way the the image is used becomes material. In my view our policy should be to treat images which contain substantially more than the copyrighted work as free images, and treat images which are just intended to duplicate the copyrighted word as encumbered by third party rights. So in this case, it's a free images.  Can you imagine a world where you could prevent someone from distributing photos of your business locations from a public roadway simply by plastering it with copyrighted logos? Lets hope US law never becomes so insane. --Gmaxwell 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say (not being a lawyer) that it's technically a derivative work and fair use, but the nature of the image is such that virtually no use of it would be unfair.  The only way you could use it unfairly would probably be to carefully cut out the logos/posters and use them by themselves.  (So, Arby's can't prevent us from distributing the image just by plastering it with copyrighted logos, but our own policy might screw us over on this.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is annother example, of the 970wfla mobile news suv ... :Image:970 WFLA LOGO SUV.jpg ... tagged as fair use, by me, because of the logo connection. The 'subject' is the suv thus the framing of the image, but the logo is a sizeable percentage of the image. Do I read this right that it can be tagged as other than FU and thus be sent to commons? (maybe even CC-BY-SA-2.5) -- ∞Wirelain 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is licensed under Fair use, it can't be inlined in Talk pages, that is why I took the freedom of modifying it into a wikilink. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is it's current licence. However, as I'm the photographer and uploader, can it be licenced otherwise? (the inline image saved all readers having to follow the link, but it's a trivial matter.) -- ∞Wirelain 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IANAL, but it seems to me the focus of :Image:Arby's-Midland-MI.jpg is the building, not the logo. Therefore, the photograph is the photographer's intellectual property to license as he will, not Arby's's. I say, change that  to  or whatever other own-work license you choose. Angr (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos including copyrighted logos 

message: Two questions:
# Is this image fair use? (also available here). I'm trying to fix up the page on Pan Am Flight 214, and I think a picture is in order. 
#Should I be asking this question elsewhere? ;-)
--Bachrach44 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is as good a place as any to ask. I would say that your claim of fair use would be quite valid, since it is a historically significant image. Nobody can take images of the crash anymore. Be sure to include both a  tag and a rationale. Also, when you include the source, try to include more than a URL. The one site says the photographer is unknown, but the photo looks like newsprint... see if you can find out who originally published it. ~MDD4696 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better tag than  would be , since as MDD said, the crash cannot be re-created. Angr (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I've actually been trying to find the original source of that photo (my guess was also either government authorities or the media), but apparently my google-fu is weaker than I thought. --Bachrach44 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this fair use? 

message: In a dispute about an image of the PlayStation 3 console, I checked their press site . After searching it, I found nothing on their policy for when their images are allowed to be used. I then tok it upon myself to find out by contacting a Sony rep, in her initial mail she stated "If it is one of the approved images from the online press office then this is fine to use in a magazine or on the internet for an article about PlayStation."
As this constitutes as original research, I replied by asking for them to post a type of policy on their website so that Wikipedia might use their images with permission. Would this be at all ok, or wouldn't it matter if they posted that on their website? Havok (T/C/c) 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the image is released under a free license like the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses that allows commercial usage and derivative works, then Wikipedia can't use the image except under a valid fair use claim (in which case we don't need their permission). See Wikipedia:Fair use for discussion. Once the PS3 is released in November, however, it should be easy to get a free-use image of one (we just need some Wikipedian who's bought one to take a picture of it and upload it), at which point using Sony's own image will no longer be necessary or desirable. Angr (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy permission 

message: We would like to use a photo image of famous psychoanalyst Karen Horney (d. 1952).  It is in the Karen Horney Archive of Yale University Library, #CN2084, labelled "studio portrait".  The Library releases the photo for a small fee to anyone under "fair use".  We contacted Dr. Horney's daughter, Marianne Horney Eckardt, MD, who wrote (email) "I am Karen Horney's daughter and all requests for fotos have come to me for over 50 years, including the one you are intersted in. I would not know who took the foto ...".
We could not locate a proper "fair use" tag to use, or is there another category to use (for Wikipedia:en)?
Thanks, ABenis 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not need to pay any fees to use an image under fair use. Whether the usage of the image is fair use or not would depend very much on the context in which it is used. Johnleemk | Talk 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings.  There is really no fee:  there is a small charge paid to the Library for the preparation of a copy of the photo.  We wish to use the photo in an article on WP:en.  Which copyright tag is appropriate here?  It would be a great help if you (or anyone) would paste the correct tag in your reply. Many thanks. ABenis 05:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that the image's use on Wikipedia would be forbidden.  We need more context.  Who took the photo, and when?  When was it first published? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The studio photo was taken sometime in the 1920's (Horney was born in 1885).  It was published in a biography of Karen Horney in 1989, credited to Bettmann Archive.  We contacted Dr. Horney's daughter, Marianne Horney Eckardt, MD, who wrote (email) "I am Karen Horney's daughter and all requests for fotos have come to me for over 50 years, including the one you are intersted in. I would not know who took the foto ...".  Thanks, ABenis 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was taken prior to 1923, it might be public domain in the United States. Hm. Who took it, and for what purpose? To be more specific, who owns the copyright? Also, how would the image be used in the article? Would the article comment on any aspects of the image? Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello.  The Yale Archive labels it as a "studio portrait".  The exact date not known.  The photographer is not known (if anyone would know, it would be Dr. Horney's daughter, who has been involved with furnishing photos of her illustrious mother for over fifty years.).  The photo is widely found on the web and where there is attribution, it is to an archive or to UPI.  There has been no attribution to a copyright owner.  A small image (approx. 200-pixel) of the photo would be used in a WP:en article on psychology/personality with the caption "Karen Horney (1885-1952)".  The article would not refer to the image at all, and would not comment on any aspect of the image.  Thanks. ABenis 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would likely be fair use, although it might be.  I dunno.  Since the author is unknown, it will be in the public domain 95 years after its publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is shorter; that would mean at least ten years, probably more and possibly as much as 40 years. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the proper tag? 

message: Hi.  Would someone mind taking a look at this?  I have been reverted three times, by three different editors, when removing a single film screenshot, but the whole list is a mess of images taken from random places on the web and tagged as promotional.  Jkelly 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Puerto Ricans]] 

message: I noticed that Corfu has eight fair-use images for tourist locations. Is it just me or this is a bit excessive? BTW, is "promotional" tag valid in this case?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Corfustspyridonchurch.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SidariCanalDamour.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Achilleasthniskon.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AngelokastroKerkyras.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palaiaanaktora.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Corfuvenetianblazon.PNG
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kerkyrapalaiofrourio.jpg
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KerkyraDimarheio.jpg
bogdan 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those appear to be fair use, seeing as they do have a negative impact on the resale value of those images. The tourist companies which took those photos intended to use them to promote their business - as in, attracting tourists to use their services to visit Corfu. What we're doing is essentially using these images to depict (and perhaps in a sense, promote) Corfu in general, which may lead to some business going to these travel agencies' competitors. (Images from the government of Corfu might have a better claim on fair use, then.) IANAL, but it seems to me that these images aren't fair use. (Also, at least one is rather high-resolution, and all of them could be replaced with free images.) If we do have a fair use claim at all, it is rather weak. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. There's no reason for an article on a location anyone can get to to have any fair-use images at all. I say, remove them all. Angr (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have orphaned them all.  Jkelly 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I don't agree with Johnleemk's position that businesses will lose customers, quite the opposite they may be grateful for the added exposure, but my intention was not to promote any kind of business only to enrich the reader's experience by highlighting certain unique attributes of the history and landscape of the island. Please also refer to the discussion page of Corfu link: Talk:Corfu#Images. I will not repeat my points here for brevity but I want to ask a favour: If as Johnleemk says all images can be replaced by free ones could he possibly send me a couple of links with the free images?. He can use Bogdan's list of images above as the reference.  Finally, one could have invited me to this talk page as a courtesy before any decisions were made. Dr.K. 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't grab random images from commercial websites just because they happent to perfectly illustrate what we want to discuss, any more than we would copy the introduction of a tourist guide because it was a better summary than we could write.  There is a link to Commons above, and here is a link to CC-BY content at Flickr, and here is a link to CC-BY-SA content at Flickr.  Jkelly 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images  perfectly illustrate what we want to discuss then by definition they are not random because what we discuss in the Corfu article is not a random collection of postcards as in the links provided. If we treat articles that way we may as well program OrphanBot to write the articles for us. Dr.K. 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we do - that's historically exactly what we have done until we get a more free alternative image - something we obviously want to encourage as far as practical. Jamesday 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What we're doing is essentially using these images to depict (and perhaps in a sense, promote) Corfu in general, which would be a transformative use and would favor a finding of fair use. Remember a different use is positive for fair use - it's the same use that would be potentially problematic - a postcard image used on a postcard, perhaps, while a postcard used to illustrate an article isn't a postcard so is transformative and likely to be fair use. On the resale question, '"it is a given in every fair use case that plaintiff suffers a loss of a potential market if that potential is defined as the theoretical market for licensing the very use at bar"). Accordingly, we do not find a harm to BGA’s license market merely because DK did not pay a fee for BGA’s copyrighted images'. Graham v. Dorling Kindersley Limited (PDF) pages 19 and 20. That is, of course fair use can always cost some potential license revenue loss but that does not prevent a fair use result  - that happens when it's replacing the work and isn't fair use. If it's fair use, it's allowed to reduce the revenue because the copyright holder isnt' entitled to fair use revenue anyway - it's one of the things they don't get granted. These Corfu images are a really nice example of a case where fair use is helpful initially but where a tag or other note in the image caption to encourage others to replace them would be really good - so people ersearching Corfu before going there would know that we want them to take images to replace these. Can't encourage them that way without the original fair use image, so it's worth using them for a while, until the better images are provided. Jamesday 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion. Dr.K. 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overusage of fair-use images 

message: Hi I'm hoping someone can help me determining whether a whole set of photos can be used as fair use.  On the Royal Society website there is a database of past fellows, many of which include official photos. For example, Francis Thomas Bacon has a photo here. Is this image fair use on the relevant article? Are the others similarly fair use where no alternatives exist? There is some information on copyright here but I'm not sure if it holds. Thanks Andeggs 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unlikely that very many of those images would be fair use.  The Royal Society makes money off selling them for exactly the purpose we want to use them for. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Society photos

message: Why isn't the fair use reasoning applicable when one uses the Cornell logo on a Cornell template.  The Cornell template goes on the article, so what is the problemt. It's not like we are taking the logo and putting it on our user page, the template augments the article, and in the case of articles without the university logo, it shows the logo.--User:Cornell010 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference: Template:Cornell -SCEhardT 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It augments the article, sure, but the use there is still purely decorative (and not encyclopedic), which is not a good reason to invoke fair use. Personally I think it looks better without the image, but that's just an aesthetic opinion. --Fastfission 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly appropriate in the main Cornell University.  That's not decorative, it's informative.  See also .  Whether it deserves to be in every single Cornell-related article, well, maybe that's unnecessary.  Keep it to a few, or just the main one. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't we use logos on University templates 

message: :"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
This section should be clarified with regards to recent disputes involving decorating lists (e.g. List of Puerto Ricans, List of Lost episodes), and in general cases where images are not accompanied by any significant discussion. Suggestions? ed g2s • talk 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a really hard line to draw here. Just thinking out loud: I think that the images should accompany discussion, but that discussion need not necessarily be about the image itself. That is, the Lost screenshots are certainly fine in their own articles about the show and the episodes themselves, but in the list their use is not at all "encyclopedic". I would probably argue that in this sense, lists themselves are not "encyclopedic" (this is not a call for removing them, because they certain help with navigating the encyclopedia, but that does not make them "encyclopedic" any more than, say, the "What links here" page is). I don't know if that is any more of a way towards clarification, though. I wonder what others think about this... --Fastfission 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is clear, we require discussion and explicitly prohibit the use of fair use images for decoration....  The discussion should be about the image itself or at a minimum about the copyrighted work from which we are excerpting. Using an excerpt of lost in an article about lost is acceptable, using it in an article on an actor might be acceptable if we have text discussing their involvement in the show and the image us used to illustrate that discussion (the test should be if the discussion is less valuable or harder to understand without the image), and using a shot of lost to illustrate crib simply because a lost show included one incidentally would not be acceptable. As far as lists go, generally images get used in them as decoration or as navigational aids, not to facilitate a discussion... so, we shouldn't use fair use images on them. --Gmaxwell 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is quite clear but given the arguments on "Lost" and the arguments we would have if all the images were removed from other lists, it apparently isn't clear enough. ed g2s • talk 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a larger discussion about this.  Jkelly 02:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe add "Nothing that allows the reader to better understand or more easily identify anything discussed in the article violates this criterion"?  I believe that's the intent of the current criterion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too broad, the current term uses the word 'significantly'. We should generally avoid fair use where it is only slightly beneficial as well. Of course exactly what qualifies as significantly is open to discussion, which is intended.. the word 'nothing' closes discussion. --Gmaxwell 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Images must either be the subject of significant discussion, or provide essential information that can't be provided by text or a free image. Any other use is considered decorative." Or something like that...? ed g2s • talk 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. That would also take care of all the unnecessary band logos that are being uploaded (see Gorillaz, Angels and Airwaves, etc.) --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Fair use images may only be used if an article or a section of an article would be incomprehensible without them, and no free alternative is available"? User:Angr 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a bit to strong. That would mean almost all covers of albums, books, magazines, etc. would have to go. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be a very good thing indeed. User:Angr 12:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the band logos shouldn't be uploaded.  They contribute significantly to the reader's ability to identify the band and references to it, should he come across (for instance) someone wearing a T-shirt with the band's logo, or a graphical parody of the band's logo, or whatever.  That's the point of allowing logos altogether.  And while most of our readers won't have come across references to an average band, all of those who read the article on a given band must have come across some kind of reference to it previously, unless they used Special:Random. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think significant is necessarily less broad than what I suggested, because it doesn't apply to the same phrase.  I would say that anything that "allows the reader to better understand or more easily identify anything discussed in the article" does, ipso facto, "contribute significantly to the article".  I would still go with that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since that article is really about the images, not about the man, it would be incomprehensible without one of them. (I don't think having both is really necessary, though.) User:Angr 15:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call the German article on it "incomprehensible". You can give someone quite a good understanding of the subject without seeing the actual picture, but the picture is definitely very important, and worth inclusion. ed g2s • talk 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you'll notice the German article is more about the man than about the image, whereas our article is more about the image than about the man. User:Angr 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of FUC#8 

message: I don't know if this court ruling on Google caches has been discussed previously. It seems to apply to Google, rather than Google users and their subsequent use of the cache, however, though aspects could be relevant to Wiki. Tyrenius 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know. Most of it seems to be about automatic caching services, which Wikipedia (to my knowledge) has no analog to. --Fastfission 20:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The actual case is available here.  It's essentially irrelevant to us, because a) the rationale that was used only applies if the defendant was ignorant of the infringement, but b) we're largely immune from infringement claims that we're ignorant of under OCILLA anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google cache not a breach of copyright

message: I don't think that what we really want to say is that the Foundation has the right to remove copyrighted content at any time.  This may be more-or-less true, but it isn't a "fair use" issue, and makes it seem like the Foundation couldn't remove content with an expired copyright, which is a strange statement.  We should also be careful with the whole "copyright infringement" sentence.  Some people describe fair use/fair dealing as a defensible infringement, while others argue that fair use/fair dealing is a specific exemption from copyright, and either definition may make more sense depending on local legislation for the editor or reuser.  I suspect that there are involved editors that take a strong position that one of these definitions is wrong.  I'd like to encourage being very cautious about making it look like it is the Foundation that is taking a position on defining fair use/fair dealing or offering blanket advice.  Jkelly 21:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I want it to say is that the Foundation can remove copyrighted material used under a fair-use claim at the request of the copyright holder, but that doing so doesn't mean the fair-use claim was bogus or too weak. User:Angr 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me.  I'll note that I'm not thrilled about the other material being cut for being "threatening" or for being "common sense".  Jkelly 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither am I, that's why I restored it. Saying "it could create legal liabilities" isn't threatening editors. User:Angr 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is fine to have a little note on there that the WMF reserves the right to make the final judgment call on these things, just so people don't act so surprised when they occasionally do. I think it should be phrased in a way to imply 1. the finality of the arrangement (they have the last word), and 2. that it is the WMF making a decision about whether to keep the content, not necessarily connected with the specific issue of whether it might stand up as "fair use" in a court of law (the question of keeping fair use content on Wikipedia is more complicated than just that). --Fastfission 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, Show me where material has been removed where it clearly does not violate policy and I'll show you an example of why some of our policy needs revision. --Gmaxwell 06:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read User:Angr/Carlson for an essay on why the most recent image to be removed from Carlson Twins (:Image:TheCarlsonTwins.jpg) was well within Wikipedia's fair-use doctrine, although the fair-use claims of the previous three images on that page were more tenuous. User:Angr 07:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our longstanding policy is to always replace fair use images with free images when we can, even what it is sometimes at the expense of some visual or informative quality. Although there were some interm steps along the way in the process of getting there, thats exactly what the end result is here. --Gmaxwell 08:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fair-use image was not deleted because a free-use image had been found. Nor was it deleted because its fair-use claim wasn't good enough. It was deleted at the copyright holder's request. (Later, the copyright holder agreed to license a different image under GFDL and CC-BY-SA, but that has no bearing on the current discussion.) User:Angr 08:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's poor argument style to simply dismiss a related point because it doesn't support your position. :) Without interaction with the subject of the article we would never have obtained the free images. I don't at all agree that it is unrelated.  We replaced an unfree illustration of a living person with a free illustration, this seems like a win for free content, and completely normal from the perspective of Wikipedia policy. --Gmaxwell 08:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's extremely poor argument style to bring in an unrelated point because it does support your position. At the time the image was deleted, there was no free alternative. We didn't replace an unfree illustration with a free one. We deleted an unfree illustration with no expectation of there ever being a free one; the possibility of getting a free image was not the reason for the deletion, and it's disingenuous to pretend it was. User:Angr 08:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfair of you to speak for others. You didn't get us the free image, so please don't pretend to know everything that went into it. The fact that we *were* able to get a free image strongly supports the prior removal, since our use of fair use is intended to favor situations where no alternative is possible. --Gmaxwell 08:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, let the deleter speak for himself. His deletion summary was "deleted fair use image, see Talk:Carlson Twins#Fair use images (again) and otrs #2006060410007768". His comment on the talk page was, "As requested in an email to the Wikimedia Foundation, I've deleted the fair use image that was in this article. Though Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring content or images, serious concerns about copyright have been raised. Please do not replace this without clearance from the foundation's legal team." No mention of an upcoming free image. Hardly surprising since the unfree image was deleted on June 5 and Brad Patrick didn't announce the existence of the new, free image until June 22. I don't understand why you're trying so hard to deny that this image was deleted for one reason and one reason only: the copyright holder asked us to. There's nothing wrong with deleting an image because the copyright holder asked us to! But there is something wrong with doing so and then claiming there was a different reason for deletion. Neither User:Bookofjude nor Brad Patrick ever indicated that the deletion was due to anything other than copyright-holder request; why do you? User:Angr 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be less Angry Angr and take some time to read. What part of "serious concerns about copyright have been raised" indicated to you that it was believed our legal position on that image was solid? In the past we have told copyright holders to buzz off when our legal position looked solid, there is no evidence that anything has changed. You've been very aggressive with this whole subject and with your recent edits to the policy pages, it's becoming disruptive. Can you please tone it down some? --Gmaxwell 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither angry nor aggressive about this. I think it's a good thing that unfree images are deleted rather than letting the Foundation get sued over them. No image is worth a lawsuit. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you are making up reasons ex post facto for this image to be have been deleted when the real reason it was deleted (the copyright holder saying "Delete it or I'll sue") is perfectly valid. Nor can I see why anyone would object to letting uploaders know that it is possible for their material to be deleted under these conditions. I would, however, be interested in being pointed to some specific instances of copyright holders being told "to buzz off when our legal position looked solid". User:Angr 20:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to letting uploaders know that it's possible for someone elses copyrighted works (their material? shame on you :) ) to be deleted when Wikipedia doesn't feel comfortable with the copyright status of the work. The ability to remove questionable images is not limited to the Foundation, although the Foundation does get the final say. Thus I believe that any commentary we make should not create the confusion that the ability to do so is limited  to the Foundation, and I said as much in my initial comment above. I think we should just notify uploaders that uploaded material may be deleted at any time, for any reason we (as in the community and the foundation) feel like, because that is the truth. I find your claim that you are not being agressive hard to swallow considering that you've been riding the edge of 3RR on Wikipedia:Fair_use for a long time span, and then when it was pointed out that you were being disruptive you brought your argument here. --Gmaxwell 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Their material" was of course shorthand for "the material they uploaded". If the Foundation isn't the only entity that can remove images that don't actually meet one of the speedy criteria or that haven't been listed at IFD, then I don't mind rewording the warning to an agentless passive like "Copyrighted material that is considered legally problematic can be removed at any time", although I would recommend avoiding your wording of "for any reason we feel like". And if you look through the above discussion you'll see that I have been discussing the issue on the talk page since two days before I made the edit in question. Also, I repeat my request to be pointed to some specific instances of copyright holders being told "to buzz off when our legal position looked solid". User:Angr 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The salient point is not that the Foundation can overrule policy as such, but that a) it can overrule consensus interpretation of policy (Brad can just delete the image, where we would have had to bicker about it and take it to PUI or IFD), and b) its reasoning may be affected by pragmatic concerns at times. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to warning para 

message: The following guideline should be added, based on current policy (for starters, no fair use outside main namespace):
:"Any category which contains mainly unfree media should use the __NOGALLERY__ keyword."
:ed g2s • talk 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this also apply to all the sub-categories of :Category:Unfree images? Because I actually find the galleries there quite useful to spot things like CSD I7 images (images with FU tags whose content is unrelated to that described in the tag). --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now applied on all the Fair use* categories. I think a problem is that there are cats which contain a mixture of fair use tagged and non-fair use tagged. I think the best step would be to only place it on cats which contain mostly fair use images, or are intended to contain fair use images and permit the limited violation in other cases until a better technical solution is developed. Thoughts? --Gmaxwell 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nogallery 

message: You might believe that all content should be free. Thats great. Or perhaps you might believe that Wikipedia shouldn't be dedicated to Free Content, and I must strongly disagree but you're still welcome to think it. What is *NOT* welcome is the abuse of the edit button on this policy page as a political football.  It is not acceptable to edit war in text which neutralizes this policy    . As far as I'm concerned the addition of text which claims that any image is fair use on Wikipedia is functionally equivalent to blanking this page, which quite carefully explains what we will and will not accept. Thus, further edit waring to this end should be regarded as equivalent to page blanking vandalism. --Gmaxwell 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No content dispute is vandalism, not even if the content in question is the content of a guideline page.  But edit-warring over a paragraph that fundamentally changes the content of a guideline page is Very Bad: if a change is disputed, the version that's stayed there for ages should remain until the dispute is sorted out.  (This, however, is factually correct even if a bit unclear, and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three; there's not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will bother suing individuals over small-scale infringement, the WMF can't be sued for just hosting the content, and by your own acknowledgement the fair-use policy isn't rigidly tied to the possibility of lawsuits anyway.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy page is not your political soap box. 

message: I suggest saying:
:Note that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be critical commentary and analysis of the topic. Unless an article is extremely thin it qualifies as critical commentary. Note that use in Wikipedia articles is a "transformative use" in every case (unless the image comes from a competing online encyclopedia.)   
This is an encyclopedia, and unless the source is another encyclopedia, we are engaging in a transformative exercise. That is we are doing something different with the material, which argues for fair use.  From my observation (of history articles) the vast majority are critical commentary rather than mere duplication of information, and thus most articles should qualify as "critical commentary." Rjensen 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry sir, you're off in space.  For example, it would clearly not be critical commentary to use the cover of an album which featured a rose as an illustration on the article on roses, of course countless other examples can be made.  We permit fair use where it's used as part of critical commentary, but no blanket statement can be made. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, a reference work, it's also a news outlet, and based on the proceedings of some recent newsfolk conferences, news people very much consider us a part of their overall competition. Furthermore, a good Wikipedia article is entertaining, and in some cases can be easily argued to replace the work we copy from, at least when coupled with excessive 'fair use'.  There are simply too many places where Wikipedia is in direct or indirect competition with providers of copyrighted content that any such blanket could work as well. Finally, your edits imply to me at least that the legal aspect of copyright is the only material limitation on our use of unlicensed copyrighted works. It's not. Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia. --Gmaxwell 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense: we are an encyclopedia. We do not compete with CBS news; very few people drop their subscription to the NY Times to get their news from us.  As for entertainment we do not compete in the entertainment market either--TV, movies, records, rock concerts???? Economists have defined "competition" very carefully and the idea that a movie theatre will be injured because people stay home to read Wiki will not carry much weight once you read some economics. Rjensen 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, what are you arguing? I could get into some stupid argument where we cite caselaw, and you'd lose it... But thats not relevant: Because the purpose of Wikipedia is to consist of free content, and because the foundation that operates wikipedia is chartered to produce free content we don't accept willy nilly use of fair use in any case, even where it would be legal. This isn't going to change, certainly not by you being anti-social in your editing and argument practices here. We already permit fair use where it is necessary to illustrate commentary on an article where our encyclopedic mission could not be completed without it. So what do you hope to accomplish? --Gmaxwell 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really buy that argument.  Anyone who is in a non-US jurisdiction (unless they have closely analogous laws) or who wishes to repurpose our images will have to discard all our legally-used fair-use images regardless of whether they were necessary for the article; anyone who is in a US or similar jurisdiction and wants to just copy our articles with images will be able to keep our legally-used fair-use images regardless of whether they were necessary for the article.  Therefore, how much we need to use the image is not relevant to the encyclopedia's reusability as a whole, except insofar as it affects the legality of our use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, If someone downstream wants to repurpose it doesn't matter if the laws are similar, claims of fair use quite will would not apply, and would have to be reconsidered on a case by case basis for their use. Since our purpose is to create content that people downstream can repurpose without such complexity we demand free content... However because there are some articles which can simply not be illustrated by free content (until some copyrights lapse, if ever) we permit fair use in those cases.  In theory if enWikipedia did not permit fair use the result would look identical to our current Wikipedia with the fair use images simply removed. Today that isn't entirely the case because there are many instances of fair use being abused where free images might otherwise be if we permitted no fair use at all, but it time that will be fixed. --Gmaxwell 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the encyclopedia would be freer if we had no fair-use images.  But once we have some, adding more doesn't make the encyclopedia more unfree.  Either way: if it's repurposed or a different country, FU images have to be discarded, otherwise they can be kept, no matter how many. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're casting transformation too loosely.  If we use an image for identification of X, and it was created for identification of X, our use is nontransformative.  If we use an image for commentary on X, and it was created for commentary on X, our use is nontransformative.  If we use an image for general illustration of X, and it was created for general illustration of X, our use is nontransformative.  An image taken from a guidebook to illustrate a city cannot be used by us to illustrate the city; a screenshot taken to illustrate a game cannot be used by us to illustrate the game.More important is the fact that you're focusing too much on the first factor.  It's the most important, yes, but the other three factors can outweigh it.  If the work doesn't substantially advance our goal of informing our readers (such as many similar illustrations of a single copyrighted character), then it can't be fair use.  If our copy of a work substantially supersedes the market for a work (say because there's a market for low-quality copies of the work, like for cell phone backgrounds in Perfect 10 v. Google), that could potentially outweigh the transformation factor if combined with the second, third, or partially the first. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Copyrisht is about the full content of a piece. Our full content is always encyclopedia.  If the original usage is not an encyclopedia then we have transformed it. Rjensen 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just not true, by the case law.  Transformation is "add[ing] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message" (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose).  If we use a picture of a rose from a news report on roses, or in a naturists' guide to roses, to illustrate Rose, we do not give the borrowed work a different character, or alter it with new expression, meaning, or message.  In both uses the character is the same: we seek to show the reader what a rose looks like.  It has no further meaning, no message beyond that.  Seeking to show the reader what a rose looks like is not in any way different whether an encyclopedia does it or a news report does it.You still don't address the other three factors.  Like commerciality, transformation "is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character" (ibid.). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a false statement: "If the work doesn't substantially advance our goal of informing our readers (such as many similar illustrations of a single copyrighted character), then it can't be fair use." Indeed an illustration may be poorly chosen --it may even spoil the article, for example by showing the wrong building--but there has never been an argument to the effect that poor shoice is one of the 4 legal factors.  Rjensen 07:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, A question... are you an attorney? --Gmaxwell 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you?  I'm not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing that doesn't advance the sort of thing in the preamble to 17 USC § 107—"such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"—can be fair use.  In particular, if an image does not inform the reader but only makes the article prettier, that clearly does not serve the purposes of the statute. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is critical commentary? what is transformative use? Wiki qualifies 

message: :Image:10040550.jpg, a promotional photo from All in the Family is used, in addition to All in the Family, in the article 1970s. There is some discussion and commentary with regards to the show's iconic reflection of this decade. However, when conferring with the section Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images I would conjecture a stark contrast with the spirit of the descriptive passage on photographs of art works (there is no mention for screenshots that could help settle the inquiry): "Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Had this passage read "...illustrative of a particular technique, school or period", howeverm I would have surmised a stark parallell instead. 
Am I correct in perceiving here where the line is drawn, i.e. had the promo image from the TV series instead been a work of art of a style that was prominent in that period, it would not pass the Fair Use test? Otherwise, should the cited text be appended as I indicate above? __meco 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a work can be dated to a period by visual inspection, that implies that there was some technique/school/style that was prevalent in the period, and that the image could be used as illustration of that technique/school/style.  However, typically something used as fair use as illustration of a technique/school/style should only be used in an article discussing the technique/school/style; are you going to add a discussion about the period's style to the show's article? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it difficult putting this issue into words, and I realize I haven't succeeded in making my point. All the more since noone else has addressed my question either. It's about illustrating social trends of a time period – in this case the 1970s – using a Fair Use image from a television show that was iconic to the zeitgeist of that decade. I will try and elaborate more if need be. __meco 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining borderline case 

message: Due to the edit wars of the past few days, I've protected this page for a short while to let people calm down. Any uninvolved sysop who thinks this should be unprotected should go ahead and do so, and I won't revert or consider it a wheel war. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there hadn't been any real edit wars for close to about two days, I'm not sure this was wholly necessary.  (Postdlf and Abu badali seemed to have worked out their dispute already, and it was an extremely minor point anyway.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that assumption, I've unprotected the page.  Like Stifle above, if circumstances change, I won't consider anyone reprotecting the page to be wheel warring.  JYolkowski // talk 23:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Under "text" this ironclad rule for fair use appears: . Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an ellipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added).  This did not come from fair use copyright law--it is a mystery what the editor who inserted it had in mind. It should be deleted.  Fact is Wiki -- like every other reference book, is to a large extent comprised of paraphrased materials taken from other sources.  Rjensen 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This rule is not talking about paraphrased text, which is perfectly acceptable. It is talking about a section of text which is quoted. It is saying that direct quotation should not be altered, but should be quoted as it appears in the original source, except where clearly marked in the ways given. Tyrenius 03:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Text rule should read: Text may be paraphrased or rewritten. However if text is marked as a quotation, the quotation should be exact with any alterations clearly marked as an ellipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added).  Rjensen 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That would clear out the deficiency of the current wording. __meco 07:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect rule on verbatim text