Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 12, 2007

message: I think a photo of the Hanna-Barbera Building at 3400 Cahuenga Boulevard in LA (see   ) would be a fine free image.  There's nothing on Flickr, so I've put in requests at WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California.--Pharos 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does showing the exterior of a building illustrate anything at all about the TV show Scooby-Doo?  "Inside these walls, artists and writers made a show that, for policy reasons, we can't show you a still frame from..." ??  Yikes!! Jenolen  speak it! 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the historic home of Hanna-Barbera, it has a big sign that says "Hanna-Barbera" out front, and moreover it's a building of architectural significance (as explained on those pages).  It's at least as representative of the subject as the lame fair use logos that are often attached to TFAs, and it would be a free (and interesting) image.--Pharos 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be missing something; I thought the subject of the article was Scooby-Doo, the TV cartoon show featuring four kids and a dog solving mysteries.  How a photo of an architecturally significant office building illustrates that is really unclear to me.  It's a stretch, to say the least...  Jenolen  speak it! 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be certainly be at least as relevant as a Hanna-Barbera logo anyway, and more interesting I think.--Pharos 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only type of free image for this subject is likely to be like this one from commons: how about a cropped version to just scooby ?Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's just another incorrectly uploaded to commons image.  It doesn't really matter what image, if it's about something from the scooby do show, it's not free.  That blimp is of scooby, so it's a derivative work.  Taking a picture of it (a three dimensional object) is another derivative work.  It just adds more people to the sequence of copyright holders, not less. - Peregrine Fisher 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The balloon, for copyright purposes, would be considered a sculpture, and a temporary sculpture at that.  US law in particular does not allow for free photography of public statues under Freedom of panorama, and no country allows free photography of sculpture that is only temporarily on display.--Pharos 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Which three images? - Peregrine Fisher 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While there's certainly no question that that's fair use, it also adds no value to the article since it has virtually nothing to do with the show.  Why not just have the image be a square of brown vaguely similar to the color of scooby?  If this is going to have a thumbnail image on the main page, it needs to be something that actually illustrates the show, which could only be a fair use image.  If a fair use image is not allowed, there are no free images that are a useful substitute (none of those images are replacable with free), the only other option is no image.  Has WP put a FA article on the main page with no image before?  --Minderbinder 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the image has been removed again.  Is this the end of fair use images on the main page?  Is Jimbo the one in control of this? - Peregrine Fisher 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What? We've had many fair use images on the front page. --- RockMFR 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there have been many fair use images on the main page, but it seems like Jimbo wants to actually enforce the rule now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think that Replace this image1.svg should be on the main page and definetly not in this case because the chances of getting a free image are near zero (it is also designed for pictures of people. Setups for pictures of other subjects are bring worked on).Geni 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick, quick!  We need to get a free image.  What about this one?  --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is not helpful, as the creative content of the photography has all rights reserved, and the subject of the photograph is itself a third party's creative work.  Jkelly 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cyde. While I am completely against banning all fair use from the Main Page, and for good reason, if we're going to do so, there's no need to use half-assed or potentially misleading images just for the sake of using one. Anything recognizable and relevant is probably some kind of a derivative work, anyway, so let's just leave the image out today. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. The image there now just looks silly. Personally, I support just allowing fair use images, but failing that, we should still try to find a logical image or none at all. Something is not always better than nothing.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't the character still copyrighted, though? — Rebelguys2 talk 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, "discussion in #wikimedia" is a pretty lame source for legal information.  As I explained above, a photograph of a balloon like that would be even substantially less amenable than a statue to freedom of panorama, because the balloon is only displayed on a temporary basis.--Pharos 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The exception still stands, so it would be nice if that was honoured. I'd like to know how the balloon skirts the copyrighted character issue too. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The image has been nominated for deletion on Commons. I'm going to remove it from the TFA template. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm extremely wary of a front-page image that doesn't somehow illustrate the subject itself. This is sort of a tangential topic, akin to a photo of a voice actor or the Hanna-Barbera building. We don't have a lot of room to caption, anyway, so the image is at best, confusing or irrelevant, and at worst, potentially misleading. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rebelguys2 that the image really should illustrate the topic in question.  I think that if we are to ban any fair use images from the front page, then we have to accept the fact that certain topics, like this one and Final Fantasy VII, will never have a satisfactory free image available for use.  I don't agree with Piotrus though that having no free images should preclude featuring, though: certain topics will then never be featured for the above reason, regardless of how well-written is the prose.  Personally, I think fair use does apply to the front page and that it's unfortunate that we have a policy against it.  Kelvinc 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo to use?

message: Could someone direct me to the discussion about using/not using free content on the main page?  I ad been following it and then forgot where it was :( :( :(  I only ask because I'm wondering if anyone's considered the fact that lots of people have the main page and/or the featured section transcluded on their userpages or subpages.  Milto LOL pia 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its back on now, so whatever.  --Iamunknown 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Make it   --Iamunknown 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Screw it. The image I tried to replace it with is determined as not a free image on the commons, and is currently up for deletion. Back to the crap image, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that Jimbo has only given an occasional, not very thorough, comment.  At WP:FUE, his comment offered no advice on what to do with articles for which there aren't (and likely can't be) any free images, and his edit to today's TFA doesn't exactly reassure my faith in his knowledge of copyright law.  ShadowHalo 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me plz 

message: I thought decisions were made by the foundation and the policies that reflect their decisions.  This seems like an important decision that should get a watchlist notification, similar to WP:ATT. - Peregrine Fisher 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, while I respect Jimbo's position, it's however out of process. Matthew 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What has been decided by the foundation?  No FU images on the main page, or the vague "free is better" mantra?  --Minderbinder 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Jimbo decide? 

message: Shouldn't there be a discussion prior to making this change?  The use of one more Fair use image on the main page seems reasonable considering the lack of discussion or a foundation declaration.  Am I wrong?  Why? - Peregrine Fisher 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there certainly hasn't been a lack of discussion about the issue of unfree media on the main page in general, it would definitely be a good idea for people to discuss this case in particular and get feedback before adding yet another image; there's been a lot of churn here that could have been avoided by taking the time to discuss options.  Jkelly 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So we're waffling between no image, and silly images, after no discussion 

message: I added a fair use rationale for this box to the main image. Would that be ok? Alientraveller 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale 

message: Does WP policy say somewhere not to use fair use images on the main page?  Or is this just coming from the decree of Jimbo?  If policy doesn't say that, but it's not going to be allowed, then that policy should probably be added so we at least have something to refer to.  --Minderbinder 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but it does say no FU images on templates, which this page technically isn't, but it's used as one.  Can we use this image?  It's CC-BY-2.0  tiZom(2¢) 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we can't, this is the Pokémon on the aeroplane again. Haukur 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Nifboy 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no mention about fair use images on the main page, nor anything else that would prohibit it.  The only thing that comes close is saying that FU images can only be used in article space, but that would be based on the assumption that the main page isn't in article space.  I don't know that I buy that, particularly since the main page includes content from a number of articles.  --Minderbinder 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the part about fair use images on templates includes "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."  There is currently discussion Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions on whether or not this should be removed.  ShadowHalo 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there was discussion, but it seems to be over.  And despite the discussion, that exception was not removed from that page.  It seems like WP policy still says that it's OK to use fair use images on the main page.  --Minderbinder 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main page /is/ in the main space, it is indeed allowed as per the FUC to use fair use on Main Page. Matthew 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So is it actually policy? 

message: Moot point for Scooby Doo, since the article will be off the main page in a couple hours.  But an option (would be a gamble, but can't hurt to ask) is to seek permission for something like the balloon image to be licensed here under GFDL or other compatable license.  I've been having issues on commons with my own pictures of NHL trophies that I took, and tried asking the NHL for permission.  In my case, unfortunately they would not agree to GFDL, but indicated it would be "okay to use the images on Wikipedia".  Of course that's not good enough.  In my case, I suggested the image resolution/size could be reduced, but still not okay with the NHL.  It's frustrating that I can't use my own images.  I'm not knowledgable enough about derivative works, freedom of panorama, trademarks, and other copyright issues to know if any exceptions might apply, so wish to be safe and have my images deleted.  But, maybe Hanna Barbera would say yes to something.  We don't know if we don't ask.  --Aude (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's zero chance of them releasing permission.  The only permission wikipedia accepts is public domian, no restrictions.  If they released an image under that, it could be used for anything, including merchandising and advertising or any other commercial use without having to pay them royalties or get permission.  It would never happen, but feel free to try and ask. --Minderbinder 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case there is any danger of someone being confused by this, this is not at all true.  One can read about this at Wikipedia:Copyrights, and information specific to images is at :commons:Commons:Licensing Jkelly 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Wikipedia does accept GFDL and CC-by-sa as well.  So it's not just PD.  --Cyde Weys 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation.  I'll make sure to read all those links, thanks.  --Minderbinder 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm sure there are some others that Wikipedia accepts too, those are just the biggies.  I'm sure there are all sorts of open source licenses out there that are compatible.  The OSS community is nothing if not fragmented.  --Cyde Weys 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission?