This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I'd like to propose a clarification of fair use criteria number 3, namely "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Screenshots of copyrighted computer software need to be kept at full resolution or else they cannot be seen clearly. If they cannot be seen clearly, then they don't really illustrate the software in question. I can tell you from personal experience that reducing the resolution of screenshots greatly decreases their usefulness.
For this reason, I would like fair use criteria number 3 to be clarified to state that software screenshots do not need to be of low resolution. Instead, articles about software should just be made to use a limited number of screenshots. — Remember the dot ( t) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, rather than providing a bunch of low-quality screenshots that don't do much good, articles should just use a limited number of full resolution screenshots that effectively illustrate the software. — Remember the dot ( t) 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days and no one has voiced any objections, I propose that the following statement be added beneath fair use criteria number 3:
— Remember the dot ( t) 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have made slight modifications to the wording 2 times: [1] [2]
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is definitely protected. — Remember the dot ( t) 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to avoid good faith editors scaling down screenshots to 300px wide in the quest to use as little unfree material as possible. This is why I'd like to see an explicit note in the fair use criteria that explains that it is OK to use full resolution screenshots where necessary. — Remember the dot ( t) 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that detractors for the upcoming stricter policy towards fair use images are ignoring how much this policy will empower Wikipedia. It's been my experience that those Flickr users who I have asked to donate their photos into the Creative Commons have been honored to have them displayed in articles, and were thrilled that their permission was asked first. Everyone walks away better for the experience. More awareness needs to be raised about free use images, because the entire planet should know that we value and need their photos. This conversation and the efforts of many Wikipedians are located too deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. This cause should be placed front and center.- BillDeanCarter 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sure this policy will be somewhere, but I cannot find it.
The Fair use licence says for critical commentary on
* the work in question, * the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or * the school to which the artist belongs
How about if the article is the artists biography. Is showing a sample of his works constitute Fair use? It doesn't really fit the above criteria. MortimerCat 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An idea recently mentioned on the foundation mailing list. Instead of no image, use Image:No free image man (en).svg or Image:No free image woman (en).svg in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer if these images were not used. If there is no free image available, there's no need to proclaim that within the article. Also, as Mecu stated above, this would encourage inexperienced users to upload "free" images they found somewhere. — Remember the dot ( t) 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Need to be uploaded localy so messages can be added. Geni 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok a more complex version can now be found on David Mamet. The backend behind it is a hack from hell and only partialy complete. however it is the best I can do untill the dev rewrite the upload system. Geni 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to use this image a lot, we should set it as a standard in some infoboxes. Just like Image:Nocover.png which appears automatically in an album infobox when there is no album cover. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting some pushback on this no-image-available convention. A few people are saying that the placeholder is ugly and unnecessary. I can see a lot of edit wars breaking out over the issue, esp. with no decree over whether the placeholders should be used and when. Is there some official stance? — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A page detailing the system can be found at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation. Geni 12:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think these images are a good idea, but there isn't a broad enough consensus to revert editors who remove them. If that's what's happening, and it's almost inevitable that that will be what happens, then we should have a big fat RfC on it. Or maybe I missed it. - Peregrine Fisher 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles -- GunnarRene 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this talk page be a little more about Fair Use and a little less about you two arguing? I'm sure if you took it to your user talk pages, nobody here would mind. -- Milo H Minderbinder 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For this reason we do not accept images which are licensed exclusively for Wikipedia, or licensed exclusively for non-commercial usage (which is not "free enough") (unless of course they also qualify under fair use).
The part: (unless of course they also qualify under fair use) should be deleted. As this creates double standards and contradicts the above statement.-- Vaya 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article, Avatar: The Last Airbender, has a ton of fair use images. So is this OK or not? Aren't featured articles supposed to serve as a reference when writing other articles? It seems ridiculous that that Aaron Sorkin should have zero (and not show a single film or TV show he created) while one on the front page has eleven. -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the recent discussion above about a possibly overly long plot summary, I cross-referenced "plot summary" and "derivative work" on Google. It only turned up about 468 results, so I am still not convinced, but I did find this:
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/student-papers/fall03-papers/Whaley.html#_Toc58847526
According to the author, plot summaries should contain enough analysis to be "transformative".
Anyways, I now leave the discussion to those more familiar with fair use issues.
— Armedblowfish ( talk| mail) 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The length of plot summaries in articles is limited by WP:NOT#IINFO. This alone should be enough to push the length below the threshold of concern—if that policy was actually applied, of course. — xyzzy n 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a free use image for David Mamet yet. I currently have the "no free use image available" image in the David Mamet article. I'm wondering, would it be possible to commission an artist to create a caricature/sketch of David Mamet, and donate it into the public domain? Is that a workable solution?- BillDeanCarter 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I removed two images from Howard Wyeth to be conservative ( one, two). They are likely to be the only images available of the subject's most notable tour. Both were copied from YouTube which I understand had partnered with Sony BMG last October. But now I suspect that Sony doesn't have time to police their artists even one so obvious as Dylan. The creators of the videos (WTTW-TV Chicago, aired on PBS; and TVTV, aired on NBC) are credited clearly on the image pages. Both are lousy reproductions, very low resolution and I have scaled them down or cropped them farther, so they have little value. #2 pictures no one but the subject. Do you think it safe to reinstate the images? Thanks for your thoughts. - Susanlesch 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The user Motion Picture Guy has been adding a number of images from IMDb and posting them to articles under a flag of fair use. I'm not really all that knowledgable about fair use and every time that I think I've got it pegged, someone says I'm wrong. So, could someone look at this person's contributions and see if the images are actually allowable under fair use? For examples, see Fairuza Balk and Adrienne Barbeau. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we use this opportunity to clear something up once and for all? You can (try to) take a free/libre picture of an ACTOR, but you cannot take one of a CHARACTER. If these IMBD photos were of characters, and met our fair use criterion, then why should they be deleted? Comments? Jenolen speak it! 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This makes me wonder. If we used a random free image, say of a carrot, to illustrate an actor, would we be breaking any copyright laws by misrepresenting it? Now, an image of an actor out of character is a lot closer than an image of a carrot, but it seems to me to be only a matter of degree. - Peregrine Fisher 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ed - Sadly, you are wrong. All pictures of William Shatner are NOT pictures of Captain Kirk. All pictures of Captain Kirk ARE pictures of William Shatner." - that statement implies that I said pictures of William Shatner are pictures of Captain Kirk. If you could actually reference what I've said when you so sadly thought I was wrong that might make more sense. What I actually said was that it some cases we can use a picture of the actor, identify it as a picture of the actor ("Y is played by X in the show") and still "adequately give the same information" (FUC#1) because a picture of the character does not contain significantly more information that is relevant to what is being discussed. "Well, this isn't really the thing, but, it's kind of what the thing looks like" - except it is, it's exactly the same person - when an actor is in character it's still the same person, they don't morph into that character - acting is just make-believe you know. Unless the makeup and costume differ in a way which is significant to the article (which in many cases it can do) the two photos convey the same information. ed g2s • talk 12:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not arguing the Kirk/Shatner case specifically. Each case needs to be considered individually. "you think actors and characters are interchangeable; however, they clearly are not". I do see how this is so clear - in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. A photo of a character is just a photo of an actor in some specific clothes and makeup. If those aren't significant to the article, then a photo of the actor is adequate. Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument, nor is going to change our policy. ed g2s • talk 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
..in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. I am sorry that you lack the professional skills or credentials to analyze the numerous differences between a studio promotional photo of an actor in character, and a blurry Flikr photo (where, often, the other person in the picture has been cropped out)... But your lack of ability to note differences in make-up, lighting, composition, presentation, etc. is no reason for Wikipedia to reject a picture of Captain Kirk in an article about Captain Kirk, assuming such a photo abides by both our draconian fair use guidelines, as well as U.S. fair use law. Similarly, there's no reason not to use a picture of Captain Jack Sparrow, instead of Johnny Depp, in an article about Sparrow. I should be free to use a picture of Sky Captain, in the Sky Captain article, as opposed to Jude Law. But what you appear not to get is that I have no interest in using a picture of Sean Connery if I'm writing an article about Captain Marko Ramius, his Hunt for Red October character. There are a thousand little things that make a character different than an actor, from hairstyle choices to how he/she presents himself... and I want to be able to see those things. That's why we have pictures. And why we should always have pictures of the ACTUAL things that are the subject of our articles, not things that look like them.
Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument... While this is partially true - I do believe in minimum quality standards - I understand the significant limitations Wikipedia is working under when trying to write and illustrate a libre encyclopedia in a copyright-crazy world. However, in this case, my preference has nothing to do with libre or copyright; I simply prefer the images of our article subjects to actually BE the subject of the article, not the most free semi-equivalent. Jenolen speak it! 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"cannot ... have a free picture" - a free picture of what? We use Fair Use for critical commentary, if we are commenting on the actor who portrayed the character - then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the facial appearance/hair colour, then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the stuff which we can't get a free picture for then we can use unfree pictures. ed g2s • talk 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't have a broad consensus on subjects that haven't been discussed, which most of these haven't... And which of my two main points do you think there is no broad consensus on? The idea that a photo of the subject of an encyclopedia article is significant? (Does that really need discussion?) Or that no free/libre photos exist of fictional characters? Is there anyone here who disagrees with that?
You'll forgive me if your plea for careful individual consideration of each images use rings hollow, coming as it does in the middle of a campaign which has seen repeated, massive "accidental" deletions of tagged RFU images, deletions of images which have had no complaints against them, etc. People here are not interested in carefully considering individual "cases" for images, as has been proven time and again. This is an example of creating problems where none exist. There have been NO problems using studio released character photos to illustrate Wikipedia articles on those characters, and I welcome anyone who knows of any issues relating to this area to pipe up!
As for your whole "I can't always tell what the differences are between actors and characters, so let's delete character photos" argument, I don't think your standards -- which are, by definition, subjective -- should apply. An article about McIntosh Apples is illustrated by a picture of a McIntosh Apple. An article about a hydrogen atom is illustrated by an image of a hydrogen atom. An article about Captain Kirk should be illustrated by a photo of Captain Kirk, as long as it follows WP:FU ... which is, contrary to your bolded point above, a guideline. End of story. Jenolen speak it! 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1) "Liberal nonsense"? What on earth gives you that idea? 2) But Wikipedia is not a "free content" encyclopedia. That's what it aims to be, but for now, it's as free as can be. As we've seen, time and time again, Wikipedia has made the choice to allow fair use of copyrighted material. EN has not gone "German," with no fair use allowed, at least not yet, because when it does, it's signing its own death warrant. I think this insane campaign against things like the international wheelchair symbol ("not free enough," please!) and state government photos is hastening Wikipedia's slide from useable resource to sad joke. I live and work in the real world, not the hypothetical Wiki-GFDL-utopia that many seem to think is just 'round the corner, Ma! Well, great! And I'm down with "as free/libre as possible." But I'm not okay with people who trample over that to "Free, or nothing." Or "Poor Quality Free, over Professional Quality Negligible Unfree" (See Jennifer Granholm). Maybe you think we should use blurry Flikr photos instead of a state issued portrait of the Governor of Michigan ... I do not. I don't see how blurry Flikr photos help Wikipedia's primary mission - to create an encyclopedia of the highest quality. (You can't create a "free" of the highest quality... people don't come to the website looking for "free", they come looking for information.) And, I guess, that's why I rail against what I see as the completely unneeded ridiculousness that has characterized parts of this debate. But don't worry; I give it another month or so before I wash my hands and feet of the whole thing... See, I actually am a working media professional, and what started as a fun hobby has become increasingly less so, thanks to a variety of factors, but primarily the general "high-school debate" feel and repetititve amateur Wikilawyering which characterizes so many of these discussions. Jenolen speak it! 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah the good old "are photos of characters replaceable?" debate. The bane of admins closing replaceable fair use images. Personally I tend towards sometimes. You all appear to missing the other half of the debate though. What counts as a character. A recent case would be are playboy centerfolds a character? Geni 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A related question, if I may? It was really the repeated references to Captain Kirk that reminded me of this, and I thought I could engage your ... fervent minds on it. Image:Kirk001.jpg (wholly independent the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale; a previous point of contestation) is a picture of Captain Kirk in his 23rd century-era Starfleet uniform. This image is used to depict the style of uniform Kirk is wearing, not Kirk himself or anything specifically significant in this image. Attending a Star Trek convention or the sets of Star Trek: New Voyages would provide me with enumerable opportunities to take pictures of people wearing identical (or equivalent) costumes. Therefore, can't this image be (easily?) replaced by a free-use one that "would adequately give the same information."? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add your comments here. -- Peta 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There's some debate at John Edward about whether a cover scan (picturing the author) is an acceptable fair use image on the article about the author. Input from knowledgable folks here would be appreciated. -- Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the use of fair use images is not allowed outside the article namespace, but in relating to the main page, it seems to occur often. Worse, all these images are kept in a "historical archive" sense, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2007 for an example (Feb 1 to start). BJBot is currently seeking approval for going through fair use images and removing them from non article space. Are these "archive" items for the main page acceptable to keep? I would think turning the image to a link would be acceptable, there's no need to keep the image displayed there. But, the bot owner wanted to see some support for this (or any option related to this) before tackling this, since it will likely already be a highly sensitive project anyways. Any input will be appreciated. -- MECU≈ talk 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these images should be removed. We shouldn't use them on the main page either - but people would get all upset if some days the "featured article" didn't have a nice little thumbnail next to it. ed g2s • talk 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reason to remove FU images from FA templates in non-article space, or from the main page, for that matter. The policy against FU images in non-article space—primarily user space—obviates the need to argue with innumerable people over whether the image is being used legally in their own personal space and to be overprotective against the legal risk of use outside of articles. As part of the FA template, however, whether on the main page or elsewhere, individual user discretion over whether and how it is used is removed, and it only appears in the context of the article summary, where it serves the same informative function as in article space. Postdlf 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
From an ongoing dispute over the use of an image in the article 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings I wanted to bring up a discrepancy between fair use policy and guideline counterexamples. In articles about something akin to a carbombing, there are usually a number of photographs taken by the press during/immediately after the event has occured. Because these events often take place in rather exotic places and are cleaned up quickly, there is no chance of ever creating a new image of the event.
Many of the press images of the event would fit under all fair use policy. One could argue that it violates criteria 3, but most of these images are freely viewable on the internet, are not large resolution, and would not detract from the market of the original. Because a very limited number of photographs were taken, and those taken were by press agencies, it is safe to assume that in the foreseeable future, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
The problem comes with the guideline counterexamples. Counterexample 5 states that "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." Obviously a single car bomb or other such incident would not fall under either the "iconic" or "newsworthy in itself" categories, so by this reasoning it should not be used in the article. However, as explained above, the image is permitted under WP "policy". If we were to follow the counterexample criteria, that would basically mean that these articles will have no images of the event until the copyright expires on the few photographs taken, which would be decades hence. I was hoping to hear if others had any input on this dilemma. Joshdboz 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
But as I said above, the only possible policy that it can be argued it violates is The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work. The fact that these are low resolution pictures used in a non-commercial way and already freely viewable on the internet would qualify, would it not? I'm not trying to claim broad fair use powers, but this is a very specific instance in which fair use is not only allowed, but the only possible way to illustrate an article. Joshdboz 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In practice however, these images are already being claimed as fair use, see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Joshdboz 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And most of these are questionable. For example, has anyone tried to get permission for [14] as a replacement for Image:2003 Istanbul Bombings Levent.jpg? Are there really no free images to replace Image:Ac.madrid.jpg? Are Image:Australian Jakarta embassy bombing.jpg and Image:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg actually necessary? — xyzzy n 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the uses are just for decoration, but many, like on Olympic (MTR) and Long Island City (LIRR station), convey information in the standard way, since this is an international standard.
I also note that Image:Wheelchair.svg is currently tagged for deletion, so we have to act fact before the information is lost in the history. Image:Handicap reverse 12px.svg will have to be deleted too. -- NE2 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some users may want it for a user box. Then we have a problem with mere "fair use" licenses. Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posted to commons:Commons:Village pump#Wheelchair_symbols. Also, I’ve added one rationale to Image:Wheelchair.svg, but I do not have time to go through all of its uses in detail right now. — xyzzy n 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How is
File:Wheel.svg for a free alternative? (Unfortunately, I uploaded it to commons with the same filename as the file here. That was dumb.) --
NE2 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to use Image:wheelchair.svg to mean accessibility, I believe we're doing plagiarism. Isn't the idea of representing accessibility trough a "stylized image of a person using a wheelchair facing right" part of what was copyrighted by ICTA? -- Abu badali ( talk) 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
…OK, so we just need to design a completely new symbol for accessibility. Is there a page for this sort of thing? —
xyzzy
n 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The symbol is used primarily to indicate transit facilities with elevator or ramp access, not escalators. People on crutches (if that's what the icon at right is supposed to represent) can use escalators, but wheelchair users cannot. -- NE2 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The image has been released to be used for identification of handicapped facilities, which is exactly what we are using it for, and it's a pictogram whose use is mandated by law. Also, what possible freedom are we gaining? No downstream users would be in anyway hindered by our use of it, and it's obviously within our rights and well justified to use it in these articles to identify facilities. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If the symbol is irreplaceable, which it sounds like it is, then we ought to use it wherever appropriate. I don't like the idea of replacing it with an obscure replacement that detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. — Remember the dot ( t) 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: the possible replacements for the ISO symbol, "ideas" cannot be copyrighted, only specific expressions of ideas. Is anyone actually concerned that because someone has created a simplified graphic of a man in a wheelchair, or a man with a crutch, that now no one can? It has to be substantially similar to infringe the original, and even then it won't be an infringement if it is similar only to the extent necessary to portray the subject (how else do you make a line drawing of a wheelchair from the side? see
merger doctrine).
That being said, I think it's completely absurd to replace an internationally standardized–and recognized–image with a self-made one that attempts to serve the same function. We should either not use any image because anything but the standard will confuse or just be uninformative, or just use the ISO image for its intended purpose, under a license tag clarifying what those purposes are, i.e., that ISO permits anyone to use it for free to indicate accessibility, etc. This is purely a licensing issue, not a fair use one. Yes, ISO owns the copyright, but it has licensed it to the public providing it use it as intended. [15] How else would we need–or want–to use it other than according to those standards? To illustrate wolves? Pokemon? Any uses that do not comply with the license should simply be removed. This should really be an easy issue, and it also should not be decided on this irrelevant page. If there are other similar ISO images, it would be worth making an ISO-specific licensing template for such images. Postdlf 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As xyzzy stated there are only two types of images, free and unfree... Example #3,201 of how hard it is to have a rational, nuanced policy discussion with an absolutist. Ed, Abu -- are you even reading Postdlf's posts? Or does your binary view of image copyright status preclude you from responsding rationally to what he's written? It's rather like explaining the Z-axis to inhabitants of Flatland, I suppose... Abu - you, especially, have been remarkably rational recently -- why not continue that march toward sensibility?? Jenolen speak it! 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo has commented at User talk:Jimbo Wales#International Symbol of Access and licensing. -- NE2 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that Image:Wikiswing.gif is used only on one talk page and several user pages. Should these locations be removed? Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A consensus might be useful. I don't feel comfortable dealing with it as is. Will ( Talk - contribs) 05:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright to Wikipedia's logo? Is it licensed under the GFDL? — Remember the dot ( t) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we merge Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline to here. I don't "disagree" with this page, but I'm not sure why it needs to be separated. We can easily move some stuff off this page (listings) and place the instructions here, which would make a lot more sense. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at it the more I think it could just be labeled as a how-to rather than being called a guideline. It's just a stripped down version of what's already said here in the form of template instructions. If anything, just put it on the template's doc page and put a simple link. It also seems to be missing a lot of important parts. -- Ned Scott 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Opinions please on this usage of an October 2006 TIME magazine cover that was recently removed from the article by an editor asking for its replacement with a free use alternative. Please be sure to note the section's last paragraph. Thanks, -- HailFire 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. — In this context, see Google search on Obama + "October 23" + "Time magazine" = 17,100 results. -- HailFire 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The TIME cover does convey some additional info, most notably the headline "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President" is different from the one contained inside the magazine, and back in October 2006 was a shocker to many (which is why it got so noticed–I read somewhere that this was TIME's number one selling edition for 2006). The picture itself is an unusually high-definition closeup that provides a graphic complement to the theme of the section in which it was placed: "Cultural and political image" (the same reason TIME used it, I'd guess, because Joe Klein's cover story is also mostly about cultural and political responses to Obama's "image". All of that said, I am persuaded by the reasoning that has been presented here, and I am a true believer in all things that make Wikipedia free. I have already replaced an Obama '08 campaign logo that was on the article with a free use photo substitute. For the Time cover we have been discussing here, I'm trying this solution. Does that work for everyone? -- HailFire 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark uses a campaign logo from 2004 as a purley decorative feature - scores of other pictures, including campaign appearances aplenty, illustrate that yes, he did run for president in 2004. A number of users are edit warring to retain this replacable, not important fair use image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have submitted Crusaders (rugby) for WP:FAC (see comments page here). A point has been raised about the "Crusaders team of the decade" in the article and whether or not listing it is a copy-right violation. Neither myself, or the contributor that raised the point are experts on this, could someone please help clarify it? The discussion can be found on the candidates discussion page ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusaders (rugby)). Shudda talk 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a sysop from srwiki, which still allows fair use material and in particular the promotional photos obtained from official sources when (and only when) no free replacement is available. Personally I find the recent crusade against promotional photos at enwiki frustrating, particularly because I could not locate the discussion at which community consensus of some kind was reached. My question is whether - given that this is all about a certain "higher mission" of this project and not legality - this interpretation of fair use is something that would eventually be pushed in a similar way in other language editions without consent of the respective communities. -- Dzordzm 07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027991.html . ed g2s • talk 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The consensus to keep that image was uncontested. In fact, it achieved a strong consensus in favor of being kept. It was then deleted for procedural reasons; namely, people (or rather, one person) didn't "trust" the uploader was being honest when they said the image was what they said it was. The original uploader said that image was from a Virgin Records press kit or was a Virgin Records promophoto. No evidence was presented that it WASN'T, the image lived happily here on Wikipedia for more than two years (or so), and then, poof, it was nuked after a strong "keep" consensus developed, by an editor who insisted that it had to be proved that the image was what the original uploader said it was. All I'm asking is, does the same standard apply in these cases? Will editors who submit GFDL images be subject to the same amount of "sourcing scrutiny" that editors who submit promotional photos are? Jenolen speak it! 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize this question is essentially answered in item #9 of the policy section, but I feel like I should ask before I start undoing some of my work. I was making my way through the navboxes for Japanese prefectures ( ex: Aichi), adding prefectural symbols and fixing formatting, until I had the bright idea to find out why some were missing the symbols. Sure enough, someone had gone through and removed them based on criteria #9. I suppose I had a vague idea that the symbols were copyrighted, but extended exposure to flags and such in navboxes led be to believe it was alright.
Is there caveat for official insignia in navboxes, or is that irrelevant? I realize the flags are often from Open Clip Art images, or released into the public domain by authors, but many are simply 1:1 replications of the official images. If I went ahead and created my own versions of the symbols to be licensed as PD used in templates, what steps would I have to take in order to make sure they're not too derivative to remain unprotected? Might a better idea be to use flags from Vector-Images.com considering their terms of use concerning preview images? Thanks in advance for your help. ― El Cid ∴ ∵ 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the consensus on using a Fair Use image on a Portal - Article of the week page. For example see Portal:History The policy states 9 - Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace, however it does not specifically exclude Portals.
I personally think that Fair use should be allowed. An article of the week is merely a copy of an actual article. MortimerCat 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But as it has been mentioned before, should section 9 read They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), Portals or on user pages MortimerCat 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed some fair use cover galleries from several articles, mostly comic book related, feeling such galleries violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY #4, WP:FUC #3 & 8, and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Since one of these galleries has immediately been re-added in the article Janus Directive, I and Basique, the editor who re-added the gallery, thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here and get some outside oppinions on it... -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
List_of_Seven_Network_slogans#TV_Idents? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I took this screen shot of a Wikia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg, and per the talk pages on Essjay's article want to clear up the licensing. which is more appropriate?
(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)
Thanks... - Denny 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
<wrap> Luke, question for you... is linking to the 'live' history of the edits the only acceptable way for law? A lot of the licensing seems to rely on the idea of trust in the presentation--would (I don't have this, just curious) including the text of the history (or a screen thereof) of the text be OK? I'm half-inclined as it is to db-delete tag the image as creator if it's not fair to use, but just want to be sure first. - Denny 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been writing articles about former United Kingdom MPs, such as Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, almost all of whom are now dead. Many have been tagged for image requests and I'd like to include images where possible. The only source I have is "The Times House of Commons", which is a guidebook published after each general election containing biographies of MPs. The book contains low resolution black and white pictures of MPs. So, my question is this: are copies of these images acceptable as fair use images? I think the majority of them were distributed by the MPs depicted in them, in response to picture requests by the press. There is no separate copyright acknowledgment on the book, which is long since out of print. Sam Blacketer 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some templates using unfree images, but with the help of <includeonly>, so that the image doesn't appears in the template namespace.
See Template:Evanescence and Template:Lacuna Coil, for examples.
Does this make any difference in regard do WP:FUC #9? I believe the problem with unfree images in templates is not only their appearing in the Template: nameespce. The problem is that we can't have rationale that would justify the use of the image in any article the template could be included.
(Besides the point, in the examples templates above, the use is purely illustrative, and gives no information that couldn't be achieved with text).
Has this been discussed in some place that I should be aware? -- Abu badali ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The context of navigation box never justifies a fair use image. Navigation boxes can be very useful, but are non-essential parts of the article (in fact, they are often marked as not part of the article). As fair use is only allowed when the article demands it, it is clearly never required in these cases. ed g2s • talk 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the approach used in {{ 1632 covers}} acceptable? Gimmetrow 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone releases an image under CC with attribution specified, is it enought that this goes on the image page, or should we say "taken by" or something. - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The image is under fair use. A group of people available in the image.Is it replaceable? If not then why? It is quite confusing.-- NAHID 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the general consensus was that images of actors in character, used to illustrate that character, or the program, play or film in which that character appears, were not replaceable. That's why, to take a random example, we have an image for Gwen Cooper but none for Eve Myles, who plays her. Why wouldn't a cast photo be considered an image of the characters, rather than the actors who play them? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Some orthodoxies are more orthodox than others, I suppose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site? I know the copyright on the paintings has expired, but does that mean I can use any image of it I find? In particular, I would like to take this from here. It would make a nice addition to The Hunt of the Unicorn. - Peregrine Fisher 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the recent to the quick test section on WP:FUC should be reverted. The test is really intended to say that, if an image is not unique, it's probably not suitable for being used.
I know the current practices on Wikipedia is far for this (even considering the recent huge clean up in replaceable images). But this policy is far too tightly connected to our founding principles to be changed based on common (mis)practices (let alone without discussion). -- Abu badali ( talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The supposedly free Image:EV-In.svg draws very heavily from Image:Evanescence.svg. I would consider that a derivative work. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. The goal, essentially, is to allow historical images where their use would be transformative (and thus legally fair use) and provide visual historical information, even without so-called "critical commentary" (but where a caption identifying the significance of the image is still important); specifically in the case of galleries of historical logos. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify some matters.
1. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical about an actor?
2. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical not concerning an actor or a film? E.g. there is a building on a screenshot and the image is used in an article about this building.
3. How many images with this tag can be used in a single article about a film?-- Vaya 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A photo of the living, active band
Evanescence was
deleted last November. A new one has emerged in it's place with a long argument about how any user generated content would surely be of inadequte quality. See
Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg.
ed g2s •
talk 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I'd like to propose a clarification of fair use criteria number 3, namely "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Screenshots of copyrighted computer software need to be kept at full resolution or else they cannot be seen clearly. If they cannot be seen clearly, then they don't really illustrate the software in question. I can tell you from personal experience that reducing the resolution of screenshots greatly decreases their usefulness.
For this reason, I would like fair use criteria number 3 to be clarified to state that software screenshots do not need to be of low resolution. Instead, articles about software should just be made to use a limited number of screenshots. — Remember the dot ( t) 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is, rather than providing a bunch of low-quality screenshots that don't do much good, articles should just use a limited number of full resolution screenshots that effectively illustrate the software. — Remember the dot ( t) 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it's been a few days and no one has voiced any objections, I propose that the following statement be added beneath fair use criteria number 3:
— Remember the dot ( t) 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have made slight modifications to the wording 2 times: [1] [2]
Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is definitely protected. — Remember the dot ( t) 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to avoid good faith editors scaling down screenshots to 300px wide in the quest to use as little unfree material as possible. This is why I'd like to see an explicit note in the fair use criteria that explains that it is OK to use full resolution screenshots where necessary. — Remember the dot ( t) 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that detractors for the upcoming stricter policy towards fair use images are ignoring how much this policy will empower Wikipedia. It's been my experience that those Flickr users who I have asked to donate their photos into the Creative Commons have been honored to have them displayed in articles, and were thrilled that their permission was asked first. Everyone walks away better for the experience. More awareness needs to be raised about free use images, because the entire planet should know that we value and need their photos. This conversation and the efforts of many Wikipedians are located too deep in the bowels of Wikipedia. This cause should be placed front and center.- BillDeanCarter 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sure this policy will be somewhere, but I cannot find it.
The Fair use licence says for critical commentary on
* the work in question, * the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or * the school to which the artist belongs
How about if the article is the artists biography. Is showing a sample of his works constitute Fair use? It doesn't really fit the above criteria. MortimerCat 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An idea recently mentioned on the foundation mailing list. Instead of no image, use Image:No free image man (en).svg or Image:No free image woman (en).svg in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer if these images were not used. If there is no free image available, there's no need to proclaim that within the article. Also, as Mecu stated above, this would encourage inexperienced users to upload "free" images they found somewhere. — Remember the dot ( t) 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Need to be uploaded localy so messages can be added. Geni 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok a more complex version can now be found on David Mamet. The backend behind it is a hack from hell and only partialy complete. however it is the best I can do untill the dev rewrite the upload system. Geni 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to use this image a lot, we should set it as a standard in some infoboxes. Just like Image:Nocover.png which appears automatically in an album infobox when there is no album cover. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting some pushback on this no-image-available convention. A few people are saying that the placeholder is ugly and unnecessary. I can see a lot of edit wars breaking out over the issue, esp. with no decree over whether the placeholders should be used and when. Is there some official stance? — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A page detailing the system can be found at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation. Geni 12:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think these images are a good idea, but there isn't a broad enough consensus to revert editors who remove them. If that's what's happening, and it's almost inevitable that that will be what happens, then we should have a big fat RfC on it. Or maybe I missed it. - Peregrine Fisher 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Long plot summary as active copyright violation discussion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 19/Articles -- GunnarRene 17:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this talk page be a little more about Fair Use and a little less about you two arguing? I'm sure if you took it to your user talk pages, nobody here would mind. -- Milo H Minderbinder 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For this reason we do not accept images which are licensed exclusively for Wikipedia, or licensed exclusively for non-commercial usage (which is not "free enough") (unless of course they also qualify under fair use).
The part: (unless of course they also qualify under fair use) should be deleted. As this creates double standards and contradicts the above statement.-- Vaya 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article, Avatar: The Last Airbender, has a ton of fair use images. So is this OK or not? Aren't featured articles supposed to serve as a reference when writing other articles? It seems ridiculous that that Aaron Sorkin should have zero (and not show a single film or TV show he created) while one on the front page has eleven. -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the recent discussion above about a possibly overly long plot summary, I cross-referenced "plot summary" and "derivative work" on Google. It only turned up about 468 results, so I am still not convinced, but I did find this:
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/student-papers/fall03-papers/Whaley.html#_Toc58847526
According to the author, plot summaries should contain enough analysis to be "transformative".
Anyways, I now leave the discussion to those more familiar with fair use issues.
— Armedblowfish ( talk| mail) 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The length of plot summaries in articles is limited by WP:NOT#IINFO. This alone should be enough to push the length below the threshold of concern—if that policy was actually applied, of course. — xyzzy n 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a free use image for David Mamet yet. I currently have the "no free use image available" image in the David Mamet article. I'm wondering, would it be possible to commission an artist to create a caricature/sketch of David Mamet, and donate it into the public domain? Is that a workable solution?- BillDeanCarter 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I removed two images from Howard Wyeth to be conservative ( one, two). They are likely to be the only images available of the subject's most notable tour. Both were copied from YouTube which I understand had partnered with Sony BMG last October. But now I suspect that Sony doesn't have time to police their artists even one so obvious as Dylan. The creators of the videos (WTTW-TV Chicago, aired on PBS; and TVTV, aired on NBC) are credited clearly on the image pages. Both are lousy reproductions, very low resolution and I have scaled them down or cropped them farther, so they have little value. #2 pictures no one but the subject. Do you think it safe to reinstate the images? Thanks for your thoughts. - Susanlesch 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The user Motion Picture Guy has been adding a number of images from IMDb and posting them to articles under a flag of fair use. I'm not really all that knowledgable about fair use and every time that I think I've got it pegged, someone says I'm wrong. So, could someone look at this person's contributions and see if the images are actually allowable under fair use? For examples, see Fairuza Balk and Adrienne Barbeau. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we use this opportunity to clear something up once and for all? You can (try to) take a free/libre picture of an ACTOR, but you cannot take one of a CHARACTER. If these IMBD photos were of characters, and met our fair use criterion, then why should they be deleted? Comments? Jenolen speak it! 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This makes me wonder. If we used a random free image, say of a carrot, to illustrate an actor, would we be breaking any copyright laws by misrepresenting it? Now, an image of an actor out of character is a lot closer than an image of a carrot, but it seems to me to be only a matter of degree. - Peregrine Fisher 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ed - Sadly, you are wrong. All pictures of William Shatner are NOT pictures of Captain Kirk. All pictures of Captain Kirk ARE pictures of William Shatner." - that statement implies that I said pictures of William Shatner are pictures of Captain Kirk. If you could actually reference what I've said when you so sadly thought I was wrong that might make more sense. What I actually said was that it some cases we can use a picture of the actor, identify it as a picture of the actor ("Y is played by X in the show") and still "adequately give the same information" (FUC#1) because a picture of the character does not contain significantly more information that is relevant to what is being discussed. "Well, this isn't really the thing, but, it's kind of what the thing looks like" - except it is, it's exactly the same person - when an actor is in character it's still the same person, they don't morph into that character - acting is just make-believe you know. Unless the makeup and costume differ in a way which is significant to the article (which in many cases it can do) the two photos convey the same information. ed g2s • talk 12:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not arguing the Kirk/Shatner case specifically. Each case needs to be considered individually. "you think actors and characters are interchangeable; however, they clearly are not". I do see how this is so clear - in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. A photo of a character is just a photo of an actor in some specific clothes and makeup. If those aren't significant to the article, then a photo of the actor is adequate. Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument, nor is going to change our policy. ed g2s • talk 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
..in the case when it's the same person in the same clothes looking almost identical then the images are clearly interchangeable. I am sorry that you lack the professional skills or credentials to analyze the numerous differences between a studio promotional photo of an actor in character, and a blurry Flikr photo (where, often, the other person in the picture has been cropped out)... But your lack of ability to note differences in make-up, lighting, composition, presentation, etc. is no reason for Wikipedia to reject a picture of Captain Kirk in an article about Captain Kirk, assuming such a photo abides by both our draconian fair use guidelines, as well as U.S. fair use law. Similarly, there's no reason not to use a picture of Captain Jack Sparrow, instead of Johnny Depp, in an article about Sparrow. I should be free to use a picture of Sky Captain, in the Sky Captain article, as opposed to Jude Law. But what you appear not to get is that I have no interest in using a picture of Sean Connery if I'm writing an article about Captain Marko Ramius, his Hunt for Red October character. There are a thousand little things that make a character different than an actor, from hairstyle choices to how he/she presents himself... and I want to be able to see those things. That's why we have pictures. And why we should always have pictures of the ACTUAL things that are the subject of our articles, not things that look like them.
Repeating your personal preference of quality content over free content is not going to help this argument... While this is partially true - I do believe in minimum quality standards - I understand the significant limitations Wikipedia is working under when trying to write and illustrate a libre encyclopedia in a copyright-crazy world. However, in this case, my preference has nothing to do with libre or copyright; I simply prefer the images of our article subjects to actually BE the subject of the article, not the most free semi-equivalent. Jenolen speak it! 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"cannot ... have a free picture" - a free picture of what? We use Fair Use for critical commentary, if we are commenting on the actor who portrayed the character - then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the facial appearance/hair colour, then we can have a free picture. If we are talking about the stuff which we can't get a free picture for then we can use unfree pictures. ed g2s • talk 01:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't have a broad consensus on subjects that haven't been discussed, which most of these haven't... And which of my two main points do you think there is no broad consensus on? The idea that a photo of the subject of an encyclopedia article is significant? (Does that really need discussion?) Or that no free/libre photos exist of fictional characters? Is there anyone here who disagrees with that?
You'll forgive me if your plea for careful individual consideration of each images use rings hollow, coming as it does in the middle of a campaign which has seen repeated, massive "accidental" deletions of tagged RFU images, deletions of images which have had no complaints against them, etc. People here are not interested in carefully considering individual "cases" for images, as has been proven time and again. This is an example of creating problems where none exist. There have been NO problems using studio released character photos to illustrate Wikipedia articles on those characters, and I welcome anyone who knows of any issues relating to this area to pipe up!
As for your whole "I can't always tell what the differences are between actors and characters, so let's delete character photos" argument, I don't think your standards -- which are, by definition, subjective -- should apply. An article about McIntosh Apples is illustrated by a picture of a McIntosh Apple. An article about a hydrogen atom is illustrated by an image of a hydrogen atom. An article about Captain Kirk should be illustrated by a photo of Captain Kirk, as long as it follows WP:FU ... which is, contrary to your bolded point above, a guideline. End of story. Jenolen speak it! 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1) "Liberal nonsense"? What on earth gives you that idea? 2) But Wikipedia is not a "free content" encyclopedia. That's what it aims to be, but for now, it's as free as can be. As we've seen, time and time again, Wikipedia has made the choice to allow fair use of copyrighted material. EN has not gone "German," with no fair use allowed, at least not yet, because when it does, it's signing its own death warrant. I think this insane campaign against things like the international wheelchair symbol ("not free enough," please!) and state government photos is hastening Wikipedia's slide from useable resource to sad joke. I live and work in the real world, not the hypothetical Wiki-GFDL-utopia that many seem to think is just 'round the corner, Ma! Well, great! And I'm down with "as free/libre as possible." But I'm not okay with people who trample over that to "Free, or nothing." Or "Poor Quality Free, over Professional Quality Negligible Unfree" (See Jennifer Granholm). Maybe you think we should use blurry Flikr photos instead of a state issued portrait of the Governor of Michigan ... I do not. I don't see how blurry Flikr photos help Wikipedia's primary mission - to create an encyclopedia of the highest quality. (You can't create a "free" of the highest quality... people don't come to the website looking for "free", they come looking for information.) And, I guess, that's why I rail against what I see as the completely unneeded ridiculousness that has characterized parts of this debate. But don't worry; I give it another month or so before I wash my hands and feet of the whole thing... See, I actually am a working media professional, and what started as a fun hobby has become increasingly less so, thanks to a variety of factors, but primarily the general "high-school debate" feel and repetititve amateur Wikilawyering which characterizes so many of these discussions. Jenolen speak it! 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah the good old "are photos of characters replaceable?" debate. The bane of admins closing replaceable fair use images. Personally I tend towards sometimes. You all appear to missing the other half of the debate though. What counts as a character. A recent case would be are playboy centerfolds a character? Geni 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A related question, if I may? It was really the repeated references to Captain Kirk that reminded me of this, and I thought I could engage your ... fervent minds on it. Image:Kirk001.jpg (wholly independent the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale; a previous point of contestation) is a picture of Captain Kirk in his 23rd century-era Starfleet uniform. This image is used to depict the style of uniform Kirk is wearing, not Kirk himself or anything specifically significant in this image. Attending a Star Trek convention or the sets of Star Trek: New Voyages would provide me with enumerable opportunities to take pictures of people wearing identical (or equivalent) costumes. Therefore, can't this image be (easily?) replaced by a free-use one that "would adequately give the same information."? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add your comments here. -- Peta 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There's some debate at John Edward about whether a cover scan (picturing the author) is an acceptable fair use image on the article about the author. Input from knowledgable folks here would be appreciated. -- Milo H Minderbinder 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the use of fair use images is not allowed outside the article namespace, but in relating to the main page, it seems to occur often. Worse, all these images are kept in a "historical archive" sense, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2007 for an example (Feb 1 to start). BJBot is currently seeking approval for going through fair use images and removing them from non article space. Are these "archive" items for the main page acceptable to keep? I would think turning the image to a link would be acceptable, there's no need to keep the image displayed there. But, the bot owner wanted to see some support for this (or any option related to this) before tackling this, since it will likely already be a highly sensitive project anyways. Any input will be appreciated. -- MECU≈ talk 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these images should be removed. We shouldn't use them on the main page either - but people would get all upset if some days the "featured article" didn't have a nice little thumbnail next to it. ed g2s • talk 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reason to remove FU images from FA templates in non-article space, or from the main page, for that matter. The policy against FU images in non-article space—primarily user space—obviates the need to argue with innumerable people over whether the image is being used legally in their own personal space and to be overprotective against the legal risk of use outside of articles. As part of the FA template, however, whether on the main page or elsewhere, individual user discretion over whether and how it is used is removed, and it only appears in the context of the article summary, where it serves the same informative function as in article space. Postdlf 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
From an ongoing dispute over the use of an image in the article 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings I wanted to bring up a discrepancy between fair use policy and guideline counterexamples. In articles about something akin to a carbombing, there are usually a number of photographs taken by the press during/immediately after the event has occured. Because these events often take place in rather exotic places and are cleaned up quickly, there is no chance of ever creating a new image of the event.
Many of the press images of the event would fit under all fair use policy. One could argue that it violates criteria 3, but most of these images are freely viewable on the internet, are not large resolution, and would not detract from the market of the original. Because a very limited number of photographs were taken, and those taken were by press agencies, it is safe to assume that in the foreseeable future, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
The problem comes with the guideline counterexamples. Counterexample 5 states that "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." Obviously a single car bomb or other such incident would not fall under either the "iconic" or "newsworthy in itself" categories, so by this reasoning it should not be used in the article. However, as explained above, the image is permitted under WP "policy". If we were to follow the counterexample criteria, that would basically mean that these articles will have no images of the event until the copyright expires on the few photographs taken, which would be decades hence. I was hoping to hear if others had any input on this dilemma. Joshdboz 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
But as I said above, the only possible policy that it can be argued it violates is The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work. The fact that these are low resolution pictures used in a non-commercial way and already freely viewable on the internet would qualify, would it not? I'm not trying to claim broad fair use powers, but this is a very specific instance in which fair use is not only allowed, but the only possible way to illustrate an article. Joshdboz 14:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In practice however, these images are already being claimed as fair use, see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Joshdboz 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And most of these are questionable. For example, has anyone tried to get permission for [14] as a replacement for Image:2003 Istanbul Bombings Levent.jpg? Are there really no free images to replace Image:Ac.madrid.jpg? Are Image:Australian Jakarta embassy bombing.jpg and Image:2005 Bali bombings SCTV screenshot.jpg actually necessary? — xyzzy n 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the uses are just for decoration, but many, like on Olympic (MTR) and Long Island City (LIRR station), convey information in the standard way, since this is an international standard.
I also note that Image:Wheelchair.svg is currently tagged for deletion, so we have to act fact before the information is lost in the history. Image:Handicap reverse 12px.svg will have to be deleted too. -- NE2 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some users may want it for a user box. Then we have a problem with mere "fair use" licenses. Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posted to commons:Commons:Village pump#Wheelchair_symbols. Also, I’ve added one rationale to Image:Wheelchair.svg, but I do not have time to go through all of its uses in detail right now. — xyzzy n 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How is
File:Wheel.svg for a free alternative? (Unfortunately, I uploaded it to commons with the same filename as the file here. That was dumb.) --
NE2 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to use Image:wheelchair.svg to mean accessibility, I believe we're doing plagiarism. Isn't the idea of representing accessibility trough a "stylized image of a person using a wheelchair facing right" part of what was copyrighted by ICTA? -- Abu badali ( talk) 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
…OK, so we just need to design a completely new symbol for accessibility. Is there a page for this sort of thing? —
xyzzy
n 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The symbol is used primarily to indicate transit facilities with elevator or ramp access, not escalators. People on crutches (if that's what the icon at right is supposed to represent) can use escalators, but wheelchair users cannot. -- NE2 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The image has been released to be used for identification of handicapped facilities, which is exactly what we are using it for, and it's a pictogram whose use is mandated by law. Also, what possible freedom are we gaining? No downstream users would be in anyway hindered by our use of it, and it's obviously within our rights and well justified to use it in these articles to identify facilities. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If the symbol is irreplaceable, which it sounds like it is, then we ought to use it wherever appropriate. I don't like the idea of replacing it with an obscure replacement that detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. — Remember the dot ( t) 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: the possible replacements for the ISO symbol, "ideas" cannot be copyrighted, only specific expressions of ideas. Is anyone actually concerned that because someone has created a simplified graphic of a man in a wheelchair, or a man with a crutch, that now no one can? It has to be substantially similar to infringe the original, and even then it won't be an infringement if it is similar only to the extent necessary to portray the subject (how else do you make a line drawing of a wheelchair from the side? see
merger doctrine).
That being said, I think it's completely absurd to replace an internationally standardized–and recognized–image with a self-made one that attempts to serve the same function. We should either not use any image because anything but the standard will confuse or just be uninformative, or just use the ISO image for its intended purpose, under a license tag clarifying what those purposes are, i.e., that ISO permits anyone to use it for free to indicate accessibility, etc. This is purely a licensing issue, not a fair use one. Yes, ISO owns the copyright, but it has licensed it to the public providing it use it as intended. [15] How else would we need–or want–to use it other than according to those standards? To illustrate wolves? Pokemon? Any uses that do not comply with the license should simply be removed. This should really be an easy issue, and it also should not be decided on this irrelevant page. If there are other similar ISO images, it would be worth making an ISO-specific licensing template for such images. Postdlf 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As xyzzy stated there are only two types of images, free and unfree... Example #3,201 of how hard it is to have a rational, nuanced policy discussion with an absolutist. Ed, Abu -- are you even reading Postdlf's posts? Or does your binary view of image copyright status preclude you from responsding rationally to what he's written? It's rather like explaining the Z-axis to inhabitants of Flatland, I suppose... Abu - you, especially, have been remarkably rational recently -- why not continue that march toward sensibility?? Jenolen speak it! 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo has commented at User talk:Jimbo Wales#International Symbol of Access and licensing. -- NE2 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that Image:Wikiswing.gif is used only on one talk page and several user pages. Should these locations be removed? Will ( Talk - contribs) 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A consensus might be useful. I don't feel comfortable dealing with it as is. Will ( Talk - contribs) 05:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright to Wikipedia's logo? Is it licensed under the GFDL? — Remember the dot ( t) 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we merge Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline to here. I don't "disagree" with this page, but I'm not sure why it needs to be separated. We can easily move some stuff off this page (listings) and place the instructions here, which would make a lot more sense. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at it the more I think it could just be labeled as a how-to rather than being called a guideline. It's just a stripped down version of what's already said here in the form of template instructions. If anything, just put it on the template's doc page and put a simple link. It also seems to be missing a lot of important parts. -- Ned Scott 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Opinions please on this usage of an October 2006 TIME magazine cover that was recently removed from the article by an editor asking for its replacement with a free use alternative. Please be sure to note the section's last paragraph. Thanks, -- HailFire 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. — In this context, see Google search on Obama + "October 23" + "Time magazine" = 17,100 results. -- HailFire 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The TIME cover does convey some additional info, most notably the headline "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President" is different from the one contained inside the magazine, and back in October 2006 was a shocker to many (which is why it got so noticed–I read somewhere that this was TIME's number one selling edition for 2006). The picture itself is an unusually high-definition closeup that provides a graphic complement to the theme of the section in which it was placed: "Cultural and political image" (the same reason TIME used it, I'd guess, because Joe Klein's cover story is also mostly about cultural and political responses to Obama's "image". All of that said, I am persuaded by the reasoning that has been presented here, and I am a true believer in all things that make Wikipedia free. I have already replaced an Obama '08 campaign logo that was on the article with a free use photo substitute. For the Time cover we have been discussing here, I'm trying this solution. Does that work for everyone? -- HailFire 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Wesley Clark uses a campaign logo from 2004 as a purley decorative feature - scores of other pictures, including campaign appearances aplenty, illustrate that yes, he did run for president in 2004. A number of users are edit warring to retain this replacable, not important fair use image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have submitted Crusaders (rugby) for WP:FAC (see comments page here). A point has been raised about the "Crusaders team of the decade" in the article and whether or not listing it is a copy-right violation. Neither myself, or the contributor that raised the point are experts on this, could someone please help clarify it? The discussion can be found on the candidates discussion page ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusaders (rugby)). Shudda talk 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a sysop from srwiki, which still allows fair use material and in particular the promotional photos obtained from official sources when (and only when) no free replacement is available. Personally I find the recent crusade against promotional photos at enwiki frustrating, particularly because I could not locate the discussion at which community consensus of some kind was reached. My question is whether - given that this is all about a certain "higher mission" of this project and not legality - this interpretation of fair use is something that would eventually be pushed in a similar way in other language editions without consent of the respective communities. -- Dzordzm 07:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027991.html . ed g2s • talk 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The consensus to keep that image was uncontested. In fact, it achieved a strong consensus in favor of being kept. It was then deleted for procedural reasons; namely, people (or rather, one person) didn't "trust" the uploader was being honest when they said the image was what they said it was. The original uploader said that image was from a Virgin Records press kit or was a Virgin Records promophoto. No evidence was presented that it WASN'T, the image lived happily here on Wikipedia for more than two years (or so), and then, poof, it was nuked after a strong "keep" consensus developed, by an editor who insisted that it had to be proved that the image was what the original uploader said it was. All I'm asking is, does the same standard apply in these cases? Will editors who submit GFDL images be subject to the same amount of "sourcing scrutiny" that editors who submit promotional photos are? Jenolen speak it! 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize this question is essentially answered in item #9 of the policy section, but I feel like I should ask before I start undoing some of my work. I was making my way through the navboxes for Japanese prefectures ( ex: Aichi), adding prefectural symbols and fixing formatting, until I had the bright idea to find out why some were missing the symbols. Sure enough, someone had gone through and removed them based on criteria #9. I suppose I had a vague idea that the symbols were copyrighted, but extended exposure to flags and such in navboxes led be to believe it was alright.
Is there caveat for official insignia in navboxes, or is that irrelevant? I realize the flags are often from Open Clip Art images, or released into the public domain by authors, but many are simply 1:1 replications of the official images. If I went ahead and created my own versions of the symbols to be licensed as PD used in templates, what steps would I have to take in order to make sure they're not too derivative to remain unprotected? Might a better idea be to use flags from Vector-Images.com considering their terms of use concerning preview images? Thanks in advance for your help. ― El Cid ∴ ∵ 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the consensus on using a Fair Use image on a Portal - Article of the week page. For example see Portal:History The policy states 9 - Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace, however it does not specifically exclude Portals.
I personally think that Fair use should be allowed. An article of the week is merely a copy of an actual article. MortimerCat 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But as it has been mentioned before, should section 9 read They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), Portals or on user pages MortimerCat 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed some fair use cover galleries from several articles, mostly comic book related, feeling such galleries violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY #4, WP:FUC #3 & 8, and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. Since one of these galleries has immediately been re-added in the article Janus Directive, I and Basique, the editor who re-added the gallery, thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here and get some outside oppinions on it... -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
List_of_Seven_Network_slogans#TV_Idents? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I took this screen shot of a Wikia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Essjaywikiascreenshot.jpg, and per the talk pages on Essjay's article want to clear up the licensing. which is more appropriate?
(someone with historical access to the Essjay page archives on Wikia.com will need to demonstrate what license the page was under)
Thanks... - Denny 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
<wrap> Luke, question for you... is linking to the 'live' history of the edits the only acceptable way for law? A lot of the licensing seems to rely on the idea of trust in the presentation--would (I don't have this, just curious) including the text of the history (or a screen thereof) of the text be OK? I'm half-inclined as it is to db-delete tag the image as creator if it's not fair to use, but just want to be sure first. - Denny 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been writing articles about former United Kingdom MPs, such as Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, almost all of whom are now dead. Many have been tagged for image requests and I'd like to include images where possible. The only source I have is "The Times House of Commons", which is a guidebook published after each general election containing biographies of MPs. The book contains low resolution black and white pictures of MPs. So, my question is this: are copies of these images acceptable as fair use images? I think the majority of them were distributed by the MPs depicted in them, in response to picture requests by the press. There is no separate copyright acknowledgment on the book, which is long since out of print. Sam Blacketer 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some templates using unfree images, but with the help of <includeonly>, so that the image doesn't appears in the template namespace.
See Template:Evanescence and Template:Lacuna Coil, for examples.
Does this make any difference in regard do WP:FUC #9? I believe the problem with unfree images in templates is not only their appearing in the Template: nameespce. The problem is that we can't have rationale that would justify the use of the image in any article the template could be included.
(Besides the point, in the examples templates above, the use is purely illustrative, and gives no information that couldn't be achieved with text).
Has this been discussed in some place that I should be aware? -- Abu badali ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The context of navigation box never justifies a fair use image. Navigation boxes can be very useful, but are non-essential parts of the article (in fact, they are often marked as not part of the article). As fair use is only allowed when the article demands it, it is clearly never required in these cases. ed g2s • talk 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the approach used in {{ 1632 covers}} acceptable? Gimmetrow 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone releases an image under CC with attribution specified, is it enought that this goes on the image page, or should we say "taken by" or something. - Peregrine Fisher 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The image is under fair use. A group of people available in the image.Is it replaceable? If not then why? It is quite confusing.-- NAHID 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the general consensus was that images of actors in character, used to illustrate that character, or the program, play or film in which that character appears, were not replaceable. That's why, to take a random example, we have an image for Gwen Cooper but none for Eve Myles, who plays her. Why wouldn't a cast photo be considered an image of the characters, rather than the actors who play them? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Some orthodoxies are more orthodox than others, I suppose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I take images of super old paintings from a web site? I know the copyright on the paintings has expired, but does that mean I can use any image of it I find? In particular, I would like to take this from here. It would make a nice addition to The Hunt of the Unicorn. - Peregrine Fisher 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the recent to the quick test section on WP:FUC should be reverted. The test is really intended to say that, if an image is not unique, it's probably not suitable for being used.
I know the current practices on Wikipedia is far for this (even considering the recent huge clean up in replaceable images). But this policy is far too tightly connected to our founding principles to be changed based on common (mis)practices (let alone without discussion). -- Abu badali ( talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The supposedly free Image:EV-In.svg draws very heavily from Image:Evanescence.svg. I would consider that a derivative work. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal to change policy wording, at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images. The goal, essentially, is to allow historical images where their use would be transformative (and thus legally fair use) and provide visual historical information, even without so-called "critical commentary" (but where a caption identifying the significance of the image is still important); specifically in the case of galleries of historical logos. Please contribute to this discussion. DHowell 05:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify some matters.
1. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical about an actor?
2. Can an image with this tag be used in an artical not concerning an actor or a film? E.g. there is a building on a screenshot and the image is used in an article about this building.
3. How many images with this tag can be used in a single article about a film?-- Vaya 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A photo of the living, active band
Evanescence was
deleted last November. A new one has emerged in it's place with a long argument about how any user generated content would surely be of inadequte quality. See
Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg.
ed g2s •
talk 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)