Template talk:Albumcover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Albumcover has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents 1 Fair use rationale needs changing 2 Protected 3 Please add interwiki to alemannic Wikipedia 4 Correct redirect 5 Q 6 Is it just me, or is this a new interpretation? 7 Interwiki request 8 Edit request 9 HELP 10 It's not just music 11 Label?

[edit] Fair use rationale needs changing

This discussion has been refactored as of this edit. Jkelly 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly suggests following change :It is believed that the use of images of album or single covers to illustrate the album or single in question, or the artist that recorded the album or single, or a song that appeared on the album or single, or as decoration in artist discographies, or as a guide to navigation in artist-specific templates or album templates, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

User:JYolkowski: If you want to use album covers in the artist's or single's page, write a paragraph about the album, and use the cover to illustrate that paragraph. There's probably no valid fair use rationale we could make to use the images for decorative purposes.

User:Jkelly: Our fair use rationale/this template should cover all uses album covers are being put to.

JYolkowski:If this template does not accurately describe what we are doing with them, then we should remove uses that don't qualify. I don't think there's a consensus that the uses that you describe are fair use. // talk 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't know what "consensus use" is supposed to mean or what its relationship is supposed to be for forming policy. --Fastfission 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: My concern is that we are lacking a fair use rationale.

Because copyright compliance is of paramount importance to the project, our fair use guidelines need to be written to ensure that we're compliant with United States copyright law, and then bring articles in step with those guidelines, not the other way around. While a lot of users who may or may not be familiar with copyright laws use album covers in all kinds of contexts, the important question is whether such contexts would qualify as fair use. With regards to that question, I would think that the template's current wording reflects general consensus as to what use of these images is fair. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly:Policy/rationale don't seem enforcable or descriptive.

I'm not sure why we're cross-posting when we're all three reading the responses at all locations. Your reasoning in general on this, if I understand this, is "There are instances in which the guidelines are not being followed. Rather than try and enforce compliance to guidelines, we should just scrap the guidelines." I'm afraid I don't find that sound or sensible reasoning. --Fastfission 17:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: Narrowness of wording conflicts with liberalness of use. I think reasonable people could assume we have no rationale for many of our uses. I note that no other editor seems to think that there is a problem and am increasingly open to the idea that I have a idiosyncratic definition of the words "decoration" and "solely".

I don't think it's unenforceable. If there is dispute over whether something meets our fair use guidelines, it needs to be discussed to determine consensus. Just like any other article content dispute, really. There might be a great deal of room for interpreting NPOV or any other content policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean that we should water them down to dovetail with the content of our articles.

Regarding that fact that you feel that no other editor seems to think there is a problem: The templates have been worded with the specific uses in mind to educate people at a grassroots level. If someone sees an image tagged as {{albumcover}}, they know that it should be used to illustrate the album itself, not to illustrate some tangentially related subject. This is not enforced as thoroughly as our NPOV policy, say, because there has only been a significant emphasis on "fair use" issues for the past few months. Less than three months ago this template contained a vague, blanket statement that might encourage people to think that this image could be "fair use" anywhere. Less than two months ago, Wikipedia:Fair use contained similar incorrect statements. However, as editors become more familiar with the templates and guidelines, they will likely start to enforce the guidelines themselves, similar to how editors enforce the NPOV policy now.

It is possible that an album cover could be fair use in contexts other than what's specified on the template, but that would require a detailed, additional fair use rationale explaining why. Perhaps if you gave some current uses of album covers that you don't believe fall under the current template, that might make the topic easier to discuss. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: Example: Madonna (entertainer) seems to me that they are illustrating Madonna. If that use is fair use, our rationale should reflect it.

Actually, Madonna (entertainer) wasn't too bad. I made a few changes so that I believe that all the images fall under our fair use guidelines. The only image that I needed to remove was the lead image (the lead paragraph doesn't discuss Hung Up so it's not fair use there); most of the other images were used in the context of the album etc. so all that was required was to rewrite the image caption to specify that it was the album being illustrated, not Madonna. JYolkowski // talk 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement. Thanks for your help. With your permission, I'd like to "refactor" the page to preserve what is useful for other editors but remove (mostly my) lengthy repetitiveness. Jkelly 23:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. JYolkowski // talk 00:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Why is this page protected? chocolateboy 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it represents a "Wikipedia:Fair use" rationale. Did you want to suggest an edit to it? Jkelly 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So? No other fair use templates are protected, and protection isn't mentioned in Wikipedia:Fair use. Where did discussion of this policy take place?

chocolateboy 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no "policy" involved that I know of. After some nasty template vandalism a couple of weeks ago a few admins protected some large number of templates. Some of them may have been unprotected since, but if the other "fair use" rationale templates aren't protected that may be an oversight, or perhaps this one not being unprotected was an oversight. If your interest is in editing the template, why not propose the change here? If your interest is in the procedure followed in the template's protection, you might want to post at User talk:Carbonite, because I think that user was one of the admins involved in the template protection. Jkelly 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a discussion here. It was actually implemented by User:Radiant!. [1]

I don't "propose" uncontentious changes to a page that has never been vandalized. This is a Wiki. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith and m:Protected pages considered harmful for an elaboration of my "concerns".

chocolateboy 00:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please add interwiki to alemannic Wikipedia

 <noinclude>
 [[als:Vorlage:Albumcover]]
 </noinclude>

Thank you in advance -- Test-tools 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct redirect

Please unprotect the page and correct the redirect currently sitting in the article. Album no longer includes "(music)" within its link. This must be fixed immediately. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the urgency was, but it is done. Jkelly 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no urgency. When an article page has been redirected, the wikilink within templates should also be changed with hesitation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q

Just curious, because while I understand the legal issue of "decoration" and fair use, it serves an equally illustrative role in the artist's article as the album's - can someone explain it a little clearer than "Fair use...etc"? I've read all the debates back and forth, and while I agree that using it in secondary articles does not qualify as fairuse, the artist clearly does, it seems to me.Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify exactly what you're trying to get at? As a rule of thumb, don't put an unfree-copyrighted image into an article if the article doesn't discuss that image. Articles about albums presumably contain some discussion of the album cover art. Articles about the artists responsible usually don't, but certainly can. A lot of articles about bands have something like "The group appeared on the cover of their solid-platinum debut in typical Barbershop Quartet fashion" with an accompanying cover, and no one raises an issue about it. Slapping every cover into a discography table, on the other hand, is not a good idea. Jkelly 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me, or is this a new interpretation?

When checking out Category:Disputed fair use images, I noticed an album cover (Image:Elephunk.jpg). The image had originally been tagged {{albumcover}} and was used in the articles about the artists and the album. One editor removed the image from both articles (with summary: Removed image missing detailed fair-use rationale), then proceeding to tag the image with {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} (adding it to Category:All orphaned fairuse images). The editor is apparently referring to the note at the bottom of {{albumcover}} reading: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." — So I am wondering: are we supposed to do the same with every albumcover that doesn't have a detailed fair use rationale in addition to the {{albumcover}} tag (which is, uhm, pretty much all of them)? Rl 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure that albumcovers (or most media covers) need a detailed fair use rationale if they are being used according to the specifications on the tag, because if they are then the rationale should be the same in every case (hence the point of having the specifications on the tag like this). Personally I suspect that the requirement for a "detailed fair use rationale" on no-brainers like this is just a way for people to try and discourage people uploading images like this willy-nilly, which I think is a bad way to try and influence behavior (and I don't think it works, except allowing admins to periodically go through and delete a lot of fair use material periodically). --Fastfission 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And why does this template say to add details of the source? Isn't that apparent from the description ("album x by artist y"). Surely the scanner accrues no rights to the image? The copyright must rest with the owner of the original image and the source is immaterial? (see also this ANI thread, November 12, 2006) --kingboyk 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki request

Since this template is protected, I would ask anyone who has enough priviledges to please add intewiki for Serbian language. Link is:

[[sr:Шаблон:Омот албума]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 11:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add ru-wiki

[[ru:Шаблон:Обложка музыкального альбома]]

--Alex Spade 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Could an admin fix this template to use |{{PAGENAME}} in the category so that it is in Category:Non-free image copyright tags in the right place, rather than under the T's? Thanks. BigDT 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP

i scanned an album of mine. it is a rare edition that i could not find a picture of on the internet. so i scanned it. i uploaded it, and put it on a page. now i get a notification, saying that i need to show copyright stuff, or something. what do i do? this is the image how far to asgaard russian the page i uploaded it to How Far To Asgaard the "bot" that warned me User:OrphanBot. please please help me

• I put the album cover template on that image, it should be fine now. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information on how to indicate copyright information. --Fastfission 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

thanx

[edit] It's not just music

The template currently starts with "This image is of a music album or single cover..." However, the template is currently in use for things that aren't. For lack of a better template, this one is regularly used on things like radio plays, stand-up comedy performance recordings, spoken word albums, and other things that can't simply be labelled "music."

Should the template be altered to refer to "audio recordings" or something similarly generic instead of "music," or should we get a new template together for the non-musical stuff? Rob T Firefly 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd really like to get some discussion going before requesting an edit to the template. Rob T Firefly 10:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would have edited it if it wasn't protected. Think a change to "audio recording" would be fitting. *Sparkhead 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think changing it to "audio recordings" would be a good idea. It's for albums, and not all albums are music recordings. -Freekee 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's changed. --Fastfission 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rob T Firefly 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more tweak, I think: "This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album recording or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question." "Album" is so passé.... (grin)—Chidom ^talk 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Label?

It seems like this should be reworded to also include record labels. Older singles, especially, didn't have covers, and typically the label is used to illustrate the article. See for instance Money (That's What I Want). Can this be added to the template? —Chowbok ☠ 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Removed editprotected template) Get some consensus on the proposed edit, then prepare what an administrator should change it to, then re-add {{editprotected}}. Saying "Maybe we should change the template..." doesn't get you anywhere. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)