Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Printed material
For scans of printed material i was thinking we could have some sorta dpi (dots per inch) recommendation for scans of fair use images. I recommend for people to read dots per inch and other related articles though to make sure you know what you're talking about (I'm gonna need to read over it again myself). --WikiSlasher 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. My feeling is that 72-96 dpi should be more than enough for our purposes on the Wiki, when it comes to scans. But in any case its really the final pixel count which matters more, and that could vary quite a bit depending on the media. --Fastfission 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- File size would vary depending on compression and file format. It is not a reliable metric for its physical size, which itself is not a good metric for its legal value. Personally I think that an elaborate definition is necessary; a totally arbitrary definition will meet primarily with challenges that it has nothing to do with actual law. There is no "magic number" for this and I doubt people would ever agree upon one. --Fastfission 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I added a quick "in a nutshell section" to try and sum it up. Let me know if that clarifies things for "the average person". --Fastfission 02:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Computer game screenshots
I made a comment about the resolution of CVG screenshots in view of its fair use implications at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_reduce. - Hahnchen 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is a paragraph on computer game screenshots in this proposed guideline — do you find anything about it which doesn't address your particular situation? --Fastfission 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
What annoys me a lot is when screenshots have been upsampled before being uploaded. The wiki-software can do this. You don't need to change a 240 x 160 image to a 320 x 213 one for exa,ple, that doesn't make any sense (and reduces the sharpness of an image). This has nothing to do with fair use though. Out of curiosity has the Wikimedia Foundation ever had any complaints about the size of a CVG image? --WikiSlasher 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think they've ever gotten complaints at all about the size of an image. The size of the image is just part of a hope to avoid complaints from the beginning. I don't think upsampling (for the purpose of making the pixels easier to see) wouldn't seem to have any fair use implications IMO — it wouldn't really make the image "high resolution". --Fastfission 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- It wouldn't have any fair use implications because it in fact makes it look worse :/ WikiSlasher 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
