Template talk:Promophoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to improve and monitor fair use on Wikipedia and prevent gratuitous copyright infringement. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Survived Deletion Vote

This Template survived a vote for deletion. Here is the record from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.

[edit] Template:PromoPhoto

"promotional" != "fair use" [1], and, given the ubiquity of "promotional" websites, this template is an advert (and attractor) for copyvios. Unlike book/album covers, lyrics, screenshots, logos &c., the source/copyright holder/author of the "fair-used" promo pic is seldom credited, consulted, or shown any of the courtesies we expect others to show when reproducing our content. [2] [3] [4] chocolateboy 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an image tag that is absolutely appropriate to have. Image tagging does not relieve uploaders from the responsibility of identifying the source, nor was it ever indicated as doing so. Promotional photos from press releases, etc. are widely used here, and it is definitely appropriate to have an individual copyright tag for them. Maybe reword, but certainly keep. -Lommer | talk 23:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the requirements for an article to achieve featured status is to have an illustration, so unless a Wikipedia is lucky enough to snap a celebrity and avoid having their camera slagged by a bodyguard, the only way we're ever going to manage this is with a promotional photograph. It is the responsibility of the uploader to make sure they have acquired the proper permission to use the photo on Wikipedia: surely we should assume good faith without evidence otherwise. --Phil | Talk 12:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. IIRC, Fair Use doesn't actually require that the source be credited. (GFDL does). Tagging an image ((PromoPhoto)) is a useful part of supplying a fair use rationalle. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Images should be tagged with their license or copyright status by the uploader. That the image is promotional does not provide any real information about its license, source, or copyright status. It could be fair use, or it could be "free to use given that.." or it could be any other license. That it is believed to be promotional does not provide any information about its actual source. All image pages that use only this template should be changed to "unverified" IMO. --ChrisRuvolo 09:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This template should only be used on images where the source has been verified and the image's status as "promotional" confirmed. --Phil | Talk 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, that would be reasonable to me if the text is updated to reflect that. However, this is not how the tag is being used. See for example Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, it's talk page, and Wikipedia:Image sleuthing. Use seems to have been "it looks promotional. fair use?" "sure, works for me." "ok. {{PromoPhoto}}" --ChrisRuvolo 22:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No offence to them, but on Wikipedia:Image sleuthing there is a lot of that logic eg:"this looks like it was made by a wikipedian, therefore we can tag it GFDL.".
More on-topic, I vote to keep the promo tag. Any tag can be mis-used, but that's not grounds for deletion IMO.
Boffy b 19:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasoning for deleting this is not really correct. A promotional work has a strong effect on whether an item is fair use and it's useful to highlight items which have this as a significant part of their fair use reasoning. The reasoning is correct that it would be nice to credit the author of a work used for promotional purposes, even though that author knew that the work would be used for promotion and would hace broad fair use as a result - we should always seek to properly credit the creator of visual works, in part to address moral rights. We've already seen at least one copyright complaint from a UK photographer in relation to a fair use of an album cover: the photographer objected to the use of the original image, not to the modified form used on the album cover, showing that yes, the photographer did recognise that the prmotional use was OK, as it is, under fair use. The combination of promotional material and use in a public education work such as Wikipedia makes for a very strong fair use situation. It is good also to explain the rest of the fair use reasoning, though, instead of simply relying on this template as the only text. Jamesday 17:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just used the tag on a publicity photo I uploaded of an actress that was taken in 1969. Maybe Fairold might have been a more appropriate tag, but I think Promophoto has its place. 23skidoo 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not just about fair use; there's also implied or probablistic license. AaronSw 23:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with earlier comments. Mgm|(talk) 08:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need to crack down on people slapping a fair use template on anything they want. Fair use is useful to have and I don't object to it per se, but very rarely do I see the source of the image credited or any copyright information or fair use rationale stating which legal provisions relating to fair use the uploader is taking advantage of. The Alexis Bledel photo above is a classic example: "I want to use it therefore it's a promotional photo and fair use." There may be a place for promotional photos where a link can be provided to an official website or something where it's clear that a gallery of photos is provided for promotional purposes, but all too often an image from a professional photoshoot of someone that's been copyvio'd somewhere on the internet is wrongly labelled "promotional". — Trilobite (Talk) 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Another reason to delete this template might be because Template:Promotional and this one are redundant. --ChrisRuvolo 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imagevio

The fact that you have received sound recordings in the past for promotional purposes merely means that you were not required to pay to purchase physical copies of those recordings. Your receipt of those recordings on a gratis basis did not provide you with any rights to reproduce, distribute or publicly perform those recordings via digital audio transmissions. Because only digital audio transmissions of sound recordings are subject to public performance royalties, your previous uses of the recordings (e.g., for "over the air" transmissions, in a bar or club setting) that were given to you did not trigger any royalty obligation to sound recording copyright owners. If you now choose to use those recordings to make digital audio transmissions, those transmissions will be subject to public performance royalties, notwithstanding the fact that you obtained the physical copies at no cost.
The other materials you mention (e.g., publicity photos, bios) are also subject to copyright protection and cannot be reproduced or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. Use of old bios, pictures and the like may also implicate the performers' right of publicity.
Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Press kit photos?

chocolateboy 7 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

---

There are two ways we can use images here on Wikipedia: one is if we have permission (through the GFDL or a CC license) to reproduce it. The other is if we don't have permission, but we claim our use is a fair use of the image.

The promophoto tag is a specialized version of the {{fairuse}} tag, just like {{albumcover}} or {{money-EU}}. The same rules apply; it's no different than those cases. All the extra verbage about unauthorized reproduction and explicit permissions is unnecessary. It's accurate, but it's implicit in the statement that the image is used under a fair use claim. Unless that text is included in all fair use tags, it doesn't belong here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell.
The text above, as you acknowledge ("accurate"), makes it clear that "promotional" does not mean "free to reproduce". The current wording merely reproduces (literally) the text of other templates that are not in dispute.
As for "unless that text is included in all fair use tags, it doesn't belong here", I agree that the fair use template should be made consistent with the other templates that refer to fair use on Wikipedia.
Also, though we all agreed to keep the template, a number of posters in the TfD did suggest that the wording could be adjusted to clarify the importance of actually justifying the fair use claim rather than assuming it. The statement above proves by algebra that this assumption is wrong.
If there's a consensus that we should ignore the only citation that we have that actually addresses this topic explicitly (cf. Image talk:AmazinGrace.jpg), then I guess I'll stop trying to discourage people from flouting the principles of freedom on which Wikipedia is based. The current wording is not only "accurate", it also serves the important function of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability.
chocolateboy 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The text is indeed accurate. And in some ways it's helpful, in that it seeks to dispel the common but wrong belief that promotional photos are free to use. But I don't like that it requires the tagger to include a fair use rationalle along with the tag. I'll explain.

All images that we don't have permission to use need to be either deleted, or need to have a reasonable fair use rationalle given. We agree on this. Legally speaking, there should be no difference between tagging an image as {{fairuse}} or {{albumcover}} or {{Promophoto}}. So why should we tag an image as {{albumcover}} or {{Promophoto}}, rather than just {{fairuse}}? Well, one reason is for categorization, which is fine. But the other reason, in my mind, is to make a fair use claim in the template itself. It's rather boring to type out on every fair use image:

The use of this image on Wikipedia is held to be a fair use of the image because (1) it is used for educational purposes in a not-for-profit encyclopedia, (2) it is of no better size or quality than is required to illustrate the articile, and (3) no free image of the subject is available.

Would you agree that, if accurate, that's a reasonable fair use claim for an image? Well that applies to many, many fair-use images. So maybe the template should say that. Here's my idea of the text for the template; see what you think.

This is a copyrighted promotional photo with a known source. The use of this image on Wikipedia is held to be a fair use of the image because (1) it is used for educational purposes in a not-for-profit encyclopedia, (2) it is of no better size or quality than is required to illustrate the articile, and (3) no free image of the subject is available.

If those stipulations aren't accurate, then the promophoto tag doesn't belong on the image and can be removed by anyone. Is this acceptable to you? (I would also favor stating something like this explicitly on {{albumcover}} and other tags.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I want to agree with you (and with your wording), but, as I've mentioned before, I don't think we can just make stuff up. As far as I know, neither of us is a lawyer (I expect to be expertly and rather expensively corrected if I'm wrong :-), and the literature I scanned before said nothing about promotional photographs falling under the rubric of fair use (and you acknowledged that you couldn't find any such reference). We have one explicit verdict. If you (or anyone else) can find evidence that US courts (as per Wikipedia:Libel) have ruled that promotional pictures are fair use, then of course I'll "get my coat", but until then "it's only a small, grainy image" (there are lots of big, hi-res promophotos on Wikipedia), and "it's only for educational purposes" (apart from the commercial mirrors) aren't, in my limited "show me the citation" estimation, sufficient grounds for the kind of automatic inclusion that your wording warrants.
There are plenty of "assets" that we could apply those rules to (rips of TV shows not yet available on DVD, fan-transcribed screenplays and teleplays, live recordings &c.), but we don't for fear of the almighty cease and desist.
If it's chiefly the "please provide a fair use rationale" section that you object to, then perhaps the "redundant" {{promo}} template could be tweaked to commit itself to one interpretation or the other.
How about one template for "I think this promotional photo is fair use and here's my rationale", and one for "this is a promo pic that the copyright holder has agreed to license for unlimited distribution"?
chocolateboy 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not a lawyer. I have made copyright law a sort of hobby -- but I'm still not an expert. But the way I see it, if I'm qualified to create a Fair Use rationalle, then I'm qualified to make a template out of one. The question is, is this a good template to do so in.
This is really complicated by the fact that the template covers 2 different cases, as you note; and that there are 2 templates that say the same thing. We really ought to clean this up. Let's see if we can agree on how.
How about this template confine itself to the first case. "This is a copyrighted promotional photograph with a known source. The copyright holder has made it clear that they want this photo to be distributed widely; it is therefore believed that this image may be used under the fair use provision of United States copyright law (see copyrights)." Perhaps even a note should be included with: "(If the conditions above do not apply to this image, then this tag should be removed and replaced with a different image copyright tag.)"
Then I could make a different tag called something like {{FairUseWithRationalle1}} that includes the points I listed previously, and is not confined to promotional photos. That would just be for convenience.
As for {{Promo}}, so far as I'm concerned, it should be deleted as redundant.
Do you like this suggestion? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think we could (and will :-) both tweak the wording ("The copyright holder has made it clear that they want this photo to be distributed widely" is evidently not sufficient grounds ("it is therefore...") for a fair use claim as per the attack lawyer's comments above; "please provide a fair use rationale" doesn't hurt anyone, and may save us from charges of contributory negligence), but otherwise, yes, I pretty much agree with you. All the same, I'd really love a citation/precedent/judgment along those lines, in addition to your (admittedly sensible) comments. Can't anyone find one?
chocolateboy 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

I wish this template insisted on having a source, since photos actually released for promotion can look the same as photos just taken as part of a commercial photo shoot or something. But I don't know how to effect such a change without screwing up every current use of this template. I hate to see people sticking this template on every photo they upload, though, without actually citing a source. kmccoy (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

done. -- Zondor 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promophotos are still fair use

I think it should be made clearer that these images are indeed used under fair use and that any permission for use in Wikipedia that does not release it under a free license still means the work is not free and may not be allowable for all third-party use. As such, I'm altering this template to make it look more like {{fairuse}} and altering the wording to make it more clear that these images are still not free and may only be used where fair use applies. As for known source -- well, if it doesn't have one, it's going to be deleted anyhow if spotted (after 7 days on the suite: and if you've applied this tag you ought to know you need to source the image too). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks a lot better. We're intending to rewrite this tag as part of WP:WPFU, but your changes are a step in the right direction. JYolkowski // talk 17:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional

Looking around, I saw {{Promotional}}, which seems to be redundant with {{promophoto}}. Are these functionally different, or should they be merged?

There is a small amount of overlap but they are mostly different. {{promophoto}} is used for publicity photos (see Wikipedia:Publicity photos). {{promotional}} is used for promotional material (e.g. advertising). JYolkowski // talk 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Policy Clarification

In the edit: 03:46, 13 October 2006 Ed g2s (Talk | contribs) (reflect recent clarification of policy)

Can I get a link to the clarification of policy, where the policy was discussed, and what the clairfictaion was?

Otherwise, I say revert this template back to what it was prior to 13 Oct 2006..

Jenolen 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Jkelly 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures of living people

As of now, it seems its practice to delete pretty much all photos of living persons if they're nonfree and used solely to depict the appearance of the person. That seems to be precisely the type of photo {{promophoto}} is usually used for. I'm not proposing deletion, but the template should have a clearer statement of when not to use it for living persons. The recent clarification isn't sufficient. --Rob 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Rob -- I agree completely. In order to be compatible with current fair use standards (where fair use claims are not being allowed on promotional photos of living people), I proprose the following change to the template:
To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of deceased persons, products that no longer exist, or images of bands that have broken up, and are known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.
Are they any objections to this rewording? It just seems simpler to list what this tag is for, than to leave it open to debate. Jenolen 10:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I object to this rewording. For some reason people seem to be insisting on taking WP:FUC to the extreme. A candid snapshot does not adequately give the same information as a professional promotional photo and does not serve as an equivalent replacement. Limiting the use of {{promophoto}} to deceased persons is not in line with policy. VoiceOfReason 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You should argue that point at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, not here. Fact is, a number of admins, with the blessing of Jimbo, are systematically trying to delete every promophoto used simply to depict the appearance of a living person; even when no free image yet exists (of any quality). I'm not arguing this is good or bad (both sides have a case). That's irrelevant to the wording of this template. But, people should be aware of what's happening, like it, or not. --Rob 04:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either change this template or change the fair use policy, and I say let's go with the easier one. But the template's name should probably be changed as well to avoid confusion, say to Template:Promophoto deceased. Shawnc 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggested wording is good. Also, rather than change this template's name, I think it's probably best to "depreciate" this tag, and make new tag(s) like "{{promophotodeceasedperson}}" and "{{promophotodefuncbad}}"; where images would be migrated to. {{Promophoto}} is a terrible name, since it makes people think we'll keep something we won't. --Rob 03:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parameter?

What would people think of including a parameter in this template for linking to the site at which it is stated that the image is promotional? Many of the "promophotos" we have are actually mislabelled as such, without us having any evidence that the terms of their use are in accordance with this tag; if we are going to use this tag, we should give evidence that it applies. Obviously, this would have to be made in some way reverse compatible with existing uses of the tag. --RobthTalk 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically it's no problem, would this replace the source though? Or would the url point more to the licensing agreement on the page? I don't really like the idea of having source in tag parameters, but if it's just the sites promotional info that would be good. Would you want this to be an optional parameter going forward? It probably should be for backwards compatibility, like you said. We could also have it so that if there was no parameter it would say something like, "No promotional information link has been given" or something. It could even place them in a separate (sub)category if we wanted. - cohesion 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Source goes outside, but the tag says something like "this is a promotional photo, as established by the terms of use [http://example.com here]." --RobthTalk 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the extra category should be "promophotos with terms", or "promophotos without terms", or both? (This would probably be in addition to the current category I would think). - cohesion 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Promophotos without terms would be more useful for finding ones that need work. --RobthTalk 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. :) - cohesion 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds Good, But...

The part of the template which reads: replaceable by free-licensed images - really doesn't make much sense. There is no license needed for a free/libre image, right? The image is free; from whom do you propose licensing it? (It can be released by its creator, but you can't license a free image. You can only use it.) This sentence should be changed to read replaceable by a free (libre) image or something similar. Jenolen speak it! 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That should be read as "replaceable by an image licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc." Jkelly 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
All "free/libre image" are either in public domain or have a free license (like GFDL). Then... no, not "right". Sometimes there's a license needed for a free/libre image. Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)--Abu Badali 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Images that are in the public domain require no licensing. Images that have been released under GFDL and are free/libre do not require a license. (To whom would you address a hypothetical licensing request?) I guess what I'm trying to convey is the idea that the language of this template is in desperate need of simplification. In fact, most all of the fair use related templates require such simplification, and a lot less legalese. We're not lawyers; we're not acting as lawyers. As such, our templates, etc. should be as simple and direct as possible. That's all I'm trying to convey. Jenolen speak it! 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: the GFDL amd CC-by-SA are both licenses under the terms of which people other than the images copyright holder are permitted to use the image; unlike most other license, they permit free reuse. Thus, images are "freely licensed" if they are placed under those or similar licenses. --RobthTalk 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, GFDL stands for GNU Free Documentation License. So if something is licensed under the GFDL, it does need to say so. You might be confusing free licenses with public domain. Things licensed under GFDL are not public domain, there are many things you are not allowed to do with them. - cohesion 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, to the point of where you would address a licensing request for GFDL licensed images. It would be to the copyright holder as always. Just because someone released an image under GFDL to wikipedia doesn't mean they can't also release the same image to me or you under different terms. They still retain copyright. - cohesion 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Interesting! I would guess (and please note, this is just a guess) that a rights holder giving away images to certain sources, and not others, would not be a good way to reserve those rights. For example, if a company released an image free/libre to Wikipedia, why would I ever try to license it from the company? It's free/libre on Wikipedia... there's really no compelling need to license an image that has been released freely. (Sure, the company could later claim that their release of the image wasn't intended for EVERYONE, but "free for some" seems a pretty easy path to "free for all.")
On a similar note: Many Wikipedians believe "free/libre" images can be created of celebrities, by other Wikipedians. Do you think they can? Or do celebrities retain personality rights?
Jenolen speak it! 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you license your image under GFDL, say, on wikipedia, other people can use your image under the GFDL, because it explicitly allows reuse. So, if you don't mind using it under the restrictions of GFDL then yes you wouldn't need to contact the copyright holder. Many companies/people though are not willing to use GFDL licensed images or text in their work because the license, in their perspective, is too burdensome. They may not want to give obvious attribution, and include the full GFDL for example. They very likely do not want their work to be free content as well. (You cannot reuse a GFDL licensed work and decide starting at your use that people can no longer reuse the image). They might then contact the copyright holder and get a separate license just for themselves, possibly paying the image creator. This actually does happen for wikipedia images too :) - cohesion 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited warning

Hi all,

I edited the warning to represent alternative viewpoints on the matter. I also made it so the warning linked to the policy part of the fair use policy not the counter-examples (as the format of the fair use article seems to suggest these are guidelines).

Cedars 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Having that in there is a .really. bad idea for two reasons. 1. We don't need to encourage uploads of these photos at all. 2. WP:ASR - a template in pseudo-encyclopedic space doesn't need to reference non-encyclopedic material any more than necessary. BigDT 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi BigDT,
Since there is now a proposal being voted on related to the matter, I am going to add a link to that. If you must delete it, please delete the warning completely. The proposal does not encourage the uploading of unfree photos and the whole warning itself is non-encyclopedic material. Whatever happens please appreciate I am working my best to improve Wikipedia and I welcome comments from you on my talk page. :-)
Cedars 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense. The image tag shows current Wikipedia policy. No proposal to regress our fair use policy stands a snowball's chance of happening and all putting it on the tag would do is be confusing. BigDT 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi BigDT,
Can we not just remove the warning altogether?
Cedars 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it needs to be there being that it represents a relatively new policy change. Not everyone reads all of the policy pages regularly. What might be a better idea would be to standardize it or something like it. There's too much "fair use" abuse on Wikipedia. The prevailing attitude is, "if I want to use an image and it isn't free, it must be fair use". But that attitude is just plain incorrect and there ought to be some kind of warning about it. BigDT 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree we need to tackle the issue "if I want to use an image and it isn't free, it must be fair use". But use of promotional photographs of people for the purpose of comment or criticism is fair use. Cedars 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Promotional photographs are not being used for "comment or criticism". They're usually (mis)used to illustrate how some person looks like. For using a promophoto for "comment or criticism", we would need an article about the photograph itself, and not about the person. --Abu Badali 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Template_talk%7EPromophoto_cc47.html"