Template talk:TIME

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 1 Usage 2 List 3 Current wording 4 Question 5 The great purge 5.1 Violation? 6 Less deleting and more changing the text to comply 7 Google and thumbnail images 8 Time magazine and their legal department 9 Template under review?

[edit] Usage

TIME magazine covers should be used to illustrate the publication of individual issues and not just general things.

For existing images, the captions can be changed to easily change this. Instead of "Here is a picture of so-and-so from 1949", one can put "So-and-so was featured on the cover of TIME magazine in 1949".

If the image is just a picture of somebody, there is no reason why the specific TIME image of them should be used. If it is a picture of an issue of TIME magazine, though, there is no other way such a thing can be displayed without that particular image. So it became de facto fair use, in a sense, as long as the resolution is low and the image is appropriate to the article. Linking to their cover gallery and noting that further licensing options are available there only encourages this notion, making it clear we aren't trying to defraud anybody. --Fastfission 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Pictures of magazine covers are to be used to illustrate the issue in question. For a magazine as well-known as TIME, it's quite possible that the subject's appearance on the cover is significant enough to mention in the article. The magazine cover should be used to illustrate that, not just the subject in general. JYolkowski // talk 14:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my point as well. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TIME_Magazine_covers. I think my proposed wording is much more narrowly defined and less broad than Ilmari's. You even refer to the "significance" of the subject featuring ]on the cover, which is exactly the point my re wording is addressing, using the same language. Most uses of the TIME cover images in articles are just a general picture of the subject, without reference to the significance of their being featured on the cover. Ilmari's wording would permit use across the board as is, because the image itself demonstrates that the subject appeared on the cover of TIME magazine. This is not an adequate fair use rationale. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the text slightly to try and make explicit that the images must accompany a textual account of the subject's appearance on the cover of TIME magazine, although I now foresee a potential problem with someone misinterpreting the word "appearance" as "likeness" instead of "fact of appearing". Sigh. Anyway, I suppose is a sense the first criterion ("to illustrate the publication of the issue in question") is sufficient by itself, if interpreted as per Fastfission above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a tricky one to pin down. I have re-read all the options several times and am not happy with any of them, including my own versions. I think we are agreed that there is a problem with the present wording, which needs to restrict blanket usage as a general illustrative picture of the subject, but should permit usage specific to TIME magazine covers and the significance of that to the subject's notability. Further thoughts will follow, but for now I will take a break from this to mull things over. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've replaced both criteria with single new criterion: "to illustrate an article or part of an article relating to the issue or cover in question". I suppose the real question is how much commentary an image of a TIME magazine cover needs to be encyclopedic. Some might argue that TIME magazine is notable enough that a mere statement like "X appeared on the cover of TIME magazine in 19xx" is encyclopedic in itself. In that case, any use of the covers in articles about their subjects would in fact be acceptable, as long as it was accompanied by a caption like above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the current wording. JYolkowski // talk 17:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A single criterion seems to work. I've tightened the wording a bit to make editors at least try to address fair use criteria. I would probably agree that even a simple image caption stating "X appeared on the cover of TIME magazine in 19xx" is encyclopedic in itself and would address fair use issues adequately. This type of use however is probably stretching fair use justification a bit too far IMO. It's just being used as a general purpose picture of JFK Jr. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have removed the picture from that article. That said, I still feel your version suffers from an unfortunate ambiguity: namely, "to illustrate [...] the significance of the subject portrayed on the magazine cover" could be interpreted as saying that the covers can be used as general purpose illustrations (like in the abovementioned article) as long as the subject depicted on the cover is significant. I don't think that's what you intended it to mean at all, but that's how I initially read it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Maybe we need to split back to two bullet points. How about:

• to illustrate an article relating to that particular issue of the magazine, or
• in an article about the subject portrayed on the magazine cover to demonstrate that subject's significance or notability,

Any thoughts? --Cactus.man ✍ 13:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I came up with a similar version, saying:

• in an article about the issue in question or its cover, or about TIME magazine in general, or
• in an article about the subject featured on the cover, where the subject's depiction on the cover is considered notable,

but I decided to scrap that in favor of a more explicit version of my earlier version: "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover". I don't really see any ambiguity here: if the text of the article doesn't describe the issue or its cover, the image must not be used. If anything, that may be a bit too strict. Or have I missed some alternative interpretation? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The original intent seems to have been to restrict use to articles about individual issues of TIME, but most usage of the images are in articles relating to the subject portrayed on the cover. This is why I now think that I think the two bullet approach will be more successful. I like your first bullet point, but prefer my second. How about combining them as a good working compromise?

• in an article about the issue in question or its cover, or about TIME magazine in general, or
• in an article about the subject portrayed on the cover to demonstrate that subject's significance or notability,

--Cactus.man ✍ 14:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the image is used in an article about the magazine, or an article about the subject, it needs to be used to illustrate the issue in question. I think that the wording needs to indicate that. I think that the proposed wording of "to demonstrate that subject's significance or notability" does not make that distinction so I don't think that's a good idea. JYolkowski // talk 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(<- unindent) The "issue in question" in this context refers to the particular issue of the magazine that the cover is taken from. The template needs to address both the use in articles relating to TIME magazine or specific issues of the magazine, and the use in articles about the subject matter featured on the cover. The current wording only covers the former. I am attempting to address both. Using your reading of the wording, the "issue in question" for the latter case is the subject's significance or notability. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of confusion here. The template in its current form does address the use of the image in articles about the subject matter featured on the cover. If you include in the article about So-and-so, "So-and-so appeared on the cover of TIME magazine on Month day, Year", then that satisfies the requirement in the template that the image be used in "part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question", because that part of that article is describing the issue in question. JYolkowski // talk 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no confusion on my part, but I see what you are saying. However, I still feel that the current wording is too loose. Consider this use of a TIME magazine cover. Under the current wording, and as you argue above, some text added to the Kennedy listing that he "appeared on the 26 July, 1999 cover of TIME magazine" would specifically describe the issue's cover and satisfy fair use criteria as defined by the template. I think this is very dangerous and opens the possibility of widespread and inappropriate use of these images. There needs to be tighter wording I think, but the exact solution is not yet clear. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to agree, tightening up the wording may be a good idea. Do you have a suggestion for a wording that would do that and explicitly indicate that the image is to be used only to illustrate the issue of the magazine itself? JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, not yet - but perhaps we should continue this thread in the wording discussion that seems to be emerging below. I think there are also many cases where the images could be validly used in articles about the subject portrayed on the cover, and not just articles about the issue of the magazine itself. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I t is not true that fair use rules constrain how Wiki uses the illustration. We doi NOT have to talk about TIME magazine--that was never in anyone's fair use rules and is not in the email that TIME sent us letting us use the covers. In fact TIME itself has heavily promoted the cover as demonstrating that the person is of great importance and nationally visible. That is the reason to include it in a Wiki article: not to show the person's face but to prove he was important and visible as shown by TIME's decision to put him on the cover. 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Were that the case I doubt we'd find such a high correlation between articles which use a time cover image and articles which have no other illustration. Even if your claim is correct, there is no need to use an image of the cover to 'prove' anything. Nor do I think that such use would be clearly fair use, would it be fair use to use a well liked copyrighted painting on Daffodil to prove that daffodil are worthy of being used in a popular painting? --Gmaxwell 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

We should do a list (or gallery), to avoid uploading same issues and to find out what we actually have. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For a partial gallery, see Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The category is attached to this template. jengod 18:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current wording

I believe that the way that this template is worded doesn't clock-up with what we have in the fair use article. I think we need to rereview the circumstances that we can use TIME magazine articles. As such, I have added a review note to the template. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything in specific you object to? JYolkowski // talk 14:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would post exactly what you (or others) think doesn't "clock-up", specifically. --Fastfission 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If the text meshes up depends on your reading. Some users have chosen to read "which specifically describes the issue in question" in a way which is different from our intended meaning and which permits them to include TIME's copyrighted works in almost any article they please, so long as TIME was discussing the same issue. Such usage is clearly incorrect and doesn't at all match our fair use criteria overall. There are some cases where a magazine cover itself is part of a notable controversy which is discussed in other articles and such cases produce an easy justification.

The widespread use of TIME covers as easily available eye candy, however, is not such a justifiable use. The quality, timeliness, insightfulness, and striking nature of the illustrations in TIME, like any other popular media, are a primary factor in the commercial value of their work. It is due, in part, to such illustrations that the public chooses to purchase TIME's product (both new issues, and access to archival copies) when they desire information about events both in the world today and in the past. We must accept that, to a non-trivial extent, Wikipedia is in direct competition with TIME (as well as any other form of popular media), and that our careless use of their copyrighted works to improve the quality of articles unrelated to TIME's product is an unacceptable violation of copyright law.--Gmaxwell 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Fastfission and JYolkowski: everything Gmaxwell said, and more. Show me where this template uses all of the criteria of fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Ta bu shi da yu 05:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that, over the past six months, I have been the most active person on the entire Wiki dealing with fair use issues, no problem.

1. The use is tranformational; the covers are being used to illustrate the magazine itself. The material is being used for educational use and, on Wikipedia, nonprofit use.
2. The work has been published and is of a factual nature (a newsmagazine).
3. Only the cover from the magazine has been used, no other material from the magazine. Furthermore, the illustration is a much lower-resolution image than the original.
4. There is no market for very low-resolution covers of Time magazine (if you want them, you can get them all for free at Time's image gallery) so there's no effect on the work.

JYolkowski // talk 16:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

JYolkowski, your efforts to silence discussion are have not been unnoticed nor are they appreciated. Your effort to assert authority on the matter through self-aggrandizement is patently insulting. I also believe that your claim to be factually inaccurate: While you've been busy playing Wikilawyer the last six months, busily creating more barriers to achieving our goal of a Free encyclopedia, my work has directly resulted in the removal of more than 20,000 of the most inappropriate fair use images and the (at least partial) correction of the claims on another 5,000ish. Can you say the same?

I'll now make a point by point response to your claims, a courtesy I'll grant you although you failed to extend it to the others in this discussion...

1. The vast majority of the uses of this template fail the transformational test: our use of TIME's copyrighted cover art is of the same character as TIME's we are not using it to discuss TIME's product, we are using it to provide a striking and high quality illustration to articles where we have not yet bothered to create or secure licensing for our own. Educational is a meaningless criteria when we fail all other test for fair use.
2. The copyrighted work in question is the artistic content which TIME uses to enhance the commercial value of their product by including it. Most of our use is in violation because we have taken their work to enhance the value of our articles in kind.
3. Although we have only used the cover, TIME can also been seen as an aggregation of many copyrighted works and the cover art itself could almost always stands alone as a highly valuable piece of commercial artwork. Claims of lower resolution are almost completely bogus. The images we distribute more than half fills the screens of users at common resolutions, and all important details of the images are visible. This would be like making the claim that the MPEG4 rips of movies circulated on the internet are not a violation because they have a lower resolution than the DVD.
4. TIME's artwork is critical element in selling their products. When you view their covers on their site you are bombarded with advertisements: "Buy this cover framed for $15.95", "Buy a reprint", "SUBSCRIBE FOR $1.99"... When we use TIME's art work to increase the value of our competing product we deprive them of the opportunity to earn income from it which they have on their own site.

I hope you find this helpful. --Gmaxwell 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the above: the TIME images are no less transformative than any of our other fair use images; I'm fairly suspicious of the "aggreegation" claim (the covers are not interconnected in any way based on content; they are thoroughly different in nature than, say, multiple Seinfeld episodes, in which small bits of each deprive the need for use of the whole), and on the "low-resolution" and whether we are infringing on their reprint bit, I find your reasoning very poor -- the images are of very low resolution compared to the print-resolution ones which TIME sells. In fact most of our low-resolution ones are taken from TIME's website itself, which apparently sees no deficit in giving them away freely. I can see no way in which the use of 300px-wide images of old magazine covers, TIME's or any other, could really be said to cut into 1. future sales of magazines, 2. future sales of magazine cover reprints. --Fastfission 20:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of TIME images where? As part of the discussion of TIME? Agreed. As eyecandy for other subjects? I disagree. If you're so confident that there is no value in these 6.8inch x 9inch (the 400px wide cover images on the TIME article as rendered on a 17" display at 800x600) works of art, why not go be a hero and secure access to them for the world by getting them released under a free license?. You've completely avoided my argument above that people buy TIME because, in part, they want news on world events with fantastic illustrations, and our use of these images are in many cases being used to add fantastic illustrations to current event articles. We're taking their own product and using it to enhance our competative works. --Gmaxwell 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One other note (sorry I'm not contributing to this more -- I am very busy for the next few days): 1. I see no reason that TIME magazine covers should be considered different than any other magazine covers on Wikipedia: the TIME template is unique only because it is a large subset of the magazine covers; it has nothing to specifically with TIME other than they are usually taken from the TIME website and because TIME is a very well-known magazine and an apperance on the cover is likely to always be significant. 2. If that can be agreed to, are these arguments meant to imply that almost all magazine covers should be removed from Wikipedia? I find this a bit unreasonable -- they seem like very low-risk fair use problems to me, as (at low resolutions) they do not seem to possibly endanger future magazine sales in the slightest. But anyway -- I will try and contribute more to this when I can, these are just some thoughts which occurred to me. --Fastfission 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that you are confusing the issue at hand with a need to remove *all* covers. No one is talking about all, people are talking about removing ones where there is no strong case of fair use. I hope you are aware that the validity of a fair use claim is entirely dependent on context.

You are correct that TIME isn't special. And like TIME, other mag covers should only be used where we actually have a basis under fair use. This would include places where we are making critical commentary about the work in question, this would not include places where we are taking commerical images to overcome our lack of quality illustrations. This is nothing earth shaking, it has been brought up and settled in the past (for example, the use of the economist cover in Hurricane Katrina because at the time there were no other images of flooding available to us). Risk is only one of our considerations, lets consider: How can we be a free encyclopedia when we make ourselves necessarily dependent on unfree (and potentially illegal) images for our illustrations? or How can we expect to be treated as a serious professional resource when we perform the unethical act of taking the art work of our competition simply because it would be too costly or we are too lazy to create our own? or How could we convince a court that it should withhold an injunction against Wikipedia distributing images due to rampant copyright violations when our resistance to removing obvious violations is so great that it would be easy to make the argument that our infringement is willful? --Gmaxwell 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I had a long conversation with another editor over the image which used to illustrate Jack Abramoff; it was originally using an AP photo, but a fairly hi-res version which I argued was not fair use. (note - the discussion of this was on the user's page, and the user is no longer on Wikipedia) As we were discussing this, the TIME magazine cover featuring Abramoff's face came out. The other user uploaded and added the image, and I added the text "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was featured on the cover of TIME magazine the week of January 9, 2006, after his guilty pleas.", which I believed made the use fair use per similar rationale to FastFission above. I also believe that it further demonstrates the notability of Jack Abramoff - the "behind the scenes" influencer was suddenly revealed to everyone.

As I found that there was a "web" of articles growing around Jack Abramoff relating info on others in the scandal, I created a series template and put the image and text into it, and transcluded it on some other pages.

Now, I'm usually pretty conservative on fair use, but I'm hearing some other folks being more conservative yet on this. I was under the prior impression that the {{TIME}} criteria were pretty well refined by consensus, but it sounds like there's still a lack of homeostasis.

I'm bringing this up to discuss further what may need to be done to make sure the use of this image is inside the consensus definition of fair use. KWH 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For us to take from a copyrighted work for our articles under fair use we must be able to meet a number of criteria. For example, a fair use claim is usually justifiable when we are discussing, or otherwise making critical commentary about, the copyrighted work. In your example I believe we fail that test: although TIME is mentioned the actual discussion is about Jack Abramoff. If we were to accept that use, it would be logical to conclude that Blue could contain any copyrighted work which contained the color blue. Such reasoning is outright rejected by our fair use guidelines. Another consideration for which I believe your example fails is commercial impact: It is quite probable that a reader could learn all they are interested in knowing about Jack from either the Wiki article or the TIME article. The TIME coverage, however, includes a fantastic illustration which time spent a great deal of money creating. This images has an obvious commercial value to time, and we reduce that value by reprinting it in our articles, even if it is at a reduced resolution (and I would argue that it is not really a reduced resolution because there is no important detail visible in the original that isn't in our reproduction).

Worse are the uses of this image via the template... The use of the image is clearly used as a mere decoration, which is a category of use where we expressly forbid fair use images.

There are some cases outside of articles about TIME where such images should be permitted, but they are fairly infrequent. An example of such a case is the Vanity Fair cover on Demi Moore, where the cover itself caused a huge controversy which earned itself multiple paragraphs in the article about Demi. This use is substantially different in character from the case you've brought us. In your case, I don't see any fair use at all... I see Wikipedia making up for a lack of talented contributing photographers by illegally taking the fantastic work of others. --Gmaxwell 06:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, I agree somewhat with your conclusion but I think some of your arguments are flawed... And just to be clear, I fully believe that we succeed most in our goal of writing a Free encyclopedia when we are able to say "We made it", the whole thing. However, in cases where we are 'imperfect', like not being able to have a Wikipedia photographer waiting outside the Federal court with a telephoto lens to get a picture of Jack Abramoff, that's where fair use is a tool which can help us to succeed in being informative even if we fail at being Free.

I don't believe "no important detail visible in the original that isn't in our reproduction" means not fair use, otherwise we are in the somewhat absurd position of having to censor "important details" to exercise the right of fair use.

I went ahead and removed the image from the Jack Abramoff template since I realized it was absolutely not in line with policy at Fair use, point 9. However, I don't think the use of this image in the article is out of line with point 8 (not a purely decorative purpose). The text "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was featured on the cover of TIME magazine the week of January 9, 2006, after his guilty pleas" is included specifically to comment on the publication of the issue in question as one of the events in the revelation of Jack Abramoff's misdeeds to the world, and the image illustrates the event of the publication. It serves a secondary purpose of illustrating Abramoff's visage for readers, but is not intended to try to exploit some sort of fair-use loophole; if the cover were not a picture of Abramoff but was still an issue dedicated to his misdeeds and convictions, I think its publication would still be a notable bit of the story.

I don't think that using the slippery slope argument of "all blue things could be in blue" is sound. Let's speak more directly to the fine line of distinction where mere mention becomes critical commentary and discussion. We have established that the Demi Moore VF cover is one example that you consider "substantially different"... and thus I assume a good example of a justifiable fair use. If I understand you, pointing out that "Person X was featured on the cover of TIME magazine on Date Y" never is sufficient(?)

What is a good example of fair use of TIME covers? does it need to be in the article Publication of January 9, 2006 edition of TIME? Should the text comment on the artistic quality of the photo of Jack Abramoff? Do we have to engage in critical commentary on the image on the cover, the issue itself, or content within the issue? KWH 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The great purge

Currently images of Time magazine covers are being arbitrarily (in my opinion) deleted from articles by User:Ta bu shi da yu. Please help settle what is fair-use and what is not before more images are deleted. Currently I am trying to get the arbitration commitee to issue a "stay of deletion" order. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Please join the discussion. User:Ta bu shi da yu claims here: Jimbo Wales that he has a personal email from Jimbo Wales allowing him to delete images of Time magazine thumbnail covers.

Deletion is going on as we type: [Activity log] My question to people here:

• Is your interpretation that only images of Time covers can appear in the article called Time (magazine).
• Is your interpretation that Wikipedia can display the cover of the magazine in biographies of that individual, so long as it is properly cited and linked back to Time.
• Should these images be deleted, as they are now, while this debate is going on?
• What is the content of the email from Jimbo Wales to User:Ta bu shi da yu. Others are saying they received the message also.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason that anyone should reply to this post of yours when it appears that you've ignored the extensive discussion above? --Gmaxwell 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to be more specific about which passage I have ignored. If your going to comment, please cite a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire discussion above. Rather than joining in you've started off with these blanket questions which have, at worst, at least begun being addressed above. --Gmaxwell 07:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My concern here, at this moment, is not to join the debate. It is to stop the deletion of the images during the debate. If the images are being deleted while the debate is going on, the deleter wins the argument by default, since image deletion is not reversible.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. I can undelete every one of these deletions because I maintain an archive of all images on Wikipedia. Even if that weren't the case, as I understand it, with few exception these images were taken from a single online source of TIME covers... and therefor it would be trivial to download/reupload them again. --Gmaxwell 07:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Does you keeping an image that was licensed to Wikipedia violate the license? I imagine you can keep public domain images, but certain images licensed to Wikipedia aren't supposed to be stored anywhere but the Wikipedia servers. That's why some of the mirror sites don't store the images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

Your argument is that since the covers can be restored, its ok to delete them while the debate about their use is ongoing. Isn't the argument just as valid that they should stay at their status quo, since it takes work to delete them; and then even more work to restore the images, and their captions, and their placement within the articles? Some work is trivial, but lots of trivial work consumes time that is better spent on creating content. Especially since the debate about usage has not been settled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're off in space here. "licensed to Wikipedia"? We *do not permit with permission images*, so I have no clue what you're talking about. I think the behavior of the mirrors has more to do either with our poor accuracy in tagging or the need when trying to attract helpless webusers to spam depending on the site.... I did not make the argument you accused me of... I only pointed out that your claim of urgency due to irrecoverable deletion was mistaken. Yes, there would be work in restoring them. All change takes work. No news there. --Gmaxwell 09:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The creative commons {{cc-by-2.5}} license says that the image must always show the source of the photo. The source is the image creator, or the implied or actual copyright holder. Thats the "by" part. removing the source imformation from the image is a violation of {{cc-by-2.5}} . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

What is this in reference to? Are you claiming that I'm somehow inviolation of cc-by-2.5? Nothing being discussed here is cc-by-2.5 licensed. --Gmaxwell 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation?

If it is a violation of copyright to store Time magazine images on the Wikipedia server, it would also be a violation of copyright law to store them on your home computer. Use the analogy of music. It was found that a University server storing music was not legal, and each of the students that downloaded a copy onto their hard drives were in violation of the copyright. They were each charged with copyright infringement. As I understand your claim, you are storing the images that were deleted from Wikipedia. This would be a violation of copyright law. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

Richard what is your point and how is this related to anything going on here? I don't see the relevance, and as far as I can tell you're just trying to troll. --Gmaxwell 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you brought up the topic of storing them on your HD? How would that be trolling? Isn't this the forum for discussing the Time magazine image license and the proper and improper uses of the images? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only for discussing storing images on Wikipedia, not on my home PC! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: What about User:Mb1000, who uploads each TIME cover weekly to make sure that the TIME article contains an image of the latest cover of TIME (used in critical commentary on "The latest issue of TIME")?

I think Richard's statement (though confusingly stated) was salient from a viewpoint of viewing the storage of images in Wikipedia as a service similar to caching or Google images, or local hard-drive browser caching. If the image is not included in an article (a "work") it might be viewed as falling into the same grey(ish) area as those sorts of services, or library services like the Internet Archive. Not saying I agree, but its a good topic for debate. KWH 14:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Mb1000 to stop doing that. I can't see any reason why we need every week's cover on our site. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less deleting and more changing the text to comply

If the argument is that the text within the article has to reflect that the person is on the cover of time magazine as a notable fact: Why are we deleting the images? Why is the person doing the deleting not altering the text to comply with the license? What magic word or phrase are you looking for in the text that makes the article comply with the license? I am looking over the list of Time magazine covers listed for deletion and later deleted, and I see no discernable difference [Activity log] when it comes to a biography. A biography of Glenn Curtiss has his cover deleted and a cover of Stalin has his kept? Again, what secret word or phrase or you looking for in the text to comply with the license? And another obvious question: Why isn't Time Warner writing the license? It seems that we are guessing at what they want.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

[edit] Google and thumbnail images

Why is ok for Google to store and display thumbnails and Wikipedia is not? The last court case with Google and Perfect 10 had a ruling. The court decided that it was ok to provide thumbnails from Perfect 10 but not ok to provide thumbnails of pirated images from the magazine from third parties. The BBC writes: "... the websites hosting the pirated images were at fault, meaning that a damages claim against Google was unlikely to succeed. Judge Matz issued a temporary injunction against Google and gave the two sides until 8 March to work out their differences." [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

Because google's use is *entirely* different from the use we're discussing. Google is using their thumbnails to help direct you to the source of the copyrighted material they are thumbnailing. While we are using the copyrighted images to increase the value of our articles which are almost completely unrelated to the copyrighted work in question. Consider for a moment, two examples: One an encyclopedia article which takes some text from a copyright poem in order to deconstruct it and analyze its implications, the other a book on flowers which has one page per flower... half the content is information on the flower, the other half is a complete copyrighted poem which mentions the flower... many poems are taken from each of many authors, although no single book of poetry have been copied outright. Now consider the implications of allowing or denying the first case as 'fair use', and the implications of allowing or denying the second case as 'fair use'. In the first case, should we allow it the original author loses little as the work is not competition, and if we were to deny it we would stifle public discourse and academic advancement. In the second case, if we permit it the authors of the 'flowers' book are able to greatly increase their income because their work is more valuable with the poetry, while the poetry authors income will be decreased because the flowers book has satisfied some of the poetry buying public. Were we to deny fair use there, the flowers book author would have to compensate the authors of the poetry for the use of their work, or they would have to create their own poetry to go in their book. In the US, the law would support the first case as fair use, but would consider the second a copyright violation. It is being argued here by some (myself included) that much of our use of these pieces of cover art have been more like my second example than my first. In cases where our use is like the first (such as on the TIME article itself) then fair use should be permitted, but not in places where we are only using it as a source for illustrations). --Gmaxwell 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

our analysis has to leave out Wiki profit motives. Wiki is a nonprofit educational foundation and the copyright rulings by the courts STRONGLY favor fair use by nonprofit educational institutions. Rjensen 04:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What material difference would you really expect it to make? This is a claim I see invoked often because it resonates well with the vague language of the statute, but I don't believe it has much basis in reality. Can you suggest an example of a use which would clearly be found as not-fair-use when performed by a commercial encyclopedia but clearly found to be fair use for a non-commercial encyclopedia. Yes, non-profit and educational can be important considerations, but they do not replace the other criteria. There seems to be a wide misconception among some on Wikipedia that 'educational use' is some kind of free pass against copyright law... to the people making this argument I always issue an invitation to have a conversation with my local school district so they can spare me the tax burden of paying for textbooks and course-ware. :) --Gmaxwell 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, one obvious difference is that bypassing purchasing textbooks by using photocopies of them in their entirety is patently not fair use in that it directly impacts the market for the former. Displaying, say, thumbnail-sized Time Magazine covers on an educational web site certainly doesn't negatively impact the market for purchasers of either Time Magazine subscriptions or full-size prints of past covers. Also, though I haven't actually investigated to see if a case has been decided on this matter, Universities routinely allow their faculty to make exact photocopies of up to an entire chapter of a textbook to provide to their students so that an entire book doesn't have to be purchased for use of 1/30th of it. Hell, IP professors at my law school do this. Jkatzen 08:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't cut it. If we use a great deal of their images in manner that is not in line with U.S. legislation and the interpretation of that legislation by the courts, then we are exposing ourselves to legal liability. Please read our fair use article again! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia:Fair use and Fair use rationale are a better read than trying to comprehend the whole US legalistic scope of fair use.

I somewhat agree with the fact that justifying fair use is a priority because we are "exposing ourselves to legal liability". Then again, we expose ourselves to legal liability in innumerous ways when we drive down the street, so that argument that a certain decision must be favored is a semantic null in the general case; we must consider the exposure of a specific case on its merits. This "fallacy of emergency" is a bit of an appeal to fear and not a logical argument. Ultimately if one "thinks like a lawyer" about every action, one would ultimately conclude that one must stay in an underground bunker to avoid any legal exposure.

I've seen other places, TBSDY, where you have advocated that the consensus view does not matter, given the overarching liability. I don't agree. Ultimately in saying that an image is "fair use", the project is making a statement (similar to the statement that a private company's legal department would) that it is choosing to make use of the fair use right under the stated rationale. If it's a statement made in good faith, and if it bears up to consensus (rough consensus agrees that it is a good justification of fair use), then the project is making that statement. (although legalistically, each editor is themselves claiming the fair use right every time they save an edit containing the fair use material, the project itself would more likely be targeted for publishing the editor's submitted material) For this reason I think that many of the images which you are sending to IFD or SDing should go to WP:CP to examine those rationales and hold them up to consensus.

I find the following excerpts from Fair use rationale to be indicative of this intent.

"If you are claiming "fair use" it will help later users under the GFDL to determine if the "fair use" is broad (for further encyclopedia use) or perhaps not even applicable to Wikipedia. It will help if the basis of the "fair use" is explained (briefly). "

"Adding this information is no guarantee that the image will not be later removed, but it will demonstrate a rationale to others that you may have a valid justification for including "fair use" materials that can be used under the GFDL."

I think that all but the most egregiously false/bad faith claims of fair use ought to be given a pass at the consensus decision-making process, the rest can be speedied. Of course 'egregiously false/bad faith' is subjective, so it's somewhat controversial to give priority to a certain definition of that over consensus decision-making. I think that if we can't deal with actually giving a consensus hearing to non-trivial fair use claims, then the project needs to reject fair-use altogether (like the Commons), only to avoid needlessly contentious conflict of viewpoints. KWH 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You make interesting points, but ultimately they are flawed:

1. We should be reading about fair use from the main article. A good solid background on the topic should be required before an editor tries to upload a fair use image. Taken in conjunction with Wikipedia:Fair use and Image_description_page#Fair use rationale, we will be fairly safe from intellectual property issues. Most of our editors don't seem to have familiarised themselves with any of these articles, however. Hence our current untenable position with too many fair use images.

• Agree it's a big problem. Agree that something should be done. Believe it should be done in a manner not divisive.

1. When you drive down the street, you don't expose yourself to legal liability. You expose yourself to legal liability if you break the law. Similarly, if we incorrectly try to argue that many of our images are not copyrighted but are being used under a "fair use" legal doctrine, then we are exposed to legal liability. If you applied reductio ad absurdum to your argument, if we used GFDL or free images, then we would be exposed to legal liability also. This is clearly not the case. I should note that I am not appealing to fear. I am pointing out a legal fact. There have been artists in the U.S. who claimed fair use and then were most suprised when the court ruled against them. I don't want us to be like those artists.

• Sorry - forgot you were in Sydney. Here in the US there's a lot of ridiculous lawsuits, if you hadn't heard. And yes, you can be exposed to liability for countless reasons, someone walking on your lawn and tripping, having a car accident, etc. Even things which are accidental. I've been on jury duty before and seen it. And I don't doubt that infringement cases happen in spite of fair use claims. I'm sure they do.

1. When it comes to legalities, consensus viewpoints do not matter. Consensus != legal opinion. This is just a fact of life. You will notice that Jimbo removes defamatory material from articles upon request, which is against consensus. This is done because a) we don't want to defame anyone, and b) because we don't want to unnecessarily expose ourselves to legal liability caused by defaming someone's character. I am uncertain why you believe that Wikipedia is a democracy. It is not.

• I agree that we all have that moral responsibility to protect the project. Jimbo can delete anything he wants; I agree that that's his prerogative. Now are you the Foundation's lawyer? Because you seem to want to speak directly for the Foundation on this legal matter, and you seem to be certain that anyone else must be wrong, or at least that's what you seem to project. And the hell if I said that Wikipedia is a democracy. I was talking about the consensus decision making process which is used for virtually everything. Don't patronize.

1. You are selectively quote the fair use criteria page. It also states that "Not all inclusions of fair use material may violate the GFDL; if there is a significant reason to include the image and no permission can be obtained it may still be allowable under the GFDL — a justification may be necessary" All of the images I deleted had no justification why they should exist on Wikipedia. Not one. If you want, arrange for an admin to undelete the image description page, and then you will see what I am talking about. I must totally disagree with an assumption of good faith when it comes to copyright violations (you write that "I think that all but the most egregiously false/bad faith claims of fair use ought to be given a pass at the consensus decision-making process, the rest can be speedied"). The onus is on the uploading editor to prove they are not committing a copyright violation.

• You finally have made clear that you deleted the ones which had no fair use justification on the image page. If you had made that clear sooner, I wouldn't have had as much a problem with it. I still think that your focus and tactics are needlessly divisive. The justification is required as a matter of policy, not law. Agree the onus is on the uploader, but other contributors have the right to help if their understanding of fair use is imperfect. On that particular quote you took from fair use, the problematic word is "may" (as it is on some other policies I have noted). "May" implies it might be needed, not is needed. If it had said is needed, or else it will be deleted ASAP... then you would be fully (and clearly) justified. By the way, as Angela. pointed out and you (seemed to have) agreed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment, nobody can prove fair use. (without taking it to court and succeeding in the defense). It can only be demonstrated.

You write: "I think that if we can't deal with actually giving a consensus hearing to non-trivial fair use claims, then the project needs to reject fair-use altogether (like the Commons), only to avoid needlessly contentious conflict of viewpoints" I would tend to agree with this statement. However, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I believe we should have review mechanisms in place that force editors to justify that their image really is being used for fair use purposes. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• It occurs to my mind that there is no satisfactory practice to force anything. I could be wrong, but it seems we must keep with the current arrangement where the Foundation is substantially within an OCILLA safe harbor, or else pitch the baby. KWH 09:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine and their legal department

Both Time magazine and Time-Warner have been notified and were asked to word the boilerplate for the license themselves. If they thought it was a violation they would have issued a "cease and desist" order. A C&D is a letter from an attorney requesting unauthorized copyrighted material be removed from a website or someone stop using a trademark that they feel has been infringed. Is it possible that we have received a letter already and [User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] keeps it with the letter he says he received from Jimbo Wales authorizing him to delete the images? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template under review?

The "Please note: this template is currently under review." has been there since 25 February 2006. No talk here, what happened, where is the conclusion, isn't the note getting a little old? feydey 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, talks look like they stalled. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)