Template talk:Danish parliamentary election, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair-use logos in this template

Hello. I recently removed the logos from this template, as they are copyrighted images that are being used under a claim of fair use. According to the Wikipedia fair-use policy, item 9:

Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates [emphasis added] (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).

Also please read Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#Fair use images in non-userbox templates, where it is stated:

The use of fair use images on templates is also not permitted [emphasis added]. At first glance, this might seem improper. After all, these templates are often intended to be used only on articles that portray the subject in question. The problem comes in the "intended use" area; it is entirely possible (and does happen) that templates intended for use only in main article namespace are used in other namespaces. This potentially creates a copyright issue if there is a fair use image on the template. Thus, the policy has been written to forbid uses of fair use images outside of the main article namespace, which does not include templates of any kind.

Consequently, unless consensus is reached at Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions that the use of fair-use logos on this template is "necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia", these logos are a violation of Wikipedia policy. I have removed them for a third time. Please do not restore the logos without a good justification for why their use is not clearly against established Wikipedia policy. —Bkell (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• To those editors citing WP:Sense and WP:IAR, please note that those are not policy. Fair use images may not be used in templates, period. Sorry. Also, the goal of those two essays is to point out that rules may be broken when circumstances warrant in order to make the encyclopedia better. Having the logos on this template doesn't accomplish that goal. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The text on {{logo}} reads: "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question". The images do in fact serve this purpose as long as Wikipedia insists on using translations nomatter that these might be unknown to virtually everyone, including people familiar with the material. "Red-Green Alliance"??? Every Dane knows what Enhedslisten is but virtually noone would guess that this is the same party. Outside of Denmark, knowledge about them is nil. "Siumut" might translate literally to "Forward" but Greenlanders, Danes and everyone else use the Greenlandic name. This is probably why several of these articles were originally listed by their Danish names. Some political parties (almost) never translate their names but Wikipedia's "use English" policy is often in conflict with the similarly cited "use the best known name" policy. One editor wished to move the article on "Venstre" (which does not translate its name per policy) to "Left (Denmark)". Well, that is a literal translation but Google would give a hit rate around nought in this case, so it was a good thing that this proposal fell through. As I've already explained to Bkell, this material does not present a problem in Denmark, where all political parties allow the press (and others) the free use of their logos for informative purposes provided that the images are not altered. I've rechecked and all parties but one keep the logo(s) in a publicly available download section on their respective webpages along with all the other promotional material. Here is the full list: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (yes, it is the Socialist People's Party that's missing on the list, it looks like they just forgot to add the logo.) The only problem here is that Wikipedia insists on being granted the right to modify all images, no matter that this might be an extremely bad idea in some cases, full stop. Encyclopedias in Denmark use the logos and so does every newspaper everytime a poll is printed (which happens quite often). Sorry to say it, but it is beyond me how anyone got away with outlawing the use of images in templates with the argument that "this can be abused". If such arguments became policy in real life, it would mean banning all cars, airplanes, trains, wheelchairs, lifts, trolleys, horses, sharp objects, electricity etc etc (probably everything since and including the invention of fire). Everything in the world can be abused and / or has been used with the purpose of hurting someone during the course of history. Common sense would say: ban abuse when that happens or correct people when they use material for wrong purposes. However, this kind of rigorism / copyright paranoia simply invents problems that don't exist in real life. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias in that the goal of Wikipedia is to be a freely usable encyclopedia, that is, an encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose. This is why we have strict guidelines about fair-use images, because by definition fair-use images cannot be used by anyone for any purpose. This is not a question of the legality of these images, it's a question of Wikipedia policy. —Bkell (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a completely free encyclopedia, since we've already established that Wikipedia allows the use of fair use image in the first place. What we're debating is where and under what conditions unfree images can be used, and this policy is not helping the project, it is merely imposing what in my book amount to little more than setting up rules for their own sake. It is an extremely poor way to enforce copyrights or legal rights. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the Wikipedia fair-use policy should be changed, you can bring up your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. —Bkell (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see a new policy has just been formalized there, and drawing on my experience from the political world, whenever something has been agreed upon, it normally implies immunity against further changes - in the short-term anyway. I respect copyrights, but there's no reason to be more rigorous than the Holy Inquisistion. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with this, but there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Ach, fuck it. sighs —Nightstallion (?) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)