Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Shulgin Rating Scale

the question is whether or not we can reprint the rating scale itself in wikipedia under fair use. It is four bullet points excerpted from the book PiHKAL, the copyright of which does allow non-commercial reproduction- which of course is not GDFL compliant. The talk page has a brief run-down of the situation and links to the text and whatnot. thanks --He:ah? 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about fair use

If someone takes several fair use images and merges them into larger image, do they become the creator of the work, or are the images still fair use. Specifically, see Image:Friendlies_All.jpg. Sue Anne 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would still be Fair Use, as its just a collection of fair use images. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Documentary screen shots

I have a Spanish documentary I bought in Spain that covers the time periods of Primo de Rivera, the Second Republic, Civil War, and Franco. Some of the video and still images might be considered historically significant, such as shots of the aftermath of the assassination of Luis Carrero Blanco. Would certain screenshots from this film qualify as fair use? What criteria should I use? Would the Primo era shots (1920s) be in the public domain?--Bkwillwm 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See this for a good summary. Photos published before 1923 would be public-domain, and could be taken from the film; after 1923 this gets very confusing. Salient questions are whether it was published "in compliance with US formalities" (not entirely sure whether that's just the following two points), and more specifically whether it was published with a copyright notice, whether it was registered with the US copyright office, and when (if ever) its copyright in Spain expired.

If the photos turn out to be public-domain, it's fine to take them straight from the film. Putting them in the film doesn't add to their copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

V For Vendetta sketch

Many years ago, I met David Lloyd at a convention, and he drew a sketch of V For Vendetta for me. What's the score on using this to illustrate the V For Vendetta article on a fair claim basis? Where's the copyright lie? Vendetta's a thorny property, given Moore and Lloyd assigned the work's copyright to DC, with a reversion clause that kicks in after the work is out of print for 18 months, but I'm not sure who owns the likeness and character copyrights. Hiding talk 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether he drew the sketch for you or not - he still owns the copyright on that image. You own the physical image - but not the rights to copy it. It's no different than if you'd bought a copy of the graphic novel - you'd own the book - but not the copyright on the book. So I'd say "No". (Copyright law *SUCKS*). SteveBaker 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The copyright to the sketch is probably with Lloyd but the copyright to the character/idea is probably with DC, if that helps at all. I don't know the details of their contract but I imagine Lloyd is allowed to use the DC copyright for purposes such as these, if they really own it completely. --Fastfission 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - but either way, User talk:Hiding can't use it - even though the image was drawn specifically for him and given to him for free. SteveBaker 04:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How come? Does it not qualify as fair use because it's unpublished? I'm not really discussing the copyright so much as using it under a fair use claim. If it was published, would that change the issue? Hiding talk 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair use claims are generally weakened greatly if the work in question is unpublished. You could of course argue that he had no intent to publish it, but you can't say that of his estate once he dies, for instance. So yes, it does make a difference. Unpublished works can rarely be used under fair use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on template wording

The template {{Fair use in}} has: This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. What is meant by the word unlicensed, examples? (Difference between fair use copyrighted licensed/unlicensed pictures?) feydey 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Copyright licensing means that people have made an agreement to use copyrighted material with the copyright holder. The unlicensed aspect means that we are using this material without any explicit or implicit legal agreement from the copyright holder (and, if it were not "fair use", it would then be infringement). To just say that something is copyrighted is not quite specific enough -- an image tagged GFDL is also copyrighted, it is just that the terms of the license (the GFDL) are "free" enough for Wikipedia's standards. There are no fair use copyrighted unlicensed pictures -- it is a contradiction of terms. --Fastfission 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change

I should like to propose a change to this policy, regarding the use of defunct corporate logos in templates. I can find nothing in US law that precludes the use of a corporate logo from a company which ceases to exist (this would exclude companies that change their logos, applying the same level of protection to previous logos that the current one enjoys), if the logo is used relative to material dealing with that company over the span of several articles. This would also act as a unifying object within the template itself. Stude62 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the logos themselves have fallen into the public domain they are still copyrighted. Whether they are defunct would affect its trademark status, I imagine (you need to maintain a trademark), but not a copyright. The reason that people are generally not concerned with loosening this policy is because the benefits are pretty slim: in exchange for a potentially poor legal situation and encouraging a general a disrespect for copyright, you get a little aesthetic value. Not much of a trade-off. --Fastfission 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, so there are two points that were dealing with.
  • The first is, is the logo still trademarked, that is to say that the Company exists to protect its rights and enforce those rights through use and registration.
  • Then there is copyright, which can or not apply to the image in question.
  • So in cases where the Corporation is no longer existant, and has not used or enforced its trademark rights, and can not do so (Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, Nash), those logos that predate 1923 are in the public domain, and are not subject to copyright protection.
  • Now, lets look at these same companies, say for the period of 1924-1956 (from one after the PD issue gets sticky to a fifty year period), since those company's ceased to exist in 1954 (although Studebaker remerged as a standalone company in 1962), previous logos attached to those companies 50 years are also no longer trademarked, and are thus not protected by the companys (now extinct) that used them. So why is there an issue how they can be used especially when they no longer exist, and are thus unable to appoint an agent to protect them?
It just seems to me that this policy is so tightly wound up over copyright issues that need to be enforced, that it sidesteps the tradmark issues. I would also further argue that these lapsed trademarks, logos, whatever also qualify for use under the promotional image tag, because they were used to promote the vehicles in question. At the very least, this needs to be rexamined. I for one plan on placing Studebaker's pre-1923 logo back on the Template as it is now in the public domain and abandoned as a trademark. Stude62 02:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we may have gotten spun off into two separate debates: The issue of copyright/trademark status for defunct companies - and the issue of whether a copyright/trademarked image can be used in a template under fair use. I'll start another section about the latter and move my earlier comments into it (see below). Sorry for the confusion. SteveBaker 04:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright does not expire because the company ceases to exist. ed g2s • talk 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'Fair Use' images in Templates - Request for Policy Change

Someone has recently removed a bunch of 'Fair Use' company logos from (at least) all automotive company timeline templates. This is hard to dispute because of the very exact wording in WP:FUC that says that we can NEVER use Fair-Use images in templates. I can see why this policy evolved - in order for something to be fair use, it probably has to be used in an appropriate context...since you don't know where a template might possibly be applied, how can you know whether it will ALWAYS be used appropriately?

I would argue that there is one case where it's OK. That is if the REASON for displaying the fair use image is to back up something said inside the template itself. In other words: It should be OK to use (especially) a {{logo}} justification for a FU image if it's relevent to the other content in the template (and low resolution, etc, etc). In the case of the automotive templates, they are (without exception) discussing the history of the company - or of it's products and having the company logo there is indeed informative, encyclopedic and appropriate. By the very nature of the space constraints, the Logo will be small/low-resolution, In fact, going down the list in WP:FUC, they meet every single requirement for fair use except this arbitary restriction on use of FU images in templates. Since removing the company logo's is typically very damaging to the articles (which frequently do not reference the company logo any other way than in the template) - I would very much like to see this cleared up by a change in policy. Failing that, there definitely needs to be more words in WP:FUC explaining WHY we can't do this - right now, it seems like a sweeping and arbitary decision. Thanks in advance for any clarifications that may be forthcoming. SteveBaker 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steven bove and would also like to see this rule amended as it only confuses readers. There cannot be such an absolute rule as "Never" to use fair images in templated. I truly beleive that an exception needs to be made for the templates featuring the line-up of car comapnies. In this case the logo is of high relevance and provides the reader with important information about the company. The logos of car brands are essential to the description of the brand and its models, in many cases one could say the logo is the brand. After all the logo is the most prominent mention of a car company, and is qhat the brand is recognized by. I think it is essential that we make an exception to leave a low resolution image depicitng the car comapny's logo in the template. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both Steven and Gerd. I understand that the rule that precludes the use of FU images in templates was intended to especially preclude uses that would be on the border of copyrigh infringement or even further. Therefore, I believe that a specific exclusion can be made for small low-resultion logos of auto brands in respective templates.
The logos of car brands could as well be placed in the articles themselves within fair use, but by placing them in the templates a few important effects are achieved. First of all, the logo is absolutely relevant to the template itself as a listing of car models (and perhaps some other articles) under that brand. It helps to avoid confusion in case more than one template is used in the same article (quite frequent cases when a car model was sold under more than one brand quite). In general, the small logos are vital to help the user use the WikiPedia, enhance his experience, allow for easier and more effective assimilation of information contained within the encyclopedia and is therefore very similar to e.g. the use of FU images on the main page. --Bravada 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a policy change, but it would be nice if specific situations could be reviewed and exemptions made for templates that are always/only used in places that the logo itself would be considered fair use. This isn't like userboxes, where the template might be used an an unknown number of articles, some of them not directly related to the encyclopedia. These templates are only used in articles that are directly related to the car brand, as they're extremely large templates that are out of place on any other page. It seems a bit counterproductive to have to move the logo outside of the infobox, just because of the template rule. --Interiot 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The change was proposed because there is no opportunity for review and exception, and in cases of articles dealing with automotive topics, the ability to use the logos not only makes sense, but is logical. Stude62 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Our fair use policy is not just based on legality. Wikipedia is about free content, so fair use images are kept to a minimum. They are required on the article discussing the company, they are not required on an article dicussing a product of the company. Fair use claims have to be made for each use, which is why you can't have images on templates. ed g2s • talk 14:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I find your statement that Wikipedia being about free content and fair use kept to a minimum to be illogical. While I can understand that getting original images is preferable over copywritten, a logo is a case where it is impossible to get an original. I can go out and take an image of a Studebaker and use it under your argument, I can't include the Studebaker logo in article about the particular car? That isn't logical argument. I would also like to point out that your comment ("Fair use claims have to be made for each use, which is why you can't have images on templates") makes perfect sense in a black and white world, which this is not. Stude62 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Studebaker is a bad example as the old logo is apparently public domain due to it's age, but that case aside: "I can go out and take an image of a Studebaker and use it under your argument, I can't include the Studebaker logo in article about the particular". Exactly. A photo of the car is free and relevant. The logo is not free and considerably less relevant to the car itself. It tells you who made the car, but you could've done that with text. ed g2s • talk 15:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Studebaker's logo is a perfect example, because these types of things get flushed out in discussions like this, as oppossed to simply finding them removed. Lets look at your following statement:The logo is not free and considerably less relevant to the car itself. It tells you who made the car, but you could've done that with text. "Could have done that with text" what about visual learners? What if the logo redesign is tied to the same designer that deigned the car itself, what about the logo as a visual indicator of the era that the car was built within? All of these uses of the logo should be allowed by fair-use, but they are not if we follow your logic. But the incusion of the logo in a template box serves to unify the template and acts as a educational opportunity as well. Narrow definitions about how people are to learn only serve those people make the definitions, not those who are learning or learn in ways that are non-traditional. Stude62 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"All of these uses of the logo should be allowed by fair-use, but they are not if we follow your logic.". Err, yes they are. If you make a valid fair use claim for a specific article, then that's fine. But putting the logo on a template means it will get used on articles without a claim being made. You have to make a claim first, then use the image, not the other way around. ed g2s • talk 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it needs to be stated that what got this discussion in motion was your removing of the logos, and your doing so without a clear explanation or even an attempted discussion before you made the move to remove them.
As I said in our conversations since then, I do not find your arguments enlightening, nor do I find them to persuasive, I simply see them as your statement as to how the policy is worded, and an implied theory of free content.
As a sign of good faith, even though we disagree with the policy, we have proposed a change that would permit their use in an open forum. As for what “our” policy does and does not permit, that is why we are having this discussion, to see if changing our policy makes sense. As for your assertion that legality isn’t the only the reason, that Wikipedia is about free use, this is an instance, unlike any other that we can think of on Wikipedia, that makes sense as a form of continuity and where we believe that an exception needs to be made. Stude62 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me what a reader of the article on the Ford Ka would learn about that car from the image of the Ford logo? ed g2s • talk 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
They learn, through a secondary means that the vehicle is produced by Ford, because the logo is a universal visual cue. Let me try and illustrate this for you, I work with children who have Asperger syndrome and Austism, as well as with other learning disabled children, the majority of these children are visual learners. I myself am a dyslexic and a visual learner. Those of us with alternative forms of learning do not think as most people do, in terms of words, we/they think in terms of images. (I would refer you to Temple Grandin if you are unaware of the great levels that one can acheive living with austism and aspergers if you are unfamiliar with visual learners) I have students who are twelve years old and can not read, but they know that symbol for Ford is a dark blue oval with writing inside of it. Now lets take visual learning to diffrent direction, the dark blue oval with Ford inside of it also is a visual key with learning for those who are adults and haven't mastered reading. Have you ever worked with these people, I have, and they go through life visually looking for cues. Maybe because I have to put myself in their shoes daily, I understand better than most that learning happens on a variety levels, not just in words. Thats why I know that this is important and builds coninutity and it builds community. Stude62 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And what would the reader of, say Katowice article learn from the Polish flag and Silesian coat of arms? In my understanding, Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data, it is an online encyclopedia, and as such should not be focused only on being a data repository, but also onproviding viewers with good viewing experiences. I have a few "paper" encyclopedias at home, and there are many touches in them that might not be considered necessary from this point of view or another, but make searching for data and information in them very pleasant and convenient. --Bravada 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Not much, but as those images are free, we can afford that luxury. ed g2s • talk 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
People who can't read can use screen-reading software to have an article read to them. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not a teaching aid for people with learning difficulties. For anyone else, an article about the Ford Ka, which starts "... a car from the Ford Motor Company", one has to assume the logo is redundant. ed g2s • talk 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I believe you didn't understand what Stude62 was saying about the way people acquire information - some people, and it does not only concern extreme cases like people with certain diabilities and conditions, acquire information better visually and verbally. ALL of people acquire information using all senses, and it has been proven that combining both visual and verbal means greatly enhances the learning outcome. --Bravada 17:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And my point is that if someone can't acquire that basic information (see Ford example above) then, with no disrepect at all, Wikipedia can't be that useful to them, and we can't rewrite our long-standing policies to cater for these extreme cases. ed g2s • talk 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I believe I understand your point, but I still believe you misunderstood mine. ALL of us, including yourself (I believe we are all human beings here), do not process information like computers, by inputing some amount of written text and then logically, meticulously and carefully analyzing it. Our brains and cognitive processes work in an entirely different way, shaped by evolution. The whole idea of written verbal communication is a bit awkward for our brains, but we adopted it for the reason that it serves few purposes that were hard to realize otherwise.
You might have noticed, however, that especially through the last few decades there is a big shift towards combining written text with graphical elements, more emphasis is put on the shape, layout, even font etc. It is not because users are disabled or retarded. It's because publications, which include encyclopedias, have to be friendly and easy to use. Or perhaps you believe that Dorling Kindersley books are for reatrded and disabled people who shouldn't even attempt to use Wikipedia? --Bravada 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for being sarcastic, but I wasn't aware that Wikipedia policies were so carved in stone that they can not be amended. I find that an encyclopedia that can be amended by anyone has policies that are so long standing that they can never be changed or amended. Stude62 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The principles on which this policy is based are set in stone: WP:5P. ed g2s • talk 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I cannot understand why such policy change cannot be conducted. The fair use policy prohibits the use of fair use images in templates in order to prevent a fair use image form ending up in an article where it isn't needed. This is not the case with Auto templates. When featured in an auto template, the fair use image will always be featured in an appropriate context as required by policy. For example, a fair use Ford logo on the Ford template on the Ford Ka article is more than appropriate. What is the logical resoning against making an exception for auto templates. One needs to consider that these templates are different from say, userboxes. Auto templates will always display a fair use image in an appropriate context. FYI: Yes, the logo is important. That's why there is a Lincoln and Mercedes logo in the Lincoln and Mercedes-Benz articles. The information on wikipedia should be as comprehensive as possible. Mentioning the logo of a car brand is as important as mentioning the flag of a country. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"FYI: Yes, the logo is important. That's why there is a Lincoln and Mercedes logo in the Lincoln and Mercedes-Benz articles." - I agree, and have never contested this point. ed g2s • talk 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"The fair use policy prohibits the use of fair use images in templates in order to prevent a fair use image form ending up in an article where it isn't needed." ... and to keep fair use image usage to a minimum, which was one of the conditions of allowing fair use images at all in the first place. Using copyright images is contrary to our founding principle. An exception has been made for cases when there is no alternative. If one interprets this loosely enough, then you could make a case for this to be allowed, but to do so would be to completely ignore the context in which the policy was drafted, that is keeping such implementations to an absolute minimum. This philosophy is becoming worryingly diluted recently. ed g2s • talk 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess my problem with this is to do with the arbitaryness of the rule that only allows fair use in the article namespace. That's the root of the problem here. The reason for that rule is perhaps that templates are considered to be teeny-tiny snippets of data - such as you find in user-boxes which are clearly too small to support the use of a fair-use image in their own right. However, templates have grown and evolved since the rule was made. We now have these GARGANTUAN timeline templates. In a large timeline template, there can be as much information as in the entire article it's attached to - and it's perfectly possible for a fair use image to be justified by it's ability to illustrate the content of the text in the template itself - quite independently of ANY article it's inserted into. I don't dispute that the present rule disallows FU images in templates - that's very clearly written - which is why I propose that the rule should be changed. It's possible to argue that Break all the rules is a Wikipedia philosophy that covers this situation - but that won't stop someone from reading the rule and then going through and ripping out a whole lot of hard work just because they read the rule. That's what just happened in this case. I don't advocate abandoning the 'No FU in Templates' rule - simply amending it to say something like "No FU images in templates unless the use of the image is explicitly justfiable from the content within the template itself". This would avoid the situation where some picture is stuck into a template with nothing much else - then plastered all over the place - yet still allow these huge and complex timelines to have appropriate and justifiable FU images associated with them. SteveBaker 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So has anyone taken any action on this? Ie, it appears that there is consensus on this issue, however there's a good deal of debate nonetheless. Who should we approaching about whether to change this rule or not? Palffy 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that it would be a radical change to Wikipedia's goals to allow the decoration of templates with unfree content. That would likely be a User:Jimbo Wales-level decision to be made, who would also be best informed as to whether counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to defend such usage. Jkelly 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I wish to exend my most sincere regrets for getting this discussion off track. The best that I can do for this discussion is leave the arena and look for other ways around the policy (ie finding/creating original works of art that are in the same vein as the logos which can be released without restrictions). I also would like to say that I have learned a great lesson about myself, and about others. Stude62 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals

Can fair-use images be used on portals? Our images recently got nicked but other Featured portals have images of the same nature on them. We also went through a Featured portal candidacy without anyone saying anything.. please help. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." WP:FUC, that is, no. ed g2s • talk 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think portals should be treated the same way that the main page is: non-free images should be avoided if at all possible, even if this means using a lower-quality but free image, or no image at all. --Carnildo 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think this was an open issue. Even on the main page we regard the use of a non-free image as a mistake and often swap it out for another (sometimes lower quality) image after the fact. There is nothing about using a fair use image on a portal page the furthers the goals of the project. Presumably a portal is going to get a lot of visits from enthusiasts about the subject of interest.. great! then they can provide free pictures! --Gmaxwell 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But what if it's like Portal:Pokémon? You can't have free pictures for something like that. However featured portals like Portal:London are walking around with them. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Make do with text. The existence of such a portal is slightly worrying anyway. A portal is a way of coordinating material on very large subject. Pokemon can't be much more than a few base articles and far too many character articles. ed g2s • talk 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
¬_¬ Let me guess "Fancruft shit"? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so absolute. Dewiki manages to fully illustrate their pokemon article with free images, so I suspect we could illustrate a portal. There are some subjects where this is harder than others, but you'd be hard pressed to find one where it's outright impossible. This is the free encyclopedia, not the kinda-free-but-only-when-its-easy encyclopedia. --Gmaxwell 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The de:Pokémon article's images would not be free under US copyright law, although I can't speak for Germany. The images of Pokémon characters are copyright Nintendo, and all the images in the article are derivative of those characters in one way or another. (A photograph of a three-dimensional doll or airplane design, for instance, is a derivative work of the original design, and drawings of Pokémon or Pokéballs are also derivative.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Orly.jpg

A fair use debate of this image has been brought up on this image. Those interested may want to participate. VegaDark 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Delete the sucker.

Let me try to summarize the facts so far: The original photographer (John White) didn't grant access to the image of an Owl. He objects to it's use in Wikipedia now. Someone else had taken the image without his permission and added the text "O-RLY" over the top - then put it on their web site. This was CLEARLY illegal - no fair use, nothing. Flat out illegal. Now the image (plus the text) appears on Wikipedia under supposed fair use grounds because "O-RLY" is being discussed and that's where the image was found.

...well, I strongly disagree. The original image was taken illegally - it's *just* possible that we could claim fair use if we were discussing the taking of the image - but we aren't. It's VERY clear to me that this image must be deleted - and since the owner has complained, we're probably close to having lawyers on our backs. This image must be deleted - utterly expunged from Wikipedia and a profuse apology sent to the original photographer along with a note explaining that we were not aware of the "O-RLY" image's status.

No question about this at all. SteveBaker 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Categories

This may have been brought up before (any links to previous discussions?), but what is the status of categories of fair use images? I was under the impression that galleries of fair use images were not permitted without supporting text. If these categories are not legal, should we simply get rid of the categories, or ask the devs to implement some feature in Mediawiki that would let us turn off image thumbnails? ~MDD4696 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The benefits of the categories for the internal maintenance of the site far outweigh the hypothetical legal troubles they could cause (which are indeed pretty hypothetical). (The same cannot be said for galleries in articles.) I don't think they are a problem, at least not a big enough one to warrant any strange ad hoc fixes. Without the categories (or the thumbnails) we can't monitor what is being labeled as "fair use" easily, and as such would be putting ourselves into a far riskier situation than would possibly exist with having them. --Fastfission 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of fairuse images in non-maintenance categories, such aa Category:Michael Jackson? -Rob 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It's an artifact of the software, basically. I doubt anyone cares, and if they do, the devs could cobble together a patch. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals Again

There doesn't seem to be a official policy for fair use images in portals. I've seen some editors not allow any fair use images while otheres let any image go on the portal. Thats why I propose that this project make a policy on it. Aren't portals similar to the main Wikipedia page. I propose that a section is added to teh afair use policy allowing fair use images in portals only in news articles/selected images and only if there is corresponding text and an article. Also the fair use image can only be used if there is not free image alternative. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there has been talk above but I must disagree with the thought of no fair use image in portals in anyway. Jedi6-(need help?) 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The main page sometimes has fair use pictures for breaking news, but free alternatives are found to replace them as soon as possible. Portals, which are more like fan sites than a news front page, are completely different. ed g2s • talk 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas thats from Wikipedia:Portal so I don't see how the main page and portals aren't related. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair use on the main page is a mistake and often removed on sight. Need me to dig up examples of this happening? --Gmaxwell 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is an official policy for fair-use images in portals: no. Fair-use images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
link? Jedi6-(need help?) 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
see item 5. Also please realize that this project is dedicated to producing free content, fair use is to be minimized wherever we can. --Gmaxwell 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That link really doesn't mention portals only the deletion of articles. Also I'm talking about only having them in selected articles which are previews of articles and only if there is no optional free image. I'm not talking about letting portals use fair use images in any form Jedi6-(need help?) 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:FUC #9. ed g2s • talk 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it says that fair use images may be deleted why they are not in an article. --Gmaxwell 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals weren't about when the guidance developed, perhaps we need to get a better consensus on the issue. Portals are a hybrid space between the Wikipedia and article namespaces, and the idea is that new rules are to be developed for portal space as and when they are needed. It appears we need some guidance on fair use images in portal space, and I don't think stating the current guidance is going to help, since it was formulated without portal space in mind. Many portals mirror articles within the portal, in that instance all fair use requirements are met bar a namespace guidance issue, although even that allows that 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). The csd is a blind alley, since if the image appears on a portal through article mirroring it already exists and is used in the article. It might be worth asking the community if consensus exists to allow portals to mirror fair use images used in articles when they mirror the articles themselves. Hiding The wikipedian meme 10:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, portals did exist when that specific guidance was produced (WP:FUC is about the same age as portals, and that text was introduced even later). Again, the guiding principle is that the purpose of this project is to produce a free content encyclopedia. We only permit the introduction of unfree content at all because in order to be a complete encyclopedia we must sometimes have articles on copyrighted works, and it is often necessary, in order to have a complete discussion, excerpting from whatever we are discussing. Thus, the use of fair use in portals would go beyond the minimum required for encyclopedic purposes and thus is not accepted. We also wrap back around to the legal issues, because portals often lack sufficient descriptive or critical commentary to meet the bar we normally apply to permit fair use images. --Gmaxwell 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That would effectively make some portals imageless since some are about topics that have only fair use images. Wheather fair use images are allowed or not the policy needs to be amended to acknowledge portals. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard this sort of argument repeated many time for many things. Can you tell me what subject can not have free images? I don't argue that there is no need for unfree images in Wikipedia, just that I don't believe we have subjects which must remain totally unillustrated without unfree images. As far as amendments go... Again, the policy acknowledges portals, and the policies answer is no. The above claim that the current policy predated portals was proven to be incorrect. --Gmaxwell 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Portal:Anime and manga
  • Portal:Star Wars
  • Portal:Harry Potter

Basically every portal based on entertainment has no free images to use. I agree that fair use images should be kept at a min. but there are some subjects that have no or few free images. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. For 'entertainment' portals two places we can find free images are images of the creators, and images of the fans... and I'm sure there are many other sorts of images which we could include which would also be possible to obtain in free forms. It is even possible that you could get such content makers to release low resolution, single frame excerpts of their work as free content. Here is an existence proof of entertainment illustrated with free content, it's a TV show whos article is illustrated with a free image. I agree that there are portals which would be more attractive if they were decorated with unfree images, but it is bogus to claim we can't find free illustrations. We can not compromise a core goal of the project (to be free content) to achieve a non-goal (have attractive portals). We only ever permit fair use on English Wikipedia because doing so allows us a reasonable compromise between our two goals ('Free content' vs being a useful 'Encyclopedia'). Portals are outside of that balance. --Gmaxwell 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Blimey, I had thought these guidelines were older than that. I apologise. I totally agree with the point about where portals lack sufficient descriptive or critical commentary to meet the bar we normally apply to permit fair use images they should be removed, that goes without saying, and is the same as article space. The point I'm making is, don't you think there could be leeway where a portal mirrors an article? The fair use then is just as strong as it is in the article, it's simply a namespace issue in which there is wiggle room provided. I haven't been through portal space for a month, but on that visit, all portals were using fair use images. I'd say there's a strong opinion they should be used in an article mirroring manner. I'd offer portal:comics as an example, although I think this month it was possible to go public domain. Is this something we can sort out here or is it something for the wider community? Hiding The wikipedian meme 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No image based on a copyrighted character is going to be free, even if the one who actually draws it releases it freely. It's a derivative of the character's appearance, and therefore the owners of the actual content have to release it as well. Do you really think that J. K. Rowling's legal department will agree to license anything Harry Potter-related under a free license? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Nor is George Lucas likely to release Star Wars images as a free license :-( Jedi6-(need help?) 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

~Bill Haley's autograph in May of 1974...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A-Bill_Haley%27s_autograph-Liege-Belgium-May_1974.jpg Stephan KŒNIG 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a question...? Also, please tag the image with its source. If you are the photographer, say so. ~MDD4696 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A question about FU images in articles

What is the correct way of dealing with articles like Vegeta, which currently has 47 FU images? I have tagged most (if not all) as {{nosource}}, since they lack source. But if the uploader takes his time and adds both source and Fair Use Rationale disclaimer, which is the "suggested" amount needed for an article? Also, the "low quality" FU exception is a bit too open. Any approximation of the maximun size that should be allowed? Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The intention of the 'low quality' requirement is to limit our potential impact on the commercial market(s) for the copyrighted work. For example, if there is a commercial market for poster sized copies of magazine covers, then it's best if copyrighted magazine covers we reproduce are too small to make an acceptable poster. Togeather low quality must be combined with the other considerations in making a decision about the acceptability of a work. In Vegeta the amount of fair use is clearly excessive, but at the same time each of the images is attached to some approiate discussion of an aspect of the copyrighted work which the image illustrate. As such the fair use claim is fairly strong. I think if the copyright information for the images is cleared up, and we we downsample most of the images to the minimum size required for our purposes, that we'd be in an okay position on that article in spite of the large number simply because the other aspects of the fair use claim are fairly solid. --Gmaxwell 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I see. I noticed that one of the policy points states that The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. With that claim it would be possible to delete redundant images, which I have seen happen in the past, sometimes in extreme situations. So, the conclusion I am making is that, unless the article wants to become a Good or Featured article, there is no limit to the amount of FU images in an article as long as they are correctly tagged, and as long as they do something more than just decorate. Another question: Does the lack of a Fair Use Rationale hinders the image in any way? In example, would these images be deleted in a future change, or that is likely to never happen? Thanks again. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
We're beginning to discuss what to do with media tagged as Template:Fairusein but lacking any rationale. Jkelly 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I am guessing that includes any other fair use tag ({{tv-screenshot}}, {{DVDcover}}, etc, right? -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps eventually, but for the moment no one seems really motivated to take on that task. Jkelly 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the number of images in that article is a bit excessive. A number of them do not contribute to the reader's understanding of the material. For instance, the image accompanying the Shadow Dragon saga section doesn't give the reader any additional knowledge of the material, so it doesn't serve the purposes required by fair use. The images under Forms/Transformations and Special Abilities are fine, though, since they inform the reader. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That is what I thought. I am in contact of articles that are usually subject of a heavy number of fans who usually upload images without even tagging the images, and before beginning cleaning them up I was looking for some advice. So far, extremely useful insights, thanks! -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot galleries

like found at List of South Park episodes are surely not acceptable. Although there is nothing in our policy about fair use in galleries. Either way they hardly "add significantly to the article". ed g2s • talk 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We did, at one time, have a clear and explicit prohibition against galleries of fair use images. Seems it was edited into oblivion. Hm. I wonder where it went? oh well. It needs to be restored, it follows naturally from the rest of our policies but it should be spelled out. The hard problem are pages which otherwise meet our requirements, but are just voluminous in their use of unfree works [1].--Gmaxwell 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that is more a table than a gallery. It is just being used for indexing purposes which is allowed under fair use (i.e. google images). Arniep 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually read the findings there? As I understand it fairuse in the google case because they are just directing you to the source of the copyrighted work... I don't see how that extends to our use. Furthermore, even if the use were legally permissible the use of unfree content as a mere navigational aid fails to meet the "only if it's absolutely needed to illustrate the subject" test for compliance with our goal of being a free content encyclopedia.

--Gmaxwell 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Google indexes images on a huge number of websites where the original source is not given and which are basically blatant copyright violations, whereas the table above credits the actual copyright holder and only helps to sell the copyright holder's product so I doubt they would object, but anyway.. Arniep 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you issue a takedown request to google for a site who is violating your image copyrights, they will pull them out of the image search. In any case, it's not about who will object. We only permit unfree content when the copyright holder would like not be able to force us to take it down if they objected to the use. This is why we do not allow with-permission images unless we also have a solid fair use claim. --Gmaxwell 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, we discuss the Google case when we discuss the fact that our Category-space renders these images independently from articles. I don't think there's much of a connection between the Google case and using stills to decorate a list. Jkelly 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of album covers in artist articles

I've always understood that it's acceptable fair use using an album cover as an image in an article about the artist who created the album. Am I incorrect in my assumption? If it's not considered fair use, why not? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is widely done on Wikipedia and it's far from the worst of our claims of fair use, but it's not very good. Just as we can't crop a rose off an album cover to use as a general illustration on roses, it's not really correct to use part of an album to illustrate the artist. To use an album for the purpose of illustrating a discussion about the album in the artists article? sure. ... Really though, we should go get a free image of the artist. Presuming the artist is still alive we can expect that there are chances to get pictures during a public appearance, so if thats the case we have no excuse. Remember, this is a free encyclopedia, and we mean free as in free content not free as in not bolted down.--Gmaxwell 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding my question. I'm asking about using the full album front cover in an article about the artist who produced the album. I've seen plenty of printed articles in major magazines and periodicals, as well as articles about an artist on major online sites (not fan sites), and all of them use one or more album covers as examples of the artist's work. I could see an argument against someone creating a gallery page of a whole bunch of album covers, but I don't see any merit in an argument that an album cover couldn't and shouldn't be used in an article about the artist in question. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite confident that I understand your question and your position, but I do not agree with it. Here is why: First of all, you don't know what arrangements those other publications have: it is quite likely that they have permission for their use as such permission is usually granted for promotional materials. Secondly, fair use would be valid if you discuss the copyrighted work you're excerpting from, which is often the use of album art.. but wouldn't be the case if we were merely using the album as an easy source of a picture of the artist. Third, even if it's legal that is not the only consideration, the goal of Wikipedia is to produce a free content encyclopedia and when we make articles depend on unfree content unnecessarily, we are failing at one of those goals. Our long-term policy is to use non-free images where no free alternative is possible, although we'll sometimes accept them temporally when a free image is not yet available. Forth, because our content is redistributed by others (and intended to be redistributed) any willingness on our part to play fast and easy with copyright places additional legal liability on third parties who expect our claim of free content to be true. Finally, just because someone else has done it (or because we've done it in other places on Wikipedia) that doesn't mean its okay. Why not visit some of the photography forums on the internet and find someone who took a photo at a concert who is willing to release their work under a free license? --Gmaxwell 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying there should be a limit on the amount of album images in a singer or band's article? Arniep 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be kept to the minimum amount needed to illustrate the discussion in the article. More importantly perhaps, if it's possible (i.e. they still perform), we should have a free image of the singer/band to illustrate the artist, at the top of the article. --Gmaxwell 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So could you justify every song or album on an artists page being illustrated by an image? Have a look at Mary J. Blige, Kate Bush, Madonna, Weezer. I did suggest a "rule" before that the number of fair use images permitted should be linked to the word count but was informed that rules were "bad". Arniep 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't someone take pictures like this Image:Lp record album.jpg, possessing its own unique qualities such that it can be considered a work in itself, and thus one doesn't have to appeal to fair use? Or has this image been improperly tagged? —jiy (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Improperly tagged; it's a "derivative work" under copyright law, and the "creator" has no rights to license except under an agreement with the original copyright owner (or an assignee). Monicasdude 19:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Promotional images and source

Do promotional images need a source to fulfill requirements of Fair Use? When I requested a source for an image I had tagged with the {{nosource}} tag, I was told it was not necessary because it was the publisher the one who released it to promote their work. Until now, I have thought images needed to comply with what has been stated in the Fair Use policy, including demonstrating the work has been previously published (guideline 4), and a source was needed in all the images, even promotional ones. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

With that image maybe not, but many images tagged promo are not promo but photo shoots from magazines, agency images etc. which are never fair use. Arniep 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A source is needed so that we know it's a promotional image and not some other type of image. This has nothing to do with fair use; all images must be sourced unless the uploader asserts that he/she is the sole author. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image source

How exact must a source be when it comes from a internet site? Should the source be a link to the image itself, to the page that holds the image, or to the home page of the site? I have tagged my image uploads with both the direct link and the link to the page holding it, but I have seen others vaguely point taken from www.example.com. And what happens when the image is removed from the site (supposing it was not because of copyright violation, in example the site goes down, changes host, the image is removed due longevity, etc). Thanks again, and sorry if this is not the right place for asking. -- ReyBrujo 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I always try to link to the page that the image is located on. The point of linking to the source is so that others can go to the page, and verify licensing information, or look for other related information. If you link directly to an image, it removes the image's original context, and makes it difficult to do either of those things.
If a site goes down for whatever reason, the source link should remain the same, for historical purposes. All we can do then is assume good faith and hope that the licensing information was accurate. ~MDD4696 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
When we use content under fair use we're obligated to credit the copyright holder. Often the source URL serves that purpose, or at least gets someone one step closer. This is an area of policy which will be refined in the future. At a minimum you should identify where you got it from, which at least facilitates our purposes as Mdd4696 mentioned above. It is perferable that you also identify the copyright holder, and where possible, licensing contact information.--Gmaxwell 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Link to the page that holds the image, if at all possible. That makes it easier to see the image in context for evaluating fair-use and other claims, makes it easier to track down any copyright statements, and makes it easier to find the image in the Internet Archive if the page goes away. --Carnildo 09:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, I suggest linking to both the image itself and the page it is on, as well as, at least for images claimed to be freely licensed, to the page containing the relevant copyright statement. I'd say the most important one is usually the URL for the image itself, but it's best to provide them all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Hello. Could you do me a favour and ask someone to look at Image:Zvenigorod.jpg, Image:Krom.jpg & Image:Krutitsy.jpg, which I've listed on PUI. I believe I'm correct: these are dodgy for being a copyvio, unverifiable status (another Russian source), and not usable under fair use (a free version is available to any Wikipedian in that area with a camera). The reason I ask this way is that the uploader responded particularly aggressively and is using this against me in my RFA* (*this is not an attempt to solicit votes), so if this is becoming public I could do with a second opinion. Cheers. The JPS 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any place where he has given a better argument than "avoid copyright paranoia"? Because of his threats to dishonestly upload the images as pd-self, I'm about to go recommend he be blocked here and on commons... Based on the information available on the images, and on PUI, it would appear that your concerns are vaild and that the only evidence that we have that these images are free is "I found it on the internet" and "no one will ever complain" which are two rationales we have explicitly rejected in the strongest possible terms. --Gmaxwell 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as I'm aware, he has not provided any better argument: certainly not to me. Thanks also for noting the issue on his talk page. He seems to have made many valuable contributions, and I hope we can counsel him to tag images accurately. I had thought PUI was the best place to list them, but it seems they might escape!. The JPS 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The JPS, if you had enough experience here you'd know better than to converse with this guy. He seems to be a copyright Nazi given to vandalizing user pages and needs to be permabanned from editing Wikipedia as such. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop it with the personal attacks. Your attitude is attracting the wrong kind of attention from people who are likely to be quicker on the block button than Gmaxwell has been to date. Get with the program and stop being a DICK. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Unexplained blanking of one's user page classifies as either vandalism or trolling, depending on your point of view. If you fail to understand this, I'm sorry for you. Fortunately, Gmaxwell doesn't have a "block button" and if he had the diadminship process would have been launched months ago. Please be more responsible with your comments in the future, Ghirla -трёп- 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Where I come from, we call removing fair use images from userpages "in line with policy". *shrug* Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the accusation is being made, I feel compelled to respond... The kamikaze run (I nuked a couple of hundred user namespace fair use pages in one pass) was a bad decision on my part, not because it violated policy but because it angered a number of extra people unnecessarily. I had been handling such cases one by one and making good progress, but I was being attacked at every step of the way by a tiny but loud group of people who thought their little transgression wouldn't hurt... :( That run however, cut in half the number of fair use images in userpages in 24 hours when at my prior rate that would have taken the rest of the year. I figured that if I was going to get screamed at, at least I could get a lot done. It's sort of a no-win scenario... we have a small number of users who are disproportionately hostile, and whom refuse to believe that we're all working for commons goals... So when we notify we get some users angry that the message wasn't personalized (as it was boilerplate or via a bot) or that we shouldn't care about copyright, and when we're bold a smaller number are even more angry about our "rogue actions". In any case, it doesn't matter how much of a "nazi" or a "troll" I am, neither the violation of copyright or the hostility displayed by Ghirla here can be tolerated. Ghirla, please reconsider your actions. --Gmaxwell 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, "information wants to be free" isn't an excuse to flagrantly violate copyright law. Alphax τεχ 15:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would welcome some more specific examples of me "flagrantly violating copyright law" or - in case you fail to produce them - apologies. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The only policies I can see being violated here are our image use policy (main space only for fair use) and some pretty harsh personal attacks on Gmaxwell. Remember, you don't own your user page. I suggest you familiarise yourself with our policies before you end up getting blocked. ed g2s • talk 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is funny that you try to wikilawyer an editor who has thrice as much edits (and, consequently, knowledge of Wikipedia) than yourself. I would be grateful if you cited a specific policy which says that I don't own my user page and that any passerby may blank it if he thinks fit. May I unexplainedly blank your userpage, for instance? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem determined to drive the discussion off the subject of your own hostility towards well meaning editors and onto me, I figured I should give you a hand: You'll gain more traction based on some great evil I performed more recently than three months ago, if you check my contribs I'm sure you'll find something. Once you're done smearing me perhaps we can return to a productive conversation about the few copyright violations in the large body of content you've contributed? --Gmaxwell 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ghirla, if edit count equals knowlege of policy, then my bot, with approximately 90,000 edits, knows three times as much about policy as you do. --Carnildo 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo, after you permabanned a bunch of precious wikipedians (and admins to boot) on whim and were defrocked for that, you promised to leave Wikipedia together with your invaluable bot, which many editors consider a major disgrace of this project? Or does my memory fail me? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your memory is failing. I did not permaban any editors: I blocked them for an unspecified period of time. And I have never announced my departure from the project, in the form of a promise or otherwise. --Carnildo 08:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"which many editors consider a major disgrace" — Avoid weasel words. If you've got something to say, say it, and find some facts to support this assertion which is merely an extension of your own POV. — Apr. 27, '06 [13:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Read below. I will not stoop to post another word on this page. If my contributions are not needed here, I still have Russian Wikipedia to work in. We have no lack of projects where copyright paranoia is not as rampant as here and where my hard work will be better appreciated. I don't want to be bullied any more. Good bye, Ghirla -трёп- 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Or mine with about 30,000 edits knows about as much? --Gmaxwell 18:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Mocking aside, you do seem to have a rather severe case of editcountitis. By claiming that your higher edit count gives you a greater knowledge of Wikipedia, you are somewhat shooting yourself in the foot. ed g2s • talk 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So you failed to cite a specific policy behind your threats and eschewed to answer on the propriety of unexplained blanking of user pages. I see that it's utterly pointless to argue with guys who hardly contributed a single article of any length to this project and compare myself to their bots. I hope that you would be able to spot a single semi-bot edit among mine. Please continue this discussion with OrphanBot and other bots. Good bye, Ghirla -трёп- 07:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space pretty much covers it. ed g2s • talk 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Are images of scientific experiments fair use?

I write a lot of articles on particle physics experiments. Often the only images I can find of the experiments are on websites of various laboratories, which usually (even when federally-funded) retain the copyrights on their content in one form or other. Is it fair use to use such an image in the article on an experiment, to illustrate the experiment, if there is no free alternative? Thanks. -- SCZenz 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they expecting to profit from the image? Is there material in the image that couldn't be captured by a diagram? If the answers are "no" and "yes", I might make a fair use claim, depending on other specifics. Jkelly 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I agree there.. after all, if they are not planning on making a profit then lets ask for a free licensed copy. :) Sure, their lack of commercial interest greatly decreases the risk of fair use, but it also greatly increases the chances of getting a free copy. The largest cost for a downstream user (like a printed copy of wikipedia) of our use of non-free images would be the effort of going through them to make sure they are legit, and that cost is the same if the material is strong fair use or week fair use, it's just better to get a free copy. --Gmaxwell 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ack! Pft! Copyright nazi! It is people like you who are destroying our ability to decorate our projects with other people's property! Vandal!
...
Sorry. I just wanted to be on the other side of that of that for once. In any case, of course its better if they agree to license some images under a free, reusable license. One could ask for images that they have archived and don't intend to use, for instance. Jkelly 02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Usually they don't release the copyrights freely because 1. they don't mind charging licensing fees if people want to use them for profit purposes and 2. they like to retain some control over their use. If you do try and contact them over the images, make sure you make it clear that they are releasing it freely and not just "for Wikipedia/educational use". --Fastfission 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt very much there's anyone at SLAC who both a) has the authority to freely license images, and b) would read my email. -- SCZenz 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You have to consider the four factors of fair use.
  1. Purpose and character. The use is commercial (we have to consider commercial redistributors). If it serves a useful purpose in illustrating the nature of the experiment, it's useful for research and the like. However, the use is nontransformative. This factor will probably weigh slightly against us.
  2. Nature of the copied work. The work was previously published, and is probably factual (not highly creative) in nature. Therefore, this would weigh slightly in our favor.
  3. Amount and substantiality. If no more is used than is necessary to serve the purpose of the use, this would weigh in favor of no one.
  4. Effect upon work's value. Do these places license these images? If so, this would weigh against us.
Overall, if the image is critical to illustrate the nature of the experiment, and no more is used than is necessary for the illustration, there's a decent but not great fair use case. This is weakened if, as Fastfission says above, they would charge licensing fees for commercial purposes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:003photo 01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is a disagreement between the uploader and myself over what exactly should Image:003photo 01.jpg be tagged with. The uploader tagged it with {{Tv-program-logo}}, but I argue it should be tagged with something else because it is more like an uncredited photo of a banner or sign of said logo, instead of the actual graphical image of the logo. Who is right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a derivative work of the logo, so the one who took the picture (namely, in this case, Getty Images) has rights to it too, which may complicate the fair-use question. It would probably be better to get the logo itself captured from a TV screen or something, if possible. I'd say delete it, personally, and get an actual logo if possible, but I don't think the article is suffering terribly from the lack of such anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeech. Agree with the above. Get one without the complication of a third party. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
no Getty images are allowed so I ifded it. Arniep 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)