Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to length, this extended discussion has been moved from Talk:List of Lost episodes.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Screenshots 2 Put all the pictures back 2.1 Second opinion 2.2 DVD covers 3 Protected 4 Outrage at Ed_g2s 5 How would I do it 6 Screenshots debate 7 A solution 8 Unprotection? 9 Policy is not being debated here 10 Wikipedia in general and Fair use 11 Conclusion with question on DVD covers 12 Unprotected 12.1 Fair use of dvd covers 12.2 Re-adding dvd covers 13 DVD Covers2 14 Images (AGAIN!) 15 Wikipedia:Fair use criteria 15.1 Rationale 15.2 Policy 15.3 Enforcement 15.4 Comments 16 Why is the Lost Article being targeted for images? 17 Fair use criteria number 8 18 Unprotecting

[edit] Screenshots

As this is an episode list - it is only giving brief summaries of each episode. As such the screenshots are not being used to illustrate a particular point in the text of the article, and so are not permissible under WP:FU. While they are a nice visual cue for people who have seen the episodes, this does not qualify them as fair use. Fair use should be kept to an absolute minimum, not once every two lines of text. Contrast the usage here with the usage in Episodes of Lost (season 2). ed g2s • talk 20:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can point to several other episode lists that have pictures next to the episode descriptions. Here are some. List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Prison Break episodes, List of Family Guy episodes for starters. I don't understand why you deleted these since they add to the page. Lumaga 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass removing images this way without discussing it first will be considered as vandalism, your changes has been reverted, people have changed images many times to match fair use criteria, if you have some images which you don't belive matches with the episode discription then please list them and state your reason as why to change them, thank you --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass addition of copyright images without a fair use claim is considered copyright vandalism. Citing other lists that break this rule does not justify this page. Please read my comments again. Finding an image that "matches" the desciption does not make it usable. Fair use should only be used on Wikipedia as a last resort, not just when we can find a suitable image that makes the article look good. ed g2s • talk 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

copyright vandalism intersting idea .tg

[edit] Put all the pictures back

The screenshots make the listings look much more professional, and the DVD covers are necessary season information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.34.115 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 May 2006

This is not a luxury we can afford as all the media is unfree. Wikipedia, being a free encyclopedia tries to keep usage of unfree media to a minimum. ed g2s • talk 10:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If ABC asked us to take down this gallery we would have no legal claim to keep it, as fair use means we are using the images for critical commentary - therefore it has to go. ed g2s • talk 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Much as I agree that the screenshots made the listing look considerably better, it's not a choice: if including the screenshots violates copyright policy, we just can't use them. This is a reality that we simply all have to accept. -- PKtm 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is wrong with using images that have a proper copyright status? ABC releases hundreds of Lost images online[1] for promotional use, so why can't we use them for an encyclopedia? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 10:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a fair use expert. I followed the link you gave, and it's a media-oriented site where media people specifically request the use of specific images they've selected. For each request, they have to provide information on their publication and where/how the image(s) will be used. Have we done that for each and every image we were using? (I somehow doubt it). Are all the images we've used in this listing from that source, or have we taken them from other places? Per that same web site (bolding added):

 Please note all materials contained on the ABC MediaNet website,
 including photography, graphics, text, video and audio, are the
 copyrighted property of ABC, Inc., its affiliated companies or
 licensors, and are distributed to the press solely for the promotion
 of ABC programming and the ABC Television Network in the news or
 entertainment media owned or legally licensed by your company.
 These contents cannot be sold or distributed to a third party,
 provided however that syndicates receiving these materials may
 distribute them to their subscribers solely for distribution in the
 news or entertainment media. Any other use of these contents is a
 violation of copyright laws.

That seems to me to indicate that we don't really have permission to use the photos, because they've been conditionally released by ABC, per the above. Someone please correct me if it is actually true that we've followed this process, but that would seem to me to be a prerequisite to using these photos.-- PKtm 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not we have permission does not actually be needed to taken into account. If an image is not freely licensed (GFDL / cc-by etc.) then we can only use it under our fair use criteria. This means no matter how ABC license the material - if we have a valid fair use claim, we are legally allowed to use the work. In this case the images are non-essential and so we have no fair use defence. ed g2s • talk 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If the pictures are removed, I will personally remove all the pictures from all the list and remove all LOST related pictures from wikipedia, even the ones in List of Lost episodes season 1 and 2, your gonna say its in the topic so it serves a purpose, well I don't care because in here they are serving the same purpose, and I bet you $1,000,000 that ABC won't sue this free wiki because they are using pictures, little that you know they will be happy because we are indirectly promoting their work--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mo, i think the pictures are here for a reason as much as 20 other lists (WHICH SOME OF THEM ARE FUTURED LISTS), so I think if you are going to pick on this one, you should back off and pick on all of them --Crazy boy 555 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, and List of South Park episodes,, they have a next to it people!! --Crazy boy 555 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, citing other lists is not a justification, nor is their featured list status. Please address the issues. ed g2s • talk 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"I bet you $1,000,000 that ABC won't sue this free wiki because they are using pictures, little that you know they will be happy because we are indirectly promoting their work"

You seem to be confusing gratis and libre. Wikipedia is not "free" as in "we'll use what we can without having to pay for it". We provide content that can be re-used freely. If someone wanted to make a commerical spin-off of Wikipedia (as many people have) they may very well get sued. Pages like this one make it much harder for third parties to re-use Wikipedia's content. With regards to you threat, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. ed g2s • talk 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, just look Ed g2s' talk page and contribs list, he seems to spend his entire life trawling through every page deleting pictures from wikipedia that he deems 'unfair use'. Ed - You're not the be all and end all around here and what you're doing doesn't contribute ANYTHING to this encyclopedia. It really is pathetic and you only have to read your own talk page to realise that you're just an annoyance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modulus86 (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. It is often the case that people get confused/annoyed when images are removed from a page, especially as most people don't fully understand our policy on unfree images. "what you're doing doesn't contribute ANYTHING to this encyclopedia" - if you understood what the goals of this project are, you would understand that making sure all our content is free is a significant contribution. Littering pages with excess copyright material is actually counter-productive. ed g2s • talk 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the pictures are used once for every episode. Under each episode is a page for the listing of the episode and one picture for the episode. Just because the images are used collectively from multiple pages is where I think the removal is not accurate. The other problem I have is with the fact that you just removed the pictures Ed without discussion on the issue first. Whether you are right or wrong on removal of pictures you have removed the pictures from a number of pages without any discussion on it first. Lummie 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I say, as far as ABC hasn't threatened to sue, keep the pictures on. And they have not - as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs)

remove personal attack I am gonna say this for the rest of us, you say citing other lists doesn't "justify" it, well why not? I see that you tried with family guy list and you failed, and I see that people vandalize your page frequently for that, and I just realized that some one did the same thing today! now can you see the reason? people hate that! People work hard and you destroy it! now would you think that after you do things like this people will still work on the page? screw this page! I am not touching it any more, I am actually leaving this thing for good, with people like this around I don't know why am I here. Until I see all the lists in here, including South Park's and Star gate's stripped from all their pictures, and if you don't think I am on the good side, I removed a picture that someone said it was the Season 3 promo, but I replaced it with a picture that I made that says (no image), now why did you remove that? that was not a fair-use, I made that image and you still removed it! its tagged as GDFL or whatever it's called... oh yeah I forgot, I am GOING TO SUE MY SELF,,, how sad, really, how sad. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 07:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you mo, unfortunately this user is going to stand behind "the rules" (ie. his interpretations of the rules) and constantly shoot down the people that are making wikipedia a better place for information. By stopping us editors from being able to make these pages complete (and thusly making the editors stop working at all) he is actually decreasing the value of wikipedia, making his contributions very harmful to what wikipedia stands for. I'm joining mo in not editing this page anymore, and I will also not contribute to ANY page that has had an image unfairly removed. Also, mo, I hope you'll come back after the show becomes as popular as the other shows with lists, so that people like him can be overpowered with common sense, ...and sheer force. [And ed, don't bother with another civil comment, we already know what it says.] ArgentiumOutlaw 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just in agreement as well with your comments mo. These sort of issues need to be discussed before one (JUST ONE!!) person can decide what is and isn't fair use. The fact that so many other pages use pictures for their lists, unless there is consistency within these pages than its injust to single out pages and just remove the pictures. Lummie 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

After studying this issue closely I have come to the conclusion that ed g2s, you are taking the fair use criteria to an unnecessary extreme. Below I have listed the parts of the FUC that I think you believe this list is violating, and the reasons why this list is in fact not violating those parts of the FUC:
3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

The images are low resolution (360x240), and the screenshots are used minimally. There is one small image next to each episode that illustrates the central story of that episode. We aren't compiling an image gallery, simply one low resolution frame from each episode.

8. 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.

Take time to read each 2-3 line synopsis then look at the screenshot. They directly tie into each other. Granted, the images do provide a decorative element to the page, but that is not why they are there. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that the screenshots refer to the text, but the text does not refer to the screenshots. To have such a loose interpretation of the fair use guidelines is to completely ignore the context under which copyrighted media was originally allowed on Wikipedia, and the underlying principle is "as a last resort". ed g2s • talk 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The free alternative of using no images adequately gives the same information about the episode. For example, next to the description of "Everybody Hates Hugo", what does one learn from seeing a picture of Hugo talking to Jack on the beach that is so importnat it necessitates the use of a copyrighted image? ed g2s • talk 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to continue on this crusade, I already gave you four other episode lists. List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of Prison Break episodes, List of Family Guy episodes. It's odd, though, that on the Family Guy article, only removed the DVD covers, and on the South Park article, you only removed one image for duplication but left the episode screen captures and DVD cover art. I don't know why you're being so inconsistent. Lumaga 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, people take it personally when they have spent a lot of time uploading hundreds of screenshots. As a results enforcing our fair use policy draws quite a lot of hostility. I don't think I could handle all the TV fans telling me how I'd ruined their page at the same time. ed g2s • talk 20:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that your interpretation of the fair use policy is removing quality content from Wikipedia. You seem to be arbitrarily removing images, and you're justifying it by citing a policy that at best is loosely defined. After reading the fair use policy (several times), I still fail to see how the images used on this page violate the fair use critera. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comments. ed g2s • talk 21:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I find the reasons you stated above to be insufficient. You are taking an extreme POV of this policy, and as a result a perfectly good list is turning into crap. I believe these images can be used given the fair use criteria, and it looks like there's about a dozen other people here who think the same. What makes your views more correct than our views? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reading the policy from the point of view from which it was written, and that is a free encyclopedia that uses fair use only when it has to. Freeness is one of Wikipedia's founding principles. This is not going to change, no matter how much unfree material people want to upload. Unfortunately people's instinct is to think "oh, ABC put it on their site, so its fair for us to use it". ed g2s • talk 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you think that these images aren't necessary means that we can't use them at all? Well I think they are necessary. Now we're both reading the same policy, so what makes your interpretation of the policy more important than mine or anyone else's? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it completely insane that one person has the power to do things like this, especially when it clearly goes against the consensus of nearly everyone here. I was under the impression that this place was democratic - you're deleting this pictures because you and you alone don't think they should be here. Do the thoughts of the contributors to this encyclopedia not count for anything? And before you do, don't throw the fucking rule book at me! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.76.177 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 May 2006

"I was under the impression that this place was democratic". That would be where you went wrong then, Wikipedia is not a democracy. ed g2s • talk 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Useful link there Ed, i found this part especially interesting:

"Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies."

I take it you missed that bit? Modulus86 10:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As you quoted, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines". ed g2s • talk 11:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But you *dont* follow the spirit of the guidelines, you follow them to the exact letter! One only has to look at your contribs list and talk page to see that you have a habit of deleting anything that you personally deem to be unacceptable, without consulting anyone else first and having a consensual discussion on what should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.135.116 (talk • contribs)

The spirit of the guidelines is to avoid fair use wherever possible, not to challenge the semantics of each word in the policy until you've justified your usage. If you have a disagree with the spirit of our guidelines then... well tough luck really. It's one of Wikipedia's founding principles. ed g2s • talk 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

The images do not contribute substantially to the article, except for decorative purposes. The DVD cases are probably fine (for identification purposes, i.e., they could potentially aid identification of the DVD case if seen from a distance or at a glance or what have you), although the actual images should be scaled down to roughly fit the size used in the article (near-print size covers are excessive).

Delete all the episode pictures. Wikipedia:Copyrights is non-negotiable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and endorse ed's actions here. A couple of lines about the plot of episode cannot possibly constitute critical commentary of the images from the episode. One possible remedy would be to bulk up the summary of each episode; I'm sure there's a key event in each episode, and if we have a meaty summary of what happened there, an image of the event would be fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Ed is doing a fine job. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Simetrical, sorry if I don't recogize you, but I can't find you at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators or [2]. I was kind of confused by you starting a new subsection and making an authoritative command statement, but are you a sysop or something similar?

Cws125 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Ed's actions (I'm an admin btw). —Ruud 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter whether Simetrical is an admin or not? Anyone can start a subsection. Judge people by what they have to contribute, not whether they have an admin flag or not. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have crossed Ed a couple of times when he removed the screenshots from the console pages. I didn't like that, but with time I learned to accept that. It is the price Wikipedia needs to pay to be as free as possible. And as pointed below, people get touchy after spending a lot of time uploading pics. I know that first hand when I tagged images without source; some users complained and some others understood. This is a gray area: who can determine whether the images contribute to the article or not? People have different opinions, and I prefer to err to the safe side when there may be a legal problem (aka, tagging the images as having no source and letting the administrators at IFD review my tags and decide whether the media I submitted can be really deleted or not, or replacing a fair use image with a free one if that one is available, even if it is comparatively of lesser quality or outdated). Thus, I agree with Eg's preventive actions.

However, I would review every screenshot in every featured list to determine whether they are are abusing the Fair use clause or not. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly Every Image needs a fair use rational. Next we need to see how the images contribute to the article. This is a Navigation page and if you are looking for you Favorite Lost Episode the images can be Vital in finding the episode you are looking for. As far a WP:NOT a Democracy. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (As far as permission goes. we are not allowed to use images with permission if a free alternative is available. A free alternative is not available so their isn't a policy against such, however we don't have permission so it doesn’t matter). If you want to use these images on the page their must be a fair use rational. We are allowed to use Fair use for Identification purposes and to talk about the episode at hand. If we make such a claim Then it should be Fair use. The first three screenshots of episodes appears to directly illustrate the description of the episodes. Identification qualifies as fair use. However not all the images on the page are used for Identification. and those should be removed. However I noted in the revert history some of you reverted more than just the images. Revert wars are bad and distrust Wikipedia and i a worse offence than fair use. Don't Disrupt Wikipedia by ignoring the other edits innocently made during the revert war. If necessary hand revert. you should not be reverting anyway. Surly if the president it to keep images for Identification purposes on a list then we should lean towards that. If the president is the other way we should lean that way. If the images are used for decoration that is unacceptable If they are used for Identification then you need to argue that the particular image is still not being fairly used. If you decide that they are not being fairly used you can remove them but Don’t remove the images simply because it has a fair use tag. If a fair use rational is used it must be handled case by case, However if you think it is possible to make a free alternative then it makes sense to remove the fair use images to encourage people to make a free alternative. Anyway if the images are removed please Fix the Formatting. We don’t need such a large chart--E-Bod 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note While i think the images do qualify as fair use i can understad Ed's removal of them, Especially with the sheer number of fair use images on the page. If the immages aboulutny needs to be removed then it needs to be removed, however it still deserves this dicussion regardles of the result and these issued need to be addresed. If the immages need to be removed it is still a shame that no altherive can be found that can be used to help navigat to the episode we are looking for. Can somebody find an immage of some object or siduaon that is verry involed in the episode that can identify the episode vissually without useing the actual screenshot--E-Bod 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's Ed complete lack of adequate discussion and warning here that is offensive-- giving people 24 hours and immediately begin reverting 4 times is not adequate and is an iron-hand approach where a sensitive one is needed.

Cws125 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD covers

While there are arguments back and forth on this issue, I haven't heard a single argument as to why the DVD covers for Season 1 and 2 are not necessary or fair use. I think they're very necessary in order to help someone identify a particular season, and I don't believe that either image is copyrighted. Why can't these two pictures be put back up? --Kahlfin 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The covers consist of a silver/gold (season1/2) background, the LOST logo, a panoramic image of all the characters (so small as to be utterly useless and the number 1 or 2. How do these images add significantly to anyone's understanding of the first season of Lost? The only part of the DVD that is mentioned are its release dates (edit: and the disc count). If we had an article discussing the DVD in greater detail, then it might warrant a picture. ed g2s • talk 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for there to be a large amount of information to warrant a picture? In some cases pictures are needed because words alone would not suffice. This is one of those times. A person reading this page and being interested in Lost is probably going to want to purchase a DVD. Therefore a picture of the DVD boxset will be extremely beneficial in identifying it. If you want to describe the boxset using words then feel free. But it will look rubbish and no-one will benefit from it. Gary Fothergill 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained why words alone don't suffice. Wikipedia is not a place to sell or purchase DVDs; nothing you have given as argument so far has anything to do with our goals as an encyclopedia. There are a million DVD-selling websites out there with lovely pictures of the boxed sets, I presume when people decide to purchase the DVDs they will have no trouble doing so. --Fastfission 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a million places on the internet where I can find the album cover for a CD and its tracklisting. That doesn't stop it being shown on Wikipedia. How is it different when involving DVD's? There are hundreds of places I could find out what Keratoconus is, that doesn't stop it being a featured article. Information of an objective nature is always justified on Wikipedia. If a person visits Wikipedia they can see what it's about, when the DVD's were released, what they look like, more detail about the episodes etc. The article itself is information about the Lost DVD's and the episodes contained therein. There is no reason why the DVD covers shouldn't be shown. --Gary Fothergill 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that's not the reason that ed g2s gave; he said that there isn't enough information about the DVDs for them to be shown (CDs with their own articles obviously do have enough info). However, in response to his statement, I would say that it is important to have them in this article in order to help someone researching this topic to identify the product. Currently, information on the two season DVDs of LOST cannot be found anywhere else in Wikipedia: this is the only place that anyone can find information on them. Thus, I think it's important to have a picture so that someone doing research on them can see what they look like. If and when they have their own article(s), there doesn't need to be a picture here but until then, I think a picture is a necessary contribution to the information given about them. --Kahlfin 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The fair use rationales for the South Park DVD covers are:

• it is a low resolution copy of a DVD cover;
• it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the DVD in any way;
• copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the DVD artwork on another DVD;
• the image is one used by online stores to sell the product and is promotional in nature;
• it provides illustration to the claim that dvds are available.

People are fine with that, so why don't we just use the same rationale? I don't see why we can't, if it's fine for the South Park page it's fine here - they're both one of the same - Modulus86 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Just look at the text from Template:DVDcover:"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers: 1, to illustrate the DVD in question 2, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."-- Ned Scott 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think once all this image bullshit blows over we'll be able to put back all the images. -- Ned Scott 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected the page. Please do not edit-war over the implementation of a policy you disagree with; instead, I would recommend that you follow the Wikipedia process, and try to alter the policy itself, although I would suggest that you are unlikely to have much effect. ;-)

Learn to play nice, or learn not to play at all.

James F. (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, James. Tobias087 06:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is not fair, as I can list at least 10 lists that you say have the same "problem", the images where used to show a discription of the episode! remove personal attack --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"I replaced it with a picture that I made that says (no image), now why did you remove that?"

Becuase there's no point having a picture that say "no image available" when the table isn't supposed to have any images.

"I think that is not fair, as I can list at least 10 lists that you say have the same "problem""

So what? There are thousands of problem images on Wikipedia. We can't delete them all at once, but that doesn't mean they justify each other.

"Just because the images are used collectively from multiple pages is where I think the removal is not accurate."

This is the point. Fair use is all about context. The TV-screenshot template reads:

"[usage allowed for] identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents"

I'm not saying the screenshots need to be deleted, but they should only be used when they are needed to illustrate a particular point being discussed. A two line summary does not discuss any point in detail, and as such, requires no illustartion.

ed g2s • talk 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"A two line summary does not discuss any point in detail, and as such, requires no illustartion."

But this is the whole problem, its all YOUR opinion that they are not needed. The fact is that Wikipedia has many pictures that are linked to more than just one page. Its hard to claim the removal of all pictures that are used in more than one page because its somehow allowed on some pages and not "needed" on others. --Lummie 12:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"The fact is that Wikipedia has many pictures that are linked to more than just one page". Free images can be used much more liberally. You do not need to include a frame of the show when the purpose of the article is to list the shows; however, you may need to show a picture of the map on the blast doors, when they are being discussed in an article about the events of the relevant episode. This article does not discuss sepcific events, therefore illustrating them is not fair use. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, I wish the guy who froze the page froze it when the pictures were still on. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 May 2006

Remember their is no wrong Version. When Freezing a page to stop a revert war it Doesn't matter which version because the page will be unfrozen latter. However the person who froze the page Clearly is supporting one version over the other and that raises suspicion.--E-Bod 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys. This is pretty simple. The images are not being used in a way which is at all compatible with the fair use clause. As such, they are copyright violations. As such, they are not allowed to be used in this way on Wikipedia. Take a little time to learn about our fair use policy, so at least you can argue with the right terms. Because at the moment, you've all been arguing on the basis of aesthetics, while the people removing them are arguing on the basis of the law. And on here, the law almost always trumps aesthetics, assuming the argument behind it is well reasoned. --Fastfission 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I do not believe anyone has argued keeping images based soley on aesthetics, and I've summed up the pro arguments for you:

Overview

Due to the fact that an entire episode is copyrighted in its entirety, it is impossible to illustrate to viewers of a general purpose encyclopedia the visual nature of a work in a audiovisual medium without using a portion of the very copyrighted work itself, and excerpting such works is allowed in limited contexts under fair use law. It is believed that using such a short excerpt, 1/30th second stillframe shot of an approximately 43 minute work, is so brief that it falls under the "de minimis" defense; even if it does not, the four factors of fair use are met: 1) the images here are used for purpose of indexing and as an encyclopedic compilation of all such works for broader insight, categorization, and view of the individual works as a whole, 2) the nature of the work is published and is used as part of a dissemination of facts or information that benefits the public, 3) using a 1/30th second stillframe shot of an approximately 43 minute work is as substantially minimal as possible, and 4) the use of these images here do not replace or diminish the original market role of the work (public broadcast, sale of DVDs or iTunes content, of rebroadcast on ABC's online website.)

Fair use policy

The most significant part of the Fair Use policy that has been debated 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."

Does a free alternative exist?

There are no free alternatives as the entirety of an episode is copyrighted, and placing generic free alternative images would be gratuitous, as the use of images here are to provide an excerpt, illustration, and visual example of the work being commented and discussed upon in the article.

If you want to debate semantics, the traditional definition of "alternative" and use of it in singular form implies only two choices, which means the two choices are either "unfree image" or "free image", with no room for "no image." However, even if you take "free alternative" to mean "no images at all", it is not an alternative in that textual identification is inadequate and unideal since Lost is primarily a visual work, the episode title is never displayed in the episode itself, and imagery is useful as an excerpt from the work being commented on by the plot summary.

Does it significantly improve article?

It significantly improves the article to have a visual excerpt in the medium of the work for illustrative purposes. The bar is not "necessary" as some have argued, but whether this article, an index of works identified primarily by its audiovisual nature, is significantly improved by its images. It is yes-- they provide an excellent visual excerpt and visual identification of the referenced and commented upon work. In addition, the list is significantly enhanced by having thumbnails of the actual work-- it provides a visual cue to the episode, which is removed by having only text and requires more searching. In addition, the works that are the subject of this article is an audiovisual medium and as such, an adequate article should have excerpts in the medium of the original work for the audience of a general purpose encyclopedia, who may never have seen a shot of Lost. Stealing from a popular justification, the images aids commentary on the plot outline, poignantly illustrates the episode in question, and illustrates the significant or pivotal moment that characterizes the episode in question.

Cws125 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outrage at Ed_g2s

Regardless of my opinion on this, I'm definitely outraged by Ed_g2s' actions considering he's "supposed" to be an administrator. He seems dangerously unlike a responsible Wikipedian.

Perhaps you've heard of WP:Point, Ed_g2s? Whether or not your point about fair use was valid, there was absolutely no need to disrupt Wikipedia like this to make your point. Mass removing images in a way that's akin to vandalism, without any prior discussion, in trying to make a point, is certain to raise some controversy-- perhaps you should have engaged in discussion first, and only AFTER there was some consensus about your fair use dispute and/or some administrators chimed in, you should have begun removing images.

By removing images during the discussion before there was consensus or administrators had chimed in, of course people acted like Ed_g2s was a vandal. Look at this timeline and tell me if Ed_g2s acted like a responsible Wikipedian. (Remember, during this whole time, there still wasn't consensus and it was only on May 28th, after protection, that some admins made comments.)

1. 12:15, 25 May 2006 - Ed_g2s removes all images with "not fair use when decorating a list - screenshots can be used on individual articles - see WP:FUC and talk page)"
2. 20:18, 25 May 2006 - Ed_g2s engages in discussion, meets resistance
3. 13:41, 25 May 2006 - Muhaidib reverts with "(Please do not remove images that are discriptive of the episode's title. if you have a problem with a couple of images please discuss first and changes will be made.)", reasonable
4. 02:13, 26 May 2006 - Ed_g2s reverts with "(citing other lists is not justification - do not add copyrighted media to an article without a fair use claim.)"
5. 07:04, 26 May 2006 - anon reverts
6. 08:41, 26 May 2006 - Ed g2s reverts with "(Reverted edits by 154.20.217.225 (talk) to last version by 212.41.161.73)"
7. 08:54, 26 May 2006 - Muhaidib reverts with "(Revert to revision 55260688 using popups)"
8. 14:05, 26 May 2006 - Ed g2s reverts with "(do not add copyrighted media to an article without a fair use claim)"
9. 14:24, 26 May 2006 - Modulus86 reverts
10. 16:26, 26 May 2006 - Ed g2s reverts with "(Reverted edits by 88.110.7.113 (talk) to last version by Billcosby)'"" and '""(you are violating our image use policy. please discuss on talk page)"
11. 16:30, 26 May 2006 - Jdforrester protects page

I'm also outraged at Johnleemk or JPStalk, both admins, who made comments saying "I strongly agree, and endorse ed's actions here. " and "Agree. Ed is doing a fine job" on May 28th. How the hell is Ed_g2s acting responsibly or acting in any way that's supportable? Regardless of whether he was right, he should have built consensus or waited until you guys chimed in BEFORE he started an edit-war here. He has disrupted Wikipedia and caused lots of potential useful edits to be lost by having this page protected.

Cws125 01:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I must repeat Modulus86 in what he quoted from Wikipedia is not a democracy that ed slaped in our faces that "Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies." We must get some real admins who know what they are doing, Thank you Cws125, Jtrost, ArgentiumOutlaw and every one else for your support, looking at ed's contributions, you just go around pages and remove pictures --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Ed_g2s' talk page (thanks, Muhaidib), you should note that this is definitely not the first time Ed_g2s has engaged in this type of behavior [3] and there are other comments in his talk page serving as additional examples.

P.S. Just my opinion, has no bearing on above: Fair use of image placement is highly subjective and flexible: "is the use of this image in this context on this specific page fair use?" Many people here and otherwhere feel that using a single frame out of thousands or millions of frames that is particularly descriptive or a pivotal moment to illustrate an episode is fair use, especially since television is visual medium and likewise identified visually, much like how using a small audio portion of a song or a small portion of a film is fair use [4] in appropriate contexts.

Cws125 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"This type of behaviour" is entirely appropriate for any Wikipedia user, particularly an administrator. We are not allowed to use images in this way. There is also no reason why he should not have simply removed the images: WP:BOLD still exists. If you must exhibit outrage on Wikipedia (and I'd rather you didn't), please pick a more appropriate target. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights more broadly are two of the very small number of policies which are absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus. There are legal reasons behind this, Cws125, it is not a personal crusade. You must comply with all of the requirements of the policy, and if someone disputes your fair use claims, it is your responsibility and no-one else's to ensure that you are complying completely and absolutely with the policy. If there is a dispute, then the default position must always be that the images stay out until the claim can be appropriately established. --bainer (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing with WP:Fair use or WP:Copyrights. However, we are arguing that we are following those policies. Here is a fair use rationale for the images (I summed up all the arguments):

The images are here to visually identify and serve as an illustration of the visual work being commented on based on plot summary, not decorate the page (although the cinematography of Lost is visually appealing.) Due to the fact that the entirety of an episode is copyrighted, the only way to visually reference or illustrate these works is to use a portion of the very copyrighted work itself and is allowed in limited contexts under fair use law. The only free alternative, not to use images at all, is not ideal since Lost is primarily a visual work, the episode title is never displayed in the episode itself, and imagery is useful as an excerpt from the work being commented on by the plot summary. These images are 1/30th of a second of an approximately 43 minute media that have specifically chosen for their uniqueness or signifiance, are of low-resolution, does not borrow significantly from the work, and does not replace the original market role of the media and due to its non-commercial, informative, and commentative nature, is considered fair use.

Can you say why we are not allowed to use images in this way or what specific requirement(s) of the policy we are not complying with? If so, what are some rectifications that can be made?

Cws125 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in the template itself; you are not using the images for criticism or comment. The visual identification claim is extremely difficult to make when (as pointed out below) the elements of the image are touched on in only half a sentence. Articles that use fair use correctly spend a substantial amount of time discussing the topic of fair use. Quotations are usable under fair use as well, but we don't take a thousand-word essay and claim it as fair use, do we? Well, pictures are worth at least a thousand words, so we need to have a damn water-tight claim before we can use as many pictures as this article did. There are free alternatives, as I point out below. The article as it originally was had the pictures at such a small resolution that it would be laughably easy to insert a generic replacement for a number of them. The "Deus Ex Machina" episode's screencap is so dark that you can't see anything; the picture of "Do No Harm" discussed below could be anyone performing CPR; the picture from "The Greater Good" could have been any gathering of people around a hole in the ground. The few pictures that seem to have had good potential, such as the one of Sun with Jin tenderly touching her face, had nothing in the article related to them (how the hell would the casual reader who never saw the episode be able to relate "Rousseau warns the survivors that "the Others" are coming, leading the group to believe that the hatch is the safest place to be. The raft is prepared to set sail." with Jin wishing his wife goodbye - the latter being apparent to anyone who watched the episode, but not to the rest of the world?). Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)The visual identification is due to

The purpose of the images here are to provide an excerpt of the audiovisual work being referenced for illustration and identification purposes. Putting a generic picture would be decorative or gratuitous. I've argued how they fits fair use policy (specifically how they are serving an identification purpose and etc.) below.

The only free alternative to have no images at all is not ideal for audiovisual works. Writing even hundreds of paragraphs on text on an audiovisual or visual work does not do the same justice and is not worth as much without providing an excerpt or excerpts to illustrate it or its points, which is why fair use exists.

Your point about how we don't excerpt a "thousand-word essay", and since images are worth a thousand words, we should take the same care as excerpting a thousand-word essay is ridiculous logic. A thousand words of an essay probably borrows from a significant portion of the work, while a 1/30th of a second still frame of an 43-minute audiovisual work probably does not. Length of the excerpt depends on the length of the work, not on a meme.

Trust me, I'm not a hard core Lost fan or uploaded these images, but I could identify most of these episodes from their excerpts. Yes, there are some bad images (such as Tabula Rasa, the image is too dark, but it's supposed to show the marshall in the tent who dies which is the focus of that episode; Deux Ex Machina is too dark as well, but it's the plane and it's the episode where they discover the plane; Do No Harm shows Locke trying to save Boone, the episode where he dies; and the image of Jin touching Sun is him going to leave forever on the raft in Exodus, thinking he will never see Sun again.) Perhaps they could be improved or explained better, but they are hardly arbitrary and I can see a good faith effort showing understanding and attempt to comply with fair use.

About how the length of the plot summary does not satisfy fair use, I've responded to that below along as well, along with your claim images are "crucial" to an encyclopedia, and specifically explaining rationales complying with fair use policy, in addition to what the template says.

Cws125 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess it was totally misinformed of me to assume that enforcing policy does not require consensus, and instead is disruption. I'll remember that the next time I want to wikify an article and get consensus on the talk before implementing MOS. I probably should get agreement about NPOV before reverting a blatant POV warrior's edits as well, and God forbid that I even touch a brilliantly-constructed page without requesting permission from the community! Another lesson learnt! (For the sarcasm impaired, policy is policy for a reason. Ed was absolutely correct to implement policy; you do not need consensus to enforce policy, especially one designed to keep Wikipedia safe. In the realm of legal issues, our motto is/ought to be "better safe than sorry". Remember, fair use is not something that can be handled lightly, because it is essentially legally-sanctioned violation of copyright. It is not disruption to enforce policy; if you are not discussing the subject of an image, and only intend to use it for decorative purposes, it is by no means fair use.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your points about WP:MOS and WP:NPOV are ridiculous. These are clear cases of policy enforcement. Fair use policy is much less clear cut, since it depends on interpretation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies, such as Vandalism, are enforced by Administrators by blocking users." You have the power to enforce policy as part of the community, not over it. Ed here completely bypassed the community, who would probably have acted in good faith and tried to make the images more suitable (e.g. by beefing up the summaries like you suggested) if he had tried to engage in discussion instead of using force.

Cws125 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But is it not subjective as to whether an addition to an article complies with WP:NPOV or not? Yuo don't seem to understand - when it comes to legal issues, we are better safe than sorry. It doesn't hurt to take the images out for a while as we look for a way to resolve the problem. As fuddlemark says, you've clearly gone against policy simply to prove a point about admins. WP:FU and fair use are very clear about what you can use images for, and decorative usage to spice up an article isn't one of them. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's subjective whether or not an article complies with WP:NPOV. Therefore, is it not common practice to allow some discussion and possibly allow some consensus building to occur when NPOV disputes occur? I would say an administrator does not have the unilateral right to decide NPOV and make multiple changes to an article to enforce his NPOV, but instead, if he wants changes, engage in discussion and (while protecting the page if necessary) only enforce the resolution of this dispute. Shouldn't the same standard apply here?

Where does fair use policy give administrators the final word and carte blanche power in deciding fair use? (This is not a clear cut case of copyright violation, but a subjective analysis of whether fair use sufficiently applies here.) Ed knows the purpose of 3RR is to have the person calm down and engage in discussion; Ed refused to engage in discussion here (probably because he failed to adequately support himself in discussions elsewhere) and went right through the 3RR barrier, acting like he had the final word and carte blanche power in deciding fair use by keeping on saving his changes 4 times until it was protected. You suggested perhaps he was only removing images while a resolution to the fair use dispute was finalized ("better safe than sorry"), but because he never engaged in discussion or explained this or any rationale in talk pages, people dismissed him as any other vandal.

Ed's unilateral and non-open actions (especially considering he's an admin) upset many people here, who attacked him and just tore through his arguments (refusing to cede an inch) when he engaged in discussion after he had done these things without any discussion; if he had engaged in discussion and sought community input before doing anything, he would probably have received good faith effort in getting the page to better satisfy fair use criteria or even people agreeing the images could probably go.

All I'm hoping to do here is perhaps make you understand why myself and others (who did not engage in an edit war, BTW) are outraged and upset at Ed_g2s. Citing ancedotal evidence that some other admins are just as bad doesn't excuse his behavior here.

Also, please see my comments to Fuddlemark below responding to the allegation of how we're just railing against Ed_g2s to make a point. It could not be more wrong.

Cws125 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's also worth noting that if a user thinks that a page violates NPOV, that user often should mark the page with a Neutrality Dispute tag and a discussion should begin on the talk page. Shouldn't the same thing happen here? --Kahlfin 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to blatantly POV edits. For instance, there are sections of articles like Malaysian New Economic Policy and Bumiputra where the bias is not too bad or disputable, and there are cases where only a very small number of people could think the statements made could come even close to being neutral. Just glance in the page history of Malaysia and Mahathir bin Mohamad for related examples. This is a clearcut case of a copyright violation because fair use is by definition a legally-sanctioned infringement of copyright with very very strict boundaries. It is extremely difficult to claim that this article was applying fair use correctly, and the arguments initially put forth to justify fair use (namely the "decorative purpose" one) confirmed this. The only purpose of fair use is to allow us to critically comment on something, such as quotations from particular copyrighted works, or images/recordings of an event. We need to have something more than one or two sentences for each image to make a decent fair use claim; a paragraph is the safest, IMO. (There are of course exceptions, but these are about as common as airborne swine.)

Admins do have power to enforce our policies, like it or not; that's why they are there. Nevertheless, adminship has nothing to do with this. Ed never once used his admin powers here (not even applying rollback), and nobody has made a big deal out of the fact that he or anyone else is an admin except apparently you guys (I still don't see how not being an admin had anything to do with Simetrical's comments, for example). The fact is that he was right and acted correctly. You can't be sued for writing a non-neutral article (unless it defames someone), but you can be sued for illegal application of fair use to defend copyright infringement. That is why the default status quo we ought to revert to where fair use is concerned is the situation without fair use images, and work forward instead of keeping the copyright violations and working backward.

Re Kahlfin, the case here is very clearcut. There can be no dispute that the justification provided for fair use in this case was ill-founded without being ignorant of our policies. In the same vein, POV warriors have their additions reverted when it's obvious they aren't complying with policy; this happens very often and without a second thought. (I'm one of the few people who has taken the time before to try to dig up some gems worth rescuing in a POV-laden edit, but this is something nice to have, not crucial, in the same way that Ed trying to beef up the article content would have been nice to have, but not the only legitimate action to take.) Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on blatant POV edits by one person. But if there was a community effort to build up a popular and well-patrolled article and someone came across it and had a NPOV dispute, you have to have let some discussion and some consensus building to occur and then enforce the resolution of this dispute, not decide what is NPOV and what is not for a community and that your view on NPOV is authoritative and "right."

I guess you and I can disagree on whether the fair use arguments here are flimsy or not, but Ed didn't even give anyone a chance to argue fair use. I thought there was a sufficient case for fair use, but Ed does not get to decide this.

Regardless of whether Ed's right or not about the fair use claim being weak (and even if I agree that the default position of fair use is to revert to bare bones for the time being), Ed did not engage in discussion or explain this or any rationale on the talk pages. As a result, the people reverting his edits have a weak basis in good faith. Ed, however, saved his changes four times and didn't do what 3RR is supposed to do, to have him engage in discussion and support or explain what he is doing on talk pages, not use force because you believe you are right. What about the non-disruptive and perhaps more legitimate course of action, discussion?

Fair use by definition is a part of copyright that specifically defines areas that are not copyright infringement. Therefore, you are saying if we don't have a sufficient fair use claim, we are engaging in copyright infringement and Ed enforced copyright policy, which he has the right to do. However, who decides we don't have a "sufficient" fair use claim? Ed gets to rule single-handedly on 10 points of fair use policy? And even if you find a clear case of copyright violation, shouldn't you assume some good faith or that you may be wrong, and give a chance for people to respond in talk pages for a week?

Listen, I have no doubt Ed and all of you admins were/are trying to do the right thing, and I know there are ridiculous disputes over clear cut cases of vandalism, POV, copyrights, etcetera thousands of times a day. But in this case, there was a community effort to build up a popular and well-patrolled article and Ed acted in a way treated this community as nothing more than those types of people when at large we are not. If Ed had protected the page, put up a notice that until a fair use dispute was resolved images would be gone, and engaged in discussion, instead of using brute force, perhaps there would have been (as I suggested) an effort to improve compliance with fair use policy or perhaps even that the images could go.

Cws125 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put in responses below your points, in the style of email (or, if you're of that peculiar bent, USENET). I've thus changed your comments by adding your .sig whenever I've interrupted the flow, so it's obvious when you're talking and when not. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not appropriate for any user or administrator to act this way.

Ed engaged in an edit war, caused by the fact that he never had a discussion about his removal of images, and when the community responded as you would expect, then had an acquaintance protect the page. As administrators, making multiple edits in an attempt to enforce policy is only acceptable when you are fighting vandalism.

Cws125 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Ed was doing the Right Thing in removing images used in a way we are not allowed to use them. You guys wanted to war over them. You cannot blame Ed for your behaviour. Certainly, warring in any sense is a Bad Thing, and it would have been nice for Ed to leave a note on talk explaining his actions ... hmmm ... fortunately, he did[5].

As for "making multiple edits in an attempt to enforce policy" ... well, if that's your opinion, good luck to you. Don't expect it to gel with what actually happens, however. (There's also a school of thought that repeatedly reverting anyone, particularly an administrator, who is attempting to enforce our copyright policy is vandalism. It's not a school I belong to, but, for what it's worth, Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) does.) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can blame Ed for the community's behavior. Without an explanation on the talk page that he was engaging in an admin action or an adequate discussion on the talk page supporting what he is doing, of course the community responded the way it did. Ed, as the person who did not engage in discussion, should have stopped to engage in discussion when he realized he had violated 3RR, as that is the intent of the policy.

As I stated above, a single administrator does not have the unilateral power or right to decide fair use and as such, Ed_g2s had no right to determine "we are not allowed to use them". I hate quoting policy, since you'll probably throw another policy at me, but do you not agree with the general idea of the statement "Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other." (WP:Policies, emphasis mine) Ed acted above the community by using an edit war to enforce a policy that he has no power to unilaterally enforce.

Cws125 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is the sort of tripe admins have to deal with to enforce legitimate policy that has already been agreed on, I don't want to be an admin. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's a popular meme to say this, but I really wish you wouldn't say this other than to other admins because it's patronizing that you think that me, who actually engage in discussion and a registered user, is somehow among a class of people that are as tiresome as vandals and other trash on Wikipedia.

The problem here is that Ed was a bad editor. I don't know much about you, John, but I am totally behind you 100% when you enforce policy like Ed did here when doing so against vandals, copyright violations, and other clear cut cases by one person. Agreed on by who? Here, there was a large community that is already very passionate, trouble achieving consensus, argumentative (Lost tends to do that, see this talk page, the talk pages on the Season 1/2/3, the archived talk pages on seasons 1/2/3, talk pages on the main Lost article, and archived talk pages on the main Lost article), and Ed acted in a way that bypassed all of us and instead engaged in four edits that were hardly explained, discussed, or supported on the talk page. You can say he didn't need to, but I say admins need to assume good faith and not enforce fair use policy like it was vandalism policy but instead through standard Wikipedia means like any other policy.

Cws125 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think there is a community backlash here because we're ignorant dumbasses who can't understand the legal reasons behind fair use, think this is a personal crusuade of some sort, our "purty" pictures are gone and we don't understand why, or because we're fighting against WP:Copyrights or WP:Fair use? No, it's because Ed acted in a way that reeks of "ends justify the means"-- suitable for Jack Bauer, perhaps, but not Wikipedia. He acted like a lone enforcer and acted with authority that he does not specifically have, especially regarding something as subjective as fair use that can be interpreted by different people in different ways.

Fair use policy is not vandalism policy. Ed should have gone through the proper channels of a discussion before making changes to a popular page that he should have known would have resulted in having his changes reverted-- oh, wait, sorry, he already tried that many times in the past and wasn't very successful. How about making changes to pages and engaging in edit war that gets the page protected, therefore bypassing the community entirely. What a fantastic idea.

Cws125 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So ... all y'all edit warred, not because you disagreed with what Ed was doing, but because you were making a point about administrator conduct? How wonderful. Finally, a legitimate case for which WP:POINT can be cited. Please, please, pull your collective heads in. The images needed to be removed, and now have been. Case closed. Ed could, I'm sure, have been diplomatic, but he's neither the only, nor the worst, offender. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was talking in the present tense. I was talking about the community backlash NOW on these talk pages, not the edit war in the past on May 26th, 2006.

The edit war on May 26th, 2006 occured because Ed made radical changes to an article without any proper discussion or explanation of what he was doing. Ed should have expected regular Wikipedians to revert his changes, when he bypassed the community and there was nothing on the talk pages indicating there was an admin action or substantial allegations against fair use on this page.

Now, after the edit war, I am making a point about the admin conduct because, as I stated above, "All I'm hoping to do here is perhaps make you understand why myself and others (who did not engage in an edit war, BTW) are outraged and upset at Ed_g2s. Citing ancedotal evidence that some other admins are just as bad doesn't excuse his behavior here."

You may argue that he had the right to do this without discussion or without community input, but I am of the belief that there is absolutely nothing giving admins power to decide fair use nor do I believe special privileges like this type of enforcement action are granted outside of vandalism. As I said to John before, I feel "[Administrators] have the power to enforce policy as part of the community, not over it. Ed here completely bypassed the community, who would probably have acted in good faith and tried to make the images more suitable [to fit fair use] (e.g. by beefing up the summaries like you suggested) if he had tried to engage in discussion instead of using force."

P.S. I feel in case of dispute of FU and other subjective policies, there needs to be community resolution, not a sole admin's decision and resolution; although FU discussions have been soured due to actions of a few, perhaps all of us can agree to start anew (e.g. no personal attacks, civilized debate, etc.) in a new section?

Cws125 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(As a side note, I think the only incivility or personal attack I've seen here was directed by an anon at ed, also known as "cunt".)

Obviously I can't speak for ed or Mark, but images are not a crucial piece of an encyclopaedia article. That is why images with no source or licensing data are routinely excised from articles by OrphanBot, no matter how important they may be or how valid a fair use claim we may have on them. Fair use images do have the potential to get Wikipedia in legal trouble, and excessive usage tends to create an informal precedent which starts us down the slippery slope of using fair use sloppily (as was done here). There is no need for community input when enforcing policy. Blatant abuse of fair use (as anyone can tell from the flimsy arguments used to justify it, such as the "decorative" one) should be killed with fire, in the same way we routinely revert edits by POV warriors without bothering to get consensus. Ed cited policy to back him up, so the first resort should never have been to treat him as a vandal and simply revert him. Obviously he could have performed better, but the difference is not between "bad" and "good" but "average" and "good". Ed was entirely correct in his actions, although there are other solutions to the problem. Note that the most effective (and also controversial) way of enforcing the fair use policy concerning fair use images in userspace has been simply to blank the userpages in question (as was done by Gmaxwell until people got fed up with him). Obviously that is not going to work here, but until you can beef the article up to justify fair use, we shouldn't be using fair use images in the article. Full stop. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't a crucial piece of an encyclopedia article? This is an encyclopedia article categorizing and organizing a list of related audiovisual works. What if in 5, 10, 15... years, someone wants to know what Lost was and why it was so popular in the 2000s. Perhaps Lost is only available in a format similar to VHS today.. do all of us have a VHS player? It is important to have an excerpt of the work in the medium it is in.

Yes, an article categorizing and organizing a list of related works wouldn't have as strong of a fair use claim as an article specifically about one specific audiovisual work since it is such a larger body of work specifically about it. However, you will notice that in a popular reference of fair uses cases, the Stanford Library one, lists Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, a case in which a commercial search engine indexing and displaying small reproductions (thumbnails) of commercial images on their own website was found to be fair use because they were indexing them. Are we not doing something similar? And we're not displaying small reproductions of an entire work of art, we are just displaying a small reproduction of 1/30th of a second of a much, much larger piece of work.

In addition, only an extremely narrow interpretation of the 10-point Fair Use Policy on Wikipedia would conclude that this page violates it. The main point we are all debating is whether the images here "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."

I think an acceptable interpretation of the parts I've emphasised is, we are using the images in the context of identifying the subject of the article, which is all Lost audiovisual works, and we are specifically referencing a small excerpt not as a photo montage (decoration), but to show an excerpt from a specific audiovisual work being identified, referenced, and described. It's not like we're including an image of Mickey Mouse here, we're including images that are illustrating the subject of the article, Lost episodes. And we are displaying an audiovisual excerpt from individual episodes next to specific sections in the text that describe it. From my interpretation of the policy, the policy is there to prevent images from being placed gratuitously-- as long as there is specific section or point being illustrated, the policy is met.

Cws125 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Cws125, i think you've hit the nail right on the head with that.Modulus86 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

guys I know that there is a page where some one can get a RfA (request for adminship) but that's not what I want, where is the page that people vote off a current admin to step down? I have been lookin for that page for days, I think some one should be banned rather then just take their admin powers away --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first step in actively attempting to get a user de-sysopped is traditionally to attempt mediation, then post a user RFC to find out what others think about him (I assume this person you're after the desysopping of is male), and if you still can't get him to reform, take him to ArbCom, who have the power to strip him of adminship. Of course, along the way you'd have to prove that you really were trying to solve the dispute and weren't just out for blood, so that probably wouldn't work. An alternative is to go to the administrators' noticeboard, maybe even our incidents page, and explain the evil deeds this hypothetical admin has performed. Get other admins to come take a look at the situation; they may be able to convince ArbCom or Jimbo Wales to desysop him outside process, if he is evil enough. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for being the new kid on the block to Fair Use policy and the debate thereof, but couldn't we just send an email to ABC asking for permission? That seems to me to be the only way to settle the debate short of taking it to the Arbitration Committee. Tobias087 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, for two reasons. First of all, "with permission" is no better than "fair use": we do not allow "with permission" on its own (a with-permission image that would also be fair use is fine), because we license everything on this website under the GFDL. This means that, in effect, we promise anyone who re-uses our content that it's fine to do so, because the content is released under the GFDL. A licence to use an image only on Wikipedia is thus not sufficient for us, because we could not pass it on to our "mirrors". Secondly, it is highly unlikely that we could coinvince ABC to release anything under the GFDL for use here. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 21:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use policy is not vandalism policy" is it not?... "Copyrighted material vandalism: Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism.". I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how 2 lines of general episode summary constitutes critical commentary of a specific screenshot. ed g2s • talk 00:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Do No Harm-The description reads "As Jack tries to save a dying Boone, Claire goes into labor, forcing Kate to act as a midwife. Sayid surprises Shannon with a romantic date on the beach."

Wouldn't the picture of Boone seriously injured serve as critical commentary to supplement the phrase "As Jack tries to save a dying Boone..."?--Kahlfin 06:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not crucial to convey the article's message. For instance, the Jyllands-Posten controversy has a good fair use claim on the cartoon because it doesn't make sense to discuss the target of such outrage while not including a picture of it. The whole article is about the cartoon, and as such it has a good defense based on "criticism or comment". It's going to be very hard to argue in court that one sentence about Boone (actually, half a sentence) would constitute sufficient comment to necessitate a picture of him. Also, the principal defense of the "fair use" for this article was using the images for a decorative purpose, which is very very very difficult to defend. For instance, if you want to show a picture of a plane crash, there are free ones out there. A free picture of a generic tropical island or jungle wouldn't be hard to locate either. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism must be addressed at the work being used, in this case the image. Also remember that purpose of use is only one of the criteria, there are other factors to consider. --bainer (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So what about the DVD covers? Each has a paragraph dedicated to it, and I think that they're necessary to help readers identify certain seasons of the show. How are they not "good" fair use claims? --Kahlfin 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply, read WP:POINT. "Discussion, rather than unilateral action..." - doesn't that sound a bit like deciding to remove all the images that illustrate the episode summaries? Another part of WP:POINT that seems very relevant is "...Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption." Overall, I think that the images need to be restored to their original places where the depict the scenes described in the summaries, and ed_g2s needs to be de-sysoped, especially after looking at his other 'contributions' to Wikipedia. --Tramster 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck then. ed g2s • talk 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I already proved in the convoluted discussion above that few (if any) of the images were actually being used to illustrate episode summaries. (Although if you can prove how a picture of Jin and Sun bidding each other goodbye could somehow illustrate a two-sentence episode summary that never mentions either of them or even explains why there is a picture of an Asian couple looking sad, I'd be glad to hear it.) There is no evidence that Ed game the system; do you even know what that means? (It means subverting the intent of policy while adhering to the letter, which is not what Ed has done; his actions are consistent with both the spirit and letter of polciy.) And if foregoing "Discussion, rather than unilateral action..." merits desysoping, I'm going to the head of the queue along with most of our admins. You do not need discussion to enforce policy. And stop calling for Ed to be desysoped - that's the weakest part of your case because he never abused his admin powers, and never violated any of our policies. You're grasping at straws. If you honestly think you have a case at all, file a RFC or RFAR. Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have not even used, let alone abused my sysop powers (which are protect/delete/block FYI). ed g2s • talk 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

John, you don't prove things in a subjective discussion. Perhaps you've meant "win", because I strongly disagree with that because I've refused your "proven" point with "Yes, there are some bad images (such as Tabula Rasa, the image is too dark, but it's supposed to show the marshall in the tent who dies which is the focus of that episode; Deux Ex Machina is too dark as well, but it's the plane and it's the episode where they discover the plane; Do No Harm shows Locke trying to save Boone, the episode where he dies; and the image of Jin touching Sun is him going to leave forever on the raft in Exodus, thinking he will never see Sun again.) Perhaps they could be improved or explained better, but they are hardly arbitrary and I can see a good faith effort showing understanding and attempt to comply with fair use."

Ed did not abuse his admin powers, he abused his role as a regular editor. So instead of abusing your sysop privilege by protecting the page, Ed abused his editorial privileges by reverting the page four times without discussion, against a community that had no idea what you were doing. Wow, what soothing relief given his entire debacle.

You don't need discussion to enforce policy? Only when administrators are given that right, like in vandalism, or have a clear cut case where the community does not require consultation. This is a fair use dispute, much like a NPOV dispute, where Ed needs to 1) bring it up in talk pages 2) while protecting the page if necessary, wait for dispute resolution and 3) and only enforce the community resolution of the dispute. In cases of NPOV dispute, admins don't decide NPOV and enforce his/her sole NPOV decision because NPOV, like fair use, is subjective. Even in cases of copyright violation, you usually leave a note and wait a week because you might be wrong or because you don't have all the facts-- you just don't act like every possible violation of policy on Wikipedia is vandalism and use brute force. And fair use policy ≠ vandalism policy, although Ed tried to claim so above in a stretched interpretation of vandalism policy like his stretched interpretation of fair use policy-- you are saying people here put these images here fully knowing they would never stand up against fair use and therefore committed copyright infringement knowingly?

Ed did not 1) have the sole and final right to decide all images on this page were not fair use 2) have the right to unilaterally immediately enforce this view of fair use, without engaging in discussion or giving a chance for people to respond before you use force. If he did, please feel to correct me since I've been saying this for a while now.

P.S. John, keep repeating the mantra the "principle defense of 'fair use' for this article was using the images for a decorative purpose" like the people who defended this page are idiots who don't understand fair use. The closest thing I can come up with is Jtrost's "Granted, the images do provide a decorative element to the page, but that is not why they are there."

P.P.S. I know it's common for admins to group together, especially because they often fight against unreasonable and generally disrespectful people, but please try to understand Ed's unilateral actions in using force in situations to enforce a policy where force was not warranted (e.g. fair use is even MORE urgent than copyright violations and despite a good faith effort to meet it but because it isn't satisfactory enough, requires the same use of force as vandalism?) is causing collateral damage to regular "civilian" Wikipedians.

Cws125 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ed did not 1) have the sole and final right to decide all images on this page were not fair use 2) have the right to unilaterally immediately enforce this view of fair use, without engaging in discussion or giving a chance for people to respond before you use force. If he did, please feel to correct me since I've been saying this for a while now."

For a start, this is not about your or my interpretation of fair use. This is about Wikipedia's interpretation as manifested in its image use policy. The spirit of this policy is laid bare in the first rule "Keep fair use to a minimum". A looser interpretation may be suitable for someone else, but Wikipedia is a GFDL project. So 1) I did not "decide" they were not fair use, they just aren't unless there is a strong claim. Most of the images had no claim attached. The others had extremely weak claims attached. 2) This view of fair use is Wikipedia's policy's version of fair use, so I have every right to enforce it.

"Perhaps they could be improved or explained better, but they are hardly arbitrary and I can see a good faith effort showing understanding and attempt to comply with fair use."

This is not a refution of John's point. The claim is not that the pictures are "arbitrary", but that they are not the subject of a critical commentary. I don't doubt there is a good fair effort to make them comply with fair use, however, two lines of general summary is not critical commentary on an image.

"I know it's common for admins to group together"

Ah, the conspiracy theory! Do you really think these admins come along and check who's and admin and who isn't before forming their opinion?? Or is it perhaps more likely that with their experience, they understand the policy? ed g2s • talk 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's keep all interpretations of fair use out and focus on the policy.

"Keep fair use to a minimum"

The sentence before it is "...[T]he 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." It is only keep it to a minimum if you don't meet the two criteria in the first sentence.

You do not agree that an index of audiovisual works it does not significantly improve the article to have a visual excerpt in the medium of the work for illustrative purposes? It's not whether it's "necessary" but whether it "significantly improves the article", which is yes-- the images significantly improve the article, providing excerpt and visual identification of the work being referenced. The list is significantly enhanced by having thumbnails of the actual work-- it provides a visual cue to the episode, which is removed by having only text. In addition, the works that are the subject of this article is an audiovisual medium and as such, an adequate article must have excerpts in the medium of the original work for the audience of a general purpose encyclopedia, who may never have seen a shot of Lost.

The first test, "allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists", also applies. The traditional definition of "alternative" and use of it in singular form implies only two choices, which means the two choices are either "unfree image" or "free image", with no room for "no image." Even if you include "no image", the episode title is never displayed in the episode and therefore is inadequate to illustrate it.

Criticism and commentary

I don't believe critical commentary is part of Wikipedia policy-- is this from the legalese on the TV screencap template?

The actual quote from law that is the basis of this term is "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

First, the law says criticism OR comment, not require both. Second, the law says purposes "such as", so the list is not exclusory-- in one case, the purpose of indexing was accepted. Third, I believe the 1) episode titles 2) two sentence plot summary 3) production code and airdates is commentary, as it is information explaining or remarking on the episode, and there is no requirement for sufficienty or length (as the term "critical commentary" may connotate.)

Conspiracy theory

"Ah, the conspiracy theory!" The denial. Only more evidence a conspiracy exists.... :P

Cws125 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(I'm going to try to keep my responses all in one place now, for simplicity and headache reduction, so please don't mind if I respond to your other points made above.) Nobody has presented a coherent explanation of how the images meet the requirement of "criticism or commentary". Yes, you're excerpting content from Lost, but when the content has no apparent relation with the article content, can it really be fair use? If I can't tell what an image is trying to convey, or what it is conveying has to do with the article, have you really applied fair use correctly? You're still not understanding what we're tring to say: The article as it stood did not have more than a handful of images (if any) that conveyed meaningful information and/or could have had a free substitute. Nobody is saying the article can't use any fair use images. It's not an either/or thing. The point is that the fair use you're trying to defend isn't fair use at all.

It's a strawman and red herring to state that the article's gratuitous abuse of fair use is permissible simply because the only other alternative you've considered thus far is no images at all. Nobody's been saying we can't have fair use images. Nobody at all. That's the point of fair use in the first place; to have images where they are useful. What we've been saying is that not all (or even most) of the images used in the article are contributing to readers' understanding of the topic. As I said, if an image is too dark to tell what's in it, why use it? How does a screencap from an incident in an episode that is not mentioned enhance instead of retard the readers' understanding of what happened in the episode? You can't expect every reader (especially those who are skimming or are totally unfamiliar with the show) to make the connection between a sad-looking Asian couple and an episode summary that focuses on something Rousseau did and the departure of the raft. Also, a judge won't care that you made a good faith effort to comply with fair use. You're either right or wrong, and acting in good or bad faith won't change that. This is one case where Wikipedia and meatspace collide, and we need to be on the right side of the law here. Just because a group of POV pushers are adding blatant violations of our neutrality policy in a good faith effort to neutralise an article doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't be reverted, or should only be reverted after discussion. Assuming good faith means you assume that other people have the best interests of Wikipedia, its readers, its editors, and perhaps the world in general in their thoughts. It doesn't mean you lie down and say, "Okay, I'll let you violate policy and/or try to talk you out of violating policy because you're acting in good faith!" As JayJg pointed out in one arbcom case, acting in good faith is often immaterial; most people's actions are made in good faith, and most people do believe that their opponents are simply big bad trolls out to get them. (Not that I'm saying anyone here is a big bad troll...)

As for Ed giving a chance for people to argue that something is fair use, as others have said: WP:BOLD. He saw something that was a blatant abuse of fair use, and fixed it in an extreme but nevertheless correct manner. The immediate reaction (as many of you have said) was to treat him as a vandal, and make flimsy justifications such as that the images made the article look more "professional" or were needed for decor. Your current justifications remain the same, merely touched up with more legalistic and complicated words taken from fair use policy/law. The purpose of excerpting something is to comment on it, which the article did not do. Ed's edits aren't unrevertable, so the argument that he doesn't get to decide what is fair use is a red herring/strawman; of course he doesn't - editors collectively do, through policy and discussion. (Please note, however, that WP:NOT a democracy; Ed had every right to reject totally unfounded arguments with no basis in policy/law.) Currently discussion has shown that this article did not have a strong claim to fair use. I don't see how Ed did not engage in discussion; this appears to be a misleading view of the dispute. Ed's first edit to purge the fair use abuse from the page was made around 8:15PM 24 May (UTC). At the same time, he made a comment on the talk explaining his actions, which is already a lot better than what most edit warriors do. I don't see a particular need for him to have discussed anything on the talk when he was reverted, considering that the reverter did not try to discuss anything with him, and his comment still stood. When he was reverted later, he reverted and added a more detailed explanation of his actions on the talk. As I said, reverting was perfectly warranted, considering that the blatant fair use abuse on this article was effectively copyright violation and thus vandalism (as Ed stated). The 3RR specifically excludes vandalism. As such, Ed did no wrong. Could he have conducted himself better? Of course. But was he wrong in anyway? Hell no.

And no, fair use is legally sanctioned copyright infringement, because if not for fair use, what people would be doing when excerpting any portion of a work would be a copyvio. By legally sanctioning certain kinds of excerpts with a very narrow definition in mind, the courts (and since then, Congress as well) have thus legally permitted certain forms of copyright infringement by legalising it. The copyright owner can set all sorts of requirements for using an image, but these matter not one whit as long as the courts rule that there is a valid fair use claim. (Which is why, for example, iconic image agency images can be used, even though ordinarily we'd have to pay for them.) And as for the assume good faith part, a clear copyvio should never be permitted. Might things have been better had Ed gone down the path of asking you to remove the images yourself, or beef up the article sufficiently? Possibly. But must he have done that? No. His actions were entirely correct and within policy, especially when you consider that trying to keep track of several lengthy discussions where you explain fair use policy (instead of just doing away with blatant copyright infringements outright) is simply impractical for most human beings.

Ed did not treat you like POV pushers or even vandals; vandals don't need to have a revert explained to them. Ed very clearly explained policy to you guys, both on the talk and in his edit summaries. Trying to claim he brushed you off is very disingenuous, IMO. And protecting the page? You've got to be kidding me. I bet you the flames would have been fanned even more. In an alternate universe where this happened, I can almost imagine someone saying "He should just have removed the images and explained why on the talk, instead of protecting the page and preventing us from making valuable edits!"

Ed was not a bad editor. A good editor gets rid of copyright violations and explains why. Ed did just that. He did not bypass you; that claim is disingenous. He did not treat you like common vandals; he explained himself to you and engaged you in discussion. Policy was enforced like any other policy; I don't see what you're getting at.

And as for images not being crucial, yes, they aren't. This is especially true for articles which are barely articles. (A list is generally very short and just directs the reader to the real encyclopaedia articles, although our best ones have excellent summaries of the articles they link to.) The argument that there will be no more extant images of Lost within a few decades is ridiculous in the age of the internet. It's a good pre-internet argument (at best), but in this day and age, there will be more than enough Lost posters and merchandise clogging landfills, books about them filling libraries, hard drives with Lost screencaps...you get the picture...to last for at least a century, if not more. Wikipedia is not an archival mechanism. It's an encyclopaedia, and text is our meat and potatoes. All else is secondary. Museums and other companies can afford to purchase the rights to Lost merchandise and screening rights. A voluntarily-edited encyclopaedia written on a shoestring budget and intended for free (free as in speech, not free as in beer) redistribution can't afford that, so it needs to have an irontight fair use claim and keep fair use images to a minimum. In any case where a free generic replacement could serve a similar role to a fair use image, the free replacement should be used. (In cases where there's risk of confusion, of course, there needs to be a clarification - e.g. that the event is a re-enactment or a generic stock image designed to illustrate a concept in the article.)

Funny that you bring up Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation - as our article on it notes, it's too tightly worded to have much read into it ("It upheld the right of image search engines to display thumbnail copies of images within their search results so long as the website URL was linked from the thumbnail.") Also note that "The full picture was not stored in Arriba's system, but would nevertheless be displayed on the user's screen in a frame environment provided by Arriba." In this article's case, our thumbnails: 1. Did not link to the Lost website they were sourced to but an image description page that did that; 2. The image description page had a larger image stored in our system. (Note that the Ninth Circuit initially held that Arriba's displaying of the full image in a frame was not fair use, but later changed its mind. The matter does not appear to have been settled, as they then remanded the case to the District Court for a full trial; citing this ruling as precedent would be shaky IMO.) The law here remains ambiguous, and we do not want to be the ones to change this ambiguity. (Quoth Durin, "Violating most policies on Wikipedia does not constitute a financial threat to Wikipedia. In the case of copyright infringement, violation of policy most definitely does constitute a very large potential threat if for no other reason than the cost of Wikipedia representing itself against plaintiffs in court cases.")

It's not an extremely narrow interpretation of the law or policy that would lead a person to the conclusions Ed, Mark, Simetrical, JPS, Ruud, Sceptre, and I have come to. The fact is that excerpting content at will from a publication just because you want to prettify (or in your words, "illustrate") a list of real articles about the publication can't be fair use. An image that contributes nothing/little to an article is not fair use. It's as simple as that, and I've already shown you how most of the images contributed very little (if any) to a reader's understanding of the show.

"I think an acceptable interpretation of the parts I've emphasised is, we are using the images in the context of identifying the subject of the article, which is all Lost audiovisual works" - all well and good, except that you never identify the subject of the images. It's like saying "I wrote an article on George Bush, so now I can use as many images of him as I like because they all help identify him in different situations - I'll have one of him fishing, one of him writing, one of him sleeping, one of him talking, and perhaps throw in a few of him grimacing at Stephen Colbert's jokes. Yes, that'll do it, even if I never mention the specific context of these images!"

"From my interpretation of the policy, the policy is there to prevent images from being placed gratuitously-- as long as there is specific section or point being illustrated, the policy is met." Nobody's explained to me how the hell an image so dark that you can't see what's being depicted can somehow add to a two-sentence summary of the episode (and where only a quarter of these two sentences is directly related to the image, which only an avid Lost watcher would be able to recognise).

The fair use and NPOV comparison, as I have said, is different because you're not taking into account gratuitous violations of the policy involved. Having a gang of people violating it instead of one doesn't change anything. Am I to be expected to get consensus to revert POV warriors' additions to articles like Bumiputra just because the discussion on such edits is all on Talk:Malaysia instead? (Just a loose example; there's quite a bit of discussion on Talk:Bumiputra if I'm not mistaken.) Likewise, just because a small group of editors here think in good faith that something is fair use doesn't mean that they should be considered correct, especially when discussion in other places has found umpteen times that the usage of images in this manner is not fair use. (Just refer to the Ta bu shi da yu scandal, where he went as far as deleting Time covers. His actions were vindicated, btw, even though deleted images are non-retrievable.) Ed's actions here are not unreversible. He did not delete the images. He removed them, pending a proper copyedit of the article so that selected images could be used to judiciously illustrate the article as necessary and no more. As for the "knowingly" argument - by reverting Ed when he fully explained himself, you guys are doing this knowingly. Ed didn't call the people who originally placed the images there vandals. He called the people reverting him copyright vandals, while never treating you as vandals; real vandals don't deserve admins like us staying up till 2AM local time typing up a lengthy explanation of why this article is just plain abusing fair use.

The comparison to copyvios doesn't wash because fair use abuse is a copyright violation. Different people do different jobs; it's called specialisation of labour. This is why some people clean out the image tagged with {{nsd}}, some people write articles, some people tag them as stubs, some people delete articles, some people purge articles of fair use abuses, and some people spend two hours writing detailed explanations of why the previous fellows were right. (Sigh...I think I'm going to copy and paste this discussion to a subpage of mine for reuse next time. Hopefully this will be worth it.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit, how long did it take you to write that?! I wonder if anyone has the patience (or inclination) to read past the first paragraph? It's just rediculous to get so worked up over something so trivial as a discussion in a wikipedia article and as for staying up 'til 2AM policing round here - That's really not something to be proud of!

With regards to this whole discussion, has it not occured to any of you people that the guys moaning about Ed and the pictures e.t.c are merely doing just to spite and piss you off, and are probably sitting behind their screens chuckling to themselves? ;-) 88.110.4.25 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:Bold

The very page of WP:Bold you link to says be bold, not reckless, and "If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." Ed, by the very page you linked to, wasn't being bold but reckless.

Jumping the gun

Yes, Ed's first edit was made at 12:15, 25 May 2006. He made the first comment, just a boilerplate cite of policy, however, at 20:18, 25 May 2006, which is about 8 hours later. There was an edit war that started and ended within a 14 hour period on 26 May 2006.

I suppose I should be grateful Ed at least had 5 comments (Ed citing policy without specific objections that he wishes to raise nor any supporting arguments) before engaging in an edit war. You can even call it "discussion" if you wish.

However, all the reverters who reverted Ed made notes in the edit history referring him to discuss as well, so it's not just Ed who made notes in the edit history to discuss. Ed, when he was about to violate 3RR, should have engaged in discussion and spent a full day to convince them that he was right-- exactly what 3RR is intended to do.

All your arguments about how Ed is excused from 3RR is whining. Oh, the discussion was full of flimsy arguments and below Ed-- he didn't even need to refute them, their arguments were so weak! They're not worth Ed's time. Oh, he was trying to revert copyright vandalism (which you'd have to argue there's knowing, bad faith copyright infringement here.) You know what Ed's actions speak like? Like he is above everyone else, that he doesn't need to engage in discussion even when 3RR forces him to.

Ed's course of action was wrong

"Might things have been better had Ed gone down the path of asking you to remove the images yourself, or beef up the article sufficiently? Possibly. But must he have done that? No."

Ed had the alternative between that or removing the images itself. When he met resistance removing the images himself, he responded with even more force. At the point of three reverts, he must have engaged in discussion and convinced his opponents that he was right (unless he was fighting vandalism "that is clearly not a content dispute" or libelous content).

By keeping on reverting, he acted like the vandal. There were multiple users reverting Ed, which "serve[s] the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct." He should have realized this, stopped, and tried to convince the community. Making four edits like this suggests nothing else than that he was trying to bypass the community through force.

And stop repeating the claim he had the power to enforce policy like this, because he did not. There is a proper way to enforce policy, and stomping on 3RR to enforce a policy is not vandalism nor libelous/unsourced statements is extremely inappropriate. A proper discussion would have prevented an edit war, protection, and even our arguments here right now.

Images are crucial

Yes, images are crucial to an encyclopedia. You need a picture of a work of art on an article on it. You need a picture of George W. Bush on his article. Yes, you can have the article without it, but it's not adequate. Yes, you can find many images on the Internet: congratulations, you are in the top 15% of the world! You should note Wikipedia's entire database can be downloaded in full for offline access and occasionally sells DVD distributions; it's "mission statement" is "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."-- you shouldn't assume your reader has an entire library, Internet access, and numerous other things.

Kelly v. Arriba-Soft

You misunderstand the Kelly case.

The lower court ruled creating a thumbnail of the actual work (or the image) and hosting in Arriba's servers was fair use.

However, when you clicked on it, you would be able to see the actual work (the image) in a frame, aka inline linking. The lower court said because you were linking to and displaying the actual work (the image) inline, the copyright owner's exclusive right for public display was violated. However, the appeals court noted that the actual work (the image) was still hosted on and was being retrieved from Kelly's server so technically Kelly was still publicly displaying it.

Here, we have one thumbnail, a 1/30th second still shot, of the actual work (43 minute video) and the actual work (43 minute video) is not hosted here, similar to Arriba's system. (Although thanks to the appeals court ruling, even if we linked to the video on ABC's site and displayed it inline on Wikipedia, it would still be fair use.) In addition, the lower court's ruling that creating thumbnails for the purposes of indexing is pretty substantial. All Arriba had next to the thumbnail was the name of the file! Here we have actual commentary on the work, or information remarking on the episode, such as 1) episode titles 2) two sentence plot summary 3) production code and airdates next to the thumbnail. You can disagree whether the commentary is substantial, but I fail to see a legal basis for it nor in Wikipedia's policy.

Fair use policy

Note: It doesn't matter some people like "Ed, Mark, Simetrical, JPS, Ruud, Sceptre" have made one-two sentence statements agreeing with you... :) Like you've said, Wikipedia is not a democracy-- the number of people who agree with you does not make your point any more valid.

OK. The criteria is not whether the image "contributes" significantly to the article, but whether it "significantly improves the article." The images significantly improve the article, providing excerpt and visual identification of the work being referenced. The list is significantly enhanced by having thumbnails of the actual work-- it provides a visual cue to the episode, which is removed by having only text. In addition, the works that are the subject of this article is an audiovisual medium and as such, an adequate article must have excerpts in the medium of the original work.

Your argument that you need to reference an image's subject for a television screencap to fit fair use is nebulous. Not only is it not part of policy, we can only use screencaps when we are referring to specific elements within it? We can use a Windows Vista screenshot in the general context of a "Windows Vista screenshot" even if we're not referencing the game of solitaire or applications within in it. Sometimes the purpose of a screencap is not to show specific elements located in the shot, but as a representative image of the overall product or work.

I draw a distinction here between copyrighted images used under fair use, which are the actual work (the image), and screencaps, which are excerpts of the actual work (43 minute video). When using such ridiculously small amount of the work as an excerpt (1/30th of a second), you do not even need a fair use defense under the "de minimis" defense, and I've been arguing vigorously that even if it needed one, it would fall under fair use because of the Arriba case as well as arguments regarding the nature/purpose of the work, amount being excerpted, not borrowing significantly from the original work, not replacing the original work's market role, etc.

Fair use v. NPOV

Of course you don't need consensus or discussion before reverting a gang of POV warriors'. However, that's not the situation here. Let's say you come across Abortion and there is something you feel is POV. You make a small note in the talk page and try changing it referring to your talk page note, but multiple users keep reverting your change with notes to discuss. Do you continue to use force on the adamant belief that you are enforcing NPOV policy and you are correct, or do you engage in discussion to state and convince them of the validity of your objections?

The fact that you were being reverted by multiple users indicates "the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct." It doesn't matter whether you are 'really' NPOV or not, you need to assume the community is not malicious or unreasonable and convince them, not violate 3RR, which causes protection of the page and generates ill will.

Cws125 12:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This fallacious argument can easily be disproven by referring to the points made below some time ago, and also looking at what Fastfission has had to say. The idea is not to use every fair use image you think you can, or to not use any at all, but to use the barest minimum necessary. There has been no proof presented that the images contribute significantly to the article. What is the article's purpose? To list Lost episodes, with some episode summaries. Presenting a random episode still that has no relevance (as far as the non-informed reader can ascertain) to the episode does not aid this purpose. Just because something is a portion of a copyrighted work does not make it any less copyrighted. The law and policy must be adhered to. Our policy is actually meant to be more stringent than the law, because we're supposed to be the free encyclopaedia. Copious helpings of fair use images which do not contribute to the reader's understanding do not significantly add to the article or enhance its effect. They're just there for aesthetic purposes, as is clear from this discussion.

It would be rather easy to rewrite the article with these requirements in mind. The first thing to do would be to dump the mentality that we need a still for each episode. There are many recurring concepts, and important turning points in the show. We don't need several stills when our goal can be served just as well or even better by focusing on the most important concepts. For example, a photo of the raft, with a discussion of how it has been a recurring element in the show, would almost certainly be fair use.

As for "the community", please refer to my posting below, which has apparently been ignored. The community as a whole has overwhelmingly endorsed actions such as Ed's, and that was what I was referring to in my NPOV analogy; a general consensus was reached regarding what is POV, and no subcommunity can overrule that without the general community's approval. The general community in this case has approved of the narrow interpretation of our fair use policy, which is aimed not only at keeping us within the boundaries of the law, but also at promoting the creation of a free encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've presented arguments that both Wikipedia policy and law support. All you've done is say the commentary on this page is not sufficient "critical commentary" (found on a template), whining the images are merely decorative, and that images should be kept to the bare minimum.

I've already said the standard is "criticism" or "comment", and there is no requirement of sufficiency or length in either law or Wikipedia. I've said again that nobody has claimed keeping the images for decorative purposes, but to serve as a visual excerpt and for identification purposes. By your standards, illustrating any work being discussed is "decorative" because it accentuates text.

In my view, having a single image as an excerpt of the audiovisual work being discussed is the minimum. Yes, you don't need it, but the bar here in fair use policy is not "necessity" but "if no free alternative exists" and "significantly improves the article." I've argued there is no free alternative (the entire episode is copyrighted and a textual identification is insufficient) and the images indeed "significantly improve" the article by introducing illustrations in a sea of text and tables, as well as serving as a visual cue and identification of episodes in a list of such works. Adding visual excerpts is the next logical step of improvement for anything discussing such works.

The consensus of the overall community is reflected in the FU policy. When did the overall community endorse users enforcing fair use violations through violations of 3RR and deciding what is and what is not fair use violations all by themselves? Yes, I'm glad Ed's motivations and end goal were pure and praiseworthy, and he sure gets results, but I doubt there's too huge endorsement of his actions here.

Cws125 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, part of this argument seems to be which images are useful, which is NOT so cut and dry, or easily agreed upon. Also, Ed removed ALL images, even those that were useful. Most of the arguments here don't even try to judge the images, but rather if any image should be used at all, so why are you pretending otherwise? If we can use images, then why not bring this issue up with IfD? -- Ned Scott 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with ed, John, Mark, etc on this. I'd write something, but it appears that John has already said it and saying it again would look bad. Will (^E_@) T 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed can justify a revert. However other edits were made in the middle of this revert war and nether side took precautions to only change what needed to be changed. Both sides are responsible. If Ed could do a better job he Should do a better job. He has offended numerous situations. Most of the time he is totally justified, however he still needs to attempt to avoid conflict. He isn't going out of his way to start conflict but he also isn't going out of his way to avoid conflict and that is the problem. Mabel ed isn't the best person to enforce Fair use because he leaves a bitter taste in several people's mouths. Just because he is justified in removing Fair use Doesn’t mean he is justified in a revert war. He can always go back and fix the page latter. Ed left a note on the fair use page to call for more opinions so more opinions are warranted. While I think these images were used fairly, i can understand his removal, however he needs to explain the policy, maybe in a boilerplate message but he still needs to work with the spirit of Wikipedia. Ed has chosen to Specialize in Fair use so Ed needs to learn to deal with the users he encounters while enforcing fair use. He needs to explain the reason behind the policy and not just say this is the policy. Because of the sheer numbers of People who are bother by Ed's work. Ed needs to make a better effort to not offend other users. We need to make a better effort not to offend Ed.--E-Bod 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether Ed could have or should have done a better job. It's whether his actions (not just his interpretation of fair use policy) were right or wrong, and he was unequivocally correct, as I have pointed out. The difference between right and wrong is not the same as the difference between "nice to have" and "average job". Ed's actions aren't anything spectacularly great, but it's ridiculous to say he was wrong and should be desysoped for this. Ed did explain fair use policy. He did post on the talk explaining his actions, and his reasoning was transparent. This is all much ado about nothing, IMO - Ed isn't abrasive, he's curt, like most admins who enforce fair use policy. This is not because we've got a stick up our asses but because (believe it or not) we can't afford to spend hours of our time explaining fair use policy over and over again to a different group of fanatic editors who refuse to believe that they're not using fair use properly. (Trust me, canned responses, no matter how well-written, won't work. People just naturally like to argue.) Ed did nothing wrong, and suggesting he should give up fair use patrol just because people can't stand being told that they violated our fair use policy is ludicrous. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is kind of the issue... this subsection, actually. :)

If you try to see things from a neutral point of view, I agree with Yskyflyer. Ed didn't go out of his way to start conflict, but he didn't go out of his way to avoid conflict, either. I can see why some people would feel the onus is not on him since his motivation was improvement of Wikipedia or based on policy, but I feel the onus was on Ed since he should have known better, as incautious edits when being bold are often like stirring up a hornet's nest, and most policies don't require this level of urgency.

I believe if there is a fair use dispute with an image itself (e.g. the image doesn't have a fair use tag), there is usually a notice posted on the image page and given 7 days so a rationale can be made, tags are added, or facts (e.g. the uploader is the copyright holder) that were not known can present itself. In the case of a fair use dispute in the use of an image (not the image itself) shouldn't if not more, the same amount of time be provided, not less?

Yes, I certainly agree Ed had the right to enforce policy, but I don't agree vandalism-like enforcement was necessary here (unless you can argue the people here knowingly commited copyright infringement and therefore copyright vandalism). Are you saying since fair use dispute==possible copyright violation, immediate enforcement is necessary because possible copyright violation==copyright violation?

I understand you don't want to waste time explaining fair use policy to unreasonable fanatics, people who just like to argue, etcetara. However, why don't you look at it as spending time convincing people with a different opinion the correctness of your own and seeking peaceful resolution instead of force? You just don't get to bypass an entire community because you assume they're fanatic or unreasonable and you don't want to spend time explaining or supporting fair use to them. You can even argue enforcing fair use policy does not require their input, to which I would cite policies policy that it does.

Basically, you seem to be saying Ed was correct in doing this because he was enforcing fair use correctly. To me, this sounds like "ends justify the means", a criticism of Jack Bauer. OK, let's say Ed was correct here (using force without discussion) because his opinion was correct. But what if next time Ed is wrong? Or maybe he's correct again and his actions can be justified... whew! Yes, we could have a wonderful government based on dictatorship if its leader is always correct and right. However, how do we account for when he is not? There's no accountability.

It's not so much that people can't stand being told they violated fair use policy, it's citing fair use policy as if it was WP:OFFICE or vandalism policy. It's a fair use policy and its enforcement depends on individual users "discussing it with each other", not one renegade user who violates WP:3RR and good Wikiquette.

P.S. I'm still working on responding to your comment above. :)

Cws125 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

most policies don't require this level of urgency. Refer to my quote from Durin above, which states it much less verbosely than I probably would.

I believe if there is a fair use dispute with an image itself (e.g. the image doesn't have a fair use tag), there is usually a notice posted on the image page and given 7 days so a rationale can be made, tags are added, or facts (e.g. the uploader is the copyright holder) that were not known can present itself. That's the procedure for deleting images, not dealing with fair use problems. The obvious reason why Ed didn't delete the images is because he believes they can prove to be useful, provided we write the article up in a sufficient way to justify fair use.

Yes, I certainly agree Ed had the right to enforce policy, but I don't agree vandalism-like enforcement was necessary here Then I suppose we should refrain from reverting vandalism because (and I know a number of active editors who really did this or know people who did) many vandals are actually people who have no idea that the "edit this page" function actually works, and/or think it's just a slipup in the site system, rather than having any actual intent to vandalise a website. Ignorance does not justify a wrong action. Furthermore, by reverting Ed after having been made aware of the issue, there can be no doubt that there was some element of copyright vandalism involved.

Are you saying since fair use dispute==possible copyright violation, immediate enforcement is necessary because possible copyright violation==copyright violation? Yes. That is why images tagged with {{nld}} are removed from articles by Orphanbot even though they may very well be free images, or we may have the most irontight fair use claim ever.

I understand you don't want to waste time explaining fair use policy to unreasonable fanatics, people who just like to argue, etcetara. However, why don't you look at it as spending time convincing people with a different opinion the correctness of your own and seeking peaceful resolution instead of force? Because from my experience, 99% of people won't be convinced until we repeat this same shenanigan for them. (This applies to any controversial policy, and practically every editor - including myself.) If convincing people was actually an effective way of remedying the problem, that's what most people would be doing. However, as anyone who has ever actually tried to enforce fair use can tell you, this solution only works 1% of the time, and just wastes more time in the other 99% of all cases.

You just don't get to bypass an entire community because you assume they're fanatic or unreasonable and you don't want to spend time explaining or supporting fair use to them. You can even argue enforcing fair use policy does not require their input, to which I would cite policies policy that it does. I could say exactly the same thing to you. I refer you to the umpteen controversies we've had over fair use (the Ta bu shi da yu incident, the various discussions on the talk pages of WP:FU and WP:FUC, the fair use review page, etc.). In each case, the exact same points I have made were proven and applied. There is overwhelming consensus that our fair use policy should be interpreted in this particular way. One subcommunity should not overrule the community as a whole.

Basically, you seem to be saying Ed was correct in doing this because he was enforcing fair use correctly. To me, this sounds like "ends justify the means", a criticism of Jack Bauer. OK, let's say Ed was correct here (using force without discussion) because his opinion was correct. But what if next time Ed is wrong? Or maybe he's correct again and his actions can be justified... whew! Yes, we could have a wonderful government based on dictatorship if its leader is always correct and right. However, how do we account for when he is not? There's no accountability. Talk about assuming bad faith...in the first place, you're presuming that Ed: 1. Didn't discuss the issue (which he did, so this assumption can't stand up); and/or 2. Ed didn't come to the discussion table with an open mind. (Which means you're assuming that he was already dead set that he was right, regardless of the merits of the case.) We assume good faith in editors because we believe they want to do the right thing, which means enforcing policy and discussing the enforcement. Ed did both, and he has been proven unequivocally right. For the last time, I repeat: No prior discussion is necessary to enforce policy. There might be such discussion, although it is unnecessary, and there probably should be discussion of the enforcement afterwards (as there was here). The idea is that we avoid putting straitjackets on editors and encourage them to be bold, as long as they are willing to be overruled. It seems to me that this applies more to you guys refusing to accept that the article did violate our fair use policy than it does to Ed; what you guys did was treat him like a vandal. It appears that none of you even bothered to read the fair use policy that he cited until much later.

It's not so much that people can't stand being told they violated fair use policy, it's citing fair use policy as if it was WP:OFFICE or vandalism policy. It's a fair use policy and its enforcement depends on individual users "discussing it with each other", not one renegade user who violates WP:3RR and good Wikiquette. Copyright issues are a high priority for the same reason that WP:OFFICE is high priority. Also, the comparison is invalid. An OFFICE decision is unquestionable; an edit removing invalid fair use images isn't. A vandal reverter needn't explain himself; Ed explained his actions on the talk. When a vandal questions why we reverted him, we ignore him. Ed listened. Calling him a renegade user is disingenous when you consider that it wasn't him refusing to read up on the policy pages he explicitly linked to, and that it wasn't him who decided to treat you like vandals until you guys did. (Also, in case I didn't mention it, removing images added in good faith isn't vandalism. It's called editing, in the same way my removal of unencyclopedic trivia from House (TV) is editing, and not vandalism.) Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the procedure for deleting images, not dealing with fair use problems. I was pointing out that images that violate copyright, which is considerably more urgent that a fair use dispute, still requires 5-7 days. Fair use policy doesn't currently give a timeline and I would consider making multiple edits in lieu of 3RR in <24 hours before anyone has the chance to respond at best jumping the gun, if not bound to evoke controversy. I believe even the Ta bu shi da yu amendment proposes a timeline greater than 24 hours.

Yes. That is why images tagged with {{nld}} are removed from articles by Orphanbot even though they may very well be free images, or we may have the most irontight fair use claim ever. That's why there's time given before "possible copyright violation" --> "copyright violation". You do not go from "possibly no fair use rationale here" --> "no fair use rationale here" in <24 hours and start getting in an edit war over it that results in protection of page and disruption.

Then I suppose we should refrain from reverting vandalism... Nobody is saying you can't revert vandalism, even if the user doesn't know his actions isconsidered vandalism. However, you have the right to keep reverting beyond three times and even protecting the page as an exception, not the norm-- even blatant POV edits do not allow such rash action and require resolution by discussion. Ed acted outside his authority here, unless you consider this situation copyright vandalism, which I think is a stretch since it requires an element of bad faith ("Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.")

Because from my experience, 99% of people won't be convinced until we repeat this same shenanigan for them., I refer you to the umpteen controversies we've had over fair use. Listen, you too seem to be getting a little "Jack Bauer" fever. It doesn't matter whether you are right, you absolutely do not have the right to start shenanigans like this, engaging in edit wars, violating 3RR, and causing pages to be protected. You may feel very strongly about fair use and it may Ed's "thing", but so do different people about different things-- imagine if this type of thing was the norm in Wikipedia for every single policy. Chaos, edit wars, protection, and etcetera.

There is overwhelming consensus that our fair use policy should be interpreted in this particular way. I'm not saying your interpretation of fair use policy is incorrect-- for example, you say fair use images should be kept to a "minimum". I agree. However, look at the sentence immediately BEFORE that sentence in policy: ".. 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." I've already argued that no free alternative exists and it significantly improves the article. IN ADDITION, where is there specific consensus that using images to illustrate television episodes in a list of such works is not fair use? Exactly.

Talk about assuming bad faith... WOW, YES, YOU FINALLY GOT MY POINT!! Finally! I am indeed saying Ed did come to the table knowing discussion would be "controversial", that it "works only 1% of the time", "just wastes more time in the other 99% of all cases" and acted in that manner that is such, merely placing a boilerplate cite of policy, blindsiding people by not even giving them 24 hours, and engaging in an edit war. If you want to effect permanent change on Wikipedia, you need to do it by discussion, not force.

No prior discussion is necessary to enforce policy. Perhaps Ed could be justified on his first edit. However, after Ed's third edit and about to violate 3RR, he absolutely needs to discuss before taking further action, not go ahead and violate 3RR, unless he is enforcing some very specific policies such as vandalism.

The idea is that we avoid putting straitjackets on editors and encourage them to be bold, as long as they are willing to be overruled. It seems to me that this applies more to you guys refusing to accept that the article did violate our fair use policy than it does to Ed; what you guys did was treat him like a vandal. It appears that none of you even bothered to read the fair use policy that he cited until much later. There is a straitjacket-- it's called 3RR. I'm fine with Ed did, as long as he stopped on his third edit and engaged in discussion, actually convincing the people who reverted him the errors of their ways or getting support. He did not, but instead used force to convince people he's right in the name of enforcing a policy that does not give him the use of that force. Wow, they sure were convinced.

A vandal reverter needn't explain himself; Ed explained his actions on the talk. When a vandal questions why we reverted him, we ignore him. Ed listened. Calling him a renegade user is disingenous when you consider that it wasn't him refusing to read up on the policy pages he explicitly linked to, and that it wasn't him who decided to treat you like vandals until you guys did. Yes, I'm glad Ed explained himself or question all he wants on talk. However, he is not automatically right-- in fact, the reverts show "the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct." The community feels the version with the images is "correct" (following all Wikipedia policies and standards such as NPOV/no vandalism/etc.)-- it is up to Ed to show them it is not, by explaining or supporting policy.

To continue your analogy, imagine someone keeps on reverting your edits removing trivia from House (TV). Let's say you're a little pissed since the trivia clearly has no place there. However, you need to convince the reverter the error of his ways or bring it up on talk pages for people to agree it should be removed, not use force, violate 3RR. and get the page protected. Similarly, you will notice as a result of discussion Lost has a policy regarding trivia and future information, which is a permanent change and a change as a result of proper channels.

Cws125 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wow -- I somehow missed out on the controversy here. I did want to point out, if it hasn't been noted yet, that the deletion of screen caps in this list seems to be a bit inconsistent, considering that nearly every other "list of X episodes" has the same thing. See, for example, in no particular order:

• List of Desperate Housewives episodes
• List of Grey's Anatomy episodes
• List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
• List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
• List of South Park episodes
• The Simpsons season 1 (and every season since)

I did find a couple which didn't include screen caps next to the episodes, but these seem to be the exception for popular series:

• List of House episodes
• List of My Name Is Earl episodes

--Leflyman^Talk 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts: Lists of episodes that include images are not breaking fair use. The images, just as much as the text, are being used to identify the episode. List of South Park episodes (a featured list, mind you) is a good example of the struggle to use not just any images, but images that qualify for fair use (see Talk:List of South Park episodes). WikiProject List of Television Episodes (although still being organized) even encourages the use of such images. This is the only time I have ever heard of someone having a problem with using ANY images for episode identification. The fact that South Park's list uses such images and became a featured list kind of tells you that this is not a consensus type view. Wikipedia:What is a featured list? even mentions using images on lists. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Template:Tv-screenshot seems to encourage the use of image screenshots as well (at this point, it seems silly to even say if it's about images and lists, as the arguments can all be applied to ANY use of TV screenshots). It's a freaking option when you upload the image. I'm sure there's tons more examples of it being encouraged and accepted by Wikipedia to use such fair use claims. Maybe we should start a list of templates and policy and notices that illustrate this. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have followed policy on the South Park list and Carnildo a member of wikiproject fair use and notorious for his orphanbot along with the other FLC admins agreed that fair use had been met for the list. I disagree with eds interpretation of policy and I have seen a lot of opposition to his edits here and on Family Guy. I think he has taken the wrong course of action by simply moving his edit war from one list to another, this is something that will affect a lot of articles including a featured list, the discussion needs to be highlighted in the pump and elsewhere. The community needs to make a decision and the policy needs to be more explicit to reflect that. Discordance 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The whole issue seems entirely pointless to me. A still image is no comparision to actually watching the show. It's not like people say "oh I'm not going to bother watching that show, it's just as fun to go look at the images on Wikipedia". We are NOT hurting anyone's business, if anything we're helping to promote them. Unless some company comes over and says "hey you guys, we'd like you to stop that" then I see no reason to remove anything. Wikipedia is prolific enough, if they didn't want us to use their images they could and would certainly tell us.--SeizureDog 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Ed failed in his crusade elsewhere, so he's tried again here and subsequently pissed everyone off. Again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.150.230 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] How would I do it

I think there are only a handful featured lists for television series (5 with my count). I happen to have contributed to two of them.

On the Featured List Candidacy of List of Oh My Goddess episodes, this issue have been brought up. And the conclusion was that placing screen shots was not in line with fair-use claims. HOwever I do not believe fair-use is an issue with images so small.

Policy and copyrights aside, there is no point in displaying screen caps as te screen caps are too small for anyone to tell what's realy going on. Make screen caps any larger and page load takes forever.

If I were writing this article I would use DVD covers as I have on List of Oh My Goddess episodes which also happens to be a featured list.

Screen caps belong to the articles linked explaining individual episodes.

List of Planetes episodes, the other tv series episode list I contributed, passed FAC almost w/o effort as I used List of Oh My Goddess episodes as a 'template'.

--Cat out 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I find images being used for identification extremely helpful on many List of episodes articles. They are hardly "too small", and when chosen correctly do help identify the episode in question. -- Ned Scott 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what I don't understand is if that was an issue, then why is two of the four "List of episodes" featured lists contain individual images for each episode? seems it's split right down the middle... -- Ned Scott 12:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the discussions on these for their featured list canidacy, very interesting points brought up:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2006#List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2006#List of Planetes episodes
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2006#List of South Park episodes
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2005#List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Although the issue of fair use screen caps was brought up, in all lists it was stated they were usable, only in Oh My Goddess was it chosen not to do this (for Planetes the individual images were removed before their candidacy):

Neutral. Note that I did not ask you to remove the frames, but to provide a fair use rationale for each of them as per Wikipedia:Fair use, which in my opinion is straight-forward. But you can do as you see fit. This will be my last comment on this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to edit 24 image pages writing a uneque paragraph to each, id rather delete the entier article. Given the template is more than enough. I really find staring a wall without purpose more productive. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words, using the images WERE NOT seen as a violation of fair use, rather, they simply asked that each image have fair use rational on the images' page. -- Ned Scott 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I merely stated my viewpoint because I was prompted to do so on my talk page. Overal people prefer as few fair use images as posible. There is no point in displaying screen caps as te screen caps are too small for anyone to tell what's realy going on. Make screen caps any larger and page load takes forever, but you are free to do whatever you please. --Cat out 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots debate

Started again down here because the one up there was getting really crowded and hard to navigate. I am adamant that our use of screenshots is in no way a copyright violation. Some people think they are being used for decoration but this is nearly always a misconception. I don't know about other articles, but certainly on List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, the images were chosen very speicifically to aid commentary on the related episode. The images display something unique or particularly memorable that marks out that episode. Furthermore, they are the same images that are used in the individual episodes' articles, where they aid a much more detailed plot commentary and are referred to more directly.

In short, for someone who doesn't know the shows, the images may look like decoration, but they are selected to be illustrative and informative - and if not, they should be. Really the debate should be that, because if the images are being used properly and are low resolution, they do fall under Fair Use laws, so there is no reason at all why we cannot use them. It is likely that we would not be allowed to publish them in paper, but that is not the same for this web version of Wikipedia. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can tell, fair use should still allow for use to publish it on paper. The media that Wikipedia uses shouldn't matter for the policy. -- Ned Scott 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that they do fall under fair use because they are not just random screencaps but exist to illustrate the episodes' major plot points, which falls under correct usage of fair use.--Zxcvbnm 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A solution

It appears that the debate (wherever it was archived to) has a reached the point where we go about in circles, arguing from completely different premises and failing to convince either side of the other's position. The reasonable thing to do now which would obviously benefit both sides is to restructure the article. (Will expand later.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection?

A request for unprotection as been made at WP:RfPP; however, I see the debate is still quite heated, and I would like to know if there is consensus for or against unprotection before taking any action. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the article merge issue, but the image issue is in hot debate. If the page is unprotected then most likely myself, and others, will restore the article to an images included version. Hey, I can be honest :). Anyways, I think the image discussion needs more attention before that can happen. Maybe we can make a sub-page in the talk namespace with a copy of the article, for those who wish to continue edits to the text? -- Ned Scott 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as numerous administators have made it quite clear how the policy applies here, anyone readding the images will be reverted immediately for copyright vandalism, so do to so would be foolish. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are admins who don't agree with your interpretation of fair use. But it shouldn't matter if they're admins or normal editors. Besides, the images are still hosted on Wikipedia, you did nothing. If there is a copyvio, then that copyvio still stands. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You Don't seem to understand you role as an Admin. You are solely a user with tools. You have Even told me on another fair use issue that you were not using your admin privileges so your misconduct should not result in losing these privates. If you are going to argue that you should not loose you admin privileges for improperly enforcing Fair use if you did not use your admin privileges then you have no right to say Admins have more of a say in this issue than regular editors. You only have more tools not more voice. You are Consistently inconsistent. You started removing Fir use images from other people's user space before you removed it from you own. The Talk On this issue is externally long because These are different interpretations of the policy. Saying it is Fair use vandalism is wrong because their is clearly no agreement as to what the Policy is. You should be directing you efforts to Find free alternates to replace copy righted images. Not removing the copyrighted images. The Policy in a nutshell says when a Free alternative is available you must replace the fair use alternative. We can argue all we want about fair use But if this page was protected to enforce Fair you the admin who protected it Abused his Protecting privileges because he was inducing a copy. If this admin waited for your removal before blocking then he should be De-snyped. As i understand This is Just a really Unfortunate Coincidence on his part and I am going to Assume good faith that Despite his Close connection with you on this issue and his Clear Endorsement of a Correct version that It is just unfortunate that he happened to Protect the page after your edit and that he has to deal with the suspicion now. If he Did Protect the page in order to enforce Fair use he should have left a Statement on the page. The current statement says he does not endorse any version and the Talk about this issue is not going anywhere.--E-Bod 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Policy in a nutshell says when a Free alternative is available you must replace the fair use alternative." - this clearly shows a lack of understanding of the policy. The policy in a nutshell is "as little as possible, when it is absolutely necessary" as all fair use is harmful to Wikipedia's main goal of collating free content. The point about administrators here is that they were drawn to the discussion without any bias towards keeping the images as fans of the show. There is a very clear agreement to what our fair use policy is amongst those who understand the values of Wikipedia, the people who were around when the image policy was drawn up. Not the Lost fans who analyse the syntax of the policy and take an interpretation that allows them to keep their images on the page. I don't mean to sound elitist, but understand that just because there is no consensus on this page, does not mean there is no site-wide consensus. ed g2s • talk 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok My Nutshell Policy was not that accurate. However I am Not a LOST fan. If i was a lost fan I would have found a free alternative. As far as Admins being neutral. No admits are not neutral. You specifically Advertised this page on the Fair use Page to Bring Users who supported your interpreting of the Fair use policy. Your advertising of this issue is in no way neutral POV. How would you like it if i went though you talk page and left a message on each of the talk pages of users who have told you to stop Enforcing Fair use. I could Easily Get a landslide of Votes To keep all the images. Then you can go further and Find another Category of Wikipedian who will Vote your way. This Type of Recruitment of Specific Voters is Inappropriate Conduct for Wikipedia. Most users who Oppose your interpretation of Fair use Actually Edit Articles and Don't Spend their time on All the Voting Pages talking Endlessly. They actually are contributing.--E-Bod 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[6] [7] I noticed Several people go up to you Ed and ask for you Opinion on Fair use. They Obviously Know you're opinion on fair use before you even visit the page.

If i wanted to i could do Just what you did and call in a whole army of people who most likely will Vote To keep the Page the way it is. Then you will find another Template of People and call in your own army to vote your way and we won't get anywhere. Don't try to Game Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy because it is easy to skew Votes. Wikipedia is not a Beaurocracy because Just because a policy says something doesn’t mean you can Ignore What the Community wants. You have Acted Inappropriately and if All you wanted us to do was to prove in numbers we support the images we can By all means necessary Do that. You may not be abusing you Admin privileges. You are Abusing your user privileges. It's people like you who are forcing new policies to be be created Banning the use of Category and Template space for Wikipedian Viewpoints because they are easily abused. Just because you can invite all your friends who agree with you onto a page you need to deal with doesn’t mean you should. If we voted on something and you want a revote you can't just create a new vote page but lave a message on the pages of people who only voted one way. You are Abusing our Community. Stop Now--E-Bod 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure the use of fair use images are excessive on this page but that doesn’t mean we can’t have any images. The Policy is about pages that can do without the fiar use images. For an article on a sponge we can all take our own pictures of sponges and we don’t need Fair use images. For an article on a TV series we can’t get replace images. We can decide that we don’t want to use images there but you guys should find Conscious First and if no consists exists don’t keep removing the images. If Jumbo Personally tells you something you should not miss interpret what he says. Moved from WP:RfPP: Actually The Arbitrator Who Protected the page Needs an Investigation Image:WikimeetlondonPic7-19.jpg. That user Is Closely Involved with the Affairs of the last edit to the page. If this page was Protected to Enforce a Fair use policy it should say that instead of saying it does not Enforce a Version. This User is clearly Endorsing A Version. I have Been Blocked by this Arbitrator Without a warning for a resolved dispute with the Same user on the Same Issue on a different page. This Seems like some Coincidence. This Page Should say Protected to Enforce Fair use Instead of Protected to stop edit warring. This Page protein is looking pretty permanent.--E-Bod 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a meta conflict so I doubt any Consensus is even Possible. If we need a Consensus it may never be reached. That is not proper use of Page protection.--E-Bod 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If the page Remains Protected Because if Fair Use Enforcement The page needs to say that it is Endorsing The Version. The protector is not an uninvolved party. However the protector is an Arbitrator so this is not much we can do about his actions. I am too scared to Confront him myself because I am not in the poison to criticize an Arbitrators actions. If I get Blocked Nobody can undo it because he's an Arbitrator. He did unblock me when I talked to him but He definitely has an Official POV, but a POV none the less.--E-Bod 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And Ed. Even the Copyright infringement page use a fair use immage.--E-Bod 02:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And look again a "copyrighted" immage that is not used on any pages. Quick. Let's delete it--E-Bod 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

all fair use is harmful to Wikipedia's main goal of collating free content

Yess and no. If Wikipidia is reproduced and we abide by fair use our mirrors wil not be violating fair use. alos if the above statemnt was a policy we wouln't have the fair use tag becose we wouldnn't use fair use. Ed. You represent an Extreemly Small minority of users. You guys just happen to assosiate yourselves with likeminded people. This is degrading the wikipidia comunity. Sure fair use is less than idial and I can understand how the fair use images on this page are exessive but you are an Extremest. If wiipdidia was only filled with Extremests we would never get anywere. You are Verry dispruptive of our other Wkipidia Goals--E-Bod 02:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy is not being debated here

Policy is not being debated here, rather, what is being debated is "do these images contribute to the article". No one has debated the laws of fair use, or Wikipedia's fair use policy. All fair use requirements defined by Wikipedia have been met (all images have a fair use argument rational, etc). No where does it say that you have to provide something like "10 words or more" in-order to include an image as apart of the subject matter being discussed. No such requirement exists in current policy, only that the subject of the image is being discussed at all, and that it contributes significantly. So that is where we are, this is a debate about the images and if they contribute significantly to the article. Can we at least agree on that? -- Ned Scott 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Having browsed through the discussion since I last saw it, I still don't think that people fully understand the concept of fair use. Fair use is a defence, which in certain cases a person who is otherwise guilty of copyright infringement can rely on in court to exonerate them when they are sued or prosecuted. The examples and the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use are merely a guide, and "meeting" those "requirements" does not automatically entitle someone to use a copyrighted work. The requirements that we all must follow are the ones in United States law, not the ones written anywhere on Wikipedia.

As to the debate about these particular images, I will say that it is much more likely that the use of the images can properly be considered fair use if they are used on the articles about each episode (although currently they are not being used properly in many of those articles, which is something that needs to be addressed). They are much less likely to be properly considered fair use when they are used on a list to illustrate the list. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the above comment by bainer is the most intelligent thing said in the debate thus far. Ironically, I think people are being too legalistic about the concept and thinking that it justifies using copyrighted images in great numbers simply because they contribute to the article. So no, Ned, I can't agree with your statement of what the debate is about. Of course the images contribute significantly to the article, but that's not the point. -- PKtm 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is the point, because that is why they were removed. I do not wish to use fair use as a "free pass" for getting to use all the images I want. I understand and agree with what you are saying, PKtm, but I'm talking mostly about Ed's objections to the images. You seem to just be discussing that editors think they can use fair use for anything. I'm really trying to isolate the discussion here to help come to a resolution. Forgive me if I don't fully explain myself.

I also understand what Brainer is saying, and he seems to also state what I just stated. Yes, the fair use argument is strongest on articles that are dedicated to the episode in question, and that the fair use argument for the list is weaker. That does seem to be the debate. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, for crying out loud, can't we just get one part of the topic out of the way before going off on another fair use topic. All I want to know is what people feel is being debated here. Everyone keeps using their interpretation of fair use as their backing, and just saying that the other side doesn't understand fair use. We're going around in circles here! I'm trying to make it clear on what parts we agree on and what parts we disagree on. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry if I'm being dense about it, Ned, but to me it seems obvious:

1) The images are an attractive addition to the list, no doubt about it. No one seems to disagree on this, not even Ed, so I'm puzzled by your statement that "that is why the images were removed."

2) Contrary to what you seem to be saying/thinking, the topic is all about fair use, and the use of dozens of images in the list context doesn't work for fair use. That last link provided by the commentator below (Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies) is the clearest explanation I've seen (at least now that I've edited out the typos <grin>). As far as my take on it goes, Ed deleted the images for reasons explained clearly in that link. I don't know how we can further "isolate the discussion" to help come to a conclusion. And again, you asked people whether we can "all agree" on this statement, which I can't: that "this is a debate about the images and if they contribute significantly to the article." As I've stated in #1 above, of course they contribute, and they do so significantly. What am I missing?

-- PKtm 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem? I'm not asking that we don't discuss things, I'm asking that we take this one step at a time, one element at a time. Yes or no would suffice for what I was asking! If you wish to comment on the yes or no, that's ok too. I'm asking that this tiny little subsection of the discussion just answer that one question I am asking. Make it clear to me, what are we debating, are we debating the policy itself, or a requirement for the policy. and yes, I get it, YOU think it's not about the requirement, ok, you answered, now let others answer and move your other comments to another part of the discussion. I wouldn't be so frustrated with these actions if Wikipedia had a decent discussion thread system. Why is this so hard for you people to understand, why can't anyone stay focused? We have sectional editing for a reason! This is another fine example of why people get tired of these debates, and why they don't get resolved faster. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ned, I know that sometimes discussions can get heated when it seems that others aren't seeing things the same way we might, but it's important to remember to "Stay Cool" -- and to remain civil. Please re-read your comment above and considering toning down the response. I believe that PKtm was trying to answer your concerns clearly, as he understood them. Thanks, Leflyman^Talk 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm sorry. I just feel this discussion is just on a slippery path, that whenever we try to discuss something it gets de-railed into something else. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets start over. Ed removed the images because he thought they violated the fair use policy. He's stated that one of the reasons was because the images didn't contribute to the article:

• "if we have a valid fair use claim, we are legally allowed to use the work. In this case the images are non-essential and so we have no fair use defence."
• "The covers consist of a silver/gold (season1/2) background, the LOST logo, a panoramic image of all the characters (so small as to be utterly useless and the number 1 or 2. How do these images add significantly to anyone's understanding of the first season of Lost? The only part of the DVD that is mentioned are its release dates (edit: and the disc count). If we had an article discussing the DVD in greater detail, then it might warrant a picture."
• "I'm not saying the screenshots need to be deleted, but they should only be used when they are needed to illustrate a particular point being discussed. A two line summary does not discuss any point in detail, and as such, requires no illustartion."
• "I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how 2 lines of general episode summary constitutes critical commentary of a specific screenshot."

Especially note in my second ed quote "How do these images add significantly to anyone's understanding of the first season of Lost?". I'm trying to understand the major objections to using the images, and it would seem that it's not about policy or US copyright law, but instead, whether or not they contribute significantly to the article. (Clearly there may be other objections, but lets just look at this one first).-- Ned Scott 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Ed is removing Fair use images based on a different Principal than other fair use Police. Ed may be fully justified in removing fair use but we can all agree that his reasoning is Wrong or we have a legitimate claim to use the images on this article and it is not a B&W issue. The Problem with Ed is that His actions are supported by Loads of Policies and Users, However his Reasoning is all wrong and so when he removes Fair use images he leaves everybody Else confuse and ready to revert. This is a problem with Ed porr understanding. If his reasoning For removing the fair use images were right then i would be in 100% support of re adding the images. His actions are right but his reasoning is wrong and that is what is Complicating the issue. Other admins are supporting his actions without evaluating his reasoning. Ed has gone so far as to argue with the the Copyright holders that We can't accept their images unless it has a Commercial licence. Ed Was very Quick to Point out the Policy (Actually it was not on a policy pages, just in Jimos Listserv E-mail) but it took me a long time to actually realize the issue is with our GFDL Goal. Not actual legal issues. Please understand that we can't use Fair use images on this page for reasons other than Ed's. I personally think ed should not remove fair use unless he can use the Policy Reasoning and Cite it is tad of vaguely Miss interpreting the policy an coincidentally coming to the same conclusion. I have time and again asked ed to not remove fair use if he can't handle Explaining Fair to the people who object. Because Currently he Boldly removes Fair use But does so under the wrong reasoning and so we are trying to argue with ed's reasoning while Ed's Supporters are trying to explain the true reason why we can't use Fair use. Ed should be banned from removing Fair use because he only Complicates the matter where other users can explain themselves and settle the issue. However his removal of fair use are coincidentally according to Policy but for the wrong reasons--E-Bod 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in general and Fair use

I Like Brain's Idea of Fair use, However i would like to note that fair use on Wikipedia is Very Complicated mixture of several different goals and can not be Boiled down to anything. In fact our fair use Policy was a Gread Comprimise the way it is now. Some wanted to not allow fair use on Wikipidia at all. What's the point of having content if it is not Free? There are several issues. Please add to the list below--E-Bod 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Legally
   • Wikipedia is not legally responsible for the actions of it's editors. However we are still going to abide by the law
2. GFDL. For some reason we decided to go with this Fee Commercial licence. Just because Wikipedia is non for profit doesnt not mean we still want to protect our Mirror sights. I have been reluctant to upload some pictures Because if a Business decided to sell my work I might want to reconsider my licence, or would I be just Proud to have my work recognized?
   • Mirrors
     • Commercial mirrors may not be able to make a fair use claim
     • Permission for
3. Respect Intellectual rights
   • We respect the creators rights to their work

Pehaps the best Explanon of Fair use can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies--E-Bod 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion with question on DVD covers

From what I've read in this debate on adding/readding the DVD cover images into the article, there was neither a clear problem with their use (can use Template:DVDcover) nor a clear conclusion. Debate on screenshots in individual episodes aside, is it safe to put the images of the DVD covers back? -- Wikipedical 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this should be discussed here. -- Wikipedical 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Please Comment on the Fair use criteria for the images Here

I have unprotected the article so that it can be worked on again. Due to various legal issues we cannot just have a huge gallery of screenshots to go along with every episode summary. People who do this will be reverted, people who do this repeatedly will be blocked. Editors cannot trump Wikipedia's legal policies. I'm simply telling you all the way it's going to be. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For fair use to apply, the text should be discussing *the image itself*

That's why we can't use a magazine cover to illustrate the depicted subject's article, since the article would have to be about the magazine cover itself. Likewise, here we aren't discussing the images, we're not even discussing the episodes (only listing and adding small synopsis). Thus I advise people to show restraint and not readd the copyrighted images -- Drini 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The policy stated at WP:FUC does not appear to say anything about what you seem to think justifies fair use, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW- I can use annoying font sizes and colours too--Temers 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is not merely "advising" people not to re-add the copyrighted images, this is telling them not to re-add the images upon penalty of block. --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has got it right. Repeated attempts to violate fair use policy will be met with considerably less tolerance than before. Our explanation of policy has been reiterated in a few dozen ways by several different admins. In all probability, future attempts to make blanket additions of screencaps without thought to a commentary on the screencaps themselves will not be treated as benignly as before. Repeat violators will be blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if I understood you correctly. It would be okay to re-add the images as long as the text next each image to talked about what was in the image? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because this is an article about a list of episodes ... it is not an article about explanations of a number of random screenshots. Please just stick with the purpose of the article. --Cyde↔Weys 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's the case... have fun with this article, too. Lumaga 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of those images probably does not constitute fair use either, and they should also be removed. The improper use of images elsewhere is not a justification for the improper use of images here. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but these high and mighty admins are really only doing this because they're all scared shitless to actually do it to a popular article like South Park. --205.246.11.66 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. For example, Phil Collins, a featured article, features a Rolling Stone magazine cover, only two sentences other than the image thumb even mention Rolling Stone magazine. The topic was not the article, but quotes were taken from it. "That's why we can't use a magazine cover to illustrate the depicted subject's article, since the article would have to be about the magazine cover itself. "

Identification of an episode is WHY we have lists of episodes. TV shows are visual in nature. Information is being discussed about each episode, just in a short, list style way. If Wikipedia wants people to stop using fair use images, then they need to say "no fair use images allowed, at all". According to policy, and US law, the screenshots for this article meet ALL fair use requirements. Many requirements are loosely defined, and are not black and white. Admins such as Cyde and Ed are just trying to push the idea that no fair use images should be used at all, which is not what policy says. They are using opinion on what the article informs to the reader, and how the screenshots affect the article, NOT POLICY. You cannot enforce such opinion as policy. Administrative access does not give you the right to interpret policy based on how you feel about the article, no more than anyone else, at least. If you wish to enforce a no image rule for lists of episodes, then you need to change the current policy to reflect and support that. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil Collins is another poor example in terms of your argument. The caption to the image, which reads "Collins made the cover of Rolling Stone just before the peak of his 1980s popularity", clearly addresses the actual image, ties the image in with the surrounding text (about Collins' increasing popularity at the beginning of the 1980s) and is used as part of the critical commentary which identifies that period in time as the peak of his popularity. Most significantly, that particular image is chosen because being on the cover of Rolling Stone is an strong indicator of popularity, and the caption points that out. It is a good example of fair use.

The images that were displayed in this article were not captioned and the text did not address them. They were used for the purpose of decorating the list, not for any valid purpose. As I've said above, the images are much more likely to be fair use on the article about each episode, where the text can actually address the image. Gratuitous use can never be fair use. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I believe the magazine cover is covered under fair use, obviously. I was making a point about the issue of using the amount of text to claim fair use. That is, one can not judge fair use based on how many sentences are used to talk about the subject matter. Could the images be used for an individual episode article if that article is a stub? Where do we draw the line between a listed entry and a stub? Is this a list, or an article in a list format?

The images could all be captioned, maybe not with the typical image thumb, but with a message at the bottom of each summary that says "In the image to the left...". The images are being used for identification, the same reason we have the text. This is not much different than showing a picture of a fish and not having the text say anything about that exact fish. Identification is a valid fair use claim (although, with this list, not all images were being used properly for identification). For a visual work such as television shows, such identification is greatly beneficial. Is it necessary? No more necessary than the article itself. Rather, I believe it is as important as the text summaries. I am not speaking hypothetically here, either. I can't tell you how many times I've found which episode I was looking for when it came to South Park episodes by using the images. I believe such use of the images is important to the articles. It's not about the images and the text, it's about the images and the context. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The image itself must be the subject of the text. An episode summary is not something that is represented by a single image. A paragraph about how someone was featured on a magazine cover is. ed g2s • talk 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is of the events in the episode, the article is about events in the episode. How is this not working for you? Phil Collins has been on a lot of magazine covers, but one was chosen as an example for his rising popularity. Two sentences (three if you count the thumb message) where written to directly tie in that image to the article. There are a lot of frames in a Lost episode, we found some that serve as examples about what is happening, and if we have to, we can write 2 or 3 sentences per episode entry to directly tie in the image as well (as in, what exactly is happening in the image and why that identifies the episode, although I feel that the text-image-relationship doesn't need to be literally explained in text for fair use when it's obvious how they relate to each other). I really don't see how that is any different. How is an episode entry different than a full article or a stub article? There are many articles were there was more than one subject matter, the subject matter of this article is the events of multiple episodes. -- Ned Scott 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is fair use has a great deal to do with perspective, it is not a black and white issue. As such, it cannot be treated as a black and white issue when enforcing copyright policy. Ed and co. had made up their minds from the start, despite fair use clearly being an issue that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Even our Wikipedia policy says this. Instead, a blanket "policy" of no fair use on a list of episodes is being enforced on this article, without the fair use argument even being heard or discussed. The policy only asks that we make a fair use argument and use our best judgment in applying it. There is a variable where people are bound to disagree on, the judgement on applying fair use rational. Yet we are told that this is an obvious issue that is black and white. This is simply not true. Personally, I think Wikipedia would be on a lot safer legal grounds to not allow fair use at all. But that is not the case, and currently we are allowed, with additional restrictions, to use fair use images. Wikipedia says two things, one, be try to use free images for GFDL re-distribution, and two, get as much information you can while following our policies. It's a thin line. It's not black and white. Enforcing this as if it's obvious and that if anyone disagrees they are a "vandal" is ridiculous. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First off we are allowed to argue about fair use all we want as long as we don't edit war over it. I would Like to Thank Ned Scott For taking the appropriate Course of Action and, Despite his Strong Pro Image POV, he understood Edit wars are disruptive and that others feel the use of images is in violation of our policy and Reverted another editor who re added the images. Ned Scott, You proved the Wikipedia system works and that we can be trusted to edit pages. Ned has earned the Right to argue as much as he wants against the fair use Police because he can be trusted not to let his POV interfere with his editing.

Further more I Totally Ageee that The fair use Policy Even on Wikipedia is not Black and white and Some of the Fair use Police take it too far, Like Ed (Sorry ed for singling you out and I understand you edits are ~100% Policy and you aren’t doing anything wrong except that you Don’t Cite your Policy you only Expect us to read it the same way you read it)

What we need to always remember is that our Current Fair use Policy Was a Great Compromise. The Policy reflects a Huge Struggle between editors. Some wanted No Fair use at all and some wanted everything that we can legally get away with. We have come to some agreement that we can use a few Fair use images when the image is the main focus of the article (Such as the Company logo for an article on that company or A screenshot of an episode for an article on that episode) and No Far use images when they do not Contribute to the Content of the article at all (Such as No fair use on Userspace when the content is not even mentioned and it is Only Decoration) We as editors Should be fine with Anything in-between these 2 Extremes (Having or not Having Fair use images) and not revert war over it.

The problem in this specific case is that we use Featured articles as precedent and the precedent has been to include the image 3 times. For this reason I recommend we leave the fair use images off of this page and Crate a Policy page solely for this one propose. While Some Fair use Police feel that any Fair use images on this page is a Blatant Violation of policy others of us Disagree and claim the Current Policy does not prohibit fair use on this page. Because, despite where the truth lies. We should make a redundant Policy Specify for the Media list Scenario and dispute it till the end of time on that page and let our Articles rest in Peace. The policy page Should not be so vague unless we are willing to accept room for interpreting. I do feel the Fair use of images on this page significantly improves the function of this article, To navigate. If you want to dismiss the Fair use Rational for navigation we need a special Policy to talk about navigator. Especially when the Policy is Contra to Precedent. We all need to acknowledge that it is possible we may be wrong. Meta Conflict should not be argued at the article level

All in all. It is not an obvious violation of FUC if all the Precedents agree with the image. IF this is going to be the first Media list article we remove Fair use images we need to have a clear policy. The Featured articles should be a model so you don’t have to fix every little individual page with its list of Supporting editors.--E-Bod

The DVD covers should at least be added back. I would have never seen the Season 2 DVD cover if I hadn't seen it here... that's the point of an encyclopedia, to give information. Since the table is specificlly giving information on DVDs, having the covers make since... seems like fair use applys to me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.180.190 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Goals Of Wiped Seam Unspoiled to The Hard Truth of the Fair use Conflict. Even if we Should have images. The issue has complicated its self because our goals are big and strict. I totally agree with you, however it has come to this. We can't use the images. It is a very Complicated matter that contradicts itself a few times. Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies is the best Explanation i can find I apologize for the Title.--E-Bod 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of dvd covers

On List of simpsons episodes which is FA they show the dvd covers. here is their justification.

   * Image allows for identification of the DVDs and television season in question
   * Image provides illustration to the claim that DVD box set is available
   * Image is provided free of charge by Fox Home Entertainment for publicity/promotion purposes
   * Image has not been altered from its original state, other than being scaled down from print to web resolution
   * Image is a web resolution (72-120dpi) copy of the DVD cover art
   * Image could not be used to make illegal print copies of the DVD artwork
   * Image does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the DVD in any way

I believe that this article can apply similar rationale. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-adding dvd covers

From List of Simpsons episodes, I asked why they were able to have them.

I recall a minor objection in this page's featured list candidacy to the DVD covers for not being low-resolution. The fair use laws only extend to low-resolution DVD covers. As long as proper fair use rationale is used, I don't think this page has the same problem. --McMillin24 _contribs^talk 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also List of South Park episodes is FA, and it uses dvd images AND screencaps. I believe there is no reason why these images cannot be used in the article, and those objecting should scratch their heads and determine how these articles can RECENTLY go FA and have this content. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured does not mean perfect - nor are the people who vote on featured lists experts on our image policy. The DVDs are barely discussed, let alone the covers, therefore we can't use the images. ed g2s • talk 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"The DVDs are barely discussed", again, policy does not give a text-amount requirement. The article is multi-subject. It is no different than a collection of stub articles. -- Ned Scott 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have previously stated on your talk page, instead of just removing the images you should join in on the discussion. I see you pointing out many problems, but offering no solutions. There is plenty in the DVD topic below that you can reply to. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the dvd release dates are added, would it then be able to be used? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do changes need to be made to the fair use rationale for the images? I added much to the rationale of the images, which I believe makes it appropriate. Correct copyright staus is one of the crieteria to become an Featured list. List_of_Fullmetal_Alchemist_episodes and List_of_Oh_My_Goddess_episodes is also FA which uses DVD covers. Stargate SG-1 episodes contains a a one sentence reference to the image. I would suggest to ed g2s, if he is firm in his beliefs about the inellgibility of these images to remove these from tehse featured lists first to elimnate said confusion. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The more that the text of the article addresses the image, the more likely it is to be fair use. And with respect to the South Park list, people participating in the featured article nomination did bring up fair use as an issue (they questioned whether the images could really be used), but they didn't go into it too deeply because they felt they didn't know enough about fair use. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already addressed these issues in the other DVD topic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Covers2

I've added fair use rationales to the DVD covers, if someone would like to put them back in the article please do. Modulus86 11:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The DVDs themselves are barely discussed. All that is mentioned is their release dates and number of discs. So we can't use these images for the same reasons as the screenshots. ed g2s • talk 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed. Can you Please Stop trying to Explain the Fair use Policy. All you do is remove Fair use Images. Make Blank arguments and leave it up to us to actually find out what the fair use policy is. Your frequently chose the wrong reasons why we can't use fair sue images in that scenario, however you frequently happen to remove images that should be removed for other reasons. Your argument above is blank and has no content. Pleas re add the images or Actually explain why we can't use the images. Saying we can do XY&Z is meaningless. Saying we can use the images because we strive to have a fee content Encyclopedia is another. I left a message on your talk page about this. I'm not sure if you are justified in removing the images or not, However Your Reasoning Way Back when you removed all the Fair use Images just Complicated the matter because your reasoning was wrong but other admins felt we could not have the images for other reasons. We had a long debate because Ned had disproved your Removal rational so while the other admins were trying to explain the Actual removal rationally Ned was still arguing with yours because yours was wrong. Please You have a very poor understanding of fair use and you rarely cite a real policy. and when you do the policy says why it is the way it is and often that reasoning does not apply (However another one does on a separate policy page.) If you are removing Fair use images it is your responsibility to Properly explain yourself. If you are unable to do so you should leave it up to other admins who know what they are doing. You Constantly are getting into conflicts. Are the other Fair use Police Wikipidians getting into as much trouble as you are.

Your argument above is blank. You are supposed to Debate it on the talk page and then revert. You reverted after you left a Blank Information less statement that we can't use the fair use, but you give no reasons. Please give reason and wait for us to respond before you keep reverting. We are all talking about it on the talk page why can't you.

I can understand how before when we had all those images it was excessive and unacceptable. However these 3 images are very few and your arguments make no see. if you really want this to be according to your misinterpretation of the policy then place add to the page until it describes the images enough. such as

The image on the left depicts the Lost Cast. The chrome Cover is supposed to represent the Plain. For season 2 the Brown background represents the houses they live in. Something like that should meet No Objects by you.

Ed. Please be civil and use the talk page

A revert war is worse than an unlikely But not Definitely not a violation of Fair use policy. Wikipidia has precedents and your Blank statement is not enough to overall our precedents. Place actually point to a policy that you have read. I think it is very possible your you to find a real reason we can't use the image, but please don't vaguly give us your opinions and enforce it. All you are doing is annoying us.

It Doesn't mater if we are allowed to use the images or not. What matter is if Somebody Objects and can make a clear case for either side. you did not even look at the fair use rational. or say what it is missing --E-Bod 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used the exact same rationales for the DVD covers that are used on the South Park episodes page. If they're fine for that page, they're fine here. You're just dragging your heels now Ed, please just stop. Modulus86 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the large red warning above. The text must discuss the image itself. If you want to write a lot about the significance of the box cover designs then you might be able to use them. ed g2s • talk 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The boxes are represenative of the entire DVD sets, and the DVD sets are being discussed. Again, your misinterpretation of the fair use policy, and yopur hasty edits are causing yet more problems on this page. You must learn to use the talk page before making rash edits. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

These images do meet the guidelines in the fair use policy. Furthermore, ed, you have been removing a self-made image by muhaidib, and justifying your actions through the fair use policy, which does not make any sense seeing how it is not a fair use image. Please be more careful in the future. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What's being discussed is a list of lost episodes, and not DVD sets specifically. Further, your attempt to undermine someone's credibility by bringing up mishaps is not going to fly. Vic Vipr ^T_C 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles can have more than one topic. I'm really thinking about printing a list of Lost episodes and taking a picture of the paper list, as that seems to be the exact requirements based on this logic. We are not discussing a list. This is information presented in list form. -- Ned Scott 23:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't present unfree media in a list form. The images can only be used when they themselves are being discussed. They can't justify themselves by their content. There is almost no text discussing the DVD, let alone the cover art. As for the "cover missing" graphic, there is no point having it if we're not showing the covers - or have I missed something? ed g2s • talk 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't present unfree media in a list form. so wait, if I were to take the same text of one article and reformat it so the layout appeared to be a list, then any fair use arguments on that article would be invalid? List "status" does not change fair use arguments or Wikipedia's own policies. Simply put, Ed: you. are. wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed. I can't remember if you have ever Quoted a policy page. Do we really need to file a WP:RFC#User-conduct RFC on you. You can't remove Fair use images without a proper Explanation. Such actions are only counter productive because we won't understand why your removed them and users will revert you. If you actually Bother to Explain yourself or Direct us to Where it is properly Explained and Clearly Supports your actions then you should have no more Trouble with all these complains. We would be complaining on the Policy page. But we aren't because you aren't linking. I do not Believe the Any Policy Pages would abject to only those 3 images. You have to be able to compromise. We have not been re-adding the images except for that ip person. We are all open to what you have to say but you haven't said anything But. X is against policy. You never say X is against Policy because Y and Y is important because of Z. If you Don't understand the policy you should leave it to somebody else to enforce it who can actually defend their edits. You can't so just leave us alone or Quote policy. I'm not in favor of you Quoting a listserv by Jimbo but you gotta do what you gada do if it is not on any policy page. If you quote to the policy we can argue with it. If you Don't even know what the policy is Don't talk about it.--E-Bod 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat my above comment again, because after reading your comment, Ed, you understood what I was saying. I will ask you to look at the Chicago, Illinois article, specifically at the first image in the infobox. It is a photo of the Chicago skyline. Now nowhere in the article is the Chicago skyline discussed, however the skyline is representative of Chicago as a whole. Likewise, the DVD covers are representative of the DVDs as a whole. The DVD boxsets are discussed, though not in prose form, in precisely the amount of detail they need to be discussed without repeating information found elsewhere on Wikipedia and without detailing fancruft about the DVDs. I believe I have adequately addressed your problem with the DVD covers, and if you have any other problems I would like to hear them. I also believe that it is clear that using these images do not violate the fair use policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Chicago example is completely irrelevant as it is a free image and therefore not subject to our fair use policies. ed g2s • talk 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then look at the title screen image in The West Wing (TV series) (a featured articled). This is a fair use image, and the article does not discuss the title screen at all, however the title screen represents the show as a whole, thus justifying its use. Additionally, in this article are synopses of every Lost episode. The DVDs contain each episode of Lost. What more would you like discussed here? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned. Why are you Giving Ed a list of pages to attack after he finishes with this one. You are just begging him to remove those images. And we all know ed is one of more ready people to remove fair use when it is remotely questionable.--E-Bod 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

huh? Did you mean to address Jtrost? -- Ned Scott 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the Fair use Policy was a Great Compromise. Some people Did want Any at all while other wanted everything we can legally get away with. It would be unfair for somebody to delete all fair use images or to use fair use as Manny fair use images as we can get away with. Please realize that the policy itself was a compromise and you have to compromise with this article to. Especial when you are outnumbered and we don't just disagree with the policy but we disagree that you are acting according to policy. --E-Bod 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from bickering, I have yet to see the problem with the use of DVD cover images. According to Template:DVDcover, It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers to illustrate the DVD in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. -- Wikipedical 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you totally on this and, as such, I have now restored the DVD boxset covers to the article. I've refrained from adding the screenshots to the episode commentaries because I feel there is still no clear consensus, however, personally I would prefer to have these screenshots (see the many arguments made previously by others as there is no point in needlessly repeating them all). --Temers 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the licensing on the DVD covers, and everything looks acceptable to me. To quote the Wikipedia licensing tag: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers to illustrate the DVD in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. --Elonka 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that rather weak fair use claims have been added to the DVD covers, and people seem to be under the impression that this justifies adding the images to the article again. People seem to be under a great deal of confusion about the fair use arrangements still, so let me clarify things for everyone: formatting the image description page in the way that Wikipedia requires does not mean that there is a valid fair use claim. Fancy templates do not validate unfair use.

Remember that the heart of the fair use doctrine is use: the doctrine exists because the law recognises that it is sometimes better for people to be able to use small parts of a work for certain purposes than it is to enforce the copyright holder's rights. The fair use claims currently on the two DVD cover images both have, as their stated purpoes, "it provides illustration to the claim that dvds are available". This has to be one of the weakest fair use claims I have ever seen, it barely even attempts to conceal the fact that the images are only being used for decoration which is not a valid fair use purpose. The images are completely unnecessary - the claim that DVDs are available can be easily substantiated by a link to somewhere where the DVDs are available, an option that would not only avoid the use of copyrighted work altogether, but would provide much more information to readers. People want to use the images because they look nicer than a link. That is not acceptable.

Until someone can demonstrate that the images are being used in a way that is for a legitimate fair use purpose (in addition to the other requirements) then I, and others, will continue to remove the images. --bainer (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the DVD covers are covered under fair use, I do think their use is much weaker than the argument for the individual screenshots. I am mostly interested in getting the screenshots back up, so ok, whatever. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Judgement is key here. Policy and guidelines do not specify any exact test or method of judgement other than personal judgement. This seems to be more of a dispute of personal opinion rather than a strict enforcement of policy. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And whose judgement do you think is more in line with Wikipedia's tradition? Those of an admin who has been with the project for some 3-4 years, or those of an editor whose first edit was less than six months ago? That doesn't really matter however, it's not "the word of one person against the word of another" here. The burden of proof when including copyrighted images has always been on the party wishing to include the images, not on those wishing to remove them. —Gabbe 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Experience in editing on Wikipedia does not make one a legal expert. Those who wish to include the images have done all that policy has asked us for, and more. We have presented proof, we have presented strong arguments. But, again, it comes down to judgement and opinion, not a clear case of policy. That is what I'm trying to say. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Experience in editing on Wikipedia does not make one a legal expert."

True, but that's a straw man argument. It was never my intention to imply veteran Wikipedia editors are more knowledgable about copyright law than the beginners are. No one in this debate has (yet) purported to be a scholar of US copyright law. As such, we're stuck with not so much arguing the law as arguing about Wikipedia policy. The reason I said "[t]hat doesn't really matter" is because it isn't necessarily the case that experience with editing Wikipedia implies experience with dealing with Wikipedia policies.

"Those who wish to include the images have done all that policy has asked us for, and more."

No. Someone has yet to provide a valid fair use rationale, which is a definite sine qua non for including copyrighted images.

No one has yet shown a reason why the images serve more than a purely decorative purpose and thus don't violate the 8th point of our fair use criteria (FUC). As per the fair use guideline, fair use includes "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." What "critical commentary" is there on the DVD covers in this case?

"We have presented proof, we have presented strong arguments."

This is simply not true.

"it comes down to judgement and opinion, not a clear case of policy."

OK. Copyright law isn't an exact science, and neither are most of Wikipedia policies. I'll concede that questions will always arise, and decisions will often be subjective. But saying "the images are arguably fair use" is not a very strong argument in favour of keeping the images. I haven't seen any other argument for inclusion from you other than those of the form "It's impossible to determine objectively whether these images 'contribute significantly to the article' or not, hence including the images is OK". Please correct me if I'm wrong. —Gabbe 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to make that an argument for using the images. I mean to say, I do not agree with the initial image removal, page protection, and "copyright vandal" threats that were made. It was implied that this is a black and white issue that could be easily enforced without discussion or input from anyone else. That is what I disagree with. I'm trying to take this argument one step at a time. Also, the "valid" fair use rationale is what I mean by judgment and opinion. Also, I don't think any critical commentary has been made for the DVD images, and I don't really care much about them. I care about the individual screenshots for episode identification. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake, DVD Covers for TV Shows are being used ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!! AND SO ARE SCREENSHOTS!!! It's much nicer to have screenshots for episode reference, and SOMEONE WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE TO MAKE THOSE SCREENSHOTS AND TV SCREENSHOTS ARE LISTED UNDER FAIR USE and whoever is trying to remove them is a loser. Dan777 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An image being tagged as "fair use" does not make its usage fair use. "Fair use"-tagged images being used "all over Wikipedia" does not make them fair use. Copyrighted images being "nice" does not make them fair use. Writing in uppercase, using eight succesive exclamation marks and calling your opponent a loser most definately does not make the images fair use. —Gabbe 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So what would you consider a good fair use rationale to be for these DVD covers? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it is possible to have a sufficient fair use claim for the images in the context of this page, which is merely a list. As I've said before, the screenshots are more likely to be fair use in the episode articles, as long as the text actually addresses the image (at the moment they mostly do not, which ought to be looked at) and as long as they are being used for a valid fair use purpose, such as criticism. The images of the DVD covers similarly need to be addressed by the text, and they need to be used for a valid fair use purpose. But as I just said, it's unlikely that here, in the list, that those components of fair use will be met, although the situation is likely different in the context of the episode articles. --bainer (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire page discusses the contents of the DVDs. There is not any information on this page that is not about the DVDs. I guess I'm failing to see how the pictures are irrelevent given these facts. As for discussing the DVD covers themselves, please see my reply regarding The West Wing above. SImply put, the DVD covers are represenative of the entire DVDs. Using one image to represent an entire franchise or a series of things is common practice on Wikipedia. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but experience does tell you that our policy is not "if an image is legally fair use, then we can use it". As such one does not necessarily have to be a legal expert to tell if an image can be used or not. ed g2s • talk 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but I'm not trying to argue that, am I? -- Ned Scott 08:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So does this mean Charmed fans deserve a better episode page than Lost. Much more people visit the Lost page and now they have to look at a bunch of crappy text. Or Grey's Anatomy. They can use whatever they want. Is your main concern Wikipedia being sued for a dozen of lousy screencaps or torturing Lost fans by having their episode page be crappier than everyone elses. AND LAST TIME I CHECKED SCREENCAPS ARE LEGAL. Dan777 17:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop, you're not helping -- Ned Scott 08:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copyedited the fair use rationales on the images taking into account everything discussed here: This image is being linked here and is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

• The image is a low resolution (72-120dpi) copy of a DVD cover;
• The image does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the DVD in any way;
• Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the DVD artwork on another DVD;
• No free or public domain images have been located for this subject;
• The image is one used by online stores to sell the product and is promotional in nature;
• The image is widely available elsewhere on the Internet [8], so its inclusion in Wikipedia does not make the image more accessible;
• The image allows for identification of the DVDs and television season in question;
• The image provides illustration to the claim that DVD box set is available;
• The image has not been altered from its original state, other than being scaled down from print to web resolution;
• The image is being used for informational purposes only;
• The image is representative of an entire season of Lost, and is included on a page that solely discusses each episode of Lost.

If you have any problems with these reasons please address them here. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not believe there is any arguement against having DVD covers. List of Oh My Goddess episodes is a great example of use of the DVD template. I'd like to ask why LOST is being targeted and to more clearly explain reverts against DVD covers. -- Wikipedical 18:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You can reiterate that list of "why this is fair use", but it really doesn't matter. Our policy is not "if it is fair use, then we can use it". The image is not the subject of any discussion, therefore is not needed. Lost is not being targeted, but I'd like this to be settled before going on to all the other List of ___ episodes. ed g2s • talk 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read this text that has been reitterated many times during this discussion and is used to justify many fair use images across Wikipedia: The image is representative of an entire season of Lost, and is included on a page that solely discusses each episode of Lost. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The image that people want to use is the image of the DVD artwork, thus the DVDs themselves need to be discussed, beyond discussion of their contents. Keep in mind also that despite other criteria (such as resolution, etc) a central part of fair use is that the work is used for a valid and recognised fair use purpose, such as criticism. None of the arguments advanced so far for including the DVD images have shown how their use is for such a purpose. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The DVDs themselves need to be discussed beyond their contents? What if it was a book that was being discussed? In an article about a book, would one need to describe the color, the binding, the cover illustration, the type of material used for the cover, the type of paper the book is printed on, etc., before adding a picture of the book itself? --Kahlfin 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was an article about the book, then the cover may be considered essential information about that book. If we had individiual articles about the DVDs, then the cover may be essential information. As it stands, the only DVD-specific information we have is a couple of release dates. If the images are in some way representative of the entire season, then it certainly hasn't been discussed in the article. ed g2s • talk 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no substitute for common sense. There is a section for the Sseason 1 DVD, then an anchored link in that section to all of the episodes in season one. That sufficiently implies that all of the content in the season 1 section is also about the DVDs. As for discussing the DVDs beyond their contents, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the concept of fancruft. There are limitless amounts of information about Lost, and so there has been much discussion about what should and what should not be included in the articles. We have decided what should be included in this article without having any fancruft. Given that, I am still interested in what kind of information you consider "beyond their contents". What additional information would need to be added for you to consider the images fair use? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much more you can say about the DVD, and as such, it is not a subject that requires the use of an unfree image to illustrate. We can say all we want to say about the DVD without using a picture, so the picture does not meet our fair use requirements. ed g2s • talk 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again this is your opinion on the matter whether you *feel* that it deserves a screenshot guised with the use of wikipedia policy. This matter is a content issue and not a policy issue. Let the the stakeholders of the article decide whether it is needed and important for hte images to illustrate it in the article. And more can be said about the dvd in terms of extra content, particular notes of interest from the commentary and more. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so we are all on the same page, exactly what part of the FUC do you think these images are violating? Is it number 8, which is being discussed elsewhere on this page? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list of OMG episodes is probably not a good example of this at all. Ironically, I've been in a heated debate with the main author of the OMG episode list about the proper usage of DVD images on a list of episodes. Even though I'm pro the usage of the images on Lost, on OMG I do believe they are decretive and are breaking the fair use policy. If they had their own table and had info about each DVD volume, such as release dates, format, technical issues, extras included, then there would at least be some argument for it. Rather, we just know the volume title and what episodes are included with it.

To ed: You can repeat yourself again and again, but it doesn't change the fact that this is now an opinionated matter of point 8 of WP:FUC. I'm sorry for the argument "if they used it why can't we", I've probably used that one myself. That aside, and looking at this list only, many experienced and intelligent editors believe that the use of the images meets the number 8 requirement of WP:FUC. I'm not saying we're right, but I'm saying you can't use just "this is policy, deal with it" as an excuse anymore. Just as you question our pro-image judgement, your judgement, as well as the judgement to others, is being called into question on this matter. You are not an expert, and even if you.. were I doubt a room full of lawyers would even be able to agree on many points of fair use. The point being, Don't use our policy for your argument when you can't prove your point anymore than we can prove ours. This is a painful stalemate. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

8. "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" - the subject of the article is not the DVDs, nor are they discussed at any length. There are no relevant points about the DVDs which require illustrating. The only points made about the DVDs are the release dates and the number of discs. This is not something that needs illustrating. ed g2s • talk 11:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the policy you quoted totally out of its original context in WP:FUC. If you look there, you will see that "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" are actually only examples of ways in which the images may contribute to the article, meaning that there are many other ways for the image to be allowed under wikipedia's policy- the two you listed are only examples, therefore they do not need to be met for these images to be considered fair use under both wikipedia policy and law. --Temers _contrib ^talk 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I do not believe, or hope, our intent in this discussion is just to argue with you about policy. We need to compromise to find consensus. For the most part, many editors on this page, including myself, feel that the DVD covers would contribute to the article. Rather than showing us and discussing what rules and policies we have violated, please give us some incite on HOW we can change the page so that we would be allowed to include DVD images. -- Wikipedical 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the DVD covers make a small contribution to the article, but it is mostly aesthetic. They are not providing any information crucial to the article within the scope of the article, and they probably never will. The heart (and point number 1) of the fair use policy is to keep such media to a minimum. You should be asking "what material can we do without", not "how can we justify X, Y & Z now that they are here". One is no less informed about lost episodes as a result of the images not being there. ed g2s • talk 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not providing any information crucial to the article within the scope of the article; That is a completely opinionated statement that can be applied to any image on Wikipedia. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you are missing my question entirely.. We can all see your distaste in images, but I am not asing you to defend your ideology. I am asking you how we can compromise and include them. You cannot remove all images on Wikipedia with the justificiation that one is no less informed. How can we change the page so that these images contribute to the article? -- Wikipedical 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed your point, but I shall do so again:

"We can all see your distaste in images"

This is simply not true. If the covers were free - I would be arguing for their inclusion.

"I am asking you how we can compromise and include them."

As I have stated before, I don't think there will ever be a compromise in which we use the images, because there just isn't much to say about the images. If you think there is, then prove me wrong. But as it stands nothing has been said.

"You cannot remove all images on Wikipedia with the justificiation that one is no less informed."

Not free images, but for fair use images this is a basic criteria for their use.

"How can we change the page so that these images contribute to the article?"

As I said before, I don't think it is possible in this case, nor is this the question you should be asking.

ed g2s • talk 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to refuse to negotiate a resolution, the only other option I see for this issue is mediation. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just negotiate around our fair use policy. If you can find a way to justify the images then have a go. Personally I don't think it will be possible - and they definitely are justified at the moment. This is a matter of policy, not a matter for negotiation of mediation. Feel free to make a request, but you will undoubtedly be turned away. ed g2s • talk 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it probably wouldn't be successful because if a request you made you would probably refuse to mediate, and mediations cannot occur if only one side agrees to it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, How is possible you label your edit "revert per discussion" which would imply consensus. Which if i'm not mistaken, the consensus is to include the images and that you have a distorted view of wikipedias policies on fair use. I would suggest you bring all this pain and aggrivation and non-sensical ness to all the other episode lists page, starting with the ones FA. Either that or realize that the images DO belong here, DO fit within teh policies and are needed for identification and commentary--larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to understand how the use of the images of the DVD covers in the article is not fair use, but I have to admit that I am still bewildered. There seems clear precedent on thousands of other Wikipedia articles, that the use of the images is appropriate. For example, looking at the {{dvd}} fair use image tag, it is being used on literally thousands of images around Wikipedia [9]. Any one of the images in that list can be clicked on, to see which article is using the image, and how. Ed, is it your contention that all of those images are being used improperly? Or if not, could you please point me to a few articles where you believe that the images are being used in a fair use way? That might help me to better understand where you're coming from, thanks. --Elonka 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Elonka, you posted before I had a chance. Ed, can you point to an article on Wikipedia in which the DVD itself is discussed? Because that, in your opinion, is the only time you would accept the image of a DVD. It is my guess that you will not be able to find such a page. Why then do we have a template for including the covers of DVD's? - Gary Fothergill 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why indeed. It only encourages thoughtless uses of such images. The images would be permissible if the DVDs were the subject of some discussion, not merely mentioned in a list. The widespread abuse of the tag is a problem, but not one for this page to be concerned with. ed g2s • talk 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if we discussed the DVDs here, then we could use the images. Maybe if we can get some info on the tech. people who worked on the DVD, what all was put into the process of choosing the extra content for it, maybe some words about who created the DVD cover graphics. Yes, that sounds good, I think I might just do that. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The DVDs are already being discussed in detail. There is nothing on this page that doesn't discuss the DVDs and their contents. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, why are you of the opinion that the DVD's must be discussed? The template states: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers

to illustrate the DVD in question

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

That is the legal basis for including the covers of DVD's. Can you please link to where it states that discussion of the DVD's themselves is needed? We have the release dates of the DVD's, their region coding, the number of discs etc, according to the template, 'to illustrate the DVD in question' suffices. Does it not? -- Gary Fothergill 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, not just that, but all points found on WP:FUC. I believe this has become an opinionated matter, where Ed and some others are using their opinions of what is the subject matter and what is significantly contributing to the article. I do think the argument for the DVD covers is.. not as strong as it could be, I still think this is a matter of one's own view. The editors who contribute these images and "support" them believe that the images are an important part in covering the topic of Lost episodes. I don't believe that Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, or US fair use laws, require everyone to agree on the matter (however, like many things on Wikipedia, a consensus could be used to settle this). -- Ned Scott 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The images are not being used to "illustrate the DVD in question" because the DVD is not brought into question. The images are being used to decorate a list of DVD releases, where the DVDs are barely discussed. Such a decorative use is explicitly forbid in WP:FUC, and is the cornerstone of the policy. Fair use images must used when no free adequate replacement is available (in this case, the text: "the DVD covers featured the main cast appearing in the series on a blue background") and must constribute significantly to the article, that is to the content and commentary of the article, not "IMO lots of pictures makes the article look significantly better" which may very well be the case. ed g2s • talk 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And for the DVD covers, I think I might have to agree that they don't really add anything. However, I believe the screenshots are adding something that's not just decoration, they are adding identification. Identification of episodes (having titles, having air dates, having summaries) is the whole reason we have this article. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Easier identification is a luxury we can afford with free material, but the article serves it's purpose perfectly well without the images; it's purpose being to list the episodes of Lost (and secondary to that, to provide basic summary information about them). ed g2s • talk 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesnt serve its purpose fully, the images describe the item in question and aid the article now can you quit moaning. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to disagree on the article's purpose, then. It is called a List of episodes because of WP:NC, but it is an article in list format who's purpose is not only to list, but to identify and summarize each episode with basic information (air date, title, etc). Consider this, what if this was List of Lost characters, and we had a similar table with each character being listed how we have each episode listed. Each character would have a short summary under their name, and most likely, a picture of that character. Characters are an element of Lost, just as episodes are.

You seem to think because this is an article written about a TV show that it's not important. The majority of the contributing editors of this article disagree with you. Policy does not define when an image is contributing or not, but only asks that the editors use their best judgement. This is no different that one editor deleting minor character stubs and other editors saying those stubs are significant (although I'm usually on the other side of the argument in that case). This is not about policy, this is about the opinion of a handful opposing editors, and it's disrupting this article. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about what I think is important (if you must know, I've watched every episode). An article about the characters would be called "Characters of Lost", not "List of" because the characters would probably be discussed in detail. This is "List of episodes" because there is no significant discussion of the episodes, and therefore no points that require illustration. ed g2s • talk 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the name scares you so much and it is why you object to images, then maybe this article should be renamed to Episodes of Lost so you are not so scared and upset? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are already pages named Episodes of Lost (season 1), Episodes of Lost (season 2) and Episodes of Lost (season 3). Not to support Ed's argument, it's just that if this page were to be renamed, we definitely couldn't name it Episodes of Lost. Plus, this is a List, not an article, so I think it's required that the name start with "List of". --Kahlfin 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, the DVD's are brought into question. The place they will be used is a table about the DVD's. No. of discs, region, etc, also if you look closer at WP:FUC, it states: "contribute significantly" giving the example - "or specifically illustrate sections within the text", and that's what the DVD covers do. I'm sorry, but a description using words is not acceptable. Perception doesn't work like that. A person couldn't enter a DVD store and spot the boxset quickly whilst looking for "the cast of Lost on a blue background", and it would be silly to think that would suffice. Also, at no point in WP:FUC does it state that the picture itself must be the subject of the article, can you point to where on Wikipedia it says that? The fact that the DVD's themselves aren't discussed in detail is because there isn't much to say about them, that's obvious, there is nowhere in WP:FUC that states that there should be a certain amount of detail before a picture can be used. In some cases a picture tells a thousand words, in this case it does. - Gary Fothergill 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, where, in policy, is this distinction of Episodes of Lost and List of Lost episodes made? What about articles that have List of episodes but no individual episode articles? Where does it say how deep the discussion must be, and how does one judge that? Is this all about the article name? All this time, was this an issue for us to resolve at WP:NC and wasn't about fair use images at all? I understand your logic, I really do.. but your logic is not about what policy says, but rather, what is good for Wikipedia. What is good for Wikipedia is not to use ANY fair use images at all. But that is another debate all together. Right now, as it is, editors are allowed to use fair use images under certain conditions. Editors should use fair use images to a minimal, but at the same time create useful articles and try to get as much relevant info as they can. It's a fine line, something to balance.

If I had to build a car, and I could use a fuel that would hurt the car and require more maintenance, but the fuel made the car go faster, I'd have to balance these priorities. We all want Wikipedia to be legally flexible for further distribution and all sorts of reasons, but the whole point we're even doing this is to make the articles. If I was not allowed to use the bad fuel, then that would be that, but it is an option, and you are asking me to ignore it.

Proper use of fair use images can not be so tightly defined. It's too loose of a policy and a law. I'm not saying it's all or nothing, but this level of nitpicking goes beyond what the policy and laws explain to us. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This back and forth is leading nowhere. In my view, the consensus of editors on this article (and in fact, nearly all television episode articles across WP-space) is that small screencap images to provide visual identification for episodes and DVD covers are fair use. The view of what appear to be three non-editing admins is that they are not fair use, and have initiated a movement to see them removed, much to the chagrin of those actually involved. These admins have issued what amounts to edicts against the consensus. This seems to me to be a particularly dangerous, bordering on abusive practice, that is not in keeping with WP dispute policy.

This discussion is of greater significance than just the List of Lost episodes, and should be opened for comments to Wikipedians across various articles, particularly as it impacts countless other similar projects. As stated by Ed, above, "Lost is not being targeted, but I'd like this to be settled before going on to all the other List of ___ episodes." In effect, this is a policy matter that needs to be removed from this small sector of WP, and brought up as an RFC, and if that fails to unlock this impasse, brought up as a request for arbitration. --Leflyman^Talk 04:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore Ed (i'm not aiming everything at you, but you seem the most active), as I have pointed out, nowhere in policy does it state that the picture most be the subject of the article or even a large part. Therefore what is the purpose of the countless thousand CD covers, books covers, etc. Yes, they may be the subject of the article but that isn't a distinguishing factor (compared with Lost) to be used in deciding fair use, therefore should they all be removed. I put it to you that all the media in question is pictured because it aids identification and gives the viewer a practical view of the product in question. Exactly the same as with the DVD's. I fail to see an argument against the DVD covers which wouldn't automatically make all CD covers, book covers, etc, redundant and requiring deletion -- Gary Fothergill 00:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists for a RFC on this issue. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images (AGAIN!)

Ok, I'm getting a bit tired of this blockade, and no, I'm not letting it go. Clearly we've proven (or at least made the stronger argument) that Wikipedia's fair use policy is not clear enough to enforce such a blanket ban on images from this article. Ed and co., who I seriously doubt are legal experts, provide little to no response to our claims. The question is no longer about what policy says, but rather, which side is correct in their interpretation of the policy. I seriously think taking this to arbitration wouldn't help, as we've already seen that there is possible bias (for the no-images side). Ideas? Maybe we can get some verifiable legal experts in on this, or take the initiative to update the policy wording to be more clear on the issue. What does everyone think? Clearly, just providing arguments (even very good ones) doesn't seem to matter to the anti-image-editors, they made up their mind long before this all happened. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we request a peer review? I know a peer review won't singlehandedly settle this one way or another, but it'd be interesting to see what a lot of people who aren't LOST editors or Administrators think. --Kahlfin 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a LOST editor or a Lost Fan, and Support the use of minimal images (Not none) and conformity with our Featured lists as models (Which have lots of Fair use images for identification and navigation). I got hear because Ed tried to ballot box the page with a a link to it on the Fair use Policy page.--E-Bod 07:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a peer review is a good idea. Unless someone has a strong reason against (can't think of any), I think it's safe to do it. -- Wikipedical 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that there are people like yourself and Ned Scott who aren't administrators or LOST editors; however, I thought it would be effective to get the perspective of many (not just a few) general Wikipedians who aren't heavily involved with this article or enforcement/debate of the fair use policy. --Kahlfin 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take this dispute to Arbitration, but I can tell you that we will almost certainly reject what you think of as the core of this because it's a content dispute, but accept to see if actions and behaviour with regard to the repeated set of policy violations was worth doing something about.

I would strongly caution against trying to impose your view against (what I would consider to be) the consensus of commenting admins about policy - do so and you almost certinly will be blocked.

James F. (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"the consensus of commenting admins about policy" you are talking about are only admins who were sent here when Ed ballot Boxed the page with an advertisement on the fair use policy page. Ballot Boxing does not create consensus. Also as far as it being "admins". Admins are only approved to be users with tools, not users with a better understanding of wikipedia. If I applied for an Admin Position and got it would I suddenly get a stronger voice on wikipidia? Don't be an M:Instruction creep. The consensus of admins was about when we had All The images up. Now we are only debating about 3 images. 3 images is way more reasonable. They were objecting to the mass of Screenshots.

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_anarchy

Nor a

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making

--E-Bod 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a peer review, not a submission to Arbitration. --Kahlfin 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

<Joke>It Only won't get anywhere because the Arbitrators on in on it. The Admins are in on it and who whole wiki-Community is in on it. We are the only ones left who aren't in on it. It's Conspiracy<Joke/>Seriously, Not all the admins are actually agreeing on Why we cant have the images. They are agreeing it is against policy but for different reasons. Once the admins can unite behind one reason we can't have just those 3 images then we will get somewhere. But the featured lists should be the first target not the last boecause those serve as a model for this one. Featured articles are heavily watched and if the admins from this page get those articles to remove their fair use images all the others would fall. If the admins can get every one but those then they haven't actually probed the images are against policy because because navigation pages are never addressed. They are an exception that the rule hasn't addressed yet.--E-Bod 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am asking we resolve the issue of all the images, including screenshots. Also, I seriously doubt this is the feeling of the majority of admins. I've already come across a few admins who think this issue is stupid and don't agree with Ed and co. But I think it would be unfair to ask them to come out and say anything, as no one wants some crazy admin-powered revert war. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

As per the March 23rd, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.

[edit] Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.
• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law.
• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a quality encyclopedia.

[edit] Policy

For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanNo free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
2. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanRespect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/span
   1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanMinimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
   2. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanMinimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.
4. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanPrevious publication. Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia.
5. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanContent. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
6. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanMedia-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanOne-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanSignificance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
9. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanRestrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
10. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanImage description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanAttribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
    2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images/spanThe name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

[edit] Enforcement

• An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.
• An image on which non-free use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification.
• An image in use on an article and uploaded after 2006-07-13, that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. For an image in use on an article that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days.

Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

[edit] Comments

The Above Is a Template so It will Change to the most Recent Version. That being Said If the Below Does not agree wit what is said above the above may have been edited.

1. Yes--E-Bod
2. Yes--E-Bod
3. Yes for the 3 DVD No for the rest--E-Bod
4. Yes--E-Bod
5. Yes (But this is Debatable)--E-Bod
6. I have no clue what this Means. Where is the Policy for TV?--E-Bod
7. I still have no Clue what this says--E-Bod
8. This can be debated but I have herd admins say this is not the issue.--E-Bod
9. Yes (But I disagree with this criteria if it meats all the others)--E-Bod
10. The Fair use rational is being Debated--E-Bod

Overall

Many Fair use Police contradict the policy. For instance Ed has said their are no Exceptions for 9. Ed has argued that 8 Charita is not meat while another person said "The images are an attractive addition to the list, no doubt about it." Depending on how you read attractive. I think it is attractive in the sense as the images provided Significant ease in navigation. The Purpose of this page. However If you read attractive as decoration then I agree the

Images don't belong on the page. I an not really advocating for or against the policy or the inclusion of the images. I am advocating for a specific policy for Media lists so that the Feared articles agree with the policy and if we have a problem with the policy we can debate it on the policy page and not on the article page. The policy is not Obvious because I can't understand parts of it and I seem to be the first to actually Stick it up hear as proof. Everybody read it differently. we come from different backgrounds and take different stings out of this--E-Bod 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above.

Because the images pass the quick test nobody can argue it is an obvious violation of FUC. Saying it is Obvious is Uncivil. Even if it is a fact of life.--E-Bod 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The images can be an "obvious" violation even if they pass the quick test. —Gabbe 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I just Read somebody's comment that makes it Obviously the article does properly use of Fair use see Temers' comment[10]--E-Bod 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm... not sure where you're going with this.. -- Ned Scott 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the Lost Article being targeted for images?

Here is just a few other articles that use pictures for every episode:

• List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes
• List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes
• List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes
• List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes
• List of Family_Guy episodes
• List of South Park episodes
• List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes
• List of Invader Zim episodes
• List of Home Improvement episodes

Now how come the majority of episode listings can use images, but the Lost article can't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.190.155 (talk • contribs)

I was just coming to post something similar. I've been a long-time observer of this little war, but haven't bothered to chime in yet. But recently I've been doing some reading over at the List of South Park episodes. See, they had this exact same discussion a while back, about fair use of the images within the article. Only, instead of getting into a revert war about it, they talked reasonably, and came to a reasonable conclusion. And not only were the images were able to stay, but the page then became a Featured List! An example of what other lists should strive for! A list, with images, as featured... believe it or not. Not so long ago, this page looked much like that one. Then it got butchered, every single image, box cover, anything like that was removed, and now it looked horrid, and is pretty useless because I don't have time to scroll through and read all that text without having the image prompts there to help identify what I'm looking at. So, in one fell swoop, some people here managed to take a page that was almost the same as a Featured List, and turn it into useless, ugly, crap. How is this improving the Wiki esperience? And what does this say about Featured Lists? They're something that we should strive to NOT look like, because if we do it'll all get pulled apart? Why is this list being held to such different standards than another list, that achieved Featured status based on the same template we're using? I'm confused... --Maelwys 20:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would have been nice to have a reasonable talk about it and come to a reasonable conclusion like the South Park page but when you have users like ed_g2s that unfortunatly won't happen. I've made a similar point before but as you said, the South Park page was a featured list. A FEATURED LIST!! Modulus86 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You Don't have to make a list of lists of animated television series episodes--E-Bod 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the episode lists that have been featured articles have pictures (screencaps and dvd covers). Look at the list here. One more thing: come on! 154.20.217.225 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use criteria number 8

Re: Screenshots (Please use other section for DVD cover debate)

I believe this stalemated debate can be isolated to number 8 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria:

"8. 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."

Notice that it does not state the text to image relationship directly, Rather, EXAMPLES are given. Within those examples "or specifically illustrate relevant points". That would suggest that if an image illustrated a relevant point about the topic that it would pass this fair use requirement, even if not directly cited in the text. But here's the one I didn't pay much attention to until just now "identify the subject of an article". The subject of this article is each episode of Lost. If the screenshot helps to identify the episode, then it passes number 8, does it not? What is the subject matter of this article? Can more than one article cover the same subject? Can one article cover more than one subject?

Lets keep this simple people, don't start talking about other articles or stuff like that. Lets just look at this one issue. It is very important that we stay focused here. I know we're all tired of this endless debate, but I feel it is very important to not let this slide. The anti-image side seems to inject their own criteria into number 8, but we all can see what it clearly says. This is the breaking point in the argument, this is the finish line. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, actually. This is part of Wikipedia's own policy and not part of fair use law generally. Compare point 6 (material must meet media specific policy requirements - such as always using JPEG format for photographs) and point 9 (no fair use images outside article space). The material being used must first meet the requirements under law, and then must also meet the Wikipedia-specific requirements of policy, and not the other way around. Of course every fair use image must satisfy these criteria, but the image must be fair use in the first place to even be considered under the policy.

To illustrate further: although the material would otherwise constitute fair use under law, if the material is not contributing significantly to the article, then it should not be used on Wikipedia, because of the general Wikipedia goal to use as little non-free content as possible. That's what point 8 of the criteria is getting at. --bainer (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is qualified to judge if it contributes significantly to an article? Several good editors, not just the fly-by-night editors, feel that screenshots for identification of an episode contributes significantly. This is what I'm getting at. Again, I repeat one of the three examples given for point 8, "identify the subject of an article". Images are being used for identification of an episode. We can make arguments for their importance, and you guys can stand back and call us idiots, claim that policy and law requires more. You can say, oh, you have to have 3 sentences and an infobox to use this image. But that is not what policy and law states. You are twisting the already gray area into what you think is right. This is now an opinionated matter. We need a demonstration of consensus to resolve this. You can no longer cite policy as your battle flag. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that I am more likely to identify an episode by a screenshot rather than by its title and it's quicker to look through images than reading through summaries. Some people are just wired that way. --Maitch 08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the screenshots indeed allow me to do a visual identification of an episode faster then most episode titles. I have SEEN the episode, usually i have not READ the title when i was watching it. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i first came to this article to find specific information on an episode, the problem was that i didn't know what the episode was called (as the episode name is not shown on when you watch it). Guess what i did? I looked at the pictures and found the episode i was looking for straight away! I'm not the only person to have done this, the pictures DO add something significant to the article and the argument they are used purely for decoration is rubbish! Modulus86 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Lists primary functions are to assist in locating information. The information most likely to recalled by searchers is primarily connected to the animation and audio, not the script, therefore the images "contribute significantly to the article" in aiding the finding of the correct episode, drawing on the information most likely to be recalled by the searcher. Arniep 00:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

There doesn't seem to be a lot of recent discussion here so I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask every regular editor of this page, whatever your stance may be on the issue, to revert on sight if anyone tries to restore the screenshots. It seems obvious that reinserting the screenshots will simply lead to the page getting protected again. Thanks. -- PKtm 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further re-reviewing this whole discussion, it seems the bickerings between editors has taken the issue of screenshots in this List nowhere. There is no clear consensus on the inclusion of screenshots as well as how to proceed. I think you are correct in saying that restoring screenshots will lead to page protection. In addition to Pktm's request to know if we should revert on sight, I implore editors to comment on how to proceed to settle this issue. -- Wikipedical 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on to Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists for now. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has completely stagnated and the bainer, ed g2s, abu, etc. have failed to garnish the support to make a consensus against fair use. I call for restoring the images in light of this. Cburnett 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)