Template talk:Non-free book cover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.
Template:Non-free book cover is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] New Image

{{editprotected}}

Description: Remove both Image:Red copyright.svg and Image:Fair use icon - Book.png and replace with Image:Book copyright icon.svg Image:Book copyright icon.svg. I believe this is an uncontroversial change because the old image was tagged to be converted to SVG, and the new vector version I created is easily modifiable. If anyone dislikes the new look, it can be discussed and the image can easily be modified after a discussion takes place. I am also the current creator of the stamp, movie poster, television, and newspaper copyright images, so there will be a greater sense of unity using this image.

Thanks in advance! Tkgd2007 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, but will revert if contested. Happy‑melon 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The problems I have with User:UninvitedCompany's revised template are:

  1. It doesn't specify the need for low res images. This is important because the uploader/tagger needs to see that this is a requirement. The reason for low res is that the images cannot thus contribute to "real world" piracy of this material.
  2. I think "to illustrate the book in question" is easier to interpret and understand than " for identification and critical commentary on the book and its contents," and would completely include those things under its own definition, but that's just me.
  3. The location of the servers should be noted and the host (Wikimedia Foundation) should be hard-linked (so that if this text is ported somewhere else, the link will still be valid and it will be clear in what context this was originally written).
  4. I think a more blanket "Other use" is better than saying "use other than identification", etc., is a bit more to the point and more accurate. Even using it for identification might not fall under "fair use" policy if you are doing it as part of a for-profit service, for example.

Just my thoughts, happy to listen to others though. In my mind, the goal of these tags is to A. help the user understand how these images should be used, ideally (i.e. they should be low-res and used in articles to illustrate the book itself, not just something on the cover), and B. they should make clear the very basic components of our "fair use" rationale (I think linking to a more complete and individualized version would be ideal at some point in the future) so that a potential copyright holder can understand that we understand what we are claiming. --Fastfission 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's good in some ways and maybe not so good in others. Here are my thoughts point by point:
  • I think that it is important to include "low resolution".
  • This is a bit longer, but I think it might make sense to say "to identify and illustrate critical commentary on the book in question". Comments?
  • Not sure whether I think it's important to include the link to the WMF or not. Have to think about that one.
  • I'm not too picky on exactly what the copyright infringement sentence says, but I think it is important to mention that use of the image "elsewhere" might be copyright infringement too.
  • I think it makes more sense to link to Wikipedia:Fair use instead of Wikipedia:Copyrights.
JYolkowski // talk 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I tend to think the link to the WMF is necessary mostly because they are really the organization in question who is making the fair use claim, and it gives us a clear notice to say that the original context was non-profit, which I think will ward off most people challenging such a use (since we aren't making anything off of it). My real opposition to the "critical commentary" section is that even though it sounds nice and specific, it doesn't really mean much more in practice than "illustrate the book in question". Since we are specifying its usage, I think we should be as blunt as possible, since we are expecting people with potentially less than a high school level of education, and possibly a low level of English competency, to understand it. Linking to WP:FU is probably a more direct thing than WP:CP, though at the moment I think WP:FU is terribly confusing and poorly written on the whole, so I've been avoiding linking to it for the time being. ;-) --Fastfission 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is not the organization making the fair use claim. The editors who upload an image and/or add it to an article are the people making the fair use claim. The Foundation merely provides the servers, and generally avoids interfering in editorial decisions about whether and how to use particular content. At the point that a copyright owner complains (and not before), the Foundation may decide either to remove the content or raise a fair use defense. --Michael Snow 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, well in that instance the hard link might not be as necessary. --Fastfission 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of any statute, case law, or legal theory that holds that lower image resolution in any way bolsters a fair use claim. The rationale about contributing to piracy is AFAIK specious, that is, it sounds plausible but has no basis in law.

Fair use law specifically includes criticism but does not specifically include illustration. Therefore, our claim is stronger if we limit our use to criticism.

The purpose of Wikipedia's fair use policy is to permit the content to be reused by for-profit republishers. See the mailing list discussion for more on this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • On low resolution:
Fair Use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)[1]
Beyond this, the fact that it is significantly lower res than the original helps our "does not replace the original" claim, as well as the more speculative claim that our use doesn't encourage future piracy. I also don't see how it can possibly do anything but help our "fair use" claims.
  • On criticism vs illustration: in an encyclopedia, I don't really see what the difference would be in this context. I think putting criticism on a separate rationale page would be great, but for the purposes of a tag (which is in this instance instructing a user how to use it), it will just be confusing.
  • I've been an active participant in the mail list, I don't think that's at all the purpose of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Regardless, I'm not sure what you are getting at with this. "Fair use" images on Wikipedia are likely to not be "fair use" when used by for-profit republishers. One of the main reasons for labeling images as "fair use" and doing so appropriately is to make sure that re-publishers don't accidentally commit copyright infringement.
--Fastfission 16:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright ownership

The tempalte currently says "...it is most likely owned by the publisher of the book." Most U.S. commercial publishers purchase only a license to use cover art, and the copyright remains with the cover artist. Artists frequeltly publish "collected works" in which mulktiple covers are included, whcih could not be done if the cover copyrights were held by the publisher. i suggest revising this to "...it is most likely owned by the publisher of the book, or by the cover artist." DES (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've changed it. JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can a book cover be cropped and still fall under fair use under this template? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It depends how much it is cropped and the purpose of the cropping. If it is cropped to the point of no longer being able to tell it is a book (that is, it has become only the photo/illustration on the cover), then no. --Fastfission 12:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article discussing author

The "fair use" agreement allows the use of the image "to illustrate an article discussing the book". Can it also be used for an article discussing the author? If so, can the template be amended to read "to illustrate an article discussing the book or author". -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I think in general the answer is no, fair use book covers do not apply to their author's pages Borisblue 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer either, but I would disagree if the book is a biography/autobiography of the subject of an article. The article would reference the book, so would certainly qualify as fair use since discussing the author and discussing a biography/autobiography is essentially the same thing. Additionally, in effect, the article becomes "free advertizing" for the publisher, enhancing sales rather than hurting them. Nightngle 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back Jacket Cover

  • Often, the back jacket cover of book covers will have a photo of the author, along with a biographical description of the author. Would not a low-resolution of these types of images fall under the same fair-use-rationale as that of low-resolution book covers themselves? Thank you for your time, Smeelgova 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Acknowledgement of edition/publisher & cover artist

I believe to qualify as fair use we must acknowledge the translator/publisher for the particular edition which the cover is taken from. This is especially the case for older works which may be published by a number of different translations, in a number of different publishers. To use one publisher's copyrighted cover image as representative of the work without explicitly identifying which publisher that is could be viewed as passing-off that publisher's work (i.e. using their cover image to benefit the editions of their competitors) -- and would thus fall outside a strict interpretation of the legal requirements of fair use / fair dealing, and common courtesy besides. We ought to understand fair use as a de minimis exception to the law, and thus even in fair use every right of the author (including moral rights such as acknowledgement) which is not incompatible with said fair use is still binding upon us. Likewise, by the same logic, in the case of cover images, we ought also acknowledge any cover artist acknowledged in that editions' frontmatter. I believe that the template should be ammended to make the aforementioned requirements explicity. --144.136.115.144 09:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair use law only cares if you hurt the market of the publisher of the individual work. It does not care if you hurt the market of a competitor of the publisher of the individual work. All that matters is whether you are edging out the copyright holder in their own market; if you are in fact helping them in their market (by edging out their competitors) it doesn't come into the fair use qualifications at all. --Fastfission 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain book covers

This tag specifies that it's providing a fair use assertion for copyrighted book covers, but in fact, there are a number of images tagged with it that are actually in the public domain. For that reason, I've added a sentence clarifying this. Please feel free to reword it, etc., but I think there should be something to that effect in the template. Thanks. Chick Bowen 06:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think ‘use one of the public domain tags’ should be ‘use the appropriate public domain tag’, so as to avoid misunderstandings. —xyzzyn 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --CBD 11:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I think the (C) in the image should be changed to a red C like the one we use for other fair use templates for uniformity purposes. The grey one is too similar to the one we use for PD (except it isn't stroken out). I'll make this change on the commons image if no objections are raised. Yonatan talk 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encouraging fair-use rationales

I have proposed a wording change to our non-free image templates, and I'm trying to keep the discussion centralized here. Please join in the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request: allow specifying other than umbrella category

{{editprotected}}
Category:Book covers is incredibly overstuffed. It would certainly benefit from separating into sub-categories, and first attempts have been done, but the template categorizes everything into it automatically, so images have to be added into an additional category manually and the congestion is not helped. Could you change the code so that it allows an optional parameter for category that would be used instead of the default umbrella one? --Malyctenar 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this functionality would be useful and help divide up an otherwise extremely large category. The template {{non-free comic}} has incorporated this functionality already. I'd try to copy it here, but I'm still an amateur when it comes to parser syntax. Perhaps someone else can take a look and see what I'm talking about. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following is the code from the above-mentioned template which allows further categorization.

{{#if:{{{1|}}}| [[Category:{{{1|}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2|}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }}]]| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[Category:Non-free comic images|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly> <noinclude>

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would conflict with the current meaning of parameter 1, which is used to specify an alternate name of the page, not a category. I changed the code so that you can say category=foo to put the article in category foo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arabic interwiki

{{editprotected}}

Please add [[ar:قالب:غلاف كتاب]] --TheEgyptian 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --ais523 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other langauge wikipedia

Is the use of these images in other language versions of wikipedia a copyright infringement? Thanks.--Eukesh 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki (ukrainian)

Please add: uk:Обкладинка книги --Oleh Kernytskyi 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale?

This template is somewhat confusing to folks new to the Wikipedia image policies. On the one hand it states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" constitutes "fair use" in the U.S., but on the other hand it instructs the uploader to include a "detailed fair use rationale." One might reasonably believe that no "detailed fair use rationale" would be needed if the image was to be used to illustrate an article on the book, yet certain users (such as Betacommand take the position that the template is insufficient and that the name of the article must be called out and that the uploader must specifically state that it is used in the article. This is likely because automated tagging systems can't figure out if an image of a book cover is being used to illusrate an article about the book.

I propose that the template be altered to allow the uploader to put the name of the book in the template itself, creating a link to the article discussing the book. This should actually make things easier in the long run. Either that, or explain in detail what the uploader is expected to do. Crypticfirefly 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask a similar question, but you've formulated it more clearly, so I'll try to add my ideas to yours, without restating the points you already brought up. When one adds this template to an image, it states that the fair use rationale is insufficient. Looking up on the Wikipedia policy pages what the fair use rationale should be, one can write ones own fair use rationle, but because it looks very similar to the fair use rationale on the template, which the template itself states is insufficient, one ends up with the feeling that any fair use rationale one can think up is necessarily insufficient. I'm not sure if this makes the feelings I experienced clear, but I don't know how to formulate it in a better way. Bye, Shinobu 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest fix {Editprotected}

{{editprotected}}

  • recatting the images on 1632 series, I noticed quite a few variations after the pipetrick (parameter delimiter, actually) in this template. To wit, some had |Title= name and others just | name. Ooops! Examining the template code I note no use of {{{1}}}, hence I recommend making that parameter have a boolean or capacity:
source line
[[Category:Book covers|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{{Title|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
change to
[[Category:Book covers|<noinclude> </noinclude>{{{1|{{{title|{{{Title|{{PAGENAME}}}}} }}}}}}]]

(change also covers lowercase on title= as well, a likely possibility given the prevalence of all lowercase arguments on templates--people are just not used to using uppercase.)

Cheers! // FrankB 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

{{editprotected}}

I suggested a new appareance of the template {{Non-free book cover}} :

This image is of a non-free copyrighted book cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers in the article "[[{{{1}}}]]" :

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Please include in your fair use rationale details of the particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter. If the book cover is in the public domain (see Wikipedia:Public domain), then use the appropriate public domain tag rather than this one.

 Copyrighted


--Strike007 17:57, 23 December 2007 (CET)

[edit] What about non-cover images, e.g. pages from books?

What about fair use pictures of books that aren't specifically the cover (e.g. Image:Ecology sample page.JPG? Sometimes using a page from the book is also necessary to write a thorough encyclopedic article about the subject. There doesn't seem to be any available option here. Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)