User:Sam Korn/Fair use assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am waging a personal war on spurious fair use claims. For many people, fair use means "This image is copyrighted, and I want to use it". It does not work like that. For this reason, I am instituting this page, where I shall list ten images for which fair use has been claimed every day. I then notify the original uploader. After a week, if there hasn't been any response, I shall nominate the images for deletion at WP:IfD.

To have a valid claim for fair use, it must fulfill several criteria. They are set out at Wikipedia:Fair use, with a helpful if-then-else-then guideline. One key aspect that must be set out is that the image must have a source and a rationale for fair use claims. If no rationale or source is presented, I will feel entirely justified in listing the image here, then on IfD. Images that could easily be obtained freely are certainly not fair use-applicable. Therefore, I would say that very few photographs of cars are fair use, but a photograph of the International Space Station would be (as long as it wasn't taken by NASA, of course...).

If I have pointed you to this page because one of your images has been listed here, and you think that your fair use claim is valid, please respond immediately below the listing of your image, using indented bullet-syntax (i.e. #*your response). Remember, this isn't a personal slight against anyone whose images I list here, merely a crusade against a prevailing unhealthy culture in Wikipedia overall.

[edit] Listings

[edit] 1 August

  1. Image:2000 Dodge Intrepid.jpg No rationale for fair use, easy to photograph a car, or to ask for one to be photographed.
  2. Image:001462.large.jpg No rationale for fair use, could be obtained by other means.
  3. Image:05MustangGT 800.jpg No rationale for fair use, easy to photograph a car, or to ask for one to be photographed.
  4. Image:1994OldsmobileSilhouette.jpg No rationale for fair use, easy to photograph a car, or to ask for one to be photographed.
    • Followiing the "Fair Use" checklist:
      • 1) YES
      • 2) NO
      • 3) NO
      • 4) NO
      • 6) NO
      • 10) YES- Tag "Fair Use"
      • Rawja 12:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Image:2000 Mercury Mystique.jpg No rationale for fair use, easy to photograph a car, or to ask for one to be photographed.
  6. Image:MYcans.jpg No rationale for fair use, no source, easy to go to the supermarket and photograph these.
  7. Image:Madrid's Zarzuela theatre.jpg No rationale for fair use (although, bizarrely, was uploaded as {cc-by-sa_(UK)}}), easy for a Wikipedian to photograph this, if really needed.
  8. Image:EBayLogoTM.gif Fair use images must relate to the article that contains them. Medial capitals is very tangentially related at best, and is the only page containing the image.
    • Hello Snoddy. Yes, it is tangentially (not 'very') related; but it is related. Would it be better if I used Image:EBay_logo.png instead?
      • I'm "smoddy". Maybe I should change my name... To assess fair use, I often use the checklist on WP:FU. At the bottom of the list, there is another list of where fair use may apply. The one relevant here is "Corporate logos, used in a context relevant to that corporation". This is not true of the positioning of this logo, where the context is unrelated to the corporation. The only relevancy is to the logo, which is not the same thing. Therefore I feel your claim of fair use is invalid. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 12:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The biiig problem here is I think phraseology, viz. the verb 'to relate'. Can I not claim that the context is 'related' to the corporation because it is related to the logo and the logo is related to the corporation? The rules do not seem to specify 'directness' of relation. I could quite easily insert a sentence that did make the context directly relate to eBay as a company; would that make you happy? (PS Can you boss me around like this? Are you a sysop or something?)
  9. Image:Qu2.jpg No rationale for fair use, no source, only used on a user page (and cannot therefore relate), is duplicate of Image:M Hunt singer.jpg.
    • I'm very reluctant to be drawn into your personal war, but your statement completely lacks consistency. How can Image:M Hunt singer.jpg be okay copyright-wise while, as you claim, its duplicate is not? Because it is "only used on a user page"? You may have realized that Image:Qu2.jpg is used in a quiz, so it should be obvious that I had to upload the same image a second time and name it differently so that the answer to the question is not given away when someone clicks on the image. As long as no one finds fault with the fair use tag at Image:M Hunt singer.jpg I certainly won't have to justify the existence of its exact duplicate.
    • Let me add that I consider myself a pacifist and that I dislike military jargon just as much as military action. And although I realize that this is nothing personal I'd like to encourage you to reconsider your use of the words "war" and "crusade". Also, rather than waging or thinking / talking about war, I firmly believe that people can use their time more wisely. All the best, <KF> 14:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, for heck's sake. It was an expression. War and crusade are used in perfectly normal, non-military terms everyday. A war doesn't have to involve guns.
      • As to the other point. An image uploaded with fair use claims must have those claims justified in every instance in which the image appears. I can't upload a fair use picture of a logo and then put it in any unconnected article on the basis that it is allowed to appear in one article. The permitted areas are criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. Quite clearly none of those apply to a quiz photograph, so the image may not appear there. Quite apart from the fact that there is no source listed, which is another criterion. I understand why you want to keep this image, I'm just saying that I don't think it is legally permissible. [[smoddy]] 14:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Let me draw your attention to this discussion, which I had with User:Gdr in May. I thought that everything had been settled then.
        • I also believe that some of your other nominations are highly contentious. For example, what's all this about cans of soft drink? I really fail to see your point.
        • Are you saying that quizzes are not permissible on Wikipedia if they contain images?
        • And no, a war doesn't have to involve guns. Best wishes, <KF> 15:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, let's backtrack. I want to examine the reason we can use fairuse. It is to fill in encyclopaedia articles where there is no free-use image available. I quoted from Wikipedia:Fair use above, giving the occasions when fair use images may be permitted. It is quite clear that none of these apply here. Therefore, any claim of fair use is invalid for this image. May I again make the point that fair use applies for each separate instance of the image. That is to say, there must be a valid fair use argument for each occasion the image is shown. As there isn't, this image is a fairuse orphan, and must be deleted.
          • That discussion is very correct, with one proviso. It works for public domain, GFDL, even Creative Commons. But it doesn't work for fair use.
          • The cans of soft drink are not impossible to photograph easily. Therefore a fair use argument does not apply, as a free image could easily be obtained.
          • Quizzes are perfectly permissible on Wikipedia, with or without images. Fair use images are not permissible to be used in them
          • I don't know whether that's a sarcastic attack or what. A definition of "war" is A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious. That's what I'm trying to do. [[smoddy]] 16:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Rather than typing away furiously the moment I get a reply I often wait a day or two until I answer. This way I succeed in staying calm (something I could recommend) and also in sorting out the relevant arguments from those which only appear so at first. Well then, I could go into some more detail about what I believe is the aim of any discourse, at least if viewed philosophically: Isn't it to approach truth together rather than to defeat one's "opponent"? Let me say again that there is not the slightest reason why you should feel "attacked" by me. Cut out the vocabulary of violence, and many things in your daily life will appear in a new, more peaceful light.
            • My contention is that the image you refer to is used in an educational context—the introduction of my user page says very clearly that the quiz is intended for newcomers to Wikipedia, for learners, and this does of course not exclude classroom projects.
            • I'd have a lot more to say, but I'll contend myself with one more question: How the hell did you find out who is portrayed in the picture? All the best, <KF> 21:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
              • I haven't really got the energy to continue the debate right now (as you can see, I have not had the time to continue this project properly). Neither do I particularly want a philosophical debate (I also happen to believe very strongly in peace and non-violence, but I don't think this cuts out my permission to use words that have relation to war/violence, when the context does not demand it). I was only slightly confused (actually, I still am) about what your comment And no, a war doesn't have to involve guns actually means. That was my question. Finally, by complete fortune. I had been looking through one set of photos on one letter of the alphabet, then I happened to click on Q. By coincidence, I saw that same image twice. So nothing except blind luck (or not, as case may be...). [[smoddy]] 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Image:RING1.jpg No source, no fair use rationale, orphaned, easy to recreate (unless a particularly famous ring, in which case it should be in an article)