Jump to content

Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
actually this IS a meaningless poll which should have never been started in this manner
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people'''
'''Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people'''


Please note that this is a vote to collect the general feelings of the community, and that the real action should take place in the discussion.
'''Please note that this is a meaningless vote, and that the real action should take place in the discussion.'''


This proposal would add a second dot point to the first criteria of the [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy|fair use policy]] that states:
This proposal would add a second dot point to the first criteria of the [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy|fair use policy]] that states:

Revision as of 02:07, 24 December 2006

Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people

Please note that this is a meaningless vote, and that the real action should take place in the discussion.

This proposal would add a second dot point to the first criteria of the fair use policy that states:

  • Copyrighted promotional photographs of living people (including bands) may be used in articles about those people if no free alternative photograph is available and the photograph complies with all other fair use criteria. When a free image becomes available it should replace the copyrighted promotional photograph as explained by the first dot point.

If accepted this proposal would permit, but not encourage, the fair use of promotional photographs of living people (including bands) in articles describing those people until a free alternative is available. Examples of promotional photographs that would be affected include the photographs of Unwritten Law (image|article) and Tool (image|article).

Italic text added Cedars 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

Please vote to support or oppose the proposal by adding your name under the appropriate heading.

You are welcome to provide a brief rationale for your vote so as to improve the quality of future proposals on the matter. Please consider using the parent page for discussion or background on the issue and please use the talk page of this page to discuss this proposal specifically.

Relevant links

Please feel free to add links to relevant pages and essays to this section.

Proposed by: Cedars 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Cedars 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Pictures are so important to human understanding. The law provides for the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of comment or criticism. Promotional photos are intended to be widely distributed. This proposal ensures the encyclopedia will have images of people or bands while free images are not available. This proposal benefits the encyclopedia. (Register article on the matter).[reply]
    We know the register doesn't like us that is hardly new. Could you please explain how we are commenting on the photos rather than the person?Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Daniel Case 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I have made my reasoning abundantly clear all over the place. Daniel Case 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iorek85 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) While I accept that we should strive to use copyright free images, the fact remains that the vast (and overwhelmingly vast) majority of images taken of celebrities are by professional photographers and paparazzi, and aren't free. This is more so the case then other article subjects, such as plants, animals, space related stuff (thanks, NASA), military related stuff (thanks U.S Armed Forces) and historical stuff (thanks expiration of copyright). Publicity photos are for, by definition, illustrating the subject in question. I believe the value in illustrating articles with the almost-free image outweighs the unbelievably minor copyright issue. What would be awesome is some sort of fund to purchase the copyright to one good illustrative (and since it wouldn't be particularly juicy, cheap) photo of the subject for major articles. Ah, to dream.[reply]
    please explain how the copyright issue is unbelievably minor.Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me. It's actually de minimus, which is the legal equivalent of "such a small thing, it isn't worth hassling over". For example, if a state government releases a photo of a governor for public use, and Wikipedia - a non-commercial encylopedia - uses that image - Wikipedia MUST "fair use" it, because the state will retain copyright over the image as a matter of policy. Put another way, we're NOT going to get sued by the state of Michigan for putting the official portrait of the Governor of Michigan on a Wikipedia page about the Governor of Michigan. Hope this clears things up! Jenolen speak it! 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Better than I could have hoped to put it. Thanks. If the people who own the copyright to the image want you to use it, it's hardly a major copyright issue. Iorek85 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what de minimus is. De minimus could not posibly apply in the case you are talking about. In any case the governor is a politician. Politicians are not known for keeping a low profile.Geni 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Acidskater 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC) One of the five pillars is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must "strive for accuracy". Fair-use images are more accurate than free images in most cases pertaining to living people, mainly celebrities.[reply]
    Please provide justification for this claim.Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. john k 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Certainly. Obtaining an image of a living person is not like obtaining an image of a model of car or other currently available commercial product. john k 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HarryCane 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC) As per above. Since I know how painfully difficult it is to get a good free alternative of celebrities/bands. If all fair-use images were deleted, I fear most articles would not display the person in question at all.[reply]
    In the short term perhaps. in the long term people would learn how to produce free pics.Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CyberAnth 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Publicity photos are, by definition, for illustrating the subject in question. It is an exceedingly undue (and irrationally improbable) burden to place on Wikipedians to take their own photographs. If a free and equal alternative were available, why would anyone be uploading a non-free one? Tag these images with a Template:Help us replace it template and build goodwill rather than driving so many Wikipedians away with this overzealous delete button. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project both now and for the future.[reply]
    I've replaced non free images with free ones. Acording to your second claim that should be imposible. If wikipedians don't want to take photos they don't have to. We've been asking for replacement for years it hasn't worked yet deleting them seems to produce replacements rather more quickly. The deletion program is fairly small to some of the others that have gone on.Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The worse, the better! john k 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. User:Badagnani. Absolutely, support as above. Promotional photos are intended for use in such a forum as Wikipedia. However, it should be added that the "free" photo that replaces the fair use photo must be of comparable of superior quality. Badagnani 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    why? Do you have somthing against the rest of the planet outside the US?Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:Tvccs All of the above. Tvccs 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of your own to add?Geni 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jack Cox 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    care to proivde a justification?Geni 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld I am a very strong beleiver that fair use images of living people should be permitted but the rationale altered to encourage a replaceable image to be restored immeditely if found. I have added fair use images of many living people where it is not always likely a free image will become available and it really is a very important part of the article to physically identify the subject particularly when it is an image for such media coverage anyway- but certain wikilawyers delete them even though a fair use rationale is give. Taking away the photo seriuosly affects the qulaity of the article and takes away a valuable info resource. While I do also agree with the concept of freeness, I do also take the quality of wikipedia as an encyclopedia very seriously and anything whiches compromises the qulaity of knowledge I disagree with. I suggest that the tagging is changed to this image must be deleted immeditely when a free image becomes available. THis way the article will always have the resource but will encourage a replaceable image to be found. As wikipedia grows I hope there will be a branch which specializes in the search for free images for use on wikipedia. In response to Big DT of course Wikipedia shoudln't be an archive of promotional photos. Images should be used to imrove the qulaity of an article only and identify the subject described certainly not for some archive. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, our crusade against fair use images seems to be slightly irrational. I see no reason a fair use image cannot remain UNTIL a free replacement is made available. We should urge our contributors to replace them, and forbid future fair use uploads. But I see no valid reason to purge all of the fair use that is on the site merely to leave empty holes until a new image can be obtained.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    past experence suggests that this will result in a bulk of images that never get removed. We make that mistake once we will not make it again.Geni 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, means (rationales) have to be adapted to what they apply to. In the ase of promo photos, it is quite obvious. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Logical Argument Support, Uncopyrighted photographs of living people can be difficult to obtain, and promotional photos should be allowed to be used if their are no other alternatives 21:41, 23 December 2006
  16. Support. The current fair-use pogrom is damaging Wikipedia. The old saying goes "A picture is worth a thousand words", and it is. Quality illustrations are MUCH more important to a modern information source than making a 100% "libre" information source. And I don't buy this nonsense about how we have to delete fair use images because they're "not free". The reason I don't believe it is because only certain of the images are being targeted (namely promo photos). Things like CD covers are being left alone. If Wikipedia was truly interested in creating a pure "libre" source, then they would have eliminated the fair use tag altogether. Instead, this is just another misinterpretation of policy based on Jimbo saying that he thought the fair use tag was overused. If a free replacement can be found or created, than that's wonderful, however it MUST be of a quality equal to or surpassing that of the image it is replacing. TheQuandry 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We are "truly interested", that is why we have already started discussing about album covers here. The promotional images was discussed and closed, to prevent having four or five different threads of discussion open at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support in many cases true promotional photos are more safe from the legal point of view than dodgy free photos even if they can be produced. There are such thing as personal rights, copyrights on costumes, etc. Also there are such things as hoaxes and photoshopped images. Common sense should be applied there instead of a one size-fits all approach Alex Bakharev 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Fair use images are important in making EN interesting and valuable. Browse JA wikipedia one time and note the utter lack of pictures. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How many faie use images do we need? we had something around 300K last time I looked.Geni 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support It supports this as it feels that this allows for a better visual encyclopedia and places less emphasis on wasting time on protocols and doing leg work, that lets face won't be done, will expand acessibility of wikipedia and help wikipedia achieve it's goals better, something that is increasingly becoming a second priority to creating a club. --AresAndEnyo 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are people who go out and take free photos.Geni 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And they should be taking photos of things for which no photo exists. They're kind of wasting their time if they're shooting new photos of things that we already have a nice, legal photo of... Jenolen speak it! 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Photo isn't legal. Because you made your statement universal your statemant is false. Still an error that can be understood. However that fact is there are very few things of which no photo exists. Should people not take any photos at all?Geni 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've laid out my rationale for thinking that the policy of excluding promotional photos is asinine on multiple discussion pages; no need to amplify further here. VoiceOfReason 23:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Hey, the title for this whole thing comes from an entry I wrote on talk page for WP:VPP. Do I get bonus Wiki-points?  :) Jenolen speak it! 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. This proposal seems good to me. I never realized that this could not be done. The US fair use code is not in clash with this either. → JARED (t)  23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support but with guidelines. I wouldn't want to stop supporting the usage of GFDL'ed or CC'ed images, but I feel that we must look at it as one factor of many, not a prevailing factor. Attainable quality must not suffer due to purely non-qualitative concerns. I would like to note that there are numerous members of the media who support this argument; we deal with these people all the time in our day jobs, and we feel that this goal is unrealistic due to our dealings with public relations people, confusing and hard-to-use web sites -- and that's just for the fair use images. There are limitations to what Wikipedia can do; let's work within those and stretch the boundaries, but not while sacrificing the quality of our work. - Stick Fig 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. There's no reason to go around current policy that is actually well thought out and good just because you want those images. --Rory096 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose - Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not an archive of non-free images. BigDT 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think new fair use photographs of living persons should be strongly discouraged, but I don't think that existing fair use images should be retroactively deleted. I'm sure there are some cases in which obtaining a free photograph of some individual would be next to impossible. ~MDD4696 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Freedom is essential policy of Wikipedia. We must strive to create free content and restrain ourselves from choosing the easiest way by using non-free images. --Jannex 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. feydey 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I see no compelling reason to change the current situation. Stan 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. One of the main aims of this project is to be free, remember our five pillars. Per our lawyer's cousel in the Portal issue, adding a loophole to allow fair use for specific reason goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.
    Truth be told, I contacted 10 Flickr users, and four changed licenses for their images to make them compatible: Cap'n Jo (Image:Marco Coti Zelati.jpg, Image:Andrea Ferro.jpg and Image:Cristiano Mozzati.jpg, still have some more to upload from her), Paranoideo (Image:Liv Kristine.jpg), Guerrillaphotography (Image:Liv kristine plato helmond.JPG) and Dylerpillar (Image:Cristina Scabbia.jpg), plus bru76 (Image:Margaret Weis 2005.jpg), ViNull (Image:Tracy Hickman DragonCon 2006.jpg) and Karva Javi (Image:Tarja Turunen 2006.jpg) had compatible licenses, and two other users asked for my mail to send the high resolution version of the images (including an image from a japanese artist). In just two days of browsing Flickr, I got 9 new images for Commons, as free as they can be. I do not think it is hard to get free images for others. -- ReyBrujo 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You might have time to do this, but you are most definitely the exception and cannot place this burden on to other Wikipedians without driving hoards of them away. You can by no means universalize your experience. It is NOT common. CyberAnth 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have as much free time as you can guess. In fact, I have barely contributed during December because of holiday-preparations. I haven't done an edit review or helped at the CSD backlogs in weeks. However, I am willing to spend three or four hours in weekends at Flickr searching for images. As for driving users away, I remember some user said that he contributed to the English Wikipedia because it allowed Fair use, a similar argument you are stating here. If that is the reason the "hoards" are contributing, then they should reconsider their motives. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that big media conglomerates and "free content" ideologues like Rey here seem to feel the same way about fair use? john k 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unfortunately. I feel that policy will discourage fellow Wikipedians from using a free alternative. tiZom(2¢) 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia's freeness is not negotiable. Although the bulk deletions should probably be kept on a leash until the community has fully considered this issue, I for one would not be sorry to see all fair-use images disappear from Wikipedia. There is no image so great that it's worth compromising our core principles for. If public figures are willing, as they should be, to release promotional images under a free license, great; if not, we'll get by without them. -- Visviva 11:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As per the above, freeness is an essential part of Wikipedia. Allowing copyrighted images is a severe compromise of that principle. And, incidentally, I would support retroactive deletion of all existing "fair-use" images. 81.140.77.34 14:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's the lazyness of the human being. Nobody will even bother to try to take a camera, get near the subject and get a free image for the article, if the same thing can be done with a google search of images and the "Fair Use" policy --Perón 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I would hate to see those included since we could get those ones free with GFDL. Lincher 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Let's keep "The Free Encyclopedia" as free as it can practically be. theProject 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Fair use is pretty shaky, and with the ever evolving state of Wikipedia, we still need to stick to our core values. Making a free encyclopedia is one of them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No! This sounds like a great way to get sued. People can already use FU images, now we want to do it indiscriminately. Oppose ST47Talk 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, this is more a clarification on the fair use criteria than a change. The fair use criteria still applies, all this proposal clarifies is that fair use can be applied to promotional photographs of living people. This was how it used to be before some users started to challenge the present situation and delete fair use promotional photographs. Cedars 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Information wants to be free. Lets focus on creating that, rather than encouraging (and yes, some editors will take a policy like this as encouragement) the use of highly restricted information. Mostlyharmless 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. Fair use, while essential in some areas, is the last thing we want to be encouraging. Ral315 (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

Please add comments to the talk page.

A note - it provide a far better sample if items such as this could be on a page readily found by the general public that uses Wikipedia. I'd love to see a one paragraph discussion of each side's viewpoints and rationales, and offer millions of people the opportunity to vote as such. Doing so would provide a real viewpoint on the subject from a wider cross-section of actual users, as opposed to affected editors who happen to know about this page. If that was done, I have every confidence a large majority of our readers would rather be able to see fair use images. Tvccs 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Excellent point. Elitism in decision-making is the breeding ground for agendas not in the interest of the public good. CyberAnth 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos/Vote&oldid=96203705"