User:Foobarnix/Article builder 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Foobarnix

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Foobarnix (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 14 October 2015 (final version of File Uploader correspondence with other wikipedians). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Need help including images in Wikipedia articles

The following interchange was at the Wikipedia:Help desk

foobarnix 04:33, 8 January 2011

Is there someone who could help me get an image into an article. I have the image (a film poster); I have the URL of where it comes from; I have the permission of the people who created it. They say there is no copyright—just use it! I have been down this road before. After days of emails and permissions granted, I still could not get through the legal thicket. That earlier image (a photo) was booted off of Wikimedia. I do not have a legal mind. If you would help me, reply on my user page and I will tell you more about it. Thanks for listening.

phantomsteve 05:07, 8 January 2011

Which film is it? I'd be surprised if the poster is not copyrighted. As to the permission to use it, they really need to email the permission to Wikipedia (see here for how they can do that. As a rule, the copyright to a film poster is with the film company - I've never heard of a case where it isn't. Are they aware that giving the image to Wikipedia means that anyone can use the image for any purpose, including commercial use? If they just said that it can be used on Wikipedia only, that is not possible.

phantomsteve 05:12, 8 January 2011

Incidentally, we tend to reply on this page so that other people can see the answers given! I have left a talkback on your talk page

foobarnix 06:59, 8 January 2011

The movie is For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism, a 2009 documentary film. I am developing an article about this very interesting film. The poster from the movie can be found at Posters. The writer/director in email said, regarding the poster: "Use the poster. It's our design, no copyright issues. Use whatever from our website..." The website he is referring to is the same site as above. I am sure he does not care who reproduces it and would be willing to release all rights.

My question is more general. I have tried several times in the past year to get permission to use pictures and have never gotten to the end of the long dark tunnel of legal declarations, permissions, and such things. The Wikipedia articles about all this overwhelm me with their complexity and endless definitions and special situations. Why does it have to be so hard? I know that I have to send some particular form to the owner, but what form? Thanks for responding, phantomsteve

teb728 09:03, 8 January 2011

What the producer told you sounds like he is giving permission for use only on Wikipedia, which is worthless here; the only permission of any value has to allow reuse by anyone for anything. Their poster page says, “© Copyright For The Love Of Movies 2009 All Rights Reserved.” And when you click on the poster thumb, it seems to require permission for each reuse. So I think permission is hopeless for this poster, and the way to go on this is non-free fair-use: one fair-use film poster is usually acceptable in the infobox of a film article to identify the subject of the article. Tag the poster with {{non-free poster}}, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as “to identify the subject of the article.”

teb728 11:28, 8 January 2011

(See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for general information on requesting permission. Among other things It has a link to Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, which gives examples of what to send to owners.)

86.135.171.19 14:58, 8 January 2011

You are right; this whole area needs looking at and drastically simplifying. I once loaded some pictures I had taken myself. I clearly explained this and stated that I was happy for the pictures to be in the public domain. A while later I noticed they had been deleted by some anal individual because I had not ticked exactly the right combination of boxes, or included exactly the right combination of text templates, or something. There seem to be a group of people at Wikipedia whose mission is firstly to make it as difficult as possible to load pictures, and secondly to delete as many existing pictures as possible on the grounds of some minor procedural error that the deleter could just as easily fix themselves.

Tstormcandy 15:09, 8 January 2011

It is a complex and confusing process, and even things being entirely released by creator into the public domain do have a bit of red tape. We really, really don't want to frustrate people, but due to copyright-GFDL fine print we need to be incredibly careful. Yes, there are editors that dig deeply into new image submissions, but they all mean well and understand that it won't help the project in the long run to try to push away new contributors. Question for you-- was the image you submitted being used in an article or article draft in your userspace? There are various guidelines about deletion of unused images, as well, and a lot of new editors might fall into this trap.

My best advice would be to ask the editors/admins that you feel are working against you directly on their talk pages and ask why they did what they've done and how you can avoid it in the future. I was very serious when I said they mean well, I swear! Good luck...

ukexpat 17:50, 8 January 2011

It's even simpler than that - copyright violation in this digital age is simple to effect, much more so than before, but the consequences are still very serious. A large copyvio lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation could be very, very expensive and possibly jeopardise the future of this, and the other, Wikimedia projects. That's why we have to be so careful about protecting copyrights.

Teratornis 20:38, 8 January 2011

"This whole area" does "need looking at and drastically simplifying", but understand what "this whole area" is: copyright law. Copyright is a mess on Wikipedia because copyright is a mess everywhere. Wikipedia has no control over copyright law, so we cannot fix the problem. Instead it is up to voters to elect representatives who will write copyright laws that serve the public interest rather than corporate interests. Who do you think writes these ridiculous laws and spends millions of dollars to lobby politicians to enact them? In the old days, the public could ignore the problem because only corporations could afford to get seriously into publishing. Anyone who could afford to publish back then could also afford to hire attorneys to tell them how to do it. Today computers have enabled almost anyone to be a publisher, but attorneys have only gotten more expensive. So we have a situation where technically almost everyone violates copyright laws. This may be acceptable on a site like Facebook (for now, anyway), but Wikipedia has to be more careful because we specifically label some of our media files as being OK for re-use by anyone.

Incidentally, for a pretty good introduction to copyright law as it impacts Wikimedia Commons, read everything linked from Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright. For example, our hypervigilance comes from Commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.

foobarnix 00:56, 9 January 2011

It sounds like I hit a nerve with my comments about images and copyrights. Let me make a few points:

  1. People who think they have legal permission to allow use of media are often mistaken, as user teb728 points out in this particular case. That makes the whole permissions issue even more vexing.
  2. It is very important not to blame Wikipedia editors for yanking images (a point already make above). Think of them as protecting Wikipedia from serious lawsuits, not as mean old deletionists. The fault lies entirely with the complicated copyright laws.
  3. This whole discussion is so interesting, it makes me think there should be some kind of forum or a special page for discussing the perennial issue of getting through the copyright jungle.
  4. In addition, I would like to see a volunteer group of Wikipedians who love legal stuff, and whose only job is to help other editors write the correct letters needed to get permissions. I bet there would be a lot more nice images in Wikipedia if so many editors had not just given up like I did.
  5. Wikipedia does in fact have all the information one needs to learn how to handle copyrights. It is just that it is so spread around, so complicated, and so voluminous, that you cannot always find what you need. For example, phantomsteve pointed me to the very useful page WP:IOWN. I had never seen this page before, even though I have spent days wading through similar pages.

I want to particularly thank editor teb728 for his suggestions. Using his ideas, I am going to plunge into the thicket and try one more time.

Teratornis 02:00, 9 January 2011

Ideally, we would like all the pages that are on Wikimedia Commons and about copyright to be listed under Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright. The analogous heading in the Editor's index to Wikipedia is WP:EIW#Copy. We have a page: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which functions like you suggest in your fourth point. There is lots of help available, but no easy way to magically make every user aware of the bits they need, when they need them. That will probably have to wait until computers can pass the Turing test. Until then, there is little doubt that we fail to get all the contributions we could get, since we can't expect every user to become something of an amateur legal expert before they can upload their first photo. There are too many special cases for the upload form to handle nicely. Sites that achieve truly massive participation (such as Flickr) just let users do pretty much whatever they want, until copyright holders complain about specific images, and as a result they have millions of copyright violations at all times.

foobarnix 02:32, 9 January 2011

We are now communicating on the user page of teb728

Hello TEB728. I want to thank you for your remarks at the help desk. I have been trying to get my poster into my article using your hints—and I am still confused. Some questions:

  1. If I use your "non-free use rationale" do I still have to upload the file to Wikimedia?
  2. Or, do I "paste" it directly into my article and just tag it somehow in the way you indicate?
  3. You said, "Tag the poster with {{non-free poster}}" I do not know how to do this. Where do I do this "tagging"? In Wikimedia? In the article infobox? Into the file itself? I am at a loss as to what this means.

I understand the legal strategy of what you advised; I just do not know how to do it. You can answer me here or on my user page as you prefer. I hope I am not imposing on your time. Respond only if you think it is possible to help this poor technically clueless editor.

teb728 06:25, 9 January 2011

All images used on Wikipedia have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or to Commons but only free content there); there is no other way to show them. The upload page creates a file description page; if it isn't right at first, you can edit it like any other page. The file description page must contain a “file copyright tag,” which identifies what free license the image is released under, why it is in the public domain, or what category of non-free use you want. (For a non-free poster the tag is {{non-free poster}}.) For non-free files the file description page must also have a “non-free use rationale (to explain how the use accords with Wikipedia′s non-free content policy).” For a film poster the {{film poster fur}} template is a convenient way to create a rationale. This template has several parameters. The Article and Use parameters are always required. (Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space.) Since you want to use the poster in the infobox, the correct value for the Use parameter is Infobox. See the template documentation for all the parameters. Look at the wikisource of File:Avatar-Teaser-Poster.jpg for an excellent example of a poster description page. (Ignore the interwiki links at the bottom.)

See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more info.

foobarnix 02:24, 10 January 2011

Hello again TEB728. I am still struggling. Your info was so helpful, but I need some further clarification if you have the patience for it.

  1. Do all uploads (in my case, at least) start by going to the special page: Special:Upload? (which confusingly has the name Upload file when you go to it)
  2. On the page Wikipedia:Uploading images, which you directed me to, I found the statement: "You can upload an image by using the Upload file link in the toolbox" What toolbox is this? Part of the wikipedia editor? Part of my browser? I am unable to find such a "Upload file link" [OMG! I just found the Tool Box. It is right there on every Wikipedia page. I had never noticed the name before, although I frequently use parts of it.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)]
  1. When I was looking at the images and templates for uploading, I ran into the statement (somewhere), "Please do not use cut and paste to create this page" or something like that. I would like to take the template in the Avatar page, modify it for my poster using the advice you gave me, and paste it into (and thus create) the page for my poster. That, I think I could do. Am I forbidden to do it that way? Is it perhaps OK to paste the filled out Film poster fur template into the field on the Upload file page. That seems like it should work.
  2. You said, "Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article". Where is it that I do this "tagging"? Is this additional info that I have to somehow paste into the Upload file page?
  3. Here is a partially filled out (and disabled) template. Am I on the right track?
{Film poster fur | Article = For the Love of Movies | Use = Infobox | Name = For the Love of Movies | Distributor = LEF Foundation | Publisher = | Type = | Website = | Owner = | Commentary = | Description = | Source = This poster can be found at Posters | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }}
6.. I have photos for two other biographical wikipedia articles which are very similar to the film poster situation: The persons involved want me to use their photos. You said,
"and the way to go on this is non-free fair-use: one fair-use film poster is usually acceptable in the infobox of a film article to identify the subject of the article. Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article"
Can I use this same strategy to add these photos to their corresponding articles? Is there a template for photos analagous to the template Film poster fur? One of the photos is at Marc Culler photo. The other is with the film poster at Gerald Peary photo.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this damned image uploading labyrinth. I hope I have not taken up too much of your valuable time. You have been so kind to help me along this far. Sorry that I am somewhat technically dense.

teb728 08:59, 10 January 2011

  1. Basically yes. It is actually better than where I would have started at Wikipedia:Upload. The reason I would have gone there is that you can get there from the toolbox (see #2); it also has the advantage that it takes you to Special:Upload with automatically created content for some cases. But since those cases do not include movie posters, and since you already know what you want on your file description page, going directly to Special:Upload is better for you.
  2. The toolbox is in the left sidebar of all pages, including this one. If it shows as a link, click on it, and it will open, showing a list of tools including Upload file. Clicking on Upload file takes you to Wikipedia:Upload.
  3. That’s exactly what I would do. (I don’t know where you saw that statement.)
  4. Yes, the Upload file page creates the initial content of the file description page. If you don’t get it right at first, you can edit the file description page like any other page.
  5. Looks good. For readability of the wikicode I would put each parameter on a new line, beginning with the | (like in the example).
  6. Sorry no. Here is a longer version of what I wrote at the Help desk: See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free content must fulfill all ten criteria (including the sub-criteria). A film poster used in the infobox to identify the subject of a film article (or a logo to identify the subject of article that the logo identifies, etc) is generally considered to fulfill criterion 8. The fact that a portrait identifies the subject of a biography of a living person would seldom if ever help because the use would fail criterion 1: The portrait could almost always be replaced by a photo which could be taken and released under a free license. The Cullen photo is by Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, probably a professional photographer, and the Peary photo is probably also by a professional photographer. In order to use the photos on Wikipedia the photographers (not the subjects!) would have to release the photos under a free license, and unfortunately professional photographers are very loathe to release their work under a free license. The easiest way to get photos of the subjects would be for you or some other non-professional take a snapshot of them. The result wouldn’t be as attractive, but the articles would be reusable, which is a central Wikipedia goal.
I don’t mind spending time with you because you are earnestly learning how things work, which will make you an excellent contributor.

foobarnix 07:45, 10 January 2011

I finally located and sort of understand the use of the template Non-free use rationale. Below is partly filled out template for it and also for template Non-free poster. Do I need to have both of them? Do these templates overlap in function with the template Film poster fur? {Non-free poster}}

{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = For the Love of Movies | Portion = | Low resolution = | Purpose = to identify the subject of the article | Replaceability = | Other information = }}

teb728 09:43, 10 January 2011

You're going backwards. I strongly recommend you stay with your original {{Film poster fur}}. It creates a {{non-free use rationale}} with tailored content. If you use this basic template instead, you absolutely need a Source, and you really should provide text for all the parameters except Other information like so: {Non-free use rationale
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = http://www.fortheloveofmovies.net/press-room/photos-and-posters/
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Portion = The entire poster. The entire image is needed to properly identify the film without tarnishing or misrepresenting the poster.
| Low resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| Other information =
}}

{{Film poster fur}} does all that better and much easier. Look how nicely it worked with the Avitar poster!

foobarnix 04:55, 11 January 2011

Hello again most excellent explainer and patient person, TEB728

  1. I think you are saying that the film poster fur and the Non-free use rationale templates are mutually exclusive.
  2. Both templates contain the purpose field. The Avatar example does not have this field filled in. Was that because infobox was entered in the use field. Should I do the same, or is it helpful to put " to identify the subject of the article" in the purpose field and also put "infobox" in the use field?
  3. I am still unclear about the Non-free poster template. The Avatar example does contain this in the "Licensing:" section. Do I need to paste this template into the field on the Upload file page, or is it somehow automatically generated? If it does not appear, I will just add it later.
  4. Some of my questions could be answered if I just went ahead and created the Upload file page. But you said, "Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space." Can I create the Upload file page now and upload the file later? I am very unclear on this point. (I am not quite ready to move it to main article space.)
  5. I want to emphasize that my questions all along have had more to do with the simple mechanics of uploading images than with the intricacies of copyrights. When I am done, I am going to make a very simple page (with an example) of the steps needed to upload image files. Would you like to see it when I do that? [For example, I was not even aware of the fact that image files even required special pages or that step one is to click on Upload file (or alternatively go to the Special:Upload page). I would make this all clear by 1,2,3,... examples.]
  6. Both templates share some, but not all, parameters. I have made a new partially filled out (and disabled) template using all my previous information (as well as your suggestions in the Non-free use rationale example template you included) to create the template below. Is there redundant info in this template? The Avatar example does not have this much information filled in. Note in particular the fields Description, Distributor, Low_resolution, Purpose, and Replaceability. I am really just winging it here.

{Film poster fur
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Use = Infobox
| Name = For the Love of Movies
| Distributor = LEF Foundation
| Publisher =
| Type =
| Website =
| Owner =
| Commentary =
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = This poster can be found at Posters
| Portion =
| Low_resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| other_information =
}}

As always, thank you so much for your help

teb728 11:52, 11 January 2011

  1. Something like that: {{film poster fur}} and {{non-free use rationale}} both create non-free use rationales. The latter is general purpose; the former is tailored for film posters, creating default text for most of the fields.
  2. If the Use parameter is “Infobox,” “Header,” or “Section,” film poster fur creates an excellent default Purpose. For example for Infobox it says “Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as poster art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services to film concerns and in turn marketing films to the public.” This includes the idea of “to identify the subject of the article.” If the use is something else, you have to provide your own Purpose to explain how the use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. Or if you think you can improve on the default text, you may provide your own Purpose.
  3. You provide it; otherwise Special:Upload would not know what tag to provide. (I think that Wikipedia:Upload provides a tag for some of its special cases, but then you tell it what the special case is.)
  4. You can’t do an upload without doing an upload. But can preview template results by putting the template in user space and clicking “Show preview” on the edit page.
  5. If you are talking about publishing a page to project space (i.e. Wikipedia:*), you might want as for comments at the Help desk: The helpers there know a lot more than I. They may know of a page that already does that.
  6. The shared parameters enable you to override the default values (except Article which has no default). You use them if you can improve on the default text. In your case your Source is better (more specific); for the others the default is probably better. I just wrote minimal text to show what a rationale had to contain if you used the general purpose template. BTW my [bracketed] comment on “Low resolution” was info for you, not something you would write.

Foobarnix 23:26, 12 January 2011

We are now communicating on the user page of Phantomsteve

Hello Phantomsteve. You recently gave me advice on uploading a poster image and it looks like I will actually be successful in using it in Wikipedia. I have made a lot of progress in understanding this arcane subject.

I have another such problem. I am trying to include a photograph of a living person in a biographical article. The photographer who is the sole owner of the photo seems willing to give up all rights except (possibly) attribution. I have sent him the Declaration of consent form found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. He now wants to know which of the Common free licenses at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses he should fill in. In fact, he said for me to fill in the appropriate license acronym myself and resend the form to him. Which acronym should I use? Do I also delete all the text beginning with "[choose at least one from this page", and ending with "UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ].", and just replace it all with the acronym. (And should the acronym be a link to a template like it is at Common free licenses.) Damn this stuff is complicated!

By the way, am I on the right track, or am I still wandering around in the land of the clueless?

You may answer here—I will watchlist. Thank you for your previous help and thank you now for your valuable time. No rush.

phantomsteve 05:59, 13 January 2011

That's a good query, and to be honest, I'm not 100% sure. My advice would be to ask this question at Media copyright questions, where people a lot more knowledgable in copyright would hang out - I've tried finding an equivalent at Commons, but the nearest I could find quickly was Commons talk:Licensing. Hopefully you'll get the advice you are looking for there!

Foobarnix 06:00, 13 January 2011

Thanks Phantomsteve. I am following your suggestion above. If I learn anything especially interesting about all this stuff, I will let you know.

Foobarnix 06:26, 13 January 2011

We are now communicating on the page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

I am trying to include a photograph of .... continues as above up to Damn this stuff is complicated!

Hammersoft 14:20, 13 January 2011

It is complicated. Also, this is really a Commons question, and should be asked there. But, a good one to use is CC-BY-SA 3.0. That would allow for attribution, and the photographer retains copyrights, though anyone can use it for commercial and non-commercial purposes and create derivative works of it if they desire.

Foobarnix 01:16, 14 January 2011

We are now communicating on the page Commons talk:Licensing

I am trying to include a photograph ... continues as above up to ... a template like it is at Common free licenses.)

Someone has suggested that CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be a good choice for the Common free license. Do I fill this in, or does the photographer do it? Damn this stuff is complicated!

Huntster 02:46, 14 January 2011

Remind him that he certainly can choose whichever license he wants from that page, but I would agree that CC-by-SA-3.0 would be the best choice...it makes reusing simple, and yet gives the photographer proper attribution. Basically, anything in brackets should be replaced with appropriate text, so yes. But remember, the license that's used should be the photographer's choice; don't make it seem like he must choose CC.

Dcoetzee 05:01, 14 January 2011

CC-BY is the appropriate license here, not CC-BY-SA. The photographer has no apparent interest in the license of derivative works.

Foobarnix 04:35, 15 January 2011

Thank you so much Huntster and Dcoetzee. I need one additional clarification: Can I partly fill in the form as below and email it to the photographer asking him to copy it, fill in the date, and return to the indicated email address. Will that work?

To permissions@commonswikimedia.org
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of
URL where the photo can be found will go here
I agree to publish that work under the free license Cc-by-3.0.
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE OF TODAY, Roberta Dupuis-Devlin

Huntster 15 January 2011

Mmm, if he has agreed to using the Creative Commons license, then that would be fine. Do specify "{{Cc-by-3.0}}", however, since there are multiple versions available and we want to avoid confusion. Make sure he knows *exactly* what needs to be filled in. When you copy the above to the photographer, also make sure to re-add the "@" sign, since the graphical @ didn't transfer when you copied the form from the Email template page (we don't want the email being sent to "commonswikimedia.org"!).

foobarnix 20 February 2011

We are now communicating on the user page of teb728

Greetings TEB728: You were a tremendous help educating me on uploading images. I have now both uploaded a Non-free poster at For the Love of Movies and a Wikimedia photograph with permission at Marc Culler. I must have done it right because neither image has been taken down yet. Thank you so much

foobarnix 26 February 2011

I spoke too soon. Another editor has caused my image File:For the Love of Movies.jpg to be seriously reduced in quality. (He has evidently done this to a lot of people's work.) It is unclear to me why he did this to my poster. I thought the template Film poster fur had taken care of everything. Do you have any thoughts about this? Do not waste a lot of time thinking about it if you do not know. Thanks again as always for your time.

teb728 27 February 2011

I agree with the reduction: The (boilerplate) text from the template says, “The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification….” The reduced image is still sufficient for that purpose. The original upload was 17.185x26.559” (at 96 px/in). That is certainly more resolution than is needed for the purpose. BTW, If you look at the edit history or the file, you will see that it was actually User:Sfan00 IMG who requested the reduction. User:Xnn is a user responds to such requests, which is why he does it a lot.

foobarnix 27 February 2011

Hi TEB728 Before leaving this subject, I just want to be sure I understand the policy. I did indeed originally upload a high resolution image. The producer of the film gave me informal permission in an email to use the poster, and in fact wanted me to use it—but, of course, this is legally irrelevant. Because the "fair use" principal is really just a loophole in the copyright law, it should not be used to include high quality images because that would violate the spirit of one-time-use that fair use allows. Furthermore, others could assume that the high quality image, since it is in Wikipedia, can now be used for commercial purposes. The thumbnail image gets around this problem because others cannot profitably use it because of its low resolution. I suppose that if I wanted to negotiate with the owner of the image the very complicated copyright permissions request procedure (which I assuredly do not) that I could get the high resolution image into Wikipedia. The upshot is: If you upload something using fair use, never upload anything more high res than a thumbnail.

If I have more or less summed up the situation, could you please just answer "yes" here. Thank you for your time.

teb728 28 February 2011

Basically yes: I wouldn't call fair use a loophole; rather it is a feature of copyright law. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is more restrictive than fair use law (For that reason I tend to talk about non-free content rather than fair-use content.) I would say: If you upload a non-free image, make the resolution as low as will fulfil the encyclopedic purpose.

Stuff for the upload

List of important pages

Summary

{Film poster fur | Article = For the Love of Movies | Use = Infobox | Name = For the Love of Movies | Distributor = For the Love of Movies | Publisher = | Type = | Website = | Owner = | Commentary = | Description = | Source = This poster can be found at For the Love of Movies POSTER | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }}

Licensing:

{Non-free poster}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Foobarnix/Article_builder_1&oldid=685771878"