Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

So that we don't end up talking in circles or reiterating previous discussion, please read through WP:CONSENSUS to see what we are trying to shoot for. Ideally, we need to find an arrangement that everyone will be happy with. This may involve more stringent guidelines or discussions and analyses of current Wikipedia policies and guidelines to determine if this amendment would be in violation of them. Some key points:

  1. We are discussing a change to a current policy, therefore it is flawed thinking to use the current policy as an argument for why it should remain the way it is. Instead, try to think of why that policy was originally put into effect and use those reasons to support your viewpoint.
  2. Please keep discussion of legality to a minimum - as has been noted, it is reasonable to believe that having fair use images in the Portal namespace poses no inherent legal threat. However, discussion of usage guidelines akin to those for images in the main namespace to prevent unlawful use is of course encouraged.
  3. A few "votes/polls" have been done to assess whether there is community support for this amendment. The results of them all have been in favor of this general idea, while not necessarily this specific amendment. There is likely no need to do another one, so beginning one is discouraged unless there is strong reason to believe that community support may have changed. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes and polls do not have a final say, it is up to the community to determine what the consensus actually is - and that is to be determined through discussion.
  4. Refrain from merely reiterating the past points, either contribute a new argument or explain your reasoning behind an existing one.
"Free shouldn't prevent legitimate fair use because our primary goal is creating a quality encyclopedia, that's the first thing listed at WP:5P."
"Portals aren't as essential to the encyclopedia (and consequently are an unessential use of fair-use images) because they aren't as directly accessible."

There will be two parts of this page; one section will be devoted to discussing changes to this amendment to become more aligned with current policies and practices, the other will be devoted to discussing whether this amendment's concept is already in violation of policies and other issues brought up under the Rationales section. It is encouraged that editors create subheadings under these two sections to better handle discussion flow.

Changes to amendment[edit]

Proposal

Proposed changes (changes are bolded and italicized):

9. Fair use images may be used only in the article and portal namespaces. Used outside of these spaces they are unlikely to be used in the context that justifies fair use. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.... This is because it 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. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).
Guidelines
  • No free alternatives available.
  • The image must be used in at least one article outside portal namespace. If the image is used in a "selected article" or a similar section, the article being linked to must contain the image.
  • The image must satisfy all criteria at WP:FUC for use within its respective article(s). e.g. Fair use rationale, relevant, non-decorative, proper documentation, etc.
  • The section containing the fair use image must have at least one substantial paragraph or a brief summary directly related to the image, thus fair use images are still not allowed in the "Featured Picture" box.
  • The article the image is used on must be related to the portal.
  • Archival pages are not to utilize images, but may instead provide a link.

Sounds like it might be OK[edit]

It sounds like this might be OK. There should be rules about it similar to whatever is used on the main page. I guess it's full protection. There needs to be something that stops people from being able to make a portal and put FU images on it whenever they want. Maybe only allow it on Featured Portals. Then use something like { {Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{ {CURRENTMONTHNAME}} { {CURRENTDAY}}, { {CURRENTYEAR}}}}. - Peregrine Fisher 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

but many portals are judged on whether they have images or not already, so it could be very hard for say Portal:Pokemon to ever become featured and be able to use images. Most portals have projects that back them up so i don't think maintenance would be too much of an issue (at least no more than reverting vandalism on portals). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, forget featured portals, that's a catch-22: need images to allow images. How about we make these portals more specific versions of the main page. Somehow, it's not overrun with galleries of FU images, so we should be able to duplicate that. This proposal would need a corresponding change in whatever page controls portals. As written, it would allow whatever is allowed on normal pages. Portals that use FU images would need tighter rules. I don't think that effects this proposal, other than one won't work without the other. It looks like the main page allows one image per major section, that's where we should start. - Peregrine Fisher 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
it's definitly agreed that FU galleries should be prohibited (but they kind of already are anyway). I have brought up this proposal at two Wikipedia:Portal talk pages so implementing the change there shouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure why you think these rles aren't more stringent than article space? Chiefly, the guideline that all images need to be accompanied by a substantial paragraph discussing the subject of the image seems to prevent any wiggle room. If someone were try and write a long box on ten different superhero characters it would (ideally) be quickly reverted as not following guidelines for usability. maybe remove the phrase "or brief summary"? This would prevent images from being used in DYK boxes, is that a good thing or bad thing? I however do like the idea of not allowing more than one FU image in a single box. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing between selected article and selected picture[edit]

My understanding of the fair use law and rationale is that there would be absolutely no problem including a fair use image as part of a selected article (including biographies etc.) as they are there for illustrative purposes. However, fair use images should probably not be used as selected pictures, because they're not there to illustrate a subject but to be the subject. If the proposed wording is changed so that fair use images can't be used for "selected picture"/"selected image", I'm strongly in favour of the change. In fact, I would also argue the converse: if you can't use fair use images for portals, you shouldn't be allowed to use them in articles either. Waggers 10:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

the wording currently explicitly disallows fair use Featured Pictures. Is there a way it could be made more clear? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I just need to learn to read instead of skim-read before I comment on something! Waggers 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of amendment as a legitimate policy change[edit]

Support
  • A portal is the equivalent of an article in the main namespace. However, the namespace is the only difference. They are an important part of the encyclopedia, aiding in navigation and encouraging exploratory browsing.
  • Use of fair use images in portals are legal according the same laws that allow them in articles (relevant note). Additionally, the following case law provides an applicable example:
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]
  • Portals need to include content and media in order to attract the reader to explore, then navigate them to different articles where they can find even more information.
  • Fair use images are allowed on the Main Page, an informational page in the main namespace, and is similar to Portals in both format and purpose. Portals serve as Main Pages for specific subjects.
  • Images can be used to describe a subject in ways which words cannot. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.
  • Although Wikipedia's aim is to build a free encyclopedia, quality shouldn't be sacrificed when it is a legitimate option.
Against
  • Portals are considered navigational pages and not actual articles, thus Wikipedia's fair use criteria may not apply.
  • The Main Page technically falls under the article namespace, and two wrongs don't make a right.
  • Portals are not an essential part of the encyclopedia, unlike articles and the main page.
  • Portals can still achieve their purpose of helping readers navigate through articles under a related topic without the need of fair-use images.
  • Increases the scope for fair use abuses.
  • By allowing fair use images in portals, we begin to slide on a slippery slope. Allowing this may serve as a precedent for allowing fair use images in templates, user pages, etc.

Mistaken assumption[edit]

This proposal seems to be based on the strange assumption that a failure to gain consensus to change policy means that there is no consensus to not change the policy, and we therefore have to restart the conversation. In any case, this is not a good idea for the same reasons it hasn't been a good idea all the other times it has been raised. Jkelly 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too right, and we have more than enough problems with Fair Use, we don't need to be adding more to pages which are essentially navigation and fancruft. ed g2stalk 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
my revival of this topic was because there was no consensus either way. Many editors have presented logically valid reasons for this amendment. You can hardly argue that there still exists a community consensus to keep the policy the way it is considering how often it is brought up (point in fact, it is different people bringing it up and the same people shooting it down, suggesting that there are more people dissatisfied with the policy than not). as for ed, the argument for potential misuse is a poor one - that's like getting rid of any article that's vandalized all the time, just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean the quality of the encycolpedia should be diminished. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Is it really all that hard to get free use images for portals? Come on. IvoShandor 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try almost any portal under computer and video games here. And derivitive works are covered under US copyright so a drawing of Mario would have to be fair use as well. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

I think we could continue to prevent fair use images from portals, and prevent their use on the main page, in the interest that lack of images usable in these instances will encourage users to go find free ones that we can use on these pages, and in the article(s). This is similar to "we would rather have no image than a fair use image" on an article for the same purpose. Folks are less inclined to find a free image if they have permission to use a fair use one. If someone really wants to use an image on a portal/main page, they can go look for a free one. Granted, they won't always be able to find/create one, but there's no immediate demand. We'll wait. --MECUtalk 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This rule has completely neutered Portal:Comics. We've been using Krazy Kat and Little Nemo for six months or more. It should be about comic books, but we keep it about comic strips, because their the only ones that have images we can use. There is nothing to replace superman, etc. - Peregrine Fisher 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Completely neutered"!! - apart from limiting the selection of feature picture, the Portal functions just fine. It provides me with links to a featured and showcase articles, a whole section on recent comic-related news, some interesting trivia and category links. Basically it does everything a Portal is supposed to do. That we can't make it a gallery for copyrighted media does not concern me one bit. It is not what Wikipedia is and it is not Portals are. ed g2stalk 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why bring up galleries? I wouldn't support FU galleries, either, but a single image to go with the featured content is not taking it too far. Limiting them to one FU image would be fine with me. I've never found a portal that excited me, I guess because I'm into visual media, which makes an image illustrating the text more important. The idea of a well made comics portal, that is to the comics pages what the main page is to all pages, would be pretty cool though. - Peregrine Fisher 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Look in the upper left of this very page that you are looking at. Below the Wikipedia globe and "Wikipedia", you'll see it says "The Free Encyclopedia". Fair use images are, by definition, not free. The use of fair use images greatly diminishes our ability to achieve the goals originally set out by the project. The less fair use, the better. The project has lived quite well so far without portals being permitted to have fair use images. --Durin 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ironically, many portals do occasionally use fair-use and just don't get caught. either because no one really uses them, or because readers are too unfamiliar with our policies and processes to do something about it if they cared. And the question i have to ask is, "What's more important? The Free or the Encyclopedia?" To me it's the latter, and while this isn't an issue for portals like Portal:War or Portal:Science it severely affects other portals on topics with no/very little libre content. I could argue that in fact the images are free when properly used - they incur no cost to editors or readers and allow wikipedia to remain free. There is in fact nothing preventing me from saving all articles with fair-use images and distributing them on a CD, i just have to do it for free. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how important portals are. That comics portal has always been pretty useless, and maybe that doesn't matter. All the featured portals are about subjects that can supply relevant free images. Basically, you can't meet Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria for a portal that deals with media from the last 100 years. For a second I thought that Portal:Literature had an image that related to the last 100 years, but it's just a FU image. It's actually pretty funny to look at a portal like Portal:Film, with their "This month's selected article" and "This month's selected picture." It's had the same two images and articles for over a year; one about Night of the Living Dead and another about Le Voyage dans la Lune. The first image is allowed because the people who made Night of the Living Dead didn't register their copyright or something. The other is over 100 years old. Portal:Television is forced to just have an image of an actual television! A lot of portals will never be relevant I guess, and that' how we like it. - Peregrine Fisher 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Film and Television Portals allow users to navigate Wikipedia's content on Film and Television. They do this pretty well. If they had little thumbnails of program idents and film posters, they would not become significantly better and providing access to our film and television-related content. ed g2stalk 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
you have this misconception of huge collections of decorative fair-use images being peppered throughout the portals. The guidelines make it very clear that images are to be accompanied by significant prose directly related to the image. Not galleries of thumbnails of movie posters. The portal's other goal, than to provide access, is to guide that access by drawing out selected articles of particular note. A picture is necessary because it provides the extra information that only so much text can sometimes convey. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will pretty much oppose using the same reasoning as MECU. While some portals are not following the rules, that should not be an excuse to allow others to do the same. We should be beyond that as Wikipedian editors (and for some of us, administrators). Of course, this will require editors to patrol "another beat" to make sure everyone complies, but I am sure we will manage to have a pretty good encyclopedia, even if portals do not have fair use photos on them. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't trying to say two wrong = a right, i mentioned portals using FU images in response to Durin's comment that the portals work fine without them - many apparently disagree since they have found the need to use them anyways. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What about images where there can never be a free alternative? - Peregrine Fisher 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A bot could be made to remove all fair use images used in non article space. I think User:Bjweeks wrote the code, but never implemented it because he was worried about consensus from removing the images, especially from the main page where it seems acceptable, despite the fact that those pages are protected, and the bot couldn't remove the pages anyways it seemed. But, bot removal of the images could be done fairly quickly. --MECUtalk 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since the only change to current policy I could support would be one that restricts the use of "fair use" images even further, or bans them from the encyclopedia altogether. —Angr 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
would you mind if i asked why? Is it ascribing to the idea of libre like others have suggested? And if that is the case i'd like to know why you decided to pick an encyclopedia of all things - as it's something that by it's very nature would be discussing subjects of copyrighted works. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We can discuss the subjects of copyrighted works without including images of them. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia is designed to be free content, which is why we don't use images by permission. All of our content is supposed to be reusable by other people for other purposes, including commercial ones. While the U.S. has a fairly liberal fair-use law, a lot of other countries don't, which means our content is not reusable by people in those countries if it's full of images that are only fair use in the United States. —Angr 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
if portals were allowed to display images independent of articles I would see your point; but portals are not, by themselves, creating more unfree content. Additionally, we are not preventing users from using our content, we allow derivative works and there is nothing that prohibits them from making changes to the content so it is more acceptable for their use. If there's going to be a dearth of visual media, let it be where and when it actually matters (legally). Let's say i was going to compile a CD as a specialized gaming encyclopedia and sell it on ebay to make a few bucks. Many thousands of articles aren't going to be able to have an image so i need to remove them. Does wikipedia have anything to gain by removing them all ahead of time? nothing. what is the loss by me, the reuser? a few hours spent with a bot. The presence of fair use on those aticles did nothing to prevent me from using them. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My comment wasn't about portals; it was an answer to the question why I want to restrict fair use images even further, or better yet, eliminate them from the encyclopedia altogether. And if articles are written in such a way that they depend on the presence of fair-use images, then we are preventing people from reusing them if those people are in jurisdictions with more restrictive (or no) fair-use laws. And if articles aren't written to depend on the presence of fair-use images, then the fair-use images are clearly purely decorative. Therefore, in order for Wikipedia content to be reusable, articles have to be written so as not to need fair-use images, and so shouldn't have any. —Angr 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for misunderstangi you. so you're trying to say there is some way to write an article on Sonic the Hedgehog that wouldn't need a fair-use image of the titular character? sure, there are other free images that could also be in the article, but you still need an image depicting the subject of the article. Many articles are not written to depend on fair use, but the subject matter inherently will require it. and again, how do we really prevent free reuse? we allow derivative works, it's a simple matter of the reuser removing inappropriate images, the encyclopedia shouldn't be left barren. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent change to arguements "Against"[edit]

The change noted here has confused me somewhat. The original wording was that opponents of this amendment feel all images on portal space are essentially unneccessary and it is only by virtue of being free that the current images are not removed. By adding that only fair use images are unneccessary you're saying that if a free image were to be used in some context on a portal (e.g. a selected article entry) it may in fact be neccessary, but if a fair-use image were to be used in the same context (new entry) it suddenly became unneccessary to use an image in the first place? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants Portals to be completely devoid of images, which is what the previous wording suggested was some people's intention. —Angr 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

but your argument basically falls on the idea that all use of images are unneccesary. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of no FU images on portals is that many portals are completely devoid of images, and always will be. There are no free images possible, therefore there are no images. That's what this is trying to change. - Peregrine Fisher 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking around trying to find portals completely devoid of images and finally found one: Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Yet even this portal doesn't have to be devoid of images. We have free images of all of the major stars of the series as well as an image of most of the cast together with Josh Whedon at the wrap party. —Angr 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

did you happen to look to portals about cartoons/comics/video games? Ok... i finally figured it out, all those kinds of portals can have fair use images of their creators. But what if they aren't any good? Go read the guidelines for portals at WP:Portal, Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Portals need to be able to continually change their content. Their purpose is to showcase the best articles that a topic has, it shouldn't have to show either the same one or two good articles with free images for over a year, or always show a few substandard articles on the media's creators. Portals devoid of free images:

  • Portal:Pokemon - using one FU image, the logo for the franchise
  • Portal:Final Fantasy
  • Portal:Mario - user-created emblems, if meant to be accurate are a technical derivative work
  • Portal:Zelda - using cover art, also Triforce symbol is likely to be copyrighted (image was orginally uploaded in Germany, where laws regarding derivative works are much less strict).
  • Portal:World of Warcraft - is utilizing common free images in a purely decorative way. Not saying there's anything wrong with this, but surely a useful image contributing significantly would be better?
  • Portal:Star Wars - image in header is FU'
  • Portal:The Simpsons

I don't think you looked very hard in the categories being discussed. While there are a small number of possible unfree images that could be realistically used (creators, artists), because of the very nature of a portal it is impractical to demand that those be the only images, and subsequently the only articles ever brought to light on the portals. Now articles are being selected on basis of free images rather than content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As an example, at Portal:Dragonlance there used to be a title page (available but unused now) that had a a paragraph long summary on each character/event/etc with an image, however, since almost all of them were fair use, only 2 out of the 42 summaries still have images (and those two are simply maps). The rest are all commented out. There are fan-artist created works...but same thing. They're not released under a free license, thus are still fair use. There's no option except use fair use, unless we should go out and hire an artist to draw and release images under a free license. Ddcc 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not an option. Art portraying a work of fiction which was created without the permission of the original copyright holder is never 'free'. Legally, it is equivalent to 'copying' the original work and subject to the same copyright. Those maps on the Dragonlance portal page... they probably aren't 'free' either. The sub-creator may have said 'I release this map freely', but it doesn't matter - because they don't have the right to do that. They don't 'own' the image, the person they 'copied' from does. It doesn't matter whether the 'copy' is an exact replica, a drawing of something previously only described in words, a photo of someone dressed up as a character, or whatever... it all falls under the original copyright. Copyright holders virtually never sue over such 'fan art', but legally they can. The only way to create a 'free' image for something like this would be for the copyright holder to release an image publicly or give permission for someone to create a licensed derivative work which that sub-creator then freely released. There are exceptions for items of everyday use (you can take a photo of an Astin Martin and freely use it in an article on James Bond's car... but a photo of the 'Batmobile' would be a different story) and in some countries for 'freedom of panorama'... meaning if you take a picture in a public area you own that photo even if it contains copyrighted material which has been put on display there (if the Batmobile were permanently installed in a public park and you took a photo of the park, including the Batmobile, it would be a free image... but if the Batmobile were just driving through the photo would NOT be 'free').
All that being said, for practical purposes any fictional creation and/or work of art (painting/sculpture/et cetera) whose owner died less than 70 years ago will seldom have any 'free' images available. The best you can usually do is images which have nothing directly to do with the topic, but are 'thematically similar'... Dragonlance did not invent dragons or lances and thus images of both can be used on that portal, so long as they aren't actual images from the Dragonlance books/games. Dragonlance DID invent 'Kender' and thus images of them would not 'free'. The options are very limited. --CBD 12:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Support[edit]

I think this is well-written, and would have a positive effect on Wikipedia as a whole. It would obviously make portals more useful to users, it would not subject Wikimedia to any additional liability, it would not go against our core principles, and it would be unlikely to "creep" into justifying fair-use images in other places (such as user pages). – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

do you have any suggestions for improvements in wording? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Same here. In the world of fantasy and art, you can't really find free alternative unless you draw them yourself. Hopefully the changes implemented will allow this one to make it through. Ddcc 03:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
and unfortunately, if you draw it urself, ur making a derivitive work which still can only be used under fair use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What about those "vector images" I have seen of cartoon characters and the like? I swear some were FPs. IvoShandor 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be thinking of these: Image:Mad scientist.svg, Image:Villianc.svg, and Image:Piratey, vector version.svg. They are not copyrighted characters. If such a drawing were done of Mickey Mouse, it would only be usable under fair use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
i'm willing to bet this amendment that those are still derivative works. Basically, when it comes to art, anything you make that is made to look like a copyrighted work is infringement - so no making Pikachu sculptures and selling thm to your friends. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, any image that is designed to look like a copyrighted character is a "derivative work", and is covered by the original copyright. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I fail to see how those particular images are still derivative works. Do you have any evidence to suggest that they are derived from images that are not freely licensed? If so, please present and I will nominate them for deletion at Commons post-haste. --Iamunknown 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The villain is Snidely Whiplash. Not sure about the others, but they look kind of familiar, too. - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see how fair use in portals helps the encyclopedia. On this, my mind will never be changed. Personally, I have never even used a portal on here. Fair use is one policy that will be hard to change, and it won't be accomplished with this discussion, for certain. IvoShandor 08:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, see, that's the thing: you don't use portals, but a lot of people do. A lot of new users, especially, use portals. We as a community created the Portal namespace because we believe Portals are a valuable addition to Wikipedia. If it's worth having them, then it's worth making them as useful as possible. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And how do images make them more useful rather than simply prettier? In particular, how do fair use images make them so much more useful than free images alone that it's worth completely undermining Wikipedia's core principles to have them? —Angr 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
they offer the same intrinsic value they would to any article discussing the subject. Let's assume we found someone living under a rock who didn't know who Jabba the Hut was. In fact, had never really known anything about Star Wars in general? Of to wikipedia they go. Likely they are to first type in Star Wars and prolly get a little intimidated. So they go to Portal:Star Wars to get the highlights. It adds significantly to actually be able to see what Jabba looks like. If you can't understand that, i don't see why you even agree that any image is necessary within wikipedia. An image is either necessary or decorative based on its use, it does not become on or the other based on it's copyright. And no one is saying they are more useful but that sometimes there is no free alternative. Portal content shouldn't be restricted to what libre articles we have, and there is technically no cost incurred to anyone, and no prevention of reuse in such a manner that would be changed by disallowing them (see above x2 arguement), so the principle of libre is still intact - additionally, we're an encylopedia first and foremost. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No one said you couldn't put the article up in the portal, it just wouldn't have a fair use image, the article still would. Now, if you had to remove the photos from the article, I think your point is more relevant but I think you have failed to address how these images are more than just mere window dressing in the portal space. IvoShandor 05:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
the question was asked how can FU images be useful in a portal, and my response is that in the same way they are useful in an article. And to deny the significant contribution of fair-use images in portals at all is to deny the contribution of any image in portals. Somehow i think that Portal:Science would be a very different read without any images. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? That doesn't make any sense to me. It would read the same, just without images. Regardless, all of the images on that page are freely licensed. IvoShandor 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
the science portal example was to illustrate how images add understanding and usefulness to not only the article features they are from but the portal itself. "read" was just a euphemism. And my point is that images in general contribute significantly to the portals, their legal status is irrelevant. reread my above post. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbers not logic[edit]

The reason that there are no fair-use images in portals is very simple... alot more people edit and care about articles than edit and care about portals. That's it. No other reason. If we look at the matter logically, fair-use images in portals actually make more sense than their use in articles, but that doesn't matter because to date there have not been enough portal maintainers to force the issue... as opposed to article maintainers, where the issue has been totally over-whelmed and outright fair-use violations often go unchecked for months or years because there are too many to keep track of. Arguments against fair-use in portals tend to be either self-definitional/circular ('only things in article space may have fair use images... therefor things outside of article space may not') or vastly more applicable to article space, where they are allowed anyway:

  1. Slippery slope - Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles make it nearly impossible to keep fair-use images under control. There are too many to patrol and thus the 'slippery slope' of mis-use is not a looming possibility, but a present and out of control reality. Portals on the other hand are few in number and will never grow to more than say... ten thousand? Because they are collective pages for broad topics they are much more finite in number and thus far easier to patrol and keep from becoming a 'slippery slope' of mis-use.
  2. Re-usability - Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles have been re-used dozens of times by mirrors, other language Wikipedias, and countless individual web-pages. To date, not one single instance of a Wikipedia portal being re-used has ever been identified... or even described as how one theoretically could be re-used given that portals link to wikiprojects, categories, and other areas which presumably won't exist on any re-using site. Even other language Wikipedia's don't 'translate' portals the way they do articles... because the article names/groupings, categories, and wikiprojects are all different. Ergo, fair-use images damaging the re-usability of articles is a very real issue which is allowed to run out of control... while fair-use damaging the re-usability of portals is a mythical concern waiting on the actual re-use of any portal anywhere.

Ironically, the greatest impediment against 'fair use' on portals, where they would be a minor and controllable concern, is their extensive mis-use on articles, where they are a significant problem that can't be contained... but which is allowed anyway. --CBD 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • We are a free encyclopedia. Fair use images are not free. That portals are more policeable is not a reason to allow fair use images on them. The same argument could be made regarding limited uses of fair use images (i.e., legal) on userpages, or templates, or project pages. These pages too are not "the encyclopedia" yet we forbid the use of fair use images there too, and for good reason. Our focus here is to build an encyclopedia. That's it. There is no other reason for our being here. Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia. That's reasons #1, #2, and #3. Portals, regardless of their utility, are not the actual encyclopedia here. We allow fair use images in limited cases only in so far as it directly contributes to our mission here, and even then we work to eliminate such uses wherever possible. Even in articles we are deleting images because they are replaceable fair use. Allowing greater liberty to use fair use images works against our goals, not for our goals. --Durin 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right that we're here to build an encyclopedia. But portals are as much "the encyclopedia" as the front page is. The front page isn't an encyclopedia, but it's the face of Wikipedia to almost all visitors. We shouldn't stop spending effort updating the main page, just because it's not an encyclopedia article. Portals, in my mind, are analogous to the main page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "That portals are more policeable is not a reason to allow fair use images on them. The same argument could be made regarding limited uses of fair use images (i.e., legal) on userpages, or templates, or project pages." Um... no. No it couldn't. There are 32,715,629 users on Wikipedia... that's (obviously) less policeable than the 5,554,409 articles and vastly less policeable than the few hundred portals. Ditto for templates and Wikipedia namespace pages. Portals are limited in number and thus could be kept compliant with fair-use requirements far more easily than any of the namespaces you list. As to, "Portals, regardless of their utility, are not the actual encyclopedia here"... I disagree. Portals ARE part of the encyclopedia. Just like the Main page. We allow fair use images on articles... and all the reasons we do so apply equally to portals. The only differences are that fair use images on portals could be controlled (unlike articles) and would not reduce the re-usability of our content (again, unlike articles). --CBD 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually think the whole concept of decreased usability is fallacy-laced dilemma. Let's say we remove all Fair-use images of Spider-man from the article. We're going to be left with a free image of Toby Maguire and possibly Stan Lee. So it gets copied, burned, and sold. But there is nothing preventing us from keeping those FU images and the reuser removing them, burning a Cd, and selling it. whoever is deciding to reuse needs to decide for themselves if their use is appropriate, the german wiki does this with derivative works - they're not concerning themselves with people who might copy the content and sell it in countries where those works would be an infringement. As for portals and the front page, the first line at WP:Portal does a nice job of explaining it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the idea that portals are more policeable is really false in practice. We already have a strict and easy to understand policy against fair use in portals. Yet, fair use violations on portals are routine. I perform fair use image violation removals on a regular basis on portals now. It'd just be worse if we had a more lenient, less clear cut policy. --Durin 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really a fair assessment, many people could be using fair use on portals merely because they have assumed that the policies allow fair use without specifically checking first. And i have yet to see a portal that is using fair use images to be using them inappropriately. so it would seem in practice that fears of galleries and violations are unwarranted. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ALL fair use in portals is currently inappropriate. The policy is clear and unequivocal, yet the "policers" have been unable to keep up with it. You've precisely made my point; people aren't checking. So to assume that we'll pass this more lenient and less easy to understand policy that we'll somehow magically become capable of policing it is a serious stretch. It isn't going to happen. It's not happening NOW. --Durin 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
you missed the point... i had a feeling you would, but was hoping you wouldn't. the point is that current use of FU images in the portal space have been perfectly valid, legal uses (even while not following policy). The overall point of this thread is that it is illogical to be preventing them in a comparatively small area where use has been primarily fair, when they are allowed in a large, unmanageble area that in practice has been difficult to pilce. "Policers" haven't been unable to keep up with FU in portals, it just never occured to most of them. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Give me a quotation that suggests that "'policers' haven't be unable to keep up with FU in portals, it just never occured to most of them." I can certainly tell you that Durin and myself regularly remove such images from portals. --Iamunknown 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The point is, that portal maintainers are already ignoring policy. I don't see how making the policy less clear is going to improve the situation. It'll just make it worse. --Durin 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And here's another one just removed [2]. --Durin 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
and uses like that are not what this proposal is allowing, in fact, it is attempting to clarify the issue of FU in archives. read the above guidelines proposed. your arguemtn of "less clear" is unjustified. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And the fact that just a handful of people DO manage to keep portal space largely free of 'fair use', despite people frequently adding things, is proof that it isn't 'more policable' how exactly? Of course a few hundred pages are easier to keep tabs on than 1.7 million. Why would anyone even argue the point? --CBD 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And again the point is missed. Regardless, this proposal is dead. Fair use is not going to be permitted in portal space. --Durin 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
i didn't know that you had the final say. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh but I do! I'm a cabal of one! What I say goes! Look around on the comments on this page. Do you see consensus that this proposed amendment is a good idea? No? That's because it doesn't exist. Thus, this proposal is dead. You can dispute this if you like. Doesn't change anything. --Durin 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
oh... i'm apparently the only one seeking change... Quadell, Peregrine, Waggers, Ddcc, CBD, and this last person, Bookandcoffee must all be existing in my head - or it's the work of gremlins. In any case, if you feel you have presented your case in it's enitirety then there is no reason for you to comment further on this "dead" proposal and you can feel free to ignore any further discussion that goes on here :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into this particular point - except to say that the issue clearly is not dead. Wishing it so seems... uh... well, weak.--Bookandcoffee 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that comment wasn’t much help - I just got home from work and sat down to finish reading this talk page and the first section I came to is this “thus be it dead” thing. Frankly, large portions of these arguments seem to shout ‘’legalese’’ and just make me tired. If the image is worth including in the original text of the article then it’s worth including in the portal version (in some cases it’s the exact same thing with the page simply being transcluded). I fail to see why it needs to be more complicated than that. If it’s a big concern then why not move images that are tagged as FU from File:Snoopy.png to Fairuse:Snoopy.png and if there is an actual legal issue down the road we can readdress the problem and filter the (now discernable) images in what ever fashion is required. Splitting hairs and fighting about yet-to-be-even-threatened liabilities is what you do at $250/hr, but maybe not so much when you’re volunteering in your spare time…--Bookandcoffee 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

two things about the legal issues: 1. as per the oft repeated discussion at WP:PERENNIAL#Legal issues, we shouldn't be wasting time on discussion of legalities; 2. If you'll read the introduction to this talk page it specifically mentions why legal use as laid out in the guidelines is not a concern. The only real arguement that has been presented is the opinion that doing this would violate our principles of a FREE encyclopdia. That issue has been addressed elsewhere and the onus is now upon the opposers to respond to the questions raised. Their silence i can only assume is consensus with my rebuttal. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Trying to gain approval for this proposal by evaluating silence of the opposers here who have already opposed the proposal is intentfully argumentative and deliberately inflammatory. Stop. Now. I've stopped responding on this issue because it is dead. You can dispute it if you like, but this proposal will not be accepted. That's not because, as you try to insist above, that I somehow 'have the final say'. It's because consensus DOES NOT EXIST to change this policy. I see no point in continuing to waste breath over it. We (being the various parties on either side of this issue) disagree. Pure and simple. Result; no consensus. Result; this proposal is dead. I don't intend on continuing to repeat myself. My lack of willingness to waste my time repeating myself does not mean I agree with you. --Durin 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
my presumptions about what their silence means is not actually inflammatory, i was merely referring to the sentence from WP:CON that states, "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus..." I've linked enough times to it i figured you would have been familiar with it by now. The problem why we can never reach consensus is exactly because you repeat yourself. you offer nothing to your arguments you either merely regurgitate them in some new fashion or deride some trivial aspect of a response, rather than critically addressing the issues raised. I've given you the point on policeable or not - personally i don't think abuse of any aspect of the encyclopedia is cause to remove it anyway so to me the point is moot. However i've specifically responded to your claims of "making things more unclear" (these guidlines actually lay things out quite specifically) and the opinions voiced that this would work against the libre goals of wikipedia. Debates do not work by you merely restating your side and then deciding to stop debating. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A number of people have already voiced dissent here, so there is no silence as you suggest. To continue from WP:CON, you are suggesting nobody has objected to this change. This is flatly false. You do not gain consensus by continuing to post and repost and repost the same arguments and tire people out from responding and thus say "Ha! Consensus! I outlasted everyone!" It doesn't work that way. The points in support of this proposal have already been heavily disputed and critically addressed. I can choose to stop debating when it is blatantly obvious that consensus failed and continued debate is rehashing the same points over and over again. This proposal failed. Thank you for your insightful commentary that my words are puke. --Durin 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, I don't think every single opposer needs to refute the points you make. I think it's clear that those who have voiced an opinion are not going to be significantly swayed by anything else presented here. IvoShandor 06:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm not asking that every opposer refute the points i make. but somebody needs to. I disagree with the notion all i've been doing is reposting the same thing over and over. while some seperate threads may contain similarities to others for the sake of clarity (rather than "see X discussion") each discussion on its own was an attempt to develop the ideas presented. the problem has been the same points being repeated over and over. someone brings up the problem with the fact that if we allowed portals to use fair use (originally ed, when this page was first created) many people would probably abuse it and we would now have to worry about finding copyright violations in the portal space (this whole "policing issue"). I argued back that potential abuse has no justification (otherwise we shouldn't be allowing articles on the penis). everyone had long enough opportunity for a rebuttal. instead it is ignored and the original argument just repeated by others in different threads. i aplogize if you mistook the euphemism of regurgitate to be calling your arguments to puke, i merely meant that while it looked different each time, you were still just coming up with the same things over and over. and IvoShandor... you are probably right... none of the opponents of this proposition came into the discussion with the hope of consensus. I am willing to be convinced, but answering my questions posed (even if posed argumentatively) with a mere rewording of the orignal opposition instead of a direct response and explanation is hardly convincing. It's a shame that the way this works is, "Things will stay the same because we who like it that way aren't going to bother with those who don't." How many people came in, left a lone comment and then never responded to inquiries to their reasoning? What I wanted was a real discussion on this whole libre thing. It's probably the most legitimate point for opposition, but all i got was a rehash of "Wiki is free" or silence. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to allow[edit]

There is no reason to allow fair use images on portals, because there is no case where a portal must contain a particular image—or any images at all; this is not like an article where one particular image may need to be discussed and nothing else can possibly substitute. We should use non-free images minimally if we must use them at all, and we should definitely not be showcasing this work. Regardless of whether it's legal or policeable—it's not necessary I appreciate that some topics are more difficult to illustrate without them; however, if a free image cannot be found there is no reason a portal needs images at all; their purpose is for visual/decorative interest. It's discouraging to see people trying to expand the use of non-free media here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kat. We need to work to expand free content, not work up to the edges of legally-permissible "Fair use". Add to that that frequently images are used simply as window-dressing on Portals (not a use really inteded in Fair use laws), we should not allow this move. We should be working on finding and creating more free content, not working on using copyrighted images in more places. Mak (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; fair use should apply only where obviously necessary, a caveat that doesn't apply to any portal (comics, video games, etc. - images can't add significant value to a portal, to the point where it's absolutely necessary to keep them). Ral315 » 08:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't? Sticking with an example from above, would a fair use map of the Dragonlance world not add significantly to Portal:Dragonlance? What if it were set up as an imagemap and clicking on various locations would take you to the corresponding section of List of Dragonlance locations? I think that'd be a pretty useful feature... easily justifying fair use of the image for informational purposes.
I'd have less problem with banning 'fair use' entirely. At least it would have internally consistent logic. But banning 'fair use' from portals, where they would be a minor problem at worst, while allowing them in articles, where they are a huge mess, is illogical. We had a pre-existing requirement that 'fair use' appear only in article space... when the portal namespace was added it immediately fell under that 'non article' ban, but there is no reason it should. We should be working to restrict 'fair use' to situations where there is no other option and they provide actual value justifying the need... not arbitrarily banning them from one particular area while allowing them to run out of control in another. Currently we allow fair use for nothing more than 'identification purposes' (corporate logos, movie posters, book covers, et cetera) in articles... that is exactly the same 'window dressing' such images on portals would be. So why do we allow it for the 1.7 million articles, but not the few hundred portals? I'd be ok with banning 'identification' fair use images completely... but banning them from portals while allowing them on articles just doesn't make any kind of sense. --CBD 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No fair use images for the main page[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions#Removing exception in policy for "Main Page" to gauge consensus for not allowing fair use images in the main page at all. Since part of this amendment is based in the Main page ability to use fair use image, you may find it interesting. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it should be noted that there is now a fairly a defacto standard to remove non-free images from the main page... the motivation for beginning the discussion is that we're already effectively doing this, not a desire to substantially change our activity. --Gmaxwell 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I posted this here because, in both the old and the new portal amendment there is a support rationale (Fair use images are allowed on the Main Page, an informational page in the main namespace, and is similar to Portals in both format and purpose. Portals serve as Main Pages for specific subjects.) that becomes weakened, if not completely void. -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As a rationale it would seem that was already a moot point, as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't much of a justification in the first place. IvoShandor 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I know DYK does not allow fair use images, ever. IvoShandor 05:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
whether or not it is "crap" is the point of that discussion. As it stands, the current consensus is that FU images are allowed under certain circumstances. Therefore it was an agument of precedent not "two wrongs make a right". Of course should consensus have changed then it is true that the supporting rationale becomes void. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not calling it crap. Regardless, precedent is no way to justify this either. Also note the comments above about de facto non fair use images on the front page. IvoShandor 09:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

point in fact, when articles on topics pertaining the kinds of portals being discussed here, those fair use images remain on the main page. Just to illustrate though, that in fact many images are not removed for sake of argument:

These were just from this past month. I could probably skim through the past six months and pull up specific references to Torchic or something but i don't think it's necessary for you to get my point. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to allow in portals[edit]

Another possible reason to allow a fair use image on each portal under our current strict rules, was actually broght up by an editor arguing against making "Today's featured article" having a fair use image: Articles are becomming featured faster than they can appear on the main page. My idea is that those articles that don't make it to the main page could be featured on portals. In the case where the article is about a visual work of fiction, a screenshot would be both justified and make the encyclopedia better.--GunnarRene 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

portals as an alternative[edit]

I was originally merely going to argue this in a reply, but it's relevant to a couple threads. I'd like to point out that portals, in addition to being used as navigation, are also used as an alternative to articles. They provide a lot of information on the different facets of a topic without the reader having to read the entirety of many different articles. There's an introduction to the topic and a sample of the articles contained in the topic. In essence the portal has become a main article on it's own only with dynamic content. However, as opposed to articles, the portals do not encourage the addition of more fair use, they are only reusing what is already there. When someone creates an article on a subject that will inherently require a fair-use image, our number of fair-use images goes up, but when someone creates a portal it only contains precreated content. We are not undermining our principles by having an image that is already included in one place being included somewhere else. And images in portals contribute as much as they do within the articles they are featuring. -Zappernapper 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just it. If the image in question is unlicensed in the first place, the onus is upon us to justify each and every use of the image, and we would have to make a case for using the image in one location when it's already being used without licence in another, thus compounding the potential infringement of copyright. If we have a page in portal space that has the nature of an article, then it probably isn't a portal any more.
The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content.
(from Wikipedia:Portal).
They're aids to navigation, organisational tools. While it's nice to have some decoration here and there in the front door, decoration is not a defensible legal justification for use of unlicensed content. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

but the application of fair use images this proposal is seeking approval for is not decoration. It's to assist the reader in understanding the topic in general and the selected article in particular - the whole logic behind fair use anyways. and before you quote legalities read the intro to this talk page and then take a stop by WP:PERENNIAL#Legal issues, portals are not forbidden from using fair use for legal reasons and to suggest that they are is fallacious. And i fail to see how when Torchic is featured on it's respective portal that it's image is only decorative. It is no less decorative than it's use on it's actual article. -Zappernapper 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the continuing problem here is the abuse of the term "fair use". What we're really talking about is unlicensed use of images that do not belong to us. Fair use isn't a right or an entitlement, but a legal defense to liability for copyright infringement. On the subject of whether an unlicensed picture is required to enable someone to understand a subject, I think the answer is plainly "no". Even with Buffy, cited above, there pictures of the actors and writers are available under a free license. It would be against the Foundation policy to use unlicensed images in such circumstances, and needless to say it's unnecessary. A portal can help to organise matter without use of any images at all (we'd use lists, tables and the like for that) though of course it will look better if it has some decoration. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

that's like saying an article can discuss the subject without use of any images. of course thank you for proving my orignal point to Angr when they changed one of the "Against" rationales from reading:

Portals can still achieve their purpose of helping readers navigate through articles under a related topic without the need of images.

to:

Portals can still achieve their purpose of helping readers navigate through articles under a related topic without the need of non-free images.

And we're not really talking about Buffy, we're talking about X-men, Simpsons, and Pokemon. And the answer to the question, "Is an image necessary to be of the utmost usefulness to a reader?" is not as plain as it appears to you. Instead of regurgitating, "You don't need it" five different ways, try explaining why we don't need. Or more specifcally, why do articles need it any more than portals? If anything, an article has plenty of space to visually describe Jabba the Hutt, while a portal only has a paragraph or two. The depiction of the character seems much more necessary to me for purposes of usefulness and explanation. An example like that goes beyond even mere "identification" that many articles use as their fair use rationale. You've done nothing but repeat the same arguement without explaining your reasoning. You say that an unliscened picture is never required to aid in understanding. Therefore, no picture is really ever required, because the idea that the legal status of an image soehow affects its usefulness is logically flawed. And furthermore that would lead us to believe that since images are completely unneccessary to the encyclopedia they are something to be avoided. you don't even have consensus or policy to back you up for that regarding fair use images. your plain answer of "no" carries a lot of underlying logic that is antithetical to current consensus, precedent, and internal structure. so don't try hiding behind Foundation policy when you make that claim. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding one "support" rationale[edit]

I've removed the supporting rationale that "Because portals interconnect with articles, categories, wikiprojects, and other materials relating to their subject they are inherently very difficult to 're-use' elsewhere, thus limiting any loss of 're-usability' which might arise from the appearance of fair use images on the portal." I fail to see how it is a strong supporting rationale. Fair use images tend to limit re-usability, period. --Iamunknown 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with that removal... some have thought that b/c portals aren't curently re-used anywhere and b/c they couldn;t think of a way that they could be reused, it was therefore a good argument. obviously though, we should try to create for forward compatibility whenever we can, someone may think of a way to reuse them. that being said i'd like to quash anyone who wants to jump on that statement by saying that fair-use in the portal space presents no more technical difficulties for reuse than fair use in the main space. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
For those of you who still erroneously believe that Portals aren't being reused anywhere, might I suggest. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc, plenty of sites simply dynamically fetch the content, ALL namespaces with little regard for how useful it is. IvoShandor 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thank-you for that example... however, regarding reuse - fair use images in portals present no more limitations in re-usability than fair use in articles or the with permission wikipedia logo that (gasp) is displayed in all namespaces. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I just thought I would point it out. IvoShandor 07:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
so u urself don't beleive that fair-use in portals would seriously affect the goals of reusability? Is your only objection to this proposal that you don't "see how fair use in portals helps the encyclopedia"? I then offer up my original response that they help for the purposes of exaplanation and identification in the same manner that they do in article. In fact, where articles actually would have several paragaphs they could devote to visually describing a subject (my example was Jabba the Hutt), portals only have a couple short paragraphs that are meant to summarize the entirety of the subject. They appear more useful in a portal. If you don't beleive that fair-use is useful for the encyclopedia in any respect then there's not much more i can say, other than that viewpoint is clearly in the minority considering how wikipedia has been run for the last few years. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In general I don't like fair use, if we have it we should stop calling ourselves the free encyclopedia because it is a lie. IvoShandor 14:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't know... utilizing fair-use essentially guarantees that wikipedia will always be free and that any derivitives of it will also be free. and that is because fair-use forbids commercial use. with fair-use present, the foundation couln't really ever just shut down the whole project and then start trying to sell CDs to people for a profit without severely compromising several articles. fair-use just means non-profit use... and isn't that what free is? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)