Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Amendment

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

onus is on the editor[edit]

The onus is on the editor who uploaded the image to prove that fair use applies to the image.

I'm not sure anyone can prove fair use applies. Also, it applies to the use, not the image itself. I suggest changing it to "The onus is on the editor who uploaded the image to demonstrate how the fair use criteria apply to the use of the image." Angela. 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point Angela. Thanks for doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


It just occured to me that we should give editors who uploaded fair use images a chance to be made aware of this amendment. I've added the following section:

Images which have been uploaded before this policy ammendment came into effect must not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given 7 days to comply with this policy. After this date the image will then be deleted without further warning.

I realise I haven't done this with the TIME images, but that was a case where there were (and still are) clear copyright violations. Also, the amendment didn't exist at this time. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clear copyright violations listed as fair use are hardly uncommon.Geni 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I urge admins to excercise common sense, and in this case follow WP:IAR and delete the dratted image. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
the Monty Hall problem shows that common sense is falwed and IAR justifies nothing.Geni 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The Cardamone problem shows that legal sense is also "flawed" and we'll be up the creek if we don't do something about copyright violations. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes but I'd rather people delt with the problem logical rather than useing some ill defined method such as "common sense".Geni 19:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... common sense == use of logic :) there is no hard and fast rule on this issue, not even in a court of law. I think that deleting solely because an image isn't someone's definition of "thumbnail" would be rightly frowned upon by the community. However, if all the other factors were taken into consideration, I doubt an admin would have much trouble deleting an image that was a misuse of fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
And who defines what is fair use User:Ta bu shi da yu? We got in a huge debate over what was fair use here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2 Were you had decided an image that was 46 kb was not fair use. Ta bu shi da yu seemed to know the exact legal dimension of what a thumbnail should be, when the entire US legal community does not. The Appelate court in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation did not define what size thumbnail should be, I quote the info on wikipedia: It appears that US search engines may use thumbnails of images (size limits not determined). I would be interested how Ta bu shi da yu decided that 46kb is too large, what case law is he relying on?
Signed:Travb (talk) Police Man No.png 11:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Is this 7 days/24 hours from when the user first edits the relevant talk page with the warning, or seven days/24 hours from when the user who uploaded and used the picture first learns of the problematic copyright status? The difference is real and significant. --maru (talk) contribs 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


This would be more sensible after Category:Fair use images has been reviewed and emptied out. There are hundreds if not thousands of images that have been thrown in there because people were unclear about Bridgeman etc, or decided to be conservative, or whatever. I've made a couple passes, but it's a huge pile. Also, the fair use rationale is intrinsically squishy, for instance nobody ever seems to agree on what "low resolution" is supposed to mean, or what is "historical", so it's kind of unfair to put a hard deadline on something where reasonable people can disagree and need to debate it for awhile. Stan 03:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the image resolution, in my view, must be significantly lower than the original (i.e. if you printed Wikipedia, then the image would look terrible). No more than 72dpi. As for what is historical, a description in the text of the article would deal with this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
72dpi would be good for almost everything except postage stamps, which are only about half-inch across typically. What I meant by "historical" is that most broadly, it could be anything that happened in the past, so an AP photo of last week's playoff game could be said to be historical, and even described as such in the article about the playoffs, but I don't think that's exactly what we have in mind. Stan 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think some common sense is in order here. One thing to keep in mind is: can we replace this with a free image or not? Also: do we need this image on the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As your surprisingly-popular RfC suggests, there is quite a bit of disagreement on what constitutes "common sense". I commented on this yesterday in Wikipedia talk:Fair use review, observing that WP works best whenever we can draw a sharp line, even if the line is arbitrary. (One could even argue that relying on the common sense of editors regarding fair use is what got us into this whole mess in the first place.) For instance, if we adopt a rule of "72dpi or 250 pixels, whichever is larger", that covers small objects too. Or if we went to "250 pixels max", it could be checked with a bot, saving the poor admins from being hassled by all and sundry. Stan 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from amendment to talk page[edit]

What about disputed fair use? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. --Martyman-(talk) 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As always, admins must use their commonsense. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances change[edit]

One issue I have with not notifying the uploader and reducing the length of time that they're tagged is this: I recently had a fair use image that was used legitimately in an article. Someone removed it and replaced it with some image that was subsequently deleted. The bot came around and tagged my image for deletion because it subsequently wasn't used anywhere. If anything, I think it should be highly suggested that the uploader be notified in all instances, because someone else may have caused the image's use to become improper. enochlau (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, have made an initial change - removed the "without warning" part. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulk deletions[edit]

I disagree with one part of this policy. This was written for single images, but what about all of those TIME covers? There was a mass deletion by a user who shall go unnamed a few months ago. One image can be replaced, but the matter is different when you go to your pet article and find it devoid of images. So, I propse this:

For multiple images of similar content (roughly, images that would belong categorized together), when such images have possible encyclopediac value, the 24 hour rule does not apply. Rather, consult with the uploader and associated or concerned Wikipedians and find a way to balance the reduction of the number of these images without deleting all of them.

One image can be replaced. But the effects of deletion are multiplied eexponentially when done to multiple images.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If your pet article is devoid of images because all your images were copyviolations, my advise to the uploader would be to sort out the core problem, which is: you are not following image or fair use policy. Start following the policy and you'll never have your images deleted. I strongly oppose this change. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

24 hours too short[edit]

While respecting the need to be proactive about these things, let me attempt to deprecate any policy or policy change that gives a time limit as short as 24 hours. While many wikipedians (and perhaps most if not all admins) spend a lot of time each day at wikipedia and for them, 24 hours is ample time to comment on something or correct an oversight, we should be friendly to editors who choose to be involved on a less intense level and participate at wikipedia only a few times a week. I seriously doubt we will be in greater legal jeopardy if we have an inappropriate, flagged copyvio that is kept around for 6 days longer before deletion. -- Martinp 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (6 mos, <100 edits and proud of it)

That is waht I too am beginning to feel. Probably 24 hours once the uploader gets to know of it would be better, but I do not know how technically feasible it is to implement. Also, addressing inactive wikipedians becomes difficult if they do not log-in even after a week. So, how about one week in total or 24 hours once the uploader gets to know of it (provided this is technically feasible), whichever is shorter? --Gurubrahma 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. If an image does not meet fair use criteria, what is the uploader going to do to fix it? Moreover, how do you define the uploader gets to know of it? The only two events I can think of are login, and a post from the uploader acknowledging the problem. The latter, certainly, would have to monitored manually. Why make this too complicated? -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. If the uploader does not understand fair use policy, they should not be uploading images under a fair use license. The point of dealing with this in 24 hours is to make it clear that if you contribute to Wikipedia you must follow our policies! To paraphrase what Jimbo Wales has said to me, fair use is fine to use, but not to abuse. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
A great many, perhaps the majority, of invalid fair use images are uploaded by people who never make another edit with their account... This happens because we only allow logged in users to upload, so people make accounts for that purpose. If you think 24 hours is too short, you should propose another time limit. :) --Gmaxwell 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7 days. Nice and simple, applies to everyone, voids necessity for the exception listed above. Martinp 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7 days after notification IMHO is vital. There are plenty of invalid FU images on WP. But a heck of a lot of valid FU images are being unilaterally deleted because notice hadn't been given and by the time someone who could confirm that the image was valid found out about it, it was too late. We have to do it professionally. That means
  • establishing what criteria an image fails under
  • finding out from the downloader why the image was downloaded, or if (and I came across one example only tonight) the problem is simply a case of a mistake in categorisation.

Not everyone comes onto WP every day. 7 days increases the likelihood that information can be gathered to enable WP to distinguish between genuine FU images and ones that aren't FU, between illegal images and simple errors in categorisation, something all too often the real problem where the person proposing to deleting the image hadn't done their homework (eg, hadn't read the comments on an image page to see if it was a categorisation error) or had shown poor judgment. Some of the deleted TIME images for example were perfectly valid. For example a TIME cover about the ex-King of Greece was deleted even though part of the article was about his attempted coup and the front page of TIME was explicitly about that very coup and the King's role in it. So the image showed worldwide media reaction to King Constantine's action. The proposal tonight to delete a PD-user image inadvertently described as FU (even though the remarks in the file showed that the downloader was the copyright holder and was giving it fully to WP under GFDL) and the wrong deletion of TIME's coverage of King Constantine shows the dangers of getting it wrong. 7 days and notification reduces that danger. 24 hours would be a recipe for out-of-control deleters who don't know what they are doing to make a mess of things. Checks and balances are vital. (BTW if someone gives an image to WP under GFDL and someone else wrongly deletes it, who then owns the image? Can the downloader reclaim copyright? Can WP get back the image and claim GFDL still applies? Has that been thought through?) FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to Constantine II of Greece, right? If so, please explain where the TIME article that detailed the Coup was discussed at all - you can start from the following edit, if you like. Also, show me where the:
  • fair use rationale for the image is
  • the source of the image is
  • where the image description page explains anything about the image
I've decided to be helpful and have undeleted the image description page. Please refer to Image:Kingconstantine.jpg.
Getting back to your issue where uploaders should be given time to know that they have made a mistake: I agree, those uploading up till now may not have know about our image policies. However, click on the upload file option in the toolbox and you will see a HUGE warning box that clearly details our image policies and the importance of not uploading copyrighted images. There is no excuse for new uploads to not have fair use rationales. That is why this policy amendment is taking into account images uploaded before the amendment comes into effect and gives 7 days grace, but only gives 24 hours grace to images not uploaded correctly. The emphasis now is on the uploader to prove copyright is not violated and that fair use is not being abused. And, let's face it, fair use policy is being actively ignored by almost all editors. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have used "fair use" images a couple of times, and I have given a justification for the "fair use" in the image description page. No one has challenged those images. There is no excuse for anyone uploading images in violation of copyright. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it is important to allow 7 days for feedback, or correction. We should assume good faith and allow people to correct their errors themselves. Not all editors log on within each 24 hour period.--A Y Arktos 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not the point. After the amendment goes into effect, uploaders should be already aware of the conditions for uploading an image. 24 hours is more than enough time. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think giving 7 days is important too, to give the uploader time to sign on, provide rationale, gain permission, recategorize etc. 12:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No. The uploader should have heeded the very specific warning on the upload page and followed the very clear guidelines. 24 hours is more than enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding your responses, I believe we should assume good faith, the editor have perhaps made a mistake and a decent amount of time should be allowed to correct it. For example, I might upload an image that I have taken myself, cateogorise it, wikilink it and in the process of all that activity forget to tag it correctly. I would appreciate some time to rectify an unintentional error. I would of course be aware of the policies and guidelines. It would have been a mistake that I made, not ignoring policy. Id id in fact once do this very thing. Another editor kindly rectified the missing tag.--A Y Arktos 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, but I'm not happy about 7 days. That is far too long. Would you accept 36 hours? I really want to push the point that if someone uses the fair use tags that their image may be deleted because we discourage it's use if not absolutely necessary, and when it is used it must have a valid fair use criteria. I will also amend it to state that the uploader must be notified before the 36 hours comes into effect. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Have modified the policy, but made it 48 hours. I know some of you want to give it up to a month (at least a few people are upset because some editors only look at the site on a monthly basis!), but honestly, let's be serious here. If those editors aren't that enarmoured with the site, I fail to see why we should wait about for them. We certainly don't wait for 48 hours when the add material to an article: if we don't like the edit then we change it instantly! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hours is totally unacceptable. There is not likely to have been a single user on Wikipedia, and that includes Jimbo, who has not been away from Wikipedia for at least 48 hours. Especially over major periods like Christmas when people may be away from home with family or wherever, people are bound to be off Wikipedia for a day or two. Telling them that WP reserves the right to delete any image they delete, even if the problem is something that can be fixed once the person who created the image is notified, is crazy. What do you propose? Proposing deletions on Christmas eve, and deleting images on the day after Christmas? Don't be ridiculous. In the real world you have got to achieve a reasonable balance that avoids unnecessary deletions where problems are potentially fixable. 48 hours is totally unreasonable. It is guaranteed to cause friction and to lead to the unnecessary deletions of fixable images simply because of an unreasonable and not through through time period. The minimum time period has to be long enough to cover the normal break people take from WP at times like Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. A seven day period would allow flexibility and avoid unnecessary deletions of valid images. 48 hours will cause rows, bitterness, lose WP salvageable images and probably drive frustrated editors away in disgust if they find that they daren't even take a two day break from WP without running the risk of Ta bu deleting their images and undoing their hard work. 48 hours - NO WAY. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. Firstly, if you upload an image and don't provide a fair use rationale or source, then you should be reading policy. Secondly, I can say that I don't know of any user who hasn't been away from the site for more than 7 days. This is no different. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that 7 days is a short time for someone to notice a problem with an image and correct it. I have uploaded 20 or more images, read what seems to be the correct explanation pages repeatedly and still am not sure what are the correct tags to use, even less exactly what sort of written explanation is required. This is not helped because people seem to be changing the rules all the time. I did think the first rule given to people starting on wiki was BE BOLD. just get on and do it. Not read five complicated and long articles explaining every last detail of how to tag an image, before being allowed to add one. One week is a short time for anyone to notice a problem, never mind one day: people who edit wiki are not professionals paid to sit at their desk and work immediately on a problem which comes up. Sandpiper 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


To get rid of the worry about timelines, and avoid the pain of irreversible image deletion : set up a quarantine for images that seem to fail fair use and other criteria. Move all troubling images there. If the original uploader, or anyone!, is around to move it back, make them justify its license.

Then once you hvae a quarantine, in which no images are harming the project in any way -- it is clear that these images are 'probably not safe to use' but being held to see for sure -- you can have a leisurely time scale, such as a month, in which people can return to Wikipedia, find their favorite image or personal upload missing, and go to the quarantine to rescue it. +sj + 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And thereby undo all the work it took for the who identified it and Quarantined it with nary a thought? It's hard enough work when you don't have to live the life of Sisyphus, overall I'm not opposed to the idea.. but so far what you've proposed is far too vague to be actionable and not well thoughout enough to be acceptable. Can you cite some cases where this would really be needed? --Gmaxwell 01:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems a lot like the prod. Is there any reason why we can't just use prod for images where the fair use rationale is lacking? That gives five days for the problem to be addressed. Hiding talk 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I have a number of issues with this policy proposal, maybe you can answer them.

  • There is no serious problem with material tagged as fair use right now AFAIK. I've seen some images which were definitely copyrighted (and tagged as fair use), but they were detected and removed quickly. Therefore I also ask a question: why is this amendment needed?
    • I disagree. There is a very big problem of people tagging images as fair use, and not giving correct fair use criteria. Even Jimbo Wales himself has agreed with me privately that the fair use tag is being abused. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A great deal of users and administrators tag or remove images which they just suspect are not fair use, or images which don't have any copyright tag. These users don't even bother to try and find out where the image came from. Other users do, but I am very hesitant about giving more power to the type who mindlessly tag/delete.
    • Why should they? The onus is on the uploader to provide clear information about their sources and justification as to why they believe they have correctly applied fair use. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't have uploaded the image, full stop. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 24 hours is much too short, the majority of semi-active Wikipedians do not check their pages and watchlist every 24 hours. Also many new users don't understand they should watch their uploaded images and may only check them extremely rarely.
    • As I have already stated, the second part of this takes this into consideration. Not all Wikipedians knew about the license tagging before a certain date. However, I invite you to now to go Special:Upload and have a look at the terms & conditions of uploading images. You can't be more clear what you must do when uploading an image. There is no excuse to have uploaded an incorrectly tagged, incorrectly sourced or badly justified fair use image. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If the user isn't notified of a possible deletion, how are they supposed to know they did something wrong? They may repeat the same mistake for tons of images before they see that somehow all their pictures were deleted for no reason (as far as they can tell). Users unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies such as this one (the majority of semi-active users) will not even understand why their image was tagged even if they noticed it in time.
    Two things:
    1. Noone is saying that you should not alert the uploader (indeed, I modified the amendment accordingly), though this is not mandatory, and
    2. Those who upload images have no excuse. I refer you to the image upload page! It states:
      The copyright holder and the license of the file [must be used], including:
      • A copyright/license tag, either selected from the drop-down list below or included in the upload summary,
      • An explanation of why you believe the file is so licenced, and
      • A fair use rationale, if uploading a fair use image.
      • If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain.
    It also states that "For more information, see our image use policy, how to upload, and the image copyright tags available."
    Exactly how much clearer do you want us to make things?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If this amendment passes, those unfamiliar that it was an amendment and not the original policy (there will be a lot of such people) won't know that they need to notify users of images uploaded before this policy's enactment.
    We might not be making in mandatory, but we aren't forbidding notification either. See above for why those who upload have no excuse not to follow policy. However, in the fair use to be deleted template I would suggest something similar to {{ifd}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are probably other issues, but you can already see I'm not too enthusiastic about the current proposal. However, I will support it (and probably other users seing this discussion) if you give good reasons why each of my comments doesn't apply, or isn't a correct concern. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 18:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have given my reasons. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

no need to take forever[edit]

The most important thing is that the uploader is notified. Even if the image is deleted while the issue is being sorted out, the picture can then just be reuploaded with the proper fair use rational. 24 hours is more then enough time as this could be a huge legal liablity. I'm suprised this wasn't already policy --T-rex 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kicking this off[edit]

How do we start off the vote? Nobody can tell me! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Support - Can I vote yet? This policy is long overdue imhoBorisblue 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Fair use images from userspace[edit]

I would like to amend that when removing Fair use images

  1. You must notify the user
  2. you should make an attempt to find a free replacement
  3. you must make an attempt to find a free replacement if removing the image from multiple pages.
  4. you must fix any formatting problems caused by your removal of the image.
  5. you must Explain yourself when removing Fair use images and your rational in more than a few lines. Not just that is it a rule but the rational behind the rule
  6. You should instead of removing the image yourself you should rather leave a note on the talk page asking them to remove the image themselves
    • (It makes them feel like they have more control. Sometimes they will object to you touching your userspace in a non improving Mainer more than the actual removal of the image.)
  7. If somebody objects to your removal of the image you should make a sub page to talk about this particular image and link to it on their talk page so people don't have to wast their time to restate what is already said Manny times over. Keep the talk in one place.

You can agree with some of these requirements without liking the whole thing. Efficacy in removing Fair use images is not my Goal Civilty and AGFity and Biteity are my goals--E-Bod 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Removal of fair use images is good reading on this issue. ed g2stalk 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[::Yes that is good reading. I have read it. Thanks for sharing. Yet I am still entitled to my Opinion that it is uncivil to, in the name of efficiency, disrespect your fellow members of the community and, without thinking, remove Fair use images unconditionally. Maybe you can make a template to leave boiler plate messages on user pages, but to not even notify a user is unacceptable. It is one thing to want to be cautious yourself, it is another thing to enforce over cautiousness's on the rest of our community. Maybe in every situation you can rationally that the image should be removed, but when it is not so clear cut such as when the user gave permission or the image is on a remote sub page that serves a purpose relating to the main space, then .

Has anybody though of changing the MediaWiki software so that it is impossible to have fair use images on user space or to use untagged images on main space. This would seem a lot more official and would be the most efficient of all. It would also set a deadline. NO new fair use violations and you can give the current ones a break. Maybe a notice can pop up because I had no clue [1] that this used a fair use image.--E-Bod 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) What's even more annoying is leaving a message on you own talk page asking about fair use and never getting a response. When editing someone Else's user space one needs to be careful not to offend that user. Ma be we should not have fair use images at all.--E-Bod 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally if you want a response you should leave a message on someone else's talk page... ed g2stalk 13:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The first requirement here is not to our users. Our first requirement here is to not offend companies and other organizations that own the copyrights. That consideration trumps any perceived threat we may have from offending some users who are in violation of copyright, because the threat from a copyright lawsuit is far, far greater than the threat posed by offending a user. Further, the suggested method of removal of fair use image violations at the beginning of this section dramatically increases the amount of work it would take to remove such violations. I have scanned literally thousands of images in my quest to have fair use violations removed from Wikipedia. It is impossible for me to even contemplate the idea that I could know enough about the thousands of subjects touched by these images to qualify me as competent enough to find replacements for all of these. That's just one problem with the above suggested pattern of action. There are several more. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals which deals directly with this issue, in particular with regards to making a request to remove images rather than removing them directly. --Durin 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and Jimbo[edit]

  • "Wikipedia goal is to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia—actually, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. This is an ambitious goal, and will probably take many years to achieve!"--[2]
  • "Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats
  • "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004[3]
  • "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." -- Wikipedia-l mailing list, March 8, 2005[4]
  • "Fair use (and the narrower fair dealing) is an important freedom from abuse by copyright holders. It is good to see a decision which supports it." [5]

I support jimbo's vision of wikipedia. I think fair use is an important part of wikipedia.

The reason there is so much controversy around fair use is because:

There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation. What Is Fair Use? Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources[6]

It is maddening, but many US laws are like this: vague on purpose. So in my opinion it is rather counterproductive that many wikiusers are attempting to carve out strict rules when the law itself has only vague rules. Smart lawyers, I have been told, never give iron-clad guarantees to their clients. Smart wikipedia lawyers who want to keep their jobs, would only give their opinion on fair use in private, and not issue strict edicts.

In keeping with Jimbo's vision, I feel that fair use on wikipedia should err on the side of users who want to keep these images. Have broad rules keeping to the laws of the US, and to the vision of wikipedia too. This is why I do not support this amendment. Travb (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The use of copyrighted images outside of the articles that they apply to almost universally fails to contribute to the project's purpose. For example, using the Coke logo in a userbox saying "This user drinks Coke" does not contribute in any respect to the project's purpose of building an encyclopedia. Yet, it could be construed as a coypright violation by the Coca-Cola corporation. In return for gaining a potential copyright violation that Wikipedia could be sued for, we gain nothing that is contributing to the purpose of the project. That math doesn't add up. --Durin 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Crummy pictures wanted[edit]

What i don't understand is that a photograph of a copyrighted work is OK but a copy of that work is not. I remember an instance where a puzzle was in a book. A replica of the puzzle was copyrighted but a photo of the book with the crease in the middle was a self taken photograph. A photo made by Dell of their laptop is copyrighted but a photo of a dell laptop is not. I think dell would be happier with their photos of the laptop than one of our photos. I was thinking of taking a photo of my laptop as an alternative and removing the fair use image but that would just make the article look messy. Am I not allowed to use a TV image of a cartoon character but i am allowed to upload a self taken picture of a toy in the image of the cartoon character. Why is having a worse picture always considered better? You almost want to not make an alternative just so you can use the fair use one one a page. I See Online news articles all the time using copyrighted press released images. why can they be used hear if everyone else is using them?--E-Bod 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They are refering to Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, which they apply strictly, despite Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation not determining what the size of a fair use image is. See my comments above about this.Travb (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It partly depends on what you are taking a photo of. If it's a book cover, then it doesn't matter whether it's you or who produce a picture of the cover - the real issue is that the cover art is copyright so we have to use it as fair use. If it's a computer, there is no reason at all to use a fair use image if it is possible to produce a free image of that computer ourselves. We aren't trying to build a really cool website, we're trying to produce a free encyclopedia - i.e. one with as little copyright restrictions as possible. The TV character case is more obviously marginal but why not have a photograph of both? Certainly the fact that a character has led to the production of merchandise is significant. Not all copyright laws are as liberal (in fair use terms) as the United States, and even genuinely fair use images are already significantly hampering physical publication of Wikipedia, which is why the use of "free use" images is so important (even if only in conjunction with fair use ones: there are published editions of Wikipedia where the photo of the toy would have been usable but the screenshot would not be). Improper fair use is even worse. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a U.S. encyclopedia so undue reliance on U.S. copyright law exemptions is undesirable if we are to produce a genuinely free, universally reproducible encyclopedia. TheGrappler 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No consensus[edit]

This ammendment, at this point, clearly has no consenus. It has been sitting here since late February and I see more arguments than I see support. I think this amenment should be shelved, if that is possible.Travb (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It has to go for voting, then we shelve it. If we shelve it, I'm asking the Wikimedia Foundation to step in. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any vote yet?--Jusjih 10:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use criteria consensus discussion started[edit]

After quite a few months, I have kicked off Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It is not a vote, but will give each editor the chance to support or oppose the amendment very clearly. I've got it going for a fortnight as obviously it needs to end some time, and there is a lack of guidance on how to amend policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand how this is different than current policy. Maybe one should further explain that on the proposal page at the top. Is this decreasing the time? Wasn't there already a time limit? JARED(t)  14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WARNING - MISUSE OF THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON!!!! :-) But seriously, the time limit on the speedy deletion criteria is 7 days. This amendment reduces it to 48 hours. Also, this amendment has been in the pipeline longer than the speedy critera has been in effect. What is the problem exactly with the 48 hour time limit? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, nothing, really. I just didn't understand it fully. I do think 48 is a little hasty, though. JARED(t)  14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... the thing is, I originally had it as 24 hours, but extended it to compromise. The truth of the matter is that those who are uploading images as fair use and not providing an explanation of why they believe the image is fair use are actually breaking image upload policy, and the images should not be staying on Wikipedia any longer than absolutely necessary. That's why 48 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cats view on the matter[edit]

I support the idea, but 48 hours is a bit too fast. Perhaps give the uploader a week. It may take the uploader 24 hours to notice the issue (due to time zones) and another 24 for the admin to respond to the inquire on what the problem is. People are not required to check their talk page evry day. Some people prefer to edit weekly, on weekends only for instance. A week is a more confortable time span. Any unjust deletes can be easily undeleted since mediawiki now supports that. --Cat out 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Statistically if an uploader doesn't respond right away then they will not respond at all. We can undelete now and the uploader could always have reuploaded, so whats the problem? --Gmaxwell 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

I stumbled upon this, I don't know how, and I don't find it relevant. We're all dishing out our two pence, so here's mine.

Fair use media should be eliminated from Wikipedia. The entire project is supposed to be freely redistributable. I suggest that Wikipedia lowers its tolerance on the misuse of the "fair use" provision of United States law.

That's all. robchurch | talk 06:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with a total ban, though I agree that we have to be a lot stricter on the misuse of fair use! When fair use is used properly then the product is freely redistributable, though of course it is even better when fair use images are replaced with public domain or GFDL images. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
When fair use is used properly then the product is freely redistributable No it's not!!! Fair use has been a major pain for several groups trying to redistribute Wikipedia. We don't all come under U.S. law on fair use. TheGrappler 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)