Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 7

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

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8

Using logos in a detailed list of a sports team's season games

I need some other opinions on whether the use of fair use logos on 2005 Texas Longhorn football team#Game notes passes FUC rule #8 - if they are just decorative or do they significantly add to the article, and thus can be kept. Here is a list of match details of an American football team during the 2005 season. In each individual game description, the fair use logo of each opponent is placed along with each match summary. And in each championship game summary, the fair use logo of that specific championship contest is also included. According to the discussion, Talk:2005 Texas Longhorn football team#Fair use images?, the arguement is the logos are used alongside of discussion pertaining to those teams. However, I would like other opinions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Purely decorative and should be removed, in my opinion. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, using icons text to team names is completely unecessary. If unfree media can be avoided, it should be. This has been applied to numerous sports pages. ed g2stalk 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that policy is being applied in an inconsistent and overly-strict manner here. We allow a sports team logo to be used in an article about that team. If we have an article about a particular game played by that team, we would still allow the logo. In this case, what we have here is thirteen miniature articles about thirteen different games. If they were split out into seperate articles, there would be no issue with the use of the logos. The fact that they are merged together into one article covering a single season should make no difference. The logos still represent the teams being discussed, and the article features discussion on each game. Johntex\talk 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, one could note that the logos are a very low-value addition to the article that transforms it from being freely reusable to being unfree content. Really, in an article about the team it would be strange to not show our readers the team's logo, so we make an exception and allow unfree content there. But there is no compelling reason to make every article that mentions every sports team less free by attaching a decorative icon to the team's name at each appearance. Jkelly 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The particular article being discussed would not be free-use even without the images of competing teams because (a) the team's own logo is used there under fair use (b) the article contains discussion of commemorative magazine covers which are included in the article. Also, in terms of it being strange to ommit the image, sports-news websites (E.g. Sports Illustrated[1] and ESPN[2]) routinely use both team's logos alongside information about a specific game. Therefore, I would argue that readers would find it "strange to not show" the logos in this context as well. Johntex\talk 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
We are not ESPN or SI; they probably got licenses to do the things they are doing. The article looks a lot better now with the icons being removed. I still think a bunch of photos could go from that article, but the removal of the logos is a good start. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, read the intro to WP:FUC again. This is not what fair use is allowed for. ed g2stalk 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I have re-read and I invite you to do the same. It says that free image equivalents are preferred when available. There is no free image equivalent to a logo. The use of the text name instead of the logo is clearly not an equivalent. If it were, then we would never use a logo. Johntex\talk 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That only applies if the image should be used in the first place. Decorating a name is something we can do with out. ed g2stalk 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
After removing the web-banner, the article looks alright in my view. Some of the photos are free, so I think this is a good balance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely have a hard time understanding this. Rule #8 specifically states that an image is allowed if illustrates a section within the text. These logos do. The game summaries are a vital part of the page and the logos illustrate the main point of the sections, the opponents. How this doesn't comply is beyond me. I don't see how the "less free" argument is valid if the reason falls within the rules stated for fair use.--NMajdantalk 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As used in rule #8, "illustrates" means "demonstrates a point". The logos provide no information beyond what the team names do -- less, in fact, as people are more likely to recognize a name than a logo -- so there's no reason to use them. --Carnildo 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
For many sports fans, the logo is synonomous with the name. And if you're taking such a strict stance on this issue, when does a logo demonstrate a point. By the definition "demonstrates a point," a school's logo wouldn't even belong on the school's page and the logo does not "demonstrate a point." The image should be allowed to be used if there is an article-critical discussion about the subject of the image on the page.--NMajdantalk 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The main focus of that section is the game, not the opponent. It is much like using the ESRB logo in the game infoboxes.[3] Just make yourself some questions: Does the casual user need to know the logo of the opponent team in a match? Does the casual user improve his comprehension of the article with the image? Does the casual user understand the information without the image? -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Take a logo on the school's page. Does the reader need to know the logo of the school? No. But its beneficial. Is his comprehension improved? No. Does he understand the information without the image? Yes. This seems like a very draconian interpretation of the guidelines.--NMajdantalk 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That is why some have suggested to remove images from albums and book covers. Fair use is a gray area, and as with all gray areas, the most you can "remove" from there, the better. -- ReyBrujo 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Per current policy, the logos' use is clearly prohibited in this instance. They add nothing to the article. It is of value to our readers to know what the logos of various teams look like, should they wish to learn about the team; therefore, the logos are permitted in articles about the teams. But in this context, the reader learns nothing from the images, and they don't aid understanding. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It is of value to our readers to know what the logos of various teams look like, should they wish to learn about the team Can't the same be said of the logos in the sections of questions?--NMajdantalk 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The logos are informative to the reader. Some people are more visually oriented than others. Also, as I mention above, it is common practice to use both teams logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated[4] and ESPN[5]). Johntex\talk 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As already explained, it is likely they have paid license fees to copyright holders in order to be able to use them. As for information, the cover of a book is useful to the reader in an article about the book, not in an article about a character. -- ReyBrujo 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Should I remove the text of team name and just leave the logo as is done [[6]]?--NMajdantalk 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Argh! That is worse! Casual readers don't know what each symbol means. Someone must go there and begin cleaning those articles up. Seriously. -- ReyBrujo 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, use text but never logos (except on the team's page). ed g2stalk 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No one has presented any evidence that news organizations are licensing these logos. I think that is unwarranted speculation and I don't think it is correct. Johntex\talk 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Broadcast and cable television spend millions of dollars every year for the right to broadcast games, and somehow that doesn't include team logos? Thatcher131 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse you? what is that supposed to conttibute to the discussion? Paying for the rights to broadcast a game is one thing, using the logo in a news story is another. None of the examples I give above are from a game broadcast. Johntex\talk 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is, but it doesn't actually matter. ed g2stalk 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the same cannot be said of them. Anyone who wishes to know what a team's logo looks like will, naturally, go to the article on the team. That article has the logo. Since that resource is available, there's no need to add the logos elsewhere as well. One instance of the logo satisfies this need. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes they should be kept, they aid the article. You may not know the team, however you may know a logo :) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For whomever that actually applies to, this is not a luxury we can afford them. ed g2stalk 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to bring the discussion of these issues to a single focus at this location: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format Please discuss there for future information. I am also attempting to bring in dispute resolution services of Wiki to solve this matter since it seems everyone involved is stuck in their mindset and providing the same arguments in many places. Please contribuite to this discussion at the link provided above only for future dicussions and comments. The final result should be copied here for quick information. Thank you. --MECUtalk 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No dispute resolution process will override our policy, which is quite clear on the matter at hand. I appreciate your diplomatic efforts, but you are wasting your time with this. ed g2stalk 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Helping editors understand something is not wasting someone's time. That's a very bad attitude to have. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a waste of time here. This is just a rehash of every debate we've had on fair use. Simply put, there are people who think we should be exposing the Foundation to a minusucule (but real) risk of a lawsuit, which even if we win, will divert significant resources from funding the servers to legal fees, and these people won't budge. Likewise, those who think that sprucing up an article a little isn't worth the minusucule legal risk it poses are equally set in their ways. Dispute resolution, short of arbitration, won't help. I'm beyond caring. Which side I stoutly agree with is obvious from my depiction of the situation (and from a cursory examination of the time I've devoted in the past to explaining why the fuck we're screwed when it comes to fair use). In any case, I couldn't care less now. If we want to screw Wikipedia over just so we can stick some pretty logos on an article, while serious and justified uses of fair use are marginalised, it's perfectly fine by me. Johnleemk | Talk 10:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk about a poor attitude. I heard this argument many times: "It's been discussed before and resolved before." I asked for links to discussions on the matter and was only provided with Talk:NHL Entry Draft which fails miserably in a discussion and only re-presents a single side of the argument from one person who may or may not be over-zealous in his fair use interpretations (and we're to assume, since they're a expert in the field, we must trust them -- that's a terrible argument, especially since how can we ensure they are an expert?). And it doesn't matter if it has been discussed and settled before: If a subject is unavilable for critical discussion, it become weak in it's support (religion? domagic belief?). Even the US Supreme Court (for another example) has reversed itself. Would you still want slavery? Slavery was widely accepted, but through dicussion, it was determined to be wrong. There is no harm in rediscussing issues, especially since some of the people involved will be new to the topic and may advance the discussion in new ways. I'm not saying that if it were to be resolved today, we should reopen it for discussion tomorrow. So, I put forth my request again: Please provide directed links to discussion of this issue before. I am also bringing in dispute resolution to help the process and hopefully organize and cool down everyone. They won't solve it, they will help us solve it. Thank you. --MECUtalk 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. I never issued an injunction against discussion of this topic. My point is that any further discussion of fair use in general when it comes to lists is fruitless because we have covered the same ground a billion times. I don't intend to dig up every discussion in this vein, but List of Lost episodes comes to mind. If you want more, dig through ed2gs's contribution list, since he's active in this field. My point is simple: we've discussed everything there is to be discussed. There is no sign that anything new will be presented. Both sides understand each other clearly. We just disagree, and nothing the other says can alter that, short of something new being put on the table (e.g. a significant addition to fair use case law). Dispute resolution short of arbitration is focused on discussion, but there is nothing that discussion can add here. You fellows are free to try, but mark my words: it won't work. How you interpret fair use law and Wikipedian fair use policy is a subjective thing, and further discussion won't solve anything when it's clear what both sides think. The only way to change the other side's mind is to present something new, and I've been around enough to know that (at least for now) there's nothing that can be added to alter the way we (as in we Wikipedians) think. Achieving compromise may be possible, but I find it highly doubtful. From my experience in dealing with lists that utilise fair use images, nobody is going to back down. The only dispute resolution here that will work is arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your withdrawl and failure to continue discussion is the downfall of the process and will only harm Wikipedia and is self-serving. Mediatian must be attempted before Arbitration (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). Perhaps advancing beyond the first, informal, mediator level would have been more appropriate, but any step towards the dispute resolution process will advance this discussion since it has grown stagnant. Further, I did not know this was as large as it was until after I submitted for the level of mediation. Perhaps the arbitration committee should allow us as an exception, since this is a policy and they have the power to issue policy and so forth, but I believe we should attempt mediation -- which shall require everyone to calm down and discuss issues and their intrepretation of the policy and stop attacking eachother. --MECUtalk 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific. If you want your name listed or de-listed there, go ahead and do so. You may add your comments and arguments there as well. --MECUtalk 13:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that there is no legal risk to the WMF from such logos. It's merely a content provider, and is shielded from suit by OCILLA and other laws. The reason we clamp down so hard on fair use is ideological, not pragmatic. (Consider what straits a site like Geocities would be in if they could be held liable for things their users post.) I'm still in favor of enforcing the policy, note. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OCILLA only applies to lawsuits filed in the US, and it only applies after the Wikimedia Foundation is hauled into court. As legal shields go, it's flimsy and damned expensive. --Carnildo 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The WMF is a US corporation and I don't see how it would be bothered by lawsuits filed outside the US, for one. For two, nobody's going to bother suing without first asking for the images to be removed, because a) it would be very expensive for the plaintiff as well and b) would be certain not to gain the plaintiff anything, whereas asking for the images to be removed is essentially free and not unlikely to succeed. Someone could file a frivolous lawsuit without first filing an OCILLA takedown request, but it would be spectacularly stupid and therefore quite unlikely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and magazines

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Fair_use_and_magazines and post your comments! --M@rēino 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing person posters?

What is the status of missing person posters released by the police and by the famalies into the media at large?--Lucy-marie 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They're still copyrighted unless explicitly noted, but for an article about the person they would probably be low-risk fair use. --Fastfission 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you can you help me with this please.--Lucy-marie 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, given that the person is missing, it is unreasonable to expect someone to create a free alternative, and if their disappearance is being discussed, then poster probably historically significant. ed g2stalk 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Taking a picture and relasing it under a free license is not the only viable way to get a free picture. We can still have an existing picture to be re-licensed under a free license. So, it's still possible to find a free alternative. But of course, if the poster itself is significant (sources, please) we can claim fair use if we're discussing it. --Abu Badali 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Lucy-marie, please note that "releasing into the media" in any no way implies abdication of copyrights. --Abu Badali 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not. They are giving specific individuals (in this case, the media at large) explicit permission to reproduce the images. Any other use still constitutes a copyright violation. --Carnildo 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Humm.. you say "No" but you still agree with me. I believe I said "release to the media" != "abdication of copyrights". Did I got my english worng? (I wouldn't be surpprised) --Abu Badali 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you meant to say,

"releasing into the media" in no way implies abdication of copyrights.

Yes, now I understand what I did wrong. Sorry and thanks. --Abu Badali 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Abu, if the family of the missing person has made a website about her, and posted contact information, could it be possible if we could try to get the poster under a free license of some sort? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great. This is producing free content just as much as taking a picture yourself and releasing it as free is. Just make sure to explain cleary what a free license is. Make them understand that they are not simply allowing Wikipedia to use the image. And if possible, ask them to put a notice on the website stating the licensing the image is being distributed (as to back up your claims when you upload the image here). --Abu Badali 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In the past, we have pasted a copy of the email we sent and recieved, redacted of addresses. I might do it later, but it depends on how much free time I have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious to knwo wht this e-mail Is at the moment. Thanks for all you help clearing up the situation can someone do a one line sumary for me?--Lucy-marie 00:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Grr...I didn't send it. I had school and stuff, sorry. BTW, what missing person are we even talking about? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
We are talking about Amanda Dowler.--Lucy-marie 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:ADmarschall.jpg in Shipwreck

I have temporarily hidden Image:ADmarschall.jpg in Shipwreck, because it does not look like valid "fair use" in that article. I would appreciate confirmation of my intention to remove the image from the article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. There's nothing special about that particular image or that particular shipwreck that requires it to be the lead image in the article. --Carnildo 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My only concern is that the article does not have a free equivalent. Besides the removed image, there are two images on the page. One is a copyrighted image of an actual shipwreck. The other is a free image of a painting. I don't think that the painting is a suitable substitute for an actual photo. Therefore, I support using one of the two photos. To me, the one removed is the better photo. I don't see a legal distinction between which one we use, so I guess this is an editing question I should probably raise on the article's Talk page. Johntex\talk 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
commons:Category:Shipwrecks. Jkelly 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good call - that category includes a Featured Picture that is at least as good as either of the two copyrighted images. I will put on the free image and replace the unfree one. If anyone things the unfree one adds something different to the article, please restore it. Johntex\talk 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I re-read the text and I see that the copyrighted image is being used to make a specific point - about the preservation of ship wrecks. I added the free image at the top and left the other image alone. Johntex\talk 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You could perhaps suggest Image:Bow Scorpion.jpg and/or Image:Bow part Scorpion.jpg as potential free alternatives, depending on exactly what it is they want to demonstrate. --Daduzi talk 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Baseball card counterexample

I have added a sentence to the baseball card counter-example to make it follow the same pattern as the News and Art counter-examples: "If the card itself is noteworthy, then it can be used only if it is discussed in the article where it appears." Johntex\talk 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what is says already - no need to repeat ourselves. ed g2stalk 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. On second reading, I agree with you. Johntex\talk 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More sports logo debate

At Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. ed g2stalk 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to call it "nonsense". This shows your prejudice. It is my understanding that we are encouraged to frame our announcements in more neutral wasy, such as:

Proposed policy clarification with respect to logos

Your claim that we can't identify a team without using a logo is nonsense, I'm afraid. ed g2stalk 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Truth isn't an excuse for incivility. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, my comments are not meant to be personal, however I stand by opinion that your claims are nonsensical. ed g2stalk 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Johntex\talk 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

template use

the policy disallowing fair use images in a template seems like prior restraint. why are the templates held to a higher standard than the images themselves? can't we just remove the use of the template when necessary? Justforasecond 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The rule is that unfree content cannot be used in template space, just as unfree content cannot be used in user space, talk space, etc. Jkelly 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, let me try to clarify. templates make it easier to make good articles. sometimes fair-use images could make templates better and would not be copyright violations. so why do we not allow them to be used in templates? the rationale seems to be that the templates could be placed on user pages, etc. Justforasecond 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
One reason may be that it is hard to imagine how republishing unlicensed unfree content at the page could be justified as Wikipedia:Fair use. Using unfree content in a template means that it gets rendered in template space, even if the intended use of that template is article space. Further speculation; it is likely that when the issue was first decided there was less of a "put unfree content everywhere" environment, and using the template functionality for convenience didn't seem like a big gain. Jkelly 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Templates don't have to actually *render* the images in the template space. They can be created to only render when included somewhere else. Justforasecond 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is all irrelevant. 'Fair use' is defined in terms of how an unfree image is used in a particular article. An image that meets the 'fair use' test in a particular article almost certainly will not meet the 'fair use' test elsewhere. Most unfree images can be used under 'fair use' in only a single article, or possibly in two or three related articles. There is no justification for putting such images in a template. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If an image doesn't belong in an article, why not just simply remove the template from the article? Justforasecond 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
An example. Suppose we include the Nightwish logo (a fair use image) to the {{Nightwish}} template. Now, Tarja Turunen is their former singer, and includes the template because she has sung every song for 10 years. However, while it is informative to have the template there (as some articles about albums and songs may give information about Tarja, and the template includes a "former" section), the Nightwish logo may not fit in her article. Putting a fair use image in the template limits the ability to use the template, which is exactly the opposite Wikipedia is aiming. -- ReyBrujo 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Images on templates are decorative by definition. Templates do not discuss theirs images nor does all pages that include the templates. This alone is a reason for not using unfree images on templates. --Abu Badali 22:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Abu Badali said everything I wanted to say. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've yet to see a justification of them that wasn't just "it looks pretty". That doesn't really cut it, it is far easier to just take it off the table for debate. --Fastfission 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I may be missing something here, but what is the point of the {{FairuseF1}} template and the category it defines? What's a "Fair use Formula One image"? --Abu Badali 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Fair use template is using a Fair use image, which FUC does not allow. I suggest asking in the creator's page, it is a pretty new template. -- ReyBrujo 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe redirect it to {{Non-free fair use in}}, since this is trying to organize photos that are used in F1 articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of a class of images that are automatically fair usable in articles about F1. I will point the creator to this discussion. --Abu Badali 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FairuseF1

Template:FairuseF1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Abu Badali 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Is there a template we can use to tag an image as "Non-compliance" (WP:FUC#Non-compliance)? I've seen several fair use images get uploaded after July 13th that still don't have sources or a fair use rational written up, and I'm ready for some tough love. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's {{nrd}} if that's any use? The JPStalk to me 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
for no source it would be {{no source}}.Geni 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Super wrongheaded policy

Why is Wikipedia/media so afraid of Fair Use? The Fair Use laws were enacted for the benefit of organizations just such as Wikimedia, and we should be looking to take advantage of them to the fullest. Instead we have administrators spending half their lives picking off perfectly valid fair use images and other media. Please, can somebody cite me one instance in which Wikimedia or any entity or person connected to Wikipedia actually found themselves in legal trouble due to use of an image this person had deemed fair use? Has this happened even once, or even come close to happening? I ask sincerely because I'm not one who follows all the backroom stuff on the mailing lists and IRC. I just try to keep my head down and write solid paragraphs for articles. But lately I have run into problems with administrators who've gone nearly rabid in their efforts to strangle all use of obviously Fair Use images. Their latest rationale goes something like this, "if any freely licensable image can be found that serves substantially the same purpose as an unfreely licensable image, the latter will be removed from the article and deleted from the server." In the latest case, a pretty prominent article became stuck with a very inferior image of a public figure (yes, Fair Use law goes out of its way to make it known that images of public figures are especially protected from litigation-- it's one of the prices of fame in the U.S.) because an administrator started wielding this rationale like a bludgeon. And let me tell you, the photo found acceptable by this admin, while serving the same purpose in a very superficial sense, does not serve it in the highest sense. The difference between a carefully composed close-up by a professional photographer and a very poor, out-of-focus Polaroid shot from an audience is tremendous. We should be striving for quality and it should easily prevail in the face of phantom threats. I ask again, has Wikimedia ever received even one legal threat due to use of an image that your average Wikipedian uploaded as fair use?? JDG 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question quite simply, it's because Wikipedia content is not meant to be solely used by Wikimedia projects, and other users of the content may not be able to claim fair use. --Daduzi talk 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And the answer is to severely damage our own quality to accomodate unforeseen uses by others? I would think that anybody or entity planning to go commercial using our material would have the resources to modify the content to fit their own legal needs... There are literally thousands of images and text excerpts that would have to be expunged if this policy is to be strictly applied-- some of the best material in the project. It's just a shame, and the major rationale for it is to oblige people looking to make a buck? JDG 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"And the answer is to severely damage our own quality to accomodate unforeseen uses by others?" Yes, because the goal of creating a wholly free encyclopaedia has always been more important to Wikipedia than creating a very pretty encyclopaedia. --Daduzi talk 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And very important, wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images are not free content. Therefore fair use can/should only be used sparingly. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Who says it's "a free-content encyclopedia"? Most people just know it as a damn good online resource, and that reputation was more than marginally helped by Fair Use material. I've been contributing since early `02 and many of us old-timers are getting pretty upset by some of the new fancypants notions that threaten to undo what we did. Fair Use is central to Wikipedia and I congratulate the far-sighted legislators and judges who gave us this publishing power. I anti-congratulate those working from within to take away that power. "Free content". It's just a phrase. With the absence of lawsuits over Fair Use usage, it's all, in effect, "free content". I'm still waiting for one real-life account of the law coming down on Wikimedia due to an image or excerpt incorrectly deemed Fair Use. JDG 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Us? Which us is this you are talking about. For some reason the court where I am tend to talk about fair dealing which tends to be more restictive.Geni 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) does says so here and I am sure it said something like that already in 2002. Garion96 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh an we have avoided court cases because we generaly chose to fold. The O rly owl being the obvious example.
That's fine. If we fold when challenged out of court, what harm is done? Say we have to fold 25 times a year-- will we be flagellating ourselves because we consumed the time of a few lawyers? We need to err on the side of quality, not caution. JDG 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really three problems. 1. What if it AP who comes after us and asks us to remove all thier images. Do you know where all the AP images are? 2. You are betting on people being nice or the DMCA applying to the foundation. Both of these are somewhat open to question. 3.You are betting that no one outside the US finding a way to hold the foundation to account.Geni 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
On #2, why wouldn't the DMCA not apply to the foundation? It seems pretty straightforward to me. And a DMCA takedown notice requires the copyright holder to link to the media in question, I'm fairly sure, so that takes care of #1. On #3, it's always possible that Wikimedia can violate content laws of other countries (China and Germany come to mind as places where this would be easy). But if I think our Wikilawyer thought fair use was a big enough international legal problem, he would intervene. Why don't we leave that level of decision to him and Jimbo? --Fastfission 17:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have access to the OTRS queue to verify this, but my impression is that Wikipedia folds rather more often than that -- I think it's on the order of 25-30 times a week. And keeping Wikipedia out of court is already a full-time job for the one lawyer we do care about: Brad Patrick, the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer. --Carnildo 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
25-30 times a week? That sounds a bit unlikely to me (that's around 4 times a day, as I'm sure you can do the math). Any reason to suspect it is that high? --Fastfission 17:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Purposely or not, I think we're seeing some sleight of hand here from Carnildo: "keeping Wikipedia out of court is already a full-time job for the one lawyer..." may be so, but not exclusively, or even mostly, from Fair Use disputes. And 25-30 complaints a week? Something tells me many of those complaints have to do with people disliking, say, the particular photo used rather than legally challenging the Fair Use basis. That is, they're using a lawyer to get a more flattering picture in here, or to shoot down a critical excerpt not because it's really against Fair Use but because it's critical... So, my plea remains: has Wikimedia weathered even one serious legal threat arising from Fair Use? Realistically, we're probably folding to FU challenges 2 or 3 times a month. Does that justify the deletion craze going on now that's alienating so many contributors? JDG 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The lawsuit-lilelyhood argument should really not be taken into account when deciding either or no to use an "fair use image". For the record, the number one most court-safe licensing scheme for an image to be used on Wikipedia would be the "written permission to use on Wikipedia", but this is one of the licensings that we completly object. This is really not about the courts, fellows, it's about gathering reusable (free) content. --Abu Badali 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing concrete, no, but the impression I get from stray comments during things like the arguments over the crosstar image or WP:OFFICE is that it happens a lot, and is usually handled quietly enough that nobody pays much attention. This might be text, images, and WP:BLP combined, though. --Carnildo 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"Who says it's "a free-content encyclopedia"?" Jimbo Wales --Daduzi talk 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that we shouldn't be quite so afraid of fair use images. Fair use images enhance the usability of this project, which is our main goal - making a great encyclopedia. Worrying too much about the people who will reuse this content has become a distraction. If they need to remove fair use images to reuse our content, they can do so. We should focus on our main goal of making a great encyclopedia, and intelligent, legal use of fair use images helps with that tremendousely. Johntex\talk 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -- ReyBrujo 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia being free content encyclopedia is a core philiosophy of the project, which fair use challenges. As a resource, FU images rarely add anything. They might make articles look pretty, but don't enhance encylopaedic content. Fair use is largely about educational use. "So we know what x celebrity looks like" is a very liberal interpretation of education. We should indeed strive for quality: but quality for what we made, not for snatching things from Google Image Search. In terms of "usability": I'm not particularly interested in catering for illiterate morons who get intimidated by more than a paragraph of text without a pretty picture of their favourite celeb to look at. The JPStalk to me 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use doesn't necessarily challenge freedom. It is itself a form of freedom, a loophole in copyright law that reduces the amount of control that copyright holders have. On the "enhancement" aspect; I think there's something of a gulf of importance/safety. On the one hand, many images which add very little to the encyclopedia (CD covers, magazine covers, etc.) are legally pretty safe. On the other, images which add a lot encyclopedia (showing the Newsweek/TIME OJ Simpson covers side by side and other places where the image is closely wedded to analysis in the text) are also legally safe. In between these two poles are images which aren't completely superfluous but aren't necessarily very safe—usually images used "for identification". In any case, I'm not sure why there is an outpouring of people admonishing us to build a free encyclopedia over the last few days. Nobody is really arguing to the contrary, there is just an open debate over whether or not "fair use" impedes freedom or not. I think there are arguments on both sides of it. I don't think referring to people who think illustrated articles are better than unillustrated ones as "illiterate morons" helps anything, though. --Fastfission 17:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Logos again/still

What if there is no free content available for that image, as is the case for all logos that are trademarked and therefore copyrighted? Most, if not all, of these images aren't from Google Image search. --MECUtalk 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Other people will be able to discuss logos, as they are not my specialism. I mainly look at the fanboy celeb stuff. But, at the end of the day, logos don't actually educate either. The JPStalk to me 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's say someone finds a product with the logo of a corporation on it and has a single word. They type that single word in, end up here looking at a corporation page that has that logo and they learn that all about that corporation. Without that use of the logo, they would not have known for sure it was that corporation. That is education. Just one of many possible examples. --MECUtalk 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Which the external link{s} would do anyway. I'm not overly convinced by that example. The JPStalk to me 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Has there been serious discussion about removing logos from the articles about the organisations that the logos represent? Jkelly 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
(no, but there is suggestion that logos don't "educate" above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justforasecond (talkcontribs) 00:07, 5 August 2006
Actually, yes, in the sense that people are wanting to remove the logos from related articles. The article on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team is every bit as much about that sports team as Colorado Buffaloes is. The logo belongs on both articles, not just the second. The fact that we organize our logos into bite size chunks is irrelevant to whether the logo is appropriate. The logo is appropriate in both cases. Johntex\talk 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Some admins have gone rabid. I put a little democrat donkey logo in democratic presidents infoboxes right next to the word "democrat" -- someone went and deleted them. Is this logo trademarked? Not so far as I can tell. Copyrighted? Umm. no. If it were a trademark would fair use apply? Yes, we are referring to the Democrats right next to the logo. Does having the image in wiki damage the Democrats? No. Are we stealing or trying to steal away profits from the Democrats? No. Are we serving the public interest? Yes. Is this a violation of fair use...would the Democrats come along and sue wikimedia...would any court in the country distribute damages for such use if the owner never didn't give wiki a chance to remove it? No, no, and no. Is there any more possibility that anyone could take this logo, from an article about a President and use it illegally that would end up getting wikimedia sued by the democrats and the case not thrown out of court, than there is possibility that someone could take this logo from an article about the Democrats themselves? Absolutely not. So please, lay off deletions. Justforasecond 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images can't be used in templates. It is in the policy. -- ReyBrujo 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Logos are almost always under copyright. Saying that we can get away with unauthorized use of images under copyright because the copyright holders don't care is like saying it's OK to steal candy from a store because the owner won't notice. And if Wikipedia displays a pattern of repeatedly using copyrighted images until asked to not do so, the courts would quickly lose sympathy for us. Look up 'scofflaw.' -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Logos in articles on the relivant company are probably fine. Anywhere else less so and risks bring up trademark law as well as copyright. Thus in order to keep things simple as well as keeping our fair use policy simple fair use images are resticted to the article namespace.Geni 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One trouble with that reasoning is that, as we grow, we have multiple articles on related topics. The logo can be equally appropriate on each of them. Please see above for my example relating to the Colorado Buffaloes. Johntex\talk 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content

This is one of our founding principles. And it means free as in speech, not free as in beer (see gratis versus libre). The number of Wikipedians (including some administrators) who think that fair use anywhere is okay because it's gratis is alarming. More alarming is that they think by getting together and holding straw polls every few days, where they express their disgust at the images they spent so long downloading from other sites and uploading here have been deleted, that they will actually change one of Wikipedia's five pillars. While it might be nice to have a project that occasionally expressed a point of view, contained non-encyclopaedic material, or didn't care about unfree material until it received C&D notices, Wikipedia is not that project. The great thing about Wikipedia being free (libre) is that are more that welcome to take our material and fork off into your own project, but unless Jimbo and the board sell their souls to the devil, and suddenly decide they don't really care about the free software movement anymore (this will probably be accompanied by hell freezing over, and a few blue moons), Wikipedia will keep heavily restricting Fair Use. ed g2stalk 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you seems to be mostly, if not totally, incorrect about your assumptions on why people don't agree with you. No one is disagreeing with the five pillars, or the importance of keeping Wikipedia free. What you think that they think is.. not true. Sorry. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the basic arguments here against is that it's more important to have Wikipedia record everything, than be free - which is simply wrong. ed g2stalk 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks clear from the context of the quote in your subject header that text is being referred to in Pillar 3, not images:
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.
What has this got to do with fair use images please?--luke 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No, our freeness refers to text and images "works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL". ed g2stalk 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry ed you are wrong. People understand what wiki is about, they just don't agree with overzealous image deletion. And btw, wiki is both "free" & "free". Case in point: I haven't paid a penny to use it. Justforasecond 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually while being "libre" is an essential part of Wikipedia policy, indeed it's a (probably the) founding principle Wikipedia is not necessarily "gratis". While wikipedia on Wikimedia servers is free, the GFDL license does not rule out other providers charging for use. While it would almost certainly be suicidal for any online provider to charge (since the free content is so readily available) distrubtors through other media (CDs, say) could charge, and in fact this is one of the key reasons why non-commercial licenses are prohibited, as commercial companies could well end up providing Wikipedia to people who otherise would be unable to access it (in areas with very poor internet coverage, for instance). In other words while this instance of Wikipedia is both libre and gratis, other instances are only bound by the principle that they must be libre, not necessarily gratis. --Daduzi talk 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
ed, Jimbo has himself said many times over that it is up to re-users to strip out fair use content if their own re-use would not work with it or if they are not in a jurisdiction which has it. What bothers me is when people with a limited understanding of "fair use" use it as a way to badger other users or to delete things unnecessarily. Obviously we should strive to be as libre as possible and our policies are set up to favor that. Our use of "fair use" does not necessarily impede that goal at all, especially when most of the "fair use" claims are relatively benign (i.e. covers of CDs and things like that, which nobody is going to sue over). --Fastfission 17:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Cover art are specially detrimental to Wikipedia's mission to be free when they are used for identification of the person depicted, on biographical articles. It's not uncommon to see biographical articles being changed to fit some image use, directly compromising the article's text, where the actual importance of a specific magazine cover or screeshot will be magnified on the text just becuse it happend to be the first image found on google. --Abu Badali 18:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
More likely it is because there is no free image available. I know its a badge of honor among a certain circle or literati to shun visuals and use only text ("great books" never have pictures, right?) but the other six billion people on the planet think images actually improve articles. Justforasecond 18:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
By the time someone's biographical article is created, there's probably no free biographical text available for this person, but this do not stop us to produce the article. The same reasoning should be used to images. We shouldn't simply ask "there is a free image available for this person?" but "Is it possible to someone produce a free image for this person?". --Abu Badali 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Identikits? There is a newspaper in Argentina that uses drawings instead of famous people's pictures :-) -- ReyBrujo 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has made his opinion on this matter quite clear, and I have nothing to add that he hasn't said. While he states that it is "not (yet)" policy, you should not take the significance of the "yet" lightly, as he is no stranger to dictating image use policy. ed g2stalk 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed that link says nothing of the sort that you've been saying here -- i.e., it has nothing about "libre" vs "gratis". The overzealous ripping out of images is damaging wiki. Fair use images are barely different than fair use text, which doesn't get nearly the attention. Blocks of quoted text, lines from movies and songs, titles and track listings, all of these are copyrighted material that is "fair" to use for certain purposes, but I don't see rabid bots hunting these down and removing them. The dialogue here indicates some editors think images don't add value and I just don't get it. Justforasecond 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The link was about bio articles, which was what was being discussed in the above comments - if you had read them. Fair use text is (or at least, should be) used to provide critical commentary, i.e. where the quote is of direct relevance to the text (generally this is how people use quotes). I have seen large "Quotes" sections deleted, similar to how galleries of fair use images are deleted, but generally people use quotes sensibly.
"The overzealous ripping out of images is damaging wiki" - that's if you consider a wiki without fair use damaged. The German wikipedia is just as successful as ours, and it doesn't use a single fair use image. Also, by having fewer images, German users have a greater incentive to source free ones. ed g2stalk 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, blocks are removed -- when they are unreasonably long. This is done on a case-by-case basis. In contrast the fair use image police are much more zealous. In any case, an encyclopedia with fairly used content (images and actual quotes) is superior to an encyclopedia without them. Justforasecond 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we not go down the German route? The German wikipedia does not have fair use images for legal reasons, we simply cannot say there wouldn't be fair use images were German law different. Fair use images are here to stay (on and there's perfectly valid arguments against their overuse that can be made without bringing the Germans into things. Arguments should be made within the boundaries of the fair use policy we have here rather than expanding the scope to whether fair use images are needed at all. --Daduzi talk 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should not be too afraid of appropriate use of images under fair use. Using fair use images is completely consistent with the GFDL. We should use fair use images where they enhance our project. If re-users of our content need to remove the images in order to re-use our work for commercial purposes, then they can do the work to remove those images. We should concentrate on making our work the best it can be, and that includes appropriate use of fair use images. Johntex\talk 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

'Fair use images' vs. 'fair use' of images

I see a problem in all this use of the term 'fair use images', which I think is misleading many editors. There is no such thing as a 'fair use image'. The law provides for 'fair use' of images. An unfree image may be used without license for certain stated purposes in a particular context. Just because use of an image in one context meets the 'fair use' criteria does not mean that the image may be used anywhere else. The justification for using an image under the 'fair use' criteris must be made separately each time the image is used. While Wikipedia may be able to forestall legal actions by taking down an occasional unfree image that slipped through the cracks, any evidence of deliberate flouting of copyright law may result in vigorous legal pursuit of Wikipedia. If you want to test the limits of copyright law, do it on your own nickle, not on Wikipedia's. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Usually when someone says "fair use image" on here they just mean it to be shorthand for "an image uploaded to a Wikimedia server which is not free and as such can only exist on them safely if it satisfies the 'fair use' clause of U.S. copyright law." As for the rest of it, yes, that's what the page currently says, I believe. --Fastfission 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that if no "injury" (say significant harm in financial or any other way) is caused to the copyright owner by its use anywhere, then it is a fair use image ....Counterexamples in case law please?--luke 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The fourth criteria is only used after its fair use criteria is established, to determine if excessive damages should be awarded. There are plenty of examples of this, see the Stanford Fair Use Center website for some of them. --Fastfission 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The fourth criterion is used during the fair-use determination, not after. Literally any fair-use case after the codification of the four criteria in the Copyright Act of 1976 will explicitly consider all four factors before arriving at a decision. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I have read, in the courts it generally becomes relevant only after the first three. The reasoning is because potential loss due to infringement is only really relevant if it is infringement, which is exactly what the fair use determination is all about. See this page for a concise explanation. Now personally I think from a practical point of view it is the one which is most likely to make someone want to sue you in the first place, so it is worth avoiding, but that is a practical, not a legal, view of it. --Fastfission 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's always treated after the first three, because that's the order they're laid down in in the statute. It's always treated before a decision as to the legitimacy of the fair use claim is reached. I'm serious, any case after 1978 will follow this pattern. Take this as an example, say. (2)(d) is "Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market for and Value of the Copyrighted Work", while (2)(e) is "Conclusion Regarding Fair Use and Direct Infringement". And the wording in the latter is "The first, second, and fourth fair use factors weigh slightly in favor of P10. The third weighs in neither party’s favor. Accordingly, the Court concludes that [the infringements] likely do not fall within the fair use exception." (emphasis added) This will be true in every fair-use case: the fourth factor affects whether the fair-use claim is valid in the first place, not just whether and what damages are awarded. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Direct injury obviously never occurs in copyright cases; rather, there's indirect injury caused by loss of marketability. There are many cases where there was no harm to the copyright holder other than the fact that the user didn't pay licensing fees. Steinberg v. Columbia and Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, for instance, are two cases where the use in question didn't actually compete with any of the copyright holder's works, but which were decided in favor of the plaintiff. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Single Page from a Public Domain Book: Fair Use?

I would like to enhance the Stephanus pagination article with an image showing what a page from Henri Estienne's 1578 (obviously public domain!) edition of Plato actually looks like. This is not likely ever to happen if it means finding a rare books library that holds this edition and is willing to subject a volume to scanning. However, the image I want is out there on the web ([7], part of this page). Every fiber of my being says that a single sample-page image from a 16th c. book should qualify for fair use. Is it acceptable to upload this image to Wikipedia? If so, how should it be tagged? Wareh 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's even better than fair use: it's in the public domain (scans of public domain images are still public domain). Use the {{PD-Art}} tag. --Fastfission 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Download the image. Crop out everything but the top page from the image. It is now a two-dimensional scan of material in the public domain. Our template for that is {{PD-art}}. Jkelly 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
None of the extra content in those scans are anything which would count as creative, I don't think the cropping is necessary. --Fastfission 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The tag is specifically for 2d recreations. The book part is 3d so they could claim it is a creative photo of it, best just to crop. ed g2stalk 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, this strikes me as some pretty useless nitpicking. You can see some of the edge of the book in the photo. Whoop-dee-do. It's still 2-D in my book, unless you're positing the edge of the book and its inclusion would be interpretted as creative content. --Fastfission 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
My recommendation was based solely on what I understand best practice to be. If we need to show the sides of the other pages and edge of the book, one should make a {{PD-ineligible}} claim on it, I suppose. And, yes, this is nitpicking, but what is the gain for us in not going to extra effort? Jkelly 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick advice. To be safe, I've cropped the image to be 2-D. My next project is a similar sample page at Bekker numbers. This is a book published 1831-1870, so it is public domain, and the editor died in 1871. So I will use PD-Art again. In any case, I will be making my own scan from a library copy of this one. Wareh 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you make your own scan you don't have to worry about anything. PD-Art is for when the work is public domain but the person who made the copy hasn't freely licensed their contribution to it. ed g2stalk 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Apparently the tag is not working with categories (in example, Category:Pokémon images, Category:Ayumi Hamasaki DVD releases, etc). Anyone can check this out? Was this expected? -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I reported it on bugzilla a day or two ago[8]. It is still working on commons (commons:Category:English_pronunciation), so I assume it is something in a new release that has broken it. ed g2stalk 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues, for example I've worked on deleting images from one of the orphanded fair use subcats that had nogallery added, but after deleting a few dozen I reloaded the category and the thumbnails where showing, I checked the source and the nogallery tag was still there. Doing an action=purge on the category caused the nogallery tag to kick in again, not sure what the problem is, paging though the category tend to cause the thumnails to appear too. --Sherool (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Application of fair-use policy to other unfree images

The fair-use policy includes, for example, the statement that "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace." Does this apply to other unfree images, such as noncommercial-only images that were uploaded before May 2005? —Bkell (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no straight legal reason why it should. However it is probably better practice to not use non-commercial images in templates, since that will likely increase their use, and we have explicit directions to try and reduce their use. --Fastfission 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A non-commerical license is not a valid reason to use an image on Wikipedia, in fact, it's a criteria for speedy deletion. The only way such images can be used is under Fair Use, so on the article namespace only. ed g2stalk 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's only a criterion for speedy deletion if the image was uploaded after 19 May 2005, which is why I included that little clause in my original post (see CSD I3). The instance I have in mind is Image:US PA PHIL.JPG, which is under a noncommercial-only license, was uploaded on 29 March 2005, and is used all over the place. —Bkell (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be either IFDd or just relicensed as fair use. Noncommercial images from before that date can't be speedied, but they're supposed to be systematically deleted according to process. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I was the one who tagged that image for non-commercial use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Logos, resolved

Per this ruling I suggest we add relevant points to Wikipedia:Logos, an possibly Wikipedia:Fair Use. Something along the lines of:

"Collections of copyrighted logos should not be displayed together on one page in galleries or lists".

ed g2stalk 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a talk page, ed. Justforasecond 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I agree that logos do not belong in galleries. But in articles where the team is receiving a critical commentary, they should be allowed. Such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team.--NMajdantalk 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We are no longer debating this issue - if you want to discuss it more, do so at that page, but that ruling is now official policy, regardless of which page it appears on. The discussion here is how to phrase it for inclusion on the policy pages, which are descriptive. ed g2stalk 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed, that was just a talk page message, not an "official policy". Justforasecond 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I dispute that Kelly Martin has the authority to unilaterally decide this issue. Last I checked, Kelly is not an arbitrator and doesn't have a seat on the Foundation Board or any other special qualifications to determine this issue. I have posted a note on Kelly's page asking for clarification on this matter.
Second, scanning the conference schedule for Wikimania, I see no talks on logos, fair use, or anything else that appears relevant to this discussion. Did Kelley have some hallway or late-night-bar chat session about this, and if so, what would make that more relevant than any similar discussion held by any other gathering of Wikipedians?
Third, even Kelly's edict supposedly applies only to galleries, not occassions where there is critical commentary related to the team represented by the logo. Johntex\talk 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's probably this one: . Do you really think Kelly is lying about this workshop having taken place? ed g2stalk 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not assigning any certification of truthfulness or lack there-of. I am asking for data and for clarification. Johntex\talk 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Kelly did not say that she was doing this with anyone else's authority. Based on her past actions and the wording of her statement, it's likely (borderline certain, in fact) that she's just IARing. I would have much preferred Jimbo or Brad to have made this statement, personally; her declaring this without their explicit support is potentially a recipe for chaos, since multiple admins oppose it. As always, I strongly disagree with Kelly's methodology even if I may agree with her goals. I will not be participating in any of the inevitable revert wars. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is now Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. Johntex\talk 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not joining the RFC, but from reading WP:BP#Copyright_infringement_and_plagiarism, could Kelly be going off and extending this to the logos? BTW, I would personally not block over something as this, since this is a content issue and the editors who want this is are not the uploaders most of the time, and the burden of our uploaded images should be on the uploader, not us. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify that statement, please? I'm understanding you to say that the uploader of an image should be held responsible for the image's misuse by other editors. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
First, the uploader is mainly responsible for getting the license right. Then, while the editors should use the images correctly, they should not be blocked for just using logos on articles or galleries. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The uploader is given the task of justifying the uploading and first usage of an image under Fair use. Editors adding the image to other purposes besides the original's one are then charged with the same responsability. That is why the Fair use rationale is so important, something many just forget. In fact, any Fair use image being used without justifying it with a fair use rationale should be tagged with {{No rationale}}. -- ReyBrujo 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes! My new mantra, there is no such thing as a 'fair use' image; there are only images that have a 'fair use' in a specific context. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think I refer to them as "unlicensed media" instead of the misleading term "fair use images"? Repeat after me, class: "fair use is not a license". Kelly Martin (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I definitely would block over repeated violations of any policy, especially ones involving copyright. The difference between a guideline and a policy is that violating a guideline makes sense once in a blue moon (and certainly isn't grounds for blocking, even if it makes no sense) but violating a policy without community consensus is never acceptable. This especially applies when the violation is clear-cut; I have been reluctant to warn or block in debatable cases (contrary to the advice of some arbitrators, on occasion) but nobody should ever shirk from blocking over a clear-cut case. (I recently strongly warned one editor who was incessantly reverting removals of fair use images violating criterion 9 of fair use policy.) Those directly responsible for the use of an image should be held accountable, and this includes editors who refuse to comply with policy. (In the first place, an image can be fair use in one article and not fair use in another.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blender tutorial

I am working on the Blender Tutorial WIkibook. I wanted to use some images as references in a tutorial. The images are copyrighted but I believe that they fall under the fair use guidelines in this situation. This is what it says on the website:

"Legal Stuff:

Star Trek, Starfleet, The United Federation of Planets, and ALL related marks are trademarks of Paramount Pictures and ViaCom Productions. All rights reserved. All other trademarks and copyrights are properties of their respective owners. Screen shots and product logos can be used for limited, non-profit, educational and personal web page use in accordance with "Fair Use" guidelines. This use requires all copyrights be clearly maintained by all web page developers and must be reflected in their respective web page material."

Am I right? Can I use them?

It really depends how you are going to use them and what types of images they are, something we can't tell from your description up above. If you are invoking fair use then it does not matter what their licensing terms are since you are going to be claiming you have rights outside of the license. --Fastfission 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to use schematic drawings of StarTrek spacecrafts. They are ideal because they are clear and accurate views of one object from multiple angles. The Blender users will be using them in the tutorial to create a 3D version of the drawings. The use of the drawings is ment to exist only within the context of the tutorial.
Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information prohibits tutorials in Wikipedia. You can see if WikiBooks will take your tutorial, but the images will still be a problem. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
He said he was working on the Blender Tutorial Wikibook, so I assume he realizes this.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Use of the images would almost certainly not be fair use. Find schematic drawings of an uncopyrighted three-dimensional work instead; some are out there, if you look. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
yea, I had pretty much given up on the images I had. I will look for some more. Thanks for the advice.

"Most popular non-English Wikipedias do not permit unfree images at all"

Hi, sorry for the slightly off-topic question. We have a policy debate (again) about non-free images in HuWiki and I'd like to know which major Wikipedias permit fair use images. I thought that only the German Wikipedia could resist the temptation. :)

Thanks, nyenyec  15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that pt does not use them. --Abu Badali 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
...and es: doesn't use them, although has some grandfathered in. See es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo for details on es. There's a list on meta somewhere about which projects allow claims of "fair use". Jkelly 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That list is here. meta:Fair use. Garion96 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairuse and fan art...

What is the status of using fan art to illustrate a wikipedia article? (Editors claim parody, FU, and copyright holder apathy to fanart.) What is the status of using fan art to illustrate an article that is about a work of fanfiction? (I'd try to have it deleted, but it likely wouldn't pass:it's a "webcomic". The images have been deleted several times by admins, but the editors keep re-adding.) --Kunzite 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not allowed. Fan art is generally either a derivative work of the original and thus a copyvio, or original research. --Carnildo 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this stated specifically anywhere that we cannot use derivative works? --Kunzite 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but for our purposes, fanart is a copyright violation of the original work. Fanartists can attempt to justify their works under the "parody" protections of fair use law, but Wikipedia can't claim parody and still remain an encyclopedia. --Carnildo 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That something is an unauthorized derivative work doesn't mean it's ineligible for fair use. If a piece of fanart were genuinely important to an article, it could be fair use with all the usual provisos (low resolution, etc., etc.). If we're using it for "purposes such as . . . news reporting" (e.g., writing an encyclopedia), and we're commenting on the work itself, and we use as little as possible to make our point, then it's likely to be fair use for us even if it's not fair use for the one who actually made the fanart. This is because fair use is determined per use, not per work.

However, it is important to note that fanart can never be free. That's a misconception that many have. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a rare enough case that I try not to confuse people with it. Right off-hand, I can't think of a single work of fanart that's notable enough, with the possible exception of some doujinshi manga. --Carnildo 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A question about fair use of screenshots

Ok, I realize this is pretty basic question, but I'm having trouble figuring this out. Hopefully someone can help my clarify this.

My understanding is (or was) that screenshots are supposed to be used only when there's a sufficient amount of critical commentary about the image in question in the article, or for identification, if it's identifying the subject of the article. This is pretty clear-cut (in my mind anyway) when we're talking about, say, the use of an image from a film in an article about that film. But recently, I've been working on an article about a person involved in television. I actually haven't added any images to the article -- there were a few there when I got there -- and I've even removed a few on the grounds that they seemed like they were being used for decoration. Now another editor has come along a pulled all the screenshots from the article. I'm not hugely into images, but I'd like to know for future reference what the rule is about screenshots in articles about people. My interpretation was that it was okay to use, for example, an image that represents a significant performance by an actor that is a landmark of his or her career, provided you're actually discussing that work in a significant way. Is that incorrect? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Could you link us to the article in question? Johnleemk | Talk 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The mystery article is actually Stephen Colbert... compare versions here [9] and here [10] if you'd like. Actually, now that I'm looking, some these were uploaded without fair use rationales. If that's the problem, that's easy to fix. I'm not really that concerned by this, and the last two images on the page are ones that seem to me like they may not have enough commentary (the Mr. Goodwrench and "other roles" images), but regardlless, I would like to have a firmer understanding of what's fair-usable in cases similar to this. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If they have no fair use rationales and were uploaded recently (I'm not sure about the specifics off the top of my head), they can't be used. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added rationale for the Daily Show screen; and there appears to already be one for the Colbert Report screen. The impression I got from the edit summary of the removing editor, though, was that the problem was that the use of the image wasn't acceptable in this context at all, which puzzled me. Can you look at these two images now (with rationale), and tell me if they're okay to use? You can use this version [[11] of the article for reference, although I'm only concerned about the Daily Show/ Colbert Report screenshots. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I personally think those screenshots are fine, the issue might be that the article never mentions Colbert's role as a "Senior Washington Correspondent" (although this is the how he is depicted in the screencap from TDS) or the "On Notice" board, which is depicted in The Colbert Report screencap. Maybe by adding a sentence or two on these (having seen Colbert on TDS a number of times, I'm sure one could easily expand on his role as a correspondent there), the issue would be resolved. It wouldn't hurt. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I've been intending to expand both of these a bit anyway, so that seem like the best way to approach this. Thank you. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)