File talk:Blog for America screenshot - December 25, 2003.png

About the replaceable fair use dispute

When looking for some content originally, I turned to the more detailed articles already available both on the campaign page and actual blog page. The former had a nice description of the bat and an example image, but I still felt an image of the overall layout and design would be helpful. At the very least I don't see why it couldn't go on the blog wiki article. Being relatively new as an editor, I have seen plenty of website screenshots on articles for sites like Facebook and the Wayback Machine itself. The former has an image of a login page which doesn't seem all particularly unique. And for the Google article there seem to be old and new screenshots of what is likely the easiest page in the world to describe in text. So if the problem for this image is one of "can be conveyed by text alone" I'm having trouble seeing the difference, and would really like to get a better understanding. Is it (relative) notability? Is it that this image isn't being used on the actual blog article?

Jakgberg, it is much easier to pursue a fair-use claim in an article about the website itself, - like the main articles on Facebook, Wayback Machine and indeed Blog for America - when the screenshot is used at the top of the article as a means of identifying the topic. As opposed to when including the screenshot in some other article where it is supposedly an object of commentary. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. There's much more to this but that's the short answer. By all means, include the screenshot on the article Blog for America, but anything other than that is a stretch. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it, makes total sense. It was the conveyable-by-text part that confused me. That blog article probably needs some cleaning up anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakgberg (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)