Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Defining borderline case

Image:10040550.jpg, a promotional photo from All in the Family is used, in addition to All in the Family, in the article 1970s. There is some discussion and commentary with regards to the show's iconic reflection of this decade. However, when conferring with the section Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images I would conjecture a stark contrast with the spirit of the descriptive passage on photographs of art works (there is no mention for screenshots that could help settle the inquiry): "Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Had this passage read "...illustrative of a particular technique, school or period", howeverm I would have surmised a stark parallell instead.

Am I correct in perceiving here where the line is drawn, i.e. had the promo image from the TV series instead been a work of art of a style that was prominent in that period, it would not pass the Fair Use test? Otherwise, should the cited text be appended as I indicate above? __meco 17:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If a work can be dated to a period by visual inspection, that implies that there was some technique/school/style that was prevalent in the period, and that the image could be used as illustration of that technique/school/style. However, typically something used as fair use as illustration of a technique/school/style should only be used in an article discussing the technique/school/style; are you going to add a discussion about the period's style to the show's article? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I found it difficult putting this issue into words, and I realize I haven't succeeded in making my point. All the more since noone else has addressed my question either. It's about illustrating social trends of a time period – in this case the 1970s – using a Fair Use image from a television show that was iconic to the zeitgeist of that decade. I will try and elaborate more if need be. __meco 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Although this inquiry did not trigger a discussion of the Fair use principles and how they are applied, I have in another discussion on this page aired the opinion that our criteria are opaque, even ambiguous, and I intend to make an attempt at clarification. __meco 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Resuscitation attempt

Short version: Does Image:10040550.jpg qualify as Fair Use on this page: 1970s ? __meco 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be not. All in the Family was important in the 1970s, this image was not. The image just illustrates the mention to All in the Family, i.e., a decorative use.--Abu Badali 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rights given

If I contacted a company and asked them for permission to use images of their products on Wikipedia. Got them to fax me a letter stating that they don't mind, but in fact welcome the use of their promotional pictures. Would that be against the rules of fair use? Or would it break some other policy like original research? Or would the images have to be released under some licence? Same goes for screenshots of their product in action (like games and computer software). Havok (T/C/c) 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe they have to licence their images under a free licence, then we will no longer need to claim fair use. Wikipedia-only permission is not acceptable, as this project wants to be forkable. --Abu Badali 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start if you contemplate asking someone for permission to use their material on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission. __meco 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission is that it askes for them to release it under GNU, which will most likely never happen. And fair use being so strict as to not allow the use of screenshots and images of products that the company wants people to use in describing, showing off and in other ways promote their product is strange. Yes, I do understand the legality and reasoning behind the current policy, but there should be some sort of compromise. For example, when no free image can be obtained (as is the case for screenshots). I guess we chould take a photo of our monitor showing of a game, but that would be rather silly. :P Havok (T/C/c) 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with getting people's permission to use the image (see {{withpermission}}) however it doesn't change much. The image is still unfree as long as they just gave permission to use it, so it must still be used in acordance with Wikipedia fair use policy. We can not use images based on {{permission}} to use alone. It's not so much about about wether or not they mind us using the image as it is about wether or not they agree to let anyone use, modify and sell the image. Oh and taking a photo of the screen changes nothing, if the copyrighted game content is a prominent part of the photo it's still just a copy of copyrighted content, same as a regular screenshot, just of poorer quality. --Sherool (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, I do understand the legality and reasoning behind the current policy, but there should be some sort of compromise." Actually, current policy is the compromise. Other languages' Wikipedias don't have any "fair use" provision at all and only free images are allowed. English Wikipedia might have gone that way, but instead it was decided to allow fair-use images under very strict conditions as a compromise. User:Angr 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Oh and taking a photo of the screen changes nothing, if the copyrighted game content is a prominent part of the photo it's still just a copy of copyrighted content" Does the same apply to hardware? I've taken a photo of the Nintendo DS Lite and released it under CC 2.5. Am I allowed to do that? And why wouldn't the same apply for pictures taken of my PC monitor playing X game? Havok (T/C/c) 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I may well be mistaken) the difference is between a two-dimensional object like a screen display and a three-dimensional object like the Nintendo thing. A photograph of a copyrighted two-dimensional object is considered a faithful copy of it and therefore is not a new work but instead is subject to the same copyright as the original, while a two-dimensional photograph of a three-dimensional object is not a faithful copy and so the photographer can license the photograph however he likes. User:Angr 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone could confirm this I would be greatful. I just don't understand the problem with using screenshots of games as they are in effect only representing a static image of what the game is. And if we want to use them, they need to have some sort of critical commentary, which is even more absured. Please enlighten me, as the fair use page is very sketchy on this, and could be interpreted many ways by different people. Havok (T/C/c) 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are in fact mistaken. If there is no creativity in creating a work, it's not subject to independent copyright; even if it is subject to copyright, that doesn't eliminate restrictions on derivative works. The fact that a screenshot of a game is two-dimensional is irrelevant, because there's still usually creativity involved in choosing where to take it: there's a fantastically large heap of possibilities that often (with today's 3D games) involve all the creative aspects of taking a photograph and then some.

The reason that you own full rights to images of your hardware is because there, the underlying object isn't itself sufficiently creative to merit copyright. Hardware is typically designed in a pretty functional manner. There are, however, grey areas; if your hardware contains a graphical logo, and the logo is the main point of the picture, then it may have to be fair use. Where exactly to draw the line is hard to say; it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that your Nintendo DS image can probably be assumed free. See Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. 39ff. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirm what exactly? ed g2s • talk 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read Angr's comment and then mine, I want comfirmation on what he said about 2D and 3D objects when taking a picture. Havok (T/C/c) 11:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. It's a bit of a grey area, but he's pretty much right. Taking a photo of a screen would be no better than a real screenshot, and usually a photo of a 3D object is considered an original work. ed g2s • talk 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a photo of a 3D object is certainly a copyrightable work in almost all cases, but it may nevertheless be a derivative work and thus unfree, even if its creator makes his contributions to it free. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of fair use screenshots per article

Hi --hoping someone can help me clarify something. I can't find anything directly addressing this, but on the upload page for images, I see that the fair use rationale for screenshots is listed as "Screenshots (one per arcticle)". Is this a still a valid part of our fair use practices? I thought it was, but then, I can't seem to find it anywhere else. Am I missing something? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a hard-and-fast rule. However, the quantity of fair-use work should always be kept to the minimum possible for you to make whatever point you're making (identification, criticism, etc.). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

TV/Music Vid screenshots?

Two questions; I find a lot of TV screenshots with the film copyright box - was the tv box added later and these images are older, or were they just misclassified?

My main question is regarding music videos. The fair use copyright for music videos says: "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question" while the use for film/tv says: "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents"

Someone deleted a music video screenshot from an article I keep my eye which is an article on a person who appears in the video (a band member); they did so on the basis that the article is not about the video (and thus does not ID or comment on the video); Now, I know there are thousands of screenshots on wiki for TV characters and Movie characters that use tv/film screenshots, so my question is whether there is a legal difference that would allow this for TV/Film but not for music videos; I'm not sure if the "and its contents" at the end of the film tag means anything in this case, but if there's no legal difference, perhaps "and its contents" should be added to the music video template as well? Either way; I'd like to hear opinion on whether there is a legitimate case for taking down music vid images. (which are just as publicly displayed on TV as other TV shows, right?). Thanks TheHYPO 19:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the image is not being discussed it shouldn't be on the page. Being "publicly displayed on TV" has no bearing on its copyright status. ed g2s • talk 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My point with the displaying on TV comment is that it should therefore have the same criteria as a TV show screencap, which are often used to discuss actors and characters, but not necessarily the show itself... TheHYPO 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They are, but they shouldn't be (in most cases). ed g2s • talk 20:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Characters too? I see where this makes sense regarding actors (since the film/show/etc is not the main point of the article). But I'm curious about the application of this to articles about characters who exclusively occur, for example, in a certain film. Isn't it fair to consider the character to be an element of the film? I assume that if I were writing an article about Citizen Kane, for example, I could use a screenshot from that movie, and if I were writing an article called, say, "Cinematography in Citizen Kane", I could still use the same image because the film's cinematography is still part of the film. Would this suddenly change if I were writing an article about Charles Foster Kane, who only exists as an element of the film as well? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

An image will be allowed if it is used to illustrate a specific point within the text that couldn't be illustrated any other way. I believe the Citizen Kane examples you give would probably be allowed, provided there was significant discussion in each case. ed g2s • talk 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are scans of video game discs and carts fair use or free use?

I've seen cart scans tagged as being public domain with no qualm. I don't see any mention in any policy about what they qualify as. Can someone clarify and point me in any potentially right direction? --TJive 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, the art and design of a video game cartridge is copyrighted to one of the companies involved in its production. A simple reproduction, such as a scan, neither grants copyright to the scanner nor diminishes the original author's protection. Therefore, the scanner is not able to relicense or release the image to the public domain. All such scans should include a fair use tag and rationale, though I don't doubt that we have many mislabeled instances. ×Meegs 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't locate any scans that I might have seen, but there are two instances of carts being reproduced that I can easily relocate. One is a picture of the system with the cart inside. The other is said to be a picture of a cartridge but is very nearly the same as a direct scan. They are very clearly derivative. Does the distinction made justify the images being released into the public domain? I do not intend to raise any dispute with these users but am wondering about policy in this regard as I might have intentions for similar pictures or scans. It doesn't seem spelled out explicitly. --TJive 17:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Scans of video game discs and carts should be under fair use. However, there is no explicit rule surrounding this as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The first image is arguably free, on the logic of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy, but I wouldn't count on it (since the logo is displayed prominently and is much more creative than the label in that case). The second is pretty clearly not free. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scans of basically any media cover should be fair use when used in an article about that piece of media. Perhaps we could create a generic template for this sort of thing, for the rare things which fall outside the realm of album covers and the like. And no, scanning something along does not create any copyright claims (you can neither claim copyright to a scan nor claim that your scan is in the public domain). However the photograph of the console does have some "creative" elements (lighting, arrangement). The best way to label those sorts of things is to say that the artwork on the game shown is copyrighted (and definitely fair use in this context), and that the photograph of the console is public domain (or whatever). Things can have multiple copyright statuses. --Fastfission 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What defines promotional?

In order for an image to fulfill the {{promotional}} tag, does it have to be part of an explicitly marked press pack or are online publicity images acceptable? The particular case that's vexing me is the images on the FIFA photo gallery that could be very useful for articles about various FIFA officials (for example Sepp Blatter). Would it be acceptable to use these images for that purpose? --Daduzi ^talk 02:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional image without a source link

I'm having some problem with an issue directly linked to this question. The image Image:Allison_Janney.jpg shows a character of a cancelled TV show. According to the uploader (and I do not doubt his word), the image was taken from the now defunct website for the show. It's tagged as {{promotional}} but, without a verifiable source. I have marked the image as {{no source}} twice, and got reverted. Now I had put the image on ifd. Althoug I do not doubt this user's word when he says the image was taken from a defunct promotional website, and althoug I don't have an idea on where to find a valid image of a character of a defunct TV show to be used, I am very against the keeping of this image due to amount of FU abuse this move would allow.

Are we going to accept any (or most) image marked as {{promotional}} without a source? If we do not have a verifiable source, how can we tell promotional images from images intended for fee-based licensing, for instance? Are we going to allow this only for defunct tv shows? I believe that the {{promotional}} tag is already one of the most hard to verify. If we start oppening this kind of exceptions, FU abuse control would become even harder task to take than it already is. --Abu Badali 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How many obstacles and hoops are we going to make people jump over and through to allow fair use on Wikipedia? Are we going to delete all fair use images whose URLs are no longer valid? Since when does "verifiable" mean "trivially verifiable by only clicking a link"? One can probably verify this image comes from where the uploader says it does from by writing to NBC and asking them... or, with a little bit of effort, one can verify the source of this image by persuing the Internet Archive and finding the photo at http://web.archive.org/web/20010913011345/nbc.com/The_West_Wing/photo/20.html. And from there, one can find that the image still exists on nbc.com! DHowell 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with DHowell. If you see an image that states a source that seems plausible, I can't see any alternative to accepting it until sufficient evidence is raised to cast doubt on it. How else would any image that the uploader says he or she created be keepable? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

See Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists for a request for comment about the use of fair use images in lists. This RFC arose out of a dispute about the use of images on list of Lost episodes and has grown beyond that article to have broader significance for lists generally. Please join the discussion if you are interested in this issue. --bainer (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cover art - Is "critical commentary" necessary?

The policy page says that cover art may be used "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)", but most cover art tags mention only "Illustration" (that I interpret as Idenficication). Is the policy statement on this page to narrow?

{{albumcover}} says: "solely to illustrate the album or single in question"
{{Boardgamecover}} says: "to illustrate the board game in question"
{{DVDcover}} says: "to illustrate the DVD in question"
{{Gamecover}} says: "to illustrate the packaging of the game in question"
some others....

This is probably just about wording. But take for instance the use of an Album cover image on an article's section that just lists (and do not discusses) the discography for some artist. The image is being used solely to illustrate the album or single in question (so, it's ok with the tag) but there's no critical commentary (so, not ok with policy). Am I missing something?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) .

It's probably easier to look at it from the other way. If unfree content is just being used for decoration, we really don't want to be republishing it. Lists (such as discographies), are a contentious issue. Jkelly 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the bar for critical commentary is pretty low — as long as it is not purely decorative and is plausibly encyclopedic I think it is probably safe. I waver when it comes to things like lists — in many cases I think it is probably fine anyway, since the use in the list is so different than the actual commercial usage of an album cover. --Fastfission 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is critical commentary described somewhere? I want to read up on it. And the only mention of critical commentary is under guidelines, which is in no way policy. Havok (T/C/c) 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the difference between policy and guideline was that guidelines could not be forced ;-) In any case, guidelines are as important as policies, as they focus on behaviour and presentation. Otherwise, we may as well begin bitting newcomers, in example. From what I understand, critical commentary is "left as an exercise to the reader". If you ask me, you fulfill that request when you discuss the image, being that why, how or when it was made, the reception, criticism and controversy it brought, the sequels or derivative work based on it, etc. Most times images are pasted just because there is a lot of text around. An example: pasting a screenshot of Chrono Trigger opening just because we are in the Gameplay section is not covered. However, explaining that the image shows a clock which is supposed to be a representation of the time travelling the game involves, that unofficial sequels like Chrono Cross start in the same way, that the opening music played during the credits section is considered between the most beautifuls ever created, etc (note that some sentences here may not be true, I am just adding them up to create a context), can be considered Fair use (at least, under my own interpretation of the criteria). So, basically, when the article or section describes the image, the image can be inserted. When the article or section does not make reference to the image, it cannot. -- ReyBrujo 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure whether there's broad-based consensus for that, although there may be. Arniep added it about eight months ago. Use of covers for identification alone is unlikely to violate fair use:

Appellant asserts that each reproduced image should have been accompanied by comment or criticism related to the artistic nature of the image. We disagree with Appellant’s limited interpretation of transformative use and we agree with the district court that DK’s actual use of each image is transformatively different from the original expressive purpose. . . . Originally, each of BGA’s images fulfilled the dual purposes of artistic expression and promotion. . . . In contrast, DK used each of BGA’s images as historical artifacts to document and represent the actual occurrence of Grateful Dead concert events featured on Illustrated Trip’s timeline.

(Bill Graham v. Dorling Kindserley, Second Circuit Court of Appeals.) I don't think there's any need to restrict ourselves beyond that here, personally. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To me it seems more and more like fair use is something that is interpreted from person to person. Havok (T/C/c) 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why our policy is not equivalent to fair use law, but our own strict interpretation of it based on our own needs (such as minimising unfree media). ed g2s • talk 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Game Covers, Screenshots and photos

Yet another topic. I've been researching a little, and came over this on Nintendo's Press site

"No trademark and/or copyright license (either express or implied) is granted to the recipient, provided, however, that the recipient may reproduce the Images without any alteration and solely for non-promotional, non-commercial and/or editorial purposes."

Would the images posted there go under "editor purpose" on Wikipedia, or does it not apply to us? Havok (T/C/c) 23:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion: I believe "editorial purposes" is basically "critical commentary". The FAQ states that they will never grant rights, although we may still be allowed under the relevant laws of the particular jurisdiction involved. (which I guess means Fair use). -- ReyBrujo 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a restrictive license is of no use to us and, as such, is (almost) completely irrelevant in evaluating a fair use claim. ed g2s • talk 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They're basically saying that they're down with a lot of use as "fair use", which is nice, but not necessary. --Fastfission 01:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NOGALLERY

I added the __NOGALLERY__ tag to the speedy deletion category, but was later reverted. Per a small discussion here, it seems it is useful not to use the tag in that category, to quickly differenciate attack images and to keep images separated from pages. Per the same discussion, shouldn't a category, list or template exist to categorize/include pages where the tag should not be applied? Categories existing in such list would be discussed somewhere (Village Pump maybe?) to see if they get consensus enough to become exceptions (as stated at FUC #9, Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia).

Note that I have added the tag to several other categories. If determined categories like Category:All images with unknown copyright status should not be tagged, it would be a good time to determine, before I continue tagging them. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a possibly a case for an exception for categories which list images that are being processed for deletion, but categories which list unfree images which we expect to keep should have to NOGALLERY keyword to comply with FUC#9. ed g2s • talk 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The galleries certainly made processing the daily no license/no source cats much easier, both for deleting similar images together and for rescuing easily rectified images (like album covers with missing info). ×Meegs 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will continue tagging article categories and leave these for now. Other reasons I decided to tag them was to actually speed up processing (as loading images is slower than getting the text), and to prevent "discrimination" of images (where editors choose which images to process first instead of processing them all in a sorted way). However, I see these are valid points, and will not tag new maintenance categories anymore (and will rollback changes if the maintenance criteria is agreed). -- ReyBrujo 12:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said before I found the category galleries quite useful and have to agree with Meegs that especially for Images with unknown copyright status they were very helpful in spotting duplicates... --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Being bold I've created a category for pages that will be semi-permenant exemptions to FUC#9, Category:Wikipedia fair use exemptions. This may be useful to use as a flag for bots to avoid when doing future updates. Please dicuss it on Category talk:Wikipedia fair use exemptions. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The category above is in production, with the discussion benig held at Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions and it's talk . — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Brief VS Extensive

"Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."

Can someone define brief and extensive for me? William conway bcc 03:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could use some of these links as guide? Both state about the same information (haven't checked them completely), and seem to be pretty up to date (Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions With Respect to Books and Periodicals (included in House Report 94-1476) and On November 2, 2002, President Bush signed into law Senate Bill 487): [1] [2]

Maybe cutting the numbers given in those links to half may ensure a better Fair use usage. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No publisher has been found that says that 200 words is NOT fair use. that is they all agree 200 words is OK. Rjensen 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely that depends on the length of the original. Quoting all 200 words of a 200-word poem or essay is bound not to be OK. User:Angr 10:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Not OK" is not exactly a legal term. The 4 criteria always apply. The most important is the economic impact of the reprint--it may have no economic impact at all if the essay/poem is not marketed separately, That is if it's one of 100 poems in a book and the book is the commercial product, then quoting all of one poem is fair use. Rjensen 10:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fourth criteria—economic impact—is actually the least important, legally speaking, though it is probably the most important, practically speaking (determining whether or not a copyright holder will care at all). Angr is right that it depends on the length of the original, the character of the original, the way in which it is being used, and whether or not it consistutes the "heart" of the work, generally speaking. --Fastfission 16:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly true that the fourth criterion is least important. It's actually quite important (I recently read a case where the opinion said that the first and fourth were the most important, although what case it was I unfortunately can't recall). Perfect 10 v. Google is a (presumably ongoing?) case where the fourth factor was a major component, since the court ruled that Google's thumbnails competed for the PDA-background market that Perfect 6 had begun targeting. Commerciality of the purportedly fair use, however, is relatively unimportant. In any case, the test is four-factor, and no one factor is dispositive. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

fair use vs PD image on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Could someone have a look at Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali#Fair_use_image. I think that according to the policy the public domain would have to be used, not the fair use one. But I am not a 100 percent sure. Garion96 ^(talk) 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where's the best place to ask for such help on specific cases? It's not a critic! It's just that I also need help in one or more cases where disscussion had come to a deadlock and I'm not sure where to go. I left a message on Wikipedia:Fair use review , but the page seems dead... is anyone watching that? --Abu Badali 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for taking a look. The fair use image is removed. And yes, I also wondered where to ask. I totally forgot Wikipedia:Fair use review, but you're right, that doesn't seem like a much watched page. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Guideline vs Policy

Would it be handy to move the policy section to the top of the page? Right now the first thing people see when they look at the page is "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy" instead of "it is considered a standard that all users should follow". The policy section seems to be important enough to warrant being the first thing people see. Garion96 ^(talk) 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Garion96 ^(talk) 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Using several FU images to illustrate same object

In Oprah Winfrey 8 Fair Use images are applied to illustrate this article. Would it be reasonable to remove 7 of them? __meco 10:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No; in fact I would not only call such an action unreasonable but fanatical and stupid. --TJive 10:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to remove all eight of them. Removing only seven would be a fair compromise. User:Angr 11:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise; immediate retaliation. --TJive 11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am basing my question on the guidelines listed here on WP:FU. could you present your reasoning for disagreeing, preferably without adding vituperative comments? __meco 12:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You would have to consider each image individually and see if it is necessary. They are not claiming to just illustrate Oprah, but historical events in her career. ed g2s • talk 13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see 6 pics on the article. Not bad. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Illustrating a movie genre

Fair Use is acceptable according to WP:FU when "Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Would this suffice for the ample use of FU images on Fantasy film, a movie genre? I.e. could a movie genre be likened to a school of art? __meco 14:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say some screenshot(s) may be used as long as they content is representative of the "movie school of art", and as long as they image content is really discussed (and not only mentioned). I don't believe this is the case with all the movie posters on Fantasy film. It's a common pratice on Wikipedia to use a movie poster (or one or more screenshots) whenever a movie name is barely mentioned. --Abu Badali 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am removing a great number of such listings now. __meco 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to you. The most frustrating thing about this taks is that these pages are mostly editted by celebrity fans, and they commonly take it personally when you remove "theirs images" from "their pages". After all, the "images are fair use" (sic) because they "greatly improve the article". :) Let us know whenever you need some help. --Abu Badali 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will, and just to remind myself I also notice that History of science fiction films has the same FU issue as Fantasy film does. __meco 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Who to turn to

In my enterprise to clean up inappropriate use of FU images the last 24 hours, pruning hundreds of pages, mostly movie awards using movie posters, I came across a few users who apparently have little regard for our policies and thus continue to upload and apply copyrighted material inappropriately, despite having been warned. I'm no administrator, so what I would like to do is simply to report those cases some place. However, I felt that WP:AN isn't the place for this (or is it?). Maybe this is? For example, User:Dylankidwell keeps several FU images in his user space, he has been warned but keeps adding. __meco 08:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AN is perhaps too high traffic. This is a good location, since everyone watching here is interested in the subject and most are administrators. Keep in mind, that the only thing you need to be an administrator for is to actually push that block or protect button, and we like to resolve things in other ways when possible. I'll go look at Dylankidwell. --Gmaxwell 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you or any other admin here can take some form of disciplinary action against this user who flagrantly violates WP fair use rules by adding copyrighted images in his user space time and time again. This is the latest incident after he has been admonished and lately also warned that another offense would lead to a request for disciplinary measures being raised. (I could of course take this to WP:AN myself, however, this case already having been brought here I do it this way). __meco 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright owner complaint

What happens if I use a photo under fair use and a person claiming to be the copyright owner asks for its removal?

The image in question is a photo of a living writer. I made a low-resolution copy and uploaded it to Wikipedia (not en.wp). The image is used only in the article about that writer. Now an anonymous user asked: "what kind of authorisation i gave to use a photo taken by me?"

What should I do? Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask him to contact Wikimedia Foundation, as anyone can claim to be the owner. Havok (T/C/c) 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the subject of the image doesn't hold the copyright to the image. The photographer does. Regardless, do tell him to contact the WMF about it, at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I've just done that. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot fair use criteria

Can anyone here explain the extent of the fair use criteria for film screenshots? I am unclear how the "Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." bit works. In particular, I am referring to this edit at the Aragorn article.

The edit summary said "Removing images with no applicable Fair Use rationale". I've asked at the talk page of the editor who did that edit, but I wanted to raise the general point here to get more feedback, as the use here seems to me to be similar to the images used at Darth Vader.

To my mind, the use of film images in articles on characters from The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is a good example of fair use. The images are used to illustrate the parts of the article that are commentating on (and sometimes comparing) the adaptations of a particular character in a range of film adaptations of a book. To my mind, this counts as critical commentary on the relationship between the characters in a book and the films based on that book.

In the more general case of Tolkien character articles, the use of film images is inconsistent. In many character articles there is a template with a parameter to put an image in an infobox at the top of an article. See for example Samwise Gamgee. However, in my opinion, this gives too much emphasis to the Peter Jackson films (many of the characters have been portrayed in the two other films, by Bakshi and Rankin-Bass respectively). A better approach, IMO, is the way it has been done at Frodo_Baggins#Portrayal_in_adaptations, or Gandalf#Portrayal_in_adaptations. (It was also handled this way at Gollum, but someone recently moved the images around again - trying to use images from the Peter Jackson films to illustrate the character arc from the book - not a justified fair use in my opinion - instead of limiting the images to a "portrayals" section").

I have several questions arising from the above:

1) Would I be justified in reverting the edit at Aragorn?

2) In general, if a character in those three films has an article, would shots from each of the three films be justified under fair-use in the articles about those characters?

3) Should such images be strictly limited to a "portrayls" section, and excised from the template used at the top of the articles?

4) Should the pixel size of the images be restricted?

5) What can I do to prevent someone else removing the images again and making the same mistake. Where would be a convenient place to put a link to the fair use justification. Should that be placed directly on the image pages of such images, or linked from those pages?

Thanks. Carcharoth 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Aragorn images look fine to me -- they are explicitly different portrayals of the same character in different films, and are not just being used to illustrate the page. The question of the template/infobox is not related to fair use considerations IMO. In your specific queries, I would say: 1. yes, but make a note about it on the talk page as well explaining it; 2. yes, 3. not necessarily, at least from a copyright point of view—if one portrayals is much better known than the others then there is a plausible argument for it being at the top, 4. yes in general, but none of the Aragorn images are too large, 5. you should put a fair use justification on the image description pages themselves. Hope that clarifies things, as I see them. --Fastfission 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

From Fastfission's response it seems I have been too strict in my interpretation of Fair Use policy. It was particularly the use of image:LOTRROTKmovie.jpg that I found to be trangressing our requirements for critical commentary. I still cannot understand how any of this constitutes critical commentary, however. I expect I will gain a better feel for how consensus opinion on this page regards this concept as this discussion continues. __meco 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use policy needs to be made more specific in lots of cases. Your attitude is welcome because it bring these issues into question. --Abu Badali 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To speak directly to Carcharoth's particular issue, would it be unfair to use a representation of the character for one of the various illustrated versions of the trilogy that have been printed? It would seem that the article's about the character, who appeared first and foremost in the books. Or would that not be fair-usable in this case? Barring that, perhaps an illustration could be created and released as free media just for the sake of illustrating certain characters; that would be the free-est solution. But I would think in either case, the movies aren't (or shouldn't be) the primary focus of the article -- for the most part, Lord of the Rings is best known as a series of books. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that such artwork could be fair use in a section on how the character has been portrayed by artists. But as there is a wide range of such artworks, the problem becomes how to chose one over another. Carcharoth 10:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of the LOTR-ROTK movie poster in the infobox for Aragorn is against the Wikipedia FU policy, in my opinion. The use of some screenshot in the "Portrayal in adaptations" section, one per adaption being discussed, is ok. There's no other way to depict a movie/cartoon character other than with a screenshot. Low resolution is prefered, of course. And I would apply this rationale to any movie/cartoon/comic-book character. Some good examples of that are (some of) the articles on X-men characters, like Beast, Jean Grey or Cyclops. Each of these articles contains a apparently excessive number of fair use images, but when you look carefully, each image shows the charater in a new incarnation. I would not find a fair use rationale for picking some book character image to use in a infobox, though. Book characthers (usually) do not have a face.

Replying the quiz: 1) rv just the "Portrayal in adaptations" section, add some screenshot of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn to this section if you want. Leave the infobox empty (of images). 2) Apply "1)" to any character of any book. 3) Yes. 4) They Should be low-res. I believe those cartons screenshots in Aragorn are ok. We need to check for the others character's articles. 5) leave a html comment on the page, nearby the image use, pointing the reader to the discussion that settled the issue. Or if you preffer, pointing to some section on the talk pages with lots of links do different disucssions/policies. Just my $0.02. --Abu Badali 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. I've been able to move forward on some of the issues, and now have a clearer idea of how fair use applies here. I'll inform WikiProject Middle-earth as well. Carcharoth 10:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Put simply: current fair-use policy is unclear and its exact bounds are currently under debate. Different people will have different opinions on whether your specific example is okay. I recently came under a good deal of fire for my stated views on fair use, including from the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel; while previously I would have strongly felt that the image should have been kept, I think I'm going to stay out of controversial cases like this for the time being at least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Such an elegant way to state your opinion and avoid further discussion on it. ;) --Abu Badali 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that this would be a good occasion to obtain a higher level of clarity. If "critical commentary" and "discussion" aren't going to be the standards (if they ever were) then we might change those wordings to something less rigid, more in line with current practice. __meco 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's move to more concret steps. I have some proposals on what to do.

First, we should identify the more common Fair Use "mistakes" and list them on the corresponding template as Warnings. For instance, {{Movie-screenshot}} and {{Tv-screenshot}} should contain in "Using this image as the main/only picture of some actor's article is probably on violation of fair use". {{promotional}} should contain: "Note that not all images available on the web are intended for widespread distribution by the copyright holder".{{Magazinecover}}, {{Bookcover}} and the like should contain: "Do not use this image on an article about some person unless the publication of this issue has been one of the more notable events on this person's life". {{DVDcover}}, {{Videotapecover}}, {{Movieposter}}, and the like should mention: "If the whole article (or the article's section) using this image is not about the movie into question, this is a violation of fair use.". I agree that all of these would be redundant with the current text on all theses tags and also with the Fair Use guidelines, but the redundancy and the counter-exemple-directed tone would be a greate strategy to conterpart the subjective nature of the fair use discipline.

The image upload page has been recently changed to include a warning on these lines, but people seem to ignore it: "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia."

Some tags ask for the used to put a fair use rationale on the image page. But there's not a mechanism into work to dispute such claims. Should it be done inline? Should it be done in the image talk page? In another special page? Wikipedia:Fair use review seems dead. Maybe it should behave like Wikipedia:Images for deletion and, if some "fair use" claim is disputed for N days, it should be considered withdrawn. We should also have a list of "invalid claims" so, that we stop having to deal with fair use claims like "The image is illustrative of the topic of the article" or "The image itself is critical comment on the movie" and "The contents of the image are mentioned in the image caption, so, it's fair use."

I'm probably being too strict here. But these are just my current thoughs, and I'm ready to shamelessly change them. --Abu Badali 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly in support of clarification on the guideline page, in templates as warnings, and any place else we can get away with. As for the specific statements, however, it seems what we really need to clarify is the definition of "sufficient discussion" of an image as it applies in different contexts. That's the part that really throws me, and I know a lot of editors feel the same way. Unless clarification of this already exists and I'm just being dense. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To Abu Badali's thought about perhaps requiring the presentation of fair use rationale on the image page (which you say some tags already state), would it be possible (or welcomed) to require that fair use images could only be introduced in an article using a template comparable to the cite templates for text. Something akin to this:

{{fair use image
 | image = 
 | thumb = 
 | placement = 
 | size = 
 | caption = 
 | licence = 
 | rationale = 
 | date = 
 | user = 
}}

with the allowance for summary removal if not all fields are provided. __meco 09:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a proposal. Sounds good. Carcharoth 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems very useful, but it's not totally straightfoward. I'd support it if it were made as clear as possible, or accompanied by instructions for filling it out which made it simple enough for anyone wanting to use it. What goes in the placement and thumb fields? Also, rationale needs to be specific to the article the image is being placed in, would the template be required for each use in an article, or would it allow for lisitng more than one rationale statement? Also, if this in only for fair use images, would it be fair to replace "license" with "copyright information" ?

placement would correspond to "right" or "left" and thumb would say "thumb" where in normal image tags it says thumb, otherwise that field would be blank. "Copyright information" or "licence", whichever. My intention is that this template would supersede the normal image tag for fair use images, so it would have to be used separately for each image in the article, forcing a separate in situ rationale for each fair use image. __meco 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of Wikipedia's don't adhere to our fair use policy simply because they don't understand it. New forms may be ignored if they aren't dazzlingly clear. The simpler the better. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The clearer the better. A huge number of mistakes are made in good faith because so much of the wording is imprecise. Could the wording in the screenshot template "the film and its contents" be reworded or clarified at the same time? ie what is meant by "the contents"? - is it the actors, the visual style, the cinematography, the costumes... all of the above? none of the above? Rossrs 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suport! Aren't we votting yet? ...ok :) . I believe the reason for a lot of Wikipedians not adhering to Wikipedia fair use guidelines is because a lot of them see Wikipedia as a big blog. I would say many editors see Wikipedia just like a big website about "things", and they can help this website from becoming boring by uploading cool images. And as it is so easy to find an image on Google, upload it, pick some fair use tag ({{promotional}} always works) and add it to some article... fair use policying will alway be slower than fair use abuse. With this proposal (or some evolved version of it) in place, abuses could be get on the eyespot. It wouldn't be a cure, of course. But I see Meco's proposal as a potential. great advance. --Abu Badali 14:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversal at Disco

Another of my edits have been reversed here. Again, I disagree that this serves any other purpose than illustration/identification (particularly not critical commentary on the content of the movie poster in question). __meco 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The user who did the reversal not even took the time to wrtte an edit summary. In may opinion, the movie poster in the Disco do not adds essential information. It's an FU abuse IMHO. --Abu Badali 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The template reads "to illustrate the movie in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork" - pretty clear that the movie is not being discussed in such detail that a poster is needed, and neither the poster or the artwork are discussed, so I can't interpret it as FU. I think you were correct in removing it. Rossrs 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Entry below copied from Talk:Fair use: (meco 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

Fair use and toy boxes

On a lighter side of fair use, sometimes there is a wikipedia entry for a toy. People will quote the several sentences of the description on the front or back of the toy box, saying it's fair use since it's openly printed to the general public. Others point out the copyright notice on the box bottom and remove the toy description from the wikipedia entry. Is there any official call on this? Is it fair to quote the words on a toy box in a Wikipedia entry for a toy. user:mathewignash

It would depend on the exact circumstances. In general, I don't think there would be any reason to directly quote more than about a sentence or two, and that would probably be unnecessary in most cases as well. Just describe the toy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"In general" I agree. I can think of a few exceptions. Sometimes a toy's marketing and/or packaging are part of what makes it memorable or fun, and certain phrases may have stuck in people's minds from when they were children. In that case it might IMHO be worthy of note, but just enough to give the flavor and to jog people's memories about the toy. You might write something like "the manufacturer described this toy as 'fun for all ages, from the Middle Ages to the Space Age'" (a made-up example that probably wouldn't actually be that notable). Another example which is closer to criticism might be the ludicrous undercounting of the possible combinations of Rubik's Cube (the packaging said "billions", when the true number is in the quadrillions) -- the article does mention this but quotes the single word "bililons." Always make it clear it's a quote, of course. Jerry Kindall 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, as I say: a sentence or two. That's undoubtedly fair, in any conceivable circumstance; possibly it's even de minimis (certainly the Rubik's Cube number falls into the merger doctrine). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

When the fairuse image looks much better than the free one

A dispute about free vs. fair images at Stephen Harper brings up a need for this page to be even clearer, about if/when a fair use image can be used, when a free image exists. Everbody agrees that if two images are equal in quality, we must use the free image. However, it seems like a constantly repeated debate, as to what to do when the free image is inferior in quality (but still useable and better than no image). --Rob 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This often comes up when we have mugshots, as in Matthew McConaughey, Al Pacino, Carmen Electra, Michelle Rodríguez, as to whether we should use the mugshot or a non free image at the top. Arniep 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So what the fair use image "looks" better, this is the "Free Encyclopedia" so I will take a free image any day of the week. Just tell people to get better shots. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as the free image is "adequate", it should be used. ed g2s • talk 12:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Having a free license trumps being aesthetically pleasing, always. But why would mugshots automatically be free? User:Angr 12:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They probably aren't. See this discussion. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before a couple of times for sure. I have posted some information here, and then at Jkelly's talk page here. Basically, quality does not matter unless the free picture is already obsolete. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases where we are talking about living people, I think it is not inappropriate to sometimes go with non-free images (the free image could be elsewhere on the page, of course) if the only available free ones are incredibly unflattering or have other POV implications (which a mugshot could potentially—using a mugshot as a main image should only be done in very rare circumstances, since they are by definition both unflattering and encourage the idea of the subject being a criminal). In the case of Harper, though, I don't know why the cropped version is being insisted upon—the larger photo on which it is based (further down the page) is not half bad by itself, but when cropped it looks grainy and washed out. It also doesn't help that it appears that nobody has tried to do any post-processing on the image (i.e. playing with its levels in photoshop). --Fastfission 16:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put in the free image (the cropped one), but have never "insisted" on only that one (nor has anybody else). I even uploaded another image, which I thought was nicer, but am told is worse. --Rob 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that we shouldn't be using unfree pictures for living people because they represent a compromise of our goal of free content which is clearly unnecessary, that we have a unflattering free picture is just double proof that a free picture is possible. How about this alternative, use the free unflattering image and send a polite request to the subject (or his PR folks) requesting an image under a free license (be specific, make sure you get a cc-by, cc-by-sa, or GFDLed image.. "wikipedia may use" is not sufficient.) --Gmaxwell 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a boilerplate request for permission at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Formal request for high-quality publicity image. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

List of episodes using screenshots

It's always unpleasant to tear down the laborious work done by others, but in this case I find no excuse for leaving the matter to status quo. Would anyone care to disagree? __meco 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists for a centralised discussion about this. Jkelly 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of said discussion is that the images can't be justified. I'd give it a week or two then implement it as policy. ed g2s • talk 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I know reaching consensus is not winning a votation, but shouldn't at least a closing statement, at least for the inclusion of screenshots in lists, be issued in that RFC? If we are to remove screenshots from lists, we need to point to the conclusion of the discussion, not to a 60kb page where newbies are likely to get lost. Remember, we are both trying to comply with a policy and teach users about it. -- ReyBrujo 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists to be somewhat superfluous, and, more importantly, taking focus away from WP:FU where the "real meat" should reside. As you point out, the more additional pages and discussions we provide the users with the less is the likelihood that they will find their way to WP:FU. __meco 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Airing thoughts about current image guideline wording

The section WP:FU#Images needs to be clearified. The introductory text states obliquely a requirement being that the articles "involve critical commentary and analysis". Then the expression "critical commentary" is repeated for some of the subsequent points and for others not. The expression "analysis" is not repeated. Some of the points state a requirement of "identification and critical commentary" others merely "critical commentary" and yet others just "identification". Also, it should be unequivocally clear that it is tha image that must be the object of critical commentary, or if that is not what is meant, what exactly is. __meco 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Upstream vs. downstream associations

Would arguing that it would constitute fair use applying an image of a movie poster to the article on the book on which the movie was based be an easier argument than applying it to the article about the lead actors, seeing the latter as derivative entities of the movie whereas the movie would be a derivative entity of the book (and the director filling both these roles at the same time)? __meco 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends of the contents of the articles, not their primary subjects. Either a book or actor's article may or may not qualify for use of the poster depending on the nature of commentary it contains about the film. In practice, though, I estimate that film materials are misused with much higher frequency in the actor articles. ×Meegs 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Armin wegner-pile of bodies-DSC 0124.JPG - fair use or PD?

The person who uploaded this image placed a copyrighted-free-use tag on it, but in the image description he clearly stated that all rights are reserved and that only Wikipedia may use the image. However, this image was apparently created during the time of the Armenian genocide, which took place between 1915 and 1917. Whether or not this image was published at that time is an entirely different question. I changed the image tagging, at least temporarily, to "historic fair-use" and "used with permission on Wikipedia", but, if it is indeed not a PD image, it will have to be reduced in quality. I was wondering if anyone may be able to offer a bit more expertise on the issue? Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Life plus 70 years. Armin T. Wegner Died in 1978. It should enter the public domain in 2049.Geni 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And since the photo was not published inside the United States, it is not in the public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Television screenshot question?

Is it fair use to post a screenshot from one episode of a television show in an article about another episode in that same show? See The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who) for an example. -- MisterHand 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Since the screenshot is removed in the current version of the article, here's a version of the article with it still intact: [3] -- MisterHand 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Given the article size, the photo seems distracting, so it would be good to make the photo disappear. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would wager that the scene from which that screenshot is taken will be repeated at the beginning of the episode in question, if last year's Christmas special is any indication, and the bride pictured is obviously the "Runaway Bride" of the episode's title. I'd leave it. Jerry Kindall 00:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This use does not comply with Wikipedia Fair use requirements. There is no critical commentary and it serves no other purpose than ornamentation/illustration. The image must be removed. __meco 08:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I missed the image, but I assume it shows the Bride (and thus the actress portraying her). Isn't that valid information? --Gomez 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, it is normally fair use to use an image of a film or TV show in relation to critical commentary on that show. The show in question hasn't aired yet (it's a Christmas Special), hence there are no shots from the episode itself - but the show is called The Runaway Bride, and the shot in question is a shot of Catherine Tate, who will play the Runaway Bride in that upcoming episode, and played no part at all (except to appear mysteriously at the end) in the episode Doomsday (Doctor Who) where the shot comes from. Seems to me that this image squarely satisfies the criteria mentioned in that list on this article. PaulHammond 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

test question for WP:FUC

I suggest we replace:

As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above

with

As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any more free image, while still having an adequate effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image doesn't meet the criteria above

I'm not sure (or concerned) with the exact wording, as long as we convey we're looking for a free image that is "good enough". The term "same effect" sets an unreasonable standard for free images, which are much more likely to be made by amateurs, and not look as good, but still be useable.. --Rob 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for specifying "any other" is that it's easier to understand (most people wouldn't know a "free image" if it bit them) and it's more in line with the general copyright policy: if there are two non-free images either of which could adequately illustrate the article, then neither of them qualifies for fair use. --Carnildo 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We really ought not to peddle to people who aren't capable of getting into the meaning of "free image" when they are in fact reading Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. The fact that this page doesn't link to WP:FU anywhere should however be remedied. __meco 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, how is making the language more precise (and thus limiting the potential for confusion and/or conflict over meaning) peddling to anyone? And even if it is, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Not being confrontational here, just confused (as usual). --Daduzi ^talk 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it's viable to omit using the term "free" in order to accomodate those who aren't able to comprehend what that means in relation to fair use material. There will always, and for several reasons, be people who aren't going to "get it". I find focusing on the term free to be constructive. I also don't think the text becomes clearer the way Carnildo proposes. I find Rob's proposition sound as it is. __meco 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains my confusion: I thought you were arguing against Rob's position, not Canildo's. Confusion resolved, and I agree. --Daduzi ^talk 03:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused why Meco complains this page doesn't link to WP:FU anywhere. This page is WP:FU. User:Angr 07:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By "this page", I think he meant WP:FUC, which didn't link to WP:FU until recently. --Rob 08:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is so. When viewing Special:Whatlinkshere when at WP:FUC many people are linking directly to this transclusion. __meco 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Fair Use Template for Images from Within a Book?

If not I would be willing to create it. I know it's a tricky subject because of fair use and especially because of unfree images in a free encyc. Thoughts Please. -- Peregrinefisher 04:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All images we claim "fair use" on need to have been published previously. What would be the purpose of this template? Jkelly 04:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen templates for book covers and comic panels but not one for book panels/images. It must be OK to use them in certain circumstances and a template could explain the criteria and make it easy to include the correct licensing. -- Peregrinefisher 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a template for covers and comicpanels because we can be reasonably sure thoes things are copyrighted by the author/publisher of the book or comic. This is not the case with random pictures printed in books in general though, the publisher might simply have bought some non-exclusive licenses to print the images, or they may have taken images from the public domain. There is also no guarantee that an image from a book have any particular relevance to the book itself, wich is genraly what he make "blanket" tags for (covers of albums to ilustrate articles on albums, screenshots of movies to ilustrate articles on the movie etc). So a "picture from a book" template would make little sense, such images need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. --Sherool (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality of free use images

There's been a big debate regarding the photograph used for Stephen Harper, because the original fair use official portrait has been replaced by a (far lower quality) free use one. This has spread to other articles on Canadian politicians. The result is that these articles are now headlined by goofy-looking candid shots that make Wikipedia look like a 13-year-old's MySpace profile.

I propose that Wikipedia:Fair use criteria be amended to state that fair use images are still acceptable if the only free alternative(s) are of noticeably inferior quality. Suggested wording:

- "No free equivalent of roughly equal quality is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information..."
- "Always use a more free alternative of equivalent quality if one is available..."

I'm not sure if this should be an amendedment to the existing text (as I've done above) or a separate section referring specificially to images. Thoughts?
-- The Invisible Hand 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality is pretty much irrelivant. If there is a free use image we use it. If you want a higher quality image get someone to take one or take one yourself.Geni 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Quality is pretty much irrelivant [sic]"? Could you ponder that statement?? Perhaps post that at the top of your User page? Quality is critical and the idea that any free use photo is better than every fair use photo is just silly. Madman 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Quality is of secondary importance to freeness" would be a better way to put it. Obviously, high-quality free images are better than low-quality free images, and low-quality free images are better than high-quality unfree images, which in turn are better than low-quality unfree images. The idea that any free use photo is better than every fair use photo happens to be Wikipedia policy. User:Angr 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Within the bounds of sanity, of course: obviously the free image must actually illustrate what it's supposed to (so a 32×32-pixel icon or something doesn't cut it, and neither does a shot that doesn't show the face for an identification shot, for instance). But it doesn't have to look professional. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geni. The current wording is fine just the way it is, if anything perhaps too lenient in allowing "fair use" images. User:Angr 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. On a related issue, I've noticed some differing interpretations of the second part of our "no free equivalent is available or could be created" criterion when it comes to images of people. Does this disallow unfree photos, used simply for identification, of living people who regularly appear in public (such as active professional athletes)? I have long thought that it does, but have been hesitant to enforce it widely, especially in the face of "publicity photos". ×Meegs 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It might depend on the person and on the definition of "adequately" in the part about "a free image that adequately conveys the same information". One American football player in full uniform looks pretty much like any other from a distance, so it might be argued that such a free picture does not adequately convey the same information as a fair-use publicity photo. User:Angr 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think today we should read it in a permissive manner (because the current usage is far beyond permissive) and over time become more restrictive... we can't achieve perfection in one day. As far as the football player goes, assuming he's still alive.. For the purpose of identifying him, no matter how good the unfree picture is, a free equal should be possible. This doesn't hold for historic pictures, copyright symbols, or other cases where we are actually discussing *the picture*, which is what we should ultimately limit fair use to... but I don't think we should try to get there in one step. --Gmaxwell 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We should set up WikiStalkers for the purpose of obtaining free images of celebrities. Being serious for a moment, does that mean we should hold off from putting fair use images on articles about living celebrities on the basis that a free alternative is possible? On a related note, is there grounds for putting in a fair use image of the celbrity doing what they are famous for if a free alternative would be impossible (a picture of Bobby Charlton playing for England/Man United, say)? --Daduzi ^talk 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The common interpretation for "no free equivalent is available or could be created" is "I couldn't find a free image on the Internet, and it would be very hard for me to make a free image, therefore we need to use this random image off the Internet". I've actually had someone tell me that, because he didn't live in Saudi Arabia, and I didn't live in Saudi Arabia, it was neccessary to take a random person's vacation photo to illustrate an article on a mountain. --Carnildo 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Category:Fair use image replacement request for other great example's of that. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and one other problem with using unfree images — even temporarily — where free ones are possible is that it ruins most people's motivation to create and license their own images. A pictureless article is great advertising. ×Meegs 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(breaking indent) Correct. Which really is too bad. Another example, I recently removed a fair use image of McNuggets. Yes, McNuggets!! So what to do? Delete a whole bunch of images from Category:Fair use image replacement request and simply put a req photo template on them? Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Won't have any reall effect. At least there people are makeing a start to request free images. My solution would be to start oulineing areas where only free use images are allowed. Buildings that currently exist would be a fairly logical group to start with.Geni 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as a start:

Mass-produced consumer goods
Geographical features within 100 miles of a city
Currently-existant buildings

--Carnildo 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's taking the wrong end of the stick. If we're going to start making lists of types of articles, we should have a list of the only types of articles where "fair use" images are allowed, not the types where they're prohibited. Although I'd far rather ban all "fair use" images from Wikipedia altogether, if they're going to be allowed, they should only be allowed in:

Articles on dead people (unless they've been dead for more than 70 years or unless they were associated with the U.S. Federal Government, in which case finding a free image should be possible)
Articles on historical events

That's all I can think of. Other suggestions? User:Angr 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos. Alubum covers movie screenshots and posters etc. The advantage of my appraoch is that we don't have to remeber all the exceptions.Geni 11:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the disadvantage to your approach is that there will be only a limited class of articles where "fair use" images are prohibited, when there ought to be a limited class of articles where they're allowed. Movie screenshots or posters, okay, but I've never understood how logos can be used encyclopedically. User:Angr 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not logos can be used encyclopaedically is a subjective judgement, and one that is far from clear cut. Personally I would find it hard to see how one could argue that logos are unencyclopaedic without similarly ruling out images of individuals, but that's my subjective judgement (I should note though that Encarta, at least, judges logos to be encyclopaedic to judge from the number of images of the Coca-Cola logo in the relevant article). More pertinent is whether they fall under fair use, which is a related issue given the commentary criteria. On the one hand, within the letter of the law they probably cannot, unless the logo/branding of the organisation is commented upon in the article. On the other hand it's incredibly unlikely that the copyright holder would pursue legal action against the use of their logo (it is, after all, free publicity and thousands upon thousands of journalistic articles have used copyrighted logos in pieces both positive and critical without consequence). And even if such a case were pursued it's equally highly unlikely that a judge would rule the use was unfair. Most likely there would be another piece of legal precedent that could be used to justify fair use on Wikipedia. Essentially what I'm saying is that though I understand and support the desire to limit fair use images as far as possible, given that fair use images are permitted I do think we should sometimes exercise common sense and follow the spirit rather than the (highly vague) letter of the law in cases where the likelihood of negative consequences is diminishingly small.

Wow, I wrote far more than I'd planned to there. --Daduzi ^talk 12:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head:

Classified military hardware/installations
Restricted areas of authoritarian regimes
Articles on the kinds of leaders who shoot you for looking at you funny
Articles on people who are camera shy/rarely make public appearances
Articles on famous performers/sportspeople who have retired but who aren't old enough for photographs to fall into PD
Artwork out of public domain
Artwork in public domain, but with no uncopyrighted photographs available and housed in buildings that prohibit photography
Images of dangerous events and/or places
Images of incredibly remote and inaccessible places
Images that are only obtainable via highly sophisticated equipment where no US government alternatives exist
Images of ridiculously expensive things
Images of things which have very limited availability
Pretty much all screenshots
Any images that could have negative legal consequences (unrelated to copyright) for the taker

And so on. Of course there may exist free alternatives for all of these categories, but it would by and large be unreasonable to expect that there would be and/or expect others to create free alternatives. Equally articles on pretty much all past events, even if recent and well photographed, would (assuming it wasn't, say, documented by a US government agent) require somebody who took the photographs to waive their copyright. And there's no guarantee that would happen. Honestly, I don't think listing exceptions is the best way to do this, it would be easier to start with cases where free alternatives can be readily obtained. --Daduzi ^talk 12:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Free images at the top of articles

I had thought that it was an unwritten rule that free images should be used at the top of articles if one was availiable. I tried to add a newly created crop of a PD image Image:Michael_Jackson_1984(2).jpg to Michael Jackson, but another user claims that it is "wiki policy" to have the newest image at the top. The image he is replacing it with is likely a copyvio image anyway, but even if he finds a recent promo photo, should we use that or the 20 yr old PD image (which I actually think is pretty good however old it is)? Arniep 19:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From Image:Jackson first appearance.jpg "It is assumed that the above photograph is in the public domain as it is on several websites." I would say, based on that "reasoning" the image needs deletion promptly, regardless of whether there is a free image option. --Rob 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Added: I think Image:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg looks just fine, and should not be replaced by a non-free image. --Rob 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see no reason why an image's date is sufficiently compelling to use fair-use instead of free, per se. If it's a photo of someone from when they were eleven or something, or if their appearance in better-known contexts looks radically different, then you might have a case. In the case of Michael Jackson, pictures of him from before and after his relatively recent change in appearance should both be included; I would say, in other words, that the '84 picture is not a substitute for more recent pictures per our fair-use policy. But since both images should be included nonetheless, we may as well put the freer on the top. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We actually have free images for both. See commons:Michael Jackson. Jkelly 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The only modern "free" image is this mug shot, and I expect it will be deleted from Commons for being non-free. --Rob 22:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is an exceptional subject in that one of the things he is most famous (or infamous as it were) for is his several changes of facial appearance. This in itself would suffice to provide rationale for an entire sequence of copyrighted images used under the fair use doctrine, provided a section of the article was exclusively and laboriously dedicated to this specific subject. The current article seems to have too many copyrighted images however. __meco 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Could a graph off of Alexa, attributed properly, be fair use, or not? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if the subject of discussion were the graph itself. Otherwise, simply create a new graph using the same data.--Daduzi ^talk 06:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a lawyer, but I would guess it falls under FUC #1, where you can create a "freer" version. If you are going to measure the success of a site, I would suggest redrawing the diagram adding "milestones" to the graphic (in example, marking when the site was opened, when they interviewed notable person #1, when they got attacked by a DDOS attack, when they interviewed notable person #2, etc. If you follow the graphic from an Alexa graphic but add researched and verifiable milestones, you could claim Fair use for the image as to being based in Alexa graphic, but also release your modifications with a free license. I believe if you create a bar graphic with the milestones without stating numbers but following Alexa numbers to create proportional bars, you can release it under a free license.

Of course, if you want the Alexa graphic for decorative purposes (in example, to compare the flow to two sites), or to illustrate the way Alexa creates rankings, then it may not fit Fair use. ReyBrujo 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a better answer than my own, and I should have clarified that the use of Alexa data in a new graph would depend on what the copyright status of Alexa's data is and how free it is to use. --Daduzi ^talk 06:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Data cannot be copyrighted, so the only potentially creative aspects of Alexa charts are . . . some lines and words. {{pd-ineligible}}; it involves no creativity, every pixel of it is purely functional. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They can in the EU, see database rights. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I forgot about that. It would be relevant to UK redistribution if this violated it. Should we be concerned with that? In the specific case, anyway, it looks like there's no problem: "extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of the database . . . the repeated and systematic extraction or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of a database may amount to the extraction or re-utilisation of a substantial part of those contents."[4] A small, one-time extract would appear not to be covered. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Undelete an image?

An image I uploaded was deleted from wikipedia and I don't think it should have been. I know I'm not supposed to just upload it again, so what can I do? - Peregrinefisher 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the admin that deleted the image. They have the power to undelete it, like any other admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They do? I was pretty sure that images were undeleteable. If that has changed, I'd like to know. --Fastfission 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this has changed. When did it change? --Fastfission 21:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

a few weeks back.

News to me too, I'm so out of The Loop. ed g2s • talk 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Crown copyright

See Template talk:CrownCopyright#Non-free licence?. ed g2s • talk 16:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Could be created" -- by whom?

Refering to the part of the policy which says fair use is allowed only if "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." -- Does that mean that fair use is not allowed if someone, somewhere could create a free replacement image with the same information, or that fair use is not allowed if the uploader can not create such replacement image, or something else? Are there any images other than photographs of things that don't exist anymore, or have decayed, etc., which could not "be created" by somebody else? BenB4 00:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some images that cannot be recreated, but in many other cases, they can be. For the photos you think that can be recreated easily, then you can use {{fairusereplace}}, which says this photo should be retaken by someone else and putting it under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The images he is referring to are not photos. They are these: Image:Speciation modes.jpg, Image:Allopatric and peripatric speciation.png, Image:Sympatric speciation.jpg, Image:Speciation experiment.gif which all could be easily recreated and he doesn't accept my explanation here as to why they are not fair use. So please, add an opinion. pschemp | talk 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell, we can recreate those or find a public domain photo from the US Government Health Departments. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage, "is available or could be created" - is not limited to the propsective uploader of the fair use material. As for examples of images that cannot be created (and would therefore be fair use): Specific images which are directly discussed in the text, e.g. in an article on a painter, if you mention the spatial arangement in a work, it would be fair use to include an image of the work, because it would be impossible to demonstrate the spatial arrangement of that particular work in a way that was not a derivative of the work. Another area where fair use is necessary is photographic images of specific historical events - it is not possible to photograph Martin Luther King, Jr. anymore - a freely licensed image cannot be created - including an image of him in an article is an example of fair use. Non-photographs, i.e. diagrams, (unless the specific image (not just it's content) is being directly discussed), are generally not fair use. We have many Wikipedians quite skilled at creating diagrams of great variety and pleasing appearence - if you need one created for an article, contact commons:Category:Vector graphics editors (I think), rather than trying to find an image on the web somewhere. Hope this helps clarify things. 66.81.16.203 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (actually User:JesseW/not logged in)

If a replacement image could be created by anyone, then it's probably no good. There's obviously some room for common sense, of course (an image of some feature of a sea floor 30,000 feet down isn't reasonably recreatable, for instance). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Isn't this contrary to law, in particular Fair use#Effect upon work's value? If a work is re-creatable by a large number of people, then allowing its fair use will have a smaller impact on its commercial value than if it isn't, e.g., a picture of something which doesn't exist anymore. Is this provision just something that was made up, or does it have some actual basis in law? BenB4 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is used everywhere on the Internet doesn't mean we should have to use it. And if we have the ability to remake photos, then any claim for fair use is pretty weak. If it is something like a plane crash or naturual disaster, of course, we could have some fair use claim, unless the FAA or FEMA have pictures, since they are the public domain. I still think that we can recreate these photos. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"if we have the ability to remake photos, then any claim for fair use is pretty weak" -- why? Is there an actual legal basis for saying that, or is it just something that people apparently believe because they feel it must be true? In fact, doesn't the use of images which are impossible to re-create have a greater impact on their value than works which are easy to re-create, which have little intrinsic value? BenB4 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends. If there is a freely licensed photo from the same major event (such as Hurricane Katrina) or a similar event (liftoff of the space shuttles, fire in a building, military parade), then any fair use photo of those events should not be used, since we have an alternative. Plus, Wikipedia fair use rules are above and beyond what the US law is, since we try to be a free (as in beer) encyclopedia. As for the easy to recreate photos, there is little reason why we need fair use pics once that free-use alternative is made. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Or could be created" comes from Wikipedia's mission to be a free content encyclopedia. If it's possible to make a free-license replacement for an image, then using a non-free image interferes with that goal. This has nothing to do with the law: the effect on the work's value comes from how Wikipedia uses the work, as compared to the original use of the work. --Carnildo 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why allow fair use at all? If this is the actual justification, then why shouldn't the restriction "could be created" apply to contributors' ability to re-create, instead of the hypothetical ability of someone, somewhere, who might not ever become a contributor? BenB4 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea was that "fair use" would be claimed in very limited circumstances, to allow for things such as Image:Raising of the flag - colored.jpg. Jkelly 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider the situation of someone who lives in a jurisdiction where fair use doesn't apply and wants to reuse Wikipedia. Assuming everything is tagged correctly, this person could take a Wikipedia database and just remove all images in all the fair-use categories — easy. Now, what are they left with in terms of imagery? Well, of course they've lost all images that couldn't possibly be anything but fair use (album covers, etc.). But for other images: consider a Wikipedia in which fair use was allowed whenever legal, and a Wikipedia where fair use was prohibited when a free replacement is possible. In the former, many articles such as Steven Harper would now be wholly unillustrated. In the latter, on the other hand, they would still have pictures.

Granted, this is a pretty far-fetched scenario. More realistically, it can help contributors from non-fair use projects such as the German Wikipedia find appropriate images, and it emphasizes the free content nature of Wikipedia that people so often miss. Mostly it's an idealistic policy, not a pragmatic one, but then so is our entire copyright policy — most sites just don't remove copyrighted content unless the removal is explicitly requested, relying on safe harbor laws like OCILLA, and that's a strategy with zero legal risk. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

a reasonably realistic standard is "can it be created by anyone on wikipedia".Geni 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The word anyone, as you used it, is ambiguous. I think what you mean is, "an unfree image is not acceptable if there is anyone on Wikipedia who could create a free equivalent", and I agree completely. No one can create a free image of an album cover, a past event, or a restricted area in North Korea, so unfree images are a possibility (subject to our legally-inspired criteria). On the other hand, even if I can't, someone here could photograph a mountain in Kenya or redraw a technical diagram, so unless we have criticism a particular picture itself, unfree images are out of the question. I think a clarification of FUC #1 would be helpful. It is not bad as it is, but the bulleted "Always use a more free alternative if one is available" detracts from the general rule above it: an unfree image shouldn't be used if a free one is even possible, let alone on-hand. ×Meegs 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've drawn SVG replacements for a couple of these: Image:Speciation modes.svg and Image:Polyploidization.svg. The other two should be pretty easy to replace as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Drew one more: Image:Drosophila speciation.svg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The key is whether legitimately free — i.e. non-derivative — replacements could be created which serve the same purpose. Obviously artistic works never fall into this category, but things like "a picture of a car" or "a diagram showing something" are all pretty easily re-created by someone with a camera or with a little knowledge of computer graphics. And no, there is no legal basis to the "have the ability to recreate" in respects to the fair use clause, except for the basic one of "if you don't have to claim fair use, then you don't even have to worry about the legal basis".

There are numerous places you can go to ask for people to create new diagrams on Wikipedia. Many people (myself included) are more than happy to take a crack at it. --Fastfission 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I find the administrator who deleted an image?

I wan't to ask the admin who deleted an Image to undelete it but I don't know how to find out who did it because the page/history is gone. - Peregrinefisher 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What was the filename? Jkelly 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to Special:Log and type in the image's name in the appropriate box. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on combo of crit commentry + screenshot gallery

Hello, I've been working on the Neo-Geo article and, given the unique 14-year history of the system, tried to illustrate the evolution of the system software over time (due to its longevity, programmers for the Neo-Geo were forced to get creative in pushing the graphics (and sound) on games while staying within certain limitations). As a result I've created what's now titled "The Graphical Development of Neo-Geo" which combines several long paragraphs of commentary on the evolution of the games (with notable games from each year for a sequence of years) and then immediately followed it up with a gallery of these games previously mentioned because I think the display is most effective when placed in sequential order by year. I've been told that galleries are generally not permitted, but I thought this instance might be acceptable because it does have method to the selections and they are integrated fully into a critical commentary. I actually switched out several screenshots a few months ago so that there would be a logical order for critical commentary, and after some recent concern I expanded the very short introduction into what it is now. In the section as its constructed presently, I don't see the violation of wp:FU (it's not original research, either). --Bobak 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, certainly, since it's explicitly about the graphical evolution of the series. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you'd need to relate each screenshot to a point you're making. The gallery as it is does not do this. ed g2s • talk 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused: each screenshot is commented on in the above several paragraphs, in the same order they are listed in the gallery. However, instead of sprinkling a far too dense group of separate pictures (which would look hideous on any resolution), they are all save for the very end of the section where the natural progression described in the preceding text is illustrated in sequence. Since there is no new section head, I would assume that a person would see that it's a part of the section as a whole piece. --Bobak 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to make the references more obvious. In example, divide the section in years, and put a screenshot in every of those subsections. -- ReyBrujo 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that you are "mentioning" the screenshots. In other words, you are using the images as visual assistants to the text, while in fair use images, you need to demonstrate the image is needed. In example:

In 1992, SNK introduced Art of Fighting, one of the first games using a spirit gauge which limited the amount of special movements the character could execute before having to refill them. Although the game was in 2D, the visuals have been greatly improved, including a zoom in and zoom out effect not available in other consoles at the time, which allowed to have a greater distance between characters. To create the zoom effect, the Neo Geo utilized its math coprocessor. It is possible to note a difference between the zoomed in and zoomed out battles, as these last ones did not use the coprocessor, making the gameplay slower.

This is just a fictional example. Note that most of this information fits better the article about the game than the article about the console, that is why it is "easier" to add the images in the article about the game. -- ReyBrujo 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the commentary itself is the sequence, the display of the changing over time. I think the gallery is fine for this sort of thing, in the same way it would be if they were going linearly down the side of the page. It is clear that they are not being used as just a "screenshot gallery" (i.e. "hey look at all of images we have!") in this case, which makes it fine in my book. --Fastfission 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It still seems like quite a lot of images for one section. Some of the pictures aren't part of the graphical evolution that you've discussed either, for example "The Neo Geo also became known for its shooters, with the first successful title coming with 1994's Aero Fighters 2" is all you've said about that game, so it hardly requires an illustration. Whereas "with 1997's launch of The Last Blade, SNK programmers demonstrated that the Neo-Neo geo was still capable of producing artistically rendered graphics to match the gameplay engine." is slightly more in need of an illustration, if still a little short. ed g2s • talk 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion needs to be fleshed out more (the text is a rougher first draft), I just wanted to check that I haven't crossed some sacred cow that will result in the whole section being excised. I will work on that. --Bobak 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you should add the images as and when you have the discussion that requires them, and not to fill in the gaps you haven't written yet. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are currently no gaps, although some parts are underwritten. Each and every image is accounted for in the text. --Bobak 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merely mentioning the game is not enough grounds to claim the need of a screenshot. The screenshot itself needs to be discussed. If the images were used inline, it would be more obvious what you were referring to when you talk about various graphical developments, and it would also force you to write enough for each picture. If you need to use a gallery you probably have too many images. ed g2s • talk 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, you can show that the graphics got better with 4 or less screenshots.--Peta 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please look through Tranquillo's image uploads. He originally uploaded them with invalid fair use licenses (thus making them eligible for speedy deletion). However, User:Crzrussian retagged them all with fairuse instead of deleting them. He did not bother to provide rationales, and I don't think they qualify for fair use. --Hetar 03:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I saw, it was the same pic uploaded 10 times under different names. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of FUC#8

Discussion from archive:

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

This section should be clarified with regards to recent disputes involving decorating lists (e.g. List of Puerto Ricans, List of Lost episodes), and in general cases where images are not accompanied by any significant discussion. Suggestions? ed g2s • talk 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a really hard line to draw here. Just thinking out loud: I think that the images should accompany discussion, but that discussion need not necessarily be about the image itself. That is, the Lost screenshots are certainly fine in their own articles about the show and the episodes themselves, but in the list their use is not at all "encyclopedic". I would probably argue that in this sense, lists themselves are not "encyclopedic" (this is not a call for removing them, because they certain help with navigating the encyclopedia, but that does not make them "encyclopedic" any more than, say, the "What links here" page is). I don't know if that is any more of a way towards clarification, though. I wonder what others think about this... --Fastfission 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the text is clear, we require discussion and explicitly prohibit the use of fair use images for decoration.... The discussion should be about the image itself or at a minimum about the copyrighted work from which we are excerpting. Using an excerpt of lost in an article about lost is acceptable, using it in an article on an actor might be acceptable if we have text discussing their involvement in the show and the image us used to illustrate that discussion (the test should be if the discussion is less valuable or harder to understand without the image), and using a shot of lost to illustrate crib simply because a lost show included one incidentally would not be acceptable. As far as lists go, generally images get used in them as decoration or as navigational aids, not to facilitate a discussion... so, we shouldn't use fair use images on them. --Gmaxwell 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The text is quite clear but given the arguments on "Lost" and the arguments we would have if all the images were removed from other lists, it apparently isn't clear enough. ed g2s • talk 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a larger discussion about this. Jkelly 02:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You can at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists but it would seem Ed doesn't want that discussion to know about it. Cburnett 23:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add "Nothing that allows the reader to better understand or more easily identify anything discussed in the article violates this criterion"? I believe that's the intent of the current criterion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too broad, the current term uses the word 'significantly'. We should generally avoid fair use where it is only slightly beneficial as well. Of course exactly what qualifies as significantly is open to discussion, which is intended.. the word 'nothing' closes discussion. --Gmaxwell 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Images must either be the subject of significant discussion, or provide essential information that can't be provided by text or a free image. Any other use is considered decorative." Or something like that...? ed g2s • talk 10:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That would also take care of all the unnecessary band logos that are being uploaded (see Gorillaz, Angels and Airwaves, etc.) --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Fair use images may only be used if an article or a section of an article would be incomprehensible without them, and no free alternative is available"? User:Angr 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be a bit to strong. That would mean almost all covers of albums, books, magazines, etc. would have to go. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Which would be a very good thing indeed. User:Angr 12:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the band logos shouldn't be uploaded. They contribute significantly to the reader's ability to identify the band and references to it, should he come across (for instance) someone wearing a T-shirt with the band's logo, or a graphical parody of the band's logo, or whatever. That's the point of allowing logos altogether. And while most of our readers won't have come across references to an average band, all of those who read the article on a given band must have come across some kind of reference to it previously, unless they used Special:Random. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think significant is necessarily less broad than what I suggested, because it doesn't apply to the same phrase. I would say that anything that "allows the reader to better understand or more easily identify anything discussed in the article" does, ipso facto, "contribute significantly to the article". I would still go with that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "incomprehensible without" is a little strong, as this could rule out valid uses, such as Tank Man. ed g2s • talk 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Since that article is really about the images, not about the man, it would be incomprehensible without one of them. (I don't think having both is really necessary, though.) User:Angr 15:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the German article on it "incomprehensible". You can give someone quite a good understanding of the subject without seeing the actual picture, but the picture is definitely very important, and worth inclusion. ed g2s • talk 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But you'll notice the German article is more about the man than about the image, whereas our article is more about the image than about the man. User:Angr 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this discussion seems to be going round in circles on the RFC, I have proposed an amendment to the policy (Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2) to try and get things moving. ed g2s • talk 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the Amendment. What's the procedure? Should we vote on it? If I understand correctly, the so called "promotional images" on living persons are going to found their way out of Wikipedia after this amendment, right? --Abu Badali 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The procedure is probably to leave it up for a few days to discuss any problems/changes, then gather a consensus to implement it. It wasn't written with promotional photos in mind and I don't really see how it applies to them... ed g2s • talk 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave all further comment here: Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. ed g2s • talk 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists hinges on this very point but you felt like running around it because you couldn't win that argument. Instead of winning by argument you're going to win by changing policy to your definition of "decorative". Great move: it speaks volumes about your character and that you have no intention of actually carrying a discussion. Cburnett 23:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the issue should be clarified. It should be clarified to allow most of these fair use images. Something with an example, like List of Lost episodes is a justified use of fair use images on wikipedia. After the images have been restored to that page, of course. - Peregrinefisher 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge that further comment on this topic be made at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, where discussion was already ongoing and still continues. Johntex\^talk 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As you hadn't noticed, this is a continuation of a proposal that was made before the RfC, which is only dealing with images in lists. ed g2s • talk 11:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the original? Anyways, it sounds like it will prohibit the images in lists as well as other stuff. - Peregrinefisher 03:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cover Art to ID Performers

I believe that the guidelines regarding Cover Art are from an overly conservative interpretation of Copyright Law. For many articles, a cover is the only way to illustrate a performer - particularly in the world of adult entertainment. This is not decorative, but an important aspect of the article. The bedrock of the law is that the reproduction of a copy written work does harm to the owner - how does reproducing the cover art of a movie do that? If anything, it might lead to extra sales, and in any event reduces the value to the holder not one bit. My proposal is that unaltered covers be allowed for the use of identification purposes, as long as they are accompanied by the name of the company and year of copyright, to aid in identification.Oldcritter 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

only way to illustrate a performer? When did they die?Geni 02:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Typcially, performers leave the business after a few years; only rarely will they continue appearences in a way that provides an opportunity for snapshots that could be turned over to the public domain.

I concur with Oldcritter. Zeromacnoo 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if we would ever had built this gallery of free images of porn stars if we accepted cover images for identification purposes. One of the beneficts of restricting fair use is that it motivates people to find free images. And collecting/producing free content is one of the goals of this project. --Abu Badali 13:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. Sometimes it's quite easy to find those (not always). Look on flickr for instance (write a thank you to the photopgrapher btw), or write someone to ask permission to use a certain image. So often fair use is used when it's not THAT difficult to find a free image. Garion96 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Abu and Garion: no need to change our fair use policy. Free images should be made/found instead. Mushroom (Talk) 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  - - I thought this was a discussion of fair use, not the desirability of creating free content. I strongly disagree that cover art should be excluded simply to encourage people to look elsewhere for images. This is not about laziness; In the adult world, there are many notable performers that left the business before the advent of the Internet and digital photography ala Luke Ford. Their magazine layouts and other images are covered by copyright and cannot be used here. Using cover art – which is fair use by any legal definition - should be allowed in these cases.Oldcritter 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:HistoricPhoto proposed for deletion

Template:HistoricPhoto has been listed for deletion here. You're invited to comment. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Namespace

The article says, "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page). ", what about Wikipedia namespace where it's like:

Wikipedia:NameofSomething

?????? Hardvice 11:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. ed g2s • talk 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Low Resolution"

[copied from Talk:Fair use]

I don't know if this is the place to ask or not, but what is the consensus on "Low Resolution"? I read "thumnails" earlier, but what specific resolution? I ask because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Honda_WOW.jpg seems to me to be too high of resolution to be considered fair use. I was going to resize it, but was unsure as to what size to target. Thanks. --Douglas Whitaker 04:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[end copied material]

My thumb rule: If any of the axis is over 800 pixels, I tag the image with {{fair use reduce}}. While browsing at 1024x768, I get the Download high resolution version message when viewing an image with a long side.

The real question: The size should be as long as necessary. In example, if you are showing the car in a thumbnail of about 250px, the same picture with an axis of 300px may be enough. If you are showing a part of the car that is not visible with a 300px image but is visible with a 1024, you should consider searching around for a zoomed image. I am guessing there are no free images of the car.

Now the exception. We are talking about a car. Having a big image of a car does not affect Honda's sales of the car. If this were a CD cover, a map or a poster from an original artwork, it may as it would be possible to create modifications and sell them instead of the original. Also, note that if this is in fact a promotional picture, Honda has released it willingly. Considering these last two facts, I believe the image could stay as is. However, my common sense would anyways force me to reduce its resolution. -- ReyBrujo 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the image can be shurnk, this this is about the size me and others use for desktop screen size (maybe it was meant to be a desktop background). I would reduce it by half. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The image should be as large as necessary. In this case, it's much larger than necessary, since we'd never use an image of that size in an article. I'd reduce it to maybe 600 pixels wide, which is the widest we'd possibly ever want in an article, but probably 400 pixels would be better (thumbnail size with some wiggle room). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the deal with "low resolution"? Is it the actual image size or the apparent image size? Is the fact that you can click on a higher resolution important? - Peregrinefisher 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actual size of the image (not the thumbnail) that is stored on WP. Well, if the image is fair use and it says "download higher res" then it can be a sign to reduce it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the highest-quality image that can be accessed that matters, and that means the stored image, not the thumbnail. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use audio

I was wondering if it's okay to include a short sample of a TV show's music in order to demonstrate what the rest of the music is like. I've seen opening themes such linked offsite, even on FAs, but never uploaded directly to WP imagespace. From what I can tell, it doesn't violate WP:FUC or {{music sample}}, but I still wanted some input.

If it's worth anything, I would also be using the song sample on the artist's page. east .718 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as short and low-quality as you can while preserving your point. Given that, yes, it's fine. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! east .718 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Decorative movie posters

Such as on Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards 1966. Discussed here: Image talk:2001Style B.jpg. Comments welcome. ed g2s • talk 11:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Every artwork can be called decorative--the issue is whether it helps educate the reader. the Kansas City poster is not mere decoration--it tells about the movie that won the prize in the way words cannot. Rjensen 11:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, the image tells nothing about the movie that words cannot. It looks perhaps better with the image but I don't see anything else the image adds. Garion96 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the faces--this is a movie that is famous primarily for its intense emotional content. It would be original research to decribe these emotions. Rjensen 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We are are looking at this image right? I love the movie, but I really don't think this image captures the movie or tells me something words cannot. IMO this one does a much better job at that. But even if it does, then it would belong in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) not in the Kansas City critics etc article. Garion96 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well editors disagree but this is all about emotions and that's what the poster shows. The editor who put it there (it was not me) and I agree that it belongs. It was not put for mere decoration, but to help users. Maybe some people think it doesn't help them much, but nevertheless it falls under Wiki's fair use guidelines, which is the point. Rjensen 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying we should allow movie posters each and every time the film is mentioned on Wikipedia? That certainly doesn't sound like keeping fair use to a minimum. ed g2s • talk 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that when an editor decides that a specific poster informs the reader about a specific movie, then that poster is not "mere decoration" but it passes Wiki's fair use test. It also passes the legal 4 criteria (it is unlikerly to hurt movie sales--just the opposite.) Rjensen 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the film do you need to inform the reader about on an article that is not about the film? This is not just about legal criteria, but also "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." Just because any editor could argue that the poster helps identify the film any time it is mentioned, it doesn't mean we should. ed g2s • talk 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

part of the article is indeed about the film--how it was awarded a prize. the prize came from emotional performance the main actors, I suggest Rjensen 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You think that is an article about how a film was awarded a prize!? It just says "Best picture: film". There has been no effort to discuss the film, the poster, the relevance of the poster to the film, the relevance to the poster to the award - or anything. There is absolutely no fair use claim whatsoever. ed g2s • talk 14:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that the poster illustrates the firm that won top prize? A poster for Gone With the Wind would not fit Wiki's criteria but this one certainly does. I'm unclear whether the complaint is that: 1) the poster is unfairly used and will hurt the movie company; 2) Wiki should not use posters to illustrate films at all--maybe we should use word pictures instead. That cripples Wiki, I fear. Rjensen 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we can use posters, but minimally, i.e. on the article about the film and an article that discusses the poster itself. Using it every time the film was mentioned would results in hundreds of unnecessary uses. The main principle of our fair use policy is to keep such usages of such media to a minimum. ed g2s • talk 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to set an arbitrary limit or claim that the image can only be used on one single article about the film. It could easily be usable a handful of times, for example: The movie itself, the genre the movie belongs to, the main actor/actress/director of movie *IF* those articles provide some commentary on why the image was chosen for the movie. Since that commentary could be different on the different articles, the image can be reused in those occasions. Johntex\^talk 16:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Replacethisimage

I created this template to help with the backlog of images in Category:Fair use image replacement request with the intention of putting it in image captions to encourage people to find free use replacements. However, it's already been nominated for deletion and I would welcome more community input. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sculptures in public places

I notice that recently on Commons, all photos of the Wall Street bull and several other NYC sculptures were deleted on the basis that the sculptures are copyrighted works. Frankly, I'm pretty surprised: these are sculptures in public places. I've never heard of there being any issue with publishing photos of such things. Is Commons being overcautious? Is this an issue in other countries but not in the U.S.? Does someone know the story here? - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the other way around. Many countries that are not the U.S. have what is called "freedom of panorama"; if a statue or building is in public space, its creator cannot claim copyright on photographs of it. This is true, for instance, in Germany. In the U.S., only buildings have this exemption, but not sculptures. In France, photographs of both buildings and sculptures are derivative works. Jkelly 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See Commons:Derivative works. Kjetil _r 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But the case they cite there is of a statue inside a building, not one in a public square. Is there a case where this arose with a sculpture in a public space? Does this mean, for example, that Kelly Cline, who licensed the right to use the photo illustrating Fremont Troll had no right to do so? It has to be one of the most photographed things in the northern half of Seattle; I'm sure I've seen similar shots on the front page of the local newspapers. It's hard to believe this is a copyright problem. - Jmabel | Talk 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Troll, like any public sculpture of recent enough age, is copyrighted, and all photographs of it are derivatives of that work. However, remember that Commons cannot accept fair use images; Wikipedia can (and I do believe there is a very strong fair use argument for non-print quality photographs of public sculptures, if not sculptures generally). Just make sure the photograph is released under GFDL, and that a fair use rationale is stated for the depicted sculpture. Postdlf 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is pretty silly. Until I see evidence that a picture of a building does not constitute a derivative work of sufficiently high enough creativity that it generates a new copyright, I think this is copyright paranoia gone ballistic. Yes, of course you can copyright the design of a building. But if your derivative work is not itself a building, or a 3-D sculpture/architectural work of any form, I fail to see why this wouldn't count as sufficiently transformative under US law to the point where the architect has no copyright claims over it. One court case which actually rules that a photograph of a building is derivative the point of infringement is all I challenge anyone to produce. --Fastfission 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Law of the United States of America, § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work [...]". Photos of buildings are totally ok in the USA. Kjetil _r 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that in the United States photographs of buildings are treated as derivative works. It is sculptures that are the problem in the United States. Are you looking for an example in French case law for buildings in France? Jkelly 01:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore the irrelevant building issue, and take the "challenge" generally, to mean copyright infringement cases where the derivative is in a vastly different form and medium than the original:

Ty, Inc. v. Publ'Ns Int'l, 292 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2002): picture book of Beanie Babies was derivative infringement of the "soft sculpture" toys.

Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publ'g Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998): Seinfeld trivia book was derivative infringement of the television series.

Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992): sculpture of subject of photograph was derivative infringement of that photograph.

Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986): photographs of ballet performance were derivative infringements of original choreographic work.

Need I go on? Postdlf 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes please do go on: we want a case involving a photograph of a public building. There are zillions of such photos--did not any of them lead to a lawsuit? No case law = presumptive fair use. Rjensen 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think considering Kjetil_r's quote above, there won't be any cases involving a photograph of a public building... --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the statute is very clear on the exclusion of photographs of architecture from the right to control derivatives, and we weren't talking about buildings anyway to begin with, so I still don't know why Rjensen brought it up. Postdlf 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another tricky one

How should we handle licensing on Image:Roberto Viaux.jpg? The current tagging is contradicted by the text. It is tagged as public domain, but the text says "from the Photo-archive of the Universidad de Chile. Free for educational purposes and non-profit". First thought was that it should be tagged as fair use. But wait! It doesn't give the actual copyright credit (just a probably false claim of PD). And since we ourselves are non-profit and educational, we apparently have the right to use it on a licensed rather than fair use basis, but under a license that runs counter to our own policies. So, assuming the text is accurate and we can identify who holds copyright, it would be licensed in Wikipedia, but presumably fair use for a commercial re-user? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that the PD tag is incorrect. Based on the stated limitations, the image would be license-tagged under Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, with the provision that it could not be used for commercial purposes. However, because many Wikipedia mirrors have paid advertising, we don't accept non-commercial use licenses. So it should unfortunately be deleted. Postdlf 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct template is actually {{Noncommercial}}. Jkelly 23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesssshhh... Didn't see that one at first. Noncomm images are speedy deletable, correct? I don't see a point in waiting to verify the contradicted and implausible PD claim. Postdlf 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

shoot kill. We can always undelete if there is a problem.Geni 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try to clear up the confusion first; the image has been tagged as lacking copyright information, and I have left a message on the uploader's talk page asking him to clarify. Postdlf 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)