Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 10

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

fair use of magazine cover

Question: I put an image of a magazine cover on an author's page, because the author's story is listed on the cover (it is the cover story), and because the magazine is prominently mentioned on the author's page as the place where most of the author's stories have been published. I assumed, therefore, that this article about an author would qualify as an article about the magazine. Does my interpretation seem reasonable? If not, I can remove the image. PaulLev 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If especifically the magazine is mentioned in the author's page, then I see no problem. If you also include the magazine number and year, and explain what is inside (like The author's work has been featured in the cover of magazine XXX, number YY, on 1997. The number included criticism over the TTT story, overall good, and an interview with the author.), it would be much better. -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I already put in a caption to that effect.PaulLev 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on episode lists

Can there be Fair use images on episode lists?? The images on the episode lists improve the article, and the images can idenitfy the key points of the episode, the summary can do that too, but some people like to see whats going on in the episode. (Yugigx60 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

The trouble is, an episode list will have many episodes, and if each episode has an image, then that would be too many "fair use" images in a single article. It's a good rule of thumb to have no more than three "fair use" images in any one article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So, a good solution might be to include 2-3 images as representative samples of the series.PaulLev 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend one: the series logo/title screen/whatever. --Carnildo 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, there is no actual number of fair use images per article that can realistically be applied to all situations. WP:FUC says to use a limited amount, which I would take as only one per episode, not per article. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's gonna be pictures next to each episode, please make them representative of that episode, not some random screenshot that hasn't got much to do with the episode --WikiSlasher 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use galleries in "Logo" sections

There currently exists certain sections in articles like CBS#Logos and New York Giants#Logo and uniforms that describe the history of the logos of the subject of the article. However, many users are uploading every single logo they can find without adding anything substantial to the text on those new images. Should this be allowed? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is where the "limited number" thing comes into play. I'd say unless it's a significant logo change, delete the rest. If image A does the same job as image B in the article, then image B fails WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs

There was a query regarding the status of the first three paragraphs which I added a while ago in discussion with other editors and Jimbo (see above). As I understand that questions have been raised about this I quote below the relevant lines from the IRC conversation concerned. Most of the early discussion and all non-relevant conversation has been removed.

[13:52] <dannyisme> It should be possible for someone to create or find a freely licensed replacement for this fair use work, and this should be done as soon as is practical. Please request a replacement by adding {{tl:Replacethisimage}} in the image captions or on the talk page of the article(s) where this work is used.
[13:53] <jwales> i.e. "historically significant photo" is different from "promotional photo"
[13:56] [AlisonW] in which case I believe a rewrite to the terms of Wikipedia:Fair_Use is called for to make it clear that we only want such an option to apply to 'unrepeatable' photographs
[13:56] <jwales> Alison: oooooh, I like that wording
[13:56] <jwales> "unrepeatable"
[13:57] [AlisonW] it is the basis I've looked at images on
[13:58] <bainer> AlisonW: "unrepeatable" is a good word, more accurate than "unique" which is currently used
[13:58] <jwales> to say "look, we do not need a fair use photo of a minivan you can get by going down the street"
[13:59] [AlisonW] ok .. I'm going to work through that page. I'll let people know when I've done stuff so that it can get endorsed
[14:02] [AlisonW] "Fair use" is a doctrine which permits the use of copyrighted matter and images for other purposes under a restricted set of circumstances. It is not a general blanket permission to use text, images or other materials freely without consideration of their copyright status.
[14:03] <jwales> but notice, it meets both what Alison said and what Smoddy said
[14:03] <jwales> it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here
[14:05] [AlisonW] "Wikipedia permits the use of 'fair use' content only under very restricted circumstances where the image or content is, in essence, not repeatable. ie. it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, include an historical event, but a publicity still of a vehicle or living person can be replaced comparatively easily."
[14:06] <jwales> Alison, is that written somewhere, or you just made it up? It sounds perfect
[14:06] [AlisonW] I'm just writing it now
[14:07] <jwales> Alison, it is great ;)

which was followed by the rest of the text. I trust that this satisfies people and we can get back to removing the images tagged as 'fair use' for which it is comparatively straight-forward to get a totally free image instead. --AlisonW 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I just want to highlight Jimbo's statement that "it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here". There is gray area. Although Thomas Pynchon is living, for instance, it is not reasonable to expect someone to create a free image of him. Since there are so many copyrighted "fair use" images of living people on Wikipedia, I'd strongly recommend dealing with the obvious cases first -- people who are commonly photographed -- before dealing with the tough cases like Osama bin Ladin or Donald Eugene Webb.
So to summarize clunkily, I'd say this: "Any photo of a living person, for whom there is no special circumstance making photography of that person particularly difficult, should not be used under a "fair use" claim -- unless that photograph is showing a non-repeatable circumstance which is important to the article." Those photos should be listed on WP:CV or WP:PUI. Agreed? – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Except that they shouldn't be listed at WP:PUI where they get extra time being republished on Wikipedia while editors can determine their licensing -- we already know that these are "unfree images". Jkelly 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should create a new image deletion tag for these cases. It would place the image in a given category, to be later scanned by admins (think of a huge backlog...) --Abu Badali 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
there is already a fairly trivial way to remove these images from wikipedia. remove them from articles and mark them as orphans.Geni 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. But I've being doing this for months and I assure you it's sometimes too unproductive and frustrating. Editors would simply revert the image removal from the article, and the {{orfud}} tag would become useless. After the 2nd reversion, I end up on doing a ifd nomination. Maybe, for cases where a fair use claim would be very unlikely (like pictures of objects and living persons) we could have something like {{non-free-replacable}} (whatever). I don't know... surely an still undeveloped idea. --Abu Badali 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit it probably helps to be an admin with a reputation for doing ah "interesting" things. However asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use or on the talk page of users who are likely to help you might be a way to get around that problem.Geni 21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that for people that are know for being hard to photograph, a fair use claim is valid. And for those who make public appearances, an unfree image wouldn't stand fuc#1. --Abu Badali 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For reference, whilst the conversation had moved on to images of people it started off being about the number of promo images being used of cars and (USA) buildings where it would be such a simple matter to walk down the road or visit a dealership to get a *free* image that we couldn't see any justification for the 'fair use' claim. --AlisonW 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think those are at all controversial. I've been routinely listing car images, etc., on WP:CV, and they've been deleted each time. So it's good to make it explicit, but I think we're all on the same page there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct way to ask for a free replacement is at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, however that would create a HUGE page. Personally, I believe the correct way is modifying the fair use copyright tags to add a warning that the image will be deleted in a 2/6 month timeframe, and that a free replacement is expected to be found. As a sidenote, I really like the "unrepeatable" wording. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
try Category:Fair use image replacement request.Geni 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The category itself is not useful. There is no simple way of browsing it. In example, I own a determined artifact. To see if someone needs a free picture of such artifact, I would have to browse through thousands of images, 200 at the time, and waiting until the thumbnails load. There should be a better way of doing that. -- ReyBrujo 17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
first person to find an effective way of searching images is going to be able to make a fair bit of money.Geni 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, a summary would help, don't you think? -- ReyBrujo 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We really need to update Template:Promotional. ed g2s • talk 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Being bold, I have done so. Hopefully this now more accurately reflects this page. ed g2s • talk 14:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use for sheet music?

If I notate an excerpt of a musical piece that is copyrighted (such as La Grange (song), the image I created being Lagrange.PNG), is it considered fair use (and the Template:Sheet music template should be used for licensing), or should I release my work into the public domain? Or is it a different kind of fair use? Who owns the copyright to sheet music, the person who notates it, or the composer (if you want to call ZZ Top the "composer," since they didn't notate the music)? I've been unsure as to what tag to use for uploaded examples when the music is copyrighted, but I notated the music (as in I listened to the music and notated it myself, rather than copying it from another source). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmn. Interesting one. The original composer of the music has copyright in the composition itself and will have presumably written down a score/notation at some point (if they didn't we can assume someone their music published authorised did so). Whether you copy from a written source or work it out for yourself from listening to the music, your notation is - by definition - a duplicate of that original whether you've seen it or not (probable a mechanical copyright only though). You can't release your notation as PD, GFDL or anything as the copyright remains in the *content* of the notation, not in the notation itself, and that right is probably the authorised publishers (which might have geographic limits). I would think that an assertation of fair use would be reasonable where an extract (as in your example) is used, but not if it were the whole or a major part of the piece. --AlisonW 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure

There are a number of photographs which we can presume are copyrighted, but where the copyright-holder has intentionally obscured the source of the image. As examples, note the photographs allegedly taken by John Titor, or common photos of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. These photos fill all of our fair use criteria except for #10, in that they do not specify the copyright-holder of the image. I could list dozens, possibly hundreds of images that are important and useful, but where the copyright holder has intentionally made it difficult to prove who produced the images.

I feel we should be able to use these images on Wikipedia, and I think policy should be altered to say this. Our policy currently allows just about no photographs of any terrorists (pre-captivity), since we don't usually know who took the photograph. It allows no stills from al-Qaida tapes, since, again, the person behind the camera is usually unknown. However, news sources routinely use these photographs with impunity, since a copyright-holder who doesn't want to be known as such will not sue for infringement. Even the FBI, in its publications, uses photographs of unknown (or unspecified) origin, for the same reason. (These are often tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but this is incorrect, since the FBI mere republished the images and did not create them.)

I would recommend something like the following be added to the policy. "In cases where the copyright-holder cannot be determined because he or she has intentionally evaded recognition, the work can be used without naming the copyright-holder." I'm curious as to others' thoughts on this. Should all such images (e.g. this, this, and this) be deleted? Or should there be an explicit policy change? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

the cases are few and far between and are best delt with on a case by case basis rather than by an alturation to the policy page.Geni 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
My usual slew of comments:
  1. As a first choice, I would go broader in some respects and say: In cases where the copyright holder cannot be determined or specifically identified, the image must have full attribution of (1) its source and (2) all available information regarding the identity of any likely copyright holders.
  2. Realistically, we can't definitively identify the actual copyright holder for almost any work. If the copyright isn't specifically attributed, we don't know whether the work was work for hire or not, and even if there is a specific attribution, we can't say that there hasn't been a rights transfer some time after the attribution.
  3. As an alternative for # 1, I would have no problem with identifying the copyright holder as "unknown individual publishing pseudonymously as John Titor," or "unknown author, presumably a member of Al Quada." As long as we can assess the commercial use of the work and the likelihood of wikipedia displacing it, we don't actually need to know the specific owner to ensure fair use, do we?
Thanks, TheronJ 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can see this being abused like "Summary: Picture of actress Jennifer Aniston. Source: copyright holder cannot be determined or specifically identified. Found on friendsfans.net. Licensing: {{promotional}}"
Of course, this doesn't mean I think the original intent of this proposal isn't good. --Abu Badali 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but don't think that stating that a work had an unknown owner would be enough to satisfy the {{promotional}} requirements. TheronJ 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And that sort of thing would still fail FUC #1; as long as we enforce that criterion, this opening would be limited to situations where a free replacement would honestly be out of the question. --RobthTalk 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments.

  • Dealing with these on a case-by-case basis seems to lead to their being deleted. And according to current policy, they should be deleted. Is that what we want?
  • This is not for images where the copyright-holder is merely unknown. This is for images there there is evidence that the copyright-holder does not want to be identified.
  • If I list an image with "unknown author, presumably a member of Al Quada", it could be tagged {{nsd}}. Wouldn't that be accurate?

Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If evidence suggests that an author is deliberately anonymous (as opposed to merely unknown to the uploader), then I think it ought to be good enough to indicate that and explain what is known about the authorship. I'll let others decide how the policy should be tweaked to address circumstances like this. Dragons flight 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This question is basically about how to handle orphan works. For those unfamilair with this issue orphan works are just as copyrighted as anything else (for now) and they will have to be allowed in under Fair Use. I do feel we should have a way for for orphan works to be allowed in the Fair Use Criterai. But I believe it is important we also have guidelines set-up to evaluate what an orphan work is. There are various opinions about the lengths that must be undertaken before you may declare and work orphaned. This report is worth reading, if a bit tedious. It does have alot of valuble detailed discussion on the issue, so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Perhaps we need to develop an orphan works criteria as an alternate to declaring the copyright holder?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

International WIKIPEDIA fair use and images

In light of "This page is dangerous" by Jimbo and the draft new GDFLs it might be an idea to begin fresh consideration of how Wikipedia is to treat fair use images for the future. I understand the present policy to allow such images in the English Wikipedia was decided by a vote, (see meta:Fair use) so maybe as a start we could have 3 options: allow fair use images but under very restricted conditions as Jimmy Wales suggests above, don't allow fair use images as most Wikipedias in the world seem to do (which would seem to be easiest to harmonize worldwide) - or thirdly to allow them under US copyright law as at present.

The debate, perhaps including invited experts in world copyright, image recognition, etc could lead up to a call for a unified policy for all Wikipedians at the next Wikimania conference in 2007. This would give very ample time for input and discussion from all sides so Wikipedians muster well prepared and hopefully able to arrive at consensus during the Conference.

The advantage of a unified policy is that eventually we can perhaps more easily create a better World Wikipedia, as images would surely have significant input in such a project--luke 07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No fair use doesn't work because so many free images contian elements of fair use.Geni 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I don't yet know if The Foundation is working on a World Wikipedia, but the groundwork will surely need very careful preparation--luke 13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Need clarification, two articles (same issue essentially)

I was edited two articles, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and noted that free images exist for the lead. For example, this and this, respectively. Both from government sources. However, one editor keeps replacing the Limbaugh one with a copyrighted image, and keeps reinserting an unneeded copyrighted image into the Malkin article. I feel that per the fair use policy in both cases the free ones are to be used, and the copyrighted second image in the Malkin case is not needed. Where does policy fall for a final decision in both cases? Thanks. · XP · 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on the talkpages for both articles. I would completely agree that the free images should be used in preference to the non-free ones, and have suggested that the first one is edited for improvement. --AlisonW 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these images are acceptable images. The Malkin image is not adequate resolution to crop and it is a group image. The Limbaugh image is from 1994 and is not an accurate representation. I suspect there is some ulterior motivation for removal of the fair use images and this policy is being used as an excuse. If I was trying to remove the 3 fair use images from Franken's page, since there are 2 free images there, a loop hole in this policy would be found to allow those fair use images. Thank you for reminding me what type of environment I'm editing in. --Dual Freq 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say when you write " this policy is being used as an excuse", but let me be absolutely clear. The wikipedia projects are about *open* content that is free to use and *re-use*. Every time 'fair use' is claimed for an image it is another occasion that the article and image are *not* free for re-use as they stand. I've no idea what pov you are trying to push, but I'm solely considering what level of freedom we are offering. When free images which can replace copyrighted ones are available the free ones are the ones which must be used. --AlisonW 14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe in disregard of AGF I am being accused of going after conservative American media pundits' articles in some fashion, by insisting we adhere to our fair use policies. · XP · 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As I told you on the talk page its nothing to do with politics, but your bringing up Al Franken (I presume, by the Franken reference) indicates that may be your primary concern, rather than copyright protection for Wikipedia. The three Fair Use images of Al Franken are used to illustrate specifically his book covers in the appropriate sections, and thus are permissable. The other images are either free (Government sourced) or released under various suitable licensing. The Limbaugh pictures did not illustrate any specific points in an acceptable manner, but a small image of one of his book covers for example could be permissable as is the case in the Franken article. For the Malken Fox news image, as it's a small article already, with one free image, there isn't a need to have that extra fair use screen shot of her simply talking on Fox news. It would be like having an extra image of Sean Hannity on his article showing him talking on Fox News--extraneous fair use images are to be removed. · XP · 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Promotional product photos

About 25 have been added to Sony α and the editor refuses to let them go. They are repeatable shots of very recent available products and so are clearly not allowed but he refuses to believe me. ed g2s • talk 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore we may have to review all of his contributions. ed g2s • talk 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for preserving myself from myself. I was obviously a bloody psychopath. --Marc Lacoste 12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the penalties of massive memory is we need a subtle knife to sort the wheat from the chaff to create a valued work of reference. *hug* from luke 13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

There's a new tag in town: {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}. Details and discussion are here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Disassociating between fair use claims (legal context) and free content policy

I think these policy pages should do a much better job of disassociating between someone making a "fair use claim" and seperately explaining the reasons why Wikipedia chooses free content alternatives (regardless of fair use or not). People have preconcieved notions about "Fair use" and the legal criteria for that claim, free content is different, this page and especially WP:FUC confuse the two a lot in my interpretation. Instead of "Fair use criteria" it should be called "Criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia" which should be a superset of the former. In my interpretation a "Fair use criteria" page's scope should be limited to only what would qualify for inclusion within Wikipedia under the legal concept of "fair use". Just because a free content alternative can be created doesn't mean fair use doesn't apply for something, though that point is not as important as clearly conveying to readers the nuances and differences between "fair use" and "free content" generally. zen apprentice T 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are saying is that these are murky waters, and more consistency and clarity in aims and procedures would help editors to take forward the project and with less hassle. Is that perhaps right? The aim of making an excellent encyclopedia — the aim of creating a GFDL free content work, able to be reusable, and even sold, without changes — broadest collaboration to make the project achieve its aims exponentially faster--luke 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that the waters need not and should not be murky. Having a policy page titled "Fair use criteria" that confuses the concepts of fair use and the encouragement of free content is one thing that perpetuates this murkiness. Basically, Wikipedia needs a giant fat red warning sentence on all these policy pages something to the effect of "Note: Fair use might be inapplicable because Wikipedia has a higher standard of encouraging free content alternatives". And I separately wonder why Wikipedia's policies care so much about content mirrors, under copyright law and generally it's fundamentally their problem, it's almost as if these other "sites" want Wikipedia to do their work for them and somehow this has been made Wikipedia policy. zen apprentice T 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Zen Apprentice here. Both on the "We should be clear on the distinction between what is allowed on fair use [quite a bit] and what wikipedia policy encouraging free content allows [much less]" business and also on the "Why on earth should I care about content mirrors? Let them do their own work" front. Wikipedia content mirrors are one of the banes of the internet, and if they all got shut down for violating copyright, I for one would be quite happy. Even excluding wikipedia from google searches doesn't remove the rot of opportunistic wikipedia mirrors, since some seem to be designed so as to not go away when you remove wikipedia from the terms. I don't see why we should go out of our way, to the point of making wikipedia less useful, of helping out organizations that are themselves basically detrimental to the distribution of knowledge, and are basically just there to get picked up by search engines so people click on their ads. I understand that the GFDL license allows them to do this, but I don't see why we ought to take any care for their well-being. john k 12:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of open-source software

Can someone adivse as to the accetpability of using screenshots of open source software taken from the developer's website? See links & discussion here User_talk:Ocarbone#Image_copyrights. The uploader believes that since it is open-source, the screenshots are in the public domain, and I don't know if that's true. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The screenshots won't be public domain, but will be the same license as the original software (usually GPL). Look at the screenshots for Battle for Wesnoth for example. Borisblue 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Not public domain, but that application is aparently {{GPL}} licensed, alternatively the {{free screenshot}} tag might be apropriate or I guess a combination of the two. --Sherool (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Britannica Set

Would it qualify under fair use if I took the picture from here, kept only the print set part of the picture, and uploaded it for a decription of Encyclopedia Britannica? Could {{Book cover}} be used? Thanks in advance. NauticaShades 21:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Legally it might, but it would violate our fair use criteria, specifically #1, which requires that the image be non-repeatable. Anyone could take a pic of the EB books, so there's no need to use their copyrighted image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but why would anyone familiar with Wikipedia have a copy of Britannica?  :-) Dragons flight 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering a full print set costs $1500... NauticaShades 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Libraries are your friend. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I considered that, but I doubt they would allowd me to take their entire set of the shelves, arrange it, and photograph it. NauticaShades 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they? It'd be no different than if you took the whole set down to look for one entry in each book. Plus, if you put them back, there'd be no harm, no foul. Certainly easier than making at good fair use claim for it. --Fastfission 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
We have students. They should be able to get pics of EBs.Geni 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a place where I could request such an image? The fact that I currently reside in a Francophone country doesn't really hlep me in finding a Britannica set. NauticaShades 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:Requested pictures on wikipedia and Picture requests on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The one on Commons is not really active though. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add a request to Wikipedia:Requested pictures, and it may help to put {{reqphoto}} on the talk page as well. I might see if I can get take a snapshot. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FUC#1 and box art

Can box art fail FUC#1? (example: [1] [2], from the boxes at [3]) It's my understanding that any photograph that focuses solely on box art would be a derivative work. If this is the case, then it would not be possible to produce a free version, so {{replaceable fair use}} would not apply in these cases, is this correct? --Interiot 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. User:Ed g2s also orphaned the images from the Xbox 360, and he was probably right, they weren't of too much use. (See before and after) But can we please not tag box art as replaceable fair use. - Hahnchen 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with all the details of derivative work law yet. Even with commons:Commons:Derivative works, it still seems a bit murky. --Interiot 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Politicians

I've read the policies on fair use but I'm still not quite sure about this. Is it possible to use an image (a generic head shot) of an important public person -a politician- to ilustrate an article about upcoming elections? Does it qualifies as fair use? --Magicartpro 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, unless the photo is of great historic significanse to that particular election, but then again that would rule out a generic headshot. There is also the replacable aspect. There should be plenty of oppotunities for someone to take a free licensed photo of a politician, if there is an upcoming election there will no doubht be numerous public apperances. --Sherool (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Flickr could help in the search, or emailing the campaigns for a freely licensed photo could work. If the politicians could find a way to get their names and faces known, they will sieze it, so I would not be surprised if the campaigns are willing to help out. :) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! --Magicartpro 07:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Of course it's fair use. Whether they comply with Wikipedia's far more restrictive fair use rules (which are, in practice, applied even more restrictively than they are written), I don't know, but publicity photos of candidates are created in order to be used to, you know, show people what the candidate looks like. I can't imagine us possibly getting into any legal difficulties over use of such an image. But Wikipedia fair use policy is run by people who don't think wikipedia should allow any fair use, so there's not much to be done. I would recommend just putting in a fair use image, and ignoring the rules hobgoblins here who probably won't notice it, given the large number of fair use images on wikipedia that certainly don't comply with their understanding of fair use. john k 12:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Fair use image policy

With regard to the discussion here. Would it make sense to make/rename a special non free image policy, something like Wikipedia:Non free content images. As long as it's not called fair use it would help to stop a lot of confusion and irritation between Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've always favored a name like Wikipedia:Restricted-license images or Wikipedia:Unfree images -- something to make the whole thing sound as unattractive as possible. --Carnildo 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
A name that doesn't confuse people into conflating United States doctrine and Wikipedia policy would certainly have its advantages. Unfortunately, I think we would just get a whole different kind of confusion if we use "unfree" or "not free". "Restricted use"? "Unlicensed"? One aspect of the problem is that there are some very different classes of media here, from media that really would have to be defended by a fair use claim if an infringement suit was brought to "We are republishing this because we know (or think) that the copyright holder wouldn't mind us doing so, but it isn't freely reusable". We should think about something that encompasses the entire spectrum. Jkelly 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could completely fork the images related parts of WP:FU and WP:FUC into this new Wikipedia:Unfree images sub-policy, as we currently have so much more problems with image's "fair use" than with any other media. --Abu Badali 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That was indeed the idea. Leave Wikipedia:Fair use for text, quotes and such. For those topics there is not so much (I think) difference with legal fair use. And the new page only for images. Garion96 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I support this idea. It's too usual to hear arguments like "it's ok to use this image because we're educational/non-profit", or "see this equivalent case than happened in a court" or "you're nuts if you think they would sue Wikipedia for this" and (the one that I have heard the most) "It seems you suffer from Copyright Paranoia".
Also, most "fair use rationales" fails to explain how the image's passes Wikipedia's fair use criteria, but instead, they explain how the image use isn't illegal.
This name change would make it clearer that the whole point is about building a free content encyclopedia, and not about keeping us court-safe while building an informative website. --Abu Badali 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we use, it shouldn't be "Fair Use". "Unfree" is not perfect, neither is "restricted" (GFDL and CC could be considered "restricted"), but I don't think there are any better adjectives, and they are definitely a big improvement over "Fair Use" which is just plain wrong. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Fair" also has connotations that we really want to avoid. "Public" does too -- maybe we should change "public domain" to "copyright-expired"? --Carnildo 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. "Non-free" works for me. This will do much good, but a whole lot of templates and categories will have to change. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, yes. Oh well..give the bots something to do. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:Non-free images (had to pick a name) and reworded (more copied) WP:FUC on it. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue has become significant because of the changes being made to our policy by those keener to move us closer to the GFDL. I submit that rather than rush headlong into a name change to accommodate our changing ad hoc policies (a mixture of GFDL and fair use, becoming slightly more GFDL and slightly less fair use), now is the appropriate time to take a cool look at the reasons for where we are heading. Should we in fact ban fair use completely perhaps, because our policy should be straightforward, easily enforceable and policed, and also so that it will be easier to eventually integrate to a World Wikipedia. Or should we adopt Jimmy Wales's idea and carefully define very limited circumstances where non-free images are acceptable in the English Wikipedia - but won't this make integration with non-English wikipedias more difficult? IMO these are important issues. We shouldn't rush into a simple name change without looking at the consequence and reasons for what we are doing, and having a clear and unambiguous policy to change to -- luke 07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at all the discussions, I don't think it's possible to get a consensus on that kind of change. (either more restricted or less restricted) Unless it comes from Jimbo or the foundation. With this change, basically nothing changes but the name. I don't really see the problem with foreign language wikipedias. The majority of them don't except fair use anyway and if they do, their version of fair use will than be 'non-free images' here. (if that will be the name). Garion96 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a policy change we're discussing; just a name page. We have a policy on the use of non-free images that disallows many images we could legally use (and we always have). So why should we call it a "fair use" policy, when the U.S. legal definition of fair use is only a small part of the policy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, putting it very simply, Wikipedia is not a US project, but a world-wide one! Thus "fair use" is an easily-understood term that does what it says on the tin. --AlisonW 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I've found that the "fair" in "fair use" leads to all sorts of misunderstandings. --Carnildo 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but the term "fair use" is unique to the United States. (assuming the article Fair use is correct) Plus it doesn't do what it says on the tin. Wikipedia:Fair use is much more stricter than the legal term fair use. Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Unlicensed content policy? Whatever we do we should try and keep it simple and to the point (and easy to direct people to and find). Though most of the page regards images, the policy applies to more than just images (or even media). --Fastfission 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
But a "non-commercial only" licensed image is not unlicensed. And a public domain image is unlicensed. So I think that would be confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadell (talk • contribs) .

Incidentally, this would solve the acronym concern. Jkelly 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What concern? The FU acronym? Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Right. I was being frivolous, but people do actually complain about it. Jkelly 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar templates: fair use replace and replaceable fair use

A quick question: why we have {{fair use replace}} and {{replaceable fair use}}? Which one should we be using? -- ReyBrujo 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Fair use replace}} is the older one, {{replaceable fair use}} is relatively new. I was assuming at some point {{Fair use replace}} would either redirect to the new one, or a bot would transition it to the new one over a couple days so we don't get a huge backlog. --Interiot 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that {{replaceable fair use}} is for photos that should be easily replaceable (celebrities, buildings, etc), but {{fair use replace}} is for photos that conceivably are replaceable but much less easily replaced. For example, if we had a recent fair use picture of J.D. Salinger, this could be tagged with the latter. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the majority need to be changed over, although it will have to be a manual task. ed g2s • talk 11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing this slowly, with a little help from a few other people. If anybody else wants to help, I'd be a very happy Quadell. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessive use of fair use images

Just wanted to mention that the Bose Headphone Family article is currently using 18 (!) fair use images, which seems a little much to me (especially since most if not all of them could be easily replaced with free images). --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove them all. Promo shots of current products which we could easily take ourselves are not allowed. ed g2s • talk 08:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[[User::UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] is now claiming that the images are not repeatable becaue they are no longer on sale. I still think one could easily get pictures of these (email someone selling one on eBay, for example)... ed g2s • talk 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I tagged them all as copyvios and added them all to WP:CP. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the word "easily" is not a good word choice here. It is a fair amount of work to search for people selling discontinued models of headphones on e-Bay and then keep contacting them until a seller agrees to take their time to make a photo and upload it. It is even more time to do this in sequence for each model. The manufacturer is not going to object to this use of their product photo. Even if they did object, fair use clearly applies. We should use the images. Johntex\talk 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't and we won't. Fair Use is a last resort, not an excuse for laziness. ed g2s • talk 03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So is it notable for the text of an article that the former manufacturer of a discontinued product and all owners of the product who have been contacted refuse to allow a Free picture of the product to be made? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if a product is old enough and in limited production, etc. However, this isn't the case for the Bose Headphone Family article. -- Ned Scott 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Stamps & Currency: fair use

It is stated in the article that stamps and currency can be used illustratively, which is a bit general and somewhat misleading. In the case of U.S. stamps, images for stamps issued prior to the founding of the United States Postal Service (July 1, 1971) are considered to be issued by a governmental agency (United States Post Office Department) and are in the public domain. Stamps issued subsequent to July 1, 1971 are copyrighted by the United States Postal Service and cannot be used without prior permission. This is especially true of stamps that may depict the intellectual property, logos, products or insignias of agencies who licensed them to the USPS. Other stamp-issuing entities also have copyrighted recent designs (last 20 years or so, give or take, depending on agency). Users should be advised to check with the issuing agency before snagging a scan, graphic or design from a web site, or scanning and uploading a stamp design themselves, new or used. (I write for the philatelic media and also work peripherally with the USPS, who actively defends misuse of their copyrighted stamp designs.) Ccmhg 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In a related note, there is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#October 7. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewording to clarify the difference between wikipedia's policy and the law

Currently, we have phrasing in the that says "Fair use on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such an image with a free image," which isn't true as far as the law goes, only a matter of wikipedia's policy. I feel like we need to reword things so as not to confuse people into thinking that enforcing policy is actually enforcing the law. I've seen too many cases of overzealous copyright paranoia claiming that we're going to break the law if we use images that aren't strictly policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for "low" and "high" resolution

Sorry if this has come up before, but are there guidelines for what qualifies as "low" and "high" resolution for purposes of a fair use image. There's currently a simmering debate about whether a 72 dpi image is too high resolution to qualify for fair use (or alternately, whether it is so self-evidently low that to call it high resolution qualifies as a personal attack). I'd like to chime in, but I have no idea. Thanks, TheronJ 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would scale the image down by either 1/3 or 1/2. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on several factors. Resolution means both high dpi and high width/height. My thumb of rule is that, if you see the Download high-resolution version message, it is too big, completely dismissing the dpi debate, and tagging it with {{fair use reduce}}. However, you are using images as a reference, linking to it instead of including it in the article. The seventh point of our criteria states The material must be used in at least one article. and being linked does not qualify as being used. If it were me, I would just tag it as orphaned, and search for another way of referencing that section. -- ReyBrujo 05:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and replaced this scan with a scaled down version, manage to shave 350KB from it, but if the community wants it gone, make it gone. Plus, I believe a source is missing. Where was this booklet taken from (either offline or online). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
ZScout370 and ReyBrujo, you evidently don't know the definition of "resolution".
      "(Technical) a measure of the ability to distinguish
      between two close but not identical values of the
      property being measured; it is expressed as the
      difference in values of a property necessary to make such
      a distinction; as, a microscope with a resolution of one
      micron; a thermometer with a resolution of one-tenth of a
      degree."

As you see, it has NOTHING to do with SIZE. Your scaling down of the image made it unreadable. The original image was 72 pixels per inch which is low resolution. As a point of information, I do website design and edit images all the time. 300 pixels per inch or more would be considered "high-resolution". Also, the images are used because they contain the printed information being cited, the source being brochures from the Church of Scientology. Image use criteria should provide for this.--Fahrenheit451 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I say we should (a) tone down the rhetoric, and (b) move all discussion on this to Image_talk:Oec_febc_promo1.png. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A "brochure" is not a reliable source. The fact that you are using it to reference the article is questionable. Images in Wikipedia are to show or demonstrate points in articles, not to be used as references. -- ReyBrujo 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? That makes no sense.--Fahrenheit451 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very silly discussion. This is an image of text that's being used, rather than a "true" image. The text is violating our fair use policy, regardless of technical image details. -- Ned Scott 12:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is published, but it is not a press release. The Fair Use doctrine specifies promotional material, not press releases. --Fahrenheit451 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use#Text states: "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." -- Ned Scott 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'in general" does not solve the issue at hand, which began as a discussion to define "low-resolution" and now has gone off-topic.--Fahrenheit451 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that any image of a size suitable only to illustrate a Wikipedia page (400 pixels by 400 pixels, ie. 4 inches at 96dpi) is low-resolution, while any image large enough to replace at least some of the copyright holders's market for an image is high-resolution. --Carnildo 19:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
72 pixels/inch (for old monitors) and 96ppi (for new) are "web resolution." At 72ppi, a DVD cover, for instance, is about 360px wide and 500px high. For things that are illegible or lose significant details at 72dpi, 96ppi might be better. Anything under 150ppi looks terrible when printed, but still looks good on screen. I recommend choosing 72 or 96ppi depending on what it's an image of and what it's needed for--and smaller if it really doesn't compromise quality.
Which is great for printed materials. Screenshots of computer programs or websites, however, should be at original resolution. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the term "resolution" when used in reference to digitized images refers to the size, not the pixels per inch, because really, saving something at 72ppi vs 300ppi makes no difference to how it's displayed on a monitor; it only affects the printed output. Besides, there's nothing that prevents me from opening an image in Photoshop and changing the ppi. Thus, on the web, a "low resolution" image is something that looks good on screen, but can't be printed adequately. A 300x300 image is fine on screen, but prints at only 1x1 inch, which is of limited use. howcheng {chat} 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It prints at 1"x1" at a resolution of 300ppi. If it were printed at 100ppi, it would be 3"x3" but really fuzzy or pixelated. But a 3"x3" image scanned at 300dpi will display at 9"x9" on screen. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, resolution refers to the property of dots per unit surface area. The size and scaling of an image are other properties. I edit images all the time, so one really needs to understand the differences to get the effect you desire with image editing software. I agree that one needs at least 300 ppi for quality printing, but 100 ppi or less is fine for web display. I appreciate these comments.--Fahrenheit451 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the dicussion correctly,

  1. Farenheit451 thinks that his image is not high resolution because it is 72dpi when scaled to its original size (about 4 inches by 8 inches, give or take an inch);
  2. Several editors argue that it is "high resolution" as that term is used in the fair use policy because it would be much more than 72dpi when viewed at a scale likely to be used as an illustration on a wikipedia page (about 2-3 inches square)
  3. Some other editors argue that the whole analysis is irrelevant because the image pretty clearly violates the fair use policy in other respects.

Is that fair? Thanks, TheronJ 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An accurate summary of the discussion, indeed. I think our next steps should probably be something like an RfC on how to re-define "high def" since there is clearly a good faith misunderstanding here on the wording. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I scaled the image is that if users are able to print the whole thing and do not have to visit a CoS center to get the same information, which is possibly pay for, we will destory the market value of this. while that is far-fetched, that is one reason that this image could fail under fair use. However, looking at the relevant policies we have, I determined that the image is causing major violations of fair use and serves no benefit to the encyclopedia, hence the image is now gone. It had no source, the intent is for people to download and spread from the original uploading. Do not re-upload this Farenheit under this name or any other name. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
At Scientology_as_a_business, a User:Fahrenheit451 has placed somewhat similar images which are mostly text. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Each image offers the Wikipedia user, Download high-resolution version and provides a link to a higher resolution image stored here on Wikipedia. Yet when I attempt to communicate with User:Fahrenheit451 he (or she) accuses me of "false statements", of "accusations" and of "personal attack", [9], [10] and uses the phrase, "you must understand that this is not the place for a jihad" [11]. I am not familar with images. My comments have been about the copyright notice stating in regards to "low resolution okay" while the link offers that a user may "download a high resolution image". Terryeo 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I already went over this in my posting to your talk page Terryeo. The link wording is in ERROR. Again, you failed to ascertain the resolution of the images, which is 4 pixels per millimeter or about 100 ppi. It should state that on each image page. The images are different from the previous, not similar as you state. I note that you did not mention that in your posting above. This discussion is about high and low resolution, not your dispute with me.--Fahrenheit451 04:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a dispute with you. Terryeo 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Those brochures are free. They do not appear on any pricelist nor do they have prices on them. The cofs does indeed give them away. I did source the image, however. --Fahrenheit451 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So anyway, if an image qualifies as fair use under all the other criteria, is a 72 or even 96ppi image OK? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for proposals on Threshold of High Resolution

I propose that the guideline be expressed in both metric and english measurements. I propose that the threshold of high resolution be at 10 pixels per millimeter, which is 254 pixels per inch. Any image resolution at or above that would be classed as high resolution.--Fahrenheit451 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An exact measurement like this won't work. The point in my recommending an RfC for rewording is to point out that we're not defining pixels per inch, and to think we are is a misconception. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is what resolution is. The Fair Use doctrine uses the word which has a common english definition. I find it highly objectionable to invent our own definition when the intent is to comply with Fair Use. --Fahrenheit451 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A few things. One, WP:FU goes beyond normal fair use requirements and is more strict about them. Two, we're not reinventing our own definition. Resolution is not defined by DPI. However, this is a common misconception, so I can see justification in clearing this up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolution says: "the degree of sharpness of a computer-generated image as measured by the number of dots per linear inch in a hard-copy printout or the number of pixels across and down on a display screen."
Also:
The article Dots per inch says: "Dots per inch (DPI) is a measure of printing resolution, in particular the number of individual dots of ink a printer or toner can produce within a linear one-inch space."
Ironically, the article also has a section titled Misuses of DPI measurement: "Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
So there you have it. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I've been using ppi all this time, even though I keep wanting to type dpi :P
Yes, there's no point inventing our own definition of "High Resolution." If it's the same size on the screen as it is in reality (72ppi for old monitors and 96ppi for new), it's low (or "web") resolution -- it can't be printed at more than 1/4-1/3 of original size without losing quality.
If it's more than about 50% higher, 150ppi, it can be printed with moderate quality. At 300ppi, it can be printed at photo-realistic quality (at, of course, the original size). [12]
In metric units, 72ppi ≈ 28px/cm; 96ppi ≈ 38px/cm. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No where in WP:FU is PPI measurement used. You misunderstand completely. PPI or DPI, it doesn't matter. Those are both different terms which use the concept of resolution. We use resolution for how sharp an image is, how much detail can be seen, etc. We only use fair use images as large or as detailed as they need to be, and no more than that. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
O.K. Ned. Thanks for the informative links. Given what you state here, do you wish to offer a specific proposal?--Fahrenheit451 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose we find a way to be clearer about this, but be mindful of avoiding instructions creep. I feel bad that users such as yourself misunderstood this situation, and I'd like to avoid such conflicts in the future. However this is not vital since it is users such as yourself who've made the "resolution definition" mistake. What current guidelines and policy says is accurate, and not in error. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Then, I would suggest we stop using the word "resolution" to describe the criteria that you allude to. Because that word has a specific meaning in the english language, we can eliminate confusion by using a another term to describe the criteria for a Fair Use image.--Fahrenheit451 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, it is the Promotional Copypright notice which mentions resolution. It states, It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material .... qualifies as fair use. The question of resolution arises because the text of the promotional scan can not be easily read in a very low resolution image. Terryeo 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451: you misunderstand, WP:FU and templates are using the correct definition of resolution, you are not. -- Ned Scott 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ned Scott, I edit images for web and printing all the time. I find the definition stated on the link cited by Fastfission to be unclear and at odds with the english language and professional usage. Resolution and size need to be applied as seperate concepts. Thus, the definition is in great need of rewrite. It is unacceptable.--Fahrenheit451 04:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I too have attempted to communicate with User:Fahrenheit451 about the idea behind "resolution" and have failed. He (or she) and other editors (I seemed to be the initiator that time too) had a similar difficulty around the word "publish". Terryeo 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'll all look up the page a little bit you can see that we started to try and hammer out some reasonable and sensible guidelines to this awhile back. Perhaps these can be used as a point of departure as they go over already a lot of the distinctions you are trying to make. See Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". I think it gets around a lot of the problems you are raising and provides a very reasonable framework for discussing individual images (as well as some references to the legal side of it), though of course I would say that since I wrote it up. ;-) --Fastfission 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If we could also directly comment on the misuse of DPI (or PPI) for defining high or low resolution outside of printed material, that'd be awesome. I'd like to help out in any way that I can with the definition page. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The "we" you state shall not include me, as you are proposing a perversion of the common english usage. --Fahrenheit451 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Common misconception. You've been caught with your pants down, as you so obviously misunderstood the real definition of resolution. You're embarrassed, I understand, but get over it. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, Ned Scott, I suggest you pull up your pants and stop exposing yourself :). The words that we use have specific definitions and that makes communication possible and common. I wonder if you have some particular vested interest in making up your own definition. I would say you are the one embarrassed for some reason here. I hope that you can get over it. But maybe that is not possible.--Fahrenheit451 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, is it necessary either way? I changed the once use of the word "resolution" in the template which is synonymous with "size" and that ought to resolve it, IMO. --Fastfission 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[13], [14], [15], [16]. I'm not making anything up. Note that when DPI is typically used in a sentence people say something to the extent of "a resolution of <something> DPI". DPI is a measurement of resolution used in printed documents, and not the definition itself. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The first reference you mentioned states in part:"6 a : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b : a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>" So, I did provide a correct definition, yet you continue to deny that. What is going on with you, Ned Scott?--Fahrenheit451 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No.. that last part is an example of the word in action.. Look at another definition on that same site, they'll take the word and place it in an example in that same format. It's not apart of the definition, it's an example of using the word. DPI is a measure of resolution, hence the example. This is very common for a dictionary. You've missed the point entirely. Not only that, but you've managed skip past and ignore all the actual definitions which back up everything that I've said here.
To reply to something you said on Template talk:Fair use reduce:
From Display resolution (which is where Screen resolution redirects): "The display resolution of a digital television or computer display can be an ambiguous term especially as displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in picture-tube (CRT) and flat panel or projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel) arrays."
Of note, search for the word "per" in the article to see if anything that might be pixels per something shows up. None of the article text even includes the word per or describes display resolution as pixels per some kind of unit. Instead resolution is constantly defined as width x height.
-- Ned Scott 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "width x height" you mean, the two of them together form a ratio which is called 'aspect ratio', such as television's 5 x 4 (often written 5 to 4 or 5:4 or sometimes 5 units of width vs. 4 units of height). Whereas ratio would talk about hight and width, resolution would talk about 6. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal. [17] When talking in this manner we are talking about what a human being perceives and we are not talking about what the hardware presents for the human being to perceive. I believe you are saying that the law and our guidelines talk about what a human being perceives ? Terryeo 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about size, not aspect ratio... the image does not need to be larger or any more detailed than needed in order for it to fulfill it's role in the article. Do you not use your perception when editing an article? A conscious understanding of something? Generally recognized to be true? As seen or understood by an individual? -- Ned Scott 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, when editing and when reading and when viewing an image I perceive and my perception should be enough to understand the point an editor is making when he (or she) includes an image. To fulfil Fair Use, I don't need to perceive greater detail than that needed to understand the article's information. But, if the image presents 1000 times more detail than a reader needs to understand the point an editor is making when he (or she) uses an image, then we are beyond the firm ground of Fair Use and into swampy ground, I believe. And this would be true no matter how many dots per inch or picture elements an image presented. Terryeo 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


There is some related discussion at Template talk:Fair use reduce#Gross misunderstandings of Resolution. I won't copy it here, even though it does seem to be properly part of this discussion, but it may be worth a look. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment on this fair use rationale? [18] It is an example of an image that is a lot wider than it is tall. --GunnarRene 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I think hardcoding limits is arbitrary and as such very difficult to justify. Even on its longest face the image is only 412 pixels which I think is well within the limits of it not being high-resolution. --Fastfission 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U.

Please change Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. to Coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. in the external links sections. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Good catch - thank you. Johntex\talk 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FUC#1 and people

Current FUC#1 says "Also, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult."

I think this is too wide-ranging a dictum to be just "thrown on" as an "also" at the end of it. This says, in effect, that no fair use photograph of a living person could possibly be used.

I think this is both far beyond the intention of FUC#1 and something which is bound to cause unnecessary grief.

FUC#1, as I understand the rationale behind it, is designed to make sure that people don't use "fair use" indiscriminately. It is designed to make sure that we don't use "fair use" photographs where we could generate a free one, or just use "fair use" because we are lazy. I agree with all of that aspect of it. It evolved, as I understand it, out of concerns that people would use "fair use" photographs to illustrate commonplace things — i.e. using a copyrighted photograph of a table to illustrate a table. No reason to do it — get rid of it.

But there are limits to expectations about reasonable access. Any product which can be seen in a store is obviously within reach of someone with a camera. Things get dodgier when we start talking about items available only to the super-rich or in incredibly limited supply. At some point the reasonability of replacing the copyrighted product with a free substitute begins to reach zero. There are possibilities that someone might have access to free photographs of incredibly rare things which exist today, but those opportunities cannot be relied upon.

People can be just as rare, just as hard to get a good photo of, especially when we are talking about official portraits or promotional shots. When we have free alternatives, we should privilege them and feel free to remove copyrighted versions, but I don't think that FUC#1 is intended to mean that no fair use images should be used for 1. any people who are possibly alive, and 2. any object which possibly exists. This is unreasonable, and its unreasonableness is obvious, leading to hair-splitting debates between people over whether something is a reasonable expectation or not. Anything which involves stalking someone for a good photo is not reasonable—even if we have members of paparazzi as members of Wikipedia.

I think we should either 1. prune this sentence back or 2. heavily clarify what it is supposed to mean. If there's an edict ruling that all fair use photographs of people who are living need to be removed from Wikipedia, I think we need to open that up to a much wider discussion, because that would require some serious guns both to enforce and to deal with the legion of people who will be upset by its arbitrariness and illogic. --Fastfission 23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say makes sense and I'd have to agree. We have articles about people where no one actually knows where they live now, let alone how to even contact them about releasing a photo under a free-license. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Any product which can be seen in a store is obviously within reach of someone with a camera." Not necessarily. Some products in stores cost well over what an amateur is willing to pay just to make a Free photograph (e.g. a Blu-ray Disc drive for $1,000), and the owner of the store bans the use of cameras on the store, which is private property. Some products are not even sold in the same country as a given Wikipedia editor (e.g. a video game console that is not available for sale in the United Kingdom). --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think $1000 is a high-enough cap to say that it is out of the realm of possibility. I bet if you left a note on the talk page of the product it would eventually get seen by someone who owned one. --Fastfission 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I complete agree with Fastfission on pretty much all counts. john k 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Simply becuase you can't create a free-license photograph of something doesn't mean nobody can: Wikipedia has several hundred thousand active editors, editing in almost two hundred languages, from everywhere in the world. Just because a video game console isn't available in the UK doesn't mean it's not available in the US, or in Japan. And just because you can't afford to spend a thousand dollars on a Blue-Ray player doesn't mean that nobody has ever purchased one. --Carnildo 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Carnildo on this. FUC guidelines are adequate for this matter, and, if anything are too leniently enforced. Borisblue 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
They aren't adequate because they aren't clear. They hint at something which would have major implications for enforcement without clarifying it. Either we should make it clear that any image of a living human being cannot be considered "fair use" on Wikipedia or we should remove the line. --Fastfission 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fastfission. This policy change needs some major discussion. I'm happy to go with the "no fair use of humans whatsoever", but only so long as that is absolutely clear. While the current mishmash of policy exists, I will argue against this policy, as it is profoundly stupid. JROBBO 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Counterexample #8

As far as I see it was added without discussions. I don't really think it's true. Any thoughts? Renata 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Renata it was added as a result of this request:-
This has lead to much discussion, particularly earlier in Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos and just recently (23:10, 26 October 2006) by User:Fastfission directly above. The earlier discussion is here, where User:khaosworks ended his remarks like this:-
Such clearly stated views are what lead inevitably to what is effectively this fork needed to sustain the policy creep.
For my part, I can think of 2 reasons to tighten up on images of living people (both of which I mentioned earlier in this forum). I can see a case for banning images completely in Wikipedia biographies of living people to create a level playing field as I outlined here (07:11, 26 October 2006) and secondly to facilitate cooperation in producing a World Wikipedia - see here - by adhering strictly to the GFDL in all articles.
If our intention is to improve the Wiki, we need good reasons for selectively or completely abandoning 'fair use', a settled policy in the English language Wikipedia under which (AFAIK) the project has become very popular, the most popular by far. Otherwise we will be sacrificing our hard work for no practical benefit. A World Wikipedia would be such a reason in my view, and so would creating a level playing field for biographies of living people.
In my view Fastfission has given a very insightful analysis of the situation regarding 'celebrity' images. I have personal experience of the points made as I had been trying, and am still trying but without success so far, to obtain a freely licensed image for a Wikipedia biography. Seemingly, the difficulties involved in obtaining such images are of no account to administrators enforcing the new 'policy.' Finally, and I've asked this in several places (including the Foundation mailing list) with no success:: does anyone yet have details of the new Gnu Wiki License announced in passing a few weeks ago? Thanks--luke 07:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am all for free (and not neccessarily pretty) encyclopedia and I believe in tightening fair use.... But the above counterexample is out of place, completely. First, it's too broad, vague, and general (needs re-wording, badly). Second, it has no reasoning behind it (user will immediatly ask, why?). Third, it's not clarifying the situation and does not help people to understand what's fair use. It is making policy. Fourth, it's more like Wikipedia policy and not U.S. copyright law (which is what the rest of the page talks about). Fifth, there is no solid policy behind it. This line is the only thing that's against such images (plus loose interpretation of FUC). My suggestion: Wikipedia:Images of living people. You know, something solid, something policy-like. Renata 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does counterexample #8 directly contradict FUC #8? They both are making the same example with the complete opposite result. –– Lid(Talk) 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
FUC#8 is unrelated to counterexample #8. A non-free image of a living person may pass FUC#8, but it would fail FUC#1, and that's why counterexample #8 says what it does. – Quadell (talk) (random) 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why a non-free picture of a living person would fail FUC#1. It is not very easy to get a free picture of a lot of living people at all. It is incredibly difficult to get a free picture for a lot of public figures that "adequately gives the same information" as certain unfree images do. I agree with Renata, and I think I agree with Luke. I certainly agree with Luke's quote of Khaosworks, and with Khaosworks' comments in general. We should not have a "fair use" policy that bears only the slightest relation to actual fair use law, if that. We should either use the actual legal definition of fair use, or we should call this policy something else. If the latter, there should actually broad discussion of the issue beyond the small group of people who look at this page or at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, which seems to consist largely of people who are big on deleting images as being inappropriate under fair use. Any image which is actually a straight up "publicity photo" is going to be perfectly appropriate under fair use. If we want to ban them anyway, for whatever reason, it shouldn't be called a "fair use policy." john k 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Countries

I can understand that an image copyrighted in the US, under the US laws, can be subject of the US law about fair use as well. But what about images whose copyright belongs to someone at another country, without fair use laws or anything similar? Can fair use be employed at such circumstances, or is it a mistake? Can fair use allow people in the US do things with foreign material that those foreigners themselves are not legally allowed at their own country to do? --Perón 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This message in August 2005 from Jimmy Wales on the English language Wikipedia mailing list seems relevant to your question. Does that answer the problem, or was there something in particular you had in mind?--luke 08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's just regarding whether or not we should consider material made in countries who are not members of international copyright regimes to be without copyright at all (i.e. in the public domain). --Fastfission 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This, to my mind, is the nub of the issue:-..we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways. Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument.JW That seems to sum it up exactly for me.--luke 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fair use" can be invoked in the US for any copyright material regardless of place of origin (as long as it meets the criteria). However obviously people outside of the US cannot invoke a US law for their own defense. If you are being sued in a US court, then you could invoke the US law, which makes no distinction to where the location of the copyright's origin was. --Fastfission 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

diagrams based on copyrighted material...

Is this checked with s/1 knowledgeable in law? This is relevant in [19] about a diagram of the spinal cord. Please help, if you can. thank you.-- ExpImptalkcon 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that this, along with most everything else in WP:FU has not been checked with anyone knowledgeable in the law. WP:FU seems to be purposefully and explicitly much more restrictive than the law. john k 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It is one of the more vague questions in relation to at what point something is a derivative work or not. It is an attempt at simplifying into practical terms what is a very difficult legal question. There is always a floating line between what is considered a new work and a derivative work; this attempts to boil it down. --Fastfission 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Portals

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals seems to be winding up. Naturally a gathering of bemused portal editors have formed an apparent consensus that we need to allow even more Fair Use on Wikipedia where it's not really needed, however I still fail to see how decoration glorified navigation pages falls within our "very restricted circumstances" that gives us no choice but to use the images for the sake of the article. ed g2s • talk 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a very good idea to classify people as "bemused portal editors". That would seem to show a profound disrespect for your fellow Wikipedians. Just because you don't agree with the consensus is no reason to go sticking labels on people. I know that a lot of people who have expressed their opinions on that page are valuable contributors in many ways, writing articles, reverting vandalism, enforcing appropriate image policy, and yes, even maintaning portals. Johntex\talk 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see it as an offensive "label". They are, in the majority, portal editors I assume (discounting yourself, and your "quality before free content" philosophy) and they often leave messages here complaining about not being able to use Fair Use. Just looking at the first seven voters after you, none of them have made any other comment of this page in the last month, which reeks of vote stacking to me. ed g2s • talk 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Perhaps I read too much into your comments. If so, I apologize. I just think that we have to try to be careful to welcome people who contribute in different ways. Even if some of those people are primarily (only) active in portal space, it is still part of editing the encyclopedia. It is well known that some administrators, once they get the extra buttons, tend to move away from editting articles and toward administrative tasks, policy questions, etc. It takes different types of people to build the encyclopedia. As far as vote stacking - I haven't seen any flagrant vote stacking by "portal editors" though I will admit I haven't gone looking for it. This vote has been publicized both here and to other pages. Your posting back here again could possibly be seen as an attempt at vote stacking, though. Especially since you did not use neutral language in your posting. Johntex\talk 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, it is obvious that any amendment will pass if it allows editors to increase the amount of available options for them, especially with Fair use being such a gray area. Maybe it would be possible to limit the amount of fair use images to one or two per portal, at least to prevent abuse such as character profiles. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am kind of disappointed about the low amount of feedback we have had. Ta bu shi da yu's proposal got over 60 opinions. I think we` failed at advertising it. -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we posted a neutrally worded notification of the vote to at least 2 policy pages plus the village pump. We could also post the same notice to all the portals if you want more participation from interested parties. Johntex\talk 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists is revived, this time for a concrete proposal. The talk page has been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Word choice for consistency

In the second paragraph under policy, I changed "alternate" to "equivalent" in order to be consistent with the first paragraph. Johntex\talk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think 'alternative' is a slightly better wording that 'equivalent'- for instance, there is no free 'equivalent' of this image from imdb:([20]) but we do have a free 'alternative' ([21]). Fair use definitely dictates that we have to use the second picture, despite the fact that it is not exactly equivalent (and maybe even slightly inferior) to the copyrighted photo Borisblue 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to add though, that I don't think the difference is significant enough to argue (or God forbid, have a poll) over. Borisblue 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Alternate leaves too much room for clearly inferior "alternates" to be used as an excuse to remove a justifiably fair use image. For example, US satelite photos are in the public domain for most of the world, but the presence of these "alternate" images shouldn't be acceptable to preclude use of a fair use photo showing more detail of the scene. Johntex\talk 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Just sa "alternative that convey the same information" or something like that. Otherwise there is no end to the "fanboyish" cries of outrage when a glossy promo shot of theyr favourite celebrety is replaced by a candid photo from some public apperance. "Oh noez! That photo looks like crap, she's not even looking at the camera, it's not equivent!" etc etc. --Sherool (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with Sherool that "alternative that adequately conveys the same information" is the most appopriate wording. And I like the emphasis on information, because it emphasizes that the main criteria for 'quality' is how informative it is, and not how nice the picture looks. The Robin Williams image we have is clearly is a poorer quality image than the promo shot, but it is as informative, as it conveys how Robin Williams looks like as well as the promo shot. Borisblue 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletable Clips? URGENT

Could someone comment on the following 17 clips that have been mass tagged for speedy deletion. I suspect that Arbitray Username is correct here, but the various arguments are discussed here and here. To summarize, AU believes that 2-3 second clips showing a martial arts move from copyrighted but low quality and easily obtainable video are NOT fair use; Pereza beleives otherwise.

The clips have been listed at the speedy deletion category for well over 12 hours now, and I suspect that other admins (like me) are unusure exactly as to the rules here - advice please? --Robdurbar 08:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:FUC #1, if these martial arts moves could be performed, filmed, and released under a free license (and they could), then we can not use non-free media depicting them. They should probably have been tagged {{Replaceable fair use}} instead of speedy-delete, but the effect is the same. – Quadell (talk) (random) 09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wanted another outside opinion. I'll delete away. --Robdurbar 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitive answers?

While it's often useful to have things discussed back and forth on Wikipedia, there are real issues regarding fair use that need definitive answers, not unending discussions with regard to how Wikipedia policy is interpreted by one individual's interpretation of the policy vs. another interpretation by an individual who has experience in fair use law, which may not matter with regard to Wikipedia's policy.

For example, the discussion regarding DVD covers on actors pages is some 1,800 words long, with no definitive answer to be found—just different interpretations of Wikipedia policy and arguments for and against those interpretations.

So, how does one go about obtaining the "real" answers? We can discuss these issues forever. In the meantime, there are images on Wikipedia that don't belong here; other images are being deleted that are within the actual fair use policy but the policy is being misinterpreted. Unless more specific information is provided, we'll be having these discussions forever.

Is there a way to bring a Wikipedia legal representative to the table to resolve, once and for all, some of the issues that keep cropping up here over and over again?

Just to be clear, this is an inquiry regarding how to get definitive answers, not a solicitation for more opinions. As Jack Webb said on Dragnet, "All we want are the facts, ma'am."

Thanks.—Chidom talk  11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two sorts of "real" answers, and I'm not sure which one you want. There is the "real" answer about Wikipedia policy, and there is the "real" answer of legal issues. (There are lots of things which are legal, but are against Wikipedia policy.)
The "real" answer regarding Wikipedia policy has to be hashed out over lots of discussion, like you said, and might change over time. But even if the situation is legal, we can't use DVD covers if it's against policy. And if that's still being worked out, then there is no "real" answer yet.
Now about the law: since Wikipedia servers are (mostly) on U.S. soil, Wikipedia generally only has to worry about adhering to U.S. copyright law. The limits of "fair use" is one of the most murky and contentious areas of U.S. copyright law. Basically, any unlicensed "copying" or "publishing" of copyrighted material (like showing a DVD cover) is a copyright violation, but a copyright violation is not illegal if it is deemed "fair use". And whether a given use is "fair" or not depends a great deal on the mood of the presiding judge. There is simply no way of determining with 100% certainty whether a use is "fair" or not, unless the copyright-holder sues, and a judge makes a ruling. And frequently, two judges in different districts will make completely contradictory rulings on nearly-identical cases. It is very unusual for these cases to make it to trial: copyright-holders frequently don't sue when there's no commercial stake, and even when they do the cases are almost always settled out of court.
I know this isn't a very satisfactory answer. But it's as "real" an answer as exists, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If it is "fair use" in the eyes of the court it is, by definition, not a copyright violation. It might seem like a nitpick but it is rather important to interpretting some aspects of the four-factors test. --Fastfission 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the straightforward answer about the current lack of a real answer. Since there is no real answer regarding the use of DVD covers (among the many other issues with regard to the use of images and other media), could we please call a halt to the removal of images that—with good rationale on both sides of the argument—might or might not qualify as fair use? Unless and until a more precise policy is available, I just don't see the value of removing images from articles based on one editor's interpretation of the policy and then having them put back again based on another's interpretation. I just got into a discussion about this with someone who had good arguments for the removal of the image, but there are good arguments for retaining it, as well. Unfortunately, neither of us can point the other to a specific, incontrovertible answer to the question, which is frustrating. My practice of patience—with very good reason—is definitely non-notable; I will endeavor to practice some for now. Thanks again.—Chidom talk  16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO the best way to arrive at "definitive answers" is to try and come up with guidelines that people are happy with, that make some sense, and then move forward from there. Otherwise all of our talking will just be repeated in a month or two when the same question comes up, and we'll have to re-invent the wheel all over again. Additionally if we put together a coherent discussion of the issues it gives us something to point to if people want explanations of a policy. It is a bit time-consuming but in the end I think it is the only long-term way to have any sort of coherent policy with something as vague as "fair use" law. --Fastfission 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Logos as names in infoboxes

I'm wondering about the use of a logo as a name in an infobox. (For a very prominent example, see The Beatles.) Clearly the use of the logo in the article is acceptable, as there's no possible free equivalent that adequately illustrates the logo. But it's the use as a name that I'm wondering about. We've been discussing some enhancements to the infobox to better support using logos as names, and I want to be sure I'm not wasting my time before I start coding. TIA. --Xtifr tälk 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a problem to me. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)