Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Amendment/Fair use images in portals

• I support ammending our policies to allow fair use images in portals. Quite simply, the portal is there for the reader, and it is not some secret back-room working place. As long as we are presenting content to the reader then fair use applies, regardless of whether we call that page an "article" page or a "portal" page. Johntex\^talk 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• I also support ammending the policies for fair use images in portals.--Kranar drogin 22:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• I support per my reasonings elsewhere. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• I support, per above reasoning and the reasoning on the main page. That page makes a compelling argument, I must say. DoomsDay349 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, please do not present further support or opposition here.

Discussion

Unfortunately, it could be considered that this amendment is tainted, because of votestacking. I suggest contacting as many users who had expressed opposition to this amendment as possible (at least equal to the amount of contacted people) to prevent further problems. -- ReyBrujo 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're talking about there. Perhaps we should simply end the discussion now, to prevent this from going further, and encourage those of us who have voted to stay out of the actual vote. DoomsDay349 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be interested in participating when an actual vote does occur. --Masamage 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That was just a comment. Contacting others who had opposed should be a good argument to prevent the closure. -- ReyBrujo 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just tell anyone who's posted in that topic on the talk page about this, excluding those I've told already. ddcc 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I chose not to vote as I had already been involved in the discussion (on the talk page of WP:FU). I thought the point of bringing it here (as we had discussed there) was to broaden the range of voters, not simply have the same voters vote in a more public space. So, if people who were specifically contacted about this retract their vote, we can continue to maintain a vote from people who legitimately saw this at the VP and came to vote because it's a topic which they saw there, not because they were directed to it from parties supporting the amendment. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The restritions are too lenient. Rater than "No free alternatives available" it should be "No free alternatives available and no free alternative could be created".Geni 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You could reword that to "No free alternatives available, or alternatives cannot be created without a unreasonable effort." Getting a free alternative to replace a fair use image of Mount Everest's peak (as in, a pic from up there) or Osama bin Laden is possible, but the effort can be considered excessive, while getting a free replacement for Mel Gibson or a Boeing 747 is not that hard. -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could say that all the criteria at WP:FUC must still be met, but criterion #9 should be changed to say "only in the article or portal namespaces." That would be the most succinct and accurate way of putting it. (That way we don't have separate sets of criteria for different places.) In fact, now that I think about it, it should really say "only in the article, image, or portal namespaces." Really, images do exist in the image namespace. . . but that may be outside the scope of this proposal. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it better now? ddcc 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a supporter of this amendment, I don't think fair use images should exist in the image namespace… that would be out of the question. ;-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

what is unreasonable about gettting a fee pic of the summit of Mount Everest? so many people have been up there it would probably only be a matter of writeing enough begging letters.Geni 12:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I support rewording to "No free alternatives available, or alternatives cannot be created without an unreasonable effort." The Mount Everest example is a decent example. There is no guarantee that any amount of pleading letters would produce a free photo, and going there and doing it yourself is a big task. If you think Mount Everest is too easy a target since it has been climbed by "many people", here is a tougher one - A view from the top of Mount Anderson (Antarctica) - the higest unclimbed peak in Antarctica's Sentinal range. Eventually, it will get climbed. If we contact the team that does so and ask for them to make their summitt picture free and they refuse to do so, then we should absolutely use their picture under fair use. The possibility of some Wikipedian repeating their feat should not be considered reasonable. Johntex\^talk 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the US navy aparent photogrpahed the entire range from the air so a photo of the summit and the souranding area should be availible through some meanse or another (a FOIA request might be overkill).Geni 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your creative thinking, but an aerial view is not really a substitute for a view from the summitt. They are very different vantage points. If we just wanted any-old view, then we could use a view from a sattelite photo to show practically any location on earth. We have to face the fact that sometimes a free alternative is not reasonable to obtain or not a reasonable substitute, and in those cases we should not hesitate to rely on fair use. Johntex\^talk 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

since there is to be little of interest to the average person or the militry there the airial photos will likely be of a higher resolution than any satilite pics.Geni 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Which goes towards my point. We should not be content with the sattelite photo if the aerial photo is available, and we should not be content with the aerial photo when a picture from the summitt is available. We should not be afrair to use fair use when it makes a substantial improvement to an article. Johntex\^talk 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've been "solicited" to come here, but I have expressed support for something along these lines in the past. As long as it's directly related to an article that already use the image and it's used as part of a substantial "summary" for the artice (akin to the featured article of the day on the main page). I think the points outlined sounds reasonable, that is:

• Image is used in a "substantial" summary of an article that already use the same image (not merely: "used in some article", has to be the summarised article).
• There are no free licensed images in the article (if the article have one free licenesed image and 20 "important historic significanse" fair use images the portal have to use the free one).
• All other existing points of the FUC have to be fulfulled (no "featured screenshot of the week" type sections or fancy fair use image buttons and what not).

--Sherool (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• For things like Selected article, doesn't the license already allow this to be done? Since it illustrates the subject in question. - Tutmosis 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I support per all of the above, and as long as it is in accordance with FU laws in the US. Lincher 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Though I do support this amendment, I removed the statement, "If featured portals use it, why can't regular portals?", since featured portals aren't allowed to use fair use images either (unless if you consider the main page a portal, though it technically isn't).--TBCΦtalk? 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I've cleaned up the "Restrictions" and "Rationales" sections.[1]. Any comments and/or suggestions?--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly v. Arriba Soft is so specific in most of its constraints that I don't think it should be listed there. It gives a false legal pretense to the "for" aspects. I am not saying that there is necessarily a reason to think that using images in the Portal namespace would necessarily be not found to be fair use, but Kelly certainly doesn't guarantee it, and in any case it is relevant only to the question about thumbnails in general, not their use. (For a more thorough discussion of the relationship between fair use and image size, see Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution") --Fastfission 22:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

October 10th: What now?

So how do we conduct a valid vote? Can someone with some experience or knowledge in the procedures iniatiate one? Thanks. Gronky 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The idea is to ensure that any advertising is done in a neutral way. If you contact individual editors, it is suggested you should contact everyone who has been involved, not just those who agree with you. The message should be worded in a neutral way, like "You have previously expressed an interest in the question of fair use images in portals. A poll is underway to gauge consensus on this issue at ____". As an alternative to, or along with, contacting individual editors would be a posting at a neutral place, such as the village signpost. Johntex\^talk 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted all editors who posted on Wikipedia Talk: Fair use, as well as posted it on signpost (polic). ddcc 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, then I guess we need some new section headings. Johntex\^talk 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

might want to leave something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use.Geni 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

October 10th Straw Poll

This section is an archive of a previous straw poll. This poll is no longer live. Further comments should be made elsewhere on this talk page rather than here as the continuance of this poll over many months can lead to a skewed view of consensus, and so this poll is left as an historical record of the poll.

Please give a short summary of your position with your name, and put any longer comments in the discussion section.

Support this Amendment

1. Johntex - The portal space is intended to be browsed by readers, so fair use applies just as for articles.
2. As long as fair use images are only allowed in the "Featured Articles" box and not the "Featured Pictures" box.--TBCΦtalk? 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
3. I consider portals to be content space, not project space.--ragesoss 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Very well thought-out. --Masamage 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Good idea. For Portal:Free software, the only useful images are all logos and are Fair Use. For portals on other things, public domain and GFDL'd images are surely available, but for free software, none. Gronky 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
6. This is a natural extension of the exception that we make for the Main Page when Today's featured article cannot be illustrated with free images. — TKD::Talk 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Per my numerous comments at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use in portal-namespace, due to a removal of images on a portal I created, I feel strongly that the namespace where images are placed shouldn't matter, it depends on the content and use of the image. A namespace is merely a prefix which happens to come before a Portal because the powers that be that created wikis made it so. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

   I support per above statements, and the fact that fair use images in portals is very helpful to illustrate articles. DoomsDay349 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

   I do not withdraw my support, but I must say that in light of recent discussion have found this amendment very liberal. This must be repaired. If it is not, I'm not so sure which way I'll vote when the real vote comes. DoomsDay349 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Same here. ddcc 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Well rationalised.--cj | talk 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per above. I agree with User:TBC that selected pictures should not be fair use.-gadfium 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per above. Also, Fair Use is... fair... use. Copyrights have limits for a reason. Fieari 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong support. I have been waiting for this ammendment for a long time. → JARED ^(t)  20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support — this seems fair. Cedars 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
14. I support per my reasonings elsewhere. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 10:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Until someone can explain to me what the difference is between a portal and the main page (where fair use images have been used many times) I'll support this. Fair use images should only be used together with a textual description, not as "selected picure" or something like that. jaco♫plane 20:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
16. If portals serve as "main pages" for specific subjects, I don't see why the main page can have fair use images but portals cannot. --The Great Llama^{(now on editor review!)} 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
17. To me, from the perspective of fair use policy there's no functional difference between portal space and article space. As long as the policy is consistent between the two, I would support fair use in portals. Fairsing 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
18. There is no reason to have restrictions on fair use policy that are not necessary under the law. If there is a reasonable fair use claim to be made for including non-free images on portals (which I think there is, particularly if the same image is being used in an article that is linked from the portal), then there's no reason not to use them. john k 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    As long as fair use images are still accompanied by the significant portion of text that the image relates to. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    I'm going neutral for now, as I would like to reflect on the recent comments by BradPatrick. Personally, I think it's fine, but I also don't feel strongly about the matter. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

19. Support Like TBC said, as long as the images are being used only for the articles they are tied to, I think extending Fair Use to them makes perfect sense (and is still fair). EVula 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
20. I support ammending the policy for the reasoning already stated.--Kranar drogin 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - Argument for is 'pictures are pretty'. Less than crucial, but valid... and the reason we have 'fair use' images on Portal:Main Page despite all 'negatives' presented here being MORE applicable to that. Arguments against seem to be: 'there is a page which says not to' (irrelevant - rewrite the page if there isn't some underlying reason), 'legal issues' (unfounded - foundation lawyer's place to say so if this were needed, which he very specifically hasn't), and 'free content / re-usability'. The last isn't baseless, but doesn't seem particularly applicable to >portals< to me. We aren't going to include portals in a 'printed Wikipedia'. Maybe they would go out on a 'Wikipedia on CD', but probably not. Likewise, portals aren't copied from language to language because the navigation aspects don't map... the different languages have different articles, names, wiki-projects, categories, et cetera. Thus portals on the same topics are generally created independently for each language - possibly copying portions, but never the entirety. So what's the problem? If a particular language does not allow 'fair use' images they will not be hosted on their servers, or appear in their articles, and thus not be built into their portals. Portals are by their very nature web-based and language specific... and thus of all pages in Wikipedia perhaps the least 'portable'. They exist to represent and coordinate a particular topic and displaying images relevant to that topic is beneficial to those goals. I agree with the argument to 'push people to find free alternatives'... but that is just not possible for any copyrighted work of fiction created in the last 75+ years. ANY image for such is going to be either directly copyrighted or a derivative work. A photo of an eight year old dressed as a 'hobbit' for Halloween is technically a derivative work of J. R. R. Tolkien and thus could only be displayed as 'fair use' until 2048 (probably longer). Anything Harry Potter related would be barred until at least 2081. Those are unreasonable time-frames to exclude all images of modern 'popular culture'... which is why 'fair use' laws exist and are used by printed encyclopedias as well. We don't make ourselves 'more encyclopedic' by excluding pop culture images. Just less accessible to the people who enjoy that culture. --CBD 13:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this Amendment

1. "we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopedia, we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary." - Portals are not articles, they're essentially glorified navigation pages, as such they will never meet the criteria for requiring a Fair Use image. We did without portals for years, so we can do without images on portals. If we can do without an image, we can't use it under Fair Use. The Main Page is technically in article namespace, as so has evaded this rule on a technicality, but two wrongs don't make a right. ed g2s • talk 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I am basically against some of the points made by the support section. If the segment is infomative to its readers, the namespace shouldn't determine whether an item is appropriate or not. This is extremely dangerous, as it would be trivial to twist the words to make a Talk page or a template page is informative to its readers. Portals are used to inform readers, similar to the purpose of mainspace articles. is just a particular case of the previous section. Images can be used to describe a subject in ways which words cannot. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. Another dangerous quotation. If we are not able to transfer knowledge with only words, I believe are failing. Note that the German Wikipedia, recognized by some english editors as the best Wikipedia, does not use fair use images, only free ones. As I usually say, check the menu bar of your browser. It does not say "Wikipedia, the visual encyclopedia", it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" We do this because we believe in the pillars of Wikipedia, one of which is freedom. Fair use images may be dropped completely in the future, that shouldn't prevent us from writing a good encyclopedia. Finally, Fair use images are allowed on the Main Page, which is similar to Portals in both format and purpose. People bypassed the namespace restriction by inserting the portal in the mainspace, but as ed_g2s said, two wrongs don't make a right. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   Just a comment in reference to the German Wikipedia 'only allowing free images'... I wondered how they covered pop culture / fiction without fair use images and the answer seems to be that they classify 'fan art', logos, and other images as 'free use' rather than the 'fair use' they ought to be. So really they only exclude some 'fair use' images (screenshots, publicity photos, et cetera) while using others and just calling them 'free'. See various images in de:Völker im Star-Trek-Universum for example. The 'fair use' images they allow are those which copyright holders usually don't press claims against non-commercial uses of, but they are definitely not free. I'd be open to following a similar philosophy here, but it should not be called 'no fair use images' because that isn't an accurate description of what they do. --CBD 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per ed and Rey. We should minimise our use of "fairuse" media to forward the goal of making a free encyclopedia. I can see no reason why including fair use images in portal pages would move us further towards the clearly stated goal of Wikipedia being a "free encyclopedia". Megapixie 08:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Agreed with all clauses of the "against" section and believe the support section is weak. Agree with all the above, and also think that a fair use image in portals does not further the goal of a free encyclopedia. DoomsDay349 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Our use of fair use should be extremely conservative at most. Expanding it to portals adds additional risk. I further dispute that this policy, given that it is legally sensitive, can be decided by a poll. --Improv 16:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
6. I don't see any pressing reason to expand the use of unlicensed images and thus I must disagree with the amendment. I do not think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to expand usage of unlicensed images, especially in areas which are basically directories to finding content rather than actual content itself. --Fastfission 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose all above reasons, plus: (a) Current portals are informative, despite the restriction, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (b) Policy should not discriminate between fair use text and fair use images—the project is about creating free content, both text and images. (c) The restriction creates an incentive to find or create a suitable free image. (d) If it makes a portal less informative, because it is about a non-free visual topic such as Star Trek or Disney, then write an article instead. (e) Currently, the entire portal namespace can be reused in countries that have no fair use doctrine. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. I also don't believe that portal use of non-free images would be as restrained as on the Main Page, where it is quite limited. Kusma (討論) 13:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose I once was support, but I struck out my comments and thought about it for a while. It's not really what I want, but limiting fair use images is better for Wikipedia, simply because it's a tighter rule and shows we really are using them as-little-as-possible. Jimbo and others who started this whole "free content encyclopedia" thing are telling us to limit, if not get rid of, fair use images. The main page might use them, but the main page is on a whole different level than portals (same idea, but big difference there in actual usage). Like I said, I don't think it's a big deal, or that it would hurt Wikipedia, but I'm going to trust the others on this one. There's no "important" reason to put them on portals in the first place. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not happy about rational number 5 since our use is somewhat different.Geni 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you have a good point. I'm not sure the two are similar enough for us to include this as a main rational. Our selection is human-made, not machine-generated, and our images are not necesarily smaller than the original (although we encourage them to be smaller, and they often are smaller). I think this legal case provides some supporting evidence, but perhaps it should be removed as a rational. Johntex\^talk 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Generaly it is best to deal with rationals on a case by case basis.Geni 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by dealing with "rationals on a case by case basis". Perhaps my statement caused confusion? What I was comparing was the legal case and our use here. I am agreeing with you that they are somewhat disimilar and I am saying perhaps we should strike that rational. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that each individual image will need it's own rational.Geni 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Commment I don't deal with the portal namespace. As long as the portal regulars think they can keep things under control I'm not going to object.Geni

  Well, in that case I informed the WikiProject Portals about this. -- ReyBrujo 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  I also informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use per Geni's suggestion above. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• To ddcc- should you have put your vote in? You are the creator, after all. DoomsDay349 20:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I know of no reason that the creator of an ammendment can't voice support for the ammendment. Johntex\^talk 22:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. But can they vote in the actual election? That makes it biased, doesn't it. DoomsDay349 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how. Technically, its not supposed to be a vote, its suppposed to be a way to gauge whether we have consensus. As an interested editor, ddcc is part of that consensus. But technicalities aside, do politicians vote for themselves in elections? Do they vote for their own bills that they introduce into the legislature? As far as I know, we allowed editors to vote for themselves in the recent election to the board of directors. We do frown upon people voting for themselves in RfA's, but that is a very different process where the people are sort of being awarded an honor and a vote of confidence from the community. Can you explain how it is biased for the creator of an ammendment to vote to support the ammendment? Johntex\^talk 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, much the same as an RFA, it's not good to vote for your own amendment because this would be a big change in the community. It really changes things around, you know? This is something to be decided by the community, and even that one extra vote could change things. Now, to voice support and to vote are two different things. If they're simply arguing their case, there's no problem there. But like I said, a creator voting for his creation just doesn't seem right. Say, for example, that this goes to the vote and the vote is 7-6. That seventh vote may have been the creator's. Thus, it's broken the tie. There's no way the creator would vote opposed, so you've got someone coming in totally biased one way. DoomsDay349 00:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for explaining your point further. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree for now. If the nominator's vote would tip the scale to pass the ammendment, then I think it would be misreading the feelings of the entire community to not allow that vote to be cast. In practice, we already require a super-majority (numerically undefinted but definitely greater than 50%+1) in order to pass an ammendment like this. Discounting the vote of the person(s) who wrote the ammendment would be unfairly stacking the deck. The ammendment may have been written by 20 people, and their voices should not be silenced when it comes time for the straw poll to determine if there is consensus. Johntex\^talk 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To your last sentence, I strongly disagree. If anything, all of those people should be barred from voting. They could really tip the balance. However, considering we have but one creator, and we need a super-majority, then I have no qualms with his voting. DoomsDay349 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the last sentence makes perfect sense. Suppose everybody who ddcc knew was probably going to vote support chipped in to write the amendment. In fact, let's say (just for pure argument purposes) everybody on Wikipedia who was going to vote support co-wrote the amendment. If they weren't allowed to vote, then it would just take one annoying person to come in and say "no" and that would be the end. But, in this case, one person hopefully won't make too much of a difference. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me make myself more clear. If, say, someone wear to write on small sentence or a paragraph, that's different than if they have collaborated with the original creator, edited substantially, and wear a leading figure in the amendment. In that case, that person should refrain from editing. DoomsDay349 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true. In the meanwhile, we don't have to worry about that particular issue right now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand the argument. It seems clear to me that the one person, or the twenty, are part of the community and should count in the vote. I guess I'll drop it though since we agre it doesn't matter here. Johntex\^talk 03:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. DoomsDay349 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• To make it more fair, I've also added an "Against" section under the Rationales as well.--TBCΦtalk? 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• To me, Portals are topic specific alternatives to the Main Page (or the Main Page is just a general Portal - an entry point to Wikipedia's content). Whatever rule applies to the Main Page should also apply to Portals. Gronky 10:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on ReyBrujo's post - my German is not as good as I would like, but I can immediately tell that their version of Jabba the Hutt (a featured article here) is far weaker as a result of having no fair use photos. That is not there fault, German law does not allow fair use. That is a shame for the German people, but fortunately (in this respect) American law is superior. We should not tie our hands behing our backs just because German law forces the German Wikipedia to do so. Johntex\^talk 18:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  Wait, you are comparing a featured article in the English Wikipedia with a section in the German one? Anyways, I think there should be an average between free content and fair use content, maybe 90/10. I agree that fair use images enrich the encyclopedia in some cases, but I don't agree they enrich determined things like portals, templates and categories. We could say that it is easier to write free content in the German Wikipedia than here because you are forced due law restrictions. However, much like fair use images in lists, we are focusing in visual aspects. I don't think the images of albums in a discography list is that useful for critical commentary, similarly to portal images. -- ReyBrujo 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Conflict. Well, I agree with both of you. John, I agree that we should not hold ourselves to German law (this is the English Wikipedia, after all), however Rey I also agree with you in that images are secondary to the article and not always neccessary. We must write a good article first and foremost. But this sidetracks from the point: Fair use in portals. Again, I agree with Rey. The wording is a bit liberal, and could be stretched to incorporate into other namespaces. To start with, the first point Rey made is excellent. He qouted the sentence if the segment is infomative to its readers, the namespace shouldn't determine whether an item is appropriate or not. . That can be stretched to work into any namespace, including talk pages. Say, for instance, in previously mentioned Jabba the Hut article, there was an ongoing discussion about the appearance of Jabba. Could we not, under those terms, bring an image of him to the talk namespace? That sentence must be restricted. Now Rey, your second point did not make sense to me. You said Portals are used to inform readers, similar to the purpose of mainspace articles. is just a particular case of the previous section. Could you clarify? The third point has already been adressed, but again it is a great example. If we were to remove every single image from an article, would it still be good? Ask yourself that question when writing. To Rey's final point, I did not quite understand your meaning, but I believe you were addressing the comparison between portals and the main page. I agree that is a very weak point. The Main Page is in a class of it's own. It's a simple layout designed to bring to you all the most important things on Wikipedia. I know that I trust Wikipedia as a news source, and there is a news section there. Having a picture there is helpful because it illustrates the point better. For example, there is currently a tidbit on the Koffi Annan's successor. The face of the South Korean Prime Minister (Annan's successor) will soon become one of the most important faces in the world. It's very helpful to have that picture. Again, that is simply one example of why the Main Page is different from portals. Now, a portal may also have a news section. I would finally like to say that the Main Page is the most visited page on Wikipedia, and everyone sees it. Everyone. Only certain people are going to see a portal. People who are interested in the topic the portal covers. Someone interested in Star Wars will never see a portal about Harry Potter, for instance. Now, that may make you ask: "Didn't he just prove that images in portals are not neccessary?" No. I simply tried to say that the Main Page is not like other portals. It's not really a portal. An image in a normal portal is still of use, because people will visit it. Not nearly as many people as the Main Page, but still, people will. Is it not Wikipedia's purpose to provide the best possible encyclopedia for all the readers? A fair use image on a portal is part of providing that encyclopedia. DoomsDay349 19:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Portals are used to inform readers, similar to the purpose of mainspace articles. is just a particular case of If the segment is infomative to its readers, the namespace shouldn't determine whether an item is appropriate or not. If the segment is informative, it doesn't matter the namespace. Now, replace segment with portal, and you have the clause I said is particular. You could remove the Portals... section and still allow usage because the more general sentence states that if a portal is informative, it could use fair use images. I am not sure if I can explain it better, remember I am not english native :-P

As for my last point, let's suppose the Main Page is a portal. Since the fair use criteria prevented usage of images in portals, I am guessing they created it in the article namespace to justify the fair use images. That was a "hack", and should not have been done. The fact that people used it in order to skip fair use terms is just worse than the fact of allowing fair use images in portals. A Portal is not informative, the articles listed in the portal are the informative ones. It is just a visual way of getting attention. To put it in a way: if the portal shows an image and then a small 20 words sentence stating the beginning of the article with a link to the article, and is accepted, then people will ask to also accept a table with an image and a 20 word sentence with a link to the main sentence ("List of Lost/South Park/etc episodes"). -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like one objection here is a slippery slope objection that if we allow fair use images in portals, then they might be used on Talk pages. I think that we need to consider the issue at hand, which is portals, not Talk pages. If people want to argue that images are usable in Talk pages, that would be a seperate discussion. Personally, I think that an argument could be made that a "reader" becomes an "editor" when they move from Article to Talk page. Certainly, Talk pages can inform the reader, but that is not their main purpose. For that reason, I don't think allowing fair use images in portals will lead to allowing them in Talk pages. Johntex\^talk 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But, under the slippery slope argument, in said seperate discussion, will not those users who want fair use in talk page use this very amendment to prove that talk pages can have fair use images? Therefore, we must nip it in the bud by restricting it here and now. Otherwise, it could have unforeseen consquence. DoomsDay349 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Allowing fair use images in portals is a precedent. And precedents are pretty strong in community-based decisions. In example, the precedent of a the Main Page "portal" using fair use images is a strong precedent enough to now request every portal to use fair use images. How many AFD have been finished quickly due precedents? -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not let the innocent men go free - the guilty men will just cite it as a precedent to go free also. You may as well turn your slippery slope agument around and make the opposite case: If fair use images are denied in portals, then someday people will use that justification to get all images out of Wikipedia. If this proposal said something vague, like "images can be used outside of article space", then I would agree that the slippery slope may cause some concern, but this is a very specific proposal with a very specific justification. The question needs to be considered on its own merits. Johntex\^talk 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this sentence. It says, almost exactly, that images can be used outside of article space. If the segment is infomative to its readers, the namespace shouldn't determine whether an item is appropriate or not. That's the sentence I have the biggest problem with, because it will, as Rey said, serve as a precedent in the future. DoomsDay349 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the rationales for allowing fair use images in portals is that If the segment is infomative to its readers, the namespace shouldn't determine whether an item is appropriate or not. That is awful, and accepting the amendment will imply that sentence was reviewed and accepted by consensus. Thus, it could be applied in any future discussion about fair use in categories, templates, talk pages, etc. Also, note that The section containing the fair use image must have at least one substantial paragraph or a brief summary, thus fair use images are still not allowed in the "Featured Picture" box. Here we are basically saying "If you insert an image in a portal, be sure to write a long substantial paragraph or just a brief one". The paragraph should be substancial, not brief, otherwise by adding a small sentence in the Featured Picture box you are justifying the usage as well. These are two big problems that many haven't apparently understood when reviewing the proposal. -- ReyBrujo 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was primarily me that brought about that sentence, and I'm sorry for the unstructured wording. What I meant by it was (ignore talk pages, etc., just for a moment), one of the reasons fair use images are not on portals right now is because the page name begins with Portal:. That's one thing that's restricting editors from putting images onto portals. If, however, the inventor of the Wiki never created a "namespace" and we everything was the same, in a sense, would Portals be any different because they were a different type of page? In my opinion, no. Portals are not part of the inner workings of Wikipedia, they are meant to be viewed by the casual reader, unlike talk pages, templates, etc. I suggested that "the namespace shouldn't matter" if the content supercedes it because it's an extended form of discrimination towards pages which aren't in the article namespace, even though some parts of it have article content; most notably, a "selected article" or something of the like. The words on those pages are taken straight from articles, and are provided to redirect the reader to the actual article namespace. Thus, if the portal page is acting as an article, it deserves "article benefits," so to speak. I think that this will shut down any possible arguments for people who hypothetically wanted to allow fair use images on talk pages… unless the talk pages acts as an article, acts as something meant to be read by a person just looking for an encyclopedia, then no fair use images. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added "(portal)" after the word "namespace" to prevent any future confusion. ddcc 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say that the against side really makes a better argument than the support section. First off, the support section uses a popular proverb as part of its rationale. I personally don't like that. The other sections are weak too, however your best argument is the case law. However, Wikipedia is usually more strict than U.S. law. You'll want to refine it further and make it better if you want a chance to get this amendment passed. In addition, I am changing my vote to oppose until this is resolved. DoomsDay349 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just a comment about the argument that portals are currently distributable in countries without a notion of fair use: If our content being redistributed there, then their redistribution of our main and Image: namespaces wouldn't have any fair use images either, so in that case neither the main article nor the portal's "selected article" which derives from that would contain the image anyway. — TKD::Talk 13:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the third bullet point of the amendment's restictions: "The section containing the fair use image must have at least one substantial paragraph or a brief summary" needs to be clarified/changed to "The section containing the fair use image must have at least one substantial paragraph or a brief summary derived from an article in which the image is already properly used"? — TKD::Talk 13:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gronky, please don't feel downcast about Portal:Free software. Perhaps the most famous logo, Mozilla Firefox, is indeed fair use, but many of the others you have there now are free content: the BSD daemon, Tux and the GNU gnu. There are some other options with some lateral thinking, such as screenshots, mugshots, or even a photo of a wine glass for WINE (I added that today.) Other portals suffer an inherent inability to create interesting free content, such as ones about graphic art or photojournalism; perhaps serious enough to discourage creating such portals in the first place. With free software, there are difficulties, but they are not inherent to the topic. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I think the BSD, Tux, and GNU logos, plus all screenshots, are fair use, not free content. Am I wrong? I can't find statements by their copyright owners that give any relevant permission. It's not a catastrophe if logos and screenshots have to be removed from Portal:Free_software. Gronky 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either. I do know those three logos have been uploaded to commons with free content licenses—I didn't check if those license tags are accurate. Strictly speaking, Firefox logos (except the blue globe without the fox) is by permission, not fair use, though at Wikipedia that amounts to the same thing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing vote

Should we close this on Halloween? ddcc 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The 31st seems like a good time...though I still don't think the issue has been resolved. DoomsDay349 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Better? Also, this is the final vote, correct? ddcc 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This vote has been very well publicized, so yes it should be considered a measure of the consensus. Johntex\^talk 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating such an exception would conflict with our basic Fair Use philosophy, and so this can never become policy, no matter how many people want to put unfree material on their portals. ed g2s • talk 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is your belief than get Jimbo or any paid member of the foundation to come and say so. Ohterwise it seems like you're just whining becuase you don't like how policy is being clarified. Johntex\^talk 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, this is the final vote for the passage of the amendment? Are you sure? DoomsDay349 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ed_g2s - this is a legal safety matter, and cannot be overridden by this poll. We can't vote to put the project at risk or ignore laws. --Improv 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the next stage of voting? DoomsDay349 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't think fair use is needed in portals I will say that I don't think a simple appeal to legality means the question can't be asked. There is no strict legal reason why fair use images can't be used in the portal namespace and it would not necessarily open up a dangerous legal door. Personally I suspect it would not be a legal problem at all — the number of portals is relatively few and if it were made clear that any fair use in the portal could not be "purely" decorative (i.e. it must accompany some form of relevant article text and not just a listing of names) it would probably be fine. However I've yet to see any real damage caused by not allowing it in the portal namespace so my inclination is to think that it shouldn't be expanded if it doesn't need to be. But again, despite this, I don't think one can just cut the question off citing legal reasons. --Fastfission 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was not a matter of legality, but rather that our unfree image policy is based on the principle of only using Fair Use as a last resort. As Fastfission pointed out, the Portals serve their purposes (provided links to real articles) perfectly well without the need to cover them with images from those articles. It would be nice, and perhaps useful, to decorate these links (or article summaries is some cases) with unfree images, but our policy simply does not allow it. This amendment would lead to a huge contradiction and so can never be implemented, regardless of how little the "Portal community" cares about our third basic principle. ed g2s • talk 01:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm striking out the closing notice - I really don't think that this policy can be changed by a poll. --Improv 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the closing notice. Concnesus for policy changes and/or clarifications are commonly made by poll. Again, if you think Brad Patrick would have an issue with this, you need to get him to come here and say so. None of us should try to speak for Brad or what may or may not be a legal issue. Johntex\^talk 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While I still don't think we need to expand fair use to portals, I don't see why this contradicts any of our basic principles any more than fair use in the article space already does. There are so few portals anyway that I doubt it could possibly compete. I'm not sure I find any good reason to say this is something which is fundamentally against any policy of WP in a way that our existing fair use policy is not even more so. --Fastfission 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To restate my previous question; is this the final vote? It can't be, can it? Thanks. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't it be? It's been duly advertised and its been running for weeks. I consider this poll official. I hesitate to call it "final" because this is a wiki. Things can conceivably change again at some date in the future. Johntex\^talk 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

....I still don't feel that all the issues have been addressed. All of the "support" comments are short snippets and then they never speak again, whereas most of the opposed are long and present big issues, and all of the opposers have been active in voicing their opinion. I think that considering the gravity of this we should let the discussion continue, advertise it more to get more users involved, and vote again. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "support" commentors did exactly what they were asked to do. They left a short snippet explaining why they support the ammendment. The "oppose" commentors chose to leave lengthier comments rather than directing their lengthier comments to the discussion area as they were asked to. We will never have unanimity. This has been discussed for weeks. The point of the poll is not to reach a unanimous conclusion, it is merely to measure whether a strong majority of people feel one way or the other. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I suppose the best thing is to admit defeat for now and wait until this resurfaces...for now, I suppose I can accept fair use in portal...bear in mind I don't think it's a bad thing, just that it's not neccessary...It's not that I wouldn't like to see fair use in portals, but I just don't like the current rationale and the abundance of arguments. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A word from the lawyer

I oppose this change of policy, but not for legal reasons. I believe moving further in the direction of free as in beer when the aim here is to use free as in libre content is a poor choice for the project. Moreover, it is a significant demonstration of how we are shrinking from the opportunity to force the issue of free culture, rather than simply shrug it off and say "fair use." Your logical argument supporters, is "because we can." Not because we should, but only, solely, "because we can." Sure it's English Wikipedia. Sure it is predominantly American. But that doesn't make it right, when the goal is to get to free content for all. Ask yourself the next time you want to put the link there, have I challenged myself to do the best thing I can for the best free encyclopedia possible? Why are portals special? Because they present for many the front door to this project. It undermines and recedes from the vanguard ethos I believe in. For this reason, and this reason only, I have taken the time to write this and address the point. Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can.--Brad Patrick 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, issues like this are exactly why I do not think this amendment should be passed without further discussion...perhaps we should bump to close vote date? DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When fair use content can make the encyclopedia better, than I support its use. Our primary mission, as embodied by the first pillar of WP:5P, is to make an encyclopedia. That pillar says "Wikipedia...is not a soapbox". The primary goal should NOT be "free content for all". The primary goal SHOULD be "build the best encyclopedia we legally can." Encouraging free content is a useful by-product, but it should not cloud our main mission of building the encyclopedia. Therefore, our argument is not just that we can do this, but that it makes the encyclopedia better to do so. Johntex\^talk 01:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, free as in beer does not mean it's good beer. Open source doesn't work all the time, try making the government open source and see what you get. As Johntex has stated, the goal is to make the encyclopedia better, while using open source/free content is good, that doesn't mean that free content is of high quality. The problem is with the essence of open source/free content. Simply put, making open source/free content presents less of a motivation than for money. Microsoft wouldn't have made Windows if it was going to do it for free, that's why Microsoft is going through antitrust lawsuits, since they spent years of their time making Windows, they want to hold onto it. Keep in mind that this isn't about whether Microsoft is correct in their thinking, but their motivation is clearly visible. Most open source/free software has not been heard of before by the people, except for the word linux. Try it yourself. Go onto Sourceforge and look at their top/most popular software list. Some, like Azureus, or Audacity are used quite frequently, so much so that maybe a common user will have heard of it. The thing is, while there may be five that you know of, there is the rest of the list that you don't know of. Going back to the argument about the quality of open source, look at Azureus. It's pretty successful, but it has lots of problems (mainly memory hogging). Take Firefox as another example. On my Windows 2k pro system, even with Firefox 2.0 tuned with FireTune, it still takes up 57k, the most of any of my apps (except for games, and comparing to games isn't fair). Compare it to Internet Explorer, which only takes 17k. In addition, there are Firefox vulnerabilities that are still unpatched (see secunia), but so does internet explorer. I'm not saying that Firefox is better than Internet Explorer, however, in some areas internet explorer is better than firefox. (Albeit Window's is Microsoft's OS, so Microsoft has an advantage). Ddcc 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm all for using free content whenever we can. However, there are some significant areas of the encyclopedia (any form of modern fiction, for example) for which it is impossible to illustrate with free images, at least until the copyrights on the relevant works expire, which won't be for decades in many cases. And, for obvious reasons, it is impossible for us to create a free alternative in most cases. It is these types of situations in which we allow fair-use images in articles under limited circumstances.

Portals aren't articles, true, but most good ones have a section for excerpting a longish paragraph or so from a "selected article"; this section is almost always a condensed version of that article's lead. If it has already been established that an image is fair use under our criteria, and that image belongs in the lead section, then it could be argued that, even given our mission to create and distibute free content, such an image is necessary as a compromise to snsure good encyclopedic coverage. It is for these excerpts where I think that fair use might be justifiable. Sure, we can leave those excerpts uniliustrated. But, in cases where no free illustration is even possible in the first place, the image isn't a crutch for a free replacement, and I don't think that we're really gaining all that much by not including a lead image. In fact, the GA and FA criteria both mention the appropriate use of images, so they're an integral part of the article. I think, then, that it's somewhat reasonable to include one when excerpting that article to show off its encyclopedic content.

One can certainly argue that, subject-specific portals being less essential than the general Main Page, we shouldn't compromise as much, and, out of principle, we shouldn't include any fair use there. If that's what consensus is, I can accept that. But, again, for subjects where no free image is possible, I'm not sure that the encyclopedic advantage of a fair use image (one which we've already established is important enough for use in the article) is ignorable when we're presenting an essentially condensed version of the article to the reader as well.

I'm no fan of unchecked fair use, and I'll be among the first to oppose its use in "Did you know...", "In the news", "Anniversaries", and other sections with short blurbs that really can't give sufficient context; nor do I think that it'd be acceptable to use fair use images where they'd be unacceptable in the main article. But, in those cases where we cannot get anything but fair use images for an article, I'm not so sure that we're compromising our ideals to include one of them when we make an excerpt of the lead (which itself should summarize the entire article), because no amount of ideals can allow us to otherwise illustrate a work under non-free copyright. If we are showing off our best work in a subject area as a selected article, and that article includes, within our guidelines, a fair-use image in the lead, that image is probably pretty integral to a good encyclopedic introduction to that topic (otherwise, the image shouldn't be used per FUC#8), which the selected article is intended to showcase. — TKD::Talk 04:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think TKD has said it perfectly. To sum up my thoughts which tie in with his: if a portal contains a bit of a lead of an article, essentially copying the text (though slight changes are evident), and the article is qualified to use fair use images (because it is an article, after all), and there are no free alternatives, it makes perfectly logical sense that a fair use image is in order to better illustrate the point. This is the reasoning that is gone through when one is editing the article, and when the article is still present, just under another namespace, the same reasoning should be gone through. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2 day extension

To iron out the issues with this amendment, I'm going ahead and extending for two days. Anyone have objections? Ddcc?

I think we may even want to extend to as much as a week. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it will matter much.. remember, the poll won't determine if we add this or not. We can leave it open as long as we want or close it right now, it's just a method of feedback, as opposed to being the deciding factor. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that substantial new conversation is now occurring (which had not been the case in the recent past) I'm OK with extending by a week. As far as this poll being conclusive, Brad Patrick himself has taken the time to voice his opinion but he did not see a need to veto this or shut down a poll. Again, this poll is valid unless Jimbo or someone from the Foundation chooses to specifically disallow a poll. Johntex\^talk 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "this poll is valid". This poll tells us that, from a small sample, more people want to use more Fair Use. This is nothing new. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Johntex was establishing that this poll would change policy, ending suggestions that this poll was simply talk and that it would have no bearing upon what happens overall in Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Johntex\^talk 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Until this weekend then. Ddcc 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, the "votes" on the poll can't actually change the policy alone. The poll can be used for an argument for such change, but it is not the deciding factor. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why then, does Johntex say that it does change policy? This is very confusing. Ddcc 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The error here lies in the assumption that Wikipedia policy is ratified, or amended, by majority vote. That is simply not the case, since Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy. We discuss changes to policy, generally on the talk page of that policy. Better arguments are more important than numerical majority. (Radiant) 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this amendment has not been rejected, we might as well keep going, as there is no consensus for either side. Ddcc 20:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, since there is no consensus for either side after lengthy debate, it follows that the amendment has in fact been rejected. See also WP:POL - since a proposal needs consensual support to be accepted, any proposal that lacks consensual support is rejected (or, if you prefer, "has failed", but the effect is the same). (Radiant) 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So that means that if at the beginning it seems to be rejected, but later by changing the proposal to be acceptable to all it becomes accepted, someone could just reject it at the beginning because there's no consensus? Ddcc 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, we're not that bureaucratic :) However, I haven't really seen this proposal being changed to become acceptable to all. Given the lack of support for the proposal at present, a minor rewording won't make it any more acceptable to the community; it would have to change tacks and change substantially. (Radiant) 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that conclusion. This proposal has garnered a lot of support. It is not at all clear that it will not achieve consensus through further work. Johntex\^talk 00:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, glancing at the most recent straw poll, supporters outnumber detractors by approximately 2 to 1. A careful count should be conducted to see if this has already recieved sufficient support to be passed. Johntex\^talk 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I recognize the strawpoll was closed quite some time ago and haven't contributed as a result. However, if it was open, I'd vote oppose to the amendment for a number of reasons. --Durin 03:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• John, your statement implies that you think policy/guidelines are enacted through a majority vote. This is simply not the case; Wikipedia doesn't work that way (WP:NOT, WP:POL, WP:PPP). You can't simply ignore objections because you appear to have some kind of majority. Brad Patrick's statement is a strong indication of the (lack of) legal need for such a policy, and at any rate Wikipedia cannot truly be legislated. (Radiant) 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. We rarely have unanimous support for any action. That means that we do our best to satisfy everyone as much as we can. At the end of the day, satisfying 2/3 of the people is better than satisfying 1/3 of the people. That is why we generally look to have 70% or so in favor at places like AfD or RfA. To turn your statement around, you can't just ignore the majority opinion because you have a small minority of hold-outs. Brad Pattrick did not say there was any justification for the existing policy based upon its legal merits. He spoke here as a regular user and his voice is considered in the debate just like all the other users. Johntex\^talk 12:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works by consensus, and that's precisely we do not look to have 70% or so in favor at places like AFD. We look for good arguments. Despite appearances to the contrary, AFDs need not be closed in favor of the majority. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not go by the principle of "satisfying the greatest amount of people", and the majority is not always correct. (Radiant) 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Often on Wikipedia, votes ARE held. You are ignoring the obvious to state otherwise. Arbitration members are voted on. Foundation members are voted on. The Arbitrators have ruled that RfA IS A VOTE.1 AFD are in practice decided by 70% majority unless there is a strong reason to discount certain voices. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not go by the principle of satisfying the smallest number of people. Your arguments are no better simply because you are in the minority. Either side can claim they have made the better arguments. How about I just say we made the better arguements and be done with it? Clearly, that is not the way to go forward either. But, a small vocal minority of editors will not be allowed to block consensus over a larger group of people who have themselves made good arguments. Johntex\^talk 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Consensus is not the only basis on which Wikipedia works. There are legal reasons why we need to stay clear of using copyrighted images in portals. That trumps consensus. --Durin 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right that legal issues woudl take precedence, but there is no legal problem here. As I mentioned way above on this page, if the Foundation believes there is a legal issue, they could veto this. However, Brad Patrick commented here already. He had an opportunity to say that there is a legal reason to prevent fair use images in portals and he did NOT do so. Tellingly, in fact, Brad Patrick even took pains to point out that he was only stating his personal view. Clearly, if there was any legal jeopardy he would have spoken up about it. The fact that he did not do so completely quashes the legal argument. As I said, the fact that he as an individual editor would prefer no fair use images in portals is considered along with the opinions of all the other editors. With no legal veto exercised, it is now only about what we decide to do. Johntex\^talk 13:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think his lack of statement vis-a-vis legality qualifies as a statement from him that it is legal. The legal issue surrounding this has not been quashed. --Durin 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will certainly allow that the future is uncertain. Brad could come in here tomorrow and decide that he has to exercise executive fiat to squah the majority opinion, which favors fair use images in portals. I am only pointing out that he has not done so, and that it is misleading at best to point to his personal opinion as any sort of justification for the thought there is a legal image. People need to get over it and give his personal opinion the weight due to any valued contributor. No more - no less. Johntex\^talk 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad did state that "I oppose this change of policy, but not for legal reasons.", thus I can't see how the legal issue has been dismissed. He clearly states that it's not due to legal reasons, thus is because of his personal reasons. Ddcc 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is logical to suppose that if Brad thought there was a legal problem, he would have said so. He did not say so. Johntex\^talk 16:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I had intentionally not mentioned RFA in my statement since people keep bringing it up as "the" example of how things work about here whereas in fact it is an exception to the rule. Your assertion about AFD is incorrect and backed by neither deletion policy nor by what actually happens on its process. AFDs are not decided by any particular percentage such as 70% (and for that matter, neither are RFAs). In most cases AFDs are decided in favor of the majority, but several times per week they are decided in favor of a minority thas substantially better reasoning even if no "votes" are discounted. I am not saying that consensus is opposed to this proposal (for indeed it is not), but I am saying that consensus is not in support of this proposal, and that this is not decided through a majority vote. (Radiant) 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that consensus on this issue has not yet been found and that more discussion is needed. I agree that some AfD's are decided in favor of a minority opinion, but most of them are. I am not saying voting is the right way to everything. I am saying that there are occasions when we do vote. There are, however, occoasions where votes are called for. Straw polls are a common practice to decide things like article content and also policy. I am also saying that minority cannot say "Votes don't count, we made the better arguments" and expect to exercise a veto power forever. Johntex\^talk 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the usual disputes about how policy becomes itself... I have seen only one argument against 'fair use on portals' which seems at all 'substantial'. Specifically, as Brad put it, "provide free content everywhere you can"... essentially we attempt to limit 'fair use' images because the page cannot then be freely copied. If we had fair use images on portal pages they couldn't be copied to countries which have laws against such images, could not be sold for profit, et cetera. A good and valid reason... except for one thing. How exactly would someone ever 'copy' / 'sell' a portal in the first place? Portals are already not copied from Wikipedia in one language to Wikipedia in another language because the articles they would link to have different names in the different languages, the category structures they display are similarly inconsistent, the wikiprojects they coordinate are organized differently, et cetera. Nor could someone easily place a portal into a commercial product... it is not a completed article (where 'fair use' images ARE allowed) that could be sold in a printed encyclopedia or other book, but rather a navigation aid, showcase, and project coordination page... which cannot function properly if disconnected from the project. In short, portals by their very nature are not 'portable' in the first place. So while we can make them 'more free' by removing fair use images, none of the benefits which that 'freedom' is supposed to entail really seem to apply to this type of content. I made this observation above, but have seen no response to it. Do those who cite 'freedom' think there ARE ways to disconnect portals from their fundamental purpose of linking related project pages and 're-use' them elsewhere? --CBD 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the only way I see that portals can be distributed is that if you go to answers.com, they copy the entire Wikipedia database and use that. Ddcc 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, so far as I can tell, answers.com doesn't use the portals... or the Main page. I can't see how they would be able to because portals link not just to articles, but also Wikiprojects and other discussion/coordination pages related to the topic. Unless they replicated all of that as well, which wouldn't make sense given that they don't allow user updates to the pages, they'd have to send those links back to Wikipedia, remove them from the portal pages, or have them just be broken links... any of which would make the portals not particularly useful to them. Which is presumably why they don't have them. --CBD 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The argument that it would be ok because portals aren't distributed is backwards. This presumes that nobody would ever possibly use them. The non-backwards way is to focus on our goal; creating a *free encyclopedia*. Fair use images stand in the way of that goal. The use of them should be kept to an absolute minimum. --Durin 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is backwards would be to focus too much on the "free" and not enough on the "encyclopedia". Wikipedia should focus mainly on making the best encyclopedia we can make, with all our text being free, while also assisting in creating/distributing free images. We have wiki-commons to focus solely on free images. Anyone who wants to re-use our portals must do some due dilligence as to whether our content will work for them or if they need to make changes. That is already the case because unless they are foolish, they would not accept our supposed free images without checking them out themselves. This is no different from any of our articles. The re-users need to check that everything we have included is suitable for whatever purposes hey plan for it. Johntex\^talk 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sidebar: Wikipedia and Commons both already do a <sarcasm> bang up </sarcasm> job of blithely trusting other sites to have done their homework on the copyright status of various materials. I realize it's not our problem to do homework for other sites. But, if we do our own homework it serves our purposes. The more free we are, the better off we are.
• Commenting in general: I still don't agree that using fair use images on portals in any way contributes to the mission of the encyclopedia. In fact, I have a somewhat strong opinion against fair use on main space articles except in a very limited set of cases. The vast, vast majority of fair use violations I have seen on portals have been uses that contributed visually to the content, but not contributed in an encyclopedic way. I can virtually guarantee that if we allow fair use on portals, the vast majority of uses will serve more decorative desires than encyclopedic desires. In exchange for this "improvement", we potentially increase our exposure to copyright concerns by copyright holders. I don't see the benefit. --Durin 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I very much disagree. The vast majority of fair use images I come across are valid fair use images. They are things like publicity photos, for example, where it is very clear that the owner has created the photo for the very purpose of having it distributed and used. To delete those images in favor of having no image, or in favor of having a grainy image shot from 300 meters away by a fan with a disposable camera, does not help us be a better encyclopedia. Being a better encyclopedia should be our main goal. That includes having high-quality fair-use photos where they are legally defensible. Johntex\^talk 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use / Free use

• Durin, the various points you raise have all been addressed before:
  1. Legal issues - These are belied by Brad's statements above that we should not use 'fair use' images just "because we can" under US law, and that we should 'not seek sanctuary in the law' but go beyond it. Brad's comments directly indicate that there are no legal restrictions preventing 'fair use' images on portals... he instead suggests that we should not do so to increase 'freedom' (in response to which see below)
  2. 'Freedom' issues - You suggest that I 'presume that nobody would ever possibly re-use' our portals... actually I'm saying that I don't see any way that they could. Seriously, how exactly would someone go about re-using a navigation aid outside of the framework of what it navigates to? It'd be like taking a card catalog system from a library in Wichita and trying to 're-use' it in Moscow. How would another site, even another language Wikipedia, re-use Portal:Philosophy? They'd either need to recreate the half dozen Wikiprojects it links to, the philosophy category structure and article names it coordinates, the current project 'to do' list, the linked sub-portals and all the navigation they contain, et cetera... or manually rebuild the page. Which is why portals are not copied by mirrors and other language Wikipedias NOW... even without 'fair use' images on them. Adding 'fair use' images to portals could not 'decrease' the non-existent re-use of those portals which exists currently and is therefor no less 'free'.
  3. Encyclopedic issues - Paper encyclopedias use pictures too... even fair use pictures when there is no alternative. And for any recent work of fiction there simply aren't any 'free' images... everything is either directly copyrighted or a derivative work. If J. K. Rowling were to drop dead today it would be 2081 (at best) before any 'free' image of anything Harry Potter related could be put on Portal:Harry Potter. As I have said before, we do not make ourselves 'more encyclopedic' by excluding pop culture images. Just less accessible to the people who enjoy that culture. Illustrating a topic IS 'encyclopedic'. --CBD 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I disagree. Again I state as above that it is a backwards process to assert that since portals may not be used elsewhere, that's ok to use fair use images. Whether portals are (excuse the unintended pun) portable are not belies the point. Hmm. I find I'm repeating myself. <removes hands from keyboard> --Durin 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    You say you disagree. You say it is 'backwards' thinking. You do not say WHY. Surely you can see the apparent contradiction in, 'we must not have fair use images on portals because it makes them less free to be re-used than their current seemingly un-reusable status'. So... what? I'm all for making Wikipedia 'more free'. Absolutely. I just don't see any way that barring fair use images from portals actually does that. There is currently zero re-use of portals and if there were fair use images on them there would then... still be zero re-use of portals. Backwards, forwards, or sideways... that's the apparent reality. --CBD 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think I already stated the case above. Allowing fair use on portals because we can't imagine portals being reusable content is the backwards part. We shouldn't be trying to anticipate all possible reuses. If we just make it free period, then we don't have to ponder all possible reuses. --Durin 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, 'we do not know what the future could hold' is a valid argument... if we avoid fair use images then if someone eventually does come up with some way to re-use portals commercially / in countries with no 'fair use' provisions they will be able to do so more easily. It seems implausible to me, but can't be ruled out. However, weighing the possibility of future portal re-usability against the fact of many portals currently barring all 'on topic' illustrations I still come down on the side of allowing 'fair use' images when there is no other option. There is a reason we do this on the Main page. There is a reason printed encyclopedias do it. When there is a choice only between 'fair use images' and 'NO images at all' it is appropriate to display fair use. We could be entirely 'free' by barring fair use altogether... but it would result in an encyclopedia with no images of any form of fiction whose originator lived past 1931... and I think that would be a more significant limitation than warranted by the greater freedom of re-use. As I noted previously, the German Wikipedia supposedly has no 'fair use', but they get around that by categorizing 'fan art' as 'free'... which legally it isn't. I'd be ok with a limitation like that (allow 'free' and 'fan art') on portals, but just 'free' means zero images on too many portals. --CBD 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not fully agree that we can not have images of pop art because any such images would, by definition, be copyrighted. I've seen this argument in particular cases used before, and have seen fair use images replaced with free license images. Let's take a single case for an example (not saying this particular one has happened on Wikipedia); We believe we have no way of gaining free license imagery of demonstrations of Star Trek uniforms. Yet, a person can readily go out and purchase such a uniform and take their own picture. Presto, free license image. Under a very narrow interpretation of copyright law, there might be a slight case that Paramount could make that this encroaches on their rights...but it's a serious stretch. Meanwhile, we've replaced a fair use image with a notionally free license image.
• A related concern I have is a common situation we have here on Wikipedia; people failing to even make an attempt at gaining release of imagery. Granted, in most cases the answer will be no. But in many cases, the answer is yes. Failing to even make a request *guarantees* the answer is no. In cases where people want to use fair use imagery on portals (and we allowed it), they should at a minimum be asking the copyright holders for free license release. Right now, this is quite rare. If we liberally allow the use of fair use (and I feel portal use falls into that definition), we reduce the incentive for people to request release. The main criteria people seem to hold themselves to is "can I use it?" not "is it free?". As a free encyclopedia, we should be targeting the latter, not the former, in *all* cases...not just portals. --Durin 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. I refer you to the commons:Commons:Derivative works policy. It uses the example of taking a picture of a 'Mickey mouse' shirt, but the concept is the same... you cannot 'transform' something into a 'free' image by taking a photograph of it yourself. The fact that you 'own' the item the image is displayed on does not give you ownership of the image itself... or even of a copy of that image which you make yourself (whether by photography or redrawing it). That's not some 'narrow interpretation', but rather a bedrock principle of copyright. The reality is that copyright holders virtually never sue over such issues, but legally the images are not 'free'. If we want to treat 'fan art/recreations' of this sort as if they were 'free', then that would open up alot of images for use and be reasonable... but currently such images often do get deleted from portals and the like because legally they are definitely NOT 'free'. As to 'gaining release'... almost never going to be 'free'. Artists / copyright holders will typically give release to 'use in Wikipedia' or 'use for educational purposes', but that is not 'free'... someone can't then take that image and sell it. In both instances you seem to be describing 'allowed use' rather than 'free use'. I'd be ok limiting portals to such 'allowed use' images... but 'free use' is MUCH more restrictive and IS currently enforced as such by some. --CBD 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• So noted. I still fail to agree with the argument that fair use should be allowed because it visually enhances the portal. --Durin 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we please break this into another section heading? Ddcc 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Durin, well I suppose that is what it comes down to... how much importance do we place on 'visual representations' in the encyclopedia versus 'freedom of re-use'? I think having some sort of representative images is important enough that 'fan art' and 'publicity photos' should be allowed on portals if no 'free' images are available... on the grounds that Wikipedia should be in no 'legal jeopardy' in such cases and most forms of re-use would also be 'safe'. Images shown 'with permission' might or might not be ok on portals depending on what permissions were given (i.e. if permission were given to use the image on a specific article then portals aren't ok). Maybe what needs to be considered here is not whether all 'fair use' should be allowed on portals, but whether specific types of technically 'non-free' images (like your 'photo of a Star Trek uniform' example) can be. --CBD 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think where that edges into is an area of more greyness in policy. Right now, the use of fair use images in userspace is frequently contested. A significant subset of the time, the attempted case that is made is that such use is ok under law, or variants thereof. The problem there is (assuming we allowed this) that as the policy is further muted and qualified, being able to police fair use image use becomes increasingly complex. We are already in a situation where we are generally losing the fight to keep fair use to a minimum. Creating a less easily managed policy makes that task more difficult. If we are to allow fair use images on portals, I'd rather see a very clear delineation; all fair use or no fair use. Easy to manage, easy to police, easy to explain.
• With regards to fair use contributing value as a visual representation; We come from different sides of this coin, and it's highly subjective. I doubt we'll come to any agreement on that point. But, I would like to state where my subjective view stands. I think there's a very limited set of cases where a fair use image in the absence of a free license image contributes significantly to articles. Just taking a hypothetical example off the top of my head; the Reichstag fire. Let's say there's no free use images of the fire; fair use images exist. Ok, use one...if it shows the fire in progress. If there were no free license images of the Reichstag not on fire (I know, I know, just bear with me...it's an example :)), and someone tried to put such a fair use image on the article, I think it would do nothing to contribute to the article. "Ok, so that's the Reichstag. So what? Show me the fire!". Taking an example related to pop art; Sponge Bob. Putting a fair use image of Sponge Bob on a portal doesn't, in my mind, add any real value. If someone wants to see what Sponge Bob looks like, they can go to the main article on Sponge Bob. Adding the image to the portal doesn't add value that does not already exist in the encyclopedia.
• Taking this further; if we say that adding an image of Sponge Bob to the portal adds value, there can readily be a slippery slope situation. We already have the "added value" of the image on the main namespace article. If adding it to a portal adds value, then a case can easily be made that adding it to a user's userpage that talks about Sponge Bob adds value too. From there we can descend into templates, userboxes, etc.
• No, I'd rather see one iteration of added value of a fair use image use. Personally, I cringe when I see a fair use image used in a large number of main namespace articles. For example, Image:Bigcancoat.png is used 7 times. I just don't see such frequent use as being in step with the intentions of fair use law. Adding more uses of fair use images where such images are already used elsewhere makes this worse, not better.
• In short, the arguments in favor of fair use seem to be based mainly on that it adds value. Yet, that added value already exists on the main namespace. If adding value is a valid criterion, then certainly a very broad paintbrush for use of fair use images gains more support. --Durin 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings us back to the issue of who portals are targeted towards. Since they are targeted towards the reader, not the editor, it serves the same purpose as an article on that subject. It introduces the reader to that topic, and provides links to other articles related to the same topic. Since portals are obviously targeted towards the reader, then obviously adding images provides more value to the reader. If portals were targeted towards the editor, we would not be having this discussion. Ddcc 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Templates and userboxes are targetted towards the reader as well. So, we should allow fair use there too? --Durin 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think this, 'if we allowed fair use on portals it would be on user pages and templates too', slippery slope concept holds up. Taking the 'Spongebob on user page' example... an image of Spongebob is 'fair use' to illustrate an article or portal which is ABOUT Spongebob. It is not fair use to illustrate a user page which is inherently about that user. There might be cases where a legitimate 'fair use' argument could be made for a user page, but they are vastly fewer than those on portals and thus it would not be at all unreasonable to have a different standard for the two. Templates are a different animal entirely... a template which was used solely in a handful of places in the article space could logically fit a 'fair use' criteria, but by their nature templates are portable / re-usable - which, as we've previously discussed, 'fair use' is not. Thus a strong argument can be made for 'no fair use' on user pages because there are so rarely valid criteria for such that it isn't worth allowing at all... and a similarly solid argument can be made on templates because by design they can be too easily re-used in places where the 'fair use' rationale would not apply or so freqently included as to invalidate the fair use argument. Neither of those issues apply to portals. An image of the subject the portal covers IS 'fair use' on a portal and it is not hyper-portable like a template. It is thus every bit as 'valid' there as on an article or the Main page (where fair use is also allowed). On the question of 'added value'... obviously images add some value or we would not have ANY at all. The idea of a clear standard makes sense, but I don't see why it would have to be 'all fair use' or 'no fair use'. A standard allowing 'fan art' and/or 'publicity photos' could be every bit as specific/clear... and keeping it to such things would allow considerably broader re-use (in the event of some hypothetical way of reusing portals actually being found) than all 'fair use' would. --CBD 11:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Durin, what you're asking is not logical nor is it realistic. Will an idiot run around on Wikipedia screaming "<sarcasm> Oh my god There are pictures of naked people on Wikipedia articles! We need to get these pictures onto cleanup templates to make editors look at them.</sarcasm>" Possibly. Is that going to happen? No. We need to stop going on and on about what if this and what if that. I could spend an entire day listing what if's while doing nothing productive...<sarcasm>"What is since we allow communists to edit Wikipedia, another Mao Zedong is going take over Wikipedia!</sarcasm>." Do these what if's help make policy? Rarely. Then we need to stop arguing over what is this and what if that; we need to actually discuss real topics rather than make up unrealistic and illogical scenarios. Ddcc 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• de-indent Ddcc, thank you for describing my commentary as comprised of "illogical scenarios". Nevertheless, I agree with you. We do not to stop pondering what if scenarios. The easiest way to do that is to use fair use images in as limited a manner as possible, which would preclude their use in portals. --Durin 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I don't think the re-use issue is relevant because of this: Even if somebody wants to re-use a portal, they would have no problem even with fair use images. That is because they can strip off the fair use images based on their licensing tags, with an automated process, just as they can do for mainspace articles.

As for the concern that portals might use the fair use images for decorations, why not just limit it to one fair use image per portal, in something like its featured article, and for encyclopedic pruposes. (Identification and commentary, not decoration).

The reason I see this amendment as on the route to passing is not only the number of opinions for and against, or even the strength of the arguments. It seemed to me that the course of the debate was moving towards approval, with fewer negatives as we go.--GunnarRene 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A common theme scene in various debates is a tendency for proponents for different sides to see the debate swinging their way over time. I do it, you do it, everyone has a tendency towards this to varying degrees. The reality is we're biased. Our perceptions bias our reading of the debate. We see arguments we disagree with as having less impact than arguments we agree with, so we tend to feel things are going our way.
• For my own part, I see this debate as going decidely against fair use in portals. I'm also quite conscious of the fact that this policy is not going to be decided by consensus here. --Durin 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy"

If Wikipedia is not a democracy, why did the Wikiadmins phrase the Arbitration Committee selections as "The Arbitration Committee elections have started. Those who qualify may vote here." Note that it says Vote. In addition, if you look at meta:Stewards, it says that if you wish to become a new steward, you need to "Gain at least 30 votes in favor" and have "At least 80% overall votes in favor" among others. Again, it says "votes" not "Gain at least 30 well-formed explanations on why you are a good candidate with no major character issues" and "At least 80% user support with no major rejection issues." Ddcc 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting on some things does not make us a democracy. It only means we vote on a few things, and generally avoid voting. Voting for an arbiter or a steward in itself does not cause any action, but rather, chooses a person who then uses discussion, with others, to make action. Arbiters and stewards are vital for running Wikipedia, and we don't really have a choice but to have a vote in order to choose people in a timely manner. Other issues that are non-vital should not use votes, and no vote process on Wikipedia is ever binding. We do this because it's better to discuss and try to develop a true consensus, rather than make "sides" and blind votes. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned on this. We should make policy by consensus. But how about it, Ned? Would a bot that enforces no more than one fair use image per portal (including sub-pages) modify your position somewhat? --GunnarRene 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not mine. Either we allow fair use on portals or not. One image or twenty, it's a violation if it's a violation. If it's not a violation, 20 would be fine. Also, policy is not always created by consensus. Some policy has been established directly by the foundation. Fair use policy is one of these. --Durin 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That all depends on how the images are used, and which works they are from. Using a fair use image for "Featured image" is out of the question, for example. And using 20 images on the Star Wars portal, for example, would be problematic because they might originate in the same work and making the proportion of representation high. Proportion is one of the tests for fair use. So the assertion of if 1 OK then 20 OK does not hold, because the inductive step is not proven. --GunnarRene 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm aware of that, and purposefully didn't comment on that as I felt it would have made my comments less clear. The clauses regarding overuse of fair use would of course still be in play. The issue isn't how much that is being discussed here. The issue is whether to allow or not. If we allow, and other policies not withstanding, then 20 is fine. Limiting it to 1 should have no bearing; either the other policies apply or they do not. We don't need to add on extra riders to this change (if it ever took place) to make it more palatable. --Durin 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's not really a need for extra limitations for portals, I agree; I hadn't considered that something like the Harry Potter portal or the Japan portal might want to use a fair use image for illustrating a news item, for example. In that case, the use of two images might be fair. --GunnarRene 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm working on cleaning up this amendement, rewriting it, etc, at User:Ddcc/Portalfairuse. What are some issues that you guys still might have with that version? Ddcc 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)