Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

A Fine Example Of Run-Amokness

I wanted to see how bad the "problem" of fair use is, so, swear to God, I picked an image at random that had been slapped with the dreaded {{replaceable fair use}} template. And, sure enough, this image of a Washington state legislator is a perfect example of this new policy gone horribly wrong.

The uploader of the image included this information, describing his quixotic quest to fulfill the current interpretation of fair use:

Nevertheless, I contacted the Washington House of Representatives by telephone, and after being shuttled around various offices by helpful staff employees, I found myself in contact with a person who asserted himself authorized to speak for the House on matters of copyright. I asked him about the copyright status of these images, and he stated that "we hold the copyrights, but go ahead and do what you want with them." Seeking to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I informed him that it was my intention to upload the image to Wikipedia and he gave specific approval for that usage.

Of course, you can guess what happened next...

A policy that makes no sense should be changed. There is no good reason why this image shouldn't be part of Wikipedia. People applying the current fair use policy need to come up with a good answer -- how is deleting this image compatible with Jimbo's goal of creating a "free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality"? (Answers that begin with a mindless recitation of the phrase "Because the image isn't free" will be considered insufficiently creative...) Jenolen 12:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you; It is getting rather silly now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It does seem awfully Kafkaesque. Badagnani 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

nyet we have ben removeing wikipedia only images (which is the lisence this is released under) for a long time.Geni 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which only proves we have been making a sad mistake for a very long time. Johntex\^talk 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission to use an image on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the license. We do not accept Wikipedia-specific licenses. We don't even accept "everything, except commercial uses";. Unless the image is explicitly released under a free (any use, derivatives allowed) license, then it can only be used with a Fair Use claim. ed g2s • talk 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the page, and read the context. This is obviously not a "Wikipedia only" situation. I read it as the person said "do what you want with it" -- the editor asked, trying to be extra sure, "including upload it to Wikipedia?" -- to which the person responded "sure," as in, "Wikipedia, Larrypedia, I don't care... do what you want with it." Still no takers on: how is deleting this image compatible with Jimbo's goal of creating a "free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality"? I'm waiting... :)

Jenolen 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's set aside the personal attacks a minute. The question is, is the image released under {{permission}} or {{norightsreserved}}? The tag used was "permission", which requires that the image be non-replaceable (and it's not). But if it was mistagged, and the proper tag should be "norightsreserved", then it doesn't have to be non-replaceable. In my opinion, the page, and the context, are ambiguous. He could have meant "Do what you (Wikipedia) want with it (but no one else)", or he could have meant "Anyone can do what they want with it". Either way, I don't think the tagger should be excoriated over this; as tagged, it has to be non-replaceable to be used, and it's obviously replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please check out WP:ERP. And if the image was originally unfree, then did you speak to the copyright holder as they are the only person allowed to re-license the image? ed g2s • talk 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A phone conversation? "Yes, your honor, I was assured over the phone that this copyrighted photo by Professional Portraits, Inc. was free to use however I like, and figured that was good enough, even though the person on the other end clearly had no clue whatsoever." Stan 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, getting it in writing is clearly much safer, but the person on the phone was identified as representing the Washington House (presumably the copyright holder), so it's not really fair to say they had no clue whatsoever. What would be best is if someone e-mailed the Washington House, asking for clarification. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I suspect a lot of people don't fully appreciate the implications of releasing images under a "free license". Note we require derivates and commercial use be allowed for all our images used under a free license. If you really want to test, don't ask whether it can be used on wikipedia. Tell the person you're planning to conduct a smear campaign. Or maybe deface their picture and post it all over the place. Or planning to publish an unauthorised biography with this picture. Or whatever. Under a free license, your fully entitled to do so, provided you fulfill the requirements of the license (attribution, share-alike or whatever). Obviously libel, fraud and other laws will still apply. So you couldn't defame someone or use the image to imply an endorsement exists. However copyright issues won't arise over your use of the image they published. Of course in some cases you may be able to use the image under fair use anyway e.g. critical commentary so this isn't quite the ultimate test but it does illustrate why just because someone says you can use it doesn't mean they actually meant it in a way suitable for wikipedia. Nil Einne 08:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A semi-made up example, consider Alexander Litvinenko. There is a widely published photo showing him in ICU before he died. This was taken by a commercial (AP?) photographer who has complained (so we removed it). But let's assume the family had taken it. They had given permission for it to be distributed to illustrate his condition ([1]). However this doesn't mean they released it under a free license. It's more of a 'promo' photo. I'm thinking that if you had decided to use it for your commercial book/whatever on the effects on radiation exposure, they might not be keen. Especially 5-10 years down the track. Or your book/whatever (especially commercial) on some wacky theory you have about how radiation is a big hoax and the effects of radiation are caused by evil scientists doing evil things. Or if someone in Russia decided to use it as part of their campaign to illustrate how far the enemies of Russia will go to destroy Russia (by committing suicide with Polonium-210) [n.b. I'm not saying this was the case, I'm simply using it as an example of what could happen]. (Maybe even with a few choice defacements of the photo) But if they had released it under a free license, you could do all of the above provided you complied with the license requirements. (Again obviously libel etc would still apply) However if you had tried something like the above it wouldn't surprise me if they took you to court for copyright infrigement and won. Do you get what I'm saying here? Just because someone says you can use this photo, doesn't mean it's a free license. In reality it probably isn't. You need a clear legally binding statement and also really should make sure person actually understands the statement (otherwise they might be able to get away with it by saying they didn't really understand). Getting assurances over the phone that you can do whatever you want with it even upload it on wikipedia is frankly not even close. (You should at least say Encylopaedia Britannica or some commercial publication although that isn't much better) Nil Einne 08:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you (or User:Quadell maybe - or someone else who checks here) can help me on that photo. I read that it was removed after the Press Association photographer who took it complained to the Wikimedia Foundation and asked for it to be taken down. What are the details of his complaint and is his letter of complaint available. It could be relevant to our discussions...TIA --luke 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A little digging reveals [2] and a little more reveals [3] - everything else happened off wiki. Megapixie 07:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...that helped a bit to try and suss what was going on. It seems that David.Monniaux saw the complaint. --luke 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP Will Always Rely on Fair Use

This is an idea that has been floating around in these discussions, and I think it needs its own heading because it's of crucial importance: The legal justification for using copyrighted images is exactly the same as the legal justification for quoting from copyrighted texts. Both of these are allowed under U.S. law (under which WP's servers operate) by the doctrine of fair use.

I've never seen any of the people crusading against fair use images suggest that we ought to replace all quotes with paraphrases--which could certainly be done, though it would clearly reduce the quality of many of WP's articles. So there really is not a principled stance against fair use in favor of a "100 percent free content encyclopedia". The opposition to fair use images has to be based on something else--from what I can gather, a misunderstanding of copyright law that holds that text is somehow different from images.

If someone can provide a more coherent rationale for why text and images should be treated differently, please make the case. Otherwise, let's skip the accusations that wikipedians who don't approve of the wholescale deletion of fair use images are somehow out of step with the WP philosophy. Based on the universal acceptance of fair-use quotation, what we have here is a factual dispute over whether using promotional images is less legally safe. If we stick to that factual debate, I believe the routine use of promotional images to illustrate articles will be accepted. Nareek 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know if de: has quotes, and what their justification is? My German is not up to the polysyllabic tonguetwisters of legal discussion. :-) Stan 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reproducing quotes from a book, and reproducing entire images, are completely different, and are treated as different by U.S. copyright law. A quote is a tiny portion of a larger work, whereas a photo is the entire work. If I published a book that included a 2-sentence quote from your book (without your permission, but properly attributed), that would be a "fair use", and you would not be able to successfully sue me for damages. But if I included an entire poem you wrote, or an entire photograph you made, then that would not be "fair use", and you would definitely be able to sue me for damages. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that change the fair use argument? If we're out to eliminate all fair use, then small quotations from larger texts have to go, too. The point is we can't completely eliminate fair use, ever, period. Going on a crusade against images in the name of fair use just hurts the project and is inconsistent with the policy used on other content. -- ChadScott 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, and no expert on German law, but they most likely rely on some kind of "quotation rights". Most legal systems do have these, and outside of the US the use of text generaly is more acceptable than other kinds of media. I would guess it's related to the fact that people have been quoting each other for as long as there have been written languages (whereas it's been flat out impossible to copy images with non-trivial efforts untill fairly recently), so there is a much more established tradition for quoting text and the laws tend to reflect that. --Sherool (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To respond to my comment by saying that quotations are legally safer than text is to agree with me in saying that Wikipedia does not have a principled objection to fair use, but is concerned that some kinds of fair use may be legally questionable. That's a factual claim that I think is wrong: Fair use is recognized for images as well as text, the lower resolution of web images has been treated as a kind of partial quotation, and there is no particular safety in quotation--the most famous defeat of a fair use claim was a text quotation of not so many words by The Nation. Regardless, I think it will be healthy for us to move this discussion to what kinds of fair use are appropriate for Wikipedia to use rather than arguing about whether, in principle, Wikipedia should be using fair use at all. Nareek 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No that would be the false dilema logical fallacy.Geni 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain the point please? TIA.--luke 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never said "We are against fair use". Instead, Wikipedia has always said "We can only use fair use (non-free) images under a specific, strict set of guidelines." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This strawmanship isn't helping anyone at all. Nobody, except for a few extremists, has ever suggested that we halt the usage of fair use images (which has been done on many other WPs), let alone the usage of all copyrighted content. Wikipedia's approach to fair use content can be summed up as: Don't use it, but if there's no copylefted alternative and the fair use claim is as watertight as can be hoped for, then go ahead. (And as for why it's strongly undesirable to use fair use images, no explanation should be necessary.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But what about Jimbo's GFDL principles, which seem very clearly stated.--luke 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Is it the comment Jimbo made as quoted by Borisblue 09:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) on this talk page? If so, I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already gone into a little detail as part of a discussion with Andrew Levine here. Check my point made at 19:11 on 6 November 2006.--luke 14:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting we ought to ban all fair use material from Wikipedia because it cannot be licenced under the GFDL? What about all those images we use under copyleft but non-GFDL licences? Should those go too? Johnleemk | Talk 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

well, we were discussing a particular class of fair use material there as you will see, not all fair use. As to copyleft, I believe there is a debate as to whether the GFDL is the BEST license for our purposes of those currently available. I've yet to be convinced, but this is surely not the best place to discuss these questions..luke 09:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) - (ps) to make it clearer and more relevant to the current situation, the proposal as at present worded is for images of living people but it has become plain over the weeks that few are prepared to voice support (only 1 contributor, in fact, did so) for the free content principle put into practice even just in that particular limited case. So I'm thinking of rewording it taking into account the realities as they exist. Thoughts and comments would be welcome - luke

simple but important question

I'd like to ask what are the reasons for and against fair use?--luke 09:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for fair use kinda go like this:

1. The images are legally sound and are generally of higher quality than many free images, and in many cases are released for the specific purpose of being included in things like Wikipedia.
2. Recognizability is important in an encyclopedia, and people may recognize a certain iconic (but copyrighted) photo better than a lower-quality photo.
3. Our long-term relationship with the content community is based on taking advantage of what the public relations industry has to offer, which is often of higher quality than even the best free-leaning photographer can take due to unprecedented access. While we shouldn't modify our articles in such a way that we're pandering to them, we should allow them to help us out, because that's what they get paid to do. By taking this away from Wikipedia, we're burning a lot of bridges unnecessarily.
4. We're being inconsistent. Yes, a free image will do, but our promotional photos article completely contradicts this one at the moment, and I think most editors don't like the about face, even if now it seems like we're being consistent.
5. Wikipedia is part of the mass media at this point and should not let idealism get in the way of a good thing. While the long-term goal may be to create a free encyclopedia, and many involved in the day-to-day editing of the site may feel this way, this is ultimately NOT the public image that the site has.
6. Most users simply don't want this. This is being thrust upon the site by a small group who currently happens to have power over the site. Some of these users revel in this on their user pages. None seem willing to compromise their core beliefs in the face of public disapproval. This policy has been publicly opposed in this talk by at least two members of the media (including myself) and one copyright lawyer who is also an administrator. As I've noted many times, I work with fair use images all day, and let me tell you, they're far more useful than most copyright-free images have been up to this point. There's a reason why Ubuntu is more popular than Debian, and that's because, while the software is free under the GPL, "free" doesn't get in the way of the mission.

I really like Wikipedia, but I'm of the opinion that we should be careful not to let a minority ruin it because of layers of bureaucracy. The reason why Wikipedia works is because it's free as in people can run around anywhere to do whatever they want, not because it's free as in speech. If we start throwing up prison bars and finding new ways to wonk users over the head with policy, Wikipedia is going to suck. Period. In fact, it already is starting to suck. - Stick Fig 10:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Some "counter points":

1. No, promotional photos are not released "for things like Wikipedia". They released for media- , promitional- and private use. Wikipedia is not a media outlet, promotional website or private webhost. It s a free content ensyclopedia who's goal is to let anyone modify, re-distribute and use out content in any way. If this is what promotional photos where intended for there would not be pages worth of "terms of use" (that no one seems to read) on such material. Furthermore it should then be no problem to make have them release such material under a real free license if that was the case, and so far that doesn't seem to happen very often.
2. So you are saying people would be confused about who the articles about Denzel Washington, Richard Dean Anderson or Goldie Hawn (to name but a few) is refering to because they are not using "official" photos? Come on, give our readers some credit!
3. What relationship? We don't need theyr permission to use works under "fair use", and if they won't release stuff under free licenses then how are they helping us exactly?
4. What do you mean? Are you refeering to the Wikipedia:Publicity photos essay? That's just an essy. Essays can be used to bring up good points, clearify things or give explanations, but in no way do they trump policy if the two disagree. Don't bring an essay to a policy fight (sorry couldn't resist) :P
5. What the "public image" of Wikipedia is doesn't mean didely squat (though we should try to find ways to rectify this). We should not abandon the ideals the project was founded on just because a lot of people out there just don't get the whole free content thing.
6. Well fortunately Wikipedia is not a democracy, please read Wikimedia Foundation bylaws (spesificaly the statemtne of princibles). This project was set up for the very purpose of creating free open content. That this have somehow gotten unpopular with a large number of contributors is unfortunate, but it's not likely to change. If you don't like the core princibles of this project your best bet is to fork, just like the Linux distributions you mention have done.

Wikipedia is for the most part run by the comunity, however a few core aspects of the project are fundamentaly non-negotiable, copyright issues beeing one of them. Fair use is still allowed in cases where it is not possible to obtain free content in it's place. I rely don't see how this will somehow result in the death of Wikipedia. Has anyone mentioned the German wikipedia as an example yet? Yeah I thought so. --Sherool (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should fork. Ever think of that? - Stick Fig 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's fork then.But only what's nesasary.--Pixel ;-) 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Or let's not fork. What I love about this nonsense is that, depending on the context, those opposed to a looser fair use policy argue one of two entirely contradictory arguments. Sometimes it is argued, as Sherool does above, that our policies are justified by "copyright issues" and legal necessity. Alternately, it has nothing to do with legality, but merely with encouraging free content. Also, I assume no one cares, but I think those of us who advocate changing the policy are getting tired of being accused of hostility to the creation of "free open content." Nobody is hostile to the creation of free content. We have differing opinions as to whether or not actively making articles worse in the short and medium term is the best way to accomplish this. In my opinion, replacing a fair use image with no image or with a clearly inadequate image is counterproductive. john k 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,let's not fork,let's they fork.--Pixel ;-) 19:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor nitpick: nobody is arguing against the exclusion of all fair use content from Wikipedia, which is almost certainly impossible. Furthermore, very few people (as in, perhaps half a dozen, most if not all of whom hold no formal positions in the WMF) have backed the eradication of fair use images (which has been done on some other WPs, most notably the German one). This isn't a debate about being for or against fair use. It's a debate about the degree to which we ought to apply fair use. I'll take this opportunity to note that we do not accept images with non-commercial-only or no-derivative-works licences, because they conflict with our goal of creating an encyclopaedia that can be freely distributed (inclusive of making derivative works), and for the same reason, we ought to reject fair use images whenever practicable, because their copyright owners would almost certainly frown on commercial reuse or the creation of derivative works. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, when it is a picture of a living individual, even a "free" image creates problems with "commercial reuse", at least in terms of things like selling t-shirts with pictures of the person on it, or that kind of thing, because the key issue is using a famous person's face to sell a product, not copyright violations. Can somebody point to a clearly legal usage of a "free" image of a living person that is not legal to do with a publicity photo? john k 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert on these "personality rights", but either way it's not a copyright issue. There will always be scertain used of scertain things in scertain juristictions that will be problematic for reasons beyond copyright. In some nations you could get thrown in jail (or worse) if you publish something that is considered blasphemous, or insulting to some leader, and you won't get off the hook for publishing libel just because you released it under a free license. I don't think it automaticaly follow that the free license is pointles though. Re-users do have the ultimate responsibility to make sure they are within the law when they publish stuff. What we do with the free license is making sure there will be one less problem to worry about, namely licensing. When using a free licensed work you can be sure you won't get into conflict with the copyright holder as long as you abide by the terms of the license (wich by the way would make it near impossible to print T-shirts, posters and such based on GFDL licensed images). So sure other laws may restrict some users of some images even if the license from the copyright holder says it's ok to do it (see Wikipedia:General disclaimer for various "ass covering" related to this), and if something is found to violate US/Florida law it must be taken down, but even so a free licesned image can always be used more freely used than a non-free licensed image could. If you do something with an image that is considered illegal where you live it doesn't rely matter if it's copyrighted or not, but in all other cases the free licensed work will be more -- well, free. --Sherool (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Think about it this way: if a commercial licence forbids commercial redistribution of a work, there is a good chance that reproduction of that work for commercial gain would be deemed illegal. There is a good chance that mere redistribution by a commercial organisation (such as the one that partnered with the German WMF to publish the German WP) could be illegal. I'm not talking about T-shirts. I'm talking about something as basic as redistributing WP. We ought to do everything we can to avoid getting into a situation like this - if there's a free image that serves the same purpose as the uncopylefted image, we ought to use it. Similarly, derivative works are controversial - as I understand it, it is illegal to create a derivative work unless it has been explicitly permitted (I'm not too sure on this as my command of American copyright law is rusty - feel free to prove me mistaken). Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But publicity photos are clearly used by various for-profit entities - the Internet Movie Database, for instance. At any rate, I'd be happy with a policy that stated that fair use images must be replaced if there's a free image that adequately conveys the same information. I can envision certain specific categories where a fair use image could be ruled invalid in the absence of an easy replacement - pictures of widely available commercial products, for instance. What I really object to is the mania for deleting images, especially images of living persons, simply on the basis that the person is alive and might theoretically be photographed. There must be hundreds of wikipedians who have access to an iPod, or a bottle of Colgate Toothpaste, or whatever. This is clearly an entirely different level of availability for people to make free pictures than just about any living person we might want a free picture of, and it seems to me that it would be only good to make a distinction. john k 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But under a commercial licence, permission can be withdrawn at any time. Once something is copylefted, however, it stays copylefted. At any rate, although I think this new policy of trashing fair use images of living people is rather silly (and I'm sure we'll soon create exceptions for people who would obviously be impossible for WPians to photograph), it would be difficult for me to care less about it. There's no significant detriment to our articles - if there were (such as, say, we needed to discuss a particular iconic image) exceptions are already available in existing policy because you simply could not create a free replacement for that iconic image. It doesn't bother me too much that pictures which are there just so we can show our readers what some celebrity looks like will be going. Readers can easily google for these pictures, and any article worth its salt would have an external link to iMDB or the celeb's official site. It's pretty much the same reasoning that we apply to song lyrics; we theoretically could apply fair use to include the lyrics, but we don't, since it's no major loss to exclude them, and they can easily be googled. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Caring or not for the sanity of this particular interpretation of the policy is a separate issue and how important it is for the articles to be well and legally illustrated is a matter of judgement. What we have here is not even the debate about the policy, but the debate of its interpretation.

The policy does say that the free replacement image that adequately convers the same information must be either available or could be taken. The policy makes sure that the words "adequately conveys" are included and whether the amateur shot or a mug shot adequately illustrates the article is a matter of the particular article as well as the image (and individual judgement). As far as articles are concerned, whether you talk about the person whose looks are important (entertainers) and those whose looks are of less importance (writers, academics) for what makes them notable should be taken in consideration. Deletionists ignore that.

Second, the policy says "could be taken". Again, does in mean "might hipothetically be taken" or "could be taken with the reasonable effort"? The policy does not say the latter. It is only the opinion of those who interprete it as such. --Irpen 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

technical feasability of a fork

The problem here is only with th fair use pictures.We don't need do fork anything else.the isue is located only on wikipedia.Is it technicly possible to have a fork without forking the text.I mean that peopol will edit on the same version.in somewhay continue to use the resources of wikimedia foundation and work on a diff for the images.So that divergence is kept close to zero.--Pixel ;-) 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but what if the fork sues us for using its picture

???????--Pixel ;-) 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

FUC #1 is unclear, confusing and should be re-worded

While it might be clear to some of the experienced editors here what FUC#1 actually means, many newcomers are undoubtedly confused. When violations of FUC#1 are reported, common reactions are "There is no free image available that I could locate" or "I can not find a free image of this individual." (Actual quotes). Such confusion will likely continue until the wording of FUC #1 is re-worded to make it clear that non-free images do not qualify for fair use if a free image can in theory be created -- this is the interpretation of FUC#1 by administrators from what I've seen. Shawnc 19:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. And if this is not the correct interpretation, then I'd become even more confused about why certain images were deleted!)

i think that FUC #1 wording was like that for years.The problem is not the wording,the new interpretation of some is the problem.This is more or less a coup from a minority.--Pixel ;-) 19:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, please make it so the current, intended meaning of the policy is made very clear so there will be as little confusion as possible regarding what is or is not allowed. If there is actually no concensus about what the policy is or should be, then I don't think administrators should be speedy deleting some of these images just yet. Shawnc 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(comment from an editor, worth repeating here- "I honestly don't have the energy or the will to look at the policy and tl pages. I started this simply because I have found Abu relentlessly difficult to deal with, sneaky and obstinate, and because he apparently believes no few but his own should be adopted. Yes, I am somewhat interested in the policy, but dealing with this is draining enough in itself. I just want to go back to the humble user I was busily updating and creating beauty queen articles, and wish the whole mess (including the loss of all the photos etc) had never happened. Unfortunately it did, and I am trying to pick up the pieces and deal with the consequence.")..and the supreme silliness of images coming and going on the high visibility and tragic Alexander Litvinenko article. We need to get this policy sorted guys, so that everyone knows what is acceptable. luke 08:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a change to say explicitly that images don't qualify for fair use if a free image can theoretically be created, because there's no consensus for such a policy. Look above at a proposal to explicitly modify the policy away from that position - it got almost 50% support. There is obviously no consensus to explicitly allow fair use images in the absence of a ready replacement, either. Which is why we're at an impasse. john k 15:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The "enforcement policy" bit (the actual wording of the FUC#1 haven't actualy changed since early October 2005) recieved considerable support, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It was prominently linked from the policy page itseld and was open for debate for some 3 months. --Sherool (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the debate on that page was only open for 3 weeks, not 3 months. Second, I think the results were skewed because it seemed to involve mostly people who populate the policy pages and not the general pool of Wikipedia editors. I certainly had no idea this debate was going on, until I started seeing lots of images disappearing. And I suspect that so much opposition is coming out of the woodwork now because it is actually affecting the work of many image uploaders and editors, whereas before it was only a concern to those in the metaphorical smoke-filled rooms of Wikipedia policymakers. DHowell 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right sorry I meant general discussion bit (Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment) was open for 3 months, the Consueus subpage was added later to sum things up once people had run out of things to say. As for the second complaint, well that's how it usualy works. Policy is descided by those who bother to show up for the debate. This amendment was anounced twise in the Signpost (as you can see it changed a bit from the initial draft), on the Policy village pump and as I mentioned linked to from the fair use policy page itself for about 3 months. Anyone with the slightest interest in policy issues should have had pleny of oppotunity to become aware of this. I know it's a big place and it's hard to keep track of everyting, but it's hardly like this was anounced by putting a flyer in a locked chest at the bottom of a dark cellar with a broken staircase or however that skit from Hitchkikers guide goes... --Sherool (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, because I was thinking even before you posted your reply that this whole affair reminded me of the Vogons' justification of the destruction of Earth. At the risk of violating fair use policy by using copyrighted text and characters for a purpose other than critical commentary of the work itself, I quote from Alpha Centauri in fiction:

Shortly before the Vogons demolish the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass, they inform the planet that "All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." When someone objects to this, Protstetnic Vogon Jeltz replies, "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven's sake mankind, it's only four light years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own lookout."

For the vast majority of editors who are likely more interested in contributing content than in making policy, the Policy village pump may as well be four light-years away. Mind if I call you "Prostetnic Sherool"? :) DHowell 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, policy is determined by those who show up to vote, but if, some time thereafter, a lot of people who didn't participate in that debate notice its effects and start protesting it, it can't be considered to be definitive for all time thereafter. A policy is only a policy so long as it has consensus behind it. I don't think that the way that FUC#1 is currently being enforced has a consensus behind it, and the fact that it may have at one time had a consensus among the small group who showed up to a vote somewhere several months ago does not mean that it always has a consensus. john k 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with JohnK here and note that the debate is not about altering the spirit of the policy. What is being enforsed is the enforcement not of the policy but of its fringe interpretation. The policy needs to be clarified to avoid the interpretation that any image of one and the same person convey the same information (nonsense #1) and that we should require such image if it can be "theoretically" be created, rather than its creation could take place reasonably likely. --Irpen 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Images of deceased

I know there's the rule on including photos of the living to see "what they look like" is not allowed. What would the stance be for someone who is long deceased (100 years, for example)? --Wizardman 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's no known public domain/copyleft image available, a fair use image should be acceptable. Johnleemk | Talk 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even see the "published before 1923" thing, so (I assume) it works. You can review the image if necessary here. --Wizardman 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's safe. Johnleemk | Talk 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

not quite problems kick in with works published in countries other than the US.Geni 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't matter if a valid fair use justification is made. Copyrighted images can be used under fair use. Johntex\^talk 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteers needed

Questions have come up before about whether copyrighted images used to illustrated public domain books is acceptable under our policies. Rather than go around tagging images, I've decided to start a project, here, to replace them (we can move it to project space if anyone thinks of a good place). It's generally very easy to find PD images for books published before 1923, as you can see from my list. I need volunteers to help me do this. We can replace a large number of borderline fair use images with PD very quickly, I think, so come help out. Chick Bowen 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I added a minor caveant to your instructions though. Books published before 1923 outsite the US may not nessesarily automaticaly be in the public domain AFAIK. --Sherool (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true, though they often are (there are some discussions about this between me and Lupo #Joyce images). But care is certainly needed for twentieth-century books. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is just a scan it should be Public Domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (the same as {{PD-art}}). ed g2s • talk 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New templates {{reqfreephoto}} and {{reqfreephotoin}}

In an attempt to be bold, I have created two new templates, {{reqfreephoto}} and {{reqfreephotoin}}. I believe that their use would do far more to increase the pool of free-content images than any mass image deletion campaign could ever hope to do. DHowell 10:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But, alas, the mass deletions are continuing, and wreaking havoc with ongoing WikiProjects. It appears that no attention at all is being paid to "What links here" on these images before deletion, and trying to fix the trashed infoboxes, etc., just within the scope of the Oregon Government & Politics subproject is becoming a full time job. Two such deletions I found by accident today were for politicians who had died... good luck getting them to pose for a free-use portrait. It's 3:30 a.m. here. Tomorrow I hope I can spend some time working on quality content instead of cleaning up the wreckage this is creating. --Jgilhousen 11:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thought, I just hope it's not interpreted to mean that it's somehow not important to get free licensed photos for pages that use the plain old photo request template. --Sherool (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's possible any of us don't know that now. But we must be reasonable in everything we do, something that isn't the case now with the aforementioned deletion without even posting to the page the image links to, nor notifying the uploader. It's just inexcusable, yet continues at a feverish pace. Badagnani 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The plain old {{reqphoto}} template doesn't state any preference for fair use vs. free, and is just as likely to be used on pages where a free image might well be impossible to create or find (where a fair-use image would be entirely appropriate, e.g. on a page about a deceased person of whom a freely-licensed photo had never been taken) as on any other. The new templates, however, emphasize the desire for a free image when someone believes a fair use image is unjustified. DHowell 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a useful solution. It states its intent without forcing it on people, encouraging a qualitative judgment rather than a binary one. I support its usage, but only if the mass-deletion campaigns end. - Stick Fig 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean if we allow replaceable, non-free images to stay? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, you and other editors are being overly confrontational. And you know it. This very reply of yours is confrontational. I'd like to see us figure out a way to get you guys what you want without having to come across so harshly.

This seems to me like a reasonable compromise here, as it encourages fair use images to be replaced without removing the judgment calls that you and other editors seem not to be discouraging by doing this on a mass scale.

You guys don't represent Wikipedia. Period. But then, neither do I. I think we need to be somewhat neutral here in creating a compromise. But if you're unwilling to do so, there will be dozens of talk pages that prove just that and Wikipedia will get more bad press for overzealous editors like it just got in the Washington Post and Slashdot yesterday regarding "notability." - Stick Fig 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You called it a mass deletion campaign. And you think my reply was overly confrontational? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It sure seems like that's what you guys are going for. If you find that offensive (which I hope you don't, because it wasn't how I meant it), maybe you should think about why people may see it that way. - Stick Fig 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All sides could do with a bit less histrionics in this discussion. "Wreaking havoc"? "bad press for overzealous editors"? Personally, I'd like to see how a corporate news entity with huge amounts of zealously-guarded copyright content is going to spin WP deletion of unlicensed material as a bad thing... :-) Stan 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

I have put a warning on the {{promophoto}}, so the uploader would now that the images of living people are often unsuitable for the project and that they need some sort a rationale to keep the image.

I also think that we should put similar warnings on the {{Replaceable fair use}} asking the tagger to briefly explain why the image is replaceable. And on {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} asking the closing admin to keep the talk page of the image with the discussion present. Alex Bakharev 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have some templates for admins when they decide on an image, especially when they decide to keep it, so people know it wasn't just reverted per this discussion. These could be placed on the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag also (small) for easy copying. I will do it sometime this week if someone doesn't beat me to it. :) - cohesion 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Several of the photos deleted during the recent spate of deletions that I've noticed while reviewing articles for edit are of individuals who are dead as a doornail. As I said before, and maintain, it appears that nobody is looking at the articles which they are meant to illustrate, or whether they might qualify for a PD tag! J-M Jgilhousen 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Point them out. The deleting admin should certainly be able to speedy-undelete them, or if it's really obvious another admin may be able to speedy-undelete, probably after/while discussing with the first admin. Admins sometimes make mistakes, and they'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future if notified. --Interiot 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Images?

Does anyone know if satellite images (such as screen shots from Google Maps/Earth or other mapping places that allow a satellite view) of specific things are ok to use, and if so, what they should be tagged as? Thanks! (Liveforever22 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

Google Earth images are definitely not okay... but, fortunately, NASA satellite images are all in the public domain. You can find many NASA satellite images on Wikimedia Commons, or, of course, at the NASA website. Jkelly 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what scale you're looking for, NASA World Wind [4] can be an easy-ish way to make an image out of NASA data. --Interiot 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in portals - time to move on?

It's long been held that fair use images cannot be used in portals. This discussion - Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals has been pretty much dead for the last month. Is there any reason that it shouldn't be tagged as {{rejected}}? Does anyone plan to revive the issue? I really think that we ought to settle it once and for all and if the answer to fair use images in portal space is "no" (as it should be), we ought to put some clarifying text in WP:FAIR#Policy #9 to clarify since portals aren't specifically addressed and some people may not realize that they don't count as articles. So, does anyone have any objections to (1) tagging Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals as {{rejected}} and (2) changing the first sentence of policy #9 to read, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace, which does not include portals or article talk pages."? BigDT 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) I object. (2) No objection. I suggest linking to the proposed amendment there as well.

Throughout that debate, a consensus seemed to be forming for using fair use images with certain restrictions, in mostly the same way that the main page is using them. One commenter against the amendment even "admitted defeat", i.e. that the amendment would probably pass. I suggest contacting those that have not commented since early in the discussion, and ask if their opinion has changed. --GunnarRene 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) I object. (2) I object. The proposed clarification that fair use images are allowable in the main namespace has received roughly 2:1 support. Most of the commentary is "for" allowing the images in portals. As GunnarRae says, one person opposed to allowing the fair use content in portals even "admitted defeat". So far, it seems that a sizeable majority of the community believes fair use content should be allowed in portals. Johntex\^talk 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the expressed concerns of the Foundations legal adviser, and the fact that we don't use Fair Use on navigation pages (such as portals), such a change to the policy will not happen. ed g2s • talk 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion from gazing into your crystal ball. I think you are wrong and I hope for the good of building a better encyclopedia that you are wrong. Referring to the opinion of the foundation's legal advisor is a red herring. He has been very specific that he offered his personal views. I think we all know that if there was anything truly objectionable from a legal viewpoint, he would have simply exercised a veto. He did not do so. It is up to the community to decide, which is exaclty as it should be. Johntex\^talk 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

drawings as replacement to ALL fair use photos?

• Take this example Hayao Miyazaki.when he will die,is it in the policy to replace this PD drawing with a fair use photo?--Zigzag8 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea, IMHO. There's no quality control. - Stick Fig 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This particular drawing is well done though. Reminds me of the wall street journal-woodcuts. Borisblue 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, should Wikipedia come up with a quality-controlled solution to this problem? I'm not an artist myself, but I am a graphic designer and I think coming up with a sort of standardized vector art format would be a much better solution than nothing at all. I think if it was something that could be easily repeatable by anyone with average skill and if there was an active critique process, it would work better than just removing the images. - Stick Fig 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ther's no quality control even for fair use images,for example this Diane Farrell.If she dies tomorow,would we have the possibility to replace that photo with a fair use one?--Zigzag8 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• What if a copyrght holder release a free photo of exstremly bad quality,just too be chure that wikipedia don't use his good quality material?--Zigzag8 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a valid concern. That is one of the many reasons why we should not act as if any free image, regardless of how bad it is, is always a better image and a free one of higher quality. This issues involve more grey area than that and they need to be discussed on their merits. Johntex\^talk 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious lack of informational equivalence, if the drawings are based on photographs, they're going to be derivative works of the photographs, so they're no more free to use than the photographs themselves. We face three problems: 1) verifying whether it was done from life or derived from another person's copyrighted work; 2) verifying whether it's an accurate representation of the subject; 3) knowing what needs to be filtered out as the artist's style rather than factual information. This is especially true if the drawing has not been published elsewhere first in a reliable source, and if the artist is unknown. Postdlf 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course if you had access to a person in order to draw him, you could have taken a photograph... Postdlf 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

True. It would be funny if many of our articles on celebrities rendered them like this though. --GunnarRene 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if we keep finding ways to complicate our lives, we'll never get anything done. Red tape, y'know. - Stick Fig 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is... Postdlf 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit it -- this whole fair use thing is an extremely convoluted argument, and whenever we come up with a useful solution, someone puts out our fire. We either need to decide to do something and deal with the possible difficulties in reaching the goal or stop trying to solve a problem that isn't there. - Stick Fig 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral arguments aside (someone needs to die for an article about that person being allowed to become better), this again turns around the sloppy formulation of FUC #1. What most people agree is meant by it is that if an adequate (in the context of the article) image exists or there is a reasonable chance that such image could be created, we should not use a fairuse image. What the policy does not say (despite some claim so) is that all images of the same person convey the same info no matter what and are satisfactory for the article, regardless of what the article is about. Secondly, that someone is alive does not mean that an adequate free image could reasonably be taken. --Irpen 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. All photos are not equal. All living people are not reasonably esay to photograph. A truly crappy free photo is not a good justification to remove a really good one that has some restrictions. Leave them both in the article if you want to provide a free one. Johntex\^talk 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

how the decision was made about fair use replace

• 4 october 2005 change

I looked in the history of the policy,and it seem's that the bugus addition was made 4 october 2005.But i couldn't find any whare any discussion about it's inclusion.Can somebody provide me a link.And by the way it was a fair use wikiproject member how make that edit.

• WikiProject Fair use

I find this "Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Replaceable_fair_use" on the wikiproject talk page.It look's to me like if the dessision to begin deleating was taken there.

I don't have the time and didn't check thorowlly,but can somebody prove wrong or confirm what it's been implied here.--Zigzag8 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where discussion of that change might be, but the current more stringent enforcement of the policy is a result of this clarification of the policy by Jimbo. For a fuller explanation of how the current stance on fair use came about you can look at this page. --Robth^Talk 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jimbo had in mind a clean up of fair use about cars ,beaches and what evar,he did not said all photos of living peopol are replasable.He also used "it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here".About what Smoddy said ,it's missing.--Zigzag8 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[14:03] <jwales> but notice, it meets both what Alison said and what Smoddy said

[14:03] <jwales> it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here

[14:05] [AlisonW] "Wikipedia permits the use of 'fair use' content only under very restricted circumstances where :the image or content is, in essence, not repeatable. ie. it would not be possible to replace the image or content :with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, include an historical event, but a publicity still of a :vehicle or living person can be replaced comparatively easily."

[14:06] <jwales> Alison, is that written somewhere, or you just made it up? It sounds perfect

[14:06] [AlisonW] I'm just writing it now

[14:07] <jwales> Alison, it is great ;)

Jimbo has expressed his views on the use unfree celebrity pictures here: "But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo" --Abu Badali 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So not to be critical here, but we seem to be going off an IRC conversation that Jimbo Wales was involved in two months ago. I think that we can do better than that. We shouldn't run a site off of IRC chatlogs, no matter who's making the comments. - Stick Fig 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So with this and this ,it ansers my question.--Zigzag8 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell are we arguing about what Jimmy Wales believes? The Foundation has the ability to set policy by fiat. They have not done so in this case, so I care about Mr. Wales's opinion exactly as much as I care about anybody else's: to the extent that I find it convincing. And I simply completely disagree with his view that wikipedia is "much better off" to have no photo than to have a fair use publicity photo of a celebrity. If Mr. Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation wish to make Wales's personal preferences into official policy, I will obviously have no choice but to go along. But in the absence of such a decision, who cares? john k 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jimbo has had the opportunity to decide the issue by fiat and has elected instead to leave it to the community. Therefore, we are free to consider Jimbo's opinion right along with everyone elses. The argument needs to be decided on it's merits not based on some idea that "Jimbo likes it". (my quote) I personally think we have gone way too far at attempting to restrict fair use images. Johntex\^talk 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - we should be careful to keep policy considerations to the fore in all our discussions. Jimmy and Larry Sanger brought this project into being, and since Larry left Jimmy has nurtured it to become an awesome worldwide success. He has put a lot of time and effort into assuring that success. So much so, and so highly is Wikipedia regarded, that there has for example recently been a 'vigorous' debate on whether Montenegrin should be allowed its own wikipedia. So hence what I'm getting at is that Jimmy is held in high regard by many contributors. And the concept of open content etc, on which the project is founded, has a central place (also I think it's dear to Jimmy's heart.) But also we should be willing to scrutinize Jimmy's position (and i think he would agree with that too.)...luke 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. In the absence of executive fiat, we have to go by our policy. Which says that replaceable non-free images are not allowed on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, in the absence of executive fiat, policy is decided by consensus of all interested users. In the second place, in this particular instance, I think the issue has much more to do with interpretation and definitions than anything else. I don't think any of us are really advocating that clearly replaceable fair use images stay on wikipedia. We are advocating that the rather vague term "replaceable" be interpreted relatively narrowly. It is outrageous that we are repeatedly being accused of opposing core wikipedia principles on the grounds of a difference of interpretation. john k 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

John Kenney is exactly right. In the absence of executive fiat, we as a community are free to interpret and even to change policy if we choose. Johntex\^talk 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with what both Johns have said there. Except that many, many users are advocating that clearly replaceable fair use images stay on wikipedia. On the one hand, there are those users who have reasonable disagreements on how to interpret FUC#1. That's a worthwhile debate. But on the other hand, wherever I try to discuss this issue, the discussion gets flooded by mostly new users who believe (or want to believe) that clearly replaceable images can stay. I get frustrated with the tone frequently used (see my talk page for many examples), but I don't want to be curt. There are users who simply disagree with me about what is reasonably replaceable, and then there are users who will argue anything they can think of in order to keep this pretty picture of a model around, and I shouldn't lump the two groups together. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the most difficult part of the problem is the reasonable disagreements on interpreting the definition of replaceable. On many occasions it's easy enough to point the uploader to the policy page, or even the content of the very template they have added and it's clear cut. (Of course you can't make them read it, and my talk page is also peppered with surly comments from people who would rather argue than read the policy). But I think there are some situations where there is a gray area in terms of interpreting. I wonder if it would be of value to try to identify which type of images repeatedly fall in that gray area and try to get something written to address those points. Some of them such as defunct bands, and living (but old) celebrities have been discussed in some areas, but all I've seen are fractured discussions on individual talk pages etc, which doesn't seem to be helping reach a consensus on how to treat them. Rossrs 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My basic feeling on what is "reasonably replaceable" is that it is often almost impossible to judge ahead of time whether a picture of an individual is "reasonably replaceable" or not. With, for instance, commercial products, or buildings in major cities, it should be fairly obvious that anyone with a camera and a few bucks, or a few hours to kill, could get a free picture, and that we shouldn't rely on fair use. But individuals really aren't like that at all. To get a picture that actually conveys well what the person looks like, we really need access, and I don't think there's any reasonable way to expect that somebody will have the kind of access to take a photograph of any living person. There might be some exceptions, like professors, and I'd be willing to talk about what those exceptions would be, but it seems to me that the default position should be that photos of living people are not easily replaceable. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage people to try to replace them with free images, or that we shouldn't use free images that do exist because a fair use picture is slightly better, but I think it does mean that we shouldn't delete fair use images simply because they are pictures of living people, and I think it does mean that when a free image is created, we should make sure that it is a real replacement for the fair use picture. john k 23:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, and in regard to living people, I would take it a step further and determine whether the likeness/appearance of the person is important to their notability. Depending on their profession, it may not matter one iota, but I think there are certain professions whereby a person's appearance is hugely important, and inextricably linked to their notability, and some distinction needs to be made. Entertainers are the most obvious category, in my opinion. There are people who were notable, or even famous 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago and have spent the recent years away from public life. The most obvious time period for them to be represented is during the height of their success, and although we can't go back in time to take a photograph of them, a promo photo is considered to be replaceable. I think we should make a distinction between them and today's crop who are readily available in all their glory. (And we have some sensational free images of many modern celebrities - a real achievement.) I don't think that arguing for the inclusion of a vintage image for a former, but still living, movie star contradicts FUC #1 in terms of conveying the same information, because I don't believe for a moment, that a modern image could convey the same information. Taking an example to the extreme degree. The actress Barbara Kent was successful in silent films and she retired in 1930 approximately, and withdrew from the entertainment industry. She was approximately 30 years of age. She is now about to turn 100 in a US nursing home, where we are free to photograph her if we can get close enough, but what would be the point?

I don't understand FUC #8 - "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". Some images of older living people are questioned because they are used only to identify the subject of the article. I think this, like many other things, should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Rossrs 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia elections

Don't you agree that all this "living/replasable" buisness has gone too far.I want to ask if you agree to go and demand too the bord an election on the isue.I mean like with the bord election,to have a baner on every article to invite peopol to comme and vote for a refrasing of the rule.The composition of the users that are hanging around this talk page is havily biased with the over zealus free-image camp.By this mean we should have in the end a result closer to the real consensus of the users.I frankly can't imagine what kind of decent argument can anybody object to my proposal.--Zigzag8 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes i now wikipedia is not a democracy,but wikipedia does work on consensus.say a 80% result.--Zigzag8 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - invite people to come here...the more that come, the more democratic the discussions will be. When I started the proposal on 'Images of living people' I posted a few notices about it so that as many as possible would participate..The Board discussed the matter a few weeks ago, and decided they wouldn't interfere with Wikipedias decisions.--luke 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,and remind me what hapend with your proposal,why should it be diferent with mine,it will be just a fourt attempt to change the policy.Ok,your right,that the bord is about wikimedia not wikipedia.So what the official prosedure to start an election in en-wikipedia.--Zigzag8 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly why put a notice manually and panefully on some users pages,when we can put a baner like the one of the bord election with a link that redirects here?It cost nothing.--Zigzag8 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Board was being asked to set an overall policy for all Wikipedias on fair use v. free content and I guess it was within its remit to do so, but it was decided not to interfere, presumably because of autonomy considerations. So we set our own policy. You are right that this has become a big bone of contention so it would obviously be best if as many users as possible take part in the discussions. I think your banner idea is worth consideration.--luke 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,yes,but what about what do we have to do in practise for this?--Zigzag8 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I will revet any atempts to use sitenotice in this way.Geni 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you repeat that in englich?--Zigzag8 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - not being familiar (by any means) with all the policies, I'm assuming there are policy considerations for your view. But the important point is that although Wikipedia is not a democracy the encyclopedia is the result of all its contributors so it would obviously be best if as many users as possible take part in the discussions.--luke 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're seriously not helping anything here. I think we'd all be a bit better off if everyone stopped playing either the heavy or the activist and we actually started working together. This sort of response, especially from an admin, is the kind of thing that gets people disillusioned about Wikipedia. - Stick Fig 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Broad participation is useful. In the past, however, attempts to use Mediawiki:Sitenotice or Mediawiki:Watchdetails to publicize policy proposals have been met with strong disapproval from the community. Publicizing a fair use policy discussion in such a way would not be a viable option. I believe that this is what Geni meant. --Robth^Talk 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is generaly accepted that sitenotice should not be used to advertise policy discussions.Geni 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the rational of this?Please stop giving half ansers.--Zigzag8 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Site notice is generaly used for things on a foundation level. The reason is that it hits too many pages and causes too much dissruption for stuff below that level.Geni 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whel ok,simply we will put a bot too add a message on everybodies talk page,is this too ilegal?--Zigzag8 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, Zigzag, but you just registered your account yesterday. You may want to wait until you're a bit more familiar with the project before campaigning to change its policies. ×Meegs 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

spaming user talk pages is not regarded as aceptable.Geni 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but neutrally worded messages are not considered spamming - they are considered notification. Johntex\^talk 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope after the rambot incerdent people made it quite clear that the content of the message wasn't that important in their objections.Geni 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that. Can you please provide a link? In any event, we do a form of mass notification for elections by putting the notice at the top of watchlists. That proves that we CAN do a mass notification IF we think it is important enough. Johntex\^talk 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nyet someone tried to use that to advertise policy discussion just after the last lot of arbcom elections had finished. it was removed striaght away.Geni 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would limit participation to only those that had written at least one correct fair-use rationale for an image. I'm not being flip here; most editors are woefully ignorant of copyright issues, and would happily fill WP with blatant copyvios if nobody stepped in. Stan 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very disrespectful view to a large number of Wikipedians and shows everything that's wrong with this policy. If we're going to debate this policy, we do it openly. The reason we're having problems right now is that a small group is trying to dictate policy, despite what a larger group may want. Do you seriously think that barring the very users pushing for a change in the policy is going to please anyone? - Stick Fig 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stan, Please comment on content, not contributors, thanks. Personally, I wouldn't mind an across-the-board unified policy that editors are not allowed to have a voice in things like changing policy, voting on RfA's, commenting on AfD's etc, until they have reached 500 edits or something. But we don't have such a policy. Instead, we like to welcome all comers to Wikipedia, even anonymous editors are welcome. With such a mantra, I don't think there would be much support for the type of limit your propose. Johntex\^talk 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm a little jaded, having personally processed several thousand images where the original uploaders couldn't be bothered to follow even our two basic requirements for sourcing and licensing. Not everything on WP is up for voting anyway; for instance, if 10,000 editors got together and decided that original research was now OK, I would just block them all. Ditto if some group of editors decided that it was "fair use" to incorporate the verbatim text of articles from the present-day EB, because "their writing is so much better". Stan 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, no matter what their sins or errors in judgment, it's necessarily nice to slap them with the same brush. Your demeanor towards WP users in the last two posts also goes against a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, WP:AGF. - Stick Fig 07:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course my habit is to assume good faith, but what are we to make of the hundreds everyday who ignore everything they see on Special:Upload ?? When somebody says they "didn't see the warnings on the upload page", I really have a hard time believing that. I see by your edit history you haven't done any image cleanup work - you really should try your hand at it, to get a better sense of the scale of the problem. For instance, every image at the top level of Category:Fair use images need to be given a better tag, sourced, etc. Stan 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If 10.000 editors deside too reck the boat,how do you think YOU are to stop them?Wikipedia is not a democracy and even less a dictatorchip,of you,the boad or Jimmy Wales.--Zigzag8 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

there are ways and means. while I probably would apeal to the board under those conditions there are other options.Geni 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Was that "rock the boat" or "wreck the boat"? I'm not about to let four years of my work go down the tubes, and as long as I have admin powers I'll block everyone and anyone who threatens WP. Indeed, it's one of the admins' jobs, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. 10,000 editors agreeing to violate a core policy is just as much a disruption as one doing it; you have no idea of the firepower that is available to deal with trouble. Now if you want to have a discussion instead of making threats, let's do that. Stan 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical logos in galleries

I have just submitted an RFC about the use of historical logos in galleries at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Specifically, a single admin has deleting galleries in articles about television stations claiming that they violate policy. I (and many in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations) believe they don't violate policy, and that they convey important encyclopedic information and thus should not be deleted. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine a consensus. (I'm hoping this doesn't get lost in all the debate about fair use of photos of living people.) DHowell 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the madness of fair use policy.--Zigzag8 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Review of Fair Use policy

No response to my postings on how to bring our policy into some kind of order. Following on from that I propose a wholesale review of fair use policy taking all factors into account. It's suggested that the factors should include, amongst others:- 'free content' considerations - legal advice - technical advice on increased server loads caused by such media .... and any other factors whatsoever which are relevant. This is an invitation to all (including Jimmy Wales) to contribute to the review, and for you to propose any other factors which you think should be considered. If there is any interest I guess we should assign a generally agreed weighting to each of the factors to be considered. A lot of bad feeling has been caused by the policy as at present operating, and btw I notice Russell T. Davies's image is still there, large as life :)..luke 10:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The objection clearly wasn't just to the policy, but to the prolonged and ongoing campaign to impose one particularly extreme interpretation of this policy by a small clique of editors, while disregarding the valid comments of many more editors, often with extreme rudeness and sneakiness. Badagnani 11:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the troubles is the policy as at present formulated can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's what's allowed all this to happen and that's why I think we need to take a long hard look at it.--luke 11:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem for downstream use?

I asked this at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people, but it might be more appropriate here.

As I understand it, the argument against fair use images is that although fair use images are, legally speaking, free within the context of U.S. law, they may not be equally free in downstream uses, that is, subsequent uses of Wikipedia content. Could someone please explain to me exactly what these uses might be, and why the laws which allow us to use copyrighted images under fair use would not apply to them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. Problems? Would make it imposible to publish in the UK and most of the rest of the planet. Various profit makeing enterties might have potential issues with useing the material (say answers.com although they should be safe uder the DMCA).Geni 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Impossible? Really? Is fair dealing in the UK really that much more restrictive than US fair use law? Have we had confirmation of this impossibility by lawyers specializing in international copyright matters? (I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to understand the situation.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

International copyright lawyers are expensive. Fair dealing is far more restive (most of the time anyway since exactly how restrive fair use is depends on the area and the last court case) than fair use. As a UK subject this is something I have to deal with. OF course the UK is harly the only place with anoying copyright laws.Geni 12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Josiah Rowe, I'm honestly curious: Do commercial editors in the UK really think twice about using a promotional picture for whatever purpose they feel it's appropriate? Or worry that using an image of an album cover to illustrate whatever theme might get them into trouble with the record label? (I'm not talking about libelous uses, obviously.) I understand that fair use may be different from country to country, but these are the kind of no-brainer fair uses that are utterly routine in American publishing, at least, and it would surprise me if the laws are so different anywhere in the English-speaking world that they could potentially get you into trouble. Nareek 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that publicity photos are released under some form of semi free licence. I assume that the major magazines have deals with the record labels about album covers. The difference is not surprising. Copyright law didn't really get going until after the US declared independence so the two legal systems have had rather different evolutions although both tend to follow the Berne convention that doesn't have much to do with stuff like fair use and fair dealing. There are other differences. Copyright on music in the UK lasts only 50 years. Fair dealing is so restrictive that the concept closest to fair use in UK law could well be be "de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex" which is of only limited use for our purposes.Geni 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another difference is that publications tend to use one here and one there. We have a permanent repository with hundreds of thousands of unfree images, and copyright holders tend not to like that, witness brouhahas over Google Images. But to me the key point is that we don't know what could get us in trouble. Just look at all the mileage that critics have gotten out of the one stupid little anon stub about Seigenthaler, the kind that editors here ignored because who would notice? WP is not being run out of somebody's dorm room, it's one of the largest and most visible websites in the world. Stan 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not hard to predict that falsely accusing someone of involvement in assassinations is going to be problematic. Likewise, it is not hard to predict that fair use of images that are released into the world for promotional purposes will be unproblematic--or so it seems to many editors here. If we're missing some potential danger, please let us know specifically what that danger is. Nareek 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See what has happened to youtube of late. Deleing images without leaveing redlinks is hard work. If we get served with a takedown order for even 10K images we would have a hard time dealing with it. It is better to get a reputation for being hardass about copyright than get a reputation for being the number one hoster of copyvios.Geni 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a substantial difference between hosting a promotional image, released for purposes of publicity and hosting illegal copies of full television episodes divided into 9-minute segments. As for the expense of hiring a copyright lawyer, isn't that what Brad Patrick gets paid for? I really think it would be extremely important to get an actual legal opinion on this, rather than operating out of fears that may or may not be founded in reality. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We been trying to, but as with many fair use cases, it is not known what is truely fair use or not until something happens in the court system. If I had the chance, I would like for that person that is being sued not being us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... but how likely is that, really? If the likelihood is high, then there's a justification for clamping down on fair use. If it's only a remote possibility, I'm not sure that the danger justifies the removal of encyclopedic content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well with youtuibe cleaning up it's act US and myspace are the logical next targets. I suspect myspace is a more liekly target for now but I'd rather keep it that way.Geni 13:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For the UK there is now the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. see eg recommendations 11 and 12..

• Recommendation 11: Propose that Directive 2001/29/EC be amended to allow for an exception for creative, transformative or derivative works, within the parameters of the Berne Three Step Test.
• Recommendation 12: Create an exception to copyright for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche by 2008. ...luke 15:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in law yet though although those are changes we really could do with.Geni 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube was flagrantly violating copyright; it was inevitable that it would run into trouble. Using promotional and cover images as fair use for an encyclopedia project is an extremely conservative utilization of fair use, and does not pose any legal jeopardy to Wikipedia or to downstream users. The ways of fair use law are not as mysterious as some editors either believe or pretend. Nareek 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah youtube was and is pretty bulletproof. Last I cheacked they were obeying the law to the letter. Now can you provide case law to back up your claims that certian uses are extreamly conservative?Geni 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that you would find a case where a person who had sent out images for promotional purposes had sued someone who had then published those images; in the first place, it's unlikely that someone would sue someone else for doing what the first someone wanted them to do in the first place; if someone did have that odd desire, their lawyer would no doubt tell them that a court would be unlikely to find a copyright violation in someone making a use of an image that was implicitly invited by the copyright holder.

Perhaps the closest case to what we're talking about was Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley. DK used some images of Grateful Dead posters in a book about the Dead; Bill Graham Archives wanted DK to pay for the use of the posters. Note that posters, unlike promotional photos, are not sent out to media outlets with an implicit invitation to publish them. Nonetheless, the court ruled that DK's use of the photos--essentially the kind of use that WP makes of such images, only commercial rather than noncommercial--was fair use.

The other case that Wikipedians debating fair use issues ought to be familiar with is Kelly vs. Ariba Software, which held that using thumbnails to direct people to images was fair use. This would seem to have great relevance to the fair use-in-portals debate. Nareek 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

InGraham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley the level of transformation appears to to be a key factor. This is unlikely to apply to our use of "promotional images". Kelly vs. Ariba Software is of significance but not so much for protals where again the use is different.Geni 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But DK's "transformation" was not anything that the publisher did to the images--it was mainly putting the images in the context of a history that was seen as transformative. It's actually very similar to what WP does with images. Nareek 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A related question: has a copyright owner ever complained about copyrighted publicity photos being used on Wikipedia under fair use? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Check note C on page 8 of the recent Financial Statements..luke 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC) - postscript on that: suggested that if complaints are received the wikicommunity is notified and responsible admins take action if appropriate - luke

I personally never received a formal complaint through email, but I been asked to delete a few photos either due to Jimbo's command or by orders from OTRS. OTRS are the people who will most likely see, or even get, requests. Given how long WP has been up, we probably receieved a few, so ask the OTRS guys and gals. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So complaints are recieved and dealt with regularly. Sounds to me like the matter is handled fairly efficiently under the current practice, and we've never been sued. Why wouldn't the same be true for downstream users? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again different laws and being a forprofit would change a lot as would changeing the format.Geni 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

People wanting to drag Brad Patrick into this should take note of the top of User talk:BradPatrick, and his comment [5] on fair use in portals. A pretty good match to Jimbo's philosophy, perhaps not surprising considering who hired him. :-) Stan 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that he explicitly opposes fair use in portals not on legal but solely on ideological grounds. I'd prefer a lawyer who tells us what the law says, personally. Nareek 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can save you time. The answer a lawyer will give is "it depends".Geni 03:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't pay attention to the last couple of sentences in the message: "Don't seek sanctuary in the law. Make the law irrelevant. Provide free content everywhere you can." Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did pay attention to that--it struck me as representative of the quasi-mystical attachment to the GFDL at the expense of building an informative encyclopedia based on a legally well-grounded understanding of how copyright works. It's like going to a tax lawyer and getting a rant about how property is theft. Nareek 13:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you signed up with a bunch of free-content freaks. Brad has nothing on Eben Moglen though! :-) Stan 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Our goal is to build a free encyclopaedia. Being free is just as important as being an encyclopaedia. We apply fair use because in some cases, it's just absolutely essential to utilise copyrighted information to convey a particular point (e.g. quotations, or iconic images). Even so, some WPs have completely done away with fair use images, or never had them in the first place (this includes the second-largest, and some might argue most successful WP, the German language edition). Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To do away with fair use images while retaining fair use quotes, without any particular legal (or moral or philosophical) distinction between the two, strikes me as being mere superstition.

We've been through this there are legal differences.Geni 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm as concerned about freedom in media as anyone here, I guarantee you. I just don't see how freedom is advanced by conceding to copyright holders rights that they don't actually possess. Nareek 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it stengthens their control over the areas they can legaly control.Geni 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eloquently put, Nareek, both in this last comment and throughout the discussion. john k 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Only one screenshot per article?

I was going to add this image to the article Doctor Who spoofs, to accompany the section Doctor Who spoofs#Robot Chicken. However, I noticed at Special:Upload that the licensing menu says "one per article" under screenshots. I understand that we don't want dozens of screenshots from the same work on a page about a movie or TV episode, and "one per article" seems like a reasonable guideline for articles of that type. But Doctor Who spoofs covers sketches and the like from dozens of different programs. It currently has two images licensed as screenshots. Is it inappropriate to add a third? I guess I'm asking how strict the guideline of "one screenshot per article" is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a recent additon. One screenshot to identify a particular fictional work seems reasonable, but we might need more screenshots to comment on multiple aspects of a show, and not least for identifying characters in it.--GunnarRene 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The language is misleading as to the policy. It should be changed in the upload menu, to something more in line with the policy. Check out our article on Wikipedia for example: More than one screenshot. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: More than one screenshot. --GunnarRene 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters from books, films, TV

Having read chunks of WP in the past, I have to wonder this: is describing characters from books, films or TV programmes etc (or the programmes themselves) considered 'fair use'.

E.g. there are many characters from The Lord of the Rings listed in their appropriate pages. The work itself is still copyrighted (both in the US and UK, at least), so is there any issue with cataloguing its characters, places etc.?

It would depend on the phraseing. "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, Gandalf is one of the Maiar" is a fact and therefor imposble to copyright.Geni 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. "J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit" is a fact. "Gandalf is one of the Maiar" is not a fact for purposes of copyright, it's creative expression. Such a short statement is going to be too insubstantial to constitute infringement, but the more you summarize, the more you've just made a derivative or an abridgement of the original work. The following is a quote from a copyright case involving a Seinfeld trivia book called the "Seinfeld Aptitude Test" (SAT):

"Unlike the facts in a phone book, which do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, each ‘fact’ tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels, and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said ‘It's not like spotting a toupee.’ Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publ'g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we can only summarize and describe the contents of copyrighted work to the extent that it qualifies as fair use. Complying with WP:WAF by writing articles from an out-of-universe perspective, emphasizing real world historical context, goes a long way to accomplishing that. Postdlf 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Fair Use

I think it's important for Wikipedia to have not a looser or stricter interpretation of fair use, but a realistic understanding of what fair use does and doesn't allow. Fair use does allow you to use promotional photos in a virtually unrestricted way, and cover images likewise. However, there are claims of fair use, seemingly approved by Wikipedia, that strike me as almost certainly being copyright violations. I offer {{HistoricPhoto}} as an example.

The claims that go along with this template are:

This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the photographer who took the photograph or the agency employing the photographer. It is believed that the use of this photograph

to illustrate the event in question where:

The photograph depicts a non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created, and

The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and

the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright,

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

The important point here is that the copyright holder presumably took the historic photo because it illustrates the event in question, and hoped that people would pay him or her money because no free alternative exists. Offering these things as reasons why you don't have to pay photographers for doing the things that photographers make a living doing is not likely to persuade any judge that you haven't violated copyright. And saying that the picture is no bigger than is needed to do the thing that it is economically intended to do isn't likely to help you much either.

When images of album covers are deleted because they are illustrating an article about the band rather than the album, yet uses like this are allowed to go unquestioned, Wikipedia needs to get some serious advice about what copyright law really says. Nareek 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The histroical photo bit is meant to be for the perpose of critical comment with the idea that the article will talk about the picture. The picture should be as small and low res as posible. It is likely we qualify under the 1st requirment and if the article is about the photo hopefuly the forth.Geni 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The main point of copyright is to protect creators' right to get paid. If you're using for free an image that someone took hoping to sell it to outlets like encyclopedias, you're going to have a hard time making a fair use claim stick. Nareek 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most were taken to sell to news organisations not encyclopedias. Others were taken for propergander reasons. In practice you are looking at an abused tag. I suspect fewer than 200 could be considered legit.Geni 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use logo tags TFD

A number of logo tags have been nominated for deletion. Please see Template:Zoo logos and other to help build a consensus on the best way to manage fair use logo templates. Thank you. BigDT 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use VS. Non-com

While I'm sure this was probably said before, I don't know it has, so I'll say it now. How are images being used under fair use, actually fair use, if we have a non-commercial available. I expect someone will explain to me the policy on fair use and non comm., but I'm well aware of the two, so don't bother (unless it somehow, properly answers the question). But fair use should be an image we don't have an alternative to. While I realise the template says free alternative, how can that be fair use. While it is nice to have images that can be completely freely re-used, if we (English Wikipedia) have an alternative we can fully legally use, how is using one under fair use, fair? (Legally speaking, re-users of Wikipedia content, are not our problem).

For example, a number of celebrities currently do not have free-use images of sufficient quality/clarity available. So we use non-free under fair use. But some of them could be replaced with (again, just an example) PETA ad campaign images (available under non-comm.) So when we have a suitable alternative, that we are licenced to use. An specific example of a case like this, is Sophie Ellis-Bextor. The current main image is an album cover. I haven't found any good free-use images on the web. But there is an excellent non-comm. image available from PETA. Like I said, this is just one example (I'm sure there are hundreds, or even thousands more - not of PETA ones, just more where non comm.'s could be used) - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but we cannot use "non-commercial" images since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a more complicated question being asked here, to which the answer is "The availability of a free alternative is a factor in Wikipedia:Fair use, not fair use." As you know, and as Zscout370 reminds us, we treat all non-commercial licenses as just as unfree as any other copyrighted work that we have no license to republish. Therefore, from Wikipedia's standpoint, the existence of a non-commercially licensed alternative is uninteresting to us. That said, we cannot avoid the fact that there is good reason for individual editors adding a non-commercial licensed image to Wikipedia, and making a Wikipedia:Fair use claim, to be less worried about the consequences of doing so than if they were doing the same with an image not so licensed. However, the larger point is that it is important to not conflate Wikipedia guidelines, common Wikipedia practice, and the United States doctrine. The three are quite different. Jkelly 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I not just say I'm well aware of the policy on non-comm. images? My point was (as Jkelly seems to get) is that how is an image fair use if we have a non-comm. available? Just because we don't want to use non-comm.'s doesn't mean that we can ignore they exist, and say we have "no alternatives" and claim fair use. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hhmmm, you have an interesting point. To summarize, you are asking whether given the existence of both normal copyrighted materials and equivalent (for our purposes) noncommercial materials, whether the existence of the latter interferes with the fair use claim of the former. I think the answer is largely no, based on the nature of the tests for fair use. The core concerns for fair use are the nature of the copyrighted work and the nature of the use, and there is really very little in fair use law that adresses the availability of suitable alternatives. (Judging what is a suitable alternative is likely something judges would prefer to avoid since it strikes at the creative process and free speech.) My suspicion is that the existence of non-commercial and free alternatives will generally have little legal impact on whether or not a fair use claim is possible provided the basic requirements are otherwise met. From a policy and practical standpoint, Wikipedia prefers free alternatives, but I suspect that we are not really legally obligated to do so. Dragons flight 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct to say that an image released for non-commercial use could still be used on wikipedia under a fair use rationale? john k 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to be more strict about an image released for noncommercial use than about a normally copyrighted image. Nareek 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's all kinds of aspects of our fair use policy that seem to have no rational basis, so I wanted to make sure. john k 06:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nareek is correct. This is part of the two-policies-under-the-same-name confusion; obviously it doesn't need to be explained whay a noncommercial image meets the legal definition of fair use--we're not arguing fair use to use it; it does, however, have to have a rationale explaining why it meets our requirements for including unfree content--which, due to the current naming situation, is lumped in under the term "fair use rationale". --Robth^Talk 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm, as someone still puzzled by the policy are there reasons for preferring free alternatives to non-commercial images of better quality, and should this have anything to do with commercial reusers? Also I was thinking of e.g. the PETA image mentioned above - why shouldn't it be used in preference to a fair use claim...thanks--luke 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the preference for libre images over non-commercial is because our goal is to create content that can be reused by anyone, including commercial reusers. As to the question of a non-commercial image vs. a legal fair use image, I would say that the former would probably be preferable, as it would be reusable without legal concerns by noncommercial redistributers; i.e., while not fully free, it would be free-er. That said, I'm not a lawyer, so don't just take my word for that. --Robth^Talk 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's my main point. They are not "free" per se. But they are freeer than fair use. Also I just realised I was actually making a mistake in how I phrased my question. The Wikipedia tags say the thing about "no substitute" (not copyright law). Why aren't they usable if the only alternative is fair use? I don't see how anyone could argue, reasonably, that fair use is a better licence than non-comm. I know what you mean about being able to claim fair use on a non commercial image, but if you're gonna use fair use, then there's probably an even better alternative with all rights reserved, so you may as well use that (all rights reserved are usually best quality, followed by non-comm., and then by free images - just a rough generalisation) - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use isn't a license. Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. Wikipedia accepts fair use in certain circumstances as a rationale for including copyrighted images. It does not consider release under a non-commercial license to be a rationale for including copyrighted images. As far as I understand it, there are two basic rationales for including an image on wikipedia. Either a) it is public domain, or released on a license that is sufficiently free for wikipedia's policies to consider it a "free image"; or b) it qualifies as fair use. An image released on a non-commercial license does not qualify for A. Presumably, though, such an image should be able to qualify under B. If it is a choice between a non-commercial image and a regular copyrighted image of the same subject, I don't see any reason that the latter would qualify as fair use and the former wouldn't. john k 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

....and a related point: in deprecating the non-commercial licensed image in comparison with a libre image which may not be as good aren't we in danger of impoverishing the project and enriching commercial reusers on the backs of contributors with no overall benefit to contributors or ordinary web users who will always be the major users? Or is this the wrong way to look at it.--luke 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User-created images modeled after a copyrighted work

I asked a question about self-made images modeled after a copyrighted work (like Image:RebelAllianceLogo.png). I re-created the Rebel Alliance logo to avoid the restrictions of fair-use policy applied to the official logo. I also noticed that another user released his own work (Image:Star wars galactic empire emblem.svg, based on the official symbol of the Galactic Empire) to the public domain, but has also been tagged with a fair-use boilerplate, so i'd like some clarifications whether i could release my work without infringing copyright. I did this mainly because i saw some images that appear to be modeled after copyrighted logos or items and have been released under free licenses (like Image:Pegasus stargate with very detailed glyphs.svg, Image:Unico_Anello.png). — Canderous Ordo 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you create a work based on a existing copyrighted work you are in essence simply creating a unauthorized copy of that work, so no you can not re-draw a (fictional) logo and release it under a free license. Considering photos of X-wing toys, Yoda action figures, Star Destroyer model kits and people wearing stormtrooper costumes at StarWars conventions have all been deleted from Commons as unauthorised derivative works I'd say those Stargate and Ring of power (a plain gold ring would be fine, the addition of the Mordor writing might however be a problem) images are most likely not entierly kosher either. --Sherool (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sherool is correct here, but many such works will not be called an unauthorized copy, but rather unauthorized derivative work. --GunnarRene 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What if someone, for instance, draws and illustrates a character from the Star Wars series, Harry Potter series, etc? Can the drawing be released under a free license, or it would still be an unauthorized derivative work? And what about photographs (Berniethomas68 uploaded a bunch of self-made photographs representing Star Wars characters.) — Canderous Ordo 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect unauthorized derivative work. However we are getting into an extereamly messy area of copyright and one best kept away from.Geni 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You suspect right. A general principle is actually easy to determine: it is impossible to make an image of a copyrighted character that would be acceptable legally and/or under fundamental Wikipedia policy. A visual illustration of a copyrighted character is a derivative of that character and the works of fiction in which it appears. This is true even if the original work is purely in text form rather than visual. Let's say that someone draws a picture that's supposed to be of a Harry Potter character that has not yet appeared in a film adaptation. To the extent that it actually functions as an informative depiction of that character, it must have made use of and incorporated written descriptions of that character in a substantive way, such as facial features, distinctive elements of clothing, etc. The picture adapts and derives from the original written work even though it's in a different medium. If it doesn't actually do that because the written description of the character's appearance is too generic or minimal, or the illustration is instead a complete flight of artistic fancy ("I reimagined Harry Potter as a spandex-wearing, African-American transvestite from Miami"), then the illustration is original research and has no informative or encyclopedic value anyway. Postdlf 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "contents" in relation to {{film-screenshot}}

I've got a question about the use of screenshots tagged with {{film-screenshot}}, which states that they may be used for "identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents." So may screenshots from the film which feature a certain person be used in a biographical article about that actor? I was under the impression that this was definitely not the case, so I removed Image:18682256.jpg from the article on English model Keeley Hazell. However, another user (User:Certified.Gangsta) objected and reverted, saying "Well Keeley obviously is part of the film, so she is part of the content." I'm pretty sure biographical articles on the actors don't qualify as contents, but I hate reverting, so I thought I'd seek verification. Þicaroon 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer here must be "it depends". For example, in Christopher Reeve, we have two stills from one of the Superman movies compared side by side to illustrate a point that the text makes about his acting ability and treatment of that role. Most people would agree, I imagine, that this is the kind of thing Wikipedia:Fair use claims should be used for. Grabbing a screenshot simply to illustrate what a person looks like (for example, the current lead image in Christopher Reeve), or to decorate our mentioning of that person's playing that role, however, isn't why we make this exception on free content. Jkelly 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For fair use purposes, it doesn't matter whether we'd consider the article a biography or a film history, or whether the article is named "Christopher Reeve" or "Superman (1978 film)." If a film is sufficiently relevant to an article of any kind, our claim to fair use of a screenshot is justified in the same manner—to use a comparatively insubstantial copy of an element of the copyrighted work for the identification of and academic commentary about that subject. Just ask whether there is enough substantive content relating to that film to justify it in any article. I don't believe we're on safe legal ground if we were to use a screenshot for a mere unelaborated item in an actor's listed filmography, or for a separate one-line substub that just says "Superman was a film."

Often when a dispute over the use of screenshots in biographies arises, it's because the screenshot is being used in the biography's infobox, and the claim is made that the image is somehow "only being used" to illustrate the actor and not their role in the film. I personally think it's inane to treat content in the infobox as somehow floating free from the article, or as if fair use hinged upon the fluid browser layout of the images relative to the text (and often that film role is discussed in the intro paragraphs with which the infobox is directly juxtaposed anyway), but as that complaint is easily sidestepped by just moving the image elsewhere article to where the film is most discussed, it's probably not worth arguing over. Postdlf 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Current List of Allowable Fair Use Claims For Living People

Having had several previously allowable images deleted, I encourage all editors and admins to contribute to this list, in the interest of keeping things straight. From what I've been told, currently, images of living people will only be considered under Wikipedia's Fair use policy if they meet one of the following categories:

1. Recluses
2. Bands that have broken up or have members who are not speaking to each other (proof of intra-band squabble not required)
3. cases where the picture is being use to illustrate a particular point in a person’s career/life
4. (add more here!)

---

And all other images of living people will be deleted, unless they are released under a GFDL -- in which, basically, the copyright holder relinquishes all rights, forever. (The ultimate goal of Wikipedia content, right? Free, and free to redistribute and reuse?) Please note, this effectively eliminates photos of celebrities and near-celebrities, who will most likely never knowingly sign away the rights to their image.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a restrictive policy. I would suggest not having such a policy, and being looser with what images of living people are allowed. Previous discussion shows at least as much support for such a modification as for the current interpretation. john k 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at least require that somebody has contacted the person or an agent of theirs, and documented a definite "no" in response. It's kind of pathetic that for most images of people, no one has even asked for the donation of a free one. Stan 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea. I think some diligent effort should be required, but in my own experience of messaging ppl (9) only three replies were received... In no case did I get a refusal, but also no luck with any suitable images.--luke 07:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate -- if you think there's a person living whom Wikipedia can use a fair use image of, please ADD to the numbered list going on above (right in the spot where it says "add your category here"). Surely, we can do better than Disgruntled Bands (Tears for Fears, circa 1990-2003) and J.D. Salinger. Let's try harder, people!  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the most obvious one missing is those cases where the picture is being use to illustrate a particular point in a person’s career/life.Geni 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Added. What else?? What else passes the current fair use test? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Geni, by "a particular point in a person's career/life" do you think that would include an image of an older person, taken when they were younger and at the height of their success? ie showing them as they are best remembered, rather than as they are now? Rossrs 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That would really rather depend on what was in the article.Geni 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Picking one of numerous possibilities at random - Farley Granger. I'll save you the bother of reading the article. Basically it just shows what he looked like when he was at his most successful. The image itself is not specific and is not linked to anything in the text. If it was not acceptable, then the most likely free image we could create would be of him at the age of 80+, but that wouldn't be representative. Rossrs 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Elvis comes to mind, but he's dead (or is he... *dun dun duuuuun*). Other examples come to mind, though: athletes who are now retired (and.. you know.. gained a few..), people who might have become disfigured, people who've had plastic surgery, etc -- Ned Scott 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thought of a perfect example, Michael Jackson. Although his article is able to use album covers that also feature his face, so I guess we get lucky there even for really strict fair use rules. Also, child stars who are now adults. -- Ned Scott 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Child stars? Yes, I remember somebody commented elsewhere that Shirley Temple would be an obvious candidate. (although in her case, we have a reasonable public domain image) Rossrs 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has quite a section of free images. For various reasons most of the unfree images uploaded are of peope who are famious now.Geni 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well to go back to the Farley Granger example a PD image could be obtained by getting hold of a movie trailer he appeared in since film trailers from that point in time tend to be PD.Geni 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't even think of that. Good point. Thanks Rossrs 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(have replaced the image with one from a film trailer, as suggested. ) Rossrs 13:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall another proposal for exceptions on living people, and I think they had something about people who were jailed for life. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely opposed to such a list, if it's presented as absolute and exclusive rather than a few suggested possibilities. It will only increase the rulemongering and wikilawyering that has plagued fair use discussions and policy "enforcements" for some time, which have been overly dominated by people on both sides who neither understand how to read an image's informational content nor who understand the actual law. The only consequence of this would be that many completely legal fair use images that are in fact irreplaceable will be deleted because they don't satisfy one of these few arbitrary cases we can imagine right now, and many completely illegal images will be claimed as fair use because they superficially fit one of these arbitrary categories. These completely wrongheaded attempts to give such specific, detailed orders have simultaneously fed power trips of those who seem to do nothing but "enforce" away (is that what Wikipedia is about? an exercise in compliance?), while feeding the ire of the anti-copyright mobs so that they're even more inclined to reject actual legal requirements as unreasonable because they think it's all arbitrary policy dictatorship (whether something is "fair" or reasonable has nothing to do with whether you can get sued for it). Adding new rules feeds this primarily because it stifles discussion, and invites a law enforcement mentality. The legal dictates of fair use and the policies behind the encouragement of free image content need to be discussed case by case. Postdlf 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you weighed in. You're right, of course -- such a list is ridiculous. (And that's somewhat the point I was trying to make.) Fair use claims, by their very nature, MUST be examined on a case by case basis. However, that's simply not happening. What is happening is about ten editors/admins have decided to aggressively apply their own rewriting of the fair use guidelines, with the result that hundreds of professional, appropriately fair used images have been deleted or replaced with lower quality (but free!) images. The apex of this campaign, as far as I'm concerned, comes with the mass deletion of state government officials' portraits, even in cases where Wikipedians have contacted legislative representatives to secure permission to use a government-supplied headshot on the encyclopedia. (See Image_talk:Rodneytom.jpg for the whole story.) Is the deletion of a goverment officials' head shot - to be replaced at some future date by a "free/libre" photo -- making Wikipedia "better"? Some say yes. I say "horseradish." Instead, these deletions are wasting other editors contributions -- and creating new work (the creation of new photos) that DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DONE. Instead of photographing things for which SAFE photographs already exist (say, the aforementioned Rodneytom.jpg), Wikipedians could be taking photographs of people/places/things of which NO image exists. It's this waste of time and effort that I find really disheartening. There is NO REASON a Wikipedian should be expected to go photograph every governor of every U.S. state. They ALL have images released for public use -- but the current implementation of Wikipedia's fair use policy has become so twisted and arcane, these photographs must be replaced. Tagging images such as Rodneytom.jpg is wasteful, disrespectful, and does not help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While, as might be expected, I don't agree with some of what Postdlf expresses above, I think that the larger point is a sound one, and not just because of m:Avoid instruction creep. I do sympathise with the desire to arrive at some easily explainable criteria for what we'll keep, or, really, what is worth the time to track down and upload. The truth is, however, no matter how idiot-proof we try to make this page, if one uploads unfreely licensed media to Wikimedia servers, it may well get deleted for reasons that either seem arbitrary or confusing, or may never be convincingly explained. In the end, there is not a lot we can do about that. Jkelly 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe but some appeal guidelines are useful. For example a couple are listed on Template:AutoReplaceable fair use people.Geni 09:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A question regarding video game screenshots

I fail to understand how all video game screenshots are automatically under copyright by the game developer and not the screenshot taker.

1. Due to the randomness involved in playing a video game, any given screenshot is unique and very difficult for anyone else to capture in exactly the same manner. Of course, this is less true the less advanced the game is, but my point still stands.
2. I think it is impossible to prove that screenshots can possibly hurt the market value of any given video game. Seeing a screenshot is absolutely no comparison to playing a game.
3. Likewise, screenshots are useless in terms of pirating.
4. The Internet Archive seems to think entire videos of video games can qualify as free use, and they specialize in such things.
5. Sites such as IGN and GameSpot regularly watermark their screenshots, which implies that they seem to feel the screenshot's copywrite belongs to them.

Granted, I'm don't understand copywrite very well, so I'm not exactly sure how to argue. But am I wrong here, or is there a case for screenshots being fair free use? I'm only touching on video games here, because I think there's a stronger arguement for them rather than TV/film screenshots, but I feel that it applies across the board. Also, is there absolutely any legal precedent here? I would appreciate some input here.--SeizureDog 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tic-tac-toe with ASCII characters might quality as intrinsically free, but the pixels in all those sprites and textures don't design themselves! Artists slave over that stuff a lot, and would be pretty resentful at the suggestion that their months of work is worthless. Among other things, free means that you could take the screenshots, and slice-n-dice them into graphic bits for your own commercial video game. If you did this with Xbox game shots, how long do you think it would be before Microsoft lawyers blast you into tiny little bits? Stan 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint: But we can take free images of sculptures, can we not? This seems to be the same thing. It's legal to take a photo of a sculpture and call the photo your own, but it's illegal to replicate that sculpture and call it your own. To me, screenshots feel the same way. Legal to take a picture of, but illegal to replicate.--SeizureDog 08:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Only of the statue is in the public domain, see {{statue}}. --Sherool (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well geez, things seem to have been mislabeled :/ Where does it stop then? Can I not claim free use of a photo because a person is wearing clothing that's protected by copyright? Can I not take a photo of a car since the design of the car is under copyright? Can I not take a picture of graffiti down some street? I'm not trying to be bitterly ironic here, I really want to know how far this goes. I mean, the list seems pretty endless. Can I not take a free image of anything that's been made by someone else?--SeizureDog 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact that sort of thing has repeatedly come up as an issue on commons, lots of disagreements. For instance, some distinguish whether the copyrighted material is "central" to the picture or "incidental". My working rule is that *I* know if I'm trying an endrun around someone's copyright, and I don't do those pictures. Stan 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Clothes are aparently ok fancy dress costumes may not be.Geni 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's copyright, not copywrite (sorry, pet peve), anyway to adress your points.

1. This is irrelevant, the "uniquenes" is not a factor, the point is that the screenshot will always be composed of "creative works" (textures, character models, artwork, design etc) that is copyrighted by the game developer.
2. This is irrelevant, copyright does not in any way shape or form depend on the market value of a work.
3. Wether or not something can be used for piracy has no bearing on who hold the copyright to it.
4. This seems to be a confution between the two meansings of the word "free", unlike Wikipedia the Internet Archive does not limit itself to just free-licensed content. They archive everyting as long as it's free-of-charge and no one complains. This does not mean everyting they archive is out of copyright or free-licensed
5. Most likely that watermarking is simply to discourage other sites from ripping off "theyr" screenshots. That doesn't mean they have any actual legal rights over those images though.

Yes screenshots can be used very liberaly, no one is likely to complain and so on. However that does not change the fact that those screenshots are copyrighted by the game developer and unless they have explicitly stated that unrestricted distribution, modification and commercial use is allowed screenshots can not be considered free content even if virtualy any use will generaly be tolerated. Most sites take the "as long as no one complains all is well" approach to unlicensed content, wich is fine in most cases. Wikipedia has a different ideology however, our content is supposed to be truly open and free (as in speech), not merely tolerated as long as you stay on the copyright holders good side. An exception exist where we allow non-free-licensed works to be included iff no free-licensed alternative can realisticaly be expected to be forthcoming but then only if it would be important enough for us to be willing to fight a hypotetical fair use battle over it. That is; if it's not free-licensed we should only use it if we are reasonably sure our fair use rationale is solid enough to stand up even if the copyright holder explicitly demand that we not use the image (however unlikely that may seem). Relying exclusively on the copyright holders good graces, lax enforcement or even explicit permission (unless it's a permission to release under a suitable free-license) is just not something we accept. Yes this excludes tonnes of stuff we could legaly use, but the free-license aspect is one of the pillars and founding principles of the project, and that means we have to be a lot more restrictive than simply avoid getting sued. --Sherool (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I got it right the first time. Although it's odd that you call me out on that considering you misspelled a number of words yourself, plus brought focus on them by being in quotes or italics (a pet peeve of my own).--SeizureDog 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

yup...do a http://dictionary.reference.com search for copyright 'cos I found this under the third definition: .. Originally, most of the computer industry assumed that only the program's underlying instructions were protected under copyright law but, beginning in the early 1980s, a series of lawsuits involving the video screens of game programs extended protections to the appearance of programs. .. But then the question arises as to whether a screenshot can even so be used under fair use. You have to look at the circumstances and context in which the screenshot is used eg it might constitute a sufficiently small part of the whole game so as to not cause monetary or other damage to the copyright holder etc. etc. You will see that there are four factors suggested to be considered (link is to Legal Information Institute) but there are general gudelines we follow here--luke 07:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained above, screenshots are not free unless the copyright holder makes it so (even if you buy the product and have to work to get the exact shot required; like posting a solved crossword puzzle, just because others would have to do work to get the same answers you did doesn't mean that its yours), and in some cases screenshots may not even be Fair Use. Where things really get dicey and confusing is if you take a picture of your computer monitor (which you are allowed to do, and that shot is your own) while the game is displayed on the monitor (which may or may not fall under the same rationale as a direct screen shot)... --Liffer 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember that computer game companies publish stratergy guids which may rather shot down claims of transformative works.Geni 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but do they get permission? I've seen quite a few "unofficial" player's guides in my time get published. I don't have any anymore to check, but if they're unofficial, they likely don't have "used with permission" by their images.--SeizureDog 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Every modern game seems to have a lisenced stratergy game (formaly known as the manual) on sale. I assume the companies behind the game have at least some involvement.Geni 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely using screen shots to make critical commentary on a game qualifies as fair use? Most uses of screen shots in wikipedia would be fair use, and since they're not replaceable by free images, would presumably be allowable under wikipedia's fair use policy. What's the actual issue here? john k 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

the arugment was over wether they were protected by copyright at all. They are.Geni

Indeed, I understand this. I'm just not sure whether any specific thing is at issue here. Pretty much any screen shot could be justified as fair use, I think. john k 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unpublished Work

Under US Copyright law, the fact that a work is unpublished does not trump fair use rights ("The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." -17 U.S.C. S 107). The "above factors" are the 4 the legal determinants of Fair Use. So if an item qualifies as "fair use", US law says that it really doesn't matter if the item is published or not, fair use rights still apply. Why then FUC#4? At least add a qualifier to the rule saying that Fair Use of unpublished works is allowed as long as it doesn't limit the work's potential market for or value to the author. Liffer 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's unpublished, than wikipedia is going to be its place of first publication. If new content is being published for the first time on wikipedia, we want it going out under a free license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a situation where publishing unpublished work would not be original research. Nareek 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean when I upload the photo of my cat that I took yesterday, I'm doing original research? Excellent, I'm going to add it to my resume! When I get to 5,000 uploads the Nobel committee will call for sure! :-) Stan 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it were a "fair use" image of your cat, then presumably, the article is about you or your cat, so there's probably a problem there somewhere. ;) BigDT 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking from a legal perspective only, I think there should at least be a strong presumption against fair use for unpublished works. It's just too legally risky. Though it isn't an automatic defeat of a fair use claim, that a copied work is unpublished always weighs very heavily against it, chiefly because it's much easier to harm (or even completely supplant) the potential commercial value of an unpublished work, because your copies will take root in the marketplace first. Postdlf 19:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording

"Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." replace with "Used outside article space, they may not be covered under the fair use doctrine, and are not acceptable under this policy." Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 15 December 2006 (GMT).

Good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree ... if nobody objects, I suggest we make that change as it is a more accurate representation of the actual law. BigDT 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Rich. The law obviously does not distinguish between our namepaces. ×Meegs 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this. The conflation of wikipedia policy with fair use law should be avoided. john k 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FU images in user space while preparing an article

Along the same lines as the above, what would someone think about adding some kind of language indicating that temporary use in user space, while preparing an article, is acceptable. It's common practice to sometimes draft an article in your own user space before moving it to article space, particularly if it's something that would probably get speedied if it were just a stub. It's always annoyed me that this exception isn't explicitly mentioned. Does anyone else think that it should be or should we just leave it alone as to not invite abuse? BigDT 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it unwritten, both to prevent abuse and to avoid complicating the policy. I think its true, but I would hope that all policy enforcers are understanding in cases where an article is being actively developed. Also, if some userspace article writers think it is absolutely forbidden and wait until the move to the mainspace to add images, then that's not so bad, is it? ×Meegs 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the exception *was* explicitly mentioned somewhere... Stan 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it does say "'(...) there may be good reasons why should these should [sic] not be deleted anyway. For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished." (gonna fix that typo now) on Category:Orphaned fairuse images itself. --Sherool (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject fair use,slow passive Canvassing?

in it's goals we can read

• Improve guidelines. At present, the guidelines are complex and overly liberal, with the result that people who do not understand copyright issues are, out of ignorance, uploading material for which there is no plausible fair use rationale. There exists a further concern that material which could fall within Wikipedia:Fair use criteria lacks proper rationales, attribution, or other necessary information and is therefore eligible for deletion.

I mean what a wikiproject is this that has in his goals to "improve" guidelines.What i mean is that the presence of wikiproject fair use for more then a year has acted as slow passive canvassing for the hardliners.With the result of overly biaise in this page.--Bootstrapping 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia commercial venture?

You can have for free the downgraded shity wikipedia with no pictures but you can buy the real thing with the images for 100-200€.Of course we have to be restrictive in our policies in order to promote free images creation,and ofcorse the quality of the free images is not important.She can be as shity as she can be,the more shity the beter,the commercial pruduct will be even more valiouble with it's fair use/propriatairy images.Thus the GFDL is complitly bombed away.and the volonter's(us) are completly fucked.How much jimmy walles has spent from his poket?And why is he suporting the new shift in the "policy"?and why is it not alowed to take the mater in the open with the baner for every one to vote.and why does it look like a kind of coup d'etat.--Bootstrapping 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been with us since the 9 December there have been no policy changes in that time.Geni 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

i'm sory,even if this is paranoia,i'm realy on my nearves with all this idiots that are taging all over the place.I'm taking a wikibreak.--Bootstrapping 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting anecdote

I was watching the Barenaked Ladies perform last night and the topic of Wikipedia came up, specifically in reference to the camera phone photo of Steven Page, which he made a point of saying he didn't particularly like. Granted, it's a freely-licensed image, but here's my question: We're using low-quality photos because they're free, but does that really have to be our only criteria for choosing photos for the site? Shouldn't other factors, such as the subject's opinion of the photo, come into play?

I mean, I took a camera phone photo of BNL, but I was way in the back, it was at a very low resolution and it looks like this. but I'm going to release it via the GFDL. Is that enough to make it reasonable? Where do the standards lie? - Stick Fig 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if a free licensed photo is truly horrible no one is forcing us to use it. We can delete it and leave the article image-less while we look for a better free licensed image. However as long as it is possible to create a free licensed photo of something we may not use a fair use image in it's place. This is true if we don't have a photo at all, and so it's naturaly also true if the photo we do have is "bad".

If the subject of the article realy hate the photo we are using there is a very easy way for them to fix that. All they have to do is provide us a with a better image released under a suitable free license, and the problem would be solved. --Sherool (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

de: is much quicker to do this than we are. I've added freely licensed images to unillustrated de: articles a number of times, only to have them removed for not being of suitable quality. Jkelly 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These guys make a jillion dollars, and they complain about WP photos? That's just pathetic. Why don't they hire a photographer with their jillions, and *donate* the result? If they're against charitable donations for personal reasons, they can lie to the IRS about the picture is so amazingly great it's worth a million dollars, and get a tax writeoff. The nerve... You know, I drove two hours, then walked for an hour looking for a particular ultra-rare plant (Amargosa niterwort, no article yet), and then had to lie down in alkali-encrusted mud to get close enough for pictures of it. I really resent that wealthy celebrities can't be troubled to take two minutes of their oh-so-precious time to make free photos of themselves available, and then to complain about the outcome? What chutzpah! Stan 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah. Remind me to bring up this example the next time someone complains about all the "hard work" that gets wiped out when we delete all the "promo" photos they uploaded after sweating over Google image search for several minutes :D --Sherool (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact I was lucky to get it on the first try - there are plants that I'm still trying to catch in bloom, after two years and over a hundred hours walking the desert. Stan 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. You've really lost your grip on reality here, man. I made a fairly intelligent point and you somehow turned it on the celebrity. Why shouldn't celebrities reasonably be in control of their own image if they want to be? Are you really suggesting that all these people should go out of their way to donate their mugs to us? They kind of already do, as far as I can tell. Difference is, they keep the copyright. - Stick Fig 21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is more than reasonable to suggest that a celebrity who is concerned about their Wikipedia article to freely license high quality photographs of themselves. Although one might not realise it from some of our articles on celebrities, we're not some random fansite. You seem to be confused about the difference between copyright and licensing. When one licenses one's work under the GFDL, one retains copyright. What we do need is a way to be more clear that we're not necessarily entirely satisfied with whatever we're currently publishing; we shouldn't assume that Mr. Page is even aware that we would be thrilled to accept freely licensed media of his choosing, that we didn't pay some photographer for that photo or are invested in it in any other way, etc. Jkelly 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I care about whether a celebrity likes his or her picture on Wikipedia about as much as I care whether Amargosa niterwort likes its picture. I do actually care, though, about whether the pictures we use convey information to the readers of Wikipedia or not. A blurry camera-phone picture taken from a balcony does not convey the same amount information as a promotional headshot--and may actually be more legally entangled. Nareek 21:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Stick Fig, I just don't see where your "intelligent point" is. Being a celebrity doesn't make one a superbeing with rights and privileges not available to us common folk. It should be very simple; celebrity takes coke spoon out of nose :-) , yells at publicist "I hate that phone photo, give WP a good picture", publicist chooses a picture to attach a free license to, we upload, done. If that's not the way celebrity photos are usually handled in the publicity business, so what - WP is upsetting things in all kinds of ways, images are just a small part of it. Stan 03:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stan, celebrities aren't "better" than you, but they aren't worse, either. You seem to imply that they don't deserve respectful treatment; all people do, celebs included. And, from a legal standpoint, there's a good chance you're wrong about them not having special rights and privileges, thanks to the patchwork of Personality rights laws across the U.S. Also, having witnessed the process first-hand for many years, I can assure you, Wikipedia's impact in the world of promotional photo licensing is and will likely continue to be negligible. There's no incentive for the current system to change, primarily because there's no financial incentive for the current system to change. And commerce, after all, is what fuels the engine of the currently-established celebrity machinery. Sadly, a "free" encyclopedia can only go so far in today's commercial world.... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's one way celebs get special privilege here - I can't upload a picture I took of myself and refuse to give it a free license. Why shouldn't celebrities follow the same rules we impose on every Wikipedian? Also, take a look at my mini-bio; I went to work at a free software company in 1993, when GNU was about as old as WP is now, and only the truly fanatic believed that one day Linux would become a power in the world. Coming back to WP, although I'm no great shakes as a photographer, a half-dozen publications that I know of have picked up my free commons pics, in lieu of the pricey stock photography they might once have used. So the commercial world is already being changed by WP's existence. Stan 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it

As it is very well explained everywhere, "Fair use" is a law that only applies in the US. And I guess it has also been explained everywhere the risks involved with it, why is it dangerous for Wikipedia and why all Fair Use images should be replaced with free images whenever possible.

It may have had sense to include this law in Wikipedia some years ago, when Wikipedia was just an experiment. By then, it was promoted by US people, located in servers at the US, and it's users were almost all from the US. So, to apply the US law seemed natural. "Fair use" helped the small handful of the users to easily provide images for the articles.

However, much things have changed since then.

• The english Wikipedia is no longer located in US servers. There are many in Florida, but there are also a pair at Amsterdam and Seoul
• There are more than 3 millions of users capable to search or produce free images. And that's not counting users of other Wikimedia projects, whose free images would be useful as well.
• The project Wikimedia Commons holds over a million of free images for easy use in any Wikimedia project.
• There are users from all around the world. The english Wikipedia is not used solely by users from the US, but from any of the 105 countries that have English as their official languajes, and even users that simply know english.
• Not even the Wikimedia Foundation is located solely in the US. It has chapters at other countries, subject to their own local laws.
• Fair Use is also claimed when employing images produced at foreign countries, wich doesn't have Fair Use at their local sets of laws and it's use can be highly questionable.

Besides, as long as they have the "Fair Use" wild card to resort to, most users would not even bother seeking or producing free images, as they can just take one from internet and excuse it as "fair use".

In short, the English Wikipedia is subject to many laws besides that of the US, and it does have the meanings now to be able to provide most of it's articles with images without needing to employ a law of a certain country wich doesn't exist at all the others.

So... what if Fair Use is simply taken away from Wikipedia? --Perón 18:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What if Fair use isn't taken away from wikipedia? At the very most limited level, why shouldn't we be allowed to include things like album covers and the like, which are by definition irreplaceable, and which would never get us into legal jeopardy anywhere? john k 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Two words: absolutely ridiculous. Some of the pics cannot be free by definition (e.g. historial photographs that are still under copyright (yet their author is dead)). Oh my, stop this copyright paranoia... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this happening any time soon. While this should not stop us from looking/creating free images, I do not see anything that will force us to get rid of fair use completely in the near future. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be allowed? Because you can't be sure that there won't be legal problems. You can just say it's unlikely... but not that 100% it won't ever happen. Just as the guys who made the first Napster must have thought that the big industry would never bother dealing with a small software like theirs. And you can see how did that turned out.

Let's imagine this scenario. A user from England makes an article about a TV show from Australia employing a screenshot of it, hosted at the server in Seoul, and the owners of that TV show go to the australian chapter of the Wikimedia Fundation ready to start a big controversial trial against Wikipedia for the unauthorized use of their copyrighted image. Let's check again: english user, australian TV show, server in Seoul, australian legal responsables of wikipedia... where would a lawyer find an acceptable reason to fit a call for a law from the United States in such a case?

What were you about to say? That they wouldn't bother because they wouldn't earn much from that? Think again. They would earn something they can't buy with money: Notoriety. International press coverage. How much has Metallica actually earned from their movement against Napster? --Perón 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can be pretty damned sure that there won't be legal problems from including album covers in wikipedia. john k 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If fair use goes, more than images will be deleted—say goodbye to every article on a copyrighted work of fiction. Postdlf 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are severely mistaken about that. Copyright can prevent us from distributing the content of the "Lord of the Rings" book, or it's cover, but not from talking about it. --Perón 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We could write an article free of copyrighted expression that merely stated objective facts about the book—who authored it, when it was published and by whom, and its sales. But we wouldn't be able to describe what that book was about without relying on fair use to summarize the plot, narrative, describe the characters and fictional world, etc. Such summaries and descriptions are not statements of uncopyrightable fact, but abridgements or derivations of fictitious copyrighted expression. Postdlf 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't. According to Wikipedia:Copyrights, there is no copyright infliged when writing text unless we make a whole copy of a text from somewhere else. As for Derivative works, check the article: it talks about new versions of works of art, not about texts that talk about such work of art. For example, given a work of art such as the song "stairway to heaven", a derivative work would be a rap version of it, wich needs the authorization of Page & Plant (or whoever has the rights), and as such an underground band can not make such work without such authorization. Talking about the song is no copyright infringement, as it doesn't actually use (play, perform, reproduce or make a derivative work of) the protected material. --Perón 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perón, I'm not simply quoting from policy, I'm stating what the law is, but you're not understanding or correctly stating either. There's no such thing as a "whole copy of a text" requirement for copyright infringement in copyright law or WP policy—far less than verbatim copying may constitute infringement, because the expression that is protected (for works of fiction, at least) amounts to far more than just specific word choice. Further, see my comments above for a quote from a relevant court decision, in which the court held that a fan trivia book's written descriptions of events occurring in a television sitcom infringed protected expression. The court made the same distinction I did above, between facts about the production of the series, which are uncopyrightable, and "facts" from within the stories that are actually creative expression. Postdlf 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To respond to a couple of the original points:

• The english Wikipedia is no longer located in US servers. There are many in Florida, but there are also a pair at Amsterdam and Seoul - what exactly is the difference between what is helpd on what servers? Are they just mirrors to reduce server load?
• There are more than 3 millions of users capable to search or produce free images. and the Wikimedia Commons comment - some images are never free. They have to be used under fair use or not at all. You cannot get comprehensive coverage by only using free images.

I think there will always be a place for fair use, but I would agree with a restriction of fair use to (a) make it clearer what we can use and to encourage people to use their fair use rights instead of not using them; and (b) to make it easier to check up on contraventions of fair use on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The location of the servers is indeed important. From a legal point of view, it's considered to be the place the information "is". If such a thing is a crime within the local laws of the place where the server is... local judges can take actions. And of course that some images are never free. However, there are always alternative types of images to serve such a purpose. For example, an image of a "Gente" magazine with Natalia Oreiro in the front will never be a free image, but one taken by someone with a camera that gives it to the public domain (translating, most probably one os "us" users of Wikimedia projects) will be. Of course, it's not easy: it takes work to obtain such an image, while the cover can be simply found with the "search image" of Google. An acceptable observation... if Wikipedia was some little experiment, with just a pair of hundreds of users. It isn't any more. The legions of users with the potencial to seek and produce free images is there, but they won't do the job and live up to that potencial unless they must realize that they have to.

Other Wikipedias in other languajes have already removed Fair Use policies from their systems, and get along very well. --Perón 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale guideline proposal

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a fair use rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy. So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale that I am proposing we use as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. BigDT 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This general idea is a very good one. For a long time I've personally felt on a little shaky ground when deleting things that didn't have a rationale when there really is no good place that explains what we are even looking for. I mean, I know what people mean when we say no rationale, but I'm sure a lot of people think simply slapping {{logo}} is rationale enough. - cohesion 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Simplification of Policy regarding Promotional Photos

Hi Everyone. I'm still involved in the fair-use image debate. The other day I got into a heated exchange with USer:Chowbok on a page in her user space and through the course of it, I think I may have unwittingly stumbled upon a compromise that most everyone (except the most radical reductionists) can agree on. My suggestions mostly have to do with Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria #1, which i think is impossible to interpret with any accuracy.

The summary of the situation is thus. I believe a snowball effect has been happening for 6 months now. It started with photos of cream pies, snow cones, or other objects that readily have freely licensed photos available being deleted. Fair enough. Deletion of these images went on for several months without too much ruckus by good people who wanted to do something good. Then they ran out of cream pie photos to delete, so then, being bored, they creep over into promotional photos happened. That's when substantial disagreements erupted over the interpretation and implementation of fair use policy, especially when it comes to promotional photographs. Unfortunately, the people who had become emboldened over the past 3 months of deleting were not willing to listen as "their policy had already become established"... But the logic flaw is that we are dealing with 2 different types of fair use. Fair use photos of inanimate objects and fair use photos of people should be treated entirely differently.

Be it that:

• Fair use is an important fact of law that allows entities to use images legally while the originator still retains a copyright
• Wikipedia should strive to include quality content under appropriate fair-use guidelines, and make as much of its content available under free license as possible
• Obtaining freely licensed photos of people who are subjects of articles runs into the problem of Personality laws. Personality laws differ across states and therefore make it difficult to guarantee that the photographer can actually license a photo under a free license.
• Promotional photos of people represent 0 risk of litigation as they are being used for intended purposes. One could argue not using a promotional photos might be worse (see personality laws).

Current policy contains far too many ambiguities and we need to clean it up. One for instance is the word equivalent which is used in Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria #1. Two people define equivalent completely differently. I think that we should compromise on the idea here, simplify policy, and move forward. Firstly, I acknowledge that there are certain images that should be deleted. A photo of any inanimate object that is currently in the world should probably be put on the "to delete" list. (This is my compromise.. I strongly believe in fair-use, but i also acknowledge the ease of which inanimate objects can be photographed).

Here's where the reductionists compromise is necessary, too. I believe that any photo of a person released for promotional purposes should be allowed in Wikipedia under the appropriate, lawful, fair use rationale. There's no reason to burden contributors with cumbersome explanations, policy, catch-22s, or bureaucracy. Simply put, can we all agree to allow promotional photos of people and disallow fair-use on inanimate objects? I think this represents a fair compromise between both sides of the debate and will allow us to greatly simplify policy on the matter. It's simple, easy to implement, clears up all ambiguities and is a GREAT compromise between both camps. --Jeff 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In a word no. And please stop assigning motives to people.Geni 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-legalistic comment: I think there are too many promotional photos of people. It seems to me that photos are rather seldom supplied for unarguably notable people, and disproportionately often supplied for the dubious. Could it be that provision of these photos within WP articles is somewhat, well, promotional? -- Hoary 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When the issue is whether we allow promotional photos of living people, "allow promotional photos of people" is not much of a compromise is it? Back to the drawing board, I think. ed g2s • talk 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff makes sense, and I support this concept. In the battle between what makes WIkipedia a better encyclopedia, and what makes it a freer encyclopedia, I believe free but imageless content is the likely outcome of current policy implementation. TRUE promotional photos - and yes, I do know the difference between a photo released to the media for promotion, and the random assignation of this designation to someone's favorite concert photo - do have a place on Wikipedia. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jeff's proposal, although I don't think it's much of a compromise, and probably should not be presented as such. I'm glad to see, however, that neither Geni nor Ed has actually offered any counterarguments to Jeff's sensible basic argument. john k 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary or helpful to make such firm categories of what is and is not allowed. Under our current "encourage free image content" policy, fair use images are allowed where no replacement can be found or made that could adequately provide the same information. It simply happens that this requirement is much more likely to be satisfied in more cases for people than inanimate objects, because people typically change more over time and inanimate objects worth writing about are often easily accessible. Hence, we could have a valid fair use claim for an image of Al Pacino from the 1970s, but not the Chrysler Building from the same time. But there are obviously exceptions in both directions—many inanimate objects may be completely inaccessible or cease to exist entirely, and many people may be completely accessible and remain comparatively constant in appearance from context to context.

I really wish people would stop trying to reduce everything to rules, when the current policy properly requires an editorial judgment of the image's relevant informational content. Why would this be simple, instead of requiring discussion specific to the subject? Do we try to make abstract rules that articles about governments cannot discuss celebrities, or that articles about pop culture cannot discuss the law? If there is a dispute that text is relevant to an article, we have an informed discussion. So should we with whether an image provides irreplaceable information that is relevant. Postdlf 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the "rule reduction" tendency of those who support continued fair use of legitimate promotional photos is a natural response to the unwillingness of the deletionist crowd to actually have the kind of discussions you're talking about. Again, I find myself in agreement with you -- context IS key, and there MUST be a discussion before deletion. But on the images I've had deleted, I've often made the case for keeping the image on the talk page... and without response or discussion, the image has been simply deleted, with no indication that any type of contextual judgement has been made.

It is currently MUCH easier to have an image deleted, with nothing more than a "FUC CE#8" by way of explanation, than it is to upload a legitimate promotional image (with its misleading and tricky "invalid fair use" category). As I've said before, it's been a uniquely frustrating experience to work with admins to get all of my images properly tagged and sourced, only to see the rules change AFTER the fact. (To those who say "these were the rules all along, they simply weren't enforced," I would contend than an unenforced rule is the same as no rule at all.)

So where are the people willing to have actually contextual debates about images? Why, if there's no consensus, is the desire of the would-be deleter considered superior to the right of the person supporting keeping an image? I mean, if there's not a consensus to delete an image as "replaceable fair use," should an image be deleted? Does WP:CON mean anything in this regard?

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that arguments are ignored. In many cases there's no consensus to be reached simply because the replaceability is not really disputed, regardless of the {{replaceable fair use disputed}} tag being used. Instead of disputing the image's replaceabillity on the image's talk page, we usually see a dispute on whether the policy is good or bad to Wikipedia. For instance, no case for the image's irreplaceability was made here, or here (just to peek the very first itens on your contributions log). --Abu Badali 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say you got two out of three right. (I was young, I was naive...) But I would say this image of a Finish hockey player in a Swedish league pretty clearly states "Shows the players face; was released for just this sort of useage; going to a game and getting a picture with the player not wearing a helmet is unlikely..." (The image was a standard media-issue headshot of a hockey player wearing his uniform, but not a helmet, looking straight at the camera, well lit, professional...) You may not have agreed with that reasoning, but certainly, it would be tough to argue a consensus on the replaceability of the image had been reached at the time it was deleted, given what was written on the talk page.

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I got one wrong link. Sorry. But I hope you got the point. --Abu Badali 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do they allow fans to take photographs at hockey games? I know many concert venues have a stated ban on cameras and photography. Postdlf 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I must confess an unfamiliarity with Swedish League Hockey venue photography policies (and there's a sentence I never thought I'd write!), I'm fairly certain that they won't let you come down and take a posed studio-style headshot of your favorite player, say, between periods.  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If all the people are deleting and no one is saving, then maybe that *is* the current consensus, eh? Stan 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"All the people?" No. That's not what's happening. What's happening, quite clearly, is that a limited number of editors are tagging every promotional photo they can find, sometimes engaging in behavior that clearly violates WP:STALK to do so, and the images are being deleted with NO consideration by admins who simply see "Troublesome image; better delete it" because that's the normal method of dealing with questionable images. Admins need to be educated about the proper way to evaluate a fair use claim at least as much as editors need to understand the limits of making such claims, wouldn't you say?

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on whether people *should* be doing this or that; just observing that consensus flows from what people are actually doing, and failing to do. For all the apocalyptic predictions here, the whole "deletion campaign" seems to be getting mostly a shrug from WP overall, which suggests that the consensus is actually so much favor of deletion that it doesn't even matter whether process is strictly followed or not. Has any admin been sanctioned for deleting unfree images? Stan 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is quite clearly no consensus. The problem appears to stem from the fact that with fair use images, the default result of "no consensus" appears to be "delete." And clearly the discussion at the policy page here shows that there is clearly a lot of dissent from this practice. john k 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the legal claim to fair use is secure, I don't understand the urgency. If there's no consensus that an image that legally qualifies as fair use is nevertheless discouraging the creation of free image content, then there's obviously no call to delete it, let alone to delete it RIGHT FREAKIN NOW MAN!!! Smoke a cigarette, take a walk. Discuss it further with your fellow Wikipedians. We're making a collaborative encyclopedia, not conducting law enforcement. Postdlf 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stan, you've been sort of rude to people who disagree with you and I don't think it's really deserved. You also seem to be completely closed to any sort of dissenting opinion on the issue.

It's hard to compromise when those interested in conflict seem to be coming from the angle of "we're already winning, we don't need to listen to outside opinion." Listen to what we're saying; we mean well. - Stick Fig 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, who was it that wrote "You've really lost your grip on reality"? As someone who maintains a small pile of fair-use images (mostly modern postage stamps), I'm hardly opposed to WP having fair-use images, and if you look at my work on cleaning up old images, you'll find that in practice I lean towards finding reasons to keep rather than to delete. If I was one of the hardcore free-content folks, I'd spend my limited WP time deleting images, not bother to talk here about it. Stan 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• (To Stan Shebs): You need to realize that you've lost a lot of, if not all credibility with many editors on this issue, after you claimed (then failed to withdraw after evidence was given) that there is consensus at the English Wikipedia that it's basically okay to massively and summarily delete fair use images. No good! Badagnani 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal makes sense, but I understand why those opposed to use of such images wouldn't see it as a compromise. I don't believe compromise is actually possible here given the polarization on the topic and that there doesn't seem to be much dialog around the images themselves; admins make unilateral decisions regarding deletion and pretty much that's that. Stan is, I believe, mistaken to call this a "consensus" situation just because it persists. Take a look at this vote on a related fair use topic, for example. The straw poll there reflected no consensus, yet as a matter of practice fair use images are not permitted in Portal space, despite the lack of consensus on the topic. Unilateral enforcement of a particular interpretation of policy does not equal consensus when those who disagree are not empowered to take opposing actions. Fairsing 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I really like your post. Eloquent and well written. I suppose you're right though I guess, I see it as a compromise because I'm on the side being trodden upon. I guess in the end I would like to see a fair-use whitelist as written by Wikimedia boardmember Erik Moller here [6] in reply to Jimbo's post here [7]. It's a very sensible straight forward way of categorizing images and allowing fair use appropriately. I think those who are in favor of deleting a majority of fair use images may, in fact, just be mis-interpreting policy and Jimbo's posts on the subject.--Jeff 03:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The two users above who insist, in the face of easily available evidence in the form of discussions here and related pages, that there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors on the subject of summary deletion of fair use images, are engaging in wishful thinking at best, and at worst can be seen as denigrating the well reasoned and strongly held views of editors who believe differently than they by attempting to completely negate their input. In fact, the number of editors engaging in such summary deletion is quite small. Further, the idea that "no consensus = delete" is wrong, as in other instances on Wikipedia "no consensus = keep." Badagnani 04:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't preclude the existence of a minority that loudly disagrees. I'm not going to try to say whether there is a consensus one way or the other; I just observe that WP has many thousands of editors, and admins who act against projectwide norms tend to find themselves mired in RFCs and Arbcom cases in short order. There have been a couple relating to fair use, but the admins ended up getting more praise than criticism, hardly a disincentive! Stan 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)