Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free/Archive 5

Fair use lists

Here's an interesting page, something worth chewing over: User:Dragons_flight/Evil_looking_lists. Personally, I think we should push to get them removed, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Fastfission 05:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're pointless, even dangerous, forks. Physchim62 (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep they need to go, but getting them deleted via AfD or copyvios may be problematic since people with no concept of the issues get to "form a consensus".--nixie 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated before (involving, I believe, FHM's list of 100 sexiest women). This particular list was based on a reader poll, and it was therefore argued that FHM gave no creative content in the list itself, but were merely listing the 'data' they got from their readers. I haven't seen any court cases related to this, but this argument sounds reasonable to me. (If Zogby did a poll, the numerical results of their poll would not be copyrightable, although their presentation might be.) Anyway, I guess it would matter how the lists were generated. If Rolling Stone listed the top 100 albums of all time in the editors' opinions, then this is subjective, so the list is probably copyrighted. But if they just went by album sales, or a reader survey, then it probably wouldn't be, since even a survey is objective data. So anybody want to research how these lists were generated?

I agree, by the way, that it's problematic to use a vote to interpret copyright law. Perhaps a content-based RFC should be filed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support that, or maybe even doing both at once. Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: 3 of these lists are listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

USPS Stamp images

Hi, looking for some guidance on possible fair use of {{USPSstamp}} to illustrate the subject on the stamp. If you have any insight, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#USPS post-1978 stamp images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Catgories for images with/without rationales?

Given that all the fair use tags now also ask for a fair use rationale to be added to the image descibtion page, wouldn't it be helpful if we created categories for fair use image without fair use rationale? Or, alternatively, for those with ones? --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at - do you have an example in mind? Stan 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be helpful if all the images that, considering the new guidelines, would require a fair use rationale in addition to the licensing tag, but don't have one, would be included in one category. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that something similar to this idea is part of our proposed fair use monitoring idea. However, you'll notice that that link is still a redlink, and I don't think it's going to get off the ground until we clean up overly vague fair use tags. See my next post. JYolkowski // talk 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of Template:Fairuse

Now that all fair use tags have been rewritten, I think that it might be time to look at getting rid of our depreciated tags, and I think that cleaning out their categories is a prerequisite to doing so. So, I'm thinking of revisiting cleaning out Category:Fair use images. I notice that the category seems rather smaller than it used to, so thanks to anyone who has been re-tagging stuff in the past. To complete the job, I'm thinking of doing the following three-step process:

1. Manually view the category in gallery mode, and re-tag anything that obviously looks like a logo, album cover, character artwork, or whatever. My progress through each letter is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting; anyone that wants to help out can choose one of the available letters.
2. Export the text of all images remaining in Category:Fair use images and generate some lists of things to re-tag. Once I get to this step, I'll post the lists on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting. Some examples:
   • Images containing very little or no text in addition to the {{fairuse}} tag likely have no source specified. Since stuff like album covers etc. whose copyright status is obvious were removed in the previous step, any remaining images without descriptions should be tagged as as {{subst:nsd}}.
   • Images that tagged with both {{fairuse}} and a more specific fair use tag should have the {{fairuse}} tag removed.
   • Based on the image description text, it may in some cases be possible to determine a more specific tag to use. To pick one example out of many, images containing the text "[[Category:Images of art]]" could likely be re-tagged as {{art}}.
   • Images tagged with more exotic tags in addition to {{fairuse}} may need further investigation to verify copyright and licence status.
3. Having done that, any remaining images should be re-tagged as {{fair use in}}, {{Non-free fair use in2}}, etc. Not sure of the best way of doing this yet.

Any comments are welcome. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are still images using the tag to be deprecated. Shall we replace them?--Jusjih 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fair use reduce

Based on a suggestion made on WP:AN, I've created a template (and a corresponding category) for requesting that a fair use image or other file be reduced in size and/or quality. Suggestions and edits are welcome. I'd also like to ask those more familiar with this project to add links to the new template in all the appropriate places, since I'll probably miss some. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The template says that an admin should delete the original version once a smaller one has been uploaded. Maybe it should also mention where to contact an admin to do this (I personally wouldn't have the slightest idea where). --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, neither do I, an I am an admin. Maybe we should have a second template for that. Perhaps "Fair use reduced"? --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I also checked and the corresponding category (Category:Fair use size reduction request) says the original should be nominate for deletion, but I think that's for files where the new version is uploaded under a new name. (Or is there a way to nominate just an old version of a file for deletion, but keep the current one?)--Fritz S. (Talk) 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now. See Template:Fair use reduced. I've based it on the existing CSD I5 templates like {{or-fu-re}}. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Well done! --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How many words is fair use?

from: Chronicle of Higher Education 2-23-2006 [1]

"A fact sheet on fair use published by the U.S. Copyright Office does not say that fair use is limited to a set number of words. It says fair use of a work is permitted for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair-use guidelines published by the office... say that 1,000 words or 10 percent of a work of prose, whichever is less, can be republished. But at least two publishers, Blackwell Publishing and Elsevier, advise authors and editors seeking to make fair use of a book to republish no more than 400 words." Rjensen 09:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How odd. According to the courts, there's no fixed limit. IIRC, there was one case where eight words was judged a copyvio, and another where several thousand was judged to not be. --Carnildo 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The key is not just how much of the text was used, but what part. There have been cases where relatively small usage was deemed unfair use, because it was reproducing the only part of the book that anyone would buy it for, under the guise of reviewing... a politician's biography with some highly-touted revelations in it, IIRC. However, no-one would have kicked up a fuss had they lifted a few paragraphs from a different section... Shimgray | talk | 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that I directed Rjensen to here from there. Lupo 09:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line in commercial cases is: does the usage damage the market value of the original? If we take less than 10% (the Copyright office guideline) then it's unlikely to cause damage--unless it's the heart of a brand new book. Rjensen 09:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not rely on that 10% figure; the "Fair use" factsheet from the U.S. Copyright Office, as expected, doesn't say anything like that. See also this FAQ list from the U.S. Copyright Office. Lupo 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Those 10% guidelines came from a different Copyright office publication: [2] page 8. Publishers and educators came up with safe harbor guidelines, that have been very widely accepted by publishers and educators: "Publishers and the academic community have established a set of educational fair use guidelines to provide "greater certainty and protection " for teachers. While the guidelines are not part of the federal Copyright Act, they are recognized by the Copyright Office and by judges as minimum standards for fair use in education. A teacher or pupil following the guidelines can feel comfortable that a use falling within these guidelines is a permissible fair use and not an infringement. Many judges look to these guidelines when making related fair use determinations. The educational use guidelines can be found in Circular 21, provided by the Copyright Office (lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ21.pdf )" from [3]

Those 10% guidelines came from a different Copyright office publication: [4] page 8. Publishers and educators came up with safe harbor guidelines, that have been very widely accepted by publishers and educators: "Publishers and the academic community have established a set of educational fair use guidelines to provide "greater certainty and protection " for teachers. While the guidelines are not part of the federal Copyright Act, they are recognized by the Copyright Office and by judges as minimum standards for fair use in education. A teacher or pupil following the guidelines can feel comfortable that a use falling within these guidelines is a permissible fair use and not an infringement. Many judges look to these guidelines when making related fair use determinations. The educational use guidelines can be found in Circular 21, provided by the Copyright Office (lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ21.pdf )" from [5] Rjensen 10:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:TIME

There's some discussion going on at Template talk:TIME#Usage and Template talk:TIME#Current_wording, and I'd appreciate any comments that anyone has. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk

Deletion info

Maybe I'm missing something somewhere, but where is the admonition not to use fair use unless you can avoid it? And where is the encouragement to list an image on IFD if the image can be replaced by a GFDL compatible license? What about if it is a clear breach of copyright? What about fair use rationales on image description pages? Almost every article that is tagged with the {{TIME}} copyright tag has no fair use rationale. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph of {{Restricted use}} does recommend replacement. Clear breach of copyright is a speedy criterion, right? At least that's what I do. Since fair use rationales are a relatively new requirement, it shouldn't be too surprising that it's still spotty. TIME magazine covers are a weird case in that usually we have magazine covers only to illustrate the magazine, but being on the cover of TIME has traditionally been noteworthy in and of itself, and so there are some covers that I think are fairly used. As a first approximation, I'd say the article has to explain why the subject got onto the cover on that day, or why elements of the design are present or omitted (does the Ben A. Jones cover include a racetrack just for eye appeal, or is it a specific track with some significance?). Stan 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use reduce

I understand the need for a Fair use reduce tag. However, take a look at a high resolution screenshot for Day of Defeat: Source like Image:Dods.jpg. I did not upload this image, however, I did tag it with Template:Promotional. In the image description, you can find the source of the image, this is the only image which displays the map dod_donner, so I believe the fair use rationale is there.

This screenshot was released by Valve Software for promotional purposes and then uploaded to Wikipedia. Surely, it would be Valve's intentions for the screenshot to be used as is, not to be scaled down or have its quality eroded in some way. A high resolution screenshot of the game would be in the mutual benefits of both the Wikipedia audience and Valve Software. Should this screenshot, and other officially released screenshots be downsized? - Hahnchen 16:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This gets tricky. The important questions of fair use, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, is "Would Wikipedia be seen as competing with the copyright holder?" and "Would the use of this image potentially detract from the value to the copyright holder?" Our fair use guidelines are designed so that the answers to both of these will always be an unambiguous "no". For instance, if a photo of a celebrity is copyright a modeling agency, we want to scale down the image so that it is clear that we are not competing, and so that it doesn't detract from the copyrighted photo's value.

This case is a little different. It seems obvious to me that the value of the screenshot lies in its ability to attract players to buy the game, and not in any inherant property of the image itself. As you say, the use of the full-size image on Wikipedia should increase the value to the copyright holder, not decrease it. If I were on a jury hearing this case, I'd say it was a fair use.

But that's the problem: what if Valve Software (the copyright holder) were to disagree? Some companies can be really stupid about their copyrights, and there's a lot of gray area there. Is a high-quality photo of Vin Diesel simply a way to convince people to see his movies? Or does it have value in itself? Does mp3-swapping encourage people to buy the CDs, or does it discourage people? You might have a valid argument (in your mind) as to why the copyright-holder should be all for your reuse, but unless a the copyright-holder agrees, you'll still be sued, and unless a jury agrees, you'll lose the suit.

I think your best option is to reduce the image's size on Wikipedia, and then write to Valve Software, asking if they mind us using the full-size image. If they say yes, you can use the full-size picture, add a {{permissionandfairuse}} tag, and note the permission on the image's talk page. And if not, we should keep the lower-res image. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as a general rule that using screenshots for discussion of a game is considered "fair use". If any particular company has problems with it, we can see about that then, but it is such a common practice that it seems silly to fear that we need to reduce them down and make them essentially useless. There is a section on application and game screenshots at Wikipedia:Fair_use/Definition_of_"low_resolution"#Examples which could potentially serve as a departure point for further discussions. --Fastfission 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

Hi, I've filed a fair-use-related RfC regarding speedy deleting improperly used images. I'd appreciate the comments of you guys, even if you disagree with me. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with bogus claims

A major problem we have is that many images have fair use tags on them where there is no plausible fair use rationale. The problem is particularly acute for casual editors who edit in a fairly limited range of subjects and see Wikipedia narrowly, as a venue for publication of material of interest to them, rather than as the broad project it is. Such casual editors are perhaps conditioned by the world of free web sites and blogs, where copyvios are generally tolerated until a DMCA takedown request is received. These editors see the fair use tags as a reasonable workaround for Wikipedia's otherwise stringent copyright policy.

Sadly, many seasoned Wikipedians have an unjustifiably broad view of fair use. One might speculate that the overall inclusion bias plays a role in this, as well as the fact that we have never done an especially good job of articulating the limitations of fair use on policy pages. In any case, it is difficult to achieve a consensus that a purportedly fair-use image should be deleted.

I believe that some sort of more streamlined process for such deletions is called for, particularly with recently uploaded images. Perhaps we should delete purportedly fair use images in the absence of consensus rather than keep them. Progress is already being made in articulating the handful of cases where fair use images are acceptable here, though loopholes remain; perhaps closing the loopholes is sufficient. I think the Time magazine cover debacle is ample evidence that a supermajority of editors will not agree to delete fair use images if the images are useful and topical, regardless of the strength or weakness of the fair use argument.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Our biggest "bang for the buck", which we are already doing and seems relatively uncontroversial, is to break out categories for which the fair use rationale is a boilerplate, such as corporate logos used on the corporations' pages, album covers, and the like. One can keep subdividing; for instance, photos of deceased persons can't be replaced by a Wikipedian with a camera, so there is a whole category of rationales that include "person is dead" somewhere in them. On the flip side, there are images that are almost never going to be fair use, such as AP photos of sports events. Since these are going to be rare, I don't see any problem with making uploaders jump through higher hoops ("this is the only photo in existence", "it was the only perfect 10 ever scored", etc) - if the picture is as critical as the uploader maintains, then it shouldn't be a problem to come up with the rationale. Processwise I think it's important to come up with more predecided rationale components, so as to minimize the amount of per-image debate, and also to make some estimates of time and effort, so we are actually doing something that will keep up. Stan 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following:

1. CSD I6: Fair use image without a rationale: Any image tagged as "fair use" without a fair-use rationale for at least one of the pages it's used on may be be deleted at any time starting seven days after it was uploaded.
2. CSD I7: Fair use image with a clearly bogus rationale: Any image tagged with any "fair use" tag, with a clearly incorrect rationale (eg. fair use rationale mentioning an event, when the picture is of a person) may be deleted at any time.
3. Removal of images without rationale: Any image used in an article without a fair-use rationale that explicitly applies to that article may be removed at any time by anyone; such removal is exempt from the 3RR.
4. Fast-track deletion of bad fair-use claims: Images that appear to directly contradict one or more of the points at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy can be listed for fast-track deletion. If, after three days, there is no explanation of why it does not contradict the policy, it will be deleted.
5. Blocking of users: Any user who repeatedly uploads images that fall afoul of one or more of these policies, or who repeatedly inserts fair-use-tagged images in inappropriate articles, may be blocked for periods of up to a week.

--Carnildo 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that. First, the entire contents of certain subcategories of Category:Fair use, such as Category:Yu-Gi-Oh!_images and Category:Pokémon images should be shot. Then we should discuss what to do with the rest. --Carnildo 08:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, without commenting on the specific encyclopedic merits of Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh!, I'd think single frames from an animation, used to illustrate a character in said animation, would have a much stronger fair use claim than most: they contain only a tiny fraction of the original animation, have no use whatsoever as substitutes for it, and generally promote the original work rather than competing with it. I agree, however, that the card or Pokédex images may have a weaker claim. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike most people, I've actually reviewed Category:Fair use images end-to-end, and there is clearly massive confusion about what constitutes a "fair use rationale" - they range anywhere from "I feel this is fair use", as if "feeling" was somehow significant, to multiple paragraphs linking to relevant bits of the US Code. As we've learned with other initiatives, this kind of administrivia works better with templates and categories than with people composing their own verbiage. It may even be that there is no reason to allow any handcrafted rationales, and we can simply require that all images must be able to choose from a list of pre-approved rationales, each of which connects to extensive description with examples. Stan 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Factionalism

OK guys, this business of factions is getting irritating. It does not help us if there is one group taking Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as their policy development locus, and a different group using Wikipedia:Fair use review, and having editwarring over the two. If you look at some of the discussion on the respective talk pages, there is quite a lot of similarity, and everybody involved wants to end up in the same place, so let's stop working at cross-purposes. We need both people to develop better templates, and people to take action once developed, and they aren't necessarily going to be the same people. We don't have to panic about fair use images, but at the same time we absolutely must have process that will keep with the influx. Stan 13:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that fair use review can be used as centralised discussion for images needing fair use review. WikiProject Fair use has not done much on this front thus far -- fair use review is a first step to something, at least. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's cool to have the two pages, especially if one is going to get daily updates and the other not. But if they're not cross-referencing each other, that's not so good. Stan 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Created a tag for sheet music

{{sheet music}}

I hope this is acceptable. One of the things that has bothered me is people taking copyrighted musical compositions, engraving them, and incorrectly releasing them under the GFDL. (It's a different situation with public domain, obviously.) That's like setting the text from some copyrighted book and claiming you then own the copyright. – flamurai (t) 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider the template acceptable, but the burden of proof still rests upon the uploaders to show how fair they are.--Jusjih 07:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Postage stamps

One of the messy areas for fair use is postage stamps, because while the source is intrinsically known (country name is right on the image), copyright status is not so easily determined (I've researched this some, but for many countries it's still a mystery), and being honored on a stamp is usually noteworthy in itself, even more than being on the cover of TIME :-) . So I've tried my hand at writing some guidelines at Category:Fair use stamp images - maybe not the best place, but conveniently close to the images themselves. Probably want to be a separate page eventually, since we'll want some specific examples of legit and not-legit. Next step is to try them out on some images (Canadian and US would be best, since recent stamps are definitely known to be copyright), see what needs to be clarified further. Stan 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Art

First, can someone who has more time than me check what's up with File Upload Bot (Cobalty) (talk · contribs)? This seems to have been a bot that uploaded lots of reproductions of paintings, making PD or fair use claims, but most of these images seem to be of copyrighted artworks. See e.g. Andrew Wyeth, and there are lots more of that kind.

Secondly, when is an artwork published? Circular 40 of the U.S. Copyright Office gives some indications, but doesn't say what's the case with a painting that exists in only one copy. They just state that selling it (including through an auction or gallery, where the work would be exposed to the public) does not constitute publication, and the Berne Convention, §3.3 also says that "the exhibition of a work of art [...] shall not constitute publication" (emphasis mine), and 17 USC 101 concurs: "A public [...] display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Are such works considered essentially "unpublished" unless facsimiles are produced or reproductions are reprinted in an art book? Wouldn't that mean that most artworks are protected until 70 years after the painter's death in the U.S. (and anywhere else where 70 years p.m.a. applies)? If so, please note that this bot mentioned above also tagged any artwork created prior to 1923 as PD, which would be utterly wrong. Lupo 08:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ACK Lupo. I would like to add that a publication could be made via publishing in printed sources (e.g. newspapers, art magazines) --Historiograf 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Further summary and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Artwork. Lupo 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page

I didn't think fair use images were allowed on the main page, yet over the last week or so its been done several times... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know who picks for the pics to be on the main page. Was this more in the TFA or the Current news sections (or DYK or Today in History..). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the last couple of days it has been the Featured Article, they are doing good w/ the DYK and Current News. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Then I can suggest to that we could bring it up to the FAC director User:Raul654. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

*nods* though looking at WP:FU there is only a mention that they can not be used in templates, but if the board says OK, it can be in a Main Page Template... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raising the "critical" bar

Getting beyond the TIME flap (which I think was mostly about correct handling of procedure, not fair use in particular), perhaps we should think about raising the bar on what counts as critical and/or analytical use. Currently the bar is set pretty low and we don't have any good examples for people to refer to, but it wouldn't be too hard to draw up some guidelines as to what constituted truly critical/analytical use of images. Personally I don't think it is much of a threat for the most part, but from what I can tell Jimbo and the legal types are made uncomfortable by it. Any thoughts on the best way to pursue this? Obviously there's no clear-cut way to say "this is critical, this is not", but perhaps by route of examples people will be able to figure out whether a given use fits into one category or the other.

For example, the comparison of the two famous O.J. Simpson magazine covers is likely critical use -- we are specifically using them in the article on O.J.'s trial and on photo manipulation as part of a critical reflection on the magazine covers themselves. A magazine cover just used to illustrate the person on the cover, without ample discussion in the text about that specific magazine cover (not just the magazine itself), would probably not count as "critical".

Any other thoughts on how to best go about this? I think if we raised the bar a little bit, it would knock out any problematic cases, and make it a lot easier to nominate problematic cases for deletion. --Fastfission 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the "critical discussion" bit come from anyway? All I see in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is "must contribute significantly to the article", which seems rather broader. Perhaps we should agree on what a significant contribution is, for instance "identification" as in "see what it looks like" is apparently uncontroversial, since it's the usual uncontested rationale for album covers and logos and suchlike. Stan 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

why should we start raising the bar for out editors? It's important not to surrender fair use rights. If an item illustrates one of our articles it qualifies as fair use for a noncommercial educational institution like Wiki. The courts have never imposed a high bar on educators. It is NOT true that the illustration has to be discussed or analyzed or transformed. No legal authority has ever said that regarding educational use. Rjensen 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We want to be reusable, including by commercial ventures both on- and offline. Further, we should never rely on "We infringed upon copyright because we thought we could get away with it"; that is neither smart nor what this project is fundamentally about. Jkelly 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

When we go commercial we will pay the royalties. Until then we are NOT commercial and do not follow the rules that only apply to commercial publishers. Rjensen 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're a member of the foundation's board, you're not in a position to say whether "we will pay the royalties". If it ever came to that, I expect Jimbo would direct mass-deletion of fair-use images and that would be the end of the issue. A more realistic possibility is that a third party would want to publish a for-profit encyclopedia using WP content, as the GFDL carefully allows. They might or might have to scrub out fair-use images. If we're sloppy about fair use, then they would have to get rid of all of those images, even if articles end up in a poor state ("as you can clearly see in the image at left"). Stan 00:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "critical" aspect comes up on WP:FU and a number of the templates, but it is not well defined or illustrated in either. As for whether we should raise the bar, I think it would just make things much more legally tight and make our policy easier to follow. It would also remove one of the major points of contention for the critics of WP's fair use policy, which is that it can be very, very loose on things like this. In any case, whether one thinks we should raise the bar too high, we should at least seek to clarify this part of the policy. I suspect the de facto effect will be a tightening, but am happy to see what happens with it if we dare to discuss it a bit. --Fastfission 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things I forgot: I think "identification" is really, really weak, and am not sure what the legal justification of it is, and think it might need at least some writing out somewhere so that we can refer people to it. As for "educational" -- we are not an educational institution under any strict definition, though we are noncommercial. But anyway -- I think our fair use policy should try to be as "portable" as possible, in accordance with our free content commitments. Obviously there are limits to that if one uses fair use at all, but I think relying upon the educational nature stresses that to the point of real implausibility. In any case, what I'm recommending more than anything else is really trying to nail down exactly what these vague terms mean, and try to work up some sort of carefully thought out justification for them. --Fastfission 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wiki is an educational institution, accorting to the US Internal Revenue Service. The Wikimedia Foundation has been approved by them as a 501c3 foundation with the NTEE Code: B60 (Adult, Continuing Education). The ruling was made in 2005. Rjensen 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware that was their particular 501 status. But anyway, I think my general point still stands. --Fastfission 03:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Identification" I think is pretty easy, for instance, in the case of symbols. You could have a lengthy verbal description of Apple Computer's rainbow logo and talk about how famous it is, and still the reader won't necessarily make the connection with "oh, that symbol". The argument is even stronger for historical logos, as they start to disappear from the net. Surely some legal eagle has written all this up, we should find it. On the educational institution aspect, we use the GFDL because we want for-profit entities to be able to re-use the content, so although the fair use might be rationalized for WP itself as "purely educational", it doesn't help for other parts of our mission. That's why we forbid people to upload their own images under any sort of noncommercial-use-only license, for instance. Stan 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

University employees' headshots

Do headshots of university employees (professors, assistants, etc.) like this one, used in Stanley Gartler, truly fall under {{publicity}}? If not, what would be the right way to tag such images? (This uploader, BTW, has tagged as {{cc-by-2.5}} a number of images just ripped from other websites that give no indication whatsoever that they'd publish their images under this license.) Lupo 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotally, these headshots are often submitted to the institution by the faculty without any indication of where they came from (ie My friend takes a picture of me that I like and I submit it with my bio, ideally with some kind of gentlemen's agreement with my friend). Template:Publicity is for pictures created as a "work for hire". It may be that some headshots on university websites were actually created under such a contract, but it is by no means a safe bet. Jkelly 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, see WP:AN: I have the strong feeling that this uploader will soon edit under a new username :-( Lupo 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 90% of those headshots have an obscure legal status. Ironically, that makes the fair use claim stronger, because an uncredited amateur willingly giving over a photo for publication is not being harmed or infringed upon by our reuse of the picture. It would be good to have a separate bin for all of these - something like "published by employer, ultimate origin uncertain". For living academics, it should be easy for student Wikipedians with cameras to get a photo with a clearer status, so the template could include an automatic "fairusereplace". Stan 13:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright gurus/wankers needed

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov - I need someone who actually knows their stuff to look into this. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one - Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 23#Template:PD-NCGov. Basically, does "property of the people" mean anything? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I lived in both states, so I know where I can take a peek about copyright laws. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Retiring the "fairuse" template

I've noticed several instances of people responding to lack of source information by adding {{fairuse}}. Since there's really no way to have legitimate new uses of this template, I'm thinking it's time to close off the loophole and retire it; use a bot to go through and do subst's on the existing image pages, then delete the template altogether. Any botmasters that want to sign up for the substitution step? Stan 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to retire it, but I'm not sure subst'ing is the best way to go about it. It's fairly easy for me to change {{fairuse}} to {{Non-free fair use in|somewhere}}, and it's more cumbersome when it's substed. Maybe if we rename the tag {{fairuseobsolete}}, people will be less likely to use it? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Aieee.. please don't subst it. It would be better to just rename it to old-fairuse-tag-if-you-use-this-on-a-new-image-the-image-will-be-deleted or something and fixup all the images still using it. If you subst it it will make automated image management stuff more error prone. Better I think would be to continue to leave the tag but convert it into a "fairuse classification and justification request" ... which would probably apply just fine to all the images still using it. --Gmaxwell 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The template already tells people not to use it, but that won't necessarily inhibit people much in the little game of whack-a-mole that is starting to develop as miscreants look for ways to escape the no-source/no-license hammer. Looking at recent changes for Category:Fair use images, I see more Roomba action than anything else, so maybe it's just isolated incidents at this point. Stan 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Roomba is bursty so it tends to roll off whatever was on related changes quickly whenever I do a new run. Think it would be useful for me to start making reports of things which were previously nosource/nolicense which end up with a fair use tag? ... How about a list of 'fairuse' tagged images which don't have an external link? :) --Gmaxwell 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the last week's worth of edits more closely, and don't even see 10 additions that might be misuses, so I'm thinking this is not an actual problem yet. Between no-source and orphan deletions, the category is shrinking considerably, so perhaps it can be emptied out and the template deleted for lack of uses before anybody notices... Stan 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image board

I would honestly fall into the "ignorant" image uploaders category - no doubt about it. To curb the problem that already exists, I say that any new "fair use" uploads have a new, fresh template, like a "prodfairuse." Very similar to CDVF or recent changes, a team can then sit there, watch all the image uploads, review them, and upon passing a "fair use" checklist, the prod can be replaced with "passfairuse." If not, give it the boot. Intellectual property and illegal image uploads should be treated as any other vandalism. Well maybe not precisely like vandalism, but there should be a more quick and tidy response. --Jay(Reply) 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is that template?!?

I'm looking for a template that says something like, "This image has been replaced by free image {{{1}}}}." I can't find it anywhere; I've looked at WP:FAIR, here, and other pages. I first saw it on an image page, but that image has already gone through IFD and I can't find it elsewhere. Can anybody point me to the template name? Hbdragon88 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds similar to {{Fair use replace}}, but that's for requests, not fufilled requests... ~MDD4696 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Close Mdd, its {{Fair use replaced}}, add the d. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Hrm... I was wrong... if you read the cat page that fairusereplace feeds into it says just list it on ifd... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Orphaned fairuse replaced}}. Jkelly 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. *tags the two imges with or-fc2* Hbdragon88 04:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New templates for a new criterion

Brand-new speedy criterion I6 says "Any image tagged only with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}, with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded. Images uploaded before 4 May 2006 should not be deleted immediately; instead, the uploader should be notified that a fair-use rationale is needed." In light of this, I think we need a new template for user talkpages along the lines of "You uploaded image XXX.jpg under a claim of fair use. Please provide a detailed rationale on the image description page of why you feel the image is necessary for understanding the article. Images with no such rationale can be deleted after seven days." There should also be a template to put on the image itself that sorts it into a dated category like "Fair-use images with no rationale as of 10 May 2006" so that admins can delete the images that have been there long enough. What do you think? Angr (t • c) 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I made {{Fairuse rationale needed}}. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Is there one for use on the uploader's talk page? Angr (t • c) 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Image fairuse rationale}} should do the trick. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use review?

Is Wikipedia:Fair use review still active? I put up a request for a fair use review nine days ago and no one has responded. Angr (t • c) 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Magazine cover fair use too restrictive - perhaps a full ban instead?

As anyone following the magazine cover fair use saga is aware, articles across Wikipedia are being altered by magazine cover images being removed because the current Fair Use rationale omits their use to illustrate the subjects featured on the cover. I cannot fathom that the copyright law prohibits this - it must be a mistake. Why can we not show a magazine cover -- properly sourced, copyright noted, etc. of course -- to illustrate the work of a magazine model, for example? Or a TV show featured on TV Guide? I've yet to have anyone show me conclusive proof that this use of magazine covers violates any copyright -- when I ask all I get are snarky comebacks saying "ask the US government". Personally I think that's BS. Someone quote me chapter and verse where it's actually prohibited by the government -- or is Wikipedia just playing the Cover Your Ass game? If people are so sensitive to magazine use, then I'd like to recommend the use of magazine covers be outright banned since people are just going to continue to upload them. While we're at it, let's get rid of all the book covers, comic book covers, DVD/video covers, movie posters ... hell why not just make this entire place text-only? 23skidoo 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, magazine covers are protected as a fair use under federal copyright law (See Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003)). No corporation could successfully sue for the kind of fair use seen on Wikipedia. However, litigation is expensive and the mere possibility of being sued limits actual fair use everywhere. My guess is that Wikipedia is afraid of this kind of threat. I would personally like to see large, visible organizations like Wikipedia take charge of efforts to assert the right to widespread fair use of copyrighted material. Redkern 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't tell whether the use is actually banned until the courts rule on it. Therefore, until they do, better safe than sorry. We can at least guarantee a modicum of safety if we (quoting verbatim from the magazine fair use template) "illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is almost certainly fair use, because we are discussing that issue. As an example, if Hitler was featured in Time, the cover would almost definitely be fair use if we discussed that issue of Time's coverage of Hitler, and its significance. Otherwise, what we are doing is simply illustrating Hitler, which competes with the original use of the cover -- to illustrate Hitler. It's a confusing concept, but you have to bear in mind (from fair use in a nutshell): "Don't compete with the work you are quoting or copying from. If the use diminishes the market for the copyrighted work (or portions of it), including revenues from licensing fees, it is probably not a fair use." The purpose of Time's cover images are to depict their subject, so we cannot have only that same purpose in mind when reusing those images; we must at the very least use them for another purpose as well, and the safest (and usually easiest) one would be to discuss the issue in question and its coverage of the subject. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one would not be in the least sorry to see all fair-use images gone from English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias--the German one, for example--get along just fine using only public-domain and free-licensed images. Angr (t • c) 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can think of many valid reasons fair use should be permissible -- most images tagged with {{Historical_image}}, for instance. Unfortunately, the vast majority of fair use images are just not...fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That license too is being misused. Image:Adam-Walsh.jpg, Image:AmberFrey.jpg, and Image:Anitacobby.jpg (just to pick three from the first page at the category) are certainly not being used to illustrate a historic event. Angr (t • c) 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(Amusing note, the first most likely gets the copyright holder wrong, the last provides no source/copyright holder data, also don't say historic event... the criteria for that tag is that the image itself is historic :) --Gmaxwell 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Which is why I say most. (Perhaps not most, even, but still -- definitely a substantial number.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at hundreds of historical articles on Wiki and have not yet seen an example that was not fair use. The fact that an illustration relates to the article directly makes it fair use--there is no need to comment further on the illustration. Rjensen 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. Otherwise magazine covers could be used under fair use. (Well, maybe they can, but currently given how courts have interpreted the law, they probably can't.) Image:AmberFrey.jpg is definitely not fair use at all. Given the fact that it was taken from a media source, and is not itself iconic (AFAIK), according to WP:FU, it's not fair use -- media images which are not in themselves iconic hardly ever are. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I need some help here. The user Rjensen has being modifying what the {{Magazinecover}} template says according to his own views, ignoring all discussions we currently having. I can't revert it anymore. It's simply incoherent that the current text in {{Magazinecover}} is less restrictive that what is said on {{TIME}}. {{Magazinecover}} now says that magazine covers may be used to to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover. PLEASE, wait for some consensus before making such changes, Rjensen. And someone please rv that (and maybe protect the page) --Abu Badali 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please wait for a consensus before imposing restrictions on editors. Rjensen 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have it backwards - for anything nonfree we start by disallowing it, and entertain arguments to allow. Note that we take into account WP's overall goals of freeness, that nobody has donated enough to create a legal defense fund against the likes of a Sony or Newscorp, and that as a highly visible website we can't hope that nobody will notice copyright violations. Stan 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't make up restrictions out of thin air. Rjensen 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They aren't made up out of thin air. Copyright law around the world is remarkably uniform. In the US and most other countries creative works are automatically copyrighted. When a work is copyrighted only the copyright holder is permitted to do certain things. These include reproduction, derivative works, and other actions. There are certain situations in which other people gain the ability to perform some or all of these actions under some or all conditions. For example, the copyright holder can grant a license to you. Or your action might be found to be permissible as fair use. However the default is deny. Thus we will not knowingly distribute copyrighted works without a fairly high degree of confidence that our distribution is legal. "I didn't know of any restrictions" is not a defense while "I knew I was permitted because" is a defense against a copyright claim. Because our project's goal is to produce a free content encyclopedia, taking a legal course is no obstruction. --Gmaxwell 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

the notion that the Wiki article has to talk about the magazine containing the image is pure invention and helps the cause not at all. (Legally speaking, Wiki articles themselves are transformative uses of the image.) Rjensen 03:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an invention that errs on the side of caution. I've already written a detailed explanation above of why this is so. Johnleemk | Talk 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the requirements of fair use. Something doesn't just magically become fair use when you use it in someplace else and bandy about the word 'transformative'. Think of it this way. A photographer took a stunning photograph of George Bush. Time wanted to increase the quality of their coverage of an upcoming GWB article so they paid the photographer $20,000 for the exclusive rights to it. Time publishes the image on their cover, knowing that people will be attracted to their coverage of GWB because of the stunning image. We like the cover to, so we make a scan (or pull it from the section of TIME's site where they sell framed covers).. stick it on the article. Now people read our article instead, as we're cheaper and have the same eye catching photo. The details are cooked... although we do compete with TIME, we are not in direct competition, but the model is fundamentally correct. Fair use exists to prevent copyright holders from crushing public discourse, academic study, and critical review. It does not exist so that we can take photographs from groups who paid a lot for them without compensation just to make our articles better. Some interesting cases to look up: Ringgold v. Black Entertainment, and Roy Export Co. v. Columbia Broadcasting. In the second case, keep in mind that when we just take the cover to use it's image (and not talk about the mag.) the copyright in question isn't the copyright of the magazine, but of the cover photograph which is a free standing work worth many thousands of dollars, for which TIME may not even be the copyright holder. --Gmaxwell 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I protected the template. Aren't all of these templates supposed to be protected?--Peta 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? They haven't attracted vandalism so far, have they? Dr Zak 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but they do attract people trying to use them to re-write copyright law, which is worse. --Carnildo 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Protecting them is kind of un-wiki. I mean, you don't improve people's attitude by protecting a page, you do that by engaging them in discussion. Dr Zak 18:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate fair use rationale page?

Hello, since missing fair use rationale is a speedy deletion criteria, I propose to write a separate guideline page on fair use rationales giving plenty examples. Right ow all info about the rationale is somewhere buried in the Help:Image page.

What would be completely awesome: a fair use tutorial similar to Wikipedia:Introduction for those completely not familiar with the concept. Renata 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Rule

Absolute Rule

I have been told that there is Absolutely No Fair use rational for Fair use Images on a user page. I Do not Believe in Absolutes and I believe the rules themselves are not what is important but rather the meaning behind the rules. Different people interpret things differently and I would like to address this Absolute problem.

When can a Fair use Image be placed un user space.

1. Sandboxes.
   • If you want to write an article first and then transfer it to the main space.
2. Saving a private copy.
   • Copying something form the main space to you user space so you don’t lose it incase it gets deleted or edited.
3. When directly talking about what the image represents.
4. When the person who created the image gives you permission
   • The sight implies they want the image to be used this way
   • The person has given consent to use the image on user space without releasing other rights to the image

I feel these issues need to be addressed properly and do not fit under a blanket policy.

You may want to see our article on webhosting for information on how one can set up personal pages on the web without dealing with the Wikimedia Foundation's rules about unfreely-licensed content. Jkelly 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I know abuot WP:NOT. While I don't think reasonable peple will argue about fair use on a Userspace sandbox, one instace that is under alot of debate is using a fair use Thumbnail sized immage in a userbox expressing your byist to a company. Forinstace if i want to let peple know that I Love Spongebob and I admit my biase on my userpage while i edit artiles about Spongemob a thumbnail image of sponge bob should be fair use. If i habe a Bias and love Google i should be able to have an immage. If i want to say that i have an Uncyclopidia account i should be able to include the uncyclopidia thumbnale icon nexto the link. Theses are times that the immage is useful. I personally like userboxes that link to articles about subjects we are interested. It aids in navigain and a fair use image would be ideal to locate theoes articles.--E-Bod 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The only one there that makes any sense is "If you want to write an article first and then transfer it to the main space." The others are not very justifiable. If you want to save a private copy, do so to your own computer. If you want to make private backups, the same goes with that. When talking to a person about the image, just link to it inline (just add a colon before the Image: part, i.e. [[:Image:Filename.png]]). We don't do "with permission" on Wikipedia, we don't go with the "implication" of the site, and we don't allow images whose permissions are only for use on user pages at the current time. Your arguments about why should be allowed to have certain images do not seem to take into account any actual aspects of the law -- you seem to just be stating what you think ought to be the way the world works, and not trying to discuss things in terms of how it actually works. "Usefulness" is not a criteria for fair use. --Fastfission 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use from a legal stand point Explains Legally why some of your Fair use inforces are taking things too far.--E-Bod 20:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper removal

When enforcing Fair use I feel we need to clarify how to do that. I feel it is unacceptable to not inform a user that they have removed a fair use image from their user page. I feel a user who removes fair use violations should evaluate if it is a fair use violation. Many Wikipedian have been offended when their user space losses something personal. I think that instead of removing the fair use violations if they have already been up for a while a message should be left on the talk page asking the user to remove it themselves and only removing the image if they refuse. Removing fair use images from user space is a delicate issue and proper technique should be used to avoid conflict. A user who removes fair use images form user space and receives loads of complaints on their talk page should reconsider if there is a better way to get rid of the fair use images without offending the user who has it. User should be bold but we should not be bold when tit may lead to WP:BITE--E-Bod 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At the moment we have a pretty clear rule about fair use images in the userspace, though I do agree that people should be polite about it, and should probably ask the user to remove it themself first, just for the sake of not stepping on people's toes. I think people do regard their userspace as something they have some control over, and it is a good idea to respect that when possible, for the sake of avoiding conflict. --Fastfission 04:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I do not understand why there are two articles: Wikipedia:Fair use review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use they seem to cover the same exact material. I suggest they be merged.Travb (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use review is for requesting another look at the status of fair use for certain images. This WikiProject is for addressing fair use problems in general. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratches head--okay--I will remove it.Travb (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick question about rationale

I've read what I can about this in existing discussions, but honestly I get bogged down in the details pretty quickly. My question is: are the new(er) specific fair use image tags (e.g. {{film-screenshot}}) sufficient for providing fair use rationale for the images that use them? This seems to be one of their purposes as indicated by #1 on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. If so, why does the tag ask for detailed rationale? And what would I include in such a rationale beyond what is already stated in the tag? Staecker 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Music samples

I thought that someone here may be interested in the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Music samples. One of the most important issues that is currently discussed is the quality of the fair use samples (see Wikipedia talk:Music samples). Your input would be very appreciated. Jogers (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple uses - some fair, others not fair use

I have been searching for a guideline for how to deal with images that are licenced as fair use images that are being displayed in several locations, where some adhere to the fair use rationale and others don't. I have listed two such images with {{Fair use disputed}}, but I feel there's not much more that I can do. The two instances I have come across are Image:Tv 30 second to fame south africa.JPG and Image:IAO-logo.png. __meco 12:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'd suggest just removing (or commenting out) the image from the pages where it has been inappropriately used. I've done just that for the two images you mentioned. Actually, the former image has a number of other problems: it was way too big for a fair use image (I've resized it), it has no source information, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a TV screenshot even though it's tagged as one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about SVG Logos

There is a bit of a discussion about SVG logos and fair use located here. Does this check out? Thanks, GChriss 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

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

Possibly relevant image sampling data

See User:ESkog/ImageSurvey. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New image templates to supplement fair use

I have created two supplementary templates for use in conjunction with fair use tags and added them to a few image descriptions; see {{old-50}} and {{old-70}}. One is for images whose author died 50 years ago, and one for 70 years. The purpose of these templates is to let our users who live outside the U.S. know that the images might be public domain in their own country and they might be able to re-use them in ways that Wikipedia (and Americans) cannot. Take a look at the templates and tell me what you think. Andrew Levine 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the text of {{old-70}} jibes with the text of {{PD-old-70}}. User:Angr 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70}} is a license tag for image where the copyright has expired both in the U.S. and in "Life+70 Or Less" countries. {{old-70}} is a template (not valid as a license) for images which are still copyrighted in the U.S., but not in those other countries. It and {{old-50}} are meant to identify images that have been tagged as fair use on Wikipedia, but which are PD in certain other jurisdictions. For example, a work first published post-1923, made by an author who died pre-1936, is public domain in almost every country in the world, but might not be in the U.S. Andrew Levine 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the U.S. was a life+70 country. User:Angr 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's currently the longer of life+70 and 95 years in the U.S. Andrew Levine 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The U.S. is not a "life+70" country. That applies only to works published 1978 or later, or to unpublished works that were not published between 1978 and 2002 inclusive and where the author is known. Indeed works of an author who died 1935 or earlier, but that were published post-1922 may still be copyrighted in the U.S. For other works, the rules vary between "95 years since publication", "120 years since creation", or "at least until the end of 2047". See Peter Hirtle's chart for a good summary, or see WP:PD. Lupo 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional images

There is a debate over the fair use claim of promotional materials at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#July 6, 2006 which might interest some here, and which would benefit from additional input. A large number of images are involved, including many more that haven't been listed yet, making it an important matter. -Will Beback 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Abusive use of fair use tagged images is rampant

Beginning in February of this year, I've taken it upon myself to remove images from places where they were used in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. As part of this work, I spent two months going through literally every single userbox in existence to remove such violations. I completed the work on userboxes in late May of 2006. Just recently, I went back through all userboxes starting with "User A" and found more violations, equivalent to about half the violations I'd found during the last pass through that section. Note that these are not reverts of my work, but new violations. This tells me the work in removing the violations was futile. In total, I've done approximately 1100 edits removing fair use image violations. Net result; there's still thousands upon thousands upon (probably) tens of thousands of violations.

I once suggested having a code change that would prevent the display of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace, as this would solve the problem. I was insulted for the suggestion and since dropped it. I've since proposed a bot to handle the removals, and have not had any takers.

The reality is manual removal of these violations is insufficient to the task of managing these abuses. Further, there's no apparent desire to come up with another method to solve the situation. --Durin 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are suggesting a technical solution to a social problem. What is going to happen is that people will upload new pretty images and mis-tag those to display them where they shouldn't. People are enraged enough about Orphanbot when it removes the pictures from their userpage.

On a more positive note, the other day I started going through Category:Fair use images of United States postage and removed images in articles where they were mis-used (i.e. where it was not the stamp that was discussed). So far none of those improperly used images has gone back up. Dr Zak 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've been told before that this is a technical solution for a social problem. The core issue here is that it is a LEGAL problem first and foremost. I'm quite aware that people will upload images and mistag them to circumvent the technical solution were it implemented. I'm also quite aware of the grief that people feel from orphanbot. I place the need of Wikipedia to protect itself against copyright infringement lawsuits above the feelings of those people who want to violate our policies and often copyright law. What I've posted above is more of a plea; the fair use image violations are rampant and manual management of the situation is failing. If the best response we can come up with for this is that it's a social problem, therefore there's nothing we can do, then I fear it's going to take a major copyright lawsuit against Wikipedia before anything substantial is done. --Durin 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am personally using Random Image to go through images and I managed to knock out a few fair use images that way. The problem I am seeing now is that Durin says; a social issue. People think that since we are an encyclopedia, we can use everything under fair use. They do not keep in mind the people who reuse our content; the mirrors, the people that use us for papers. I also agree with Durin that it has to take something big in order for anything to be done on Wikipedia, just like anything else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that a technical solution will not encourage clueless newbies that are unaware of the difference between "free-as-in-beer" and "free-as-in-speech" to learn about the crucial difference. What is needed is the consistent application of Orphanbot, combined with a stick, that is with substantial blocks and bans. Dr Zak 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is the status quo is failing us. We are already using orphanbot. We are already using sticks. I've done more than a thousand violation removals and never had to block anyone, though I have had to warn about the possibility of it. I am far from being the only doing this sort of work, but all of our efforts combined have utterly failed in stemming the tide of fair use image violation usage. It is rampant, and getting worse all the time. The tools available are insufficient to the task. --Durin 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Durin is right; we need to turn things around so that it takes less time to get rid of unfree-image abuse than it does to engage in it, and that means some kind of technical solution. Nonsense vandalism is a "social problem" that we have no problem applying a technical solution to. We may well be past the point where we can assume that most Wikipedia editors are going to respect our image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria if only they are pointed to them. Jkelly 22:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The most likely technically solution would be to ban new users from makeing image uploads.Geni 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If a clueless newbie tries to add a logo to their user page and gets a "This is Not Allowed: see here for details" message, this will keep the violations down and educate. If they then go and GFDL tag the logo to get around this then sure, bring out the "stick". I would wholehearted encourage a __MAINSPACEONLY__ marker for fair use images, or even better (but sligtly more complicated) an access control list for fair use images i.e. "this image may only be used on: ....", enforced by software. This could also be applied to NSFW images that are frequently used for vandalism. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not be quite so pessimistic as some posters, although I have had my fair share of insults on image tagging issues. As with vandalism, it is a minority of users who cause the vast majority of problems and they should be dealt with without mercy. If an image is only used in a userbox (or elsewhere on a userpage), delete it. No warning, no removal. Blatant violations of fairuse policy in article space should be dealt with similarly (I have deleted a couple of galleries of pornstar photos, for example), although removal of the images from the page is necessary in this case. The janitor doesn't have to knock on every door before he sweeps the staircase... --Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is what we do, but the point being made in the first post is that this is a never-ending task, and one that would be greatly reduced if we had software limitations on where a fair use image could be used. ed g2s • talk 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TV Screenshot Policy

Is it legitimate to take screenshots of movies or TV shows for the purpose of depicting a single person on Wikipedia, such a sports player, or a place such as a sports stadium? If they are, is it required that the station logo be kept intact on the screenshot or must it be removed? Cheers, --mdmanser 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it isn't. The screenshot tags say screenshots can only be used to depict the television show or movie in question. User:Angr 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarification. --mdmanser 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

..."or its contents"? I've always thought that it's OK so long as the bio discusses the source of the image. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also always thought "or its contents" allowed the image to be used to identify as per User:The JPS's comments. I would definitely remove the logo. The copyright for the logo is not going to be necessarily owned by the same entity that owns the copyright for the image in question, therefore to use the image intact we would need to justify fair use for both the image and the logo. We could make a case for the image, but could make no case whatsoever for the logo as the logo is never going to be part of the discussion. Rossrs 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images cannot be used for "simple illustration", so that would seem to answer the initial question. A TV logo should be kept in place if referring to the coverage of a particular station of a particular event, as it is relevant to the discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I don't think counts as fair use: Image:Tracyannoberman.jpg. It is being used to illustrate Tracy-Ann Oberman, not This Morning (she was merely interviewed on This Morning, and doesn't seem notable enough to mention it in the article). The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. a second opinion and comment of the article's talk page would be welcomed. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I tried to clarify in Template_talk:Tv-screenshot#Question on use in May, by asking "Or for example a tv-screenshot of a building, is it usable in an article about the building?" If there is a documentary about world's 100 most famous buildings, is it allowable to freeze frame and screen capture all of them and use them in 100 articles about the buildings with fair use license? I would guess that is not fair use. I think this example is similar to User:The JPS's question, one takes screenshots (and crops them) of all This Morning guests, claims fair use and uses them on articles about the guests just to illustrate the subject, not for critical commentary, nor are the screenshots relevant to the article (other than to illustrate), and without relevant discussion in the article (having a line that this and this was in that show, is not discussion!) - is a violation of fair use. feydey 13:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria/Amendment 2. ed g2s • talk 11:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at {{Character-artwork}} recently?

Virtually everything in Category:Fair use character artwork is copyvio or mistagged. If it is fan art, it is NOT a valid example of fair use. If it is a screenshot of a TV character, it can be tagged as tv-screenshot. Is there any logical reason for this template? Cleaning it out is going to be a nightmare - it is huge - but I really think we need to stop further use. Any thoughts? BigDT 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a steaming pile. So are most of the other fair-use categories, and many of the free-license categories. So what else is new? --Carnildo 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My prefered on is still {{Promotional}}. It works as a free ticket to upload almost anything found on the internet. --Abu Badali 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we try and clean-up the category, then redirect this template into the promotional template? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO there are some images that fall into this category. Hand-drawn images (not fan art) of video game characters, for example, that come from manuals. Like Carnildo says, it's just like the other categories. The only thing we can do is just tackle them as we see 'em. howcheng {chat} 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a mess, but cast my vote for most irritating and seriously abused tag for {{Promotional}} too. At least this character artwork meets our FUC#1 and isn't hindering our acquisition of free content (unless we're looking for fan art that may or may not still infringe on its model's copyright). ×Meegs 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't even get the long-deprecated {{fairuse}} removed... Stan 04:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... there's a lot that's bad. Let me run this idea by everyone. What if we were to have templates like {{Non-free fair use in-confirmed}}, {{promotional-confirmed}}, {{logo-confirmed}}, etc? When someone from this project or who is familiar with copyrights and the doctrine of fair use reviews an image and confirms that it is appropriate, they could replace {{Non-free fair use in}} with {{Non-free fair use in-confirmed}}. The problem is that right now there are eleventy billion allegedly "fair use" images and there is no way to even begin to go through them all. Even if we got organized and assigned everyone a letter of the alphabet or some such thing, new images are being uploaded constantly, so there is no way to know what you or someone else has reviewed vs what is brand new. But the -confirmed templates would give us a way of doing that. Sure, there will be some people who will try to game the system and tag their own images with -confirmed just like right now, they tag them with PD-self even though they are obviously ripped from some random website. But, that's the exception, rather than the rule. IMO, this would be a way to start trying to sort out some of the image copyright woes. Any thoughts? BigDT 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe {{reviewedfairuse}} is the template you're looking for. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference. What I was hoping for is some kind of "unreviewed fair use" category or other way of determining which fair use images have not yet been reviewed without clicking on every image. Is that possible to do somehow? BigDT 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The "reviewed" images are something like 0.01% of the total, so chances are pretty good that a randomly-chosen image is unreviewed. Instead of a "confirmed", which is too vague (and don't underestimate people's willingness to mass-apply a template), I would like to see templates for source, different parts of rationale, etc, so that every image will have a different set. Another ambitious thing would be to have a bot mass-tag images as needing rationales or whatever, then work to empty out those categories. Stan 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and magazines

• It has been my impression that, for an article about a particular magazine, (say Time (magazine)) that under Fair Use, one could take basically any cover of Time and use it to illustrate the article, and have no (c) problems. An admin (who I will not name b/c I like him, don't want people flamebaiting him, and b/c he's not the problem, the policy is) recently told me that covers can only be used to depict the publication of that particular issue, as in "this issue's cover generated lots of press", not "this magazine, as depicted in its july cover, generated lots of press." That would mean having to remove the cover images from virtually every magazine article. Based on my legal research and good-faith interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 107, we would be coming nowhere close to a (c) violation by changing the fair use policy to allow this use of covers, because:

1. "the purpose and character of the use, ... is for nonprofit educational purposes";
2. "the nature of the copyrighted work" is to advertize the magazine itself, which Wikipedia would be doing by reprinting the cover;
3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is not a concern, hence our reason for allowing covers of things in the first place; and
4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." would be positive, since we would not harming the market for back-issues.

Comments, please? --M@rēino 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is much more restrictive than the usual interpretations of the United States fair use doctrine. Time (magazine) looks resonable to me at the moment, except that we probably don't need two covers to illustrate the "Person of the Year" concept. Jkelly 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Magazines should be used to illustrate the issue in question, not just as a useful picture of the person. ed g2s • talk 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An image of the "Person of the Year" would be usable to illustrate any/all of the following: (a) The specific issue of the magazine (b) the magazine in general (c) the concept of the Person of the Year (d) the person named as "Person of the Year" if and only if their being named as the Person of the Year is discussed in that person's article. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JohnTex. The problem is that right now, editors are deleting uses (b) and (d).--M@rēino 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about (b), but I belive we really dont need to use the image in (d). The information "John Smith was Time's Magazine person of the year 2006" can be fully stated without the aid of an image (as I have done right now!). The image use would be highly illustrative and hardly informative, as it would not be adding any essential information to the article. --Abu Badali 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As to JKelly's remarks: I know that currently the Wikipedia Fair Use criteria are much more restrictive an US fair use law. That's why I propose this small liberalization. My proposal would make it easier to supply useful images for articles and would keep us totally in compliance with the law. It's all benefit and no downside, as far as I can tell. --M@rēino 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Johntex's approach is a good one. I don't think we need to pull our hair out over the magazine issue—low res magazine covers from non-current magazines are going to be transformative in almost any way we use them, and put next to encyclopedic content with a decent caption are going to be legally not a big issue. --Fastfission 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What does cause pulling out of hair is deletion of magazine covers from articles about the magazine which Yamla has been pursuing actively today. Fair Use is a complicated issue for non-lawyers like myself. Rather than tear down an image because sufficient source information has not been noted, it's worth the effort to add the source info, which in these cases is simple and brief.Ghosts&empties 23:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, and with magazines and other media covers the source of the image is really not too important, since the copyright will lie with the magazine, not whatever website it was pulled from. The copyright holder should in most cases be obvious (a Time magazine's copyright will be with the publisher; a CD's copyright will be with the record label, etc.)—if it is not obvious, then it is probably not actually a media cover. --Fastfission 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should dismiss soucing this stuff entirely. We have a lot of articles on albums, movies, etc. that aren't released. A verifiable source for the supposed cover, poster, etc. is important in those cases. I don't know what the bother is in noting whether one got an album cover from AMG or Amazon. Jkelly 00:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that sourcing in those situations is good, but that's not related to determining the copyright status, that's about verifiability. Anytime verifiability is in question, it should be sourced, whether it is a magazine cover or a factual statement. --Fastfission 00:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Source, in this matter, at least should be done, so we can say "the image was used at this website, which I found and copied over to here." Since, in my view, that shows that a Wikipedian did not scan it. That is what I done when I had to upload FU images. But there are many people not like me, so I suggest that we push for more sourcing, but not make it mandatory in those cases, since we know who holds the copyright for record labels, magazine covers (unless, of course, it was photoshoped, but that is a whole anothet isse). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter if a Wikipedian scanned it if it is a magazine? In any case a lack of a source shouldn't be used for deletion for media covers, since the real reason for needing a source (determination of copyright status and copyright holder) is almost always obvious. Frankly with such straightforward cases a lack of a detailed rationale shouldn't be used for deletion—the rationales are all going to be the same ("This is low res, this is not competing, it is used to illustrate, blah blah"). --Fastfission 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if you got a Time Magazine cover off of, say, Amazon, your source is NOT Amazon, it's Time, becuase Time is clearly Amazon's source. --M@rēino 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos

Editors here may be interested in User:Jimbo Wales' concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos. Jkelly 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as he said "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo". Making our policy any more liberal will stifle the growth of the project. ed g2s • talk 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented about an action plan at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos. It involves OrphanBot, or similar. Can we establish some co-ordinated project (similar to Wikipedia:Untagged images) to reduce these categories? As ed_gs implies, the more we have to argue with uploaders over this the less time we have to write decent words. (And there is, of course, the 'free' issue). The JPS^{talk to me} 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot is already hated, so one more controversial job can't hurt. Good thing it's a bot. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is absolutely correct as well, both about the way that the raised public awareness of Wikipedia can allow us to be more insistent on free media, and on the legal issues relating to using random celebrity photos. It would be great if we had some way to send a message to all of the million celebrity photographers in Los Angeles and New York that said, "Hey photographers! Got some photos that you can't get published? Want to get them on a site with a high pagerank, with a million hits a day, and still get all the credit for taking the photo? Release a few under a free license and put them on Wikipedia! All the exposure you want, and since no commercial magazine is ever going to release their entire work under the GFDL you can be assured that nobody will be ripping you off any more than you normally would be!" --Fastfission 12:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He is 110% correct. "Fair use" is supposed to be about offering commentary on a work - not about "we can't find a photo so we're going to take someone else's". BigDT 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Except there's no taking when it's a publicity photo. Jimbo is not a lawyer, and frequently lets his dogma get in the way of good ideas. A publicity photo is a photo whose (c) is waived only for the purpose of increasing awareness of the subject, which is exactly what all encyclopedias do. Asking people who have already offered photos that the mainstream media has no problem with to adopt some GNU standard like GFDL just so they can be on Wikipedia is the height of arrogance. We're not that important that we can singlehandedly change the (c) law to suit our purposes. --M@rēino 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Back when magazine images began to be banned (call it what you will; I call it banned), I predicted that someone like Jimbo might out and suggest Wikipedia become a no-images encyclopedia. This is the start of it, IMO. 23skidoo 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of this comment unless I assume that you are unaware of the existance of images that are freely licensed or are in the public domain. There are more than 750 000 of them at Wikimedia Commons, for instance. Jkelly 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, we managed to get photos from many organizations due to the request of Jimbo, Brad, Danny and several other higher-up folks from the Foundation. We can do it again, all we need to do is just be patient and ask. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A useful distinction?

I've been feeling lately that in our policies it might be worth trying to draw a heavy "fair use" line between things which were originally intended to be used and consumed simply as photographs (photographs of random celebrities) and things which are media covers (album covers, magazine covers, etc.). Taking low-res versions of the latter and using them in an encyclopedia is tranformative and does not infringe on any markets. Taking any-res versions of the former is not only not transformative (they've gone from photo to photo, not album cover to photo or anything like that) and potentially does infringe on the original market (licensing photos). Of course, any photo is potentially re-licensable but the courts have held in the past that there is a difference between something intended to be consumed as a poster or a cover and something which is intended to be consumed as a photograph. I like this distinction because it would focus most of our fair use efforts onto rooting out things which are not transformative at all. It would mean things like the album covers and the magazine covers would be much lower on the "worry" scale, while things like "publicity photos" (which are often taken by private photographers) would be much higher on the "worry" scale (and would be actively discouraged much of the time). Is this distinction useful, sensible, actionable?--Fastfission 12:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always though that you'd be on a better stand in terms of fair use to use a cover featuring X - which at least has a tracable copyright - than some random photo you've found on the internet. However I don't think making the distinction is particularly useful for building a "free content" encyclopedia, and I'm not convinced that making the distinction would improve the state of fair use images.--Peta 12:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's, for the moment, jettison the whole "free content encyclopedia" question. (I know, a heretical remark, but I hate that every discussion of how to make our fair use policy more legally or conceptually clear gets bogged down with questions over whether we should be using fair use at all. It's a worthwhile question but an entirely separate one from what I'm asking. In any case I think media covers are probably most likely to be fair use for more reusers more of the time than other fair use claims, which would make them less of a pain from a re-using point of view, but again, that's a separate question). What I'm saying a distinction like this would be used to help direct attention, not that it would change the way things were tagged and labeled. It would basically mean that we encourage people to see the largest bulk of our fair use images (which are media covers, screenshots, etc.) as "probably not a big legal deal" and focus on the more questionable things. It might also mean that we would raise the bar on the questionable things a bit higher than it currently is. --Fastfission 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. For reasons that I think have already been covered, a "free content encyclopedia" is by definition an incomplete and censored encyclopedia. Album, book, and magazine covers are a perfect example. These covers are functionally much closer to trademarks than they are to copyrights, in the sense that the lawsuits are over tarnishment of the brand, rather than a perceived threat to future sales. --M@rēino 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want a "free content encyclopedia", then you're working on the wrong project. Stan 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We all have our own reasons for working here. Please don't take a tone that could be interpreted as inviting any one to leave or questioning anyone's conviction to the project. Wikipedia allows fair use images. What we are discussing here is how best to use them. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not OK to justify a class of fair use by arguing that the fundamental goals of the project are somehow mistaken. One of the consequences of Mareino's thinking is that it becomes OK to replace free images with nonfree, then free text with nonfree, etc. WP simply cannot be everything to everybody. Stan 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that conclusion is logical from his argument at all. I don't see him arguing that free images should be replaced with non-free ones. Johntex\^talk 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a "free content encyclopedia" is necessarily any more "incomplete" than a "non-free content encyclopedia" (I don't measure completeness in number of graphics). But if we are going to use "fair use" images (which it seems that we are) then I would like to be able to prioritize which of them we spend our time pulling our hair out over. The magazines, album covers, and other media covers have been periodically targetted by overzealous people trying to make our fair use compliance better, even though, frankly, they are probably the safest invocations of fair use that we have—that's sort of my bigger point. --Fastfission 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers are an easy target because they aren't that many of them and generally aren't really used in any kind of context - just as decoration. For example how's TIME cover of Bill Gates fair when we already have free images of him. I know I have been able to replace several TIME covers with free images, but many others wouldn't have bothered looking since the article was already illustrated. I don't think we should encourage the use of covers over other fair use media, but next time someone goes on a magazine cover purge like the TIME covers you might want to point their attention at things that are actually problematic.--Peta 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about the prioritization. An additional way to distinguish is that media covers are in a sense "self-documenting" in that there is little or no doubt as to its source or purpose. But a publicity photo is not intrinsically different from a news agency or stock photo, and there is no commonly accepted way to wire the source info into the image. One straightforward way to raise the bar on publicity photos is to require a precise URL, one that can be tested with a bot - "is there a matching image on the given URL?". If the image or URL disappear, we lose justification for keeping the ex-publicity photo. Stan 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible breach of fair use policies

Dear all. Could you please comment on this possible infrigment of fair use policy. Thanks in advance. -- Szvest 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the log as requested and tagged one image for a speedy deletion as an attack image (Image:No-dprk.gif - a picture that is apparantly the North Korean flag with a big "NO!" written on it), one for IFD (Image:Havana-capitol.jpg - an image from a commercial content provider available on a fee-per-use basis only), and several as {{no source}}. BigDT 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I tagged some of the above's users images as non-commercial images, since he uploaded a lot of images from FOTW to here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance guys. -- Szvest 14:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FairuseF1

Template:FairuseF1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Abu Badali 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible limits on fair-use image pixel area

We can all agree, I think, that a 600x800 fair-use image is too large and needs to be either resized or removed. So I propose that we decide on a maximum pixel area for fair-use images (that is, its width plus its height must not exceed a set limit). If an image with a fair-use tag is seen exceeding that limit, the uploader should be notified on his/her talk page, and a tag should be placed on the image description saying that the image may be deleted in 7 days if it is not resized to comply with the limit.

For a starting figure, I propose that a limit of 80,000 (eighty thousand) pixels in area be imposed. This allows square images up to 282x282, or rectangular images in sizes like 300x266 or 400x200. Who agrees with the basic premise of this criteria? Who thinks that a different limit besides 80,000 pixels might work better? Andrew Levine 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if one can set a specific limit like this. Aside from fair use not really being about pixels, but about usage, it also doesn't work well with Wikipedia's policies, which are based more around the idea of conveying the information in a limited space (which can depend on the image). As for a hard limit of 80,000, look at one of our best examples of "fair use": Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png. I don't think there is any resolution issue with it—it conveys the information well, but is not excessively large and certainly poses no danger of competing with the originals. However at 480*318 it comes out to 152,640 pixels, which is almost double what you would propose as a limit.

If one really was serious about drawing up very concrete guidelines, I would do it first by different media types, i.e. a magazine cover should in most circumstances not need to be more than 400 pixels tall to read most of the text on the cover, but a CD cover (which generally has a lot less pertinent information on it per pixel) can probably suffice with around 300 * 300 plus or minus a hundred pixels. Screenshots are often at screen resolutions, which I think is generally fine, since their possibility of competition with anything is so low and every pixel can carry information in this case.

In the cases of printed media I think size of the original should be taken into account as well—a magazine cover scanned at print resolution would be 3,300 pixels tall, while a CD cover would only be around 1,350 pixels tall (I am just using estimates here; 300 dpi * 11 in. for a magazine and 4.5 in. for a CD, I haven't measured). In terms of total pixels a 400px*300px scan of a magazine cover is only 1% of the pixels that would be in a 300dpi scan of it; while for a CD a 300*300 scan would be 5% of a 300 dpi scan, or something along those lines (the conversions between pixels and area and etc. is throwing my brain off a bit this morning). The overall point being that in a case of "the amount used", as applied to physical size, the amount of space represented by a scan means more in one case than the other. --Fastfission 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of academic coats of arms

What is everyone's thoughs about List of academic coats of arms? This "article" is really just a gallery of copyrighted images, most of which are only used in this article. While a lot of time has gone into it, I'm not sure that creating an image gallery constitutes "fair use". If we're trying to be a free-content encyclopedia, having a gallery of copyrighted images is a bad thing. I kinda feel bad about nominating it for AFD because an outstanding job has been done on it and a lot of work has been done ... and I really like the gallery ... but this really isn't an appropriate thing to have. Any thoughts? BigDT 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have speedied it. We don't do galleries of unfree images, and there was nothing else to the article. Galleries of freely licensed images should be at Commons. I suspect that some of these coats of arms could have been created by Wikipedians from out-of-copyright designs, and we therefore shouldn't be republishing some of them at all, let alone in a gallery. Jkelly 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sobering estimate of fair use abuses

Recently, Tangotango went through the July 17 database dump to analyze how many violations of fair use images there were in the sense of them being used outside of the main article namespace (and portals). The total was deceptive; the scan was only for images tagged with {{fairuse}}. He listed the first 500 from that list at User:Tangotango/Sandbox.

From my own work on userboxes, I've come up with an estimate that 1.89% of all userboxes have fair use image violations. There are, as of a week ago, 10043 userboxes. This yields a number of ~189 userboxes with violations. Tangotango's first 500 showed only 2 violation in userboxes. Extrapolating that 2 of 500 across 2247 violations that were found by his scan results in 9 violations. 9 vs. 189. Now, I've removed 50 of those 189 in the last couple of weeks, leaving 139. So, 9 of 139; Tangotango's list of violations only shows about 6.5% of the violations. Meaning, there's more than 34000 violations out there.

Now, I know this estimate is seriously, seriously rough. But, it still points to a massive problem in adherence to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, which proscribes the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. We're not talking about a few thousand violations, but tens of thousands of violations.

This underlines what I was getting at in my words above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Abusive_use_of_fair_use_tagged_images_is_rampant. The tools we currently have to deal with fair use image violations per WP:FUC #9 are woefully inadequate. I suspect the number of violations is continually rising, rather than falling despite the work of people here. --Durin 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6880 ? Jkelly 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• By itself, it's insufficient. Nothing stops people from uploading images and improperly tagging them. Tracking down improperly tagged images is even MORE problematic, as it takes a Mk.1 Eyeball to determine if it's a proper tag or not. With a fair use tag, a bot can do checking on where it's used and make adjustments as needed. This problem is considerably larger than a single solution seems to offer. I don't know the answers; I just know where we are is a sorry state. --Durin 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Totally wacky idea; prevent the display of images outside of main article namespace and image spaces entirely, fair use or no. We are here to build an encyclopedia, are we not? The images we most care about are the ones that contribute to that effort. So, regardless of tagging we prevent the display of images outside of main article namespace. Only problem left after that is inappropriate tagging, and unused images being violations themselves. But, if they don't display anywhere but the image page itself and the article it is in (if it is in one) the encroachment of copyrights is very circumscribed. Far safer situation from a legal perspective. Of course, there'd be hell to pay if we implemented this as sooooo many people have decorated their userpages and what not (myself included, Jimbo included too). --Durin 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly solve the problem... but it is very drastic. I wonder if allowing only Commons images to render in userspace would just result in a lot of bad uploads there... Jkelly 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Commons already has a number of bad uploads, and I find the policing there to be at least the same as here, if not worse. It would be a drastic solution, and there would be a number of counter arguments. It would also have the effect of killing off quite a huge number of userboxes at least in their display of decorative images. That's sure to raise a huge protest. But, it does solve the problem. If we ask the question, "Why are we here?" I'm hard pressed to think of significant cases where the display of images outside of the main and image namespace contributes to the goal. A huge number of userpage designs would be very detrimentally affected, which is sure to annoy a huge number of users. That would cause quite a few people to depart the project, I'd expect. :/ Outside of that...any other uses of images that contributes directly or indirectly to the project when used outside of main/image namespaces? --Durin 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin, that's nice, but can you offer any insight on whether we are doing better now than in the past? It's a large problem, no question, but the eventualist in me thinks that as long as we continue making progress and deal with any specific complaints in a prompt fashion, that we will ultimately be okay. Dragons flight 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's an excellent question, and one I do not have a good answer for. The only piece of data I have is very, very limited and not sufficient to indicate trends. What I do have is a feel for how bad fair use violations are on userboxes right now, compared with how bad it was before I went through every single userbox and removed all violations this past spring. There's about 1/2 the violations now, but keep in mind they were all created since my sweep of all userboxes; lots and lots of people are comitting violations and far fewer people are removing them. I suspect we're ultimately losing ground over time. But again, I don't really have data to back that up. I was naive enough to think that once the userboxes were swept, the problem in userboxes would be greatly reduced, and we'd have only an occasional violation. That's not the case at all. I would like very much to see how the global problem is changing over time. --Durin 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculously easy problem to solve. One of the robots -- I think it's Cyde's, not sure -- has already been going around removing fair use images from user pages. All we have to do is extend it to go through user subpages, and to go through the links on the user:box page. --M@rēino 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is an easy problem is such a bot does indeed exist. But, I've not come across it in my wikitravels. There is OrphanBot, but it is an entirely different beast and it is not doing this work. --Durin 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Long term the only solution is education. Currently we are the only ah "web 2.0" site that really appears to be trying to do something serious about copyvios. In time people will learn. At the currenrt time it looks like it is going to be up to us to do the initial educateing.Geni 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Media covers -- re-ducks

Hi all. I've made what will no doubt be a somewhat controversial proposal on specific guidelines to put in place in regards to media covers (magazine covers, CD covers, DVD covers, VHS covers, book covers). My goal was to try and come up with a policy which would make it clear how these were to be used in encyclopedia articles which would be both safely within the guidelines of the law and within our overall content and copyright(left) goals. I'm very interested in coming up with something which will help reduce the number of discussion cases that these types of media generate since I think that the discussions almost always end up being the same, and not being very conclusive or fruitful. I'm also interested in making the guidelines clear, understandable, and sensible. Any thoughts about it would be much appreciated. The proposal is here. I apologize ahead of time about the length! :-) --Fastfission 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of completing another person's work

I'm hoping some copyright experts could help me with the copyright section of unfinished work. What is the copyright status of work that was started by one person and then completed by another? Who holds the copyright, especially if the first piece of work no longer has copyright status? For example, if a novel is mostly completed but then the author dies and the book is finished by another person is it a joint copyright situation?

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. violet/riga (t) 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been answered there, thanks. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Amend CSD I6

I've proposed an amendment to CSD I6, the requirement of fair use rationale. Surprising enough to me, it did not include any fair use tags save for {{fairuse}} and {{Non-free fair use in}}. I feel it needs to be expanded. Please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Missing_fair-use_rationale_.28I6.29_needs_teeth. Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 07:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Images sourced to Wikipedia mirrors

Can we have a bot look for these? Jkelly 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"sourced to Wikipedia mirrors"? What do yall mean by that? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume this would be an image that says "Source: [1]" on the image description page, where [1] is a site that is actually a Wikipedia mirror. It's a circular reference, and not a source at all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I encountered two of these yesterday. And we do maintain a list of mirrors, so the bot would just be looking to match URLs. Jkelly 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be done (assuming it is a significant problem) by offline analysis of database dumps. We have way too many images to justify a bot querying the active site for this info. Dragons flight 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a significant problem; I just think it is an obvious and easy to solve problem, and wanted to know if there was a smart way to fix it efficiently. Jkelly 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I see as a similar problem are images whose source is another Wikipedia. One example is Image:Trockiy2.jpg use as source "found it on the russian wikipedia. Should be public-domain as it was made in the USSR pre-1973.". We need to make sure what the real source is before making guesses about the copyright status. --Abu Badali 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That needs a human to assess whether or not the original image description page has proper sourcing or not. Jkelly 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The bot could add each image to a category by Wikipedia language (like Category:Images imported from Russian Wikipedia, etc), and editors would revise the galleries of languages they understand translating the source info (or marking the image as having no valid source). --Abu Badali 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about mirrors that change and add content, like Citizendium? It seems we would need to exclude these from sites the bot checks, because the image could have been added to the mirror first, then brought here. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Properly speaking, those are forks, as opposed to mirrors. The point you're making seems right to me, regardless; we shouldn't have a bot making decisions about any site that allows independent uploads. Jkelly 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right - my bad. I think you summarize well what I should have said - which would be in regards to a site a site that is not a perfect mirror. If the site allows independent content uploads, then we can't treat it as a simple mirror. Johntex\^talk 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-commercial writeup

Hi gang. I finally got around to finishing up what was meant to be a little explanation of why we don't accept "non-commerical" content, and try to go over some of the common criticisms, etc. I'd love input on it, or even editing/adding/changing/whatever (it's a wiki, after all). I know it's not strictly a "fair use" issue (though that does come into play in the end of it), but since a lot of people on here are also very interested in general Wikipedia copyright issues I figured it would be a good group to test it out on. Take a look at: User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. It's of course totally unofficial at the moment, and aspires only to be an explanation of a policy, not a policy itself. --Fastfission 01:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was an interesting read. And nice to link to when people have questions about that. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Have you considered adding a section explaining why we don't accept permission-for-Wikipedia content? Shimgray | talk | 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use art

I've just had a look at {{art}} and noted the situations for fair use are:

for critical commentary on

• the work in question,
• the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
• the school to which the artist belongs

I'm suprised to see that "the artist" is not in the list. I don't know much about fair use, but I would have thought using an image of an artist's work on an article about the artist would be acceptable.

This isn't just theoretical as Image:Julian Beever-Is this the real thing.jpg is used on the Julian Beever article, which is about the artist not any of the listed topics. Thryduulf 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Julian Beever article does discuss the "artistic genre" and "technique of the work of art" on the first paragraph. And most articles about artist will do so. (Actually, there's almost nothing about Julian Beever on the article, just about his works and techniques).--Abu Badali 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, bad example, but would an image of an artists art on an article just discussing the artist be allowable fair use? Thryduulf 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a low-res image used to show an example of the artist's art would be fine on an artist's page. It would be best if it was a very well-known work of art as well. It would be hard to argue that such use was not transformative and encyclopedic. --Fastfission 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not expressing this very well(!), but my real point is should we add "the artist" to the list on the template? Thryduulf 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should, because it is very unlikey for us to have an article about an artist that do not discuss his "works", "artistic genres", "techiniques" or "school". Do you have a counter example?--Abu Badali 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think adding a line which says "the work of the artist" would be fine if it is just about clarification. --Fastfission 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lost sentence as there's no "artist" in the context. The first bullet ("the work in question") already allows us to use it when discussing the work. --Abu Badali 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair use to use a painting in article that mentions an artist, but not his work or style. For example, an article about Salvador Dali's ties to the CIA (a ridiculous hypothetical example) that did not mention Dali's style or works should not include an image of his paintings. Of course the article on Salvador Dali mentions the style and work of each painting included. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "low resolution"

I've been working to try and consolidate some of the recurrent themes which come up in discussing what constitutes a low- or web-resolution image for the purposes of Wikipedia's fair use policy. I've created a small policy proposal page at the moment about it. Your thoughts and edits are solicited. I mean it primarily as a potential framework for figuring out some of the issues involved and how to translate them into a useful guideline, not a final draft of any sort. See Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". Thanks. --Fastfission 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PD-Soviet and PD-USSR

Hello, I've just learned that the controversy over PD-Soviet and PD-USSR tags have reached a conclusion and that the decision is that they're not valid. Someone wrote a great start to the Constructivist architecture article recently that was extensively illustrated with images of drawings and photographs of Constructivist buildings and projects. I've re-tagged all the drawings with {{Art}} and given source information. I've re-tagged all the photographs with {{Statue}} because the tag rationale states:"for images of three-dimensional works of art that are still under copyright" to me this sounds like architecture - (architects distinguish the common or garden building, typically just called construction, from architecture which is considered to be art). Could someone please give me some feedback on whether or not they think this might be a valid approach? Thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope it will be acceptable. The problem, of course, is that fair use is a massive gray area. This is more a matter of discretion than clear law. - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is a grey area but copyright is not. If you feel that these picture contribute to the article, then that is one step towards having a fair use justification for them. Thanks for helping out with the USSR picture mess! Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about sheet music

If I notate an excerpt from a copyrighted song (such as La Grange (song) or Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just As Bad)), should the {{sheet music}} tag be used, or should some other fair use tag be used? I assume it is fair use and I shouldn't release it under the public domain, but I wasn't sure which tag should be used, whether the sheet music tag is just for sheet music created by others. Also, for excerpts of pieces whose copyrights have expired (i.e. ones written over a hundred years ago), should I just release the excerpts into the public domain if I transcribe them myself? Thanks. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

tricky. In the first case the fair use tag would appear to be correct. In the second I'm really really not sure. If the source is public domian I would suggest releaseing it under whatever lisence you want (which will be legaly fine) until someone finds some relivant caselaw.Geni 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of points here. First off, transcribing the music yourself is similar to writing down the lyrics: using a line or two is fair use, but including the whole thing would be a copyright violation. (So you were right to transcribe only a limited amount.) Also, you don't own the copyright to the transcription of the music, any more than you would a transcription of the lyrics. One could argue that you might be able to claim copyright on the presentation of the sheet music (the thickness of the lines and so forth), but that's unlikely to hold up, since it looks like you used a standard software program. So I'd say it's no different whether you use someone else's sheet music or transcribe it yourself; either way, you should tag it {{sheet music}}.

Now if the song is in the public domain, and you create sheet music for it, I don't think you could claim copyright on the sheet music -- unless you made it non-standard and added your own creative input. Just to be sure, you could declare that you release it in the public domain in the offhand chance that you do hold any copyright to it. But I would just tag it {{PD-old}} or whatever. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the comments. I think the transcriber does own the copyright to the transcription, because I used sheet music from Grovemusic.com and was told to transcribe it myself. Still, the {{sheet music}} tag should work for music which is copyrighted, and I guess I'll just release it into the public domain if the music isn't copyrighted. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure

I've asked what I think is an important question over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excessive screenshot use

Hi, I bumped into a excessive amount of screen shots from a Led Zeppelin concert DVD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Edelmand ). I would assume as a collective whole, they can't be used under fair use. Maybe 1 or 2 in articles specifically related to the band or the DVD would be ok? I removed 3 of them from Madison Square Garden. ccwaters 17:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno that it's a problem. They aren't used on the same article. I think in each case, the use is justified as being "fair". I don't see the problem, personally. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be used on articles about individual songs, but I don't see the point of having an unfree picture of someone performing a song in the article about this song. Theses instaces would fail WP:FUC #8, in that they don't "contribute significantly to the article". Instead, they "serve a purely decorative purpose". --Abu Badali 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That could be. I can see both sides on that one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the usage in the song articles isn't "fair use". It's not essential to the article in any way nor does it add much so is indeed "purely decorative". Furthermore, the picture could be of the musician performing just about anything: it's hardly "oh wow that's what "Heartbreaker" looks like when it's being performed!" is it? :) --kingboyk 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use

Given that we may not use "fair use" images when a free replacement could reasonably be found or created (see WP:FUC #1), and given that there are hundreds if not thousands of images on Wikipedia that violate this policy, I have created the tag {{Replaceable fair use}}. When you find a non-free image of, say, a model of car, and you think the photo could be replaced with a free image, simply add {{subst:Replaceable fair use}}{{subst:rfu}} to the image description page. Comments? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what {{Fair use replace}} is already for (although less drastic)? --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Fair use replace}} says the image should be deleted whenever a replacement is found. But according to Jimbo, and our recently updated policy, such an image should not be kept until a free replacement is found, but should instead be deleted as a copyright violation. (See here, here, and here.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend nuking most of those in a timely fashion. This template is overused. One of the issues here is that "Fair use replace" templates take away some of the incentive for us to work harder to get free images. This is particularly true of common objects. Yes, I can see that the template could make some sense in the case of images for which we think we are very unlikely to get a free replacement in the next 20 years, even though it is somehow in theory possible. But most of the use of this template is just a way for us to be lazy.--Jimbo Wales 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

An example:' this image has been on Wikipedia forever (April 2004). This is a beach in the United States, surely we could get a photo of it. In fact, I did a quick search on flickr, and found this photo under Attribution-ShareAlike.--Jimbo Wales 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That one is a special case -- it wasn't always under fair use. It was originally tagged PD-CAGov which turned out to be incorrect with respect to images, but that wasn't rectified until this year I believe. howcheng {chat} 03:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Fair use replace}} should be for things that are hard, but not impossible, to find free-license replacements for, such as photographs of places in North Korea: it might be a few years, but eventually somebody with a camera and an understanding of Wikipedia's goals will go there and be allowed to take pictures. {{Replaceable fair use}} should be for things like celebrities or common objects where it's reasonable to expect that a replacement could be made or found in the near future. --Carnildo 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since we don't have hordes of birding Wikipedians in sub-Saharan Africa just waiting to spring into action, putting a one-week deadline on something like Image:Africanmourningdove631.jpg is going a bit overboard. Stan 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But I found several freely licensed pictures at Flickr with only a moment's search: click here --Jimbo Wales 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong species though - the Flickr pics are random Streptopelia, S. decaocto most likely, while the pic I mentioned is of S. decipiens. Stan 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at what we can get, though: the African Mourning Dove was discovered no later than 1870, so it's a good candidate for checking pre-1923 reference works for images. --Carnildo 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly, although the species is conspicuous by its absence from commons, despite multiple rounds of people scanning old picture books. I think if something has had a replacement request going unfulfilled for a year or two, it may not be as easy as the original replacement-requester thought. I would expect that "replaceable free use" is the ultra-obvious, like something I could get a picture of just by lifting the camera while slouched at the computer... :-) Stan 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

there are various bird watching tours in africa and it is likely that one of the big collections (natural history museam perhaps?) will have a preserved specimine.Geni 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are ways to get the picture, but in one week? A one- or two-month deadline would make more sense - still the definite cutoff, but enough lead time for photographers to get organized. Stan 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the one-week deadline is not to find a replacement image. It's to discuss whether the image is "replaceable" or not. For instance, I tagged an image of a car, and the uploader informed me that the car was a 2008 model and not available yet. Therefore it isn't possible to get a free image until early 2007, and I was wrong to tag it. The one week is for discussion of things like that. But as Jimbo said, it's better to have no image than a non-free one, if it's possible to create a free replacement, since the absence of an image will motivate people to create new images and license them freely. (This isn't a comment about the African dove in particular, since that may well be a borderline case that deserves the {{fair use replace}} tag instead.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally think having an image in an article tagged with {{Replacethisimage}} in its caption might be more motivating to create a free image than having no image at all, which will probably just lead to someone else uploading a fair use image. But thanks for clarifing the whole thing. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, one week just for the discussion makes sense. I don't need any motivation to go out and take pictures of whatever (in fact I have several thousand useful photos waiting for upload, ahem), just need to be able to scan the replacement needs and quickly determine if there's anything I can do. Stan 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What happpens to images that have been disputed? An admin will have to look at the talk pages and decide either the given reasons are valid, ok? I have been tagging a number of images and I'm seeing them being disputed based on all kind of arguments. I just hope the Category:Replaceable fair use images disputed category doesn't get forgoten. --Abu Badali 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent) If the claim of reusability is disputed, then there is no 7-day period anymore. You can list them individually on WP:CP if there is a dispute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more productive to have the rule that admins should take the most obvious cases and delete the images? I'm not asking for an admin to arbitrate or to resolve a dispute. I just want the "this picture of a knife is unrepeatable" arguments to be dismissed on sight. I'm affraid the {{Replaceable fair use}} may endup being useless as we will have to list all such images in ifd or WP:CP at the end. --Abu Badali 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Parser functions allow us to do date offset so I have added the following code which should be added to other fixed period speedy delete templates:

{{#time:j F|{{{day|{{CURRENTDAY}}}}} {{{month|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}}}} {{{year|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}} +7 days}}

ed g2s • talk 13:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And the template should be included with {{subst:rfu}}. ed g2s • talk 13:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js now supports the marking of replaceable fair use images. howcheng {chat} 00:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

fairusereplace orphans

I noticed in Category:Fair use image replacement request that a couple images had only the replace request and were orphans, having been quietly superseded by free images somewhere along the way. Seems like an easy bot-scanning opportunity that's maybe being overlooked. Stan 13:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely they'll get picked up by orphanbot? ed g2s • talk 10:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit with the OrphanBot description. Technically, the images were not properly tagged, only having the replace request and nothing else, but don't know if the current bots are smart enough to distinguish. Stan 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That used to be the job of Gmaxwell's Roomba but that went offline when the toolserver lost connection to the en-WP database. After the new hardware gets installed and the database becomes up-to-date, I'm sure Roomba will be in action again. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure hope that thing gets fixed soon. In the meantime Fritzbot will pick up orphanded fair use images once they appear on Special:Unusedimages, unfortunately this only catch truly orphanded files, so if someone have the image on a userpage or talk page somewhere Fritzbot won't find it like Roomba would, but better than nothing. --Sherool (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron

I would appreciate backup in ensuring the free image on this diff is used. Thanks Arniep 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JKelly and others for your backup. I also removed this magazine cover as I felt it could be adequately described in words- Is this a good enough argument against using it? If anyone is in need of something to else do please have a look at Oasis (band) and try and restore the images from commons:Oasis (band) which I uploaded- unfortunately it seems they were all removed :( Arniep 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are team mascots copyrighted characters?

As I understand it it is impossible to create a free licensed work depicting a copyrighted character (except with the express permission of the copyright holder). What I'm wondering is wether or not your average team mascot (the "fictional character" kind, like Moondog (mascot) or Judge (mascot) and so on, not live animals like in some cases) would qualify as a copyrighted character? Depending on the answer we eitehr have a lot of unfree mascot images that should be labeled as "replacable fair use", or alternatively a lot of free licensed mascot photos that should be labeled as "copyvio"... Anyone know? --Sherool (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some mascots are copyrighted. Others are old enough to be in the public domain. Either way, the copyright on a photograph taken of a mascot is held by the photographer, so if the photographer licenses the photograph GFDL, then the pic should be tagged GFDL.

There is the complex issue of "derivative works". Yes, the photo of Moondog is a derivate work of the Moondog character -- so the only reason we can use it is "fair use", even though the photograph is GFDL. But this isn't what image tags are for, as I understand it. The image tags are for the copyright status of the image itself, and not for any "fair use" content within the photo itself. Otherwise, this photo would have to make fair use claims on the use of each advertisement included, and this one would have to make a fair use claim on the Olympic logo and the Nike logo just visible in the lower right. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, acording to Commons:Derivative works you can't release a photo of a copyrighted object as free licensed (at least not if the purpose if the photo is spesificaly to ilustrate the copyrighted object). So I guess if the mascot is copyrighted then all photos used spesificaly to ilustrate the mascot would have copyright issues. --Sherool (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Commons doesn't accept any fair-use works -- sort of. They don't want to throw out good pictures that happen to include logos in the corner, so they made the compromise that refers to the purpose of the image. (Photographing a scene where someone just happens to be wearing a Pikachu costume? That's fine. Photographing a Pikachu costume to show Pikachu? No good.) It's a good compromise, but it's Wikimedia Commons' policy, not the law. The law wouldn't insulate a work just because a copyrighted portion is "incidental". So we should be clear that that's a policy decision at the Commons, and isn't directly related to U.S. law.

But we're on the English Wikipedia, not Commons. Our policy is different. Legally, there's no problem with photographing a mascot without getting the copyright-holder's permission: news orgs do it all the time, and "fair use" would obviously cover it. But what is the English Wikipedia's policy? So far as I can tell, image copyright tags are designed to show the copyright status of the image itself, and not of any copyrighted work that is also contained in the picture. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rely? I've always asumed the copyright tags are supposed to show the usability of the images. Yes the photographer have a copyright on the photo, but that doesn't invalidate the copyright on copyrighted objects in the photo. I mean take a photo of one of the guys dressed up as Mickey Mouse in Disneyland and try selling T-shirts with your "free licensed" photo of Mickey printed on it (without any prior permission). Chances are a horde of Disney lawyers would descend on you rater quickly, so obviusly it would be very misleading to have such a photo tagged as "free for any purpose including commercial use etc".— Preceding unsigned comment added by sherool (talk • contribs)

News sources frequently take photos of people dressed as copyrighted characters, and publish them without getting permission from the copyright-holders of the characters. This is because it's clearly "fair use" (I'm referring to U.S. law here, not Wikipedia policy). Usability isn't an issue. Check out the sports page of any newspaper and you'll find photos of mascots - as well as photos that include copyrighted brands and ads in the background. It would be prohibitive to get permission to use all of them -- and unnecessary, since fair use so obviously applies. Again, it's my understanding the image tags refer to the copyright status of the images themselves. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, but news sources generaly don't say that those images can be freely distributed, modified and used for commercial purposes by anyone like we do either. Rater a crutial difference. I've never questioned that those images can be used as fair use, just that it might be a problem to explicitly label them as free content if there would in fact be problems if you tried to expolit them commercialy. --Sherool (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mascots are also usually trademarked, just to add another wrinkle. --Fastfission 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Flickr Permissions

Is it necessary for an email to be sent by Flickr users confirming they are releasing the image under a free license or would just a comment on the photo's Flickr page suffice (or just change the license displayed to a free one?). Also, if an email is necessary, what is the Wikipedia email address to send it to? Thanks IA Arniep 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about comments on the image page, but if the image is listed as available under for example cc-by-sa or some other free Creative Commons license that should be enough (follow the "some rights reserved" link under "additional information" (or something like that) section on the image page on Flickr. If it says "all rights reserved" instead, or the image use an unfree CC license (non-commercial, no derivatives etc) you'll have to ask them for a free license though. The adress to send comfirmations to is "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org", see WP:COPYREQ for details. --Sherool (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What seems to be not very clear is whether you must find out the actual name of the creator of the image- Creative Commons requires that the author be attributed. Arniep 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think atribution have to be by real name. Just whatever way the copyright owner spesified. Lacking any detailed instructions I would say it's safe to just atribute theyr Flickr username (link to theyr userpage or something). --Sherool (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Léon Minkus

There are quite a few images here which look like they are scanned from a concert programme or magazine (the colour ones mainly). Could these be really claimed as fair use on this article? Arniep 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not without a source. I tagged them {{nsd}} and informed the uploader. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of RFU images

Is there any reason why, when images tagged with {{subst:rfu}} are being deleted, they aren't being removed from the corresponding articles' pages? This is leaving a lot of broken images all over the place. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No reason at all. Could orphanbot do this? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists is revived, this time for a concrete proposal. The talk page has been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Website favicons

I've noticed more and more website articles include favicons as a part of the infobox (typically the Infobox Website template). As usual, most of them don't include a fair use rationale, and I honestly can't think of a fair use rationale that could possibly be used for them. Even though they are very small and low resolution, do these actually fall under fair use? It seems that they are included for completion sake, rather than helping to identify the subject. --- RockMFR 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the abovestatement; we had issues like this before when icons started to appear next to links for projects or websites. Those should be discoured heavily, since it is just more fluff to an article and provides no real purpose, not to mention usually unfree and used without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it from the infobox. I'll leave it to others to find all the now-orphaned images. --Rory096 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it! --- RockMFR 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just found Category:Favicons, which should help you if you didn't already know about it. Watch out, though, some aren't fair use and are actually free. --Rory096 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that favicons are actually logos for their respective website and that as such they qualify under {{Logo}}. Perhaps, since there are so many there should be two separate tag created for them. One for fair use icons and another for truely free ones. Kc4 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It was decided in the TfD for Template:Favicon that {{logo}} would suffice for them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well alright then. Kc4 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the goal to eventually have no fair use images?

I was just about to replace the images of Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher in character on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman with this Image:Teri Hatcher Dean Cain.jpg which shows the two actors together at the time the show was running. Does this image provide a suitable free replacement or is it necessary to show what the two actors looked like in character even if the images are non-free? Arniep 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your title question, no, the goal is to eventually have no fair use images where a free image could be made to replace it.

In answer to your question in the text, we can keep the existing images of the characters, even though they are non-free, because it would be impossible to create a free image that showed them in character. The free image you have provided, while great, does not substitute for the images of the characters. (The article could use both.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We could (theoretically) have images taken on set which would show them in character- I'm sure some exist. Arniep 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What about including copyright images of actors appearances in films on their personal page when we have free images- i.e. in Jane Fonda? Arniep 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how the image is used. If the non-free image is used at the top of the page in the infobox, separate from any discussion of that particular role, then it's safe to say the image is being used to illustrate what the person looks like in violation of WP:FUC #1 (and counter-example #8). But if they are illustrated at the top with a free image, and the non-free image is showing what they looked like in a specific role (as in the Jane Fonda article) next to critical discussion of the role, then it's safe to say the image is not replaceable in the article by a free version. One image can be acceptable when used one way in an article, but unacceptable when used for a different purpose in the same article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, so the image at the top of Billy Joel is not fair use..? Arniep 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So let's replace non-free infobox photos in BLP articles with a placeholder that I made today. Before I make my POINT, is this a good idea or bad idea? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good question. Maybe you ought to ask it in its own header, to give the idea more attention. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Discussion continues here. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Statues

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Photographs of copyrighted sculptures/statues: there seems to be some dispute at Template talk:Statue. Lupo 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan Savage

I'll try, when I can get a chance, to snap a pic of Dan Savage; I occasionally cross paths with him. Meanwhile, though, do we really have to remove the one we've got? It's quite clear (see Image talk:Dan-savage.jpg that it is a publicity photo & he has no problem with our using it: he's even remarked favorably in his column on it being a picture of himself that he likes. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know him personally, try to convince him to release that image under the GFDL or a CC-BY-SA license. That would be the best thing to do, especially if he's pleased with it. If the possibility of commercial use bothers him, there's no reason why we couldn't use a smaller-sized version. howcheng {chat} 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had some success with just emailing some podcasters to send me a freely licensed image for wikipedia. They seemed to pretty easily. Much easier than taking a picture myself. It's possible he doesn't have the rights to this particular image, but he could probably provide another. :) - cohesion 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heavy discussion about Fair Use Review

Hi, I have a lengthly debate about fair use image validity of this File:Samsara.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see the talk page). It seems that uploader and editors of a certain project have objected strongly to remove this bad fair use image. Could somebody, an independent reviewer, take a look at them? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}}. If it isn't determined to be irreplaceable by Nov. 7, then the processing admin will have to delete it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Though it's still being disputed? — Indon (reply) — 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how the process works. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't seem to be about either or not it's replacaeble, but about either or not we should use this image regardless of FUC#1. Even those who oppose the image deletion admint it's just a (very good) drawing depicting the concept of reincarnation, and is used to illustrate the article. --Abu Badali 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some more input here as well File:10-haparsim-street.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Thanks ccwaters 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Madonna-Britney image

I am pretty sure that the image in this diff is not fair use- opinions please. Arniep 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. If it were an article on that kiss, then I would say it was fair use. Even if it were an article on Madonna or Brittney, and the image was used in the section that discussed that kiss, I would say it was fair use. Hell, if the bisexual chic article discussed that kiss as a turning point or important historical event in the history of the phenomenon, and if the photo were used in that section, then I might consider it fair use. But as a lead image, in an article that barely discusses the kiss? Not fair use. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that was basically the case. Arniep 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Book cover author photos, and celebrities generally

I just came here as a result of this picture of Alice Sebold being tagged per the above discussion and then doing the "right" thing: a 15-minute Google search to figure out who her current literary agent is (you'd think they'd have their own websites, but apparently they're all too cool for that) and then an email to them asking if it was OK by them for anyone, not just us, to use this picture, since as I documented on the image's talk page I only originally uploaded this image under a promotional claim as a book-jacket photo when I found evidence of its wide Internet reuse without much thought by commercial and noncommercial sites alike to properly crediting or licensing it.

I believe, as I said there, that book-jacket photos come under fair use as promotional material (and I did not see this specific issue addressed above) when used on Wikipedia to illustrate an article about the subject of the image:

• They are freely visible to the public on the back cover or inside jacket of the book. It is not necessary to purchase a copy to view the image.

• They cannot be claimed to illustrate anything within the book.

• Copyright on such photos is usually held by the agency, which has the contractual responsibility to promote the author and his/her works, not the original photographer.

I believe the arguments made in Wikipedia:Publicity photos apply.

That said, as far as theoretically-replaceable fair use images of living people, especially celebrities, goes, I think the cure would be worse than the disease. There are enough stalkers and paparazzi in the world already ... now let's go ahead and create more bad PR for Wikipedia by giving them yet another excuse for their actions: "Oh, I'm just trying to take a good picture of Ms. Spears for Wikipedia". I can see it now ... the supermarket tabloids are going to call them wikirazzi.

And just how theoretically replaceable are some of these images? A publicly accessible beach is not the same thing as a media-averse, reclusive celebrity. I see we are lucky to have a public-domain photo of Thomas Pynchon. But if we had to use that old yearbook photo, would we then bounce it under the argument that, since he's still alive, it would be possible to take a picture of him even though very few people know what he looks like? (I think that falls under the North Korea exception). For J.D. Salinger we have him depicted in a book cover, a violation of fair use appropriately noted on the image page. Is someone going to have to go up to wherever he lives in New Hampshire and get a picture of him? That would be interesting (see this picture of the late Syd Barrett for what you'd likely get as a result).

And pace the Pynchon image, are celebrities' passport photos just easily available from the State Department with a FOIA request? PD or not, I think that even if federal law doesn't forbid it, it should (because then wouldn't a copy of the entire passport be available? It would certainly be a good way of cutting the bullshit youth claims down). Mug shots are public-domain, yes, but I think we can and should do better than illustrating articles about people primarily with their mugshots, especially if they aren't primarily known for whatever got them arrested (I know quite a few geeks think this picture would be just perfect for the infobox in the Bill Gates article, but I don't (and there are problems with what appears to be a perfectly acceptable free-use image already there)).

Just some things to think about as I completed an unexpected evening task. Daniel Case 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Book-flap images are probably legally fair use, but as you discussed above, using them violates our policy if the photos are replaceable. I think we can all agree a photo of Pynchon would be irreplaceable, and if an author is dead or a recluse, a fair use photo would be similarly irreplaceable. But many authors are quite happy to publicize themselves. Your idea of a Wikirazzi is amusing, but I think it would be more likely that celebrities (who crave attention, afterall) would begin habitually releasing PD or CC images, just to make sure they have a good one on Wikipedia. I've seen politicians, porn actresses, authors, and professors voluntarily submit {{NoRightsReserved}} photos (when asked to), just in the last 2 weeks, to make sure their Wikipedia picture catches them in a good light. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point, and I hope that they do respond favorably to entreaties to do so and start setting aside free-use images, recognizing that the Internet era means that they have to deal with a lot more potential publishers and that basically this isn't anything that isn't already happening on a large scale (I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen a great image from say, Flickr, reused on more than one blog but couldn't use it here because of the licensing). But it's still, as my experience showed, a bit of work to find out who someone's agent or publicist is and request the photo be released or relicensed (and I'm talking big-shot Hollywood stars who employ a lot of people to restrict access to themselves). Remember, you may probably be talking to someone who couldn't tell fair-use law from a whole in the ground, and who may only understand their job in terms of keeping the hoi polloi at a distance from the client — and thus, you may get denied when you really shouldn't be.

In my request to Sebold's agent, I also tried to recognize something we all should if we embark on writing these requests: that talent agencies may also be leery of essentially giving away their favorite photographers' work, even if the photographer has already been paid and the copyright signed over to them. And remember they also get touchy about their clients' likeness rights, which courts have been more protective of in recent years.

So, I have also offered to take a picture of Sebold myself if time permits. Daniel Case 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See this image for one of a notable individual I did take myself, with his full knowledge of what I was doing it for (and permission). Daniel Case 04:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To continue what I was saying before I had to leave my desk: I don't know if you've yet dealt with the publicists for major celebrities. For a variety of reasons, some understandable, some not, they may not be so amenable to releasing rights as the politicians, porn stars, authors and professors you've already dealt with. Even if they shouldn't be. And IMO that has a quantifiable effect on whether the picture can truly be considered replaceable. (Take a look at Michael Jackson for an article that goes through some rather interesting gyrations to try to find usable images of a subject for whom many perfectly good fair-use images exist. We've got a seriously edited 22-year-old PD photo).

I was going to ask what happens to the {{Promotional}} template until I read up above and found that the current goal is to have no irreplaceable fair use images.

What is the current timetable for implementing this "nuking"? If you use a bot and set just about every eligible image on Wikipedia up for deletion over a 24-hour period, it's going to be a real test for civility.

And I hope you realize what you open the door to when you basically hold a gun to people's heads and give them seven days to come up with a free-use image. What if someone talented enough decides to draw their own portrait/caricatures of celebrities and release them under the GFDL, CC, or whatever? I like that sort of thing in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Review of Books but I don't think it's Wikipedia.

Or, another solution: The CC-licensed Flickr-found picture captioned "This isn't X, but it's someone who looks sort of like him/her and we could use this picture." Or the guy with the blonde wig on and the caption "My older brother dressed up to look like Madonna". The possibilities are limitless, but the overall effect would be sort of like Homer Simpson saying "We have no affiliation with al-jazeera.com; we're just piggybacking on their website". That would be great stuff on Uncyclopedia, I think.

In sum, I would strongly suggest doing this through a new WikiProject and working to get image uploaders to help get either changes in licensing or replacement images. Daniel Case 04:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head, they have 7 days to convince us that the image in question is not replacable, that's all. If it takes 5 years before someone can actualy get a free licensed image then so be it, we are not on a deadline. In the meantime the absense of a photo does not inhibit our ability to write a "perfect" article about the subject, and fair use images are still permissable if used as ilustration in a section about a important non-reproducable event involving the subject. As for the "wikirazzi" stuff above that's just silly. No one is asking people to stalk celebreties and hide in theyr bushes. We don't need the kind of "unique" or "private" photos pararazzi are usualy after. Most celebreties will make various publc aperances wether it's charity events, award ceremonies, concerts, book signings, autograph sessions or court dates. So there are usualy some kind of photo oppotunity. Heck maybe the foundation could "deputise" someone to act as an "official" Wikipedia photographer for an event and apply for a press pass. If they let bloggers and podcasters in that way why not a Wikipedia "representative" (dunno how those things work, just brainstorming) --Sherool (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but Jimbo is quoted saying above that "We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even 'wikipedia only' photo". Say what you will and I certainly understand his point, but at least a few self-righteouswell-meaning users are going to interpret that as a fatwa to just get rid of images willy-nilly. I can see the RFCs coming.

And I guarantee you another well-meaning user will stick a picture with less-defensible fair use right back in any celebrity biography article. And the cycle starts over again, until the original purgists get tired of it. Writing a perfect article just won't do for most editors and readers where celebrities are concerned if it takes them five years to get someone to upload a poorly-exposed camera phone photo under GFDL.

This would encourage stalking. That's why agencies allow promo photos to be freely disseminated. What do we do the day someone catches Madonna in the john and puts that picture in the article because, hey, it's free-use and we deleted all the fair-use images, which is to say all of the images, of a woman for whom thousands of pictures are available online? I could make a good argument, were I her lawyer, that a policy that so actively discourages the use of freely-provided media on the grounds that it isn't provided freely enough for us yet simultaneously encourages editors to "Be bold!" constitutes contributory negligence toward invasion of privacy by the Wikimedia Foundation. Have we vouched, can we vouch, for the good character and responsible behavior of all these people, for instance?

What would we do if someone sets up a project page listing, or hoping to list, home addresses of not just, say, big stars (those are widely known already) but minor ones (and given our notability policies regarding actors, that's an awful lot of people) and other people for whom a free-use image needs to be obtained? And not just that, but known hangouts, like their dentists' offices or something? Something that someone like this could make good use of, for instance?

No, we are not asking people to stalk celebrities. We wouldn't have to. When you tell people you don't care how they got the picture as long as it's GFDL, CC or NRR, without instituting a policy that irresponsibly or illegally taken images must be deleted (and that would not be easily settled, let me tell you, even on a case-by-case basis), you ask for whatever you get. In every sense of the phrase.

We don't need the kind of photos papparazzi usually take, true. But we will wind up with them, especially since nothing can stop them from uploading them here as free images especially if they can't sell them but want to make a name for themselves. What we need are the kind of professionally taken and posed headshots that an agent or publicist, if he or she is doing their job, cannot let enough people see. The kind that already circulate freely on the Internet.

If we really want to replace fair-use images with free ones in living-people celebrity bios, the way to do it is to go to the big talent agencies and ask them to make a bunch of pictures freely available and then upload them to the Commons. Or your idea of getting media accreditation (it might be easier than you think ... I'd do it under the Wikinews auspices though). Daniel Case 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actualy on closer examination the press credential idea would aparently be a bad one. Per this blog entry by the chief legal officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. Basicaly acrediting users as press would make the foundation directly liable for all content published on the site simmilar to how a newspaper editor is responsible for the content published in his paper. Clearly not a good legal possision to be in. --Sherool (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we're back to square one, or in this case square zero ... the previous policy of finding acceptable publicity photos online and using them. Daniel Case 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought ... what if someone at Wikinews applies to a credentialing organization for an event (like a premiere) on their own, submitting the required number of stories with the application? That's often how it's done, and it doesn't involve the foundation. You could get a White House day pass (a la Jeff Gannon) that way. Daniel Case 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the choice between a top-20 website featuring a nose-picking blurry camera-phone shot of a client, vs freeing up a single low-res version of a single promophoto, I suspect a lot of agents would suddenly take an interest in the wonders of free licenses. Somebody should work up a standard form letter, perhaps with a couple of side-by-side examples to drive the point home. :-) Agents work hard to make sure their clients are always seen at their best, it's simply part of their jobs to make sure WP has a best-possible image - if free license is what it takes to get it into WP, that's what they'll do. But no one will take us seriously on this point unless we actually start whacking the nonfree images. Stan 07:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - per Stan. Plus not all wikipedias can use fair use images, by encouraging the creation of free works (or the re-licensing of copyright works) we make sure that all wikipedias and downstream users have material that they can use. If something is impossible to describable in words, and essential to the article then we can use it under fair use. Additionally I don't see why every biography needs a picture of the person concerned. To take the earlier example of J. D. Salinger, he's not notable for his appearance, he's notable for his fiction. Megapixie 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think pictures of a particular living person are helpful to an article as a way of proving the person really exists, of giving the reader someone to envision. Salinger, after all, was a public person in the past. There's a great '50s photo of him that's better for the article than the book cover (and he looks the same) and seems to be widely reused. This is an apparent contemporary photo.

Addendum to this argument: Salinger's notability as an author is, like Pynchon's, enhanced by his aversion to publicity. Any pictures of him are thus relevant to the article (although that book-jacket cannot be used that way unless it were the only picture of Salinger available ... but it's not). Daniel Case 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have warmed to this idea in the last couple of days as I have looked over at Flickr, discovered (as other editors have) Alan Light's stash of CC-BY-2.0 celeb pics and added them where appropriate (I think Kyle MacLachlan should be very happy with his picture). We may be more able to do this than I thought. I think it might help if we got a free image good enough for consideration, if not acceptance, as a featured picture. There are practically no portraits of living people in that gallery, as yet.

Still, we need some guidelines that would establish when replacing the image would be so practically difficult even if the subject is alive or in existence that a fair-use image can stay until and unless a free-use one gets created. Perhaps I shall draft some later. (And this goes not just for people. As long as the Barcelona Pavilion remained demolished, a fair-use picture would have been justified. Since it was reconstructed, I see we have a free-use one).

Two caveats on dealing with stars' agents or publicists, though.

*They may not own the rights to pictures of clients they distribute, as I have found with Alice Sebold.

*I also would be damn sure they'd look at the article first before clearing a picture. And for a lot of them, finding negative material about a client would probably be enough to lead them to deny the photos.

Could we possibly have it as a criterion for replaceability that not only would access to the subject be very limited or practically difficult, all efforts to persuade rightsholders of existing images to change licensing have been unsuccessful. Daniel Case 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"finding negative material about a client would probably be enough to lead them to deny the photos" - that would be a very stupid agent (although I'm sure that such exist :-) ). If an article mentions the client's arrest, would you rather have the accompanying visual be a charming portrait of innocence, or the mugshot? In fact, donating a nice picture is about the best policy-compliant thing an agent can do for a client's article. Stan 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, we're talking not so much agents here as publicists. And these people have been known to err on the side of paranoia ... "I would be taking bread out of my children's mouths if I let you use this picture with this article mentioning the drug bust when he was sixteen!"

Also consider that Tom Cruise's infamous couch jump happened after he replaced his longtime publicist with ... his sister. Is it any surprise she thought that was utterly cute?

Publicists are paid to do what they can to protect a client's image. Period. If that means they exert what little power they can over a web site, even one widely read for information about the client, they'll do it. If your next mortgage payment depended on keeping some mercurial 21-year-old with a serious cocaine addiction happy, you'd do it.

We saw sometime ago that congressional staffers had no problem removing negative information about the members they worked for, even when it led to the entire U.S. House and a couple of Senate offices getting blocked. Some publicists may see it your way. I don't think all of them will. Daniel Case 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for a long argument, but I'd like to weigh in with an opinion on the current policy. The current interpretation of "freely-licensed images could reasonably be created" means, in effect, that "promotional" photos of living people are disallowed. If this really is our intent -- if we really would rather have no image as opposed to a perfectly valid official promotional photograph -- than Template:Promotional needs to be modified to explicitly state that it applies only to dead people.

But personally, I think this is silly. I am not a copyright vandal and I do not condone the bending of rules in order to use images inappropriately, but encyclopedia pages like ours are precisely the sorts of things that officially-released promotional photos are specifically designed for. To disavail ourselves of their use, or to set the bar for using them so high that in practice they don't get used, is counterproductive and unnecessary. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not that no promo photos of living people are allowed. The policy is that no replaceable promo photos (or any other photos) are allowed, and most of the time a promo photo of a living person is replaceable. (Exceptions might include where the promo photo shows a person in a unique event or situation which is no longer existent, where that event or situation is important to the article.) Template:Promotional does, in fact, require that the photo be non-replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

With regards to the language in the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, what does "first fair use criterion" mean? Does it mean No. 1 on Wikipedia:Fair use criteria?

After reading the first criteria, it's difficult for me to understand what exactly is wrong with the flagged images in many cases. I go there looking for answers and end up even more confused.

I'm not disputing the goal of the RFU scheme - to make Wikipedia truly free - but I do dispute the heavy handed manner in which it is being carried out without a general announcement to everyone (and I do mean everyone - tell the world!) that fair-use images, except for film posters, album covers and other non-replaceable ephemera are no longer acceptable on Wikipedia.

Another concern I have is this: I get the sense that if the image, such as a {{promophoto}} is the only image on the page, or is the first image on the page, it is being automatically flagged with the RFU tag. What about the articles where a DVD screencap is being used as the primary image? Are those images next up for flagging?-Wisekwai 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in either issue, so if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, read all the above debates, or ask again

1. {{Replaceable fair use}}. Yes, the criterion in the tag is as you describe. The template was introduced to allow a debate on the image page, with deletion after seven days, rather than the more bureacratic IFD process. You should challenge and debate how the criterion applies to the image if you disagree. As regards announcing it, it seems the approach was to introduce it gradually on a few thousand images, so the announcement goes directly to the uploader of the image. It is not a new policy, just a new process to streamline the deletion debates. (For streamlining you can read railroad, depending on your point of view.)
2. What is next after {{promophoto}}? The wording on {{promophoto}} was, until recently, contradictory to Wikipedia:Fair use policy. This meant that unfortunately many editors were misled into uploading and using unfree headshots that violated Fair Use Criterion #1 (replaceability.) I have tagged a few promophotos myself with the new tag, as I always disliked them: they oppose the five pillars. As regards what is next, it is whatever a particular volunteer has the time and motivation to tag, or program a BOT to tag.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

fair use image RfC

There are a whole bunch of replaceable fair use images uploaded by Badagnani, an established editor and a good editor. Fair use disputed, the uploader is claiming pretty vociferously that the images are allowable, and is feeling poorly used. Partly to give him his day in court so to speak, and partly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: User talk:Herostratus/Image RfC. Herostratus 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portals

The amendment for fair use in portals (Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals) has gotten stale, and no consensus has been reached for either side. Thus, I'm listing it on this talk page again so that we can hopefully get some fresh ideas. Ddcc 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

An RfC that touches on some issues related to {{rfu}} tagging has been opened here. (I'm posting this here in the hope of ending recruitment-like notifications to individual talk pages by RfC participants.) --Robth^Talk 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Just wanted to remind everybody that, if the talk page of an image you are deleting contains deletion-related discussion, that talk page should not be deleted to preserve the record of the discussion. (Or at least, this is my reading of WP:CSD#G8.) This has been happening a fair amount lately with rfu tagged images. --Robth^Talk 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

In the past few days I've run across a number of classic books published before 1923 illustrated with book covers of modern editions, tagged fair use. Since in many cases images of covers, title pages, illustrations, etc. of these books are available on the web, there's really no reason for these to be tagged fair use (and there's really no fair use argument to be made, since there's never anything about that particular book cover that's discussed). I would like to compile a list of these and go through and replace as many of them as possible. Examples: here's one I just did, and another that Lupo did the other day. I was thinking of doing this as a subpage in my userspace, but could also do it here if people are interested. Either way, I'd appreciate any help anyone wants to give. I think this will be a relatively easy way to replace potentially a large number of borderline fair use images. Let me know. Chick Bowen 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten started here. This should give you a sense of the problem but also of the solution--the PD images that are available on the web. Chick Bowen 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Handed use of {{Replaceable fair use}} and suggestion

I've unfortunately become involved in the replaceable fair use image debate through the maintenance actions of Chowbok. Chowbok has gone through many of the articles about United States Governors and simply marked them as replacable fair use and nominated them for speedy deletion. I come into the picture with Jennifer Granholm's photo, as I'm from Michigan and have that article on my watchlist. Chowbok's actions seem to me as a rather heavy handed interpretation of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Replaceable_fair_use. As a contributor of several original images to Wikipedia that I license under CC-SA-2.5, many of which to replace fair use material, I can certainly understand the motivation behind getting fully free images. They're clear and free and anyone can do whatever they like with them. But it just seems too easy for a random person to go through and make summary judgments like: "Oh, this is a fair use image, there must be a free alternative out there somewhere, so I'll mark this for deletion, and let someone else do all the hard work of actually finding/creating the image". In my opinion, I think some hubris for finding a new image should be on the person who has deemed it easily replaceable. I mean, if it is so easy to find a replacement, why doesn't the person tagging it make some effort at researching for a free replacement? At least in the case of Chowbok and the Governor's photos, none has been made at finding one.

In the course of thinking about the matter, I've repeated some effort. I started designing an in-line template to put in the caption of images, only to discover there was one already made. {{Replacethisimage}} was created to try and encourage people to upload new versions of photos. As noted by some earlier, it hasn't had the desired effect of motivating people to do anything about the images. A more obvious template could be created, but I doubt that would help. So, after thinking about it some, I think defacing fair use images may be a viable option. This would require either a 3rd party bot or some modification to the wiki software, but given the scale of the "fair use problem" and the ultimate goal, to have as many free images as possible, it's probably worth it. Programatically defacing fair use images would apply incentives to find or create replacements that are freely licensed, while still allowing something of an illustration to remain rather than summary deletion.

The only problem here is that there are legitimate fair use images out there that you might not want to watermark; the Elian Gonzales photo was mentioned as a good example of a copyrighted images that cannot be replaced.

So I've come up with an idea and then shot it down. I do that a lot. But it's the only "middle ground" idea I can think of. I understand the goal, but I also don't agree with the heavy handed interpretation of the discussions here, namely the deletion of good fair use content, like the photos of Governor's that are taken from their press kits issued by their state governments. --Jeff 10:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

hi there - 2 points - 1st one i will mail u about. secondly there is a debate on Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use on this very topic (and sorry to be a bore.)..luke 11:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Offical headhshots are unique photographic content that cannot be replicated by other photos (unless you can get the governors to sit down for your own personal photo shoot.). If we didnt use these headhsots we would create a different standard than is used for Senators, US Representatives, the President, the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries. It would be to the detriment of the wikipedia project to delete these images.--PhotographerLens 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the official headshot, then that's true. But if the article is about the person, then the official headshot can be replaced by any picture of the person. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor is on a "jihad" to destroy the governor's pages. Headshots are "fair use" and the best to use for the info boxes. Should we delete every fair use image? Every screen shot? Every magazine cover? No. Rigid and foolish orders like these would diminsh the seriousness of the wikipedia project.--Megatropolis 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be foolish, but nobody is proposing that. These governors are very public figures; they appear at a great number of public events every year. It would not be at all difficult for someone to take a picture of them, and so Wikipedia does not accept fair use images of them, preferring to incentivize the creation of a free photograph. --Robth^Talk 22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not just governors, and it's not just User:Chowbok. See for example Fannie Flagg, Gene Robinson, and Neil Patrick Harris. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page.

Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it. But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked. Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not support watermarking Fair Use Images or any images. Even if the ability to replace them is debated, the fact that they're being used at all means that a Free Use image is either hard or impossible to come by, and I see no good reason to deface a photo that may end up being highly visible in important articles for an indefinite period of time. However, I do agree that many editors interpret the 1st Fair Use Criterion far too strictly; it's been highly debated in Evanescence, an article that I frequently work on. Feel free to leave additional feedback on my talk page. – Lantoka (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template input

What are people's thoughts on {{Amazonimages}}. Seems odd, there are a lot of transclusions. - cohesion 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a relic from the 2004 discussion at Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com that aimed to gain permission from Amazon to use their images of album covers. The plan obviously didn't pan-out because even if Amazon digitizes the covers, they do not hold their copyrights. I don't see the use in keeping the template around, but is it worth the trouble to get rid of it? It has 388 transclusions. ×Meegs 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about product packaging and labelling

I'd like to turn your attention to a conversation that is going on at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#Trademark template. This conversation began as a question about outside trademarks at WP, and how we handle them here. We are now looking at possibly constructing a new Fair Use template for product packaging and labelling. There are still a few questions there, so your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! tiZom_(2¢) 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This would basically be a more generic version of existing fair use templates such as Template:Cereal box cover, Template:Boardgamecover, Template:Albumcover, etc. to cover those products that don't have a specific template. Ostensibly the logic is the same however. Kaldari 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Promophoto parameter

On Template talk:Promophoto, I've suggested adding a parameter to the template for the url at which it is indicated that the photo is promotional. Far too many of the photos we apply this tag to are merely presumed to be promotional, and may actually be stock press photos or something else altogether. Comments on the idea (and the technical savvy to actually implement it) would be welcome. --Robth^Talk 05:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My question would be...what's the point if all that happens is they get immediately removed in 99% of cases anyway? My images have been legitimate fair use promo photos and they have been blown away for anyone living. Tvccs 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A user page issue

Would someone from the Project be willing to try their hand at communicating with Bowsy (talk · contribs) regarding the use of images on his user page? I removed the image from his user page several days ago (it was a copyright image of Bowser from the Mario series that he was using to illustrate where his user name comes from. For the last 5 days or so, Bowsy has been harrassing me about it at my user page User_talk:Metros232#You_vandalised_MY_User_Page.21. He's gone as far as to claim I'm making up the guidelines of WP:USER because the first time I quoted it I made a typo in the link to it and it was turning up as a redlink. Can someone please help me out? I've exhausted my limit with this issue. Metros232 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not only at WP:USER, but also at WP:FUC, bullet 9, where fair use photos can only be used in the article space. I am going to remove the photo again, tell him not to put it back in, and if he does it again, I would suggest protection of the userpage. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:31, 10 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)

Book covers--come and help out

I've started WikiProject Free book covers, which used to be in my user space, as a project to replace fair use images of old books with PD ones. All of these images are affected by the replaceable clause of the fair use policy, so this is a crucial task. We've gotten a lot done while it was in user space but there's still a lot of work to be done, so please come lend a hand. Every replacement advertises the project, so even doing one or two will help. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Chick Bowen 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I did one from the list a while ago. Also note commons:Category:Book covers. Jkelly 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that--thanks. And yes, that's a good link, and I'll add it to the project page. Chick Bowen 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale guideline

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 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could some more people take a look at this and comment? Is anyone opposed to this becoming a guideline? - cohesion 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Game tag merge

See Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge. I'm trying to centralize discussion there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of promotional photographs

Hi all,

There is a vote to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people. Some people believe the fair use policy currently disallows fair use of promotional photographs of living people if they occasionally make public appearances, others disagree with this. This proposal would clarify the issue.

Cedars 22:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

The end of Fair use has begun: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stop fair use --ROBERTO DAN 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Help replace fair use

Fair use sound recordings are being used on a number of music articles to illustrate important musical concepts and pieces; however, for some of these recordings the music itself is in the public domain, and could be replaced by freely licensed recordings. Wikipedia:Requested recordings' goal is to match up needed recordings with people with the resources to record them. Please participate if you can, and spread the word. Thanks, Mak (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

{{No rationale}}

Please see Template talk:No rationale. I started a discussion there that no one seems to be interested in. Basically, CSD I5 originally applied only to images tagged with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} but somehow the interpretation has been broadened to all fair use tags -- I don't remember any discussion on this -- but IMHO the wording is still confusing. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request input

Can I get some more input on Template talk:PermissionAndFairUse. This template is pretty much useless, and shouldn't be used. It's more a holdover from a more vague type of fair use template. Then the permission part got stripped away from it and given to the {{withpermission}} template. So, now it just sits there useless. I'd like to just redirect it to Template:Restricted use along with the others that point there already. - cohesion 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely - the template is a bizarre leftover from the Bronze Age of WP. :-) Stan 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)