File talk:Brodeurbook.jpg

Regarding the fair use rationale: it is not particularly strong, but it can be stronger. IMHO the image is not "a low resolution copy of a book cover", but is in fact rather high as it could be scaled down by one-half and still have the same effect; further, though "the image is being used for informative purposes and only appears next to the mention of the book in the text" that is not a particularly strong reason for including non-free content on Wikipedia. Further we need to know who the copyright holder is. Is the image licensed by an independent photographer to be published by the publisher? Is the image a work for hire and thus owned by the publisher? There may be some indication of the copyright status inside the book cover, on the title page or at the publishing house. In general, I would like to see: So, basically, the fair use rationale needs major expanding and we need a more clear idea of who the copyright holder is so that we can actually assert that the market of the copyright holder will not be infringed upon. --Iamunknown 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image scaled down
 * A more clear identification of the copyright holder
 * A statement regarding how it does not limit the copyright owner's ability to sell the image
 * Is it because, though the book cover may be viewed by many readers of Wikipedia, significantly little information as to cut into the market value of the book?
 * Is it because copies made from this digital reproduction will be of very inferior quality compared to the original and will not infringe upon the potential market?
 * A statement specifically addressing how the non-free interacts with and complements the text and why it is necessary
 * An expansion on why "no free alternative exists or could be created"
 * And anything else I cannot currently think of :-P.
 * I uploaded a scaled down version, as for the rest this rationale is similar to every other rationale on current FAs such as Jenna Jameson, Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien etc. Does need source info. Quadzilla99 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully expected at least part of my argument to be disregarded, Quadzilla, but I didn't expect it all to be disregarded. Are you suggesting that all my points are moot?  I don't take that personally, but I am surprised because I was trying to help and, whether or not you concern yourself with some of my more extreme suggestions, I would recommend that you consider at least a few of them.  For example,
 * Why can't a free alternative be created? It isn't a trick question.
 * Why does it not affect the copyright owner's market? That should be pretty easy too.
 * How does it interact with the text in a more specific sense than "informatve [sic] purposes and only appears next to the mention of the book in the text". That should be pretty easy to identify.
 * Oh, and use hash marks, not individual numbers. --Iamunknown 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to be rude or anything Iamunknown, but it's a book cover that virtually nobody has said a peep about for the past month during this article's FA nomination. And it's an autobiography that was done by Brodeur himself and Damien Cox, a news columnist. If they are going to object to their book cover being in Brodeur's Wikipedia article, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Sportskido8 05:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what I write before you type, Sportskido8, I never said I object to the book cover being in Broduer's Wikipedia article. Thank you, Iamunknown 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you don't object to it. You're just trying to be as difficult as possible, that's all. It's pretty clear that if nobody else had a problem with this for an entire month that this is just a trivial matter that didn't deserve as much attention as it got. Sportskido8 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't suggest that I am just trying to be as difficult as possible, Sportskido8, you cannot read my mind. I started monitoring FAC just yesterday after complaints I received from editors who had gotten articles through the FAC gauntlet which later were found to have numerable copyright issues.  I am now here to work as many of those out as I can before the article is on the main page.  If you are unwilling to recognize that I am working here in good faith, then I have no intention of carrying any further conversation with you.  --Iamunknown 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're new at reviewing FAC articles, here's a tip. Instead of outright objecting to an article because of one measly picture (a small one, nonetheless), maybe use the word "comment", or "weak object" first, because an objection to this article after all the work that has gone into it is a real slap in the face.


 * Perhaps I didn't mean that you were trying to be difficult, but instead that you were being difficult. I don't need to read any minds to have that opinion. It is an observation. If you don't want to speak with me then get this settled with Quadzilla, who seems to be able to tolerate you more. Sportskido8 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Iamunknown 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I wasn't disregarding you, I just stated that I thought it was satisfactory. To be clear I've helped a tiny bit with this article but this is mostly Sportskido's project, all I was saying is that I've done what I think is satisfactory. I'm under no obligation to go out of my way as I was just trying to help out. Incidentally, I almost use hash marks here I just decided not to do it this time, it really doesn't matter. Maybe someone else can address your concerns, like I said I was just trying to help out. Quadzilla99 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your fair use rationale, and do not see a reason to look into this further. Sportskido8 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Further comments
I apologise if my original comments and intentions were vague and unclear and I apologise for getting all flustered; I think that using the image in the article is an appropriate use of non-free content. My only wishes now are the fair use rationale is strengthened. Would one of you please be willing to do it? Here are my direct, actionable suggestions:


 * Regarding the formatting of the list (per WP:LIST):
 * Replace the "1.", "2.", etc. with "#", "#", to make a numbered list
 * Capitalise the titles of the list items
 * Do not add punctuation to the end of each individual item
 * Regarding the individual claims:
 * Replace the statement "the image is being used for informatve purposes and only appears next to the mention of the book in the text." with the two items "The image is the cover of a book whose contents are discussed in the text next to which it appears"
 * The use of the image on Wikipedia does not limit the copyright owner's right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work because interested readers still must buy or acquire a licensed copy of the book to acquire information
 * The use of the image on Wikipedia does not make the image significantly more accessible because it is used on various booksellers' websites
 * The image is of inferior quality to the original; copies made from the image will be of grossly insufficient quality as to be useful for unauthorized reprinting
 * The use of the image on Wikipedia is in an informative, encyclopedic context; it does not detract from the original in any way
 * The image, as a cover of a recently published book, cannot be replaced by a freely licensed, public domain or user-created work
 * Remove Non-free fair use in, bookcover is enough
 * Regarding the summary
 * Replace the summary with "This is the dust jacket of Martin Brodeur's autobiography, Brodeur: Beyond the Crease. It was retrieved from from [URL Barnes & Noble.com].  It is presumed that the copyright to the image is owned by the publisher of the book, Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.  Though it is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia, I, [USERNAME], assert that its use in the article Martin Brodeur is asserted to be fair use under United States copyright law because: [FAIR USE RATIONALE FOLLOWS]"

Anyways, those are my suggestions. I apologise that I was offensive in how I conducted myself; as I stated earlier, this is my first foray into WP:FAC and I had no idea that stating "Oppose" as opposed to "Weak oppose" based upon something that I considered to be a perfectly valid oppose would generate so much fervor. I guess I would appreciate a little less WP:BITE and a little more WP:AGF, but I understand that I probably don't deserve it anyways. Regards, Iamunknown 06:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about being hostile, I've just been battling small, insignificant objections to this article for a while now. This one had some credibility though, I guess. Anyhow, I added your fair use rationale. Is it good now? Sportskido8 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)