Talk:List of photographs by Edward Weston

Untitled
I have just added this page and am beginning to add images. I will fill in missing images and later years as I have time.Lexaxis7 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This page was proposed for deletion because of the use of multiple copyrighted images. However, I believe the use here fits under the guidelines established in the court case Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, which held that a gallery of thumbnail images meets the fair use standard. As far as the issue of the value of this page, there are other examples in Wikipedia of listings of an artist's work, such as List of paintings by Paul Cézanne, that have been in place for many months without any objections.Lexaxis7 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire images column from this article for failing WP:NFCC. In particular, we do not use non-free images in table format as was done here, per WP:NFG. The reason for this is it almost always fails WP:NFCC #8 significance and #3 minimal use. If there's an article on the image, then it's appropriate to link to that article, as has been done with Pepper No. 30. Further, the purpose in the fair use rationales for each of these images was "Used in the List of photographs by Edward Weston". If that's all it took to include non-free images in any article we want, there'd be no limit to how many could be used. The reference you make to the Kelly V Arriba case has little relevance here. Wikipedia's non-free content is deliberately, and considerably, more strict than fair use law in the United States. As to using List of paintings by Paul Cézanne as an example to be followed, the issue there is that all of that artist's works are now in the public domain by way of age. Therefore, that list has no relevance here in this issue. I've orphaned most of the images that were on this article, and they will be deleted in 7 days as a result. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your decision and won't replace the images. However, I find it interesting that Wikipedia's policy is more restrictive than what the law allows. It seems odd that the decision-makers at Wikipedia choose to knowingly inhibit the transmission of information. The finding in the court case is clear: the publication of thumbnail images meets the fair use standard.Lexaxis7 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason behind the considerably stricter stance on non-free content has nothing to do with fair use law and everything to do with the desire to be a free content resource. See Mission. If our concern was only about whether we could use things freely, there'd be no issue. But our concern is about the ability to be free in how we use our content. It's a subtle difference that creates a massive divide between the two realities. See also Gratis versus Libre. The issue isn't about knowingly inhibiting transmission of information. It is about preventing others from inhibiting the conveyance of free information. The more non-free content that is added, the less free the resource becomes. So, we strive hard to limit non-free content as much as possible while still remaining an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clarification. This is a very interesting rationale that was not clear to me prior to this, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain the thinking that went into this policy. That being said, I do think the policy creates somewhat of a double standard. Perhaps I still don't understand the subtleties, but it seems to me that if I had created an individual article on each of those images this issue might not have arisen. But because I put them together in a gallery it was seen as being in conflict with being a free-content source. However, if I had created individual articles the images would have been available just the same. My point is that a thumbnail image is nearly useless for anything except quick reference, and, as the courts have recognized, they meet fair use standards when used for identification purposes. There are thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of fair use images already published in Wikipedia, so it appears that the standard of free content has already been corrupted. I would understand a policy of allowing no fair use content because that sets a clear boundary. But once you do allow it, who is to say what the limits are? Is three too many? How about six? Where does one draw the line on "inhibiting the conveyance of free information"?Lexaxis7 (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you created an article for each of those images, then the issue becomes a question of notability. See Notability. An article can't exist just because we can create it. Unless an article can sustain itself independently, with secondary sources to support it, it would never last long here. As for the thumbnail sizes and court decisions, again it's irrelevant. Our non-free content policy isn't fair use law. As to the number of non-free media files, we have 383,464 as of yesterday. I agree the standard of free content has already been corrupted. Have a look at my userpage, specifically the userbox on the top of the right hand column. Regardless, even if we agree that we've lost our way towards the mission, it does not create a situation where we permit even more abuse of the mission. Of interest; the German language Wikipedia does not permit any non-free content whatsoever. They're the second most popular language on this project. As to there being a specific number that might be allowed, that's been soundly rejected many times in the past, most recently just this month. See this discussion, and click on "show" on the right side of the orange bar there. The RfC immediately following that one is of some interest as well. Also of note; this article's use of 22 no free images placed it as tied for 11th highest on this language project for the use of non-free images. I.e., only 10 articles have more non-free content than this article had. More than 3.5 million articles had less non-free content. To get so high, there needs to be very exceptional reasoning. A simple list of works is essentially an automatic fail. We don't permit album covers in discographies, for example, for this very reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ironic: On your own page you have this stamp" This user finds that the only way to stop the fair use arguments is to allow as much fair use as possible, regardless of resolution, mission or policy." How can I find a rational position with someone who argues both for and against the same issue?Lexaxis7 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I work to reduce the over dependence on non-free media by this project. I also happen to recognize that the only way the non-stop arguments over non-free media use are going to end is for non-free media to be allowed here to the fullest extent permissible under fair use law. I don't find those positions to be in opposition to each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection
I am removing the tag. Edward Weston is certainly a notable photographer and over time I think it would be appropriate to expand this list with thumbnail sized images (which will not be a violation of fair use) and more information and perhaps articles on his most notable photographs. WikiManOne (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After making the above comment I noticed the elaborate conversation in progress above. I usually don't focus on this area of wikipedia, thus, I will stay clear of this discussion. Please do as you feel best. WikiManOne (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your view, but apparently one or more of the Wikipedia bureaucrats don't. I have more important things to do, which is why I gave up the argument for now. You either allow non-free content or you don't. Once the line is crossed, it will continue to be crossed.Lexaxis7 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not not a Bureaucrats. I'm not even a Administrators. I have absolutely no special privileges on this project, even reviewer, or rollbacker. In fact, I'm nothing but an editor. I have no objection to the existence of the article. I have objections to the mass overuse of non-free media as was being conducted on this page, as I outlined in the section above. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)