Template talk:Non-free album cover/Archive 1

Fair use rationale needs changing
This discussion has been refactored as of this edit. Jkelly 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly suggests following change :It is believed that the use of images of album or single covers to illustrate the album or single in question, or the artist that recorded the album or single, or a song that appeared on the album or single, or as decoration in artist discographies, or as a guide to navigation in artist-specific templates or album templates, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

User:JYolkowski: If you want to use album covers in the artist's or single's page, write a paragraph about the album, and use the cover to illustrate that paragraph. There's probably no valid fair use rationale we could make to use the images for decorative purposes.

User:Jkelly: Our fair use rationale/this template should cover all uses album covers are being put to.

JYolkowski:If this template does not accurately describe what we are doing with them, then we should remove uses that don't qualify. I don't think there's a consensus that the uses that you describe are fair use. // talk 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I don't know what "consensus use" is supposed to mean or what its relationship is supposed to be for forming policy. --Fastfission 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: My concern is that we are lacking a fair use rationale.


 * Because copyright compliance is of paramount importance to the project, our fair use guidelines need to be written to ensure that we're compliant with United States copyright law, and then bring articles in step with those guidelines, not the other way around. While a lot of users who may or may not be familiar with copyright laws use album covers in all kinds of contexts, the important question is whether such contexts would qualify as fair use.  With regards to that question, I would think that the template's current wording reflects general consensus as to what use of these images is fair.  JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly:Policy/rationale don't seem enforcable or descriptive.


 * I'm not sure why we're cross-posting when we're all three reading the responses at all locations. Your reasoning in general on this, if I understand this, is "There are instances in which the guidelines are not being followed. Rather than try and enforce compliance to guidelines, we should just scrap the guidelines." I'm afraid I don't find that sound or sensible reasoning. --Fastfission 17:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: Narrowness of wording conflicts with liberalness of use. I think reasonable people could assume we have no rationale for many of our uses. I note that no other editor seems to think that there is a problem and am increasingly open to the idea that I have a idiosyncratic definition of the words "decoration" and "solely".


 * I don't think it's unenforceable. If there is dispute over whether something meets our fair use guidelines, it needs to be discussed to determine consensus.  Just like any other article content dispute, really.  There might be a great deal of room for interpreting NPOV or any other content policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean that we should water them down to dovetail with the content of our articles.
 * Regarding that fact that you feel that no other editor seems to think there is a problem: The templates have been worded with the specific uses in mind to educate people at a grassroots level.  If someone sees an image tagged as albumcover, they know that it should be used to illustrate the album itself, not to illustrate some tangentially related subject.  This is not enforced as thoroughly as our NPOV policy, say, because there has only been a significant emphasis on "fair use" issues for the past few months.  Less than three months ago this template contained a vague, blanket statement that might encourage people to think that this image could be "fair use" anywhere.  Less than two months ago, Fair use contained similar incorrect statements.  However, as editors become more familiar with the templates and guidelines, they will likely start to enforce the guidelines themselves, similar to how editors enforce the NPOV policy now.
 * It is possible that an album cover could be fair use in contexts other than what's specified on the template, but that would require a detailed, additional fair use rationale explaining why. Perhaps if you gave some current uses of album covers that you don't believe fall under the current template, that might make the topic easier to discuss.  JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly: Example: Madonna (entertainer) seems to me that they are illustrating Madonna. If that use is fair use, our rationale should reflect it.


 * Actually, Madonna (entertainer) wasn't too bad. I made a few changes so that I believe that all the images fall under our fair use guidelines.  The only image that I needed to remove was the lead image (the lead paragraph doesn't discuss Hung Up so it's not fair use there); most of the other images were used in the context of the album etc. so all that was required was to rewrite the image caption to specify that it was the album being illustrated, not Madonna.  JYolkowski // talk 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement. Thanks for your help. With your permission, I'd like to "refactor" the page to preserve what is useful for other editors but remove (mostly my) lengthy repetitiveness. Jkelly 23:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with that. JYolkowski // talk 00:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Why is this page protected? chocolateboy 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because it represents a "Fair use" rationale. Did you want to suggest an edit to it?  Jkelly 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So? No other fair use templates are protected, and protection isn't mentioned in Fair use. Where did discussion of this policy take place?

chocolateboy 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no "policy" involved that I know of. After some nasty template vandalism a couple of weeks ago a few admins protected some large number of templates.  Some of them may have been unprotected since, but if the other "fair use" rationale templates aren't protected that may be an oversight, or perhaps this one not being unprotected was an oversight.  If your interest is in editing the template, why not propose the change here?  If your interest is in the procedure followed in the template's protection, you might want to post at User talk:Carbonite, because I think that user was one of the admins involved in the template protection.  Jkelly 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a discussion here. It was actually implemented by User:Radiant!. 

I don't "propose" uncontentious changes to a page that has never been vandalized. This is a Wiki. See Assume good faith and Protected pages considered harmful for an elaboration of my "concerns".

chocolateboy 00:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add interwiki to alemannic Wikipedia
als:Vorlage:Albumcover Thank you in advance -- Test-tools 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct redirect
Please unprotect the page and correct the redirect currently sitting in the article. Album no longer includes "(music)" within its link. This must be fixed immediately. Thank you! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what the urgency was, but it is done. Jkelly 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no urgency. When an article page has been redirected, the wikilink within templates should also be changed with hesitation. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Q
Just curious, because while I understand the legal issue of "decoration" and fair use, it serves an equally illustrative role in the artist's article as the album's  -  can someone explain it a little clearer than "Fair use...etc"? I've read all the debates back and forth, and while I agree that using it in secondary articles does not qualify as fairuse, the artist clearly does, it seems to me.Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify exactly what you're trying to get at? As a rule of thumb, don't put an unfree-copyrighted image into an article if the article doesn't discuss that image.  Articles about albums presumably contain some discussion of the album cover art.  Articles about the artists responsible usually don't, but certainly can.  A lot of articles about bands have something like "The group appeared on the cover of their solid-platinum debut in typical Barbershop Quartet fashion" with an accompanying cover, and no one raises an issue about it.  Slapping every cover into a discography table, on the other hand, is not a good idea.  Jkelly 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit request
Could an admin fix this template to use | in the category so that it is in Category:Non-free image copyright tags in the right place, rather than under the T's? Thanks. BigDT 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. —Ruud 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

HELP
i scanned an album of mine. it is a rare edition that i could not find a picture of on the internet. so i scanned it. i uploaded it, and put it on a page. now i get a notification, saying that i need to show copyright stuff, or something. what do i do? this is the image how far to asgaard russian the page i uploaded it to How Far To Asgaard the "bot" that warned me User:OrphanBot. please please help me


 * I put the album cover template on that image, it should be fine now. See Image copyright tags for more information on how to indicate copyright information. --Fastfission 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thanx

It's not just music
The template currently starts with "This image is of a music album or single cover..." However, the template is currently in use for things that aren't. For lack of a better template, this one is regularly used on things like, , , and other things that can't simply be labelled "music."

Should the template be altered to refer to "audio recordings" or something similarly generic instead of "music," or should we get a new template together for the non-musical stuff? Rob T Firefly 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd really like to get some discussion going before requesting an edit to the template. Rob T Firefly 10:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have edited it if it wasn't protected. Think a change to "audio recording" would be fitting.  *Sparkhead  12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think changing it to "audio recordings" would be a good idea. It's for albums, and not all albums are music recordings. -Freekee 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. It's changed. --Fastfission 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rob T Firefly 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more tweak, I think: "This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album recording or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question." "Album" is so passé.... (grin) &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this a new interpretation?
When checking out Category:Disputed fair use images, I noticed an album cover (Image:Elephunk.jpg). The image had originally been tagged and was used in the articles about the artists and the album. One editor removed the image from both articles (with summary: Removed image missing detailed fair-use rationale), then proceeding to tag the image with (adding it to Category:All orphaned fairuse images). The editor is apparently referring to the note at the bottom of reading: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." &mdash; So I am wondering: are we supposed to do the same with every albumcover that doesn't have a detailed fair use rationale in addition to the  tag (which is, uhm, pretty much all of them)? Rl 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm not sure that albumcovers (or most media covers) need a detailed fair use rationale if they are being used according to the specifications on the tag, because if they are then the rationale should be the same in every case (hence the point of having the specifications on the tag like this). Personally I suspect that the requirement for a "detailed fair use rationale" on no-brainers like this is just a way for people to try and discourage people uploading images like this willy-nilly, which I think is a bad way to try and influence behavior (and I don't think it works, except allowing admins to periodically go through and delete a lot of fair use material periodically). --Fastfission 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And why does this template say to add details of the source? Isn't that apparent from the description ("album x by artist y"). Surely the scanner accrues no rights to the image? The copyright must rest with the owner of the original image and the source is immaterial? (see also this ANI thread, November 12 2006) --kingboyk 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Label?
It seems like this should be reworded to also include record labels. Older singles, especially, didn't have covers, and typically the label is used to illustrate the article. See for instance Money (That's What I Want). Can this be added to the template? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Removed editprotected template) Get some consensus on the proposed edit, then prepare what an administrator should change it to, then re-add editprotected. Saying "Maybe we should change the template..." doesn't get you anywhere. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Since this template is protected, I would ask anyone who has enough priviledges to please add intewiki for Serbian language. Link is: sr:Шаблон:Омот албума Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 11:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. —Ruud 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add ru-wiki ru:Шаблон:Обложка музыкального альбома --Alex Spade 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Change
editprotected Should the image be changed to the SVG version, as with the other templates? Alex43223T 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be an uncontroversial change so I went ahead and did it. CMummert · talk 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add Hebrew Interwiki
he:תבנית:עטיפת אלבום Thanks in advance--NPUGelb 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging fair-use rationales
I have proposed a wording change to our non-free image templates, and I'm trying to keep the discussion centralized here. Please join in the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a frequent uploaded of album covers, I find it extremely tedious to create a fair use rationale for each instance. Ergo, and having in mind that there is no reason for creating a unique rationale for each case, I propose using a boilerplate fair use template in conjunction with this one. Here is something I put together quickly:

User:Óðinn/Templates/Fair use audio Óðinn 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard coding the fair use rationale in to the template
editprotected

First, let me say, I like the version above a lot. We should incorporate User:Óðinn/Templates/Fair use audio ...perhaps with a few text changes?

As a reminder, here's the current text:

''This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.''

My version would go something like this: It's another way of addressing the concerns of those worried that album covers aren't getting tagged with the proper fair use rationales.

''This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.''

Rationale for this image:


 * The cover is used to represent a well known, professionally published and commercially available album
 * This image has been used in several websites, and so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is
 * The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the album
 * The image does not limit the album creator's ability to sell the album
 * The only purpose of the image is to help describe the album and no other purpose

''Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: If you believe a different or additional fair use rationale is required, please add it. Consult Fair use rationale guideline for further information.''

Jenolen   speak it!  17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the idea. The template claims the image is to be used under fair use claim, but the claim itself varies depending on the article. The user adding the fair use criteria must understand he is responsible of the image's well use within the criteria. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the claim itself varies depending on the article -- Hmm. Not sure I understand what you're saying.  Could you rephrase your objection in a manner that is more clear?  Jenolen    speak it!  18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wrote separate fair use rationales for Image:Elvis Costello & the Attractions-Imperial Bedroom (album cover).jpg, Image:Elvis Costello - Get Happy!!.jpg, and Image:MyAim isTrue.jpg. Use these as examples.  howcheng  {chat} 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Sure. A cover is usually used in album or single infoboxes to just show the look of the product, however they can also be used inside articles with critical comments, like Image:Pepper's.jpg in Paul is dead, or maybe even List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (although this list could be included in the album's article directly). Your rationale states "The only purpose of the image is to help describe the album and no other purpose", which (personally) is not true when critical comment is done.
 * Also, the second point is basically a "Others did it, so we can do it" line of thought I dislike. Since Wikipedia is the tenth most visited site in Internet, and considering that Wikipedia is usually the second hit after the official site in any Google or Yahoo search, it can be considered that yes, including it in Wikipedia (especially if it is a recently released album) makes it more visible. While this point can be used as a "We are helping promote your album" when discussing with discographies, it shows a contradiction in the rationale.
 * From the way I see it, in the same way you are responsible for your contributions (so, if you add libel information to an article, it is your responsibility and not Wikipedia), the fair use rationale must be understood by the one uploading the image and those utilizing it. -- ReyBrujo 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So would you - Rey and How - delete an album cover which only used the above rationale?  Say, like: Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg?  Because that's the "example" being held up by another editor who is deleting many, many album covers.  And How - your Elvis Costello rationales are wonderful pieces of rationale writing, but they go so far above and beyond both the legal and Wikipedia policy requirements, I think it's really, really counterproductive to insist that EVERY rationale do the same.  A rationale that meets both legal and WP:FURG standards should be fine, wouldn't you think?   Jenolen    speak it!  20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't talk for others (in fact, I prefer spend time finding free images rather than deleting fair use ones) but, personally, in the same way we don't have a bot deleting every image that has been lacking a rationale, license or source information for days, we shouldn't just add a generic blanket for every uploaded cover (or, as I am sure, every fair use image since this will be extended to all of them in the near future). I would much prefer having a textbox in the Special:Upload page for the rationale, and stop uploading any image until you have write a fair use rationale. Cut the problem at the source. -- ReyBrujo 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this part- ''Interesting. So would you - Rey and How - delete an album cover which only used the above rationale?''? Response appreciated; genuinely curious! Jenolen   speak it!  20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course not (I had written it in my "original" reply, but apparently forgot to readd it in the rewrite). But consider that most of my deletions are because of copyright infringement basics. -- ReyBrujo 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A point some people seem to be missing in this discussion is the "fair use rationale" text is about the page using the image. The image fair use template can give a statement for the image itself to say that there may be some fair uses of it. But the fair use rationales are statements made for each page using the image.

So the image fair use template cannot include a standard fair use rationale.

However, I see no reason why there should not be a fair use rationale template, to give a standard rationale wording that can be transcluded for fair use rationales for pages that fall in particular standard classes -- most obviously, a standard rationale for pages where the image is used as a thumbnail on the specific WP page discussing the album.

It seems to me appropriate that a standard type of use should get standard text from a standard template. And I don't see why a 'bot walking the album category hierarchy shouldn't apply it.

Note that IMO the fact of the page critically discussing the album as a whole in an encyclopaedic fashion should be enough to qualify the image as being used in a transformative context, as required per eg the appeal decision of the 9th Circuit in the Google/Perfect 10 case. I don't think the article text needs to give a critical discussion specifically of the image, so long as the image is a thumbnail and the article is devoted to the album and gives a critical discussion of the album as a work as a whole. Jheald 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale in the template? No. If you were smart about it you'd just past the same thing in each one and hope no one notices, but asking for this? No way. Each use of non-free images needs it's own rationale, because each time we use a non-free image we are making an exception to our own rules. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An album cover is an album cover; no amount of Wiki-hoping will transform the cover of a commercially-released album into free/libre content. A logo is a logo; no amount of Wiki-hoping will transform a logo into free content.  You can either deal with this sensibly, or deal with it the way Wikipedia does - with a long, drawn out, confusing and inconclusive series of "policy" discussions.  :)  But seriously -- as others have pointed out, the rationale for using the vast majority of logos and album covers is going to be the same every time.  No free alternative exists.  No free alternative can be created.  The album cover/logo is of minimal resolution, and doesn't affect the market value of the original... etc. etc.  You're ignoring the why of having a rationale, and getting caught up in the non-free-ness of this type of content.  I say, for both legal reasons and Wikipedia policy reasons, it is possible to create a boilerplate rationale.  Of course it can be done!  Whether it will or not is a completely different question... one we're discussing right now!


 * Thanks for the suggestion on how to avoid following Wikipedia policies. If it's all the same, let's keep it above board, okay?  No sneaky changes to criteria, no creating templates that can't be deleted (such as Replaceable fair use), etc.   Jenolen    speak it!  07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the suggestion sounds great if I understand it correctly: making a template rationale for albums that can be substituted on the image's page. I'm not sure a boiler plate would be necessary. For example: We create album cover article rationale or whatever name we give it. User:Example comes along and uploads the image for the Alexisonfire album Watch Out!. They can then make a fair use rationale for the Watch Out! article by placing the following on the image page: Watch Out! This would produce something to this effect:
 * == Fair use rationale for the article Watch Out!==

I, Example, believe that the use of this non-free image in the article Watch Out! is fair because: ''Note that this does not claim fair use in articles other than Watch Out!. If you wish to use this image in another article, please add a new fair use rationale below.'' So am I following your suggestions correctly? I jumped the gun on how the template could function, so how does everyone like it? -- Reaper  X  16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No free or public domain images have been located for this album.
 * 2) The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the album in any way.
 * 3) This image is widely distributed in other venues, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is.
 * 4) The cover is being used for educational and informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original album in any way, or deprive its copyright holders of any financial gain.
 * 5) The image is of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, and could not be used as artwork on illegal CD copies of the album.

This, to me, is starting to make sense. I would strengthen No free or public domain images have been located for this album. to read No free or public domain images can be created for this album -- it's not that the images haven't been found, or aren't out there, but that due to their copyrighted nature, they can't exist! Jenolen   speak it!  17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See also attempts to come up with wording at [|Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline] which might be the best venue for discussion on wording. Jheald 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Jheald, I didn't see the attempts to come up with wording. But I decided to be bold and create the template; see album cover article rationale. I've used it on the Watch Out! article, and plan to use it on many more album covers. If anyone has issues with the wording, let's here them. I left it the same as my example except per Jenolen's suggestion. -- Reaper  X  16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Upload textbox?
ReyBrujo, you suggestion of "having a textbox in the Special:Upload page for the rationale, and stop uploading any image until you have write a fair use rationale" has really gotten my attention, it sounds like an excellent idea. I mean, it makes things so much easier for those less experienced Wikipedians trying to contribute. I mean, one fine example of providing an uploader with help at the Special:Upload page is at Wikipedia Commons. When you go to upload a file, you come to the following page:

Now because I copied and pasted this from another project, some of the links dont work as they are supposed to, but you get the idea. If you have a commons account, I highly encourage you to visit and look at the helpful pages that follow, if you havent already. I wasn't aware this existed until a few days ago when I uploaded a few Flickr photos for a couple articles I was working on. Clicking on that link for Flickr photos made it so much easier, and ensured it was done properly. I found this to be quite an awesome and useful piece of work. I think we need to find the editor(s) behind this, and make the Wikipedia upload page more obvious like this. While we are at it, we can include the tools to help an editor add fair use rationales to any kind of image, including album covers (incorporating your suggestion Rey). I will carry this on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, where this discussion sprouted from, and if the feedback is good enough, we should send it up the chain. -- Reaper  X  22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love something like this. Maybe we should just be bold and prepare it, at least before a formal proposal at the Village Pump. -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny...someone beat me to the punch. It must've been recently added to the left toolbar because I didn't notice it until now. See the File upload wizard. -- Reaper  X  06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution
WP:NONFREE used to indicate that the general rule of thumb is that Fair Use images should be no bigger than 300px. I've started applying this to album covers, but I'm getting a lot of resistance (See here and here). Are there any actual policies or guidelines about image size, other than "keep it low", especially regarding album covers? tiZom(2¢) 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See also this archived discussion from WT:NFC. There's no definitive cut-off at 300px, it's just a guideline.  But there ought usually to be a good reason before going above this -- eg in some cases it's impossible to see what detail on the cover is supposed to represent at 300px, so higher res is needed to appropriately understand the image.  Such cases are rare, but not that rare.  Jheald 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationales and album images
I might be being a bit thick here - but I really can't get my head around all this fair-use rationale stuff and boilerplates etc etc - i've tried to follow links etc to try and understand but you all speak in languages that are not accessible to the general public.

I uploaded some images of album sleeves to be included on discography pages for a band - they are scans of albums i own, i have scanned them in and they are used purely for the purposes of illustrating a release. I stated this when i uploaded, but they are still threatened with deletion

Where's the problem here? And how do i resolve it?

But please, go easy with the technical jargon

Lazarusheart 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the prime purpose of wikipedia is the creation of new, freely-reusable content, rather than providing galleries of other people's copyright content, the current thinking is that use of album covers purely in discographies should not be allowed.  The album covers should be allowed only where there is enough discussion specifically about that album; ie, generally only in the main article about the album.


 * So, for example, your Image:Gettingthefearlastsalutefront.JPG could be used on Last Salute (article specifically about the album) but not on Getting the Fear (more general article about the band).


 * Above all, wikipedia policies say you need to explicitly say why the album image should be allowed to be used on that album page (a specific use rationale in wikipedia jargon, not just the copyright tag provided by this template).  Template album cover fur provides some standard reasons. So scroll down that page to the section where it says Syntax, and copy the standard source code for it onto your image page; fill in the name of the Article, the use=Infobox (if you're using the image in the album article's main infobox), and preferably the type=album and the name of the record company; and the template will then provide a standard rationale, which will be enough to satisy the requirements of Wikipedia's policies, and so keep automatic check-up bots like BetacommandBot from bothering you again.


 * Hope that is more comprehensible. Best regards, Jheald 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there - thanx so much for this explanation - finally it made sense to me - always so much easier when there are templates to fill in the appropriate details. I think I've done them right now - but if you wouldn't mind checking one to ensure i have, i would be extremely gratefully.

I'm new to this really, and whilst I'm loving it (particularly the sharing of information that sometimes just stays in out own heads), it's sometimes a whole new language to get your head around. Still you've been most helpful - thanks ;-) Lazarusheart 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale
I believe this language: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. is harmful because
 * solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
 * It is unnecessary if a fair use rationale is provided.
 * Someone not familiar with the intricate details of the copyright policy might think "well, the rationale is right there in the tag, why do I need to write another one?"

I think this should be removed - from not only this one but from all such tags. --Random832 12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. But if you think so, the place you should raise it is WT:NFC, so the messages on all of these tags can be considered together. Jheald 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale link
The template links to Fair use rationale guideline, but that just redirects to Non-free use rationale guideline. Can someone change the template to point to the renamed page? Also, maybe this page should be semi-protected, so edits like this could be more easily made in the future. Foobaz·o&lt; 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change: clarify that this doesn't just apply to albums
editprotected

Per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 20, we should clarify that this template doesn't just apply to albums. Something like the following, in the noinclude section: Note that this template should be used for covers from all types of audio recording releases, not just albums, despite the name of the template. --PEJL 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. --ais523 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please just create a doc page as explained at WP:DOC. That way users could freely edit the documentation even though the template would remain protected. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples
Could someone please place  after the link to Fair use rationale guideline? I think this would encourage editors to add a rationale for each image. 90% of the time the text you need to use is the same anyway, so a link for convenience wouldn't hurt.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. I tweaked it a little due to sentence structure. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New image
Image:Copyright CD.svg Description: I've made a new SVG copyright image that looks much better than the current one. I believe that this will be an uncontroversial change. Can you please trade the images? Thanks in advance! -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ nice image! I've also converted it to use wikitable code, which has resulted in the loss of the  tags - if this is a catastrophic problem, undo my second edit. Happy‑melon 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks again -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed renaming
For consistency with the wording tweaks in the template's body proposed above I think the template would benefit from renaming to Non-free audio recording cover. Brand meister t   02:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish InterWiki

 * Turkish InterWiki link: tr:Şablon:Albüm kapağı adil kullanım  Emperyan - message/ ileti  21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)