Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Publicity photos/Archive 1

'''Below is the archive of the discussion page from when this group was a WikiProject. This page was located at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Promotional_Photo_Advocacy'''

feel free to continue discussions below, but start new discussions at Wikipedia talk:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy

Welcome
I started this project, but I know I am not the best proponent of it's ideals. I'm just someone frustrated enough to start to try and organize proponents of fair use publicity photos of people. All of us randomly posting to the various FU articles wasn't accomplishing much, so here we are! Please, if you see something you want to change on the front page, be bold. I don't need (or want) to talk about everything because I know I didn't write everything perfectly and probably got some things wrong.--Jeff 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note
Just a friendly note. I appreciate your desire to change Wikipedia policy and if you succeed, I will of course start enforcing that policy. Note, however, that you are in direct and specific opposition to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Foundation itself. This is not a naturally tenable position to hold. --Yamla 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see Jimbo Wales state anything about promotional photos. His only posts on the matter (at least the ones I am aware of) seem to have been about copyrighted images of inanimate objects used under fair use. If you have an example of it, I would absolutely love to see it. Personally, I think that misinterpretation is the crux of our issue.--Jeff 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was Mr. Wales who initially stated that we should not use replaceable images to depict living people. That is, the "whole mess" started with him.  Furthermore, he's commented on at least one RfC (Chowbok?  or it could have been someone else) that the deletion of fair-use images used to depict living people was exactly right and that the person should be applauded.  And that people campaigning for the use of such were on the wrong side.  Obviously I am not asking that you just accept this without a citation, but it's a little late for me to go looking.  Please check for an RfC involving Chowbok and see if you can find it.  If not, please remind me and if I get some free time tomorrow (heh), I'll try searching.  Please additionally note that just because Mr. Wales says something, this does not automatically make it right.  I was simply pointing out that you are sitting on the other side here.  --Yamla 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the google search was easier than I expected. here are some comments from Jimbo Wales.  He has certainly made other comments in opposition to fair-use images used to depict living people, but this is all I can find tonight. --Yamla 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos here's a better one, but he acknowledges even his own viewpoint on publicity photos is extreme. Wales is one man, and shouldn't have any more weight than anyone else. This is not a dictatorship, although I certainly realize that the man can wave his hand and have armies of defenders, no matter how contrary his viewpoint may be. So, I was wrong about him not speaking of publicty photos exactly, but I still think this is a good fight. --Jeff 04:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the extreme viewpoint he is talking about here is not WP:FUC #1 but rather that fair-use images of dead people or fictional people should not be allowed. It is unclear to me if he supports the use of any fair-use images; certainly, the German language version of Wikipedia does not.  --Yamla 04:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My interpretation: his extreme view is that fair use should almost completely (added after Chowbok's reply) be gone. That is pretty extreme.--Jeff 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you account for his comment that some pictures are "worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary", then? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this (from Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos): "Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even 'wikipedia only' photo." &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On the article
"Personality laws are different in every state and make it impossible to verify a photographer truly has the right to license their amateur photo under their own, free license."
 * My understanding, though I do not live in the U.S., is that only Florida law is important here as the Wikipedia servers are in Florida. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken, however.  Even if I am not, it would still be a good idea to abide by other laws if possible.  --Yamla 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"A fair use white list unequivocally allowing the use of promotional photos, just like we do with album covers, TV screenshots and other such minutiae."
 * I corrected a minor mistake in word choice here. However, I'm requesting that you reword this.  There is no unequivocable acceptance of album covers or TV screenshots.  Use must be in accordance with the license and WP:FU generally.  For example, an album cover may be used to illustrate an article on that particular album but may not be used simply to show the person on the album.  Just an example.  Similarly, promotional photos may be used such as to depict a fictional character.  I know what you are trying to say but I do not think the current wording captures it.  And unfortunately, it is a little late in the day for my brain to work to offer a better wording.  --Yamla 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The rule that album covers may be used to illustrate the article about the album but not the article about the artist (or, say, the article about the street Abbey Road) is one of the clearest examples of how Wikipedia's notions of fair use and the law's notion of fair use have almost nothing to do with each other. In the real world, the fact that you are doing something different with the image than the copyright holder--e.g., using it in the context of an artist rather than the context of the album--is considered evidence of the transformative nature of the use, and therefore a strong argument in favor of fair use.  (This is one of the major issues in Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley, for example.) But what makes it more fair use in the real world makes it ineligible to be fair use here in wikiworld--I have to assume because that's what non-lawyers fussing over the policy puzzled out for themselves. Nareek 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the best writer in the world, is this better? "A fair use white list that allows the use of promotional photos of people in the same way we do with album covers, TV screenshots and other such minutiae; to illustrate the subject of the image in only the subject's article."
 * Better. It does not address, however, that an album cover image is not replaceable with a freely-licensed alternative, however, while a promotional photo is inherently.  Here, I am ignoring the possibility that the replacement may be of lower quality, etc. etc.  And this point may not be significant to you.  I would like to see it addressed but you aren't here to please me.  :)  --Yamla 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! but that's why there is a disagreement in the first place. I don't think promotional photos are replaceable because I do take quality into account. It's quite a quandary.--Jeff 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happier if the wording made this more clear. But I agree that this is basically the central point.  --Yamla 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "A fair use white list that allows the use of promotional photos of people, acknowledging that quality makes the photo impossible to replace with a free alternative and therefore passing FU clause #1. This would put publicity photos at the same level as album covers, TV screenshots and other such minutiae; to illustrate the subject of the image in only the subject's article." There?--Jeff 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you've addressed my concern with the wording. Mr. Wales' position is that even promotional images can be licensed freely (and in fact, some have been since this policy started being enforced, see Wil Wheaton and Michael Shermer as two examples that leap to mind), but that's another matter. --Yamla 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alton Brown as well. --Jeff 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Points on the Reasoning
Some points I believe are fundamentally wrong (instead of just plain wrong) and had not yet been discussed, from the Reasoning section (threaded to make discussion easier).

The implicit purpose of promotional photos
I agree with the statement that the "implicit purpose of promotional photos" is "to publicize the subject of the image". What is missed here is that the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedic biography is not to publicize the subject of the article. A good article should be prepared to say (sourced) not-so-good facts about it's subjects. --Abu Badali 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The point here is not what WP's purpose is, it's that given the purpose of promotional photos, it's a practical impossibility to charge copyright violation based on someone using them for their intended purpose. And note that "publicize" does not imply positive or negative publicity--no court is going to agree that a use is not fair because it makes the copyright holder look bad. Nareek 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to make an encyclopedia without making use of the right of fair use
The argument on this bullet is a non-sequitur. Yes, we need use quotes of copyrighted text to discuss that text (or it's author, school or style). No, we don't need to use copyrighted photographies do discuss people. --Abu Badali 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But given that Wikipedia will always make use of fair use, why treat images differently than text? You could make a rule that said that all quotes from copyrighted materials need to be paraphrased--but why would you?  How would that make the encyclopedia better? Nareek 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are indeed asking for a different treatment for fair use of images and fair use of text. We only claim fair use of text for commentary related to the text itself (it's author, style, etc). We already allow this kind of fair use for images (see Lenna). But just like we don't quote Brittanica's article on Quantum Mechanics to explain what Quantum Mechanics is, we shouldn't use a copyrighted image of a person to show how that person looks like.
 * We use fair use for text when the text itself is notable. We should only claim fair use for notable images as well. --Abu Badali 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This behavior, of course, wouldn't necessarily make a given encyclopedia better. But it surely makes a free encyclopedia better. Unless you don't accept the fact the Wikipedia's goal is not only to build an encyclopedia, but also (and mainly) to increase the amount of free information available in the world, you will always have the impression that this project is run by lunatics. --Abu Badali 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Never high quality
The statement that "Free alternatives are never high quality" is easily debunkable, But if someone really believes it's true, just ask me, I and will provide counterexamples. --Abu Badali 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an overstatement that ought to be fixed. Maybe "often of low quality"? Nareek 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy outlawing ... publicty photos was ... enacted without ... discussion
You surely heard about this before, but... WP:FUC#1 has always been around. Publicity photos has never been a policy... --Abu Badali 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the creative editing, which cuts out the reference to changes in enforcement (which is to say, interpretation) of FUC #1. Nareek 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I though the part about enforcement wasn't worth mentioning, as I can't see a problem in a change from "not enforcing a policy" to "enforcing a policy."
 * Changing from "enforcement" to "interpretation" is also a very creative editing. --Abu Badali 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Publicity photos should be official Wikipedia policy, and that any contradictory policies should be revised to conform with it.

Oh boy
I generally support the idea of fair use when we don't have a reasonable means to obtain a free image, so I don't really disagree.. but I just get the feeling that this WikiProject effort will end badly. Even if I agree with what's being said, I'm uneasy about the idea of setting up a WikiProject just to promote one side of an issue. It's something we generally don't do. If you just want to set up a discussion page, then ok, but please don't call it a WikiProject. This is not how the concept of WikiProjects should be used, and it sets a bad example for other WikiProjects. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, didn't think of that, but I don't see a problem really. We're not going to be disruptive about it or anything, and certainly attempting to protect fair use is worthy of a maintenance "Project"? I guess I could've created it in my user space, but a rose by any other name...--Jeff 06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly think we should move elsewhere if advocating for a change in policy is in fact something that WikiProjects don't do. If someone thinks they know what the appropriate format would be, maybe they should go ahead and create that space and we could migrate what's here so far with a minimum of fuss. Making this a part of some individual's user space does not sound like a great idea to me, though--I'm assuming it is kosher for Wikipedians to organize in some public way to change policy, right? Nareek 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is just to discourage other projects from taking one side or the other on an issue. A WikiProject about any given topic, article or Wikipedia related, should generally be neutral and welcome all views related to that topic. That doesn't seem to describe this effort. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A noble idea indeed, and there is a Wikiproject for fair use WikiProject_Fair_use, but that project certainly doesn't welcome all views related to that topic, so here we are. Infact, that project largely turned into advocacy for restriction of fair use content.. I'm still not against moving our organization efforts, but where to?--Jeff 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if you read WikiProject_Fair_use, you'll see that it's self-defined as pursuing an anti-fair use policy. I hope you'll try to make sure that that project follows the WikiProject spirit or else migrates elsewhere as well. Nareek 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Fair use appears to only be as anti as the policy itself. WikiProjects still have to follow existing guidelines and policies. Wikipedia itself is generally "anti-fair use", in that we should always try to find an alternative before resorting to fair use. You wouldn't expect a WikiProject about copyrights to be advocating piracy and so on. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it does stand to reason that you can be "biased" in a project if policy backs you up, because that's just following the existing policy. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is another reason why this really isn't a project. This is more of a focused discussion for reform of policy. If anything, it's an RfC more than a WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Chicken or the egg, Ned?--Jeff 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you advocating needless use of fair use, or are you advocating reasonable fair use? I think our fair use policy on people is too strict and doesn't fit the logic behind the policy, but that does not mean it's a good idea to use fair use images when we don't need to. It is incorrect to say that this group is the opposite of WikiProject Fair use. I feel that the spirit of our fair use policy and what is being proposed here do not conflict. Reducing dependancy on fair use images is never a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think the spirit of this project is to make it allowable for publicity stills generated by the person or their representatives to be used on any article about that person. For instance, the Jennifer Granholm article has suffered greatly by one person's definition of what an equivalent image is. The article used to have this photo. See what I mean?--Jeff 09:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You want to use fair use images when you don't need to? Suffered greatly? Here I thought maybe you had a good idea, but nope. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree now, and the obvious reaction is to nominate for deletion. You are something else. --Jeff 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I must say, a nom for deletion will generate great attention. I would've rather just talked to you about it though. My opinion is not the end all be all.--Jeff 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Objects vs. People
Jeff, does your opinion extends to place and objects? For instance, should we use copyrighted promotional pictures of consumer products whenever the image is of a higher quality than user-taken picture? --Abu Badali 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between objects and people is that there are generally thousands or even millions of examples of commercial objects, so getting a high-quality GFDL image of one is not particularly difficult. With individual people, there's obviously only one, generally located in one particular part of the world.  Given that the number of Wikipedians interested in a particular article is generally fairly small, the chances that one of them is located in the right place and has the photography skills to get a decent image of the individual involved are minimal--so minimal that treating the image as "replaceable" in the same way that an image of a vacuum cleaner is replaceable becomes rather absurd. Nareek 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nareek worded it far better than I ever could. I support the free licensing requirement for inanimate objects, places and buildings, but for people it's a whole separate ball of wax. The reason this isn't hypocritical is for the reasons Nareek stated. Quality freely licensed photos are far easier to achieve with inanimate objects, as shown by the many photographs I have spent days on to enhance Wikipedia. They are all licensed under CC-SA-2.5.--Jeff 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you're trying to catch me out on this, but please understand my goals are not to cause fair use creep but to carve out a very strictly defined and proper usage of publicity photos of people and only people. I don't want it to extend beyond that at all. --Jeff 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, avoid attaching motivations to me. I asked that because most of the points in the "Reasoning" section, if valid, would make promotional photos of objects and places preferable. (The would always be of better quallitym, would impose no legal threats, would be as necessary as text-quotations and the effort to delete them would have come from an undiscussed policy change) --Abu Badali 17:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right of course, the same reasons could be applied to inanimate objects. But I amm not advocating that because there's a big reason why they shouldn't be; because it's not prohibitively difficult to achieve the goal (high quality free license) while with people, it is. I also understand that one of the reasons for this change in enforcement and interpretation is because certain people view wikipedia as a crowbar with which to spread the idea of freedom of information. I don't know about you, but I see Wikipedia as a source of great information first and a social movement second.--Jeff 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, the "Reasoning" section isn't accurate. The main reason you support the use of copyrighted promotional images of people is because it's difficult to produce good free replacements, right? Would it be easy to produce, and all other arguments in "Reasoning" would succumb, right? --Abu Badali 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think of most decisions as balancing a weight scale. Each situation has a different weight ratio, so comparing different situations and finding a that they aren't the same is not only not a compelling arguement, but I think it actually favors my position. In this case, you have ease of acquiring high quality photos under a free license on one side.. The more weight you give to the ease, the easier it is for the scale to shift towards enforcing freely licensed images. The less weight, the more the scale tips towards compromising on ideals and allowing fair use publicity photos.--Jeff 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't actually see the benefit, in terms of what either Wikipedia or secondary users can do, with preferring slam-dunk fair use images like promotional photos to GFDL images--no one has ever demonstrated that there are real potential uses that could be done with one and not with the other. But because many people, including Wales, have a philosophical commitment to the GFDL, I'm willing to concede that if a fair use image can be replaced by a GFDL image, we ought to make the switch.  The argument then boils down to what "replaceable" means--a fair use picture of an object can be easily replaced, but a picture of an individual is only potentially replaceable in the sense that I could potentially win the lottery.  I am not willing to concede that we ought to remove information from the encyclopedia because people are excited about a particular form of copyright. Nareek 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images as they relate to movies and tv shows
I support the use of fair use images on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to movies and tv shows.It is not possible to get free images of movies and TV shows for tv show and movie articles. It's also of importance with articles about characters from tv shows and movies. While in some cases a photo of a tv show or movie character doesn't have to be from the movie or tv show, and doesn't need to be a promotional photo (can be a free photo), it needs to be of the actor as they looked at the time they played the character in question. (though in many cases it will need to be of the actor wearing the clothes their character wore in the movie or tv show in question ex. superman). Where a movie or tv show is from years past/decades past, (and the actors no longer look like they did), it is unlikely that any wikipedians will have a photo that appropriately depicts the character in question.Librarylefty 12:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving this organization effort
So, be it resolved we're going to move elsewhere and not claim a WikiProject (despite it not changing anything other than where we try to accomplish goals), where do we move to? I'm not comfortable with this being in my userspace because I don't think I make a good steward nor do I want to WP:OWN anything, nor infer it. It should definately be under one of the existing topics in the Wikipedia namespace. Here are some ideas. (yes, changing name to publicity photos. I chose the wrong name to start with)


 * Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy a subpage of Fair Use
 * Publicity_photos/Advocacy, a subpage of Publicity_photos, an essay on publicity photos that itself is under attack
 * WikiProject_Fair_use/Publicity Photo Advocacy a subpage of WikiProject_Fair_use
 * Publicity_Photo_Advocacy its own page.

Thoughts? --Jeff 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, being a part of the Fair Use wikiproject would be logical, as it would serve to influence them from the inside rather than work against them from the outside. You could then redirect the other (excellent) options to that page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How is publicity photo advocacy different from promotional photo advocacy. Unless someone can show there to be a clear difference, I see no reason not to continue our advocacy here.

I think we need to create a list of as many wikipedians as possible who support the use of Fair Use publicity/promotional Photos.Librarylefty 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Publicity photos are more accurately people while promotional photos could be confused for inanimate objects. I agree with the idea of a petition.--Jeff 12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)