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

take this up with Jimbo and the Board
I am disapointed that instead of engaging in the discussion and replying to many, many comments on his talk page, Ta bu shi da yu boilerplate responce seem to be 'take this up with Jimbo and the Board'. This looks like 'let's scare them with big names, and maybe they'll drop the issue'. Now, I assume good faith and so I don't think this was the primary reason why Ta bu shi da yu adopted this responce - but I'd like to hear from him his own reason for doing so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a Board issue. Deleting copyright violations might be, but the exact way in which that is done (speedy deletion versus other processes) is up to the community to make policies and procedures about. Take it up with CSD, not the Board. Angela. 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. Might I point out that it will be the board who will have to deal with legal issues if someone sues Wikimedia for copyright violations. Inaction from the board on this issue could be detrimental to Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there shouldn't be a policy against copyright violations. I'm saying the exact way those are handled and whether they're discussed for 7 days before being deleted doesn't need to be a Board decision (unless we've had an actual DMCA notice, in which case the policy wouldn't apply and they'd be deleted instantly). Angela. 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to discuss clear copyright violations and misuse of fair use? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't need to be discussed, then the policies ought to reflect that, but CSD doesn't currently allow speedy deletion of fair use images. I'm saying the community should change that, not the Board. Don't confuse the fact I don't want this to be a Board decision with the idea that I don't want the policy to exist. Angela. 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, have taken your advise and made an amendment to Fair use criteria. See Fair use criteria/Amendment. I am no policy maven, whether this is the right/wrong way of proposing the amendment I don't know. If I could get your assistance on making this happen, that would be great. Thanks Angela! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who decided that this was suddenly now the case? You? Obviously, these images were not "clear" copyright violations or they would have been gone long ago without incident. Many of them had been up, on popular articles, with no controversy, since 2003. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please see Fair use criteria. Almost none of those images were compliant. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost none were compliant? That means you speedy-deleted at least some that were compliant... Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true. I deleted one image inappropriately which was promptly reuploaded. I think you should bare in mind that none of my deletions are undoable. I also note that it was one image in several hundred I have so far deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So one. That you know about. So far. Why do I get the feeling that you are likely to have made more mistakes? Now it is more obvious than ever: speedy-deleting this many images was pretty stupid. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not engaging you in debate any more. I've told you that they didn't have fair use rationales, I told you they weren't used correctly in articles. You can see ALL of those things for yourself (yes, you can ask an admin to undelete any of the image description pages to check it out). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of work you've created for me if I were to do that one by one. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No more work than if I'd listed each one on IFD. You asked how you could check my decisions were correct. Here's a way of telling. You asked for it, now you say it's too much work. Which is it? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is more work than IFD, unless everyone is an admin. I, for one, am not and have no desire to be! Also, I said that's a lot of work, not "too much" work. Please read more carefully. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind what that I'm about to say below, as this appears to be mostly about how this was done I'd also like a slightly more expository response from the big fish. Was there some emregancy, or was the suspicion that the normal methods wouldn't work, or was it just "this is obvious, let's not stuff around"?  He's not known (to me at least) as a rouge, and of course gets the benefit of the doubt, but "talking is hot" as some have said.  -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is so hot. Mike H. That's hot 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Desired outcome
Err, what is it? Just a nice concise explanation of how we're defining the "success conditions" for this RfC, please. brenneman {T}  {L}  23:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view, a succesful RFC will kick off action on enforcing tighter fair use rationale enforcement. I would propose that a more restrictive policy that enforces the exist Fair use criteria be started. Something along the lines of the non-commercial and commercial image deletion edicts that Jimbo gave. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming he was not asking for the desired outcome of the "accused". Another desired outcome may be that Ta bu shi da yu be reprimanded in some way for ignoring the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times over, or perhaps just to serve as a warning to other self-appointed vigilantes to read the rules of Wikipedia before deleting everything in sight (and also to use "Edit summary" as a chance to provide rationale to users who find that many articles are suddenly deprecated). Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:IAR. RfC isn't to reprimand people. Discussion about Fair use criteria/Amendment would be a far more useful outcome. Angela. 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR could just as easily justify Willy on Wheels; but as for the RfC, it is serving out its purpose, for me. It'll be interested to see, however, if Jimbo Wales comes to TBSDY's aid with the cloak-and-dagger email, since TBSDY referred all questioning to him... or if TBSDY is in fact all alone here. Uris on Wheels [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Citeing WP:IAR justifies nothing. Probably the reason people tend not to do so any more.Geni 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uploading fair use images and not complying with Fair use criteria also justifies nothing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So who is the judge of when this has occurred? You, a sole judge and jury, deleting what you see fit without any reasoning given? How can anyone tell if you were right or wrong in each deletion, when we can't see the images nor why you deleted them? Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have told you: all the images I deleted had no fair use rationale, most had no source and almost all were being used to illustrate an article. All of these things are things you can see, or if you need to get an admin to show you. Check the deletion log, pick any image and ask an admin to temporarily undelete the image description page. This is you can see for yourself. Now it's my turn to question you. What gives uploaders the right to upload other people's copyrighted work? This could be seen, and in most jurisdictions actually is, a form of theft. Why do you think that Wikipedia actually wants fair use images? We don't, in fact, we only tolerate them if nothing else will do. I strongly suggest you look at Wikipedia's aims and objectives again. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you are speaking for all Wikipedians as "we" but you have shown no willingness to follow Wikipedia's accepted rules or processes. That's kinda funny. :) Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, go away troll. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... no, you! Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Private communications with Jimbo Wales
The person deleting the Time (magazine) thunbnails claims he has a private communication from Jimbo Wales authorizing him to make the deletions. The Wikimedia foundation does not communicate policy to individuals by email. It delivers policy decisions through the Wikimedia Foundation protected namespace. Any claims of private communications are absurd. Anyway, the battle is already over, the images have already been deleted. In image deletion policy the deleter always wins, since the images and their position in Wikipedia are not always preserved or are difficult to establish again using the Waybackmachine or other archives. A deletion takes a few seconds, restoration takes minutes, if the image was lucky enough to archived. It was a very clever, and powerful power grab. They must have Karl Rove as their advisor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the board, ArbCom or Jimbo Wales feels I have been unreasonable or abusing my admin powers, they are welcome to desysop me. I would hope they won't. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you provide some sort of evidence that you have been instructed to circumvent our existing policies? If you had an e-mail that said, "Our fair use policy is all buggered up, feel free to ignore it," I'd be completely satisfied with your appeals to external authority. --Fastfission 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom or Jimbo gives me permission to republish the email, I will. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you asked either of them for permission? Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And they said you can't post the email? Or have none of them responded to you? Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Noone has responded yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What good is a cut and pasted email? How would anyone prove it was, or was not, a forgery? That's why the Wikimedia Foundation places policy decisions in their protected namespace. No one can get an account in their namespace without a vote from the board. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * An ArbCom member can confirm it. Though I don't know what that will prove, if you look at WP:RFAr you will see that they have already confirmed it and have rejected the request for arbitration against myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If he provides an e-mail, it would be his hide on the line if he forged it, so I think simple self-interest would be enough to prevent that as a likely option. --Fastfission 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, a little issue like my honour would prevent me from doing this, along with the fact that I am not a dishonest person would be nice. I think my reputation and past actions on this site would prove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should just assume good faith. Angela. 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you say that recognizing the supreme irony inherent. Jkatzen 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't, perhaps you could help us understand? ... If you're claiming that TBSDY is failing to assume good faith, you're off the mark: it's no failure to assume good fath to accept that people don't understand or accept copyright and are making mistakes. TBSDY knows that people are not intending to crap up the project, we're not talking about him banning anyone, but he also knows that he can't allow it to be crapped up.--Gmaxwell 08:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mention it because he explicitly at one point said that an editor's good faith was irrelevant when deciding fair use (which is, incidentally, inconsistent with how courts tend to view it). Jkatzen 09:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant because when someone makes a fair use claim we disagree with it isn't because we are failing to assume good faith, it is because we believe they intend well but have made a mistake. Will you next claim that TBSDY might have made a mistake and that he didn't actually talk to Jimbo? It's an entirely differen't matter. A court would indeed care about intentions, but a process in which an ignorant person created a violation, a Wikipedia administrator pointed out the violation, and then we voted to keep the violation "because it is low risk" and actually kept it, would not be viewed as anything but willful infringement. This is the sort of outcome that we get from our normal process that was bypassed here.--Gmaxwell 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I did. Do you really think a court of law will take into account an editors good faith motives for uploading a copyrighted image? I think you miss the point here: for legal matters we don't assume good faith. For all other matters, we try very hard to. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A court will consider intentions in handing out the damages, but that would easily be offset by our negligence which would be easy to demonstrate. Also, the intended use is a consideration, i.e. if you intend to publish part of a work for a purpose of the sort fair use is intended to permit but you mistakingly included enough, through no great negligence, to replace the orignal work in the market place, it would be hard to call your action overly damning... but thats not really what we're discussing here, the basic use here... using the copyrighted works to illustrate articles which are not about the copyrighted work itself, isn't anywhere close to a permitted use. --Gmaxwell 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See OCILLA. I find these legal arguments to be spurious. KWH 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to look at that, but I don't know that it gets us any further. To maintain the safe harbor, there has to be no "actual knowledge" of infringing.  Well, that begs the same question that pervades this entire line of investigation: is it infringing, and who defines that, absence a court ruling? Jkatzen 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What Jkatzen said. Wikipedia is actually screwed under OCILLA if we drag our feet when copyright violations are brought to our attention&mdash;by any party.  Then we've got our own internal fair use policy that explicitly states that we shouldn't be using cover shots for "...identification without critical commentary".  Failing to enforce our own internal policies with respect to copyrighted material is another strike against us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then our lovely article on OCILLA should be clarified, as it states that "The clear removal of the need to make such error-prone decisions in the very complex provisions of fair use may be one of the gains of OSPs from this law", "Actual knowledge [emph. added] is not an opinion about infringement i.e. "I think this is infringing" or "this is copied from another site, therefore it is infringing"", and "If the designated agent receives a notification which substantially complies with the notification requirements, the OSP now has actual knowledge [emph. added] and must expeditiously disable access to the work."
 * Also of interest under Interpretation of the law is "It is also useful to remember that &hellip; [the CDA] &hellip; protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties &hellip; Even if a removal is found not to be "expeditious" &hellip; and the so-called "safe harbor" &hellip; is lost, in many cases the ISP may still be protected."
 * If there's a qualified legal opinion that speaks for the Foundation, I'd accept that outright, as the Foundation is the one primarily accepting the risk. But until then, this is all "armchair fair use wikilawyering" as GMaxwell described (myself included). KWH 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies
In looking up the applicable policies, it occurred to me that the only speediable copyvio on WP:CSD is that of articles, and specifically not images. I think that makes it pretty clear that the current approach is simply completely out of bounds, but I'm interested in what others think. I have to admit I'm not very sympathetic to the "we must act, and not think or deliberate!" approach since deliberating seems to have worked to create these policies in the first place, and I haven't seen any evidence in this case of it failing (WP:FU was almost totally rewritten not too many months ago to clarify a number of important points, for example, and additional CSD criteria have been added when necessary). I also think that when used as anything but a last resort it really trivializes the efforts of users who actually do try and come up with good policies in an open and transparent fashion (such as with WP:WPFU). --Fastfission 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We have over 130,000 images on en which are tagged as 'fair use'. A small but significant random sampling suggests that a majory may be violations. Users who attempt to clean up violations are attacked on two sides, one by article editors who are upset that we've taken their favorite illustrations, and on the other side by our armchair fairuse wikilawyers who think we should be spending all our time making up excuses for inexcusable acts. Your process has failed. Get over it, and stop trying to get in the way of users who are making a real difference. --Gmaxwell 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! *gasps* over 130,000 images? Bloody hell! We are in so much shit. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stick OrphanBot on it immediately. At its normal rate of operation, and assuming that new unlicensed images are being uploaded at a rate of around 40 an hour, the last images should be removed 27 days from now. --Carnildo 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we cool it down a bit? You're an armchair fairuse wikilawyer too, only with a different POV and more overwrought. KWH 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, he's quite right to be concerned. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an effective process for deleting purportedly fair use material
Orphan it and kill after 7 days.Geni 02:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This is no different from orphaning and deleting the image directly. Plus that really would be seen as disruptive, and in fact worse than my action. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. People then have 7 days to object. If they do you discuss the image with them. If they are wrong and fail to get a clue then is the time to get heavy. For some reason when I do this no one sees it at dissruptive. There are other advantages such as the way it allows you to seamlessly deal with the issue of an image being used on multiple pages sometimes correctly sometimes incorrectly.Geni 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The process is broken Geni. If people object the images are kept. Almost Always. I've tagged over 20,000 images as orphaned fair use. More than 99% the the 3500ish objected taggings still exist. People have objected, and will continue to object, over these TIME covers. TBSDY's removal takes away the only good illustration a lot of articles have. The only aspect of our process that works is for images that no one cares about. --Gmaxwell 08:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? We know how to deal with people who object.Geni 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats my point, we don't. I agree.. it looks like we do, but we don't. We can engage them in one on one debate, we win but each cases is days of frustration. It doesn't scale... we hardly have enough resources to deal with the copyright problems when there are no objections, much less when each one becomes a court case. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Principles are difficult. KWH 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as the principles of being a Free content encyclopedia and the principle of not violating copyright law? :) --Gmaxwell 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very much so. That's why I'm interested in talking it out. It's obvious at this point that TBSDY is resolute in his task and opinion, so the purpose in talking it out is to help to better reconcile these principles. (Whether it is my understanding which needs to be modified or others) KWH 19:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there's irony. You want due process, but heaven forbid an editor should object! We know how to deal with them. What exactly does that mean, anyway? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No the editor is free to object. The problem is when they are wrong repeatedly. Editors can normaly be talked round. If not find another admin to delete the thing and deal with the problem of the user reuploading if it happens. I'm always happy to explain copyright to people if asked (as long as as it isn't a complex issue).Geni 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't scale, Geni. Every day, approximately 960 new fair-use-tagged images are uploaded.  If the user:image ratio for fair-use images is the same as for no-source and no-license images, this represents 560 unique people uploading images each day.  Based on my experiences running OrphanBot, one person can effectively deal with ten to fifteen uploaders a day, and doing so takes up all the time they would otherwise be spending on Wikipedia.  Based on this, we'd need a dedicated force of 35-50 users spending all their time chasing down people uploading images that don't qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The vast majority don't complain when you orphan thier images.Geni 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people who upload no-source and no-license images are no longer here. That's not true of the 23 people who uploaded fair-use-tagged images in the past hour. --Carnildo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the objective criterion for deleting a Time magazine cover
If the deleter can tell what is a violation, others should be able to also. Can he explain his criteria so everyone can look at the same image and see his decision making process. It don't want it to be like truthiness: something you feel in your gut. It should be objective. Why was the cover image of Glenn Curtiss deleted and the image of Stalin kept? And why wasn't the text changed to what it needed to be, rather than deleting the image? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was it the image?
 * Was it the wording in the text in the article?
 * Was it the text stored with the image file?
 * Was it the caption to the image in the article?
 * That's a very simple one to answer: it's been kept because there are over 200 images and I never got around to that image to make a decision on it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The key criterion for fair use is use. The tag on the image gives a fairly good idea of what may be allowed.Geni 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag is not adequate. It does not take into account all aspects of fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be imposible since we don't have time to get a court ruleing on every single case. Once we get people roughly following the tags we can start worrying about exact detail.Geni 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag, read strictly, isn't so bad. If it was I would have changed it months ago. It can easily be misread (see the thread on talk hurricane katrina I linked from my view), but read correctly it tells you that it's okay to use it when you are discussing the magazine... which is a pretty good starting point. The problem is that the misuse has run rampent, and dealing with them one at a time impossible, because each becomes a multiday long debate.--Gmaxwell 08:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not getting objective statements from you. Please explain what fair use of a Time cover is, or are you stating that they may only appear in the article called Time (magazine). Please write a set of rules, so we all can follow what you are using to delete some and not delete others. Show us one you kept and explain why it was kept. Then show us one you deleted and explain why it was deleted. So far you have just said it is not "fair use". That is one of theose truthiness things, that your feeling in your gut, not your brain. Give us a set of rules, or give us a flow chart that determines what can be used and what must be deleted, that everyone can use and get the same results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't mind removing unproperly used fair use, but in at least two cases from my watchlist images which were very important for the articles in question, clearly illustrating them and thus being fair use in them, were removed. Examples:
 * Lech Wałęsa on the cover of TIME, removed from his biography
 * Józef Piłsudski on the cover of TIME, removed from his biopgraphy  and from May Coup article (the event which gained him international fame).
 * Especially considering we got a permission from TIME to use those covers, I think that their removal has been quite improper.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that neither of the cases cited above represent fair use of the TIME image. The article text, in both cases, failed to refer to TIME's coverage of the individual or to the specific TIME image.  Neither article, in fact, even discusses media coverage of the individuals in question.  The photos aren't even necessary to illustrate the articles in question.  There's certainly no argument that the TIME covers are (for example) the only extant images of the subjects.  In both cases (Józef Piłsudski and Lech Wałęsa) we have free or public domain images already on the pages.
 * An image is not fair game for a fair use claim solely because it features the individual discussed in the article. It is precisely this sort of misunderstanding (or overly broad interpretation) of 'fair use' that causes Wikipedia problems. Unless the article contains critical commentary closely related to the image, we really shouldn't be using it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What people don't understand is that "commentary on something inside the image" != "commentary on the copyrighted work". We must be commenting on the actual copyrighted work itself, not something it contains. In most cases of fair use we actually comment about both, the work itself and its subject matter. When we only comment on the subject matter we are not engaging in something that would be found to be fair use. A test I've advocated on Wikipedia in the past is the replaceablity test: "Would our discussion suffer if you removed the copyrighted work in question and replaced it with some other work?". If the answer is no, then our fair use argument is likely weak at best.  A great  example of correct fair use in the context of Magazine covers is the vanity fair cover on Demi_Moore. An example of an invalid use is the covers on Front_engine_dragster, I could take a trip to a race track.. take a picture, replace them, and the article no only wouldn't suffer but it would likely be improved greatly by a more informative image taken with the intent of being an illustration for the article. --Gmaxwell 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A very nice explanation! If we had a better home for it than the talk page of an RfC, we could forestall many repetitious arguments by just referring to it. Could even be linked from Magazinecover etc, eh? Stan 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I now understand this case and fair use better then before. This should definetly be added to most fair use templates, image upload pages, fair use deletio warnings tags and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Time Warner and their letter concerning fair use of thumbnails
The only requirement Time-Warner has placed on using their thumbnails, is that they have a link back to the Time magazine archive. Who wrote all the other rules? We are arguing over phantom details written by someone at Wikipedia. Time-Warner is aware of our use and has made no request for us to "cease and desist" using them. If they had an objection they would send a C&D the same way Perfect 10 did with Google. We would only have legal liability if we ignored their letter. And their is no financial liability since no profit has been made. Why are we ignoring Time-Warner's wishes and listening to someone from Wikipedia who is deciding how we can use Time magazine images? Listen to Time themselves or write to them yourselves. This is no longer an issue of "fair use" since Time has given us conditions for use. That is why there was a copyright template just for Time magazine. The exact content of the Time letter on usage should now be considered our contract with them, and nothing else. It should be pasted into the template, and a copy of the template forwarded to the Time archivist for approval. All this internal bickering serves no purpose. This is an issue between Time-Warner and Wikipedia and has been settled. Has anyone considered that Time-Warner is issuing generous conditions for use of their thumbnails because they consider it a form of free advertising to draw people to their website, and perhaps buy a subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I interpret the letter not as a permission for use (which would be a non-free license anyway and not acceptable) but as an admission that fair use may apply if used correctly. It is in no way a free-license and therefore does not in any way get around our requirement to comply with the fair use rules of wikipedia and the US government. --Martyman- (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, its not a free license, no one is confusing it with a free license, and they have no intention of releasing them into the public domain. In reading and rereading the case law: Fair Use Case Law and reading [] I see no conflict. The only conflict is with the definition being used on these talk pages.
 * Should anyone choose to make a print copy, or a for-profit copy, every image will have to rights cleared to determine its true legal status. Even images under the gfdl or other licenses.
 * Can you show me a legal case where thumbnail Time cover images were not considered fair-use? Maybe you should write a paragraph on the fairuse page of what you consider the new rules to be for them. I am getting the feeling even if a Time lawyer says "you can use the covers to illustrate the biography of that individual" you will still argue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If TIME releases the images to us, and also allows other sites to use the images unimpeded, then it's no longer fair use now, is it? And I'm not applying new rules, so stop implying I am. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Corporate logos are also a non-free license. Do we delete them? Or do the articles have to discuss the logo to be considered "fair use"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly the subject. Please address what Martyman brought up. Mike H. That's hot 08:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, its a new question, and should be answered. If we only accept free licenses in case someone publishes the entire million articles, the DVD art would prevent publication. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, then please address the original subject. Ask your question in another thread. I hate it when people change the subject of the thread mid-argument. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do (or did) any of our Time magazine "thumbnails" link directly back to the Time magazine archive? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Change of direction
I propose that this page be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Removal of fair use images and that at least or now we stop focusing on what's gone before and focus on moving forward. This would mean that in the short term
 * We put on hold the discussion about the correctness and/or appropiateness of the removal of the Time images in particular.
 * That since there are questions about the images, we follow the existing guidelines and leave those images off of articles until the question is settled.
 * That any further deletion of images be carried out only within the existing venues.

In the longer term, I'd like to see
 * Some discussion about exactly how urgent a problem this is, as opinons seem to vary wildly from the "We are in so much shit" position. Urgency != rash action, but it's good to know soon we'd have to take decisive action.
 * More exposition on why the currecnt system is not percieved to be working.
 * Some suggestions as to what the long-term goal is.

I'm sure that lots of this has been discussed elsewhere on the big wide wiki, so even just providing links would be good. brenneman {T}  {L}  02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As it happens, there's even an appropriate WikiProject for talking about this kind of thing. Stan 03:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then put an annoncment there about this and we consider if a "Speedy Project". Or just redirect and merge this into the project.  Whatever is the best way to harness the energy and passion here for something useful. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A way forward
Given that: I propose that: Zocky | picture popups 08:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Respect of copyright law is a legal obligation and a foundation issue
 * Wikipedia prefers free images to those used by permission or under fair use.
 * Fair use can only be claimed for a particular use of the copyrighted work.
 * The board has left the implementation of a procedure to remove copyvio images to the community.
 * Jimbo saying that he would do something doesn't mean that it should or may be done by other people.
 * Wikipedian community operates by consensus and has long and consistently frowned upon unilateral actions.
 * We close this RFC.
 * The board draws up a set of criteria under which copyrighted images (under fair use or by permission) may be used on Wikimedia websites. These obviosly must be within legal limits, but may also be much more restrictive.
 * We require every use of a non-free image to be explicitly justified by one of the criteria, possibly using something like.
 * We use the regular editing and decisionmaking process to remove images from articles where usage is not justified, and delete orphaned images after a week.
 * We follow other established policies for dealing with emergencies and unexpected situations, and ignore all rules when necessary.
 * Wikiproject Fairuse in the past has rejected proposals to require per use justification templates. If you'd like to see this happen then you'll need to speak up because other users are not so supportive of the idea. --Gmaxwell 03:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How many images have been removed because a legal entity asked us to remove them?
We have had lots of talk about misuse of images. What is the actual number of images that Wikipedia has been asked to remove because of copyright infringement. This would give us all an objective measure of the problem. Who would I ask to get an authoratative number? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hardly only about that. We accept copyrighted images under fair use not because we can or because we have to, but because we have decided that they are acceptable in some circumstances. OTOH, they also present significant problems for our goals and objectives, the foremost of which is creating a freely-redistributable encyclopedia, even commercially distributable. That's why we use GFDL. There is no guarantee that copyright holders who do not sue us because they consider our use fair, will also consider that the use of images in a reprinted article in a newspaper or a textboox is also fair. This problem is even worse with images used by permission. If an article depends on non-free images, it becomes non-redistributable and useless for our long-term purposes. Zocky | picture popups 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So far all I have seen are dozens of mirrors that use Wikipedia to generate Google adsense revenue. Are you talking about a print version? We have over 20 categories of non-free images including: CD covers, DVD covers, book covers, corporate logos, newspaper covers, magazine covers and many more. Why has Time been the one to choose? Delete all of them, if the goal is to non-free free. If we go to a print version they will have to stripped out anyway since we will have to charge for the book version, and that would be a copyright violation. Someone would have to rights-clear every image anyway, even the ones under a free license. Print publication has no safe-harbor rule.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way: copyright policy is a foundation issue, and it's solely up to the board to decide it. We can all offer our perspectives, but none of us is legally responsable, the foundation is.
 * The idea has always been that the encyclopedia is published under a free licence (GFDL being the best available at the time). Unfortunately, this isn't always workable, and we accept images under fair use, too. But still, fair use is undesirable on principle and is discouraged, not encouraged. There is no way to predict for which purposes people will want to use the "sum of all human knowledge", and we should place as few constraints on them as possible. Zocky | picture popups 09:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a reasoned view, Zocky... Actually, per se the last editor of an article with a copyvio in it is also liable for copyvio infringement, sort of like a hot potato, but the legal argument on that could be complex. The Foundation (or Jimbo Wales) would probably be favored in a lawsuit as a larger and easier target. At any rate, a little brief research will find that virtually any other similar entity (textbook publishers, newspapers, etc) has a broader and more balanced interpretation of fair use than some Wikipedians do. The narrower, more risk-averse view may well be better. As with anything, it should probably be determined by consensus with a 'veto vote' by the Foundation or Jimbo. KWH 12:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When did the argument switch from "our liabilty" to a definition of fair use?
The argument for the TIME deletions started off as a way to prevent catastrophic financial liability. I believe that argument is dead, based on exisitng case law that we have discussed already, and a letter in our hands granting us "fair use". Now the issue is being framed as who's version of fair use applies: the copyright holder's liberal version; or, our narrow version. Our narrow interpretation was designed to be cautious since we don't have the explicit permission of each copyright holder. So why does our narrow version designed for the unknown apply here? Isn't that why we had our own biolerplate for TIME covers? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly didn't start that as I didn't start this RFC. As I'm sure I've already said, that TIME boilerplate is not adequate! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats because the wording doesn't contain any of the information in the letter from Time magazine. The license should only contain the wording from Time and nothing else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The abuse of circular logic
We seem to be using circular logic in the deletion of Time images. We have a restrictive policy that limits their use since "fair use" has a high bar for climbing past, and we have to assume the copyright holder will enforce their ownership. Now when the owner gives us permission, we are circling around back to our definition of fair use, designed for times when we don't have permission. Does this srike anyone else as an odd rationale? Its like driving 25 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone because the road used to be 25 and you don't trust the new speed limit signs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What TIME has given us is boilerplate, not a negotiated agreement.  It was sent to us by someone who is essentially a customer service rep and who has no actual authority to make a commitment on behalf of TIME.  TIME could repudiate the "agreement" at any time, and will very likely end up doing so should any actual decisionmakers at TIME become fully informed about our use of the covers.
 * Very likely? Very likely not. What Time Warner was receiving here was free advertising for TIME magazine. What on Earth makes you think they would ever have wanted all their covers to be deleted from this popular site? No businessperson would ever state that this is "very likely". Uris I ♥ NY 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, boilerplate from the legal department. Isn't that the definition of boilerplate? She cuts and pastes the same information to everyone who asks to use the images from the cover gallery. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The sense of the boilerplate is that TIME is talking about thumbnail images that are used as the anchor for a hyperlink to TIME's web site.  That is not what we do.  Our link to TIME is an additional click away.
 * Even if there was no link at all, the TIME covers were free advertising for TIME magazine. Most likely, they LOVE (or now, loved) having their covers on display all over Wikipedia. Uris I ♥ NY 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The counter argument, if it is free advertising, is that we have no business using Wikipedia to provide free advertising for TIME. --Gmaxwell 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The text has no such restriction, please reread it. Any more information than what is in the email is pure conjecture. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) What TIME has given us, even if it were useful for our purposes, is not useful for reusers.
 * Reuser beware. Images released under GFDL may not be legally entitled to be released under that license. Any reuser or print version assumes the liability as is pointed out by the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why all print media use rights clearance agencies. And thats why most of the reusers just use the text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The goal of this project is to create a free content encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not just text. Yes, some of our images less free than they could be... thats a bug.--Gmaxwell 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Because of the plans for CD and print editions, what TIME has given us would not be sufficient for our ends even had it been issued by a person of authority at TIME.  For this same reason, safe harbor provisions cannot be relied upon, since they are Internet-specific.
 * Every photo in a print edition will have to rights cleared, or come from a public domain source. I also assume the edition will be sold, and not have tax exempt status when it is sold. That means no screenshots or DVD covers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Commerical use doesn't remove fairuse. If our usage is indeed permitted under fair use that would also hold true for a for-profit print version. --Gmaxwell 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The fact that there are other dodgy by-permission or permission-and-fair-use images does not argue for keeping the TIME covers but rather demonstrates the considerable extent of the problem.
 * I agree with you here. What makes other so-called dodgy "Fair Use" images different is that they are only images without a huge "TIME" banner to identify the source on the image. Being stricter about Fair Use in general is a good thing, as this RfC has convinced me. But the TIME covers are undoubtedly a good thing for their business because they are easily identifiable as TIME images without even clicking anywhere. Uris I ♥ NY 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen! The Time covers and the DVD covers are the only ones with the copyright holder embedded in the photo. It should be the easiest to determine its correct status.
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

DVD screenshots
I am assuming that all DVD screenshots will have to be deleted. We have the covers to the DVDs to illustrate the articles on the movies, but there are DVD stills to illustrate almost every movie and every actor. I am assuming the same logic will neccesitate their deletion. They are copyrighted. We have no permission from any individual studio. There are other available images of the actor via publicity stills. Is that our next target? We have to think of the reusers and the print version... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the use of DVD captures in an article about the actor is fine as long as the article explicitly discusses there role in the movie (unless suitable publicity stills from the movie are available - which would be a better choice). Captures of a movie to illustrate an article on the movie is pretty good grounds for fair use (as long as there aren't too many). The correct analogy here would be to use DVD captures of Star Wars to illustrate Space flight or Jurrasic Park to illustrate Dinosaur articles (neither of which would be valid uses unless the article was specifically discussing the movie). Again these fair use cases are only valid if a fair use rational is spelled out on the image description page. --Martyman- (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for you to address Martyman's concerns higher up on the talk page, but you seem to keep throwing about different arguments in the hopes that we'll forget that you can't answer questions directly. Mike H. That's hot 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this addressed to me? I haven't a clue what your refering to. If someone wants to contact me they can leave information on my userpage or email me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is. Martyman wrote above "I interpret the letter not as a permission for use (which would be a non-free license anyway and not acceptable) but as an admission that fair use may apply if used correctly. It is in no way a free-license and therefore does not in any way get around our requirement to comply with the fair use rules of wikipedia and the US government" to which you replied "Corporate logos are also a non-free license. Do we delete them? Or do the articles have to discuss the logo to be considered "fair use"?". It was then pointed out to you that this is not addressing the subject in question. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some non-negotiables
Some people seem to be forgetting that the English Wikipedia only accepts two types of images: Anything that is not clearly in the first category (ie, anything not explicitly licenced by the creator as GFDL or compatible) might, at best, fit in the second category. With-permission images are not good enough to fit into the first category. Anything non-commercial is not good enough to fit into the first category.
 * 1) Images licenced under the GFDL or another GFDL-compatible licence;
 * 2) Images not under a GFDL compatible licence, which are used in such a way that the uploader preemptively claims fair use.

And on fair use: I hope this has stayed fairly relevant. --bainer (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The onus to show that something is fair use is on the uploader at all times. If it is not clearly free use to another user, then you have probably not explained yourself well enough. If you have explained yourself well, you are probably just wrong about copyright law, and you should go away and read up about it and only then come back.
 * 2) Fair use is about use. That's why it has use in the name. Even if an image falls into one of the categories of images which are usually fair use (eg, album cover art) the uploader still has to show that the individual image is being used in a way which would constitute fair use. Unless you can show that a Time cover is being used "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" (quoting WP:FU) then admins are eminently justified in deleting them.


 * Very. One thing I've been wondering: since fair use is, as you say, about use, what's the resolution to the obvious problem that images, once uploaded, can get used in multiple articles?  I upload a non-free image which I believe is appropriate to use in article A under fair use, but then later someone else uses that same image in article B where it's not. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like a solution to this problem as well. One way I've thought of is to instead assert fair use for a *topic*. Obviously this won't work all the time, but for most cases it should. The same fair use image on Ketuanan Melayu, UMNO, and Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia can have the same rationale. I can even think of articles where the image might not be in but probably should, such as Malaysian New Economic Policy and Bumiputra. Maybe even Hishamuddin Hussein. What's important is to specify that the specific event depicted by the image must be critically discussed in articles which use it. Johnleemk | Talk 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, the best way forward is for a change to be made in MediaWiki. As such I have filed bug 5169 as an enhancement request. I urge everyone to vote on this issue. Can we help out the developers to implement this change? I'm willing to do pretty much anything to make this enhancement a reality, even to the point of making a small cash donation to Wikimedia to get it underway (wouldn't be much as I don't have that much). - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that Brion won't do it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the whole I agree with his reasoning -- the long term "bug" here is the presence of a massive set of images obviously incompatible with Wikipedia's general mission to produce a free-content encyclopedia. In some cases they add quite a bit and are irreplaceable, but as the project expands, especially into for-profit physical copy, they are a hindrance. Pushing for stricter justification of fair use is of course a step in the right direction. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a possibility:
 * 1. On the image page, have a button called "Add fair use justification for article". On pressing the button, a page appears with a text area for the justification, and a separate text field for a link to the article for which this is a fair use justification.  Clicking "save" on this new page adds a fair use justification to the image page.  Thus the image page "knows" what articles have fair use justifications for that image.
 * 2. Every time an article is saved with a link to a non-free image, MediaWiki checks whether there is a fair use justification for that image/article combination. If there is not, an error message comes up and the article refuses to save. Grover cleveland 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Multiple Non-free fair use in tags work. It would easy to have a rule that the image description page must include links to all pages using it validly. Harder to guarantee "critical discussion", but fair use does include "identification" as well. A weird idea is to have some kind of textual insert in an article that brackets the material that justifies the use; even wilder, require that the piece of text match a piece of text in the image description, let bots detect when valid "critical discussion" may have been eviscerated. Not sure it needs to go that far though, my impression is that once a use in text has been made correct, it tends to stay that way. Stan 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-free fair use in2 and Non-free fair use in3? --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A different Non-free fair use in tag for each article in which fair use is claimed would be better. Or else a single fairuse tag with a list of articles in which fair use is claimed in the description section. It is of course true that an image can be claimed as fair use in a number of different pages; a Time cover, for example, could be used in an article about the subject (but only if it was accompanied with text or a caption discussing, say, press coverage of the subject), it could also be used in Time (magazine) to illustrate what the magazine looks like, it could even be used in an article about the photographer, when accompanied by text discussing the particular photo. --bainer (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone is seriously proposing that improper labelling of images as fair use be ignored. The issue brought up by this item is really one of due diligence, attention to detail and the lack of standards.  In my own case, it was only after the cover was marked for deletion that the article was actually read.  Although fair use was eventually conceded as it applied to my circumstances, the item still remains up for deletion because 46 kb is "too large."   So far, my inquiry as to what size is not "too large" has been unanswered after nearly a week.  Also, since the article itself discusses the racial differences between the persons illustrated on the cover, such distinctions would not be visible at a lower resolution, defeating the point of having the cover displayed.  I'm stymied right now because my object in trying to get this to Feature Article status is on hold until I can get a definitive answer to my question.  This should not be how things work.  I very much appreciate the work admins do in policing the site, but this should not have happened or at least should have been resolved some time ago.  Jtmichcock 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the file size should be considered. The resolution and other possibly extenuating circumstances should be considered, as low-resolution images are more likely to avoid infringing on possible profits for the copyright owner. Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Of interest to the folks here...
Many months ago I'd proposed replacing our generic fair use template with a new set of templates that provide some additional information. They require the user of the template to attach a per-use justification and they require the user to indicate if a free alternative image would be possible. The images tagged as possible replacements would be tagged with a category that photographers could use to find requested replacements.

My proposal, although supported by Jimbo, didn't get much traction with the other fair use interested folks because at the time their focus was on the introduction of the boilerplate fairuse templates. I think that it's clear now that while very useful, the boilerplate templates have their limitations and don't remove the need for the replace/noreplace classification nor the need for per use justification.

So, I'm bringing that proposal back. I've created two templates Fu-re-in-why and Fu-na-in-why. The slightly obtuse names are intentional, because the overuse of obvious template names like money and icon have caused people to select these templates without even reading the text... and as a result their use often doesn't make sense. The two templates signify replaceable and non-replaceable fair use respectively. They take two arguments, one is a list of one or more article links for which the justification applies, and the other is a brief justification.

If the templates are used with the wrong number of arguments, instead they become a help message and categorize the images as incompletely tagged. This requires some degree of complexity in the templates, but I've done a lot of work to still make them easy to edit. My old proposal didn't have this feature, and I was a little concerned with depending on the correct use of template arguments on such an important template. I believe the automagic help message does a lot to address that concern.

Right now I'm happy with the license text in these templates, but the help text needs to be rewritten... I only threw it in as a placeholder. You can see an example of one of these used with differing numbers of arguments at User:Gmaxwell/bar. I'd appreciate any commentary. --Gmaxwell 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is going in the right direction, but not far enough I think - still too easy for someone to give "just because I feel it's fair use" as a reason, as is the case with the "Non-free fair use in" template now. A good fair use rationale seems to have about four main parts, so it seems reasonable to require each of the four parts to be supplied, and just as importantly, a way for images thought not to fit the criteria to be categorized for further scrutiny. For instance, in my scanning through the generic fair use image cat, it would have been handy to be able to mark images - "decorative; decorative; not historical; high-res and decorative and not historical; ...". As I understood it, the original theory of the "obvious" template names is that they have builtin rationales for specific kinds of articles, and that you could write tools to enforce, for instance to check that album covers are lower-res than could be used to make bootleg CDs. Stan 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimately we have to have humans review the justifications... I've already created tools to help make this easier, but we're not ready to use them yet. It is my thought that these templates capture all that we can expect a template to capture, and beyond that we already need the help of a human reviewer.  If people have to spend their time explaining too much of the obvious to the machine then they just wont... and we'll end up back where we we are now, with 100,000+ insufficently tagged images, and people screaming at you when you try to delete them. :) --Gmaxwell 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense to those who scream, but I say: let them scream. I'd rather be screamed at by unreasonable people than not take the action and know that I could have headed off legal action for Wikipedia but didn't. Let's face it: fair use is being overused, misapplied and abused. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The real downside of the screaming is that it sucks up time and energy on all sides, while those who wish to quietly subvert an unliked policy continue to work away. Confrontation and escalation could get us into places we don't like; we're not well-equipped to deal with 50,000 images falsely tagged as "GFDL-self" for instance. (Not entirely hypothetical; the fair-use postage stamp category, the only one I review 100% regularly, has recently been picking up random photos tagged as stamps.) The noose will end up just as tight if you draw it in gradually - just have to sustain the effort of drawing it in (and recruit more people to help pull, this is a 40-admin sized problem). Stan 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the "let them scream" seems to imply that anyone who disagrees is unreasonable. I'd still like some legal opinons from *gasp* actual lawyers about just how much of a "sky is falling" emergancy this is.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  03:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an emergency until it's too late. An incorrectly used fair use image is just as much a copyright violation as an unsourced image with no licence tag is. The difference is that in the former case, somebody was smart enough to slap fairuse on the image page. Johnleemk | Talk 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Having been involved in a number of disputes over fair use, I would very much like to offer comments as an attorney. I would like to remind all that all that's necessary in 99.99% of cases involving the web is to remove to inappropriate material and that ends the dispute, with the only exceptions involving "world exclusives" (i.e., Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi).  However, I have volunteered this information before and, unfortunately, no one seems to want to listen.  Jtmichcock 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The trouble I see with this interpretation of fair use (it's all fair until someone complains), is that it is incompatible with wikipedia's goals of being a free encyclopedia. Instead it retargets us as the "questionably legal encyclopedia". By relying on removing disputed images when asked we are essentially admitting that our use was not fair in the first place, and that we are flagrantly ignoring the law because we know we can get away with removing any copyrighted material as soon as the owner notices. This doesn't seem morally right to me. I feel the only two viable options for the project (with regards to fair use) are to get as close to within the law as we can possibly manage or to remove all non-free images all together. --Martyman- (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Every single newspaper, magazine, television program and other form of media grapple with issues of copyright, trademark and application of fair use principles - and they sometimes screw up. That doesn't make them any of them "questionably legal" because the right of free speech is paramount.  If Wikipedia decided not to avail itself of the fair use doctrine, say goodbye to the Mickey Mouse article.  Why?  The title is trademarked and it is only through the exception allowing critical commentary that we can have an article.  Also, get rid of any "spoilers" alerts to any books, movies, TV shows, etc., because these sections would have to be deleted.  Plots and dialog are work products owned by the authors and it is only through the fair use doctrine that we are allowed to repeat portions of that information within an encyclopedia.  Fair use is not something that applies just to images, it allows the repeating of spoken dialog such as "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" and most of the content of this encyclopedia.
 * Fair use in the US is governed by a four part test, the last portion of which I regard as the most important: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. By publishing bits of dialog, plot summaries and names of characters, the effect is to enhance the work, not detract from marketability.  No one reading an article with a shrunken, low resolution Time magazine cover is going to be printing it off and thinking they can avoid having to subscribe (the sheer silliness of this description is exactly what most of these arguments can be reduced to).  More likely, people are going to be interested in the coverage provided and want to subscribe.
 * With respect to doing what's "morally right": hell there are some folks who would cut off our hands for showing a picture of Muhammad because it's immoral. Some would go through all the articles and delete profanity and blasphemy on one side and insensitive and "culturally loaded" words on the other side because they believe that these are immoral.  That's one road I refuse to travel down.  Jtmichcock 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)