Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 12, 2007

Photo to use?
I think a photo of the Hanna-Barbera Building at 3400 Cahuenga Boulevard in LA (see  ) would be a fine free image. There's nothing on Flickr, so I've put in requests at WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California.--Pharos 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How does showing the exterior of a building illustrate anything at all about the TV show Scooby-Doo? "Inside these walls, artists and writers made a show that, for policy reasons, we can't show you a still frame from..." ??  Yikes!!  Jenolen    speak it!  00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the historic home of Hanna-Barbera, it has a big sign that says "Hanna-Barbera" out front, and moreover it's a building of architectural significance (as explained on those pages). It's at least as representative of the subject as the lame fair use logos that are often attached to TFAs, and it would be a free (and interesting) image.--Pharos 01:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something; I thought the subject of the article was Scooby-Doo, the TV cartoon show featuring four kids and a dog solving mysteries. How a photo of an architecturally significant office building illustrates that is really unclear to me.  It's a stretch, to say the least...   Jenolen    speak it!  07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be certainly be at least as relevant as a Hanna-Barbera logo anyway, and more interesting I think.--Pharos 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only type of free image for this subject is likely to be like this one from commons: how about a cropped version to just scooby ?Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)




 * I think that's just another incorrectly uploaded to commons image. It doesn't really matter what image, if it's about something from the scooby do show, it's not free.  That blimp is of scooby, so it's a derivative work.  Taking a picture of it (a three dimensional object) is another derivative work.  It just adds more people to the sequence of copyright holders, not less. - Peregrine Fisher 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The balloon, for copyright purposes, would be considered a sculpture, and a temporary sculpture at that. US law in particular does not allow for free photography of public statues under Freedom of panorama, and no country allows free photography of sculpture that is only temporarily on display.--Pharos 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It says Fred "Freddie" Jones but he is only called Freddie by Daphne and Fred by everyone else. Should the "Freddie" part be removed? And haven't three images been taken down in the last month because they were not free? --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which three images? - Peregrine Fisher 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fairly pathetic, but the image at right should be 'free' use and somewhat 'evocative' of Scooby-doo. Scooby's dog tag always showed the letters 'SD' in yellow on blue - usually, but not always, in angular letters on a diamond shaped tag with a yellow border. Since this image isn't a dog tag it can't be taken to be a 'copy' of any of the various dog tags used for the character. Since the lettering on those tags has appeared in various different styles and not exactly like this it can't be trademarked. The letters SD in yellow on blue aren't, by themselves, inherently protectable. Of course, that level of disassociation also means that people may not get the reference - though the fact that the Scooby-doo link would be right next to it might help. --CBD 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While there's certainly no question that that's fair use, it also adds no value to the article since it has virtually nothing to do with the show. Why not just have the image be a square of brown vaguely similar to the color of scooby?  If this is going to have a thumbnail image on the main page, it needs to be something that actually illustrates the show, which could only be a fair use image.  If a fair use image is not allowed, there are no free images that are a useful substitute (none of those images are replacable with free), the only other option is no image.  Has WP put a FA article on the main page with no image before?  --Minderbinder 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, the image has been removed again. Is this the end of fair use images on the main page?  Is Jimbo the one in control of this? - Peregrine Fisher 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images have never been allowed on the front page. Although I think we shouldn't have featured an article with no free images in the first place, I believe that it's a good opportunity to use this educational image.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What? We've had many fair use images on the front page. --- RockMFR 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been many fair use images on the main page, but it seems like Jimbo wants to actually enforce the rule now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that Replace this image1.svg should be on the main page and definetly not in this case because the chances of getting a free image are near zero (it is also designed for pictures of people. Setups for pictures of other subjects are bring worked on).Geni 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, it is okay to simply not have an image for this one. I've seen some pics that are simply "reaching" too much. Better to have nothing at all than a pic that is hard to figure out how it relates. -- Cyde Weys 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick, quick! We need to get a free image.  What about this one?  --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That one is not helpful, as the creative content of the photography has all rights reserved, and the subject of the photograph is itself a third party's creative work. Jkelly 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cyde. While I am completely against banning all fair use from the Main Page, and for good reason, if we're going to do so, there's no need to use half-assed or potentially misleading images just for the sake of using one. Anything recognizable and relevant is probably some kind of a derivative work, anyway, so let's just leave the image out today. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. The image there now just looks silly. Personally, I support just allowing fair use images, but failing that, we should still try to find a logical image or none at all. Something is not always better than nothing.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a decent free image, and after discussion in #wikimedia, it was determined that a balloon is not a sculpture under freedom of panorama (the other image, however, is CC-NC).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the character still copyrighted, though? &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say, "discussion in #wikimedia" is a pretty lame source for legal information. As I explained above, a photograph of a balloon like that would be even substantially less amenable than a statue to freedom of panorama, because the balloon is only displayed on a temporary basis.--Pharos 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The exception still stands, so it would be nice if that was honoured. I'd like to know how the balloon skirts the copyrighted character issue too. Doctor Sunshine   talk  05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The image has been nominated for deletion on Commons. I'm going to remove it from the TFA template. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, guys, here's my last best hope: Hanna-Barbera's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I could only find one free image of it on Flickr, here, though it's not a very good one. If anyone with advanced image editing skills can turn that into a half-decent image focused on the star, that might work for us.--Pharos 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely wary of a front-page image that doesn't somehow illustrate the subject itself. This is sort of a tangential topic, akin to a photo of a voice actor or the Hanna-Barbera building. We don't have a lot of room to caption, anyway, so the image is at best, confusing or irrelevant, and at worst, potentially misleading. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rebelguys2 that the image really should illustrate the topic in question. I think that if we are to ban any fair use images from the front page, then we have to accept the fact that certain topics, like this one and Final Fantasy VII, will never have a satisfactory free image available for use.  I don't agree with Piotrus though that having no free images should preclude featuring, though: certain topics will then never be featured for the above reason, regardless of how well-written is the prose.  Personally, I think fair use does apply to the front page and that it's unfortunate that we have a policy against it.  Kelvinc 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help me plz
Could someone direct me to the discussion about using/not using free content on the main page? I ad been following it and then forgot where it was :( :( :( I only ask because I'm wondering if anyone's considered the fact that lots of people have the main page and/or the featured section transcluded on their userpages or subpages.  Milto LOL pia 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its back on now, so whatever. --Iamunknown 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To Ryulong: do you realize that Jimbo himself removed the image? Sigh, just leave it out, the article summary doesn't need an image. --Iamunknown 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Make it   --Iamunknown 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Screw it. The image I tried to replace it with is determined as not a free image on the commons, and is currently up for deletion. Back to the crap image, again.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Jimbo has only given an occasional, not very thorough, comment. At WP:FUE, his comment offered no advice on what to do with articles for which there aren't (and likely can't be) any free images, and his edit to today's TFA doesn't exactly reassure my faith in his knowledge of copyright law.  ShadowHalo 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He replaced it when it appeared that there was a free image in the actually Scooby-Doo article. It, as it turns out, was not free and has been deleted; so, it is perfectly acceptable reinstall the fair use image from the article. Jimbo is not a dictator, consensus—which is how the exemption was brought about and why we've been featuring the occasional fair use image on the main page for the past 3 years or so—still rules. We've been aware this was going to appear on the main page for two weeks and it looks unprofessional to mess about with it so much on the day it's featured. Please, put it back and leave it be. The fair use exemption removal discussion can be found here. Doctor Sunshine  talk  17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Noble Dane
Image:Oola - a Noble Dane.jpg isn't very iconic of Scooby-Do. Leave it without a pic until a clear and suitable replacement can be found. =)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 07:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That should never be an option. Some sort of image representative of the subject should be used if nothing else can be found.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I seriously do not see the problem of not having a pic. No pic is better than having some flimsy pic. Is there a guildline that specifically state that a pic has to be present for the featured article on the main page?  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation" - The dog i copyright infringement in my opinion, you're trying to express the dog to represent the Scooby Doo show. Matthew 07:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be like saying that since Scooby-Doo is copyrighted, we need to pay Hanna-Barbera a fee to write an article about it. You copyright text, images, sculptures (particular expressions); you cannot copyright ideas.--Pharos 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the Great Dane photograph isn't representative of the subject (a character deliberately designed to be an unrealistic portrayal of the breed). That dog does not resemble Scooby-Doo, and even if it did, it's ridiculous to use a photograph of something that "sorta looks like the subject" (the wording that you used on my talk page).  That would be like featuring the Paul Prudhomme article and substituting a free photograph of Dom DeLuise.  —David Levy 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Using a picture of Dom DeLuise to represent Paul Prudhomme on the main page of a top 10 web site doesn't sound right to me. I'll admit I don't know everything about copyright law, but other people/sites don't do anything like it.  I think it has to do with the law. - Peregrine Fisher 07:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a bullshit argument and you know it. A free photo of either one of those people's likenesses could be created at any time if somebody actually cared to persue it, which surely they would if one of those articles was on the verge of featured status. I happened to read an interesting tidbit of the discussion that put us where we are now, in reference to a previous featured article Make Way for Ducklings (another work of fiction, not two real, living people that happen to look alike, David):
 * Image:Mother_duck_with_chicks.jpg would be an obvious choice. If we felt like being a bit odd we could use Image:Make_Way_For_Ducklings_-_route_to_the_garden.png. I've also contacted the author of the sculpture in the article for a free release of that image. We could also use a generic photo or icon of a book to preserve the layout. There is no reason to think we couldn't run articles without their own image. --Gmaxwell 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my belief that the Great Dane photo both adequately favors Scooby, and passes the "duck test", so to speak. — freak([ talk]) 08:01, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my reference to Paul Prudhomme and Dom DeLuise was intended as a bit of humor, not a realistic scenario.
 * Secondly, to the extent that the analogy was meant to be taken seriously, I was referring strictly to the claim that it's appropriate to display an image of an entity that "sorta looks like the subject." I was not comparing the availability of a free Paul Prudhomme photograph with the availability of a free Scooby-Doo image (which obviously doesn't exist).
 * Thirdly, the Great Dane doesn't resemble the character (which was deliberately designed to differ in appearance from real dogs of this breed). Similarly, this is not a suitable representation of Snoopy, nor is this a suitable representation of Donald Duck.  —David Levy 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't say much for the beagle, but please alert me if Aflac appears in the featured articles queue. — freak([ talk]) 09:23, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't show a picture of a real dog. Today's FA is about a cartoon. Thanks. --PFHLai 08:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo thought we had a free image that could replace the un-free image. If that had been true, it would have been reasonable.  The image turned out not to be free, and Raul changed it back to the original.  The only reason to not use the correct image depends on how one reads Jimbo's edit summary, which I don't think is where he means to make major changes to WP's policies.  Someone, please put back the original image. - Peregrine Fisher 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is misleading and silly to show a picture of a real Great Dane. Would you consider showing a cartoon that one of us drew that kinda-sorta looked like Scooby-Doo but probably not quite enough for it to be a copyright violation? This is not much better. Haukur 08:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can swear all day that Image:Villianc.svg wasn't derived from Snidely Whiplash, but it still appeared on the main page for some reason. I would suspect that that falls into a gray area in terms of policy interpretation, if not legally. I'm not advocating the creation and use a cartoon knockoff, or even saying it would be truly "free", but I strongly feel that a free image with some degree of relevance would be better than nothing. — freak([ talk]) 09:23, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)

Additionally - by putting up that image next to the article summary we're strongly implying "this is Scooby-Doo". Do you think the folks who hold the rights to him are happy about that? Do you think that doesn't violate their rights at all? IANAL but this doesn't seem right to me. Haukur 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's implying anything. The fact of the matter is that when we feature articles relating to contemporary fiction, we have to... improvise. See the discussion of "duckling" discussion above, and in the original context at Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions. Unless you have a camera and a handful of Scooby Snacks, I would strongly suggest replacing the dog photo Ryulong and I found at Great Dane. — freak([ talk]) 09:09, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter what you do you can't make free content out of unfree content; not by taking a picture of Scooby Snacks or a Scooby plush toy or by dressing up in a Scooby costume or by taking a picture of Richard Stallman in a Scooby-Doo t-shirt reciting the GFDL. Haukur 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dog photograph is not derived from unfree content, and will always be free. Would a photograph of Scooby Snacks (the food itself, not the packaging) be any less free than that of Kit Kat bar? — freak([ talk]) 09:28, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, depends on what the snacks look like. But is Image:KitKat.jpg really free for anyone to use for any purpose? I'm not so sure. Haukur 09:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We get this kind of thing all the time on the German Wikipedia. We can't have a picture of Pikachu in an article? Oh, what about a picture of an aeorplane with Pikachu on it? See Pikachu. Haukur 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I apologize for reverting first and discussing second - it should have been the other way around. Haukur 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does Jimbo decide?
I thought decisions were made by the foundation and the policies that reflect their decisions. This seems like an important decision that should get a watchlist notification, similar to WP:ATT. - Peregrine Fisher 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while I respect Jimbo's position, it's however out of process. Matthew 07:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been decided by the Foundation. Do you think Jimbo is the only one on the Board who has a dedication to free content? They all do. -- Cyde Weys 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What has been decided by the foundation? No FU images on the main page, or the vague "free is better" mantra?  --Minderbinder 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So we're waffling between no image, and silly images, after no discussion
Shouldn't there be a discussion prior to making this change? The use of one more Fair use image on the main page seems reasonable considering the lack of discussion or a foundation declaration. Am I wrong? Why? - Peregrine Fisher 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While there certainly hasn't been a lack of discussion about the issue of unfree media on the main page in general, it would definitely be a good idea for people to discuss this case in particular and get feedback before adding yet another image; there's been a lot of churn here that could have been avoided by taking the time to discuss options. Jkelly 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This would make it twice for an FA on the main page with pic problems
The first one was with the autralian swimmer. Now this. Why does the article get passed in the first place if there is no at least one free image to display in the main page when it is going to be featured? >_> Berserkerz Crit 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the featured article selection process does not discriminate against works of fiction. Whether it should is a debate that should be conducted elsewhere. — freak([ talk]) 08:27, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm that's not my point. Twice this has happened. The first to a living person article. I don't care if it's fiction or what not. It just looks fugly not to have an appropriate image for a FA in the mainpage. @_@ Berserkerz Crit 08:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be a criterion on WP:TFA/R that the article has a free image for the summary? The articles without can still be featured (because they are WP's best work) but without a free image they can't be on the mainpage? James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons for Today's Featured Article is to encourage people to write featured articles. Stating that we will almost never put television shows, computer and video games, albums, songs, films, books, etc. sort of defeats the purpose.
 * I think we need to plan a lot further ahead. At a minimum, we need to decide which image, if any, we intend to use (on the main page) to represent any given featured article, at the same time that we are discussing whether to promote said article to featured status. — freak([ talk]) 08:11, Apr. 13, 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is...
There probably are public domain images of Scooby-Doo out there. But we'd need a real copyright researcher to identify them. If, in the early years, CBS published one promotional image without a copyright registration (which doesn't seem unlikely), that image would be in the public domain, regardless of the copyright that exists on the program and characters.--Pharos 08:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another point: If a live dog had been used in Scooby-Doo (film) (as had been done in Air Bud and sequel films) instead of a computer-generated one, it would have been possible to produce a free photograph of the canine actor who portrayed Scooby. — freak([ talk]) 08:51, Apr. 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've found an image that is probably public domain. It's a gumball machine ring from the early period that was created without a copyright notice.  There are somewhat varying accounts about dates of production, but the most detailed description says it started in the 1960s.  The legal guideline for public domain without copyright notice is before 1978.  And for completeness, there's another Ebay sale here.  If we were going to use this, and I realize that's a big if considering the information is somewhat incomplete, we could crop out the 2-D image from this photo.--Pharos 09:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But this would have to be the first publication of the image, right? And it almost certainly isn't. Also keep in mind that even if we were to somehow obtain a Scooby-Doo image unrestricted by copyright it would still be restricted by trademark law so we would have to rely on a fair use defence anyhow. (AFAICT, IANAL.) Haukur 10:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image does certainly appear to be special-drawn for this purpose (note how it's only the head). We do not have any policies against the use of images which may be affected by non-copyright concerns (for example, the seals of US government agencies).--Pharos 10:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I already checked some on this.. Hanna-barbera was impressively diligent in using a copyright notice in the early episodes, it was part of the intro screen. Scooby-do merchandise is apparently a huge industry. If it were possible to reproduce likenesses of any of the characters and get away with it, it would be widely and profitably done. I can't say that it's impossible, but I can say that it appears that many others with far more incentive than us have been unable to do so thus far. --Gmaxwell 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not too sure about that. Is Superman (1940s cartoons) a big source for unauthorized merchandise?  (OK, I admit, I really don't know how common it may be or who sells it.) There may be non-copyright concerns that are preventing such merchandise from going into widespread production.  By the way, what do you think of the gumball ring, which appears to have been produced without a copyright notice?--Pharos 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale
I added a fair use rationale for this box to the main image. Would that be ok? Alientraveller 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So is it actually policy?
Does WP policy say somewhere not to use fair use images on the main page? Or is this just coming from the decree of Jimbo? If policy doesn't say that, but it's not going to be allowed, then that policy should probably be added so we at least have something to refer to. --Minderbinder 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it does say no FU images on templates, which this page technically isn't, but it's used as one. Can we use this image?  It's CC-BY-2.0  tiZom(2¢)  14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No we can't, this is the Pokémon on the aeroplane again. Haukur 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Nifboy 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes no mention about fair use images on the main page, nor anything else that would prohibit it. The only thing that comes close is saying that FU images can only be used in article space, but that would be based on the assumption that the main page isn't in article space.  I don't know that I buy that, particularly since the main page includes content from a number of articles.  --Minderbinder 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the part about fair use images on templates includes "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." There is currently discussion Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions on whether or not this should be removed.  ShadowHalo 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like there was discussion, but it seems to be over. And despite the discussion, that exception was not removed from that page.  It seems like WP policy still says that it's OK to use fair use images on the main page.  --Minderbinder 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The main page /is/ in the main space, it is indeed allowed as per the FUC to use fair use on Main Page. Matthew 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to using the fair use image. I'm annoyed by irrelevant images but using either relevant fair use images or having nothing at all are both options I can accept. Just thought I'd say this because I, ignominously, "won" the wheel war this morning, i.e. my edit is still in effect. Haukur 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

TV image
What was wrong with the free (GDFL, I think) TV image/logo that was on display for a while? That's certainly better than the dog image and no image. 70.104.16.217 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear device tv.png]]
 * I think my comment above was overlooked — why can't we just use this image? It's CC-BY-2.0, so we should be able to display it on the Main Page, templates, etc.  tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢)  17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was addressed as the "Pokémon on the aeroplane" comment. See Commons:Derivative_works:
 * "If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?"
 * "No. Disney does not hold the copyright on the photo. There are two different copyrights to be taken into account, that of the photographer (concerning the photo) and that of Disney (the toy). You have to keep those apart. Ask yourself: Can the photo be used as an illustration for 'Winnie the Pooh'? Am I trying to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures of Pooh by using a photo of a toy? If so, then it's not allowed."
 * This isn't about Commons, but the same rule applies: the copyright on the toy depicted still applies on the photo. Basically, think of it as any front page pic must be suitable for Commons.  Kelvinc 19:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny...
How there wasn't any problem with having a fair use image on the main page less than one month ago.. or six weeks ago.. need I go on? —<b style="color:#1780bb">Z</b><b style="color:#10679f">a</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">r</b><b style="color:#2965db">y</b> talk 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice...double standards. =)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not double standards, just that things change over time. -- Cyde Weys  20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, specifically, they didn't have this edit from Jimbo. Why can't the image Jimbo found be used? It's not deleted as indicated by the edit that removed it.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see if there's really a change next time an article like this comes up. Perfect example of why we should follow actual policy and not overly ascribe significance to single edits by Important People.  So can anyone edit this template, or is it completely locked down for the day?  I don't see a reason not to put the fair use image back.  --Minderbinder 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That image was deleted on the commons. It was only recently restored on the English Wikipedia where it was originally uploaded.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That image isn't free either, it's a derivative work based on the copyrighted mystery machine design. If you're going to put up a fair use image (which in my opinion we should do), at least put back the screenshot that actually illustrates the article well.  --Minderbinder 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Jimbo was just shot down. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Things do change with the main page FA... some of the stuff we selected as FAs a few years ago would probably be considered stubs today. So just because we used to do something one way doesn't mean it's still a good idea. --W.marsh 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So what's going to happen next? No fair-use images anywhere? —<b style="color:#1780bb">Z</b><b style="color:#10679f">a</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">r</b><b style="color:#2965db">y</b> talk 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt it... some articles that describe a copyrighted work could be impossible to illustrate without fair use. The classic example is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. But (and people can link to these statements I'm sure) recent statements by the foundation strongly discourage the use of fair use images. I dunno where it's all going... there are certainly lots of articles that are chock full of fair use and that doesn't seem to be changing. --W.marsh 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe someday, but probably not. There is wide spread recognition that there is sometimes a need to include non-free works in articles. .. We don't *need* to have a main page at all. I used to say that I'd never support getting rid of all non-free images, but my recent experience is beginning to make me suspect that if we don't prohibit them everywhere we'll have a hard time keeping them from being everywhere, even where they are clearly a detriment to our mission. I hope that this fear is incorrect, but if it turns out to be true over time then I believe that the loss of non-licensed images would be a lesser evil than a persistent inability to keep areas that really should be completely free images filled with completely free images. I guess this would be a good warning to people who believe that the removal of all non-free images would be a serious loss: If you want to prevent it from happening, you should join up with all the people working against the over-use of non-free images and help ensure that they are only used where they are really needed... otherwise you may find that the project in general may reject them all because it can find no other way to prevent their over use.--Gmaxwell 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to post this link for the 3rd time on this page: Fair use exemptions. No Consensus was reached on the proposal to remove the exemption. Who exactly decided that we would not be featuring fair use images on the main page? (And please don't answer with that Jimbo edit.) Fair use images have been used on the main page for the past 3 years with no trouble. Making this leap without heed to discussion does not set a good precedence for the project. Doctor Sunshine  talk  20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I see no reason to use the screenshot to illustrate this FA on the main page.  At least no reason based on actual WP policy.  --Minderbinder 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't say for sure if there was or was not a consensus to 'remove the exception', but it does appear abundantly clear from the discussion that there doesn't exist a broad consensus to allow such an exception. --Gmaxwell 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming there was no consensus from that discussion to change policy, the policy stays the same (which seems to be the case on that page). That policy still says that the main page is an exception meaning FU images are fine to use.  --Minderbinder 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Consensus works both ways. It was decided long ago that fair use images would be allowed on the English Wikipedia just as it was decided long ago that they could be used on the main page. There was a move to strike the exemption but it has not achieved consensus, therefore the Scooby-Doo image should be replaced forthwith. Doctor Sunshine   talk  23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ... except that it won't be, because it's been made very clear by The Powers That Be that this exemption is no longer to be. -- Cyde Weys  23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems rather clear that there is no longer consensus to make the exemption to allow unfree content on the main page. Consensus changes sometimes.  Jkelly 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where has it been made clear? The official document on the matter only iterates practices that were already in place. And Jimbo's edit, if that's what you're referring to, was hardly clear seeing as he replaced a fair use image with a copyright violation. Besides which, Jimbo is not an iron fist. Doctor Sunshine   talk  23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems rather clear that there isn't consensus to forbid unfree content from the main page. Certainly consensus can change and there may be support for that change to wikipedia policy at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.  In the meantime, with no consensus for change, the policy remains the same, which is that FU images are allowed on the main page.  And I'd agree with Doc that TPTB certianly haven't made anything clear about images on the main page.  Or do you have a link saying otherwise?    --Minderbinder 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is backwards. If there is no consensus to exempt something from policy, it doesn't get exempted.  Jkelly 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying we have to vote on each fair use image? We have a 3 year precedence for using fair use images on the main page. That's consensus. I see the FA has flipped over so I suppose we're going to end up continuing this in another 2 weeks or so. Doctor Sunshine   talk  00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys can keep talking about "consensus" all you want, but the consensus on the ground, if you will, is that unlicensed images are no longer allowed on the main page, hence there aren't any. If the consensus was different on this issue there might be one for Scooby Doo, but there isn't! -- Cyde Weys  00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "on the ground". Because some people are confused about the issue you're assuming that your view is gospel? Again, please show me some definitive proof. Doctor Sunshine   talk  00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He means that in this case we ended up with no image on the front page for most of the day, hence 'facts on the ground'. I do agree with you, however, in that we shouldn't read too much into it. Consensus will maybe be clearer once we manage to educate people about derivative works and stuff like that. Haukur 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, a few reverts on this one page does not make a consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 00:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I assume that if there was any proof it would have been furnished by now. Shall we meet again next FU FA? Doctor Sunshine   talk  00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should actually reach a consensus. Why don't we do a watchlist notification poll like the one for WP:ATT. - Peregrine Fisher 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that. Doctor Sunshine   talk  02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, the thing is ... polls aren't going to override WMF's free content policies on this one. You are free to fork if you'd like a main page somewhere that does have unlicensed images on it, however.  -- Cyde Weys  03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about a fork, or changing policy. We're talking about finding a consensus on whether the policy on the main page should change.  If the foundation wants to declare something, that's fine.  Until then we still operate on consensus. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)
 * This is probably what is causing confusion. There is no "policy on the main page".  There has historically been an exemption to policy on the main page, which no longer appears to have enough support to keep making that exemption.  Jkelly 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it appears that way to you, that's fine. I happen to disagree. In the exemption removal discussion people were discouraged from stating their opinion unless it "moved the discussion forward". It was not a proper poll. A watchlist poll in which everyone is encouraged to participate would be a better gauge and help resolve this issue. Doctor Sunshine   talk  04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to disagree all you want, so long as you realize that non-free images will no longer be used on the main page. -- Cyde Weys  04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The same thing that happened with ATT happened with FU on the main page. It was railroaded through, and the discussion mostly ended when someone brought up Jimbo's edit.  Wikipedia talk:Fair use exemptions is where people who don't like exemptions congregate.  If a larger audience is ever brought in, we can see what the consensus really is. - Peregrine Fisher 04:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to see some paperwork. How did this change come about? Because you say so? A little clarification would go a long way. I don't think I'm asking too much. I agree with Peregrine Fisher, all of the people in favour of the removal disappeared. I've still got a lot of fight left in me, arguments I never got to use because there was no one left to debate.  Doctor Sunshine   talk  04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "non-free images will no longer be used on the main page" We'll have to see about that.  As long as policy says it is OK, which it currently does, I see no reason not to.  If you'd like to propose a policy change, go for it.  The last proposal to stop putting FU images on the main page didn't reach a consensus.  --Minderbinder 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission?
Moot point for Scooby Doo, since the article will be off the main page in a couple hours. But an option (would be a gamble, but can't hurt to ask) is to seek permission for something like the balloon image to be licensed here under GFDL or other compatable license. I've been having issues on commons with my own pictures of NHL trophies that I took, and tried asking the NHL for permission. In my case, unfortunately they would not agree to GFDL, but indicated it would be "okay to use the images on Wikipedia". Of course that's not good enough. In my case, I suggested the image resolution/size could be reduced, but still not okay with the NHL. It's frustrating that I can't use my own images. I'm not knowledgable enough about derivative works, freedom of panorama, trademarks, and other copyright issues to know if any exceptions might apply, so wish to be safe and have my images deleted. But, maybe Hanna Barbera would say yes to something. We don't know if we don't ask. --Aude (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's zero chance of them releasing permission. The only permission wikipedia accepts is public domian, no restrictions.  If they released an image under that, it could be used for anything, including merchandising and advertising or any other commercial use without having to pay them royalties or get permission.  It would never happen, but feel free to try and ask. --Minderbinder 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In case there is any danger of someone being confused by this, this is not at all true. One can read about this at Copyrights, and information specific to images is at commons:Commons:Licensing Jkelly 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia does accept GFDL and CC-by-sa as well. So it's not just PD.  -- Cyde Weys  22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation. I'll make sure to read all those links, thanks.  --Minderbinder 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure there are some others that Wikipedia accepts too, those are just the biggies. I'm sure there are all sorts of open source licenses out there that are compatible.  The OSS community is nothing if not fragmented.  -- Cyde Weys  23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)