Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use tag reform

Fair use claimed, but image is unused?
Hi. I'm looking for a template to stick on images where fair use is claimed, but the image is unused. AFAIK, this would mean that the image is not fairly used. Would fairusedisputed apply here? Or something different? Perhaps a new tag? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Geni 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

General suggestion
The recently re-styled Promophoto has some useful changes that should be applied to all these templates, see diff. In particular --nixie 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Templates should not have their text in italics, it makes them very hard to read
 * 2) They should explicitly spell out what type of uses, and when, the use of the image is compatible with fair use
 * 3) They should ask the uploader to provide all the related copyright information.


 * Thanks. All of the tags should include #2, although in a lot of cases it's buried in the mass of text, not by itself as a prominent bullet point.  Maybe a bit more prominence for that information would be beneficial?  As for #1 and #3, I agree.  Maybe it might be a good idea to create something similar to image-license for fair use images and then standardise them all like that.  JYolkowski // talk 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Many of them aren't too bad, but they do need cosmetic changes and some more explicit information for the uploader on providing source information, and some more information on types of article where the image could be fair. --nixie 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created image-license-fairuse, based on image-license but with a few differences (e.g. it categorises the templates into an unfree image template cat, and it has included the verbiage asking the user to include source and copyright info). I have used it to reformat music sample, speech, and USPSstamp.  I have also rewritten these three templates to use bullets to emphasise the valid uses.  If anyone has any comments, please let me know and I'll make changes as necessary before standardising everything else.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good and it makes everything very clear, great work.--nixie 23:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Music sample
The music quality may be reduced, but is it needed to reduce the icon image quality? 68.39.174.238 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Could you reword your question? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Four factors for determining "fair use"
I just made the following suggestion on Template:Tv-screenshot and Template:Film-screenshot...

Under US copyright law, there are four factors for determining "fair use":


 * 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * 3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I'd recommend that the tv-screenshot template create a bullet list that highlights these factors, which the current revision makes a start at:

It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots


 * for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

which might be revised thus:

It is believed that the use


 * of a very limited portion of the original work (one frame out of thousands),
 * which will likely have no detrimental impact on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,
 * for criticism, comment, scholarship, and research on the station ID or program and its contents
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Note: I removed "web-resolution screenshots" because resolution has no impact on a fair-use defense. Same goes for "identification." --Jeremy Butler 13:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm generally okay with this suggestion. I would suggest removing "scholarship and research" since criticism and commentary are the main fair uses in an encyclopedia.  As for the "web-resolution" stuff, this isn't strictly based on a reading of the law, but on the policy that we only use the minimum amount of copyrighted, unlicenced work possible.  Also, having a large library of high-resolution screenshots could make it easier for people to pirate them.  JYolkowski // talk 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I still suggest that the resolution of certain images is important: distributing a low resolution version of a CD cover has a different economic effect on the copyright holder than distributing a high resolution version. We should only use high-res versions where we are confident that this will not affect the commercial value of the images or where the high resolution is necessary for our (defended) usage. Physchim62 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Linux-Screenshots?
The term "Linux-Software-Screenshot" is garbage - software for Linux is in most cases able to run under other opearting systems, too. Besides that, the most spread software for linux systems i GPL, LGPL or BSD - to make a template which says you can only use linux pictures within terms of fair use is garbage! That implies that these screenshots cannot be used by other wikipedias, and that is wrong in huge amount of cases. Just check some of the pictures linked here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Linux-software-screenshot - there you will find screenshots like this, this or this, which are definitely not fair use, but under a free license. Or, to say it the other way around: if you publish such screenshots you have no rights to publish it as fair use, because they must be published under a free license. --130.243.179.56 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. In reply:
 * Linux-software-screenshot is for categorization purposes only. There are so many screenshots under Software-screenshot that it makes sense to break them up.  It doesn't make the claim that the specific piece of software is only able to run on Linux, for example.
 * You are correct, a lot of Linux software is licensed under the GPL or other free licence. However, some of it isn't.  Furthermore, licences such as the GPL are problematic for images.  The GPL states, among other things, that commercial redistributions need to distribute the source code of the program, which would be a headache for our reusers.  Furthermore, screenshots can sometimes show elements from different programs that are licenced under different licences.  Claiming that the use of these screenshots is fair use, either by itself of in conjuntion with a free licence, can make these screenshots more redistributable, not less.
 * Just because the English-language Wikipedia claims fair use for these screenshots doesn't mean that other language Wikipedias can't use them. They can use them under the free licence that the programs are distributed under, if they want to accept the complications that these licences bring.
 * Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, thanks for the answer. --130.243.179.56 20:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that there are plenty of linux screenshots on commons. The language on that tag is a bit scary and make it looks like linux screenshots are as equally fair use as images of a celebrity. They need to mention that they are also GPLed or whatever. Secretlondon 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)