Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free/Archive 2

This is an archive of previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use

Screenshots from film, television or music videos in biographical articles
I posed this question here with little response, so maybe here is a better place. I'll rephrase my question :

Can a fair use case be made for a screenshot from a film, television program or music video, if it is used in a biographical article to either, identify the subject or to illustrate specific sections of text that discuss the work in question?

Examples : could screenshots from Psycho or Rear Window be used in an article about Alfred Hitchcock if they supported discussion of his directing style or his work in general?

Could scenes from music videos that demonstrate key aspects of a performer's career be claimed as fair use if they serve to illustrate the critical discussion within the text? Especially considering that the music video itself is unlikely to have or require an article of much depth?

Could a scene from a film be used to illustrate a notable performance, or even a non notable performance that serves to illustrate the actor doing what they were famous for doing ie acting, and the screenshot depicts a film or role that is discussed in some detail in the article?

Please have a look at these examples. 1. Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Kylie Minogue where it addresses specific information in the text. Could a fair use case be made? I think it could. 2. Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Better The Devil You Know. As the article relates to the single and video, a good fair use case could be made on the basis of the guidelines quoted in the, and yet the claim would come undone by the fact that the article itself is very weak. I think it only marginally meets criteria at best, but probably does not meet it at all. 3. Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg used in Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album). Although discussed in the article, its relevance is less. I think it's probably not fair use. 4. Image:SharonTateValleyoftheDollsnightclubscene.jpg used in Sharon Tate as lead image. Taken from the film Valley of the Dolls which is discussed in detail throughout the article. Can it be classed as fair use? My opinion is yes. 5. Finally Image:SunsetBoulevardfinaleGloriaSwanson.jpg used in Sunset Boulevard (film) is fair use in the film article. How about if it was used in Gloria Swanson to demonstrate her as an actress? 6. Same image, if it was used in John F. Seitz to support discussion of his cinematography? I think it's relevant, so I think yes. 7. Or same image, if it was used in Billy Wilder to discuss his directorial style. I think yes to this as well.

I'm not suggesting adding the last three as suggested - it's just a question. I'm not advocating random insertions of screenshots, or using them to fluff out pages or merely as decoration, but I believe from what I've read of fair use, that wider uses are allowable if they still meet the same criteria, and are used to support the text in related articles. The template says "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film or television program and its contents", so I am wondering  what is the significance of the and its contents phrase, and whether discussion for "identification and critical commentary"  can extend to related articles, apart from the actual film or television program?

Sorry for the long question but this has been puzzling me for months, and I'd love some opinions on this. Thanks Rossrs 14:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that it's allowable in cases where they are used to support commentary on the video/movie/whatever in the article, regardless of what the article's title is. I didn't look through all of the examples that you gave but generally agree with you on the first few.  There was some similar discussion in  above.  JYolkowski // talk 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I figured that from the way the images have been used and comments about FA nominations etc, but it's not in the guidelines and I wanted to check my interpretation was more or less ok.  cheers Rossrs 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Images from agencies i.e. wireimages and ap
Are any images from these agencies promotional / fair use as they are not usually connected to the subject of the photo, i.e. they are independent companies trying to sell images, not companies trying to promote their own clients or product, take this image as an example Image:Zane.jpg depicting the actor Billy Zane, probably at a movie premiere from the WireImages agency. Arnie587 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would generally say no. Since they're trying to sell images, our use of them could be construed to have a negative impact on the work (fair use factor #4).  It's possible that such use could be fair in rare cases (especially in cases where the image is sufficiently old that it's no longer saleable) but I would think that would be rare.  JYolkowski // talk 21:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, another case where they would be fair use is where the image is so famous that the article includes commentary on the image itself. See Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for an example where an AP photo is fair use.  JYolkowski // talk 21:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification it seems a lot of people are unsure of this, maybe it would be a good idea to place a notice on the upload page making clear that photos from agencies are not permitted except where the image is famous in itself. I would be gratful if you could address my mesage below also. Arnie587 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that something being famous makes it fair use. We have permission in this case, but permission images are being removed. I would like to see a fair use justification better than "its really famous". And in theis case (raising the flag) you could use a photo of the sculpture which is generally ok. Mind you its 1945 so copyright may expire soonish. Justinc 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, it doesn't. However, since the image is being used for commentary (one of the purposes specifically mentioned in the fair use clause of the U.S. copyright law) on the image itself, we could create a good fair use rationale around that.  JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Write a detailed fair use justification for the article on the image page. The more justification the better. I think this is a good case (and I have been trawling for good cases - this might go on my list of er now 3). Justinc 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done that (and tagged it to request a fair use review, so scrutiny is welcome). JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think thats a reasonable justififcation. However PA photos doesnt. "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights, and specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." from Image_talk:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg which I hadnt seen before. Justinc 11:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * While that's definitely something to keep in mind, personally I'm not overly concerned about that (in the case of uses such as the one described above, not the dozens if not hundreds of blatant copyvios of AP images on the site). While IANAL, I think that it wouldn't make any sense from a legal standpoint to say anything else; otherwise it might make it a lot harder to sue Wikipedia later if our use doesn't qualify as fair use (see Estoppel).  My guess would be that the same lawyer who said that they don't think anything is fair use might well hesitate to sue on the basis that this use is probably fair and so they'd probably lose.  Maybe.  Of course, we have permission for this specific image anyway so it's moot in this case, although third parties will have to make their own decision.  Also, I wonder if the original query included vague, incorrect, blanket statements about fair use that used to be quite common before we started rewriting the tags.  JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so sure. I am very concerned about claiming fair use from people who make their living from images, such as AP. While we have permission for this images, we have decided to remove all permission images anyway, so we will have to delete this too. The claim of no financial difference is very hard to apply to photo libraries who make their only living from these pictures. I just ifd lots of other AP pictures (specifically downloaded under permission basis). If there was really serious criticism of images going on I might find more to defend, but you have one of the 4 criteria not available here, and a big legal department. You have to be much more careful. Justinc 23:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that if the AP said we could only use those two photos, and no others, then we would have to follow their request and delete the other photos. Zach (Sound Off) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Images from Archives, Galleries, and Museums
Most institutions seem to claim that permission is required to publish any of their photos of objects/paintings/photos/prints in their possession even if the original is out of copyright. Should these photos be used on Wikipedia, if so what license status should be noted as I cannot see an appropriate tag so perhaps a new tag is required? Also I assume these institutions do not say permission is required without some legal sanction being open to them if images are used without permission? see Image:Maurice Barrymore.jpg as an example (from the National Library of Australia ) Arnie587 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * is sufficient in general, but for most countries it is necessary to note the creators death - it will be 70 years after usually, but noting date best. If it was made before 1922 irrespective of death you can label it as which is ok for en wikipedia (not commons). Sorry its not simple. So if you dont know death date, leave as much detail as possible and use the US tag. Thanks for asking. Justinc 23:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, if you didnt violate the museums permission personally, we dont really care, they cant claim copyright on 2D images with no creative input. 3D is another matter. Justinc 23:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They can't claim copyright in the US, rather... okay, from our point of view these are the same, but it's an important distinction to remember. Shimgray | talk | 12:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Something that is almost always overlooked in these arguments is that if the photograph was never published ( “published” is generally taken to mean if copies have been made available to the general public, whether by way of sale or otherwise.) then it is copyrighted and that copyright continues indefinately. So many photgraphs held by libraries, museums and archives that are technically old enough to be in the public domain aren't since they were never published. That is why libraies, archives and so on can list these scans as copyrighted, images really need to be checked on a case by case basis since many old images probably aren't in the PD.--nixie 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. Under U.S. copyright law, when a work was created before 1978 but never published, the copyright rights are only as long as the life of the creator + 70 years. No copyrights technically continue indefinitely with copyright extensions written into law. --Fastfission 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are still indefinite copyrights in Australia.--nixie 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't affect whether it counts as PD-US on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 04:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that in Australia, the perpetual protection of unpublished photographs applies only to photographs taken after May 1, 1969.    For photographs not made or published in Australia, the period of protection is that of the country of origin.  --Tabor 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats is true, but worse varies by country. I think in many cases indefinite copyright has been revoked (eg indefinite Crown Copyright in UK, other than the King James Bible and a few other cases). Specific details of who the author is and when (s)he died really help, for all copyrights. Justinc 02:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your comments, I'm still not really sure on how I should tag the Barrymore image..? I would guess that it was sold in small numbers as I know that photos of actors and entertainers were sold to members of the public. I will write to the library as a matter of courtesy to ask for permission anyway. Arnie587 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've found this page to be useful for determining if something is still copyrighted or not. --Carnildo 04:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, so unpublished images of works by authors who died before 1935 are PD. However all the discussion above doesn't really answer my question about whether institutions such as museums, archives and galleries have some legal sanction on those who use out of copyright images without permission, if they haven't got a law to cover them why don't they just say these images are now in the public domain? Arnie587 11:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Arnie, there are many galleries, museums, and the like that try to limit reproductions of works in their collection even though those works are out of copyright. In general, the only real recourse they have under U.S. law is to limit access.  If you are able to make a photographic copy of an out-of-copyright work, or if you find a copy from some other source, then there is no copyright claim.  The access limitations can pose real problems in some situations, and museums take varying steps to discourage photography.  They disallow tripods and flash, for example, and it's nearly impossible to make a good high-resolution copy without one or the other.  As for the claim they make that copying "requires permission" -- it's FUD.  Any photograph of pre-1923 flat artwork can be tagged PD-old here without difficulty. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your reply, sorry to go about this but I want to be sure I have your meaning correct. I note you say "if you find a copy from some other source" does that mean I cannot use the image from National Library of Australia website (here ), is it the case that their reproduction is copyrighted, and to use the image I will have to get someone to go photograph it or find another copy or can I just use the image as it is? Thanks, Arnie587 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say upload the image under PD-old and put a note in the IDF to the effect: "The National Library of Australia claims copyright of the electronic version of this image: this claim is disputed." Physchim62 07:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Arnie -- in the United States, they have absolutely no claim to the copyright of a reproduction of a 2-D image for which the original copyright has expired. In Austraila or the UK, they might. Hence using the tag PD-US on them -- specifying that in the U.S. (which is where Wikipedia is "published"), these are in the public domain. In other countries, different laws apply.
 * OK will do Arnie587 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

--Fastfission 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) For 2D artwork, such as paintings, that are still subject to copyright, do we have a tag that covers low-res reproduction for critical commentary on the work? Example: many of the articles on individual paintings in Category:Salvador Dalí --Tabor 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we do. I have noticed a fair bit of artwork being claimed as fair use, and it is mentioned as a blanket category on WP:FU.  Maybe we need a tag?  JYolkowski // talk 18:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on generic fair use tags
As you probably know, per WikiProject Fair use/Fair use tag reform, we're rewriting existing fair use tags to be more specific about use. Our generic fair use tags (fairuse, fairold, fairuseunsure, Non-free fair use in, freeNon-free fair use in, and PermissionAndFairUse are a problem in this regard because, while our direction on fair use tags is to specify valid uses within the tag itself, these tags currently say nothing about use, and it's hard to write anything about use because they're used for a very wide range of stuff right now.

I think it would make sense to depreciate and eventually eliminate some of these tags for that reason. So, I'd like to propose the following:


 * Depreciate all of the above tags except for Non-free fair use in.
 * Recommend that fairuse should be replaced either by one of the specialized fair use tags, or, if none apply, with Non-free fair use in.
 * Recommend that fairold, fairuseunsure, and freeNon-free fair use in be replaced as above, and also adding a possiblyfree tag, which would read something like "It is possible that this image is in the public domain, either due to age or for another reason, or has been released under a free licence. However, further investigation is needed to determine the exact copyright and licence status.  More information may be available below.  This tag must be used in conjunction with another image tag.  If no other tag is present on this page, please replace this tag with no licence."
 * Recommend that PermissionAndFairUse be replaced as above, and also adding a withpermission tag, which would read something like "In addition to being usable either under another licence or under fair use, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties.  This tag must be used in conjunction with another image tag.  If no other tag is present on this page, and this image was uploaded after May 19, please speedy delete this image."

I think that, if this is something we want to do, it makes sense to get a start on it and discourage new usage of the tags. That way, when we get to the eventual enormous retagging job, it will be that much smaller.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts. I'd like to hear what other people think before doing anything major, so let me know your opinion, especially if you have a better idea. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My main problem is not with the tags per se but the procedure and practise. With regard to your specific suggestions:


 * the unsure/old stuff is dubious, but I am not sure this is part of Project Fair Use. Hand it over to the copyvio police and ask them if they want a tag under unknown. Lets keep this out of our space.
 * permission and fair use is another get out. One or the other please. Too much is dumped on fair use. Permission is now not allowed, so they will have to try fair use. Justinc 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about PermissionAndFairUse a bit. I think an additive "acknowledged fair use" tag might be useful in select circumstances -- if someone has explicitly said that they think our type of use would count as "fair use", then that might be worth pointing out specifically. It's not really a license, but under estoppel it makes our fair use claim almost entirely undeniable, and means "one less thing to worry about", if I'm understanding this correctly. It's different than "Permission" in a way, and saying it is "acknowledged" also avoids language which would confuse it with a license. The "acknowledgement" would have to be in the form of "We believe that this sort of use would be fair use" and not "we allow Wikipedia to use this" -- it would have to have some implications for contexts outside of Wikipedia, as well as say that it may still be fair use even if not used exactly as the copyright holder acknowledges. The Smithsonian has a policy of this sort, for example. Just an idea I had. --Fastfission 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(Forgot to sign. This was me yesterday.  JYolkowski // talk 00:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Ignoring for now the issue of what additive tags we should create, it doesn't look like there are any major objections. I think I'm going to update fairuse to say something like "Please do not use this tag; instead, use one of the more specific fair use tags listed at WP:ICT or Non-free fair use in.  This work is copyrighted.  It does not fall into one of the blanket categories of fair use images listed at WP:FU, but the individual who uploaded... [same verbiage as now]... United States copyright law.  For each use of this image, please provide a detailed rationale of why this image qualifies as fair use".  Any objections?

Images from MPTV.net
Can anyone give any thoughts on whether any of these are images are fair use? Many wikipedians seem to be getting them from internet movie database by clicking on an actors photo. There is a long statement about the The Motion Picture and Television Archive here it says: All funds generated by their efforts are shared with the photographers, and/or their estates, or rightful owners of the photographs and are dedicated to the continuing effort to collect, preserve, exhibit and publish this important work for future generations. terms of use can be found on a javascript link here one of the images in dispute is Image:Peck.jpg Thanks for any comments Arnie587 18:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I read that right, that means the IMDB is paying for the photos. In that case, it would violate the fair use clause, since if we steal photos from the IMDB, that shows we are in direct competition with them, which violates fair use. What I can suggest is that if the actor/actress has a website, then we go there and see what photos they have. Then, we could replace the dispute image, explain the fair use rules and tag it as a promotional image. Zach (Sound Off) 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi the problem is many of the photos in the mptv archive are of actors that are dead or old so probably don't have their own website ( also wouldnt it mean we are stealing from MPTV.net not imdb)? Arnie587 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I will see if some magic will help solve this problem. Zach (Sound Off) 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a note: if IMDB is not the copyright holder of the photographs, then it doesn't matter if we are in competition with them. The only place in which competition (i.e. future markets) matters is with the original copyright holder. Of course, the fact that IMDB has purchased said image means that there is definitely an existing market for them, which would be worth taking into consideration, but that's a slightly different issue. Just a small, somewhat pedantic clarification. --Fastfission 00:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that MPTV.net is acting pretty much the same as Associated Press images or Wireimages, i.e. agencies, just that MPTV.net specialises in photos of old movies and movie stars. Therefore shouldn't the same rationale be applied as to AP/wireimages that we had in the discussion above i.e. we can't use them without permission? Arnie587 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Tags clobbering EXIF metadata table
The fair use tags clobber the EXIF metadata tables (on images that have them) resulting in something that doesn't look very nice and is partially illegible.

As an experiment, I changed the table format of Reviewedfairuse to see if that would alleviate the problem. I changed the first line to:

{| cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="clear:both; margin: 0.5em auto; border: 2px solid #996; background-color: #F1F1DE"

This seemed to alleviate the problem. I wanted to get feedback on this change. Also, many of the fair use templates are protected, so I would not be able to change those if there is agreement that this works better.

For an example of the difference, see Image:Web subservient chicken michael jackson moves.jpg, where Reviewedfairuse has been updated, but fairuse has not.

--Tabor 21:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So far, it looks good, since my suggestions to get the metadata information into anothe format seemed to fail. I can make the changes for you once we get the OK from these guys here. Zach (Sound Off) 21:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * looks good to me too. Rossrs 22:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've added "clear:both" to fairuse.  I'll go through the rest of them tomorrow to ensure they all have "clear:both" unless someone else gets there first.  JYolkowski // talk 22:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done, I'll assume someone will speak up if they notice further problems (-: JYolkowski // talk 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Template reviewed fair use
Is it ok to use reviewedfairuse? The reason I ask is that I created it about a week ago as part of a discussion but I thought it was going to be looked at a bit more before anyone started using it, and have now discovered that a lot of images have been tagged with it. If it's ok to go, then fine, I'm glad someone thinks it's suitable, but it points to a page Fair use criteria which was written very quickly as a general guideline for people to refer to when adding images to pages, or when reviewing them. That page needs to be reviewed, because (I wrote it) it's not up to scratch.

Secondly, I notice numerous images have been tagged incorrectly with this tag and don't meet even the most basic criteria. Other users have added the ifd template which is great. But should the reviewedfairuse tag remain on the page? Because the tag is still there, Category:Reviewed fair use images contains a lot of invalid entries. Is the protocol to leave both tags and let it be sorted out at ifd, or should an incorrect tag be removed if superseded by another one? Thanks Rossrs 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If reviewedfairuse is being used, I'd like to suggest the following be used in conjunction with it - reviewedfairusedisputed for reviewers to isolate problematic images that seem to meet a majority of fair use criteria in order that they can be further reviewed by other users, and reviewfairuserequest so that anyone using an image and believing it meets fair use criteria, can seek an impartial review. Rossrs 13:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we're still figuring some of this stuff out, but it makes sense to keep using the tags so that we can figure this stuff out. I would suggest that it's fine to remove a review tag if the image obviously doesn't meet the criteria, although if an image is going to be deleted anyway I wouldn't worry about it.  Regarding the other tags, we already have a review request tag, fairusereview.  The reviewedfairusedisputed tag seems useful, but probably no-one's got to the point where there's a dispute yet (-:  JYolkowski // talk 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * fairusereview is much better than the one I was suggesting. Great. With regard to reviewedfairusedisputed - "disputed" probably has a stronger connotation that intended. "disagreed" is more correct.  For example - in Category:Reviewed fair use images there are images that have got the reviewedfairuse tag even though they don't meet all criteria.  ie missing copyright holder, missing fair use rationale etc, just some of the basics.  Maybe they are fair use and because they "may be" I don't want to take it upon myself to put them on ifd just because the criteria has been met to 80% rather than 100%.  I thought having another category in which they could be put might encourage more experienced editors to have another look and either fill in what's missing or take whatever action is needed.  I agree there are no disputes right now.   I prefer the idea of removing a superseded tag only because it saves rechecking from Category:Reviewed fair use images images that someone else has since moved to ifd. I'll keep using the templates and see how they evolve through use.  Thanks.  (-:  Rossrs 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "fairusequeried", perhaps, as sounding less confrontational than disputed? "This is claimed fair use but I'd feel better if someone else looked at it"... Shimgray | talk | 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Kelly Martin appears to have added this template to several image description pages, when none (that I can see) contain fair use rationale and some don't even specify source and/or copyright information (e.g. Image:Josh.jpg). Is this allowed? Extraordinary Machine 16:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * She might have added the tags before the template stated that the image needed to meet Fair use criteria and/or I redirected a few other templates there. I would tag the images as reviewedfairusedisputed (or, if the source is totally missing, no source).  JYolkowski // talk 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * you're right. the template in its current form was created September 24, and the Josh image was tagged September 21, so it looks like an honest mistake. Rossrs 21:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use of promo images
I would welcome comments regarding in what circumstances promo photos allowed, specifically I am finding lots of photos tagged promophoto which have no source details, usually of TV/movie stars on set or in a pose, which were probably taken by the film company to promote the film. Firstly are these allowed under fair use at all, and secondly even if no source or copyright holder is given (even though it looks likely they were taken to promote a film) shall I just leave them or put them for deletion (examples Image:Em1.jpg, Image:Em2.jpg, probably more at WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Images) Arnie587 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If the image has no source information, tag it nosource, and if you're feeling polite, inform the uploader. --Carnildo 06:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carnildo. We cannot cite fair use if we do not know where the image came from. Zach (Sound Off) 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies I'll mark those above as no source. I would appreciate opinions on this Image:Angela-bassett01.jpg I found the source at IMDB Studio Stills Photos under the image it states © 1998-Twentieth Century Fox-All rights reserved, I marked it as fair use promophoto.. is this OK? Arnie587 20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking about promo photos, and I dont think they should be a fair use tag. Basically they are a left over of, ie we have (usually implicit) permission to use them if they are really publicity photos. However they are normally full size, not thumbnails (and the vast majority are not promo photos anyway), so the fair use case is very weak. I think we should change the template to make them permission, and then add fair use reviews etc to any that are genuine fair use (none that I have seen). This does of course mean they would all be subject to speedy deletion. Any other views on this? Justinc 17:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think we're becoming overly paranoid about fair use and putting conditions on its application that don't actually exist in the law. Copyright Law of the United States of America section, section 107  is very broad.  We've placed all sorts of interpretations and restrictions on it which aren't necessarily right, and it would be great if we had some Wikipedians who work in copyright law to comment on it.  The argument is not just about promo photos because a fair use rationale can be made for a promo photo, or any other photo for that matter (resulting in anything from "very weak and probably not fair use" to "very strong and probably fair use" depending on the type of image and the way it's used).  If you're talking about a blanket "they would all be subject to speedy deletion" policy then in reality all fair use images would have to go - ie all CD covers, all book covers, all magazine covers, all screenshots, all movie posters (the list goes on) because the fair use doctrine doesn't distinguish between the type of images.  That's an interpretation that we have, rightly or wrongly, applied ourselves.    I agree fair use should be used as the last possible option, but that when all other possibilities have been exhausted, fair use is valid.  Whether an image is promo photo or not, does not preclude an argument being made for fair use, but the argument would be stronger if it was a promo photo.Rossrs 02:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that a rationale can be made individually for any picture, as it can for anything else, but labelling it promo is irrelevent, as unlike say CD-cover in no way supports any fair use rationale, it just supported the previous "we have permission to use this" rationale. So as a generic tag it is counterproductive. And just look at the images. Hardly any of them are promo photos under any reasonable definition of promo anyway, there are just "photos I downloaded from the web and wanted some way to put them in wikipedia". Also while the wording of the law may be general, case law is much more specific, see eg . Wholesale copying of pictures off other websites like the promo category is not fair use. Justinc 02:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree labelling it promo is virtually useless and that many images listed as promo actually aren't but that's a problem with the use of the tag rather than the tag itself. I think that a genuine promo photo has a stronger inherent inbuilt fair use rationale than a CD cover.  Because it was intended to be widely distributed, further distribution of it can only build on that original intention, and I disagree that it's an extension of "with permission".   I know people download images because they think they're pretty, and don't care about checking copyright etc.  Without that they should be deleted, but if they state the copyright holder and provide a fair use rationale, they should probably stay.  I agree that case law is more specific than the wording of copyright law, but whole intent of providing justification of any fair use image was not to suggest that we had proven something to be fair use, but rather we believe it to be fair use "for the following reasons"  etc.   The Stanford case law examples showed a number of images that were judged to be not fair use and which were actually video excerpts of varying length.   The only one for a still image displayed as a thumbnail (Kelly-Arriba) was judged to be fair.   The problem with wholesale copying of photos of other websites is that the copyright is not clearly established.  I agree that is a problem, but often the same image, correctly attributed, could be classified as fair.   It seems to me that the claim made successfully in Kelly-Arriba could be made even more strongly by Wikipedia in many (but not all) cases.   Rossrs 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we're putting restrictions on "fair use" above and beyond what copyright law provides. I disagree that this is a bad thing.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia; non-free images, if they are used at all, should only be used if (1) we absolutely must have an image illustrating something, and (2) it is impossible to get that image any other way.


 * "Free"ness isn't a binary yes-or-no. At one extreme of freeness are images in the public domain: there are absolutely no restrictions on what can be done with them.  At the other are images under simple copyright, where the only things that can be done are those allowed by the "fair use" provisions of the law.  In between are things like GFDL, permission, cc-by-nc, and other licenses.  What we're doing is defining where on that spectrum certain situations fall, and where the dividing line between "good" and "bad" is. --Carnildo 04:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a bad thing either, and I agree with the points you make. I also agree with a lot of what Justin says, but I was disagreeing with the suggestion of changing the tag to a permission tag because that almost guarantees that the legitimate fair use images are going to get deleted along with all the illegitimate ones that I agree should be deleted, fair use review or not... Then I went off on a tangent.  But I'm not advocating slapping a fair use rationale onto any old image just because the law doesn't specify that we can't do it.  There are 1000s of images I'd be happy to see deleted, but I think there are a good number of well used, well justified fair use images that are likely to get flushed along with the rubbish, and I think Justin's suggestion makes that even more likely.  I'm more in favour of the promophoto tag (or maybe promotional which is a bit more specific) being retained, all images moved into one or the other (I think promotional), delete the template that's not being used, review all images, tag the good ones reviewedfairuse and get rid of the bad ones.  Rossrs 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem is that there are a lot of things tagged promophoto that aren't photos from media kits (I've made a slight adjustment to the wording of the template; maybe that'll help). I think that actual publicity photos should probably be okay as fair use.  Looking at the four points:
 * Regarding the nature of the use, we're using them to illustrate educational articles about the person in question. Not perfect since we're not using them for commentary or criticism, but probably okay.
 * Regarding the nature of the work, it is published and factual, so that's good.
 * Regarding the portion of work used, assuming that we're only using one photo out of the media kit and we've resized it to meet our needs, that should be fine.
 * Regarding the effect on the work, the work is intended to be used by the media to promote the person in question, so such a use is right in line with the intended use, which is good.
 * As well, it's not always easy to get reasonable photos of celebrities and the risk of legal problems is low since these photos are often under an implied licence, so based on all of that I would tend to think that true publicity photos are okay as fair use when used for illustration of the subject. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are promo photos limited to those that were part of press kits? What about all the photos that were produced by movie studios and sent out to fans en masse, either by the studio, the agent or the celebrity?  A lot of books for example have photos that state the copyright holder (which is different to many websites that only cite the copyright status of the site itself) and are captioned "Studio publicity photo of Joe Bloggs 1938" or some-such.  I don't understand why that is less suitable than a promo photo from a press kit, because the key word seems to be "publicity", which by definition suggests a desire to get the image out to be seen. A lot of the studio portraits, which were never intended for wide distribution, such as those by George Hurrell are now regarded as fine art, copyrighted and could never be used under "fair use" (the asking price for a print runs into $1000s), but I don't understand the problem with the ones that were printed by the thousand and sent out to anyone who wanted one.  Rossrs 01:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a few other possible sources other than press kits, but as long as it's a photo that has been created with the explicit intent of reuse by the media, then I think it can qualify as a publicity photo. This may require another adjustment to the template; I'll get to that after watching football today.  JYolkowski // talk 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We are now talking about several things at once of course. Kelly vs Arriba Soft is interesting; I think we have a weaker case at the moment because we rarely link explicitly to the original (and many images are not thumbnails), but I think we could try to put ourselves closer to this position (one reason to absolutely require sources even on "obvious" stuff like album covers, and to require that source to be the copyright holder not some other random site). In terms of promo its difficult. If they were actually promos it would be easier, but I suspect under 100 are, possibly under 10. How should I reclassify the ones that arent given that plain < is being emptied? Obviously I could add  but that doesnt help with the general template. Justinc 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With album covers for example, if not sourced directly from the site of the copyright holder, do you think a personally scanned copy, stating the copyright information on the album cover, would be ok?fairusedisputed would work for reclassifying the images if you also included a reason for putting them there, like you have with other images. I think the main advantage with fairusedisputed is that it puts all the dubious images in one place where it's easier to go through and review them.  From there they could be sent to ifd if necessary.Rossrs 01:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for retagging would be:
 * If it falls under a broader category of promotional materials, tag it as promotional.
 * If it doesn't, but the uploader has attempted to make some sort of fair use rationale, tag it as.
 * Otherwise, tag it as no licence.
 * JYolkowski // talk 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Images of vehicles/boats/aircraft
Would images of all these i.e. planes, trains, automobiles come under fair use or PD? i.e. all the images of aircraft uploaded by user Vlaakko Special:Contributions/Vlaakko (would seem a shame to delete them) Arnie587 17:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The lack of a source given makes it impossible to determine their copyright status. We should try to get that ironed out first. --Fastfission 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They have no sources and the user has not been back since July 2005, so what I could suggest is give Google a shot. But, since these are Bulgarian aircraft, we might need to search in more than one language. Zach (Sound Off) 17:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi isn't it the case that most images on google for this sort of thing would not be on a site owned by the copyright holder(the photographer, or plane manufacturer?). Often images on aircraft enthuisiast type sites have no copyright info at all. Arnie587 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey. Maybe we should just delete the information due to the new CSD rules, and I do not think the uploader will come back. But at least we know what the images are, so if people want to look for new ones, we could tell them what to look for. Zach (Sound Off) 19:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * could we not make the judgement that using these images is unlikely to hurt anyones business, i.e. they are just for educational/informational purposes? Could we also use that sort of rationale for diagrams and maps taken from books i.e. Image:AlAndalusmap 1248.jpg, Image:Al-Andalus (Almoravids).jpg, Image:ARAS.jpg? Arnie587 21:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We still need a source, and if there is none, they have to go. Zach (Sound Off) 22:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can't be sure that the use of these images isn't going to have a negative effect on the copyright holder if we don't know who the copyright holder is. JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

New Template:Art created
I have just created this fair use template for low res images of drawings, paintings, prints, or sculptures to illustrate them on the artist's page or on a page about that artwork. Any comments appreciated. Arnie587 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have just edited the wording somewhat to allow use in articles on the work, the artist, or artistic genre or group. Arnie587 22:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet set the category, there is already a Category:Images_of_art so I don't think that can be used, possibles are Category:Art images, Category:Fair use images of art, or Category:Fair use art any other suggestions? Thanks Arnie587 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, I was thinking of creating something like this myself (so that there could be a template for each blanket category listed in WP:FU). Looks good; I made a few changes that I thought I'd mention my reasoning for:
 * I removed "sculpture" only because the copyright stuff gets a bit tricky (for a photograph of a three-dimensional artwork, both the sculpture and the photograph are copyrighted, which is kind of hard to discuss in the template, so I took the easy way out and dropped it).
 * re the phrase "the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof" isn't that the same as "current owner"...? Arnie587 17:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If I commission a painting to be done for hire, then I am the copyright owner.  If I then sell the painting to someone, I'm still the copyright owner even though I'm not the owner of the painting.  JYolkowski // talk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * fair enough, so I take it artists are often not the copyright holder, if they do not create the painting under commission, do they remain copyright holder for life? Thanks Arnie587 21:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's right. After their death, their heir (or whoever else they might have assigned the copyright to) would own the copyright until it expired (95 years after the creation of the work if the work was created between 1923 and 1977, 70 years after the creator's death if the work was created in 1978 or later).  JYolkowski // talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I reworded the uses to be closer to WP:FU. It no longer includes "artist", but you can still include a painting in the artist's article; just mention the work itself in the text.  Just as long as you don't do something like this (-:
 * I have to say that is a nice page, to me it would seem unlikely that anyone would complain about images of an artists work being used like this in Wikipedia (though I definitely wouldn't apply that rationale to galleries of movie photos/celebrities whose owners are more likely to be litigious). Having all the image thumbnails on one page helps the user have an instant understanding of the artist, something you might not get if you were only allowed to show two or three images or had to go to each work's page to see it.Arnie587 17:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I liked Category:Fair use images of art, so I changed the category to that.
 * JYolkowski // talk 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this last night and I wonder whether we better rename the template to FU-Art or Fairuseart to distinguish it from PD-Art, PD-Art-US. Otherwise might people just tag all art with the art tag even if it's not copyrighted? Also can we get a little art image instead of the (C)? Arnie587 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably better to have them tag free art as fair-use rather than the other way around, though - if challenged, for art, it's usually relatively easy to correct it. We should be encouraging people to default to a more conservative license tag if they don't know... Shimgray | talk | 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"art - for low resolution images of two dimensional works of art which were made after 1923." Arnie587 15:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added this description for the tag on the Image_copyright_tags page(comments appreciated on any rewording) :
 * I think this is too much of a blanket category that encourages any image of art to be uploaded. Low res pictures of whole paintings etc are not necessarily fair use. It should at least have a less catchy name. I have tagged several as fairusedisputed. Justinc 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Corporation pages
Is this copy vio/advertising(including the images)? Emaar_Properties ? Arnie587 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What is? Can you be more specific? --michael180 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the images come under fair use (they are taken from the company's website). I am generally unsure how to tag images of buildings taken from company websites so any advise would be appreciated. Also I wonder how important a company has to be to deserve an entry in Wikipedia? Thanks Arnie587 15:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I marked the images as copyvios, the article was marginal - it is a real company, quite sizeable so the fact that it might have been created for advertising was marginal especially when the pictures go. Justinc 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting
I've created the above page as a start to organising our efforts to re-tag the enormous number of images in Category:Fair use images so that the numerous copyvios in there stand out better. I'd invite you to re-tag some of the stuff listed on the page I've created if you have a few minutes here and there. I'll also be fleshing out the page more in the near future. JYolkowski // talk 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How were these lists generated? If they're made manually wouldn't it not be easier to just tag as you go?--nixie 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's some of manual involvement, but it's not entirely manual. I scraped a whatlinkshere for the template, and then ran it through a script to pick out images with names that included stuff like "logo" or "album cover" and reformat it to create an edit link.  I displayed all of the images in gallery mode before adding them so as to remove any obvious non-candidates.  Could be faster to do it manually in some cases, but probably not with 400+ logos.  If anyone wants to volunteer to write something automated, that would be cool with me.  JYolkowski // talk 02:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been doing this manualy for a while now, it's not so bad, I'll do one maybe two pages on a day, I'm up to P now (though the pages I've gone over are probably full of genericly tagged stuff again by now), just doing the obvius stuff, logos, coat of arms, albumcovers, stamps, money, film screenshots, dvd covers etc. Also adding to most statues, buildings, cars, game systems and such I come across. --Sherool 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

PD tag
Someone asked about this tag PD-DEGov on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags despite my best attempts, the Delaware govenment page fails to mention copyright anywhere. I though someone here might be able to clarify and list at TFD as necessary.--nixie 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Studio Stills images on IMDB
Can anyone give me an idea if these would be fair use even though they generally say copyright (a film company) all rights reserved? examples: Angela Bassett, Donald Sutherland. Thanks Arnie587 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very dubious - IMDB are paying for these (and have deliberately made them difficult to download). So copying them to wikipedia deprives them of revenue, so fair use claim very unlikely. Justinc 13:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply...are you saying if I find any of these pics from imdb I should put them up for deletion? Would it be different if I can find the pics on a site owned by a movie company? Also how is it that all the fan sites seem to get away with using these types of images? Arnie587 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fan sites get away with it because nobody cares about fan sites. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is one of the 50 most popular websites in the world. --Carnildo 18:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably what we could do is create a template called imdb and say that because the image is from their website, we cannot use this as a fair use image and have to be placed up for deletion. I also believe their images are also non-commercial, which also is a no-no on Wikipedia, so no matter which way you see it, the images from IMDB have to go. Zach (Sound Off) 19:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. Am I right in thinking therefore that the only ways we can get likenesses of actors/celebrities acceptable for use in Wikipedia are:
 * (i) from their official website or their employer's (i.e. site for a film or TV series, album/video).
 * {ii) from scanning a promo pic from a magazine or autograph type signed pics (not including paparazzi or agency photos of premieres/parties/awards).
 * (iii) someone has taken a photo of a celebrity themself.
 * (iv) a video screenshot.
 * BTW the imdb template already exists for links on actor/film pages so maybe it could be imdbimage or just mark the images as isd or ifd as normal. Thanks Arnie587 20:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Only (iii) is always ok. (i) depends on the conditions on the site, (ii) is probably not ok, the promo should be on the web, clearly labelled as a promo - magazines can use other pictures. Autograph type ones are usually for sale, so not promos. (iv) can only be used for film criticism, not to illustrate the actor. Justinc 10:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (iv) is not as clear cut as that. If the screenshot is used in an article that specifically discusses/criticises the scene or the film it's acceptable for it to be used in the article about the person.  If the screenshot serves a purpose greater than merely identifying the subject then a fair use rationale can be made for its use in articles that relate to it, including articles about the subject.  It's the context in which it is used, and the content of the article that it illustrates that must establish relevance.    Same type of rationale  as Image:As03-martha updat.jpg & Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png which are not used in articles about the magazines from which the covers were taken, but in a related topics, in this case photo manipulation and O.J. Simpson.  Both the related articles discuss the magazine cover and the issue of photo manipulation, so the image specifically illustrates the text. If it was just being used as a picture to identify OJ, that would not be fair use.  Arnie, there's a huge amount of discussion to wade through, but perhaps have a look at these where the subject has been discussed :,  and
 * With the autograph photos it's usually the autograph itself that makes the image unique and saleable and therefore problematic in regards to fair use. For example an image taken from Ebay (or any photo dealer) with an autograph, probably should not be used.  The original image would usually be a promo photo and originally intended for wide distribution. The original would usually not have been sold,  but given away, so if another copy could be found, sans autograph,  a better case could made for its use.  The source and copyright holder would still need to be identified, as always, and a clear rationale provided. Rossrs 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. I have noticed that a lot of modern movie poster images are included in the Studio Stills section of IMDB and say underneath All Rights Reserved copyright (a movie company) as is the case for all the other Studio Stills images take these images from Stepford Wives (2004) as an example if we allow the use of these modern posters from IMDB can we also not accept the use of the other publicity shots in the Studio Stills section of movies on IMDB? Arnie587 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically you cant get anything from IMDB, they are not the copyright holder, and they commercially license all the images on their site. It is not a valid source to list as a source for fair use images because of this, as this is all licensed content. You need to link directly to a studio or other copyright holder to have any possible justification. "May I use a photo from your site for my web site or publication? Most of the photos on our site are licensed to us for our own use only. We do not have the authority to sublicense them to others. Photos on our site may be licensed directly from the license holders. For photos from "our Studio Friends," you'll need to contact the studio or production company. We recommend contacting the publicity department for current releases and the home video department for older films. For most movies, there is a "company credits" link near the top of the lefthand column on the film's listing. That will provide the name of the studio(s) and companies involved with making the film. Please note that many of our "posters" for older films are actually just scans of their video or DVD packaging. We cannot sublicense those images. Please contact the appropriate studio. For images from agencies like WireImage and MPTV, their names are linked on pages where we display their photos. Click on their names for more information about the agencies and links to their web sites where you can get licensing information."Justinc 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am wondering why these photos are not considered promo photos for the purposes of Wikipedia as they are described as publicity photos on imdb, and presumably created to publicise the film. If we allow movie posters on Wikipedia how can we not allow these studio produced stills, which both have the same copyright notice. Arniep 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (Arnie587)
 * Because for publicity pictures we need to show a source where the copyright holder is freely giving these away saying please use them for publicity. Here IMDB is paying for these pictures, so de facto they are not freely given away publicity shots. Look for pictures on PR sites etc for genuine publicity shots. Justinc 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure IMDB would be paying for them as aren't they providing an advertising service for the pictures? Also would this count as PR site [], if not can you give some examples? Thanks Arniep 01:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (Arnie587)
 * PUI is pretty good to. Zach (Sound Off) 21:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use images
Before I had seen the WikiProject Fair use/Todo sub-page, I had been tagging some images as speedy deletes, criterion I5: orphaned fair use image. Then I saw on that page that a bot was being made to do this. There I see a comment about the task being complete, which I assume means the groundwork to make a bot possible is complete. So my questions are: Thanks. --Tabor 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we have a bot doing this now?
 * Is tagging images for speedy delete as orphaned fair use images at all useful, or should we assume the bot will take care of them?
 * Will it address just the main fair use image category Category:Fair use images or more specialized categories like Category:Album covers?
 * Is there any point in reclassifying orphaned images? For example retagging an image that is currently tagged fair use and happens to be an album cover as Albumcover. Or just wait for a bot to get them?
 * I don't know the answers to your first three questions. As to the fourth, I would suggest re-tagging them as  .  JYolkowski // talk 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Irony
Image:25003.jpg Arnie587 01:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy? (re-upload of content deleted previously by due process) Lupo 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * speedied Arnie587 14:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

GPL
Yes, GPL, not GFDL. See e.g. Image:GeneralAdams.jpg, Image:GeneralLente.jpg, Image:ScolarVisari.jpg, Image:HelghanFlag.jpg. What's that supposed to mean?? Uploader is a strange editor anyway, with the large majority of edits (I didn't count, but it looks like >95%) in his own user space only... Lupo 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like photos from Killzone, but from what I understand the template, GPL seems very unfree to me. It, to me, also shows it might not be used anywhere else, so that is very limiting its' use. Call me crazy, but I think all images under GPL should go. Zach (Sound Off) 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The GPL is not a suitable license for images (neither is the GFDL, really, but that's beside the point). I think the images (and all others tagged "GPL") should be either relicensed, or deleted. --Carnildo 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I wonder what everyone else thinks about it. Thanks Carnildo. Zach (Sound Off) 00:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From GNU: You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it. In my opinion, it's not always clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work.  If an image is created using XyMTeX or SVG or POV-Ray and appears here as a GIF or JPG, does that mean we are responsible for making sure the "source code" for these is distributed?  It seems like a mess. P.S., there is some discussion on Template talk:GPL, but so far the strongest arguments are "it's not illegal" and "I don't see harm in it."  Might be a question for juriwiki-l.  --Tabor 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we do not have "source code" for many images at all, so it will be very, very hard to use this template for images. While other people who draw flags in SVG, we just release it either as GFDL or into the Public Domain. I strongly suggest that this template should be discontinued until we figure out what is going on. Zach (Sound Off) 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The GPL is an acceptable, if somewhat ODD, license for images. It actually makes sense in the case of images with a clear source seperate from the image, like a POV ray output, for example. The reason we are seeing it, however, is due to license roulette, not because the images are actually GPLed. You should also note that the GFDL has fairly simmlar requirements with respect to providing the preferred form for modificiation, although the language is somewhat different. --Gmaxwell 13:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * it looks like about 70% of all these images are wrongly tagged, quite a few orphaned. Maybe we should just say from now all images wrongly tagged will be speedy deleted hopefully maybe this will act as a disencouragement for anyone trying to upload images without bothering to find the right tag in the future . Arniep 10:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Arniep, if the image is wrongly tagged, we just retag it and we warn the uploader. If they do it again, they can and will be blocked from Wikipedia. Check the upload page now. Zach (Sound Off) 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible edits to Special:Upload
The new art fair use template isn't listed when you to try to upload a file does anyone know who can edit this and add it? Also I found this useful page Public_domain_image_resources. I think it might be a good idea to add a link to this on the upload page saying something like "STOP before you upload an image that is not availiable under a free license please check to see if there is an alternative here Public_domain_image_resources." Also I think it might be a good idea if the page is mentioned on all Wikipedia welcome pages and even when you register. Arnie587 15:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources for album covers, posters, imdb
Can someone clarify whether it matters what is the source for album covers and movie posters as I notice Image:NKidman_Stepford_poster.jpg (which gives it's source as ) has been nominated for deletion merely due to the fact that the source is imdb. Surely the point is that whatever the source is, reduced size posters and album covers are not of commercial value so should be acceptable under free use. I would also argue that the studio stills photos on imdb are intended to be used to advertise the film and are given away freely to media outlets so should also be acceptable for fair use. Arniep 10:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think some exceptions to the "need a source listed" rule should be allowed in cases where it is fairly obvious who the original copyright holder is. Movie posters, the scans of magazine covers, etc. would fall under this category, in my mind, though I'm eager to solicit other voices on the subject. --Fastfission 21:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there are other sources for movie posters, but I still believe that we should not use images from IMDB because they purchase whatever they use, so by us taking it, it will render them unable to compete, making it not fair use. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are certain that imdb pay for the images, magazines and newspapers do not normally have to pay for publicity images of movies when they do reviews etc. Arniep 01:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if IMDB is competing with us if they are not the copyright owner. It might matter if the company who sells it to IMDB can't sell them to them anymore, but that's a separate argument. But IMDB could not sue us for copyright infringement (since they don't hold copyright), so they aren't the party to worry about in this question. --Fastfission 03:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Movie companies actually have to pay imdb to put the publicity photos on it's site see . So shouldn't these therefore be allowed under the fair use promophoto tag? Arniep 10:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * IMDB may be paid for some images, but we dont know which ones and on what terms. Basically we should keep them out of it. Their contractual arrangements include making it hard for people to download pictures from them apparently. Why is everyone so lazy? Contact the studios. Get them to release us pictures that they agree are fair use or (far better) free. We wont even charge, and we are a major website. Remember there is no generic fair use justification. We need to be careful, and wholesale stripping of images from other web sites is not careful, its downright dangerous. If no one cares enough to contact the studios (the copyright holders), then I would feel no hesitation on putting every single copyrighted movie picture up for ifd. Justinc 12:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It says in the bottom right corner of the link that I posted  that to add publicity stills to imdb for films or actors it costs 10 dollars per image, these are the photos included in the Studio Stills and publicity photos section (see top section "from our studio friends" here ). I realise that there is no generic fair use justification but I just think that these photos clearly are photos released to publicise a film and should be allowed to be used only in a fair use context i.e. with critical commentary. I actually think studios would much rather us use these than possibly poor quality or cropped screenshots. Arniep 17:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is a reasonable case, but I really dont want us downloading them from IMDB, because we are just guessing which ones are under which agreements. We can get them directly, we are as important as IMDB. If we had a fair use download site from each studio I would be happy, but if we simply download each image from IMDB I am not because we are only guessing at their terms (I am very unsure if all the pictures are publicirt for example). There arent that many studios, who wants to contact them? The ideal arrangement is that we say we wont charge them if they release free images that we can redistribute. Second best is they give us agreed fair use images, although that is basically which is not allowed any more. Either we can draft a letter here, or someone can volunteer to do it, or if you want I will try contacting one of the studios and see what they say. Justinc 00:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi I think it is clear though which images are publicity as imdb separates them out into their own category titled "On the Set Off the Set Publicity Stills from our Studio Friends"  the other categories are "Awards, Premieres, Parties & Festivals from http://www.wireimage.com " and "Classic Stars Films and Events from MPTV". The same categorisation is used for all photo pages for all movies and actors on imdb. The last two image categories are agency photos which you have to pay to use so these aren't fair use, but I think that the publicity section can be considered fair use?  Re: writing to the movie companies, would we provide a list of images that we want to use or would we just say can we use all the publicity stills/album/DVD covers/posters that you ever released maybe with some rules like max two per page + no cropping? Arniep 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They are "publicity photos provided to IMDB" not generic ones provided to the world. I see your point, I agree that they may be reasonable, but if they are the studios can provide them directly. I was assuming that we would have to negotiate over the terms, but I would have thought we could get 100px images of most people, posters, DVD covers from an authorised download site with reasonably unrestricted use; the harder things is the promo stills from movies, as they might be released under a permission/non redistribution license. But thats only a guess. Finding someone who understands the issues will probably take most time. Do you want to try or shall I, or shall we split the studios between us. Also, should we draft a letter here? Justinc 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Size of fair use images
Currently Fair use says:


 * The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images

I think this is possebly a little vague, people seems to have some strange ideas about what low-resolution and high-resolution means. I suggest amending this to something like:


 * The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Images should be no bigger than what is needed inside the article.

In other words if you need a 200px "thumbnail" of an album cover in the article then that's what you upload, not a 1500px "wallpaper". Some people seems to think that as long as they only use a 200px thumbnail inline in the article it's ok to upload a huge image and still claim fair use. --Sherool 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it, except the "inside the article", which is a bit vague. Personally I would change it to something like "no bigger than what is needed for the purposes of the image's illustration in the article", which adds a little more wiggle room. In particular I'm thinking of situations like Image:Edward_Teller_Washington_Post_Ad.jpg, where the image is fairly useless if you can't read the text on it, though in the article itself it is of course thumbnailed (that is, the image is no larger than it needs to be in order to enable legibility). --Fastfission 23:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently got into a "dispute" about logos. Logos states (among other things) that: "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the corporation's own website should be OK to use, because it represents that company's wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good." Recently Throup uploaded some big (about 1800px wide) Microsoft product logos because they where higher quality then the previously used ones (you can donwload them from the Microsoft site). I noticed the old logos listed on Images and media for deletion, so I voted against the deletions citing Image use policy and overwrote one of the big logos with a 300px version (see history of Image:Microsoft Windows Server 2003.png) wich probably was not the most diplomatic thing to do. Then Throup politely contacted me asking if there where any formal definition of "low resolution", pointing out that Logos says "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance.". Wich got me a bit unsure. The image use policy only mention bookcovers and such because high resolution versions could be used to print bootlegs, that is not a major issue with logos, pluss there is a seperate policy for logos that say we should use "high quality" logos. So I figured I'd ask here. Are logos "special", or should we stick to one rule for all fair use images, wich IMHO should be "as small as possible". --Sherool 21:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while on the subject of logos and sizes, how does SVG fit into the "low resolution" definition for fair use? They can be stretched to just about any size with no loss in quality (see for example Image:BBC-newslogo.svg), and is very much a "high resolution" format. So should we "ban" fair use SVG images or should stuff that can best be represented by vector graphics be an exception to the low resolution rule? This gets more complilcated the more I think about it :P --Sherool 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to use the smallest logo size that will have a high-quality appearance in the article. So, if a 300px logo is going to be used in an article, then we don't need an 1800px logo.  Maybe 600px or something is probably sufficient.  Not sure about the SVGs.  Personally, I don't think we should be using them unless the company themselves provides vector graphic versions of their logos; we should use "official" versions of the logos per Logos.  JYolkowski // talk 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * SVG is rather dubious for this. I have tagged the BBC news as no source by the way, partly as I want to know if it was created by us or the BBC (it just has Adobe Illustrator tags in). Oddly it contains a jpeg. We should probably entirely forbid SVG for fair use unless there are very exceptional circumstances. Justinc 10:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Observation: A lot of companies do release vector forms of their logo through PDF documents. For example, most companies have PDF versions of their Annual Reports online.  Questions of quality aside, converting such a logo into SVG is surely no different to converting a raster image from TIFF or JPG into a PNG. --Throup (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesnt mean we can or should use them though. Is possibly where the BBC one came from though. Justinc 11:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've updated Image:BBC-newslogo.svg with an image definitely sourced that way. It still doesn't answer whether we should use such images, but it does mean that image has clear source info. --Throup (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it looks exactly like the previous one (ie still has a jpeg image in and produced from illustrator) so I guess the previous one was too. I guess that means the BBC hasnt released an official SVG version. I am not convinced we should use it. Justinc 00:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you refreshed your browser cache? This one has never even seen Illustrator or a JPEG!  But you are right that it is not an official SVG image, but as it has been converted from a PDF file released to the public (as quoted on the image page) it could be argued that it is an official BBC vector version. --Throup (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes that was the old one. Yes, new one is technically better, and yes probably could be argued it is official. Justinc 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against using vector graphics of fair use images. It is no different than using one which was 5000px across, which would clearly be out of bounds. Take the vector, resample it as the resolution we will use, then note on the image description page where you got it from, let other people (if they want to) pull the vector out on their own. There's no need whatsoever for such an image on Wikipedia itself. I don't think the company providing it has much to do with it (movie poster companies "provide" product which could be scanned at a high resolution -- doesn't mean doing so would be fair use). --Fastfission 02:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Automobiles
I can see no reason why these should have "fair use" pictures, and have been tagging them (and often  too). There are loads of them around and pretty much every one ever made could be photographed in a couple of months if people wanted to, so I see no reason to steal them from other web sites. They are easy to spot in the fair use category. There are also loads of pictures in commons if you can be bothered to replace them and do ifd - just did one. Apart from the odd one where the last one was crushed in 1957 I dont see any reason to keep any of these. Not sure if we should make a template for them to help though. Justinc 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I started to do a similar thing some time ago but the sheer number of them became overwhelming. --Fastfission 23:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the fact that they are easy to spot in the categories, and there can be no dispute. And I noticed that now German wiki is moving all images to commons (they have stopped local uploads I believe) there are loads there being uploaded as free images too. Justinc 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a list of them (with edit links to make it easier) at the bottom of WikiProject Fair use/Fair use image sorting. I'll get around to adding a fairusereplace tag to them, probably shortly. (I've tagged all 100ish of them now JYolkowski // talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC))  I'll also keep these images in mind on my travels around town.  JYolkowski // talk 00:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Disputed fair use images
Is there a mechanism for deaing with disputed fair use images- the cateogry is certainly growing? One option would be merging them into PUI. --nixie 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's not a great mechanism yet. I don't know if PUI is really a working solution, since PUI is so clogged up and not very well operating most of the time. I think it would be a good plan to think out a single system for getting rid of copyvio and contested fair use content, rather than the three such places where these things happen now (WP:CP, WP:PUI, and WP:IFD). --Fastfission 03:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One option would be to list them on ifd so they can be discussed. We shouldnt let this category grow out of control like the others if we can avoid it. Many are there because they are too I think, so they can be ifd before being replaced. Justinc 11:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there are clear benefits for centralising image deletion, and sticking a definate expiry date on PUI or fair use disputed images. Mabye we should come up with a propoal to streamline image deletion that would combine the no source deletion effort, PUI, WP:CP for images and IFD.--nixie 12:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair use disputed is a little different because it needs some discussion (and its quite new and we need time to formulate a policy). I would be in favour speedy process and time limit for though, and unifying this speedy process with no source images. Justinc 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion for the fairusedisputed images for now. Remove them from the articles they're in (and leave a message on the talk page).  Then, come back in a few days, and if no-one's bothered to put them back in the article, speedy delete them (criterion I5).  This does have the disadvantage that people can just add the images back and we're back to square one, but it has the advantage of avoiding PUI or IFD.  Thoughts?  JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * thats not a very clear process. The main problem is also that people just add new "fair use" images if you do that too. I think if people are prepared to discuss the fair use or lack therof, ifd is best, at least for the near future. But tag them as fairusereplace or nosource or whatever if at all possible. I am happy to start ifding them and see what happens anyway. Justinc 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ogg files linked from page as external links
I came across this one, I'm sure there are more: Image:VakavanhaVainamoinen.ogg. Where it has been added to pages, it has been added as an external link to the file on upload.wikimedia.org. See for example, Samples of music from the United States or Kalevala. That means it doesn't show up under File Links. Just something to be aware of when doing speedies under CSD I5. (Aside: this file is confusing anyway, because description says "public domain", but is tagged as fairuse). --Tabor 17:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One other thing to keep in mind is that media that are linked to, rather than inlined, don't show up in either the "File links" section or the whatlinkshere. There's a lot of these, I think (e.g. Template:Audio does this).  Special:Search might be of help if in doubt.  JYolkowski // talk 21:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Samples of music from the United States is (as the talk page says) a completely awful article. Fair use is pretty dubious too, although there is a small amount of critical commentary. The link issue is a problem. Anyone know if there is an outstanding mediawiki bug on this? Justinc 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-ABN
Dunno if this is the right place for this, but I'd like some ideas on this new image tag I stumbled across.

As far as I can tell it's somewhat misleading, the site in question clearly states (on the English version).
 * © Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as long as the source is acknowledged

So they allow reproduction, but saying that it's released into the public domain seems just flat wrong as far as I can tell. Dunno if this template can be salvaged somehow, or if it should be deleted. Any thoughts? --Sherool 20:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesnt say anything about modification, which is not helpful. Its clearly not PD, as it has conditions... Justinc 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not PD. I would consider these images copyrighted, free use allowed, provided the photographer and/or ABr is credited. Brazilian government has a pretty liberal copyright policy, even releasing stuff under the GPL (software). We've been using ABr as a source of free images for quite some time. Lupo 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote copyright policy
On the side I've been trying to come up with a coherent Wikiquote copyright policy. I'm meeting resistance though from people who don't want to think about copyright issues. If anybody has a moment, I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look at the small Draft proposal I wrote (basically focusing on issues relating to fair use and quotations), take a look at the the Twin Peaks case and the Seinfeld case on this page, and then take a look at the discussion on the proposal talk page and chime in whatever you think is most effective. Thanks. --Fastfission 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What you have written looks very good to me. The aggregate question is very important here too - one magazine cover from Time might be ok on its own, but all of them begins to look like a problem, despite each perhaps having a fair use justification on its own. Please report back here on the response too - we dont all have time to follow other things. Justinc 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

HistoricPhotoRationale
I just discovered this template out there. Seems slightly dubious to me, but I'd like to see what others think. JYolkowski // talk 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * it was created by admin User talk:Quadell. It seems pretty sensible but I'm not a lawyer. Arniep 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would question "in a non-profit encyclopedia.", since the image policy is to avoid restrictions on possibly commercial downstream users of Wikipedia material. --Tabor 17:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, if no-one has major objections I'll reword it to make a better fair use tag. If anyone had serious objections I would have pursued deletion instead.  JYolkowski // talk 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Utterly confused: Art images (and one in particular).
I'm utterly confused after about 2 hours of reading as to whether my use of an image is OK. Worse I'm not even sure where the best place to hold the discussion is, since I really don't want to add to my headache by distributing the debate across several different places. I guess the best thing to do is to ask for input here: Portal_talk:Art. The discussion begins on a formatting issue which I essentially raised as a way of giving readers ready access to art images that are not hosted on WP as they read the article. However, I was then emboldened by another user to simply place those images in the article. But then further reading of policy left me back in doubt as to whether I'd done the right thing. I'm utterly, utterly confused and can think of perfectly great reasons for including the image and equally compelling ones why I absolutely should not! As I say, please respond at the location I specify, as it will be useful for all over at the Art Portal to see this, I'm sure. --bodnotbod 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a good one. This is exactly the reason why I worded art to indicate that it is for two-dimensional works only, because of the added level of copyright.  I'll think about this one.  JYolkowski // talk 19:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Promo photo sources
A lot of the photos in this category have no source. Many photos which may look posed are being included which are actually agency photos or images from magazine photo shoots which I don't think fit as a promotional photo created by the subject or their employer. Also I am seeing a lot of black and white probably pre 1950 photos in this cat with no source, should discretion be used to allow these older images as it is quite hard for these, if not impossible to find a link from them to the original creator (take some of these images as example which have been uploaded to the promo category)? Arniep 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the old ones have a link to the website where they are from thats better than nothing at least I suppose - you could tag as fairusedisputed if you like; someone could try to find out but as it may take some time we neednt be too hasty. Anything that doesnt look like a promo or has a source that is obviously not the copyright holder is very dubious. You can list anything on ifd or pui thats dubious (I would use ifd). Justinc 14:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I'll use some discretion with the BW images although some of them are by famous photographers/agencies so have to be careful. Another major problem I see is the mention of media or press kits, how can this be verified i.e. isn't it unverifiable? The only way I can see we allow any modern promo photos is a link to imdb, yahoo movies, or an official website. Arniep 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made an addition to Publicity photos explaining that most photos on the Internet are not publicity photos. For modern photos taken from the Internet, I think we should only allow them if they can be shown to fit the criteria I added above.  I'm willing to be a bit more lenient on the older ones pending further research.  JYolkowski // talk 22:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My point was how we can we check if it really is from a press or media kit or downloaded as a TIFF from a special website? How will we know? Arniep 18:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The uploader needs to provide an image source (otherwise tag it with no source). If they provide a website link, we can go to the page in question and make sure it looks like a source for publicity photos.  If they say that it's scanned from a photo from a press kit, we can assume good faith if it otherwise appears to be legit.  JYolkowski // talk 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still can't see how this would work because, these "special" websites you talk about would presumably be password access so we wouldn't be able to see whether the photo came from there or not. If we allow people to say they got it from a press kit without any proof people will obviously take advantage of this and say any old scan is from a press kit. I think it is much better to allow only images from official websites or places like imdb or yahoo movies, excluding all agency images like wireimage photos, and including images of actors within the film or musicians in a music video as all these types of images are released by the creator for promoting the film, video, song, or person. At least that way we can link to these websites and see who the copyright owners are. Arniep 10:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My experience has been that the pages are not password protected, because they want the media to be able to access them. See the source for Image:James Conlon.jpg, which I recently retagged, for an example.  JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I still think that kind of setup is rare, I just browsed through various press areas on sites and they usually don't contain images or they say "journalists sign in here" or similar presumably to get access to images. Arniep 13:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the verifiability of people's claims can be a bit of an issue, but I personally don't think it's a big one. When it comes to verifiability in articles, we don't force people to include only information that everyone can verify very easily, but it must be possible for people to verify the information if they really wanted to do so.  For example, I could include information from a book at my local library, even though people who live in a different city might not be able to easily verify this information if they don't have the book at their local library.  However, anyone who really wanted to verify the information should be able to obtain a copy of the book somehow.  Similarly, if we want to verify the provenance of an image, I don't think that it needs to be easily verifiable by everyone, but the uploader does need to provide enough information that someone who really wants to verify the claim would be able to do so.  Some Wikipedians are members of the press and should be able to get their hands on the source material.  Others may be able to get material or information on it from other sources, or if not they can contact the copyright holder (which the uploader must specify under our fair use criteria) to verify that it's okay for us to use the image.
 * Generally, I feel that we should assume good faith by default. If the image is missing source or copyright information, doesn't look like a publicity photo, or the uploader has a history of dubious uploads, then list the image on WP:PUI or otherwise pursue deletion, but if there are no obvious problems I think that it's okay to trust the uploader.  Of course, there is the risk that someone could abuse our trust and upload bad-faith copyvio images, but in this case I believe that the legal exposure is much less (due to the OCILLA and other laws) if we've been misled by the uploader (whom by this point I hope we've blocked for a long time) into thinking that the image is acceptable.  JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Strike two lines from policy?

 * ''Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Fair use

I have suggested at Template talk:Albumcover that the following two lines:
 * The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
 * The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

...should be stricken from the Policy section of this page. See, for example: Template:Album infobox 2 (and its being kept per consenus at Templates for deletion). However, this is not only the case with Album covers. See also Template:The Beatles, which also uses "Fair Use" images as decoration for a template. There are a number of other examples. I'd suggest that consensus seems to be that such use is desirable, so review of the policy appears necessary. If the policy should not be changed for some reason, I would suggest that nominating such Templates for deletion is unlikely to result in consensus to delete. Jkelly 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If anyone would like to reply, please do so either on Template talk:Albumcover or Wikipedia talk:Fair use so that we don't have a discussion going on in three places. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper/magazine tag anomaly
OK, here we have Image:Sean_penn-shotgun-neworleans.gif which shows what is probably a press agency photo of Sean Penn. However I just csd'ed Image:Sean penn bails out.jpg partly because it has been tagged nosource for over 7 days, but also because it is a AFP/Getty image. Presumably someone could readd the image appearing in any magazine or newspaper page. Therefore doesn't the newspaper + magazine tag currently include a loophole which will allow showing of agency photos? Arniep 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Newspaper and magazine are supposed to be for photos which are representing the newspaper or magazine itself, as a physical object. A cropped photo of someone which originally appeared in a magazine is not a valid use of the magazine tag. --Fastfission 16:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I realise that, but I am just saying isn't it a bit anomalous that we say agency photos are not allowed and delete them, then someone can replace it with an image of a newspaper or magazine page with that image on it (not cropped as in Image:Sean_penn-shotgun-neworleans.gif)? Arniep 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a different type of use, ideally. Now in the Sean Penn case, it doesn't work -- the use of the scan in the article is not for commentary on the New York Post article or publication &mdash; it is used to illustrate the same thing the newspaper article is about, but not the newspaper article itself. A form of use which might work in this case would be "Sean Penn shocked the nation when he appeared on the cover of the New York Post with a shotgun" for example, though I don't think that's particularly true in this case, in comparison to "Sean Penn used a shotgun when he helped people in New Orleans", which would not be a proper use of the newspaper fair use tag. I've removed it accordingly, for now. --Fastfission 23:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * so is it the case that we can get around agency photos being a no fair use by scanning a magazine or newspaper page which contains them and adding suitable commentary? Arniep 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I see what you are gettng at, the event depicted has to be suitably significant to make the newspaper/magazine tag permissable. If we found this (which I tagged as AP copyvio) Image:Bream1992.jpg in print, would this qualify for the newspaper tag? Also can you have a look at Marilyn Monroe its getting a bit image crazy in there. Arniep 01:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it's about the use. If the Bream1992 picture was on the cover of a newspaper and this was a fact commented on in the text itself (i.e. "When this happened it quickly became the iconic image of X, Y, and Z, and was featured on the front page of the Daily Post) it would be fine, in my book. It's not so much a loophole as it is just a different way of using the images -- it requires all such images to be used in a way which ought to count as criticism or analysis, which is what bolsters the fair use claim in the first place (and what they are ostensibly all supposed to be based on). One of the reasons I don't like the "generic" fair use template is that it doesn't have anything like that written on there, but I haven't thought of a good way to deal with that yet. I took a look at Monroe -- it didn't look too bad except for that image gallery at the end, which I deleted. --Fastfission 03:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would a screenshot of a website that contained an agency image be allowed, i.e. the source of the Bream image on the Major League Baseball site ? Arniep 09:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also ask the same question for the screenshot of an online version of a newspaper or even a news site like CNN or BBC, which contained an agency image. Arniep 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent TfD listings
Pokeimage, DisneyLogo, and Law-and-order-image (which was rewritten as a "fair use" tag during TfD) are currently on TfD. You may want to comment there. JYolkowski // talk 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I've added some listings of my own today as well. JYolkowski // talk 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Figured I'd mention that I listed Template:Fair use-firefox on TfD yesterday. --Sherool 19:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeta Jones image Image:2003icp.jpg
I nominated this for deletion as it was claimed that its copyright status was difficult or impossible to determine, yet on one of the links cited it clearly shows copyright RF Callisto (probably an independant photographer) 1999. Can these type of images ever be fair use, if say small thumbnails are used? I presume any commercial photographer like this if asked would say non commercial use only even for the thumbnail which wikipedia doesn't allow? Arniep 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the copyright holder is a professional photographer that makes money selling images, it seems pretty unlikely that we could claim fair use since we're reducing their ability to sell their photo. The person who tagged this image formerly had an incorrect concept of fair use.  I hopefully have corrected their perceptions, but images that they've tagged before that time might be incorrectly tagged.  JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use of text sources, Policy rewrite
I know I'm coming to this project late, but a quick scan of the Talk pages leads me to think it may not be too late. I came here due to a discussion that got started based on a change I had made to the WP:CP page that a user took exception to because it failed to mention Fair Use— he apparently was working from a university course pack guidline which led him to think that he could create cut 'n' paste articles under a Fair Use rationale. So that got me looking at the Fair use page.

The result is that I have created a substantially revised page at User:Mwanner/Sandbox. The goals of the rewrite were:


 * Rewrite the intro to start with what copyright is, and to reduce some repetition.
 * Push the detailed Law and Policy sections down, so that the reader gets to what s/he is looking for sooner. Readers eyes glaze over if they hit too much legalese too soon.
 * Improve the coverage of textual fair use.
 * Replace "media" with "material" where pertinent. Much of the policy appeared only to apply to media. (I know, media includes text, but it seems to me that it has come to imply image or sound files).

Finally, there appears to be some internal inconsistency in the page regarding it's status as official policy. I have marked these points.

I think what I've written is an improvement, but I didn't want to just slap it up without getting some feedback.

TIA-- Mwanner | Talk 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally it appears to be an improvement in organization. The first sentence is incorrect in two ways; I would suggest deleting it all except for "Under United States Copyright Law".  I may look at it in more detail later.  The "this is not official policy" on the top of the page dates from a while back when this page was completely different.  Personally I think that this should probably be tagged as guideline, and the "policy" and "not policy" references could both be rewritten to "guideline".  JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're right about the first sentence. I'd like not to dump it though, 'cause the alternative is to send everyone off into the legalese right off the bat.  I've tried a rewrite that should come a little closer to the mark and save at least a few readers a trip.


 * I just looked at the guideline text. It reads, in part "However, it is not policy." Then, if you follow the link to Policies and guidelines (piped as "guideline"), it reads "This page is an official policy on Wikipedia."  Can o' worms!
 * Thanks, --Mwanner | Talk 23:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One question: Is it a legal concern that one must indicate where one has modified formatting/elipses/etc. of quotations, or is it just one relating to good editing ethics? Quoting people incorrectly can run afoul of other laws (i.e. libel) but not copyright law, that I know of, but I could certainly be wrong. We should try to keep such things well-delineated, only because it causes people to say, "Oh, this policy isn't based on the law at all!" if it confuses the two. --Fastfission 14:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it may be a legal matter, but I'll see what I can find out. Meanwhile, someone has pointed out that there is no link from the Fair Use page to the Copyrights page... and of course, it looks like that page could use some work.  Some days, it seems like wikipedia policy is a pandora's box that should just be left shut! Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that page is a perfect example of why even very important pages should never be protected; it's a complete mess. I don't think we need a link there; just having Category:Wikipedia copyright should be sufficient I think.  JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Applicability outside the US?
Do we need to include anything about law outside the US? fair dealing? And the issue of what country's laws apply in what circumstances... does anyone have an answer to that one? Remember, we have servers located outside the US. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that all of the content is hosted inside the U.S. -- the servers outside the U.S. are just related to optimizing certain database searchers or something like that. At least, everything I've seen seems to indicate that U.S. laws are the ones which regulate Wikipedia. The problem in going too far in questions about "fair dealing" is that they are considerably different laws than the U.S.'s, and our primary function with this is to keep Wikipedia legal in the places where it is necessary to be legal, and our secondary function is to help re-users.--Fastfission 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ready to go?
OK, I think this is ready to go up. I have added a "Under Wikipedia policy" to the sentence that JYolkowski was concerned might be mistaken for a legal requirement (I'm still not clear whether it is law or not), and I have added the guideline tag at the top, and some links to other Wikipedia copyright policy pages at the bottom. Any other concerns? -- 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes to your draft and I'm now happy with it. The main thing that I did was to re-add the "this is not official policy; you are responsible..." stuff back.  I think that having this text here might help prevent potential legal problems for the Foundation.  Also, "fair use" isn't a proper noun.  Other than that, it looks good.  JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I wonder though, if it is true that "you are responsible"?  The Edit page says "All edits are released under the GFDL", but it seems to stop short of trying to have the individual editor say "By Saving this edit, I hereby release my changes to this text under GFDL." I suspect you would need something like that to have much hope of holding the editor responsible.  And as you've said, above, if you say something is based on the law, but it really isn't, you risk discrediting the stuff you're right about.


 * Anyway, I'll leave it as is, pending any further reality checks. I'm hoping to get it out there by tomorrow AM. Thanks again. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles with image copyright problems
This may not be a good idea (I've only spoken on this talk page once before), but here goes: I think that we could start a WikiProject Fair use/Featured articles with image copyright problems subpage, just as User:Taxman has done on a subpage of his user page with FA's that have reference problems. It could be used to log images with no source and copyright info, and also those which do not include fair use rationale. What does everybody else think? Extraordinary Machine 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this would be much needed. Check Talk:Eldfell for an example I noticed earlier today. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Non commercial only vs fair use
As I understand images that for whatever reason have a "non commercial use" condition attached are a big no-no these days per WP:CSD, although it only mentions images licenced as such. I'm relatively sure that such images could still be used under the fair use doctrine (I mean "normal" copyright is more restrictive in many ways), but I'm not 100% sure. The reaon I ask is that I've come across a large number of art of Gundam mechs taken from http://gundam.anime.net/ and they have a note saying: "All the site's artwork, icons, and illustrations are available for your use, subject to two conditions: That you credit the artist (me, Mark Simmons), and that you not use it for any commercial activity (including a revenue-generating Web site) without my explicit permission." Emphasis mine.

So any Wikipedia commercial mirror using these images would be violating the artists conditions. AFAIK they might still be usable under "fair use" however in many ways I think the fair use "case" would probably be stronger if we used a cropped (low res) screenshot from the TV series rather than a verbatim copy of a copyrighted artists rendition. I don't think asking for permission would work eiter since we are not the ones using it commericialy (unless he's willing to GFDL the images, wich seems unlikely given the conditions and number of images used).

Here are some of the images I'm talking about Image:RGM-79.PNG, Image:RB-79.GIF and Image:RGC-80 GM Cannon.gif, there are several more, see Category:Universal Century images (they are not all from the source in question naturaly). --Sherool 12:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's pretend the author didn't mention anything and just had the pictures on his website. I don't think these Gundam images would qualify for fair use in that case.  The author's more-permissive license to use the content doesn't apply to us because, as you say, noncommercial licenses don't help us here.  The images should all be deleted.  Tempshill 15:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Some analysis related to Wikipedia fair use
I have created a table of the top 1000 articles by use of media from Category:Fair use images. Check it out at User:Gmaxwell/query_fairusecount. Later I will produce a list of articles illustrated only by fair use images by article size, and a list of Category:fair use images media ordered by the number of places which inline them. I can produce just about any sort of list like this you can dream of with little difficulty, so please feel free to make requests. I hope these lists can help improve the freeness of our project. --Gmaxwell 19:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a new database dump to play with? Cool. Also, impressive list. Those List of people in Playboy... articles look like a bit of an overreaching claim, for a start... Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is pretty cool... it was really satisfying to remove 20 copyvio images from Template:Beckett, which in turn was transcluded on 20 pages. One question:  Are you including images from subcategories of Category:Fair use images?  For example, I noticed that 2005-06 NHL season is listed as having 17 fair use images and 17 "other" images, but almost all of the images are logos.  I can come up with a list of categories if you want.  JYolkowski // talk 20:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I included anything in Category:fair use images, plus anything in any category directly in fair use images. I didn't recurse, but for all I know one of those categories mistakingly contains Category:Science :). I realize this isn't ideal, but just including fair use images missed some important points. If you'd like to give me a list of categories to include that would be useful. --Gmaxwell 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of categories:


 * Category:Fair use images
 * Category:Fair use in... images
 * Category:Public domain unless fair use images
 * Category:Vintage Fair use images
 * Category:Fair use images used with permission
 * Category:Album covers
 * Category:Board game covers
 * Category:Book covers
 * Category:Comic book covers
 * Category:DVD covers
 * Category:Video game covers
 * Category:Fair use magazine covers
 * Category:Fair use newspaper covers
 * Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers
 * Category:Video covers
 * Category:Fair use screenshots
 * Category:Screenshots of movies and television
 * Category:Music Video-Promotional screenshots
 * Category:Screenshots of computer and video games
 * Category:Screenshots of software
 * Category:Screenshots of Mac software
 * Category:Screenshots of Windows software
 * Category:Screenshots of web pages
 * Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia
 * Category:Promotional images
 * Category:Fair use movie posters
 * Category:Fair use sports posters
 * Category:Fair use event posters
 * Category:Fair use political posters
 * Category:Disney Theme Park posters
 * Category:Currency images
 * Category:Fair use stamp images
 * Category:USPS stamps
 * Category:Coat of arms images
 * Category:Logos
 * Category:HQFL Logos
 * Category:Images of official seals
 * Category:BC traffic sign images
 * Category:Disney Logos
 * Category:Promotional photos
 * Category:Parliament of Australia images
 * Category:Smithsonian fair use images
 * Category:Otto Perry images
 * Category:Robert Richardson images
 * Category:Pok&eacute;mon images
 * Category:Comics single panels
 * Category:Comics scenes
 * Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! images
 * Category:Fair use music samples
 * Category:Flag images
 * Category:Images from the Liberal Democrats (UK)
 * Category:TNA Promotional Photo
 * Category:Webcomic media
 * Category:Icons
 * Category:Denver Public Library images
 * Category:Cereal box covers
 * Category:Restaurant logos
 * JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, you've included a number of cats I missed, however you are missing some that I'm using:

Fair_use_image_replacement_request Fair_use_images_of_art Fair_use_unique_images Free_fair_use_in..._images Law_&_Order_images United_Nations_images Verified_fair_use_image. Okay United_Nations I can see why we're not concerned with that.. Law&order.. I have no clue why that cat was in cat:fair use images. The additive tags should have some other fair use tag (but perhaps I should query for things that done). What about fair_use_image_of_art? And verified? Should I start producing reports that provide symbols for each type? --Gmaxwell 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Fair use images of art should be included, I overlooked that one. Category:Fair use image replacement request and Category:Fair use unique images are additive tags, so there should already be another fair use tag on the image pages.  Category:Free fair use in... images was previously populated by a template (Template:FreeNon-free fair use in) that is now redirected to another template.  May as well include it for now but I'll null-edit everything to get rid of the refs.  The template populating Category:Law & Order images is going to be deleted tomorrow, but may as well include it for now.  Category:United Nations images is populated by a non-fair use template, I'll fix the categorization.  Category:Verified fair use images was previously populated by Template:Verified use, which is now deleted.  JYolkowski // talk 23:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have also produced a list of the top 1,000 articles with only fair use images by article size. I was somewhat impressed that we only have about 18k articles whos only inline is a fair use image. Therefor we would only increase the number of unillustrated articles (only about 350k pages in main have inlines at all) by a couple of percent if we deleted all tagged fair use. :) Of course, not articles are created equal... Hopefully we can get some new illustrations for those large articles. --Gmaxwell 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, folks here are going to love this one: I've made a list of fair use media ordered by how many distinct articles use the media. I found it pretty shocking. It looks like at least a few of them are cases of images being incorrectly tagged as fair use, but it also looks like we should ask people not to put fair use images in templates, because it's clear that there is a good amount of that going on. It's pretty outrageous that someone would choose a fair use image for some of these stub notices. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Might be worth politely asking the stub-project people to cease and desist, since at least some of these seem to have been uploaded with the explicit intent of making them stub icons... Image:Bart_icon.png, for example. Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Image has been shot. --Carnildo 06:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you do a similar thing with articles with images tagged promophoto or promotional? Arniep 04:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because promophoto is (I believe) a direct subcat of Fair use images, it should be included in the output. Would you like a report of just promo photo? Tell me exactly what cats you want (keep in mind that for me to include it the image must be directly in the cats I use), and I'll produce whatever kind of report you'd like. --Gmaxwell 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's not necessary if promophotos are a sub cat of fairuse but are you 100% sure they are as when I scan fair use cat I don't think I can see promophotos, could be wrong though. Arniep 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to get a list of templates that include fair-use images? --Carnildo 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. User:Gmaxwell/query_fairusemediaintemplates

Hey, Gmaxwell, here is an idea: Build a list of all users with one or more fair use image on theyr userpage (including subpages if possible), and then have a boot write them all a message pointing out Fair use and politely (but firmly) ask them to remove such images (or turn them into links if they want to keep a list of contributed images), and direct them here if they have any questions. This will at the very least improve awarenes of these things, and hopefully most active users will see the "error of theyr ways" remove the images themselves without anyone having to get into big fights over removing/deleting "theyr" decotative images. --Sherool 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not too big on making bots that talk to people myself, people get kinda fussy when you muck up their talk pages. I'd rather stick to tagging and such :) However, I'd be glad to make a breakdown by user of fair use images inside User: and User Talk: pages and subpages if someone wants to write a bot to leave the messages. There really aren't all that many.. just a couple of hundred, and many of those are only on archive pages. My thought is that most could be deleted without a reaction. Leaving notices might just be asking for more disputes (or retagging with inaccurate tags :. --Gmaxwell 18:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use on category pages?
Seems we have some images tagged as fair use on category pages (I goofed up while building the above query and checked the wrong thing). Obviously some of these are oddly tagged, but I thought someone might want to look into them: Thanks. --Gmaxwell 07:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Jk_beatles_john.jpg
 * Image:Jk_beatles_paul.jpg
 * Image:Jk_beatles_ringo.jpg
 * Image:Postcard-large-letter-los-angeles.jpg del'ed
 * Image:Mac_OS_X_Box.jpeg
 * Image:Honolulucountyseal.jpg (three cats) rm'ed Jkelly 17:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Hawaiistatecapitol.jpg
 * Image:Map_of_Topeka,_Kansas.png
 * Image:Alex_Deakin.jpg
 * Image:Moanaluastudents.jpg
 * Image:Herb_Obojga_Narodow_small.jpg
 * Image:Jk_beatles_george.jpg
 * Image:Melbourne.jpg (two cats) rm'ed, now orphan Jkelly 17:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Exileslogox.jpg
 * Image:Encantadia_poster.jpg
 * Image:Current_event_marker.png (seven cats)
 * Image:DisneyAfternoonGang.jpg
 * Image:AlfredJulesAyer.jpg
 * Image:Pyrazoles_synthesis.gif
 * Image:C&O_logo.png

Limit on number of images in articles
Is there a Wikipedia policy about this, i.e. on max number of screenshots/promophotos that can be used, Drew_Barrymore seems a bit excessive at the moment. Maybe we could have a limit on number of fair use images, and a higher limit for free ones? Arniep 04:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In Fair use we say The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. I also recall having guidance on the number of some types of fair use (such as screen shots), but I can't find it.. Generally the best guideline is the above, which expects the users to use some common sense. I guess it turns out that common sense isn't common and perhaps we should start talking about setting a nice high limit (five perhaps) to reduce the amount of argument when we try to trim back some of the overflowing use... the current policy page gives us enough reason to remove them, but people will argue how much as little as possible is... --Gmaxwell 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that saying "five" (or whatever) will encourage people to think of it as a permitted number, an "allowance" of fair-use photos - look at the number of people who interpret 3RR to mean "I am allowed to revert blindly three times in every 24-hour period; this is perfectly fine". I understand the suggestion, and it'd help, but we need to consider side-effects... hmm. Perhaps:
 * There is rarely, if any, real justification for using more than about five fair-use images in a single article, and they may well be removed. If you are using this many, please consider your reasons carefully; if you want advice, please ask at X or Y0
 * - not trying to set "a limit", but making it clear that we discourage having them. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 11:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think quite a few users would not take notice of a discouragement message, if there is rule which breaking might get you banned then they might take notice. I think limiting fair use to three images per page would be good and allowing four free images would act as an incentive for people to get free images, which at the moment there isn't much of an incentive because people can just use as many copyright images they want as long as they say this is xxx as xxx in xxx, they received praise for their role in xxx. I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to be free. Arniep 01:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it will vary with what the fair-use images actaully illustrate. For example on Drew Barrymore, where they just there so the reader knows what the woman looks like you could probably do with just two, one showing her as a child actor and one more recent one. --nixie 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, in her case we could do with one or zero: Since she's a living public personality it would not be unreasonable to expect a wikipedian to provide a free image of her eventually. :) But right, two fair use images would be reasonable... unless we wanted to talk about her hairdo at a specific point in time or something. ;) --Gmaxwell 07:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think any limit would instantly be interpreted as a "permission". No matter how the policy was worded it would quickly become known as "the 5 image rule" and misinterpreted to mean that using 5 copyrighted images in a single article is always fine (which it sure as cheese isn't). And I don't think any number like that is very helpful anyhow. I can imagine that a long and detailed article about something visual could need more than 5 FU images. I can even imagine that the article on Drew Barrymore could be rewritten and expanded to justify the inclusion of most of the images there (though I don't think they're currently justified). What we need to encourage is the use of fair use images in the articles. They have to be discussed, not just put there to make the article prettier. I recently had a little conflict on Dungeons & Dragons on a long image caption I used there for a fair use image I added. (The point, of course, is not whether the text is in the caption or not but whether it's in the article or not - though I personally like long image captions.) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite possible, it just pains me to see how much work it takes clean up these cases... It seems that people do not understand fair use, and do not want to understand fair use. Perhaps a 5 fair rule would be the wrong course, but perhaps there is some other guideline which could be cited as a quick excuse to curtail fair use abuse. --Gmaxwell 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Haukurth. I think the number of fair use images in an article should be dictated by the strength of their rationale for fair use. For example, the Kylie Minogue article has well over a dozen fair use images, but most (though not all) of them could be argued as fair use because they illustrate significant points in Minogue's career, as well as aspects of her image, that are overviewed in the article at some length. Whereas some of the fair use images in the Drew Barrymore article seem to have been inserted for decoration more than anything. See also Smallville (TV series). Extraordinary Machine 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As one of the author's of the Kylie Minogue article, I can say that was exactly the intention in using the images and the several screenshots from music videos illustrate points discussed in the article with discussed being the key word here, and which I think is an important distinction.  Several images have been added since it was made a Featured Article but as you said, they do serve more than a decorative purpose (but some could be culled).  It's also quite a lengthy, detailed article.   The Drew Barrymore article is relatively short, and the images are representative of her, and yet they aren't really discussed in the article.  They seem to be  random and not carefully chosen, so I think many of them are on shakey ground as far as rationales are concerned.   I don't think having a maximum quantity is the real issue - I think it should be about the legitimacy and necessity of each image and some articles will require more than others in order to be complete. Rossrs 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we need to have some different rules:
 * for screenshots or studio stills
 *  the fair use image must show the subject in a scene which is famous, must not be a close up shot of their face, and must be accompanied by significant commentary on this scene of over two sentences in length.
 * for magazine covers
 * the fair use image must show the subject appearing on the cover of a significant magazine, which often only occurs once in a lifetime and be accompanied by significant commentary on the appearance of over two sentences in length
 * with these rules I think we could remove from Drew Barrymore the Premiere magazine cover, as it is non noteworthy, and remove all the screenshots except ET and the Letterman incident which are famous. Arniep 18:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Screenshots - disagree. "Famous" is POV. The image should be used to represent discussion in the article and if that can best be done with an image that is not necessarily iconic in itself, that should be ok.  Discussion of the "scene" I think is too restrictive however discussion of the film or TV show (or whatever) that the image was taken from, should be absolutely mandatory - it would be very rare that the actual scene would be relevent but the total production from which it came would be. I also disagree with it not being a closeup, only because I don't see the point, so if you could explain further what you intend that would be great.   "Two sentences in length" - two badly written short sentences would meet the criteria, whereas one well written descriptive sentence would not.  I think that is too restrictive.
 * Magazine covers - agree completely. Rossrs 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What I meant about the close up thing is I can't see how a close up really transmits much information, likely it is just a way to use to illustrate the likeness of a person which I don't think would be fair use, rather than showing the person in context. Personally I think images can only be fair use when they are significant enough to be have substantial commentary in order to comply with fair use law, otherwise you are probably using the image for decoration which isn't fair use. Arniep 01:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons I am concerned about the images is I think they may place a large load on the servers. I have noticed some very slow responses recently and timeouts. Is there any way of getting statistics on how much we could speed up the servers if we removed a certain percentage of the fair use images? Surely we should place much more importance on getting articles delivered to people quickly, there are plenty of other places on the net where people can see pictures of people. Arniep 13:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can attribute any aspect of the slowness of Wikipedia to just images. In any case, technical limitations should never drive our editorial actions, if there were a problem with images we would prefer to fix the server. --Gmaxwell 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If there was a rule or guideline, I think it would need to be linked to the amount of text in the article but I'm not sure how we would measure that. It would obviously be crazy to allow 5 fair use images in short articles. There are more free images becoming availiable on the commons (User:Nyikita generously donating her Cannes photos), so if we have a free commons image and the other fair use images are just used to illustrate the actor, can we really claim fair use anymore? For example on Alyssa Milano I removed Image:Alyssa Milano at window in Charmed 2-2.jpg as there was a free commons image in the article and I didn't think the picture was very significant. Was I justified in doing this? Should the other fair use image also be removed? Arniep 13:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure that linking it to the text makes that much sense. You could have a reasonable justification for fair use without all that much text, or you could have a mile long article with no justification at all. I think that as a project we need to decide how we value the freeness of our work vs it's completeness. I think it's pretty hard to justify having an additional fair use image if the article is already reasonably illustrated with a free one. --Gmaxwell 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But surely there should some kind of limit? I mean, someone could add 20 images each with critical comment and claim fair use and we couldn't say no, unless there is a limit matched to the article length. Arniep 18:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I'd be more in favor of just a limit, making it based on size will just encourage people to fatten articles (could be good or bad). Articles should only cover so many things in any case before they are split. I don't really have a strong view either way. --Gmaxwell 18:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * but I think there is a real problem in "fans" wanting their own image in a smallish article and the article ends up with more images than text. In fact, maybe a limit could be incorporated in the software i.e. wiki does a word count and when someone tries to add an image it says the maximum number of images for this article size has been reached, please discuss changing the images on the articles talk page or expand the article. I would say for an article the size of Drew Barrymore it should be something like 4 free images and 3 fair use {the higher number of free permitted images perhaps acting as an incentive to get free images, and when people have got them we can delete all the fair use images :-). Arniep 18:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate comment on the current edit war at Ian McKellen which is relevant. User:DrBat replaced a free image Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg donated by McKellen back in April with the non free Image:Ianmc.jpg. I recently found a Mckellen image at commons Image:Ian_McKellen.jpg which I replaced with the non free one and removed Image:Emile.jpg as it seemed it was only being used as decoration (I am not sure a movie poster can ever be fair use unless it was controversial or iconic). User:DrBat commented on ifd "How is the image you replaced it any better than the current image? There's no fair use problem with the original one, and he looks goofy in the other one. And the text justifying the image you used is in a foreign language.". Userbat then removed my free commons image and readded the non significant imo poster which I then reverted. First, I think we need some kind of rule that free images should never be replaced by fair use images, and secondly that posters should be only allowed if they were/are famous in themself. Arniep 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the proper limit on the number of fair-use images in an article is one: an image to identify the article's subject. --Carnildo 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to me like that would allow for a very rich Encylopedia. That limit also doesn't take into account longer articles or complicated subjects. -Locke Cole 04:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Amtrak has two that belong without a question - the new logo and old logo. --SPUI (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See The Beatles. Tell me which of the 9 or 10 fair use images the article can do without? Thryduulf 09:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd get rid of either Image:Beatles.jpg or Image:Meet the Beatles.jpg, and get rid of Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg, Image:AbbeyRoad.jpg, Image:Be1.jpg, and Image:Applecorps.jpg. Image:Hofner-bass.png, Image:Rickenbecker-guitar.png, Image:Gretsch-guitar.png, and Image:Ludwig-drums.jpg are not tagged as fair use, but they should go anyway, since they either don't have source information or don't have copyright information. --Carnildo 09:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

BBC Television Idents
Speaking of limiting the number of images in an article, this one have 40(!) fair use images in it, and one paragrap of text (not counting the caltions), granted they are all of different indents used thoughout history, wich is the articles subject, but I find it ever so slightly on the exessive side to put it diplomaticaly. --Sherool (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct template to apply to images of US Government Seals
I orignally posted this question at [|WP:Help Desk], where it was suggested that i bring it up here instead. Any input would be appreciated.

I've noticed a discrepancy among various US goverment agency seals on wikipedia. There appears to be no template (that i can find) that specifically covers these, and there are certainly very many of them.

Several, such as Image:CIA_seal_reg.jpg and Image:NavySeal.png use the Template:Seal Template, but this template (at least in it's current wording) only applies to Local Government seals. Several others use the more generic Public Domain / Government templates, such as Image:FBISeal.png which uses Template:PD-USGov-FBI and Image:Us senate seal.png which uses Template:PD-USGov-Congress. This approach also seems somewhat incorrect, since the seals arent really works of the respective agencys persay, and although i am not entirely sure they are actually copyrighted, i dont think they are quite in the public domain, either, because their use is typically heavily restricted by federal laws.

I've tried to locate an equlivant of Template:Seal for federal seals, but i cannot find one. Is there one? Should there be? Should Template:Seal be modified to apply to federal, state, and local seals? Any help would be much appreciated. --Lanoitarus 20:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:Seal seems the best fit. I removed the word "local" from the template.  JYolkowski // talk 02:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats much better, then. Im still not sure though, because Federal seals aren't actually copyrighted, persay, as far as i know. I think they are only restricted against unlawful use by other federal laws, usually the one creating the agency. Can anyone verify if this is correct, and if so, would it make sense to create a distinct template for Federal? --Lanoitarus
 * Template:Seal says that the seal may be subject to copyright, trademark, and/or other restrictions (emphasis mine). I think that this template is okay for U.S. federal seals because they would fall into the "other restrictions" category.  JYolkowski // talk 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it may not be quite perfect but you are right, it definitely covers the bases. Thanks for your help! --Lanoitarus 04:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use in templates?
I see that the fair use policy says that fair use images should not be used in templates, period. However, I was talking to Gmaxwell on IRC a while back on that subject, and he said he sees no problem with logos in templates, like in SEPTA. The same might also apply to logos of organizations in copyright templates for images produced by those organizations. Can anyone comment? Should policy be changed to allow logos in templates? --SPUI (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the problem with certain fair-use images in templates either, but I do think each template should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Simply saying "no fair-use images whatsoever in templates" is over the top... -Locke Cole 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A template may be used on many articles. Are you able to explain why the use of the image Image:BobHawke.jpg on Edmund Barton constitutes "fair use"?  What about the use of Image:Kingcrown.jpg (St. Edward's Crown) on Philip III of Macedon?  --Carnildo 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The use of BobHawke.jpg on Edmund Barton is in the form of a thumbnail, and it's relevant because they're all former or current Australian Prime Ministers. -Locke Cole 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that fair use logos in a template on that organization or company are quite different from other images or art, especially if the template is not directly pertaining to thier author or organization. And if the template would only reasonably used for articles pertaining to that corporation or system (as in the SEPTA example), i see even more reason for the logo being in the template. But then, im new here :) --Lanoitarus 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm (somewhat) new here too and what you said makes sense to me. Templates if anything should be more forgiving with fair-use images because the templates are ultimately included in an article. The sticky issue comes when the fair-use image is included (via template) into an article not related to the image (even in some minor way) to the image. I suppose the crown example above is one I'd have misgivings about. But certainly not a logo in a stub template for example. -Locke Cole 08:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is acording to Wikipedia policy all "fair use images" need a rationale to explain why it is considered fair use to use them in each and every article they are included in (and boy do we have a lot of "cleaning up" to do in that department already). If the image is added to a template you have very little controll over it. If you put a logo in a stub template for example you will suddenly have 50+ articles you need to justify the use of the image in, and there might be cases where the template is apropriate but the image is not. To further compound the problem there is a bug in the software so if you add a image to a template and then remove it again all the articles that used the template will still show up as file links on the image. This makes it very tricky to tell where the image is actualy used. So IMHO a "zero tollerance" policy for fair use images on templates is the best approach as it avoids a whole host of potential problems and leaves no "gray area" for people to "abuse". --Sherool 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

SPUI is correct that we discussed the matter before. The context, if I recall correctly, was the use of a transit line's logo in the template used on all the pages for the stops of the transit line. In my view the situation is that these sub articles are really a part of a single logical article on the whole transit system. As such the justification on the logo page is acceptable. I don't think we'll encounter too many situations outside of logos where this makes sense, and of course we need to keep in mind the difference between a template for a specific system and a template for transportation in general (the latter should not use a fair use image).--Gmaxwell 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed Template:SEPTA so that the image is &lt;includeonly&gt;. That resolves the only big issue I had with it, whether the use of the image is fair use on Template:SEPTA itself.  JYolkowski // talk 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443 including official transit maps when a suitable free version has been created
People on WP:AN/I don't give a shit; maybe you will. Boothy is re-adding the official (and thus fair use) SEPTA maps to Norristown High Speed Line and SEPTA Suburban Trolley Lines despite my creation of a free alternative. While the official maps show every stop, and mine only show the major points, I think this is something that's unnecessary on the map, but should instead be listed in the text. Bitch slap requested. --SPUI (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Stick in the rest of the stops, and he'll have no reason to keep removing it. --Carnildo 06:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Im not sure the free version you've created is really quite equilivant. Your map shows only the lines 4 major stops, while the  Copyrighted Version all 30-odd stops. I know i personally would prefer to see all the stops if i needed to get somewhere or research that particular line. --Lanoitarus 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plus the copyrighted map just looks better overall in comparison. I'm sure the SVG map could be improved though, and probably should be, since I don't think the map would qualify as fair-use. (Unlike a publicity photograph of a celebrity or a company logo, the map is itself valuable). -Locke Cole 08:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * List the copyrighted ones on ifd and we can get rid of them. They are not fair use, they are permission anyway by the look of it. Justinc 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, disregard my fair-use concerns, it looks like Wikipedia will be OK using the SEPTA copyrighted images. Check out the license quoted on Image:100map.gif for example. Reproduction is allowed so long as the copyright notice is intact. -Locke Cole 13:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it's noncommercial use only, which means it has to be valid fair use to be allowed. I frankly don't see the point of showing all the stops on the map - they can more easily be included in the text, which makes the map more legible. --SPUI (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The wikimedia foundation is commercial? -Lanoitarus 18:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it's our intention not to encumber our articles with images that are "noncommercial use only", so that commercial re-users of the material can presume that all of our material is fair game. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For that matter, a "no commercial use" license could prohibit the Foundation from selling copies of the encyclopedia on DVD. --Carnildo 08:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rule on not removing free images
I would be interested on peoples views on whether there should be a wikipedia policy on this, as well as the recent Ian McKellen problem User talk:M Vallee has removed a free commons image Image:Melanie Griffith.jpg, one of many Cannes photos being generously donated by a hungarian photographer which was recently added to Melanie Griffith and replaced it with a copyrighted image Image:MelanieGriffith.jpg. Is there some way we can lock free images so they can only be removed by admins? Arniep 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no real way to achieve that, and there are plenty of valid reasons to remove a free image, for example, to replace it with a better free image. :) I agree that we should not replace a free image with a non-free one, even if the non-free image is of a higher quality. I think the best way to achieve that is for diligent people like you to keep doing the good job you've obviously been doing in finding this sort of problem. --Gmaxwell 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can direct editors to Fair_use, where it is stated: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." Jkelly 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replies. The problem is, I am not sure people are noticing when these free images are removed. For example, the image Image:IanMcKellen.0051.jpg which was donated by Mckellen himself and appeared when it was a featured article, was removed in April and I only found it a couple of days ago after I removed the fair use image that User:DrBat replaced the original free one with which led me to check the history, discovering the original was removed back in April. Is it possible a bot could be created to generate a list of free images which are removed from articles or replaced by those with non free or no source tags? Arniep 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Twist the arms of the developers to get them to add the image undeletion feature. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this would be far too large for a bot to do; you'd have to seriously rewrite the mediawiki code for this to be detectable (and there are so many other things they should fix first). The best we can hope, I think, is that people will read/discover the policies about free vs. nonfree and which is preferable, and be vigilant, as always. --Fastfission 02:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can produce a report about when this has happened, or more correctly, I can report on revisions which both reduce the number of non-fairuse (or commons) images and increase the number of fair use ones so long as the images have not been deleted (so I can identify how they were tagged). In order for such reports to finish in my lifetime I need to maintain relations which map image links to article revisions. I've done this before, but I'm out of disk space at the moment, so I can't currently do it. I think it will be interesting so once I solve my disk space issues I'll run this one. --Gmaxwell 02:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, that's great. Another helpful thing for anyone to do might be to make liberal use of the 'wikimedia commons' tag, which is unlikely to be removed.  That will help future editors find any free images which have been replaced by "fair use" ones.  Jkelly 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent, how much disk space is needed is it something we could all contrubute to (like Seti)? I also thought a Wikiproject could be created to watch free images, but maybe it could also be to revert any changes that your search finds? Re: the commons tag I have been adding it wherever I find commons images, I actually modified it to say "Wikipedia Commons has media related to..." from "Wikipedia Commons has more media related to..." in case only one image is availiable. Arniep 22:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright in coats of arms, flags, military insignia etc.
Running through the list of fair use images in templates, I was struck that the worst "offenders" were templates for UK counties, using the county arms. It struck me that one could argue a case for using PD-ineligible for these images (and for national flags, and military insignia), as they merely represent a factual state of affairs (what the coat of arms is&mdash;this is strictly defined, at least in the UK) rather than an artistic representation. Comments? Physchim62 (talk&middot;RfA) 06:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The copyright on a coat of arms (or, more properly, a heraldic achievement) is a tricky thing. The canonical form is the text description, known as a blazon.  This description is a factual statment, using a standardized wording, and so is probably not eligable for copyright.  Any image, on the other hand, is an artist's interpretation of that blazon, and so is probably eligable for copyright. --Carnildo 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So... what we really need to do is find an artist willing to make us a nice set of heraldic insignia? Shimgray | talk | 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's basically the only way to go. I think that a lot of coats of arms and flags that are tagged as fair use really are not fair use, because in many cases the copyright holder is not affiliated with the owner of the coat of arms or flag.  Something to keep in mind...  JYolkowski // talk 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a tricky call, that's why I wanted a bit of outside comment! I still wonder about the difference between the two cases: It seems very difficult to argue that the image is both accurate and copyright. Physchim62 (talk&middot;RfA) 11:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) the image is an accurate transcription of the blazon, in which case it only contains the same information as the blazon;
 * 2) the image is inaccurate (for example, parody), in which case the copyright obviously belongs to the creator.
 * It seems that the authors of coatofarms had a similar problem in deciding the copyright status. Should I retag these images with this template so that we know where they are? Physchim62 (talk&middot;RfA) 12:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you define "accurate"? Seems to me that there are any number of ways of drawing, say, a "lion rampant", and it's the artist's choice as to which one to use.  As long as it's recognizable as a lion, it's on its hind legs, and it's facing left, it's acceptable. --Carnildo 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A redrawing would be fine. However for some there will exist a drawing that is out of copyright as it is old too that we could also use. Many of the UK ones will not have changed much in a few hundred years. But it is case by case, and someone needs to do the research or drawing. Justinc 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a lot of the older images are done in a style we're not used to - compare Image:Durham shield.png (a "clean" creation of the crest of the University of Durham) with the original. The latter is out of copyright, and as authentic as you get - it came from the original paperwork - but it looks hideously Victorian (which, to be fair, it is) compared to the usual style here. IMO, redrawings are to be preferred for aesthetic reasons as much as copyright ones!
 * There's also a small trend, on that subject, for people to represent military insignia by scanning a patch, or the like, and tagging it logo or crest - I'm never sure what to do with these... Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to change flagimage and coat of arms to indicate that the image may or may not be fair use. Personally, I don't think that any arbitrary image of a coat of arms can be fair use, unless the image was created by the government etc. in question. For images that fall under that category, I've created symbol. If you can think of a better term to group these things under, please move the template to that name. Any further clarifications to the template would also be appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain me something. I have uploaded a lot of coa under that coatofarms template. So what do I do now? (clif notes please) Renata3 16:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * An image of a coat of arms certianly could be fair use for example in an articel about the particualr heraldic artist that drew it, where his or her style is disscused and analyzed, or possibly in a gernal articel about heraldic style. Whether it is properly fair use in an article about the entity that holds the coat of arms, where the image is being used to identify the subject, or to illustrate that subjects heraldic device, and any accurate version of the design would serve as well, is more dubious. A redrawing freely released is certanly free of copyright issues, and is a better choice when avaialble. For more modern institutional crests, badges, devices and logos, ther is generally only a single aproved visual desgin, adn all instances are mechanical reproductions of this. Thsi would apply to most military patches, for example. In these cases i think ther is a stronger case to be made for fair use, as the only possible copyright holder is the institution. DES (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Keira Knightley
I would appreciate peoples views on this. I removed magazine cover Image:KeiraElle.jpg as it was not accompanied by any commentary apart from xxx on the cover of xxx which I don't think counts as fair use. I think use of a magazine cover can only be fair use if appearing on the cover allows sufficient commentary, due to it being notable for whatever reason (i.e. Drew Barrymore appearing in Playboy which attracted controversy and comment in the media at the time). I replaced it with a screenshot Image:Ramirez_Knightley_and_Rourke_in_Domino.jpg which I added critical commentary for (could still be expanded) to justify it's use, also adding commentary for Image:Keira.Knightley.JPG which was already in the article with negligable commentary. Now User talk:Viriditas has readded the magazine cover and removed the Domino screenshot. Comments appreciated here or on Talk:Keira_Knightley. Thanks Arniep 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've left a short note there, but there was an interesting point raised - this article, which discusses fair-use justification for thumbnailing copyrighted images for "information-gathering or indexing purposes". There was some discussion earlier (I can't remember if it was here or wikien-l) where someone worried strict fair-use wouldn't allow us to have things like image category pages... Shimgray | talk | 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I note this: "It's entirely possible that thumbnails in other contexts could be held to be copyright infringement if, for example, they are of nude or pornographic images, cartoon characters or celebrity photos.


 * Why? Because with nudes/porn, cartoon characters or celebrity photos, it is arguable that the thumbnail-sized image-- especially if it's of a high-resolution, or slightly larger than the typical thumbnail size -- will sufficiently satisfy the market's desire for that product, and therefore negate the market need for the original work."
 * therefore any thumbnail of a copyrighted image of a cartoon character or celebrity may well be infringement. Images of celebrities and cartoon or video game characters also appear on magazine covers, but as that image is a small part of a whole work (i.e. a magazine) maybe that doesn't count as infringement? However I think the link is saying that basically a thumbnail must be used in reference to the object depicted, i.e. a film or a magazine, not a subject appearing in/on the object so I think that using magazine covers without significant commentary on the magazine may be infringement. Any thoughts appreciated. (modified from comment posted at 12:05) Arniep 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I should have posted this to put the quote in context, which precedes the above quote: "Fair use is a hair-splitting doctrine. While the Arriba case might seem to have decided that thumbnails are fair use, this can't be relied on as a general rule. The Arriba case only decided the slender issue that thumbnails of another's aesthetic photos are a fair use when done for information-gathering or indexing purposes." (continued in the quote in prev post). Arniep 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Viriditas commented in justifying use of the Elle magazine cover in Keira Knightley "Informing the reader as to the appearance of Keira Knightly is identification, which is protected by Fair_use. See Images section.". User:Jkelly responded, "An image of the cover of Elle is fair use for identification and critical commentary on Elle, not whichever model happens to be on that cover. See "counterexamples" on that page.". So JKelly's argument would seem to argue that magazine covers can not be used other than on articles on magazines, which in itself seems to be at odds with other peoples opinions in here. I think wikipedia is going to have to make it's own rules on copyright images and not just rely on fair use as noone seems to be certain about what constitutes fair use (including judges and lawyers) mainly because it hasn't really been tested enough. Arniep 00:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think we've made a reasonable start at this at WP:FU already, but you're right.  Since there isn't really any case law that really fits our case well, I think we need to have rules that ensure that we stay as far away from things that could be problematic legally, while allowing uses that would almost certainly be found to be fair.  JYolkowski // talk 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this would be necesssary, or even possible, but what about somehow automatically defacing fair use images, so it cannot be argued Wikipedia is competing or damaging a possible market, perhaps by using a strike through/greyscaling/and something like a deforming bubble with a Wikipedia logo embossed in the centre (as they use at this site ) so that the image still serves a informational purpose but noone would want to use it for aesthetic purposes? Arniep 00:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use in and variants
In above, I suggested depreciating fairuse by using either one of the more specific fair use tags,  or by using Fair use in to specify what page the image is fair use in. So I went ahead and did that, no problems there. However, since then, someone has created Non-free fair use in2, Non-free fair use in3, Non-free fair use in4 and Non-free fair use in5, for images that are (supposedly) fair use in 2, 3, 4, or 5 different articles. IMHO these new templates are dubious because, since we should only be using fair use media in articles where they are essential to the subject, most fair use images should only be used in one article. So, what I'm thinking of doing is proposing Non-free fair use in2 ... Non-free fair use in5 for TfD, and making a note on fair use in that, if an image is fair use in two or more articles, to use two or more fair use in tags. Sound reasonable, or does anyone have a better idea? Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * SOunds reasonable to me. Justinc 23:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are screenshots or movie stills fair use in the article for that film/video/TV show, as well as in articles for people who appear in those productions? On a side note, a few images I recently tagged for speedy were tagged fair use by User:DESiegel.Image:John GottiAgnello.jpg, Image:John Gotti Agnello.jpg, had fair use justifications citing the fact they had been uploaded to the web as a reasoning for fair use, and Image:Daniel Balavoine.jpg cited the fact that it was fair use because the subject was dead and thereforehad no commercial value, are these reasonings valid? Arniep 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither is a valid fair use argument. Physchim62 (talk&middot;RfA) 10:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I belive that I also cited in each case thatm the image was being used in a sensaibly encyclopedic way to ilustrate an article about the subject of the photo. tryign to address the various elements of the fair use test, of which "nature of the use" is one, and "effect on commmercial value" is another. I also cited in each case that these images are too low-res for commercial print publication, again reducign the "effect on commercial value" DES (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the use of Image:Daniel Balavoine.jpg in the article Daniel Balavoine seems justifiable in the absence of a free alternative, but does the article John Gotti Agnello really need three fairuse images without some comment in the text? I think not. Physchim62 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If we accept the argument "that a photo is too low-res for commercial print publication" as a valid fair use argument surely this would make all commercial images usable? On this web page lawyer Michael L. Baroni stated ''"It's entirely possible that thumbnails in other contexts could be held to be copyright infringement if, for example, they are of nude or pornographic images, cartoon characters or celebrity photos.


 * "Why? Because with nudes/porn, cartoon characters or celebrity photos, it is arguable that the thumbnail-sized image-- especially if it's of a high-resolution, or slightly larger than the typical thumbnail size -- will sufficiently satisfy the market's desire for that product, and therefore negate the market need for the original work." Arniep 23:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course merely stating that an image is low-res does not show that it is valid fair-use -- that is one indication that our use will not impact commercial value. Obviously there are cases, such as thsoe you cite, where this reasonign fails. IN anycase this is addressed to jsut one of the prongs of the fair use test, nd so is clearly not enough by itself. But it can be part of a valid fair-use rationale. DES (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all a lawyer but I find this argument about thumbnails pretty thin. Whether or not such thumbnails plausibly satisfy the market desire seems rather untestable to me and not at all transparently one way or the other. But anyway &mdash; satisfaction of market value is only one part of the equation, and most guides to fair use consider it the last factor to take into consideration, the one which has the least effect on whether or not the use is actually determined fair or not. The fourth factor is primarily used in the awarding of damages, if I understand correctly. --Fastfission 05:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Cover art
The fair use page's section on images WP:FU states "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary". Some users are interpreting this as meaning it can be only used for identification only i.e. without critical commentary, so I think it needs to be reworded with (not for identification only) in brackets. I will make the changes if other people agree. Arniep 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical commentary
I think defining this is going to solve a lot of problems. Some people think critical commentary can be as little as xxx on the cover of xxx in xxx 200x, or xxx as xxx in xxx film. If this is accepted, then in theory someone can add 10s of images in a article with just small captions and we won't be able to argue it is not fair use unless we insist critical commentary is something more than the above examples. For it to be more than the above, the image needs to be notable which would rule out many magazine covers. However, people will soon learn how to write enough commentary to fit any new guidelines so I still think there needs to be a limit on fair use images tied to the article size or we have no way to prevent an article being made up mostly of 20 images and shortish commentaries that satisfy any new guideline that is made. Arniep 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another guideline that will only be read by three people beside the author is not the answer. I suspect the best method is going to be increaseing the number of informed users.Geni 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know. Having something to point to is always helpful. I think the best approach to this would be to look at some of the caselaw and see what sorts of uses count there &mdash; it's the only real guide we have on this. --Fastfission 05:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well my idea was to place examples of critical commentary on the Fair Use page, and examples of what it is not. But, as I said this still won't stop articles being overloaded with images. Arniep 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Get hitting that delete button!
I have now produced a live report of tagged orphaned fair use media. Everything in that list has been tagged as an orphan for at least 7 days and currently appears to be orphaned. Thus they all meet our criteria for speedy deletion. The list is uploaded whenever you load it. I hope to find it much shorter when I load it next. Enjoy. --Gmaxwell 04:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, Image:Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock.jpg, Image:Muhammad Ali.jpg, and Image:Phillynott1.jpg, which have been listed for speedy deletion for a while now. Jkelly 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Images have been shot. --Carnildo 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a more effective way to identify images that should be deleted after being unsourced for months than to put a db tag on them? Jkelly 18:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Almost all the ones I click on, whenever I refresh it, have been deleted - is there a lag issue, or something at my end? The "as of Mon Nov 7 14:35:21" part seems to update fine, but not the list... Shimgray | talk | 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Try images with names beginning with the letters M through T. It looks like the script can't differentiate between images that are linked to (usually by user pages) but don't exist, and images that aren't used at all, but do exist. --Carnildo 19:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it can tell, it's just that the server that it was running on was having database replication problems. They have been fixed and all images reported should actually exist... unless they are deleted while the page is loading. Please let me know if you find it getting lots of deleted images. I'm sorry for the problems before. --Gmaxwell 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please go delete more of the tagged fair use orphans. My bot just tagged an additional 6000 images, so in about 5 days the number is going to jump from about 400 to 6000. Lets get a head start. :) --Gmaxwell 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Its too late at night to start now (well, maybe one) but will do some in the morning. Justinc 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * er, except your report does nothing at all. Blank screen. If you can dump a copy I will work on an offline version - a few false positives not a problem. Justinc 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It worked a little while ago, probably a temp server problem. I listed a few dozen random ones at CAT:CSD before it turned blank so you can kill those at least :) --Sherool 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's working again. Some mysql bug is corrupting my access to the backend database. I'm sorry for the interuptions. Next time you use it just leave it open or save a copy. :) --Gmaxwell 04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I shrunk it. A couple had slight extraneous circumstances, someone else can look at them. And no audio today so didnt even look at them. Justinc 10:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently at zero. Justinc 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently at 3465 and growing fast. Get back to work! ;) (Also, the list now comes up in a different order for every user, so you should be able to work straight down the list from the top without running into another user too much). --Gmaxwell 02:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cunning plan indeed, the random thing. Its 3am but hey. Justinc 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4467 now. Did E and Z. V looks like ajob for tomorrow though. Justinc 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How good is your script at identifying media that is linked to rather than inlined? Music is generally linked, so the "file links" section of the image description page doesn't show anything. --Carnildo 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: It doesn't handle them correctly. --Carnildo 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, however I detagged all the ones that were linked after my last tagging run before they hit tagged for 7 days. If there are linked ones in the list it's because someone else tagged them, or because they were linked since. I'll be detagging the currently tagged orphans that are linked before they hit 7 days as well. There isn't an easy way I've found to report to look for linked content, especially since a few are linked via external links to upload.wikimedia.org. In order to remove them I parse the text of every article. --Gmaxwell 13:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Right now it only shows 2 orphan fair use files. Just a couple of days ago it was more than 3000. Is there something wrong with the report (perhaps related to the image server upgrade)? Or did some valiant admin really delete them all? Coffee 06:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention. Looks like one of the time fields in the database didn't do exactly what I expected (it gets reset by purges as well as a number of other things), and that caused the images to fall off the list. Brion doesn't think it was due to the image upgrade, but we couldn't quite guess what might have caused it. In any case I've amended my query and made a few changes which should also improve its load time. 2,911 media objects currently listed. Thanks for all your work! --Gmaxwell 08:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

O RLY?
I'd like some comments on whether the infamous O RLY owl would be fair use on O RLY?. I made my own public domain replacement, but part of the meme is the unique way the owl looks. --SPUI (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Music samples
What are the feelings about the samples linked on Metal Gear Solid Original Game Soundtrack (one minute samples from each of the tracks of the album)? I say copyvio not FU... Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Very very dubious indeed. No fair use justification that I can see. Justinc 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's worse than that: the samples are generally around a quarter of each track; Image:Mixed_by_Quadra_.ogg was a minute and a half long. Without any critical commentary on the album, I'd say that the use of any sound samples constitutes a copyvio. --Carnildo 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added them to ifd. But if anyone speedies them I wont object. Justinc 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Question
Is the usage of Image:Lilabner20985.jpg at Li'l Abner fair use or not? Hiding talk 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not. The use in Hillbilly certainly isnt, so I removed it. All the post 1978 US stamps are pretty dubious. Why did this particular one come up? Justinc 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We're looking at a lot of the images in comics articles at WikiProject Comics and we can't agree on this one. I thought it was okay since the article referred to the stamp and the image was clearly captioned. Hiding  User talk:Hiding& 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, the image is technically unsourced. Physchim62User_talk:Physchim62& 09:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point and it probably swings it. Hiding User talk:Hiding& 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a minor dispute about the sourcing of stamp images on my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A question from me. What should be done with pages like Taki (Soul Calibur), if anything? Jkelly 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Shoot 'em. --Carnildo 07:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Especially when they're unsourced (as here)! Physchim62User_talk:Physchim62& 09:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * it is tagged as a screenshot, and it looks like one from the game to me, would this be sufficient as a source? Arniep 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The image description file must contain the actual source of the image (is it from the user playing the game of his/her computer or is it as screenshot released by the manufacturer) and the copyright holder. A link to the main article is useful but not sufficient. Physchim62 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo, the user who uploaded those gallery images has uploaded over two-hundred fifty of them. I left a note on their talk page. I removed the galleries from the articles, but the thought of tagging each individual image with "nosource" is daunting. Most of them will be swept up as orphaned if our changes aren't reverted. Jkelly 00:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * they should go as orphaned fairly soon hopefully. Justinc 01:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Concern has been raised about the removal of the image galleries. Jkelly 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How are "fair use" images compatible with the GDFL?
It has been suggested at Help desk that I raise this issue here: Are we liable for usages other people make of "fair use" images when reusing content? If not, should we tighten the disclaimer in this area? Hiding talk 21:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No we are not. Other people are responsible for all uses of the images (and text), either upholding the terms of the GFDL, US copyright law or copyright law in the country they are based or whatever. Anyone doing serious copying should hire a lawyer anyway. In the case of fair use they should consider whether they believe that copying fair use images is still fair use. It is slightly unfortunate that the image dumps in particular do not distinguish; I hope once tagging has been completed that this will change, but in the mean time anyone downloading stuff should filter images based on the copyright tags and their legal status. Justinc 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-dwaring fanart etc.
I'm a bit unsure what happens if someone make a free image that contain copyrighted stuff. I mean for example most comic characters are copyrighted, so if someone for example draw an image of say Spider-Man from scratch could that be released under GFDL? Most fanart pages just have disclaimers like "This art is &copy; all rights reserved me. The characters are &copy; So-and-so I claim no rights to those", how exactly (if at all) would something like that fit into our licencing scheme here? Are those fanart guys on legal safe ground, or are they just left alone because it would be bad PR to go after them? --Sherool (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends very much on how it is used. The law doesnt recognise a single image as being composed of parts with different copyright statuses though, so the use of the characters within needs to fall within fair use or be considered original. If you draw a charcter that looks like spiderman a bit that might be ok. If it is a parody it is almost certainly ok. If you cut and paste a copy into a picture it probably isnt. Justinc 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Credentials
If this is going to become the de facto place by which legal advice on fair use doctrine is given to Wikipedia - which it has, deliberately or not, become, it would really be helpful, by which I mean essential, to label which people in the project are lawyers... Phil Sandifer 16:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If anything, it would make more sense to provide a way of getting in touch with those people that the WikiMedia foundation retains and who are willing to correspond with users. We absolutely should not be providing legal advice on fair use.  We should be providing editing advice in order to meet Fair use, which are not at all the same thing.  Jkelly 17:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I come here asking quesions I am only seeking consensus on the application of Fair use and figure this is one place where you'll find editors who have an interest in such. User:Hiding talk 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be very helpful if there were more experts providing input here, though I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Previous attempts to involve or get the attention of the Wiki Judicial people have not been successful to my knowledge. --Fastfission 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you need immediate legal advice you can get it, go to the contact details at wikimedia. I think they try to stay out unless necessary. No one on wikipedia who is a lawyer is likely to say so, as you are not covered by insurance in general giving unpaid legal opinions. Justinc 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is what I figured - in which case I'm kind of nervous about it being used to give what amounts to legal advice on fair use. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of where this project gives "legal advice on fair use", as opposed to advice on adhering to Fair use? Jkelly 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Catalonia maps
Hi, we may have a bit of a problem (by our new standards) about the maps of each of the the comarques of Catalonia and various other maps of the Catalan-speaking world. These were made by ca:Usuari:Llull, but apparently he is no longer active, and back when he did them (and I imported them into the English-language Wikipedia) he had not thought to tag them about their being his original work, presumably because that was not routine at the time. I had enquired after him on the Catalan Wikipedia a few weeks back, and recently got this message on my user talk page:


 * == About the Llull's images ==


 * Hello. I'm user of the catalan wikipedia. I've seen you put a question in the Llull's discussion. The fact is that Llull is an inactive user (we don't know why), and he is being asked about the images he did without being the questions answered. Surely Llull did all the images by himself, but he had no time of putting the images description for some reason, and they remain without license. I believe it would be sufficient writing in the license that user:Llull drawn it and the license is GFDL ca:usuari:Arturo Reina

If you look at Llull's user page, you can see some pretty elaborate maps with explicit statement that he made them and that we are free to reuse them, but of course these are just some examples of his work. (If anyone needs something translated from that page, let me know, I read Catalan pretty decently.)

I would hate for someone to have to re-draw this vast array of maps. Clearly it was his intent to release these under GFDL: they are clearly his own work and he, himself, uploaded them to the Catalan-language Wikipeida.

Is there some way that someone other than Llull himself can tag them as GFDL-self? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How about GFDL-presumed? This seems like an ideal use of it. --Fastfission 21:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't quite fit, because I'm the uploader on en, and it's the uploader on ca who is presumed to have created the maps. Does this, perhaps, call for a new, similar template? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Like GFDL-presumed-ca for example? Incidentally, the message on Llull's user page is fairly explicit: "I made these free distribution images". Physchim62 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's explicit, but of course it is not explicit about what images it refers to. I think his intent is absolutely clear, but I could imagine a shadow of a doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Beatles image
Could this Image:Beatles 1969.jpg be fair use? It is currently tagged as promo which I don't think it is, as it is probably a photo taken by a Rolling Stone photographer. Arniep 21:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use and comics images
I have created a centralized discussion page to invite discussion on and form a consensus regarding the fair use of images within articles regarding comics. All opinion welcome! Hiding talk 16:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics

Category:Fair use images
I'm trundling through this looking for stray comic images and it occurs me that there must be a better way of breaking this down, it's huge! Can't we create subcategories for photographs of people, photographs of objects, movie posters, screenshots, illustrations and animation stills and so on? Hiding talk 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Some tags/categories should defenently be subdivided (Category:Logos come to mind). Main problem is that the tags are mainly there for copyright reasons, so they focus on source and use rather than content. IMHO just "pictures of people" would not work as a fair use tag. If you just create a "tag" called "fair use images of people" users would just lump everyting in there ragardles of wether it was a magazine cover, screenshot, photo or painting. IMHO we would have to subdivide each tag, for example film-screenshot-of-people (that's probably 90% of them though), or whatever. That said "hadshot" photos make up a good portion of the "generic" fair use stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else so coming up with a unambigous tag for it would have been nice. --Sherool (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Non-publicity stills of people"? I take it illustrations would be images of art then? What about graphical drawings? Hiding talk 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Where should the tags go, really?
I kinda hate to bring this up, but does it make any sense to put a fair use tag on an image? It's not the image that is or isn't fair use, it is the use of the image that is or isn't fair. Seems to me, what you need is a tag that you use on the caption that the image has in the article where it's used. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * From an administrative point of view, we need it on the image, with an indication of in what article it is claimed as fair use. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * By putting the tag with the image, it indicates the copyright status (unlicensed) and serves as a warning to anyone who is considering re-using the image elsewhere. --Carnildo 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We have, which allows the user to specify which article the image is fair use for, and due to the hyperlink nature of the web that information is only a click away from the article. However, it might be worth having a tag for captions. Hiding  talk 07:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No source
I'm currently tagging stuff in Category:Fair use which doesn't have a source attributed, but I want to question how stringent to be. It's my understanding that the source is either a web address or the work from which it was scanned, i.e. title of work. To me book cover doesn't really cut it since it isn't specified which book. Is that right? Hiding talk 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Unless we know which book the image comes from, we don't know the copyright holder (book covers are usually copyright of the publisher regardless of the status of the text). Uploaders should really tell us where they got the electronic version from: self-scan, amazon, publisher's site etc. All the same, I would say that, in this case, it is acceptable for another editor to provide a source where this is obvious. Physchim62 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess if you can read the publisher you can guess that they are the holder (although photographers often have rights). If you cant read it bes not to guess as there are often different covers in different countries, different paperback an hardback editions etc. Justinc 12:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess, but I hope we won't delete images on this basis, since they would still be presumed fair use. Or am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, having no source is a speedy criteria if such images have been tagged as such for seven days. Having a source is part of Wikipedia's Image usage policy, regardless of whether the use qualifies as fair use or not.  It makes the copyright holder easier to establish, since, as I understand it, in certain instances the originator of the scan is able to claim copyright on the scan. Hiding  talk 05:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Art
Looking at Template:Art, is this the tag to use for illustrations such as Image:051107 giant ape 02.jpg. What concerns me is that the tag makes no reference to the fact that the commisioner may be an organisation or corporation, or the piece may be made under work for hire law. Hiding talk 20:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mmm.. yeah, that is a pretty vague template at the moment. If art is going to be a blanket category, it should be limited to things which could only be illustrated by the artwork itself. That is, if the Mona Lisa was still under copyright (it is not), it would fall into this category when used to illustrate the Mona Lisa, the painting, and would not be fair use to illustrate the article on "Smile" with a caption of "a girl with a smile" or something like that. There is nothing else which can really illustrate the Mona Lisa except a picture of the Mona Lisa itself. Using this reasoning, unless this gorilla is a famous gorilla picture which has its own article about it and is being talked about as a work of art, and not just illustrating a gorilla, it should not fit under the tag. --Fastfission 21:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So what is the best tag for it, fairuse? Should we have an illustration tag for illustrations?


 * This image is an illustration, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person or organisation who commissioned the work, the heirs thereof or if created under work for hire, by the organisation for which the work was created. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of illustrative works for the purpose of illustrating the specific subject of said illustration on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.


 * Hiding talk 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * it was released by McMaster University as part of publicizing research here, so it should possibly go under the promotional tag as a large print version is availiable for download? Arniep 01:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tagged it as promotional. Hiding talk 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

fairuseunsure
I'm finding this tag troublesome for a number of reasons: --Tabor 17:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just a poor name, or I'm misunderstanding it, but I'm bothered by the category name for images with this tag: Category:Public domain unless fair use images. When I first saw this category, I took it to mean: "Well, it should be fair use, but if fair use cannot be supported, well then I guess the image must be public domain."  After reading the template, I see that the argument is the reverse: "The image is likely to be public domain, but if not then the use is still fair."
 * For the other generic fair use tags discussed above in, the template has been modified to indicate that a more specific tag or Non-free fair use in should be used instead. This one has not.
 * In many cases, the way the tag seems to be used is: "We don't know the source of the image, but the use seems to be fair, regardless." Elsewhere we have argued that we cannot claim fair use if the source is not given.  If we are to allow fair use claims on images of unknown origin in some cases, it would be useful to have some guidelines for when this is appropriate and what sorts of justification can be given.
 * Yes I was unsure of what to do with it. I will have a look at them. Please retag if possible when you find one. I think it should go at some point soon. Justinc 15:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lots are just rubbish. eg Image:BBC-TCF.jpg which it is obvious who the holder is. BTW I have tagged this with which still links to permission - can we fix this. I am not prepared to assert fair use, but I havent got time to ifd it right now. Justinc 15:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Multiple tagging
Do we need any guildelines for "multi tagging" images? Especialy with free and unfree tags at the same time. Sometimes it can give some wierd mixed signals, like Image:Internet.png wich was tagged as software-screenshot, web-screenshot and wikipedia-screenshot. Now the first two are fair enough, it contain both copyrighted software and copyrighted webpages, but throwing the wikipedia screenshot into the mix seems redundant, and can only serve to confuse people into thinking the picture can be used under GFDL just because one tiny portion of the image is GFDL (so I removed the wikipedia tag). Another often ocuring mix is PD or crownCopyright and coatofarms, wich also send mixed signals, coatofarms claim fair use and unclear copyright status and then there is a second tag that claim (virtualy) free use... --Sherool (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The public domain
Anyone interested in helping improve Public domain? See also its talk page. The page could or should probably also be linked from more places in the "Wikipedia" namespace... Lupo 09:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Illustration tag
Anyone have any thoughts on an illustration fair use tag?

''This image is an illustration, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person or organisation who commissioned the work, the heirs thereof or if created under work for hire, by the organisation for which the work was created. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of illustrative works for the purpose of illustrating the specific subject of said illustration on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information.''

Hiding talk 12:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really seem to be in line with fair use guidelines. Fair use of an illustration would be for identification of and critical commentary on that illustration itself, or, say, to comment upon certain illustrative school, genre, technique.  Using it as an illustration in wikipedia simply to depict the subject of the illustration is a classic example of a use that is not likely to be justified as fair use.  Using an album cover with a picture of a dog to illustrate Dog is a similar instance of something that is unlikely to qualify as fair use. Or maybe I misread what you had in mind, in which case, the wording should probably be clarified. --Tabor 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to quantify the situation I find with many images tagged simply as fair use, which, with the limited source information on many such images makes it nigh impossible to tell if it is sourced from an animation cel or a comic book or is simply an illustration. And in other areas, how about the London tube map, can that not illustrate an article on the London Underground? Use of an illustration to illustrate the subject can be allowable under fair use.  Hiding  talk 12:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the "Counterexamples" section of WP:FU (examples of what is not fair use):
 * A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use.
 * A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, used without permission to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably Fair Use where we have a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernica.)
 * Fair use for critical commentary would be something roughly along the lines of: "We really have to use Bill Smith's illustration of Foo, because it's his illustration in particular that is under discussion. We're talking about the way he used color and line, as well as the outraged public reactions to his drawing.  We can't just use anyone's picture of Foo to talk about that.  But if we were just talking about Foo in general, and it would be possible to obtain or create our own picture or illustration of Foo, then we are obliged to do so (in the absence of permission from the copyright holder)."
 * As to the examples you bring up:
 * Unknown or unclear source: for the most part, we should not be claiming fair use of materials for which we cannot identify the source.  That's why nosource images are subject to deletion. However sometimes it is possible to surmise the ownership and status of a particular image (e.g. a company's logo) without knowing precisely where this particular copy was obtained. In cases like that, we probably know enough to be able to make a reasonable fair use assessment.
 * Maps of the London tube for article on London Underground: In my opinion it's not clearcut either way, definitely a grey area.  But that's mostly because of other factors: nature of the original work, it's original purpose/distribution, and economic impact of further redistribution on the original owner, etc.  I do, however, note that we do not use an official tube map on London Underground, but  rather a freely licenced map.  An official map is diplayed on Tube map where the nature and properties of the map itself are a topic of discussion (distances not to scale, etc.).  --Tabor 18:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, let me give you some clear examples to perhaps clarify the situation better.


 * Image:Agentcorrigan.gif


 * I have managed to source where on the web it was taken from. I have managed to source the copyright information.  I can not work out the physical source of the image.  It is however an illustration, and it is fair use in Secret Agent X-9 to illustrate the character, a fictional character whose most notable representation is as a drawn character, a notable character in comic strip history within the United States as any other image of the character, more so perhaps than other images since it has been transformed to better suit our purpose of illustrating the character.  So in this situation an illustration tag would be useful, since it is obviously an illustration and is being used in a way which likely qualifies as fair use. (Note I use the term likely because fair use can not be quantified further without recourse to a court, at least that is my limited understanding.)


 * Image:CharlieBrown.jpg


 * Someone makes a good case for fair use there. Thoughts?  Does that explain my position better? Hiding  talk 11:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Akamatsu.jpg, Image:Alice icon.gif, Image:Aleste.jpg and Image:AlphArtFinal.gif are some more that would qualify as illustrations better than their current tags too. Hiding talk 11:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note we can not create free images of these characters ourselves, since their very likenesses are copyrighted, and when we discuss Charlie Brown, for example, we are really discussing the character drawn by Schulz, and so an illustration by Schulz is a far better picture to use than my drawing of Charlie Brown. Hiding talk 11:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that explains your position, but my position is that Non-free fair use in covers these situations. I think we should be careful about supporting alternative fair use tags which demand less justification on the part of the uploader. If Wikipedia uses fair use images, it is the Foundation which would have to answer in court for it: our noble Trustees simply cannot verify every occasion of fair use. We must apply a strict standard on editors to preserve the future of the whole project, Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair play. I'm quite happy for Non-free fair use in to be used.  However, shouldn't we just deprecate every other fair use tag and only use that one.  My problem with the your line on strict standards is that we then need to sort out what that strict standard is, so that we have a level playing field.  I'm seeing images with no proper source information being validated for fair use, which to me seems slightly odd.  There needs to be a strong lead from the Foundation on this, if this is the way it is going to go.  At the moment there seems to be a huge vacuum in the middle of this issue, although that seems to be a general Wikipedia problem rather than specifically one related to this issue.  I am attempting to do my bit, but there's not really a level playing field out there at the moment. Hiding  talk 14:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)