Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (149 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
==Personal thoughts==
Line 32:
::::I like the idea of an approvals group for fair use images. Just as editors are asked to make a fair use rational on image summary pages, editors could write a fair use rational for the article itself and then get that approved or not, before adding images. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 08:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe some screenshots need replacing to 100% comply, but removing the images compromises the integrity of the page, screenshots help identify the episode as well. <
:::I identify two "integrities": layout and information integrity. The layout integrity may be compromised, as some lists may have been built around images (which may demonstrate that, in that case, the article is focusing on screenshots rather than information). However, I must point out that other Wikipedias don't allow Fair use images at all, only free ones. And I don't think the information integrity, the one I believe it is a bit more important, would be compromised without screenshots. I do not think an article in the german Wikipedia has less quality than one in the english one because it has less screenshots, especially if those images are used only as decoration. As for identification, I thought: how can a casual user recognize an episode by seeing one frame out of (in example) 67,500 frames that are seen in a 45' episode at 25 frames per second? How can we choose the right frame that would identify for both fans and casual users the episode? As I said, I am not against keeping images if they fulfill Fair use requirements. I would think, if the screenshot has the chapter information (in example, after the opening there is a black screen with white words with the episode number and title), and you explain that it is the opening screen of the *th episode, written by <someone>, directed by <someone else> and opening art by <a third someone>, it may qualify as Fair use as you are using it to identify the episode and to critically comment about the opening screen. Sure, it may not be as "nice" as having a screenshot showing some action, but at least it may fulfill the points the others (at least for me, as I said) don't. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 48:
*I largely agree with Angr. We could go 'round and 'round with whether or not DVD covers, screenshots, etc. are just decoration or not, but what really leads me to think this usage should be gotten rid of is the fact that the situation now is that many of our List of... "articles" aren't freely-reusable for what seems to be little or no benefit. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
*Agree with [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]]. I think we need to guide our users toward Wikipedia's and the Foundation's main mission of gathering free images. Up front we know that fair use images are time-consuming and prone to error. We need to tighten WP policies and guidelines to eliminate fair use unless the benefits are clear. --[[User:FloNight|<
*Agreed. Fair use has always been a last resort and this is not a situation where we desperately need images, but instead, somewhere where we might get away with it. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 54:
*I agree. See also my comments below about purpose - lists almost always do not provide critical commentary, as [[User:Angr|Angr]] said, nor do they satisfy any other purpose. I would suggest that with the exception of lists which have so much detail that they can properly be said to fulfil such a purpose, ''we should ban all fair use images on lists''. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 02:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*I disagree, In your opinion: Lists do not provide critical commentary; in my opinion: The lists do provide critical commentary. <
:* Perhaps you could explain exactly how one-sentence episode summaries can possibly constitute criticism, or commentary, or news reporting, or another of the valid fair use purposes? --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::*Identification of the subject(s) of the article. Identification is a given example of proper fair use in [[WP:FUC]]. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 64:
*A little late on the discussion, but I agree, Fair use images should be highly discoruaged from lists/galleries and all of that stuff. I see it as decoration and should be removed. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''I disagree'''. I think wikipedia will eventually cover all aspects of human knoledge in detail. Observing and learning involve all senses and skills. The euphoria entertainment related articles then to cause on editors can set the example for other kind of articles. For example the wikiproject TV episodes. Gave me the Idea to start something symilar with paintings.--[[User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow|T-man, the wise]] 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::Are you arguing that Wikipedia should republish any and all unfree content that someone uploads to our servers? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC).
:::Well, we're doing the series a favor, it's a way of encyclopedic publicity. 200px to 300px is a reasonable size. Smaller than the pictures most pages use.--[[User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow|T-man, the wise]] 00:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 113 ⟶ 114:
Since fair use involves using a small quantity of copyrighted material, and 20-30 pictures can in no way be considered a small quantity, I think there is no way that we can justify this as fair use. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 12:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:I thought it was a "limited number", not necessarily a "small" number. Considering a list of episodes contains the subject matters of each episode, I'd say this would mean only one image per subject / topic is "small" or "limited". This does not seem to be a number of images per article requirement. In other words, use as little images as possible to explain subject A. If picture 1 explains subject A, and picture 2 doesn't add anything more than what is given from picture 1, then picture 2 fails fair use. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
1 per episode is a limited number. <
== What's the debate? ==
Line 126 ⟶ 127:
:::That's my question. You are arguing against using images in a list on the basis that it isn't proper for a list and you haven't even included fair-use in the argument. That's a seperate debate is it not? This one is about fair use vs. non-fair use. If you want to argue whether images belong in lists or not, this should be debated entirely seperate from this RFC. This page (and others of similar nature like the talk page for Lost episodes) seems watered down with different opinions which do not even touch on the real debate of fair use vs. un-fair use. For this reason, I recommend (if this is fair use vs. non-fair use), building criteria for what constitutes fair use, and then yanking out all images which do not meet the criteria. If there is reason to debate images on lists or not, then we can debate this elsewhere. This doesn't have to be difficult. --[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 15:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::This is not as simple as fair use vs non-fair use. Wikipedia does not want to have unfree media when it doesn't have to. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::You talk as if you mean everyone, well you are obviously wrong ed, some people wish to have the images as they aide the article. <
::::Agree whouleheartedly with Matt. Besides- when images are used on lists they assist the user in finding the information they want more quickly. That means they are not just decoration and thus quailify for use. [[User:Ronan.evans|Ronan.evans]] 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Back to my original though then. Who is Matt, you or me to decide which frame (out of the several thousands that are displayed during an episode) gives enough information to identify the episode? If it is a list of DVDs, where the cover of the DVD is displayed in the list, then I would agree the image is used for identification of the DVD set. But for screenshots, that is not true. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 218 ⟶ 219:
::Bainer, you're right that those summaries don't include critical commentary. Instead of removing the images can we improve the critique? "''Solitary'' focuses on Sayid's background and introduces Danielle Rousseau and Ethan Rom" for example. I think that would work with [[:Image:LOST109.jpg|this image]]. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::The point is not to use images just because they look nice, or compliment the text well. The text works fine without the picture. Rousseau can be pictured on the article about her. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 13:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::::It may work okay with no images, but it works better with them. <
== Rediculous...! ==
Line 466 ⟶ 467:
::::Except they are not equal: we can have both. 1050 words if you will: 50 to use as you please under the confines of GFDL and a 1000 words to use so long as it still qualifies as fair use for whatever the heck you're doing. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 06:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed, to take the first picture off your list, it accompanies "''After an accidental cryogenic freezing, Fry awakens at the dawn of the year 3000.''" - now I fail to see how that sentence requires an illustration, or how any illustration would further my knowledge of the what has just been said there. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]<
::It isn't all about providing new information but rather reinforcing information. Seriously, [[Mona Lisa]] does not '''require''' an image, but it certainly helps.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:::True; however, since the Mona Lisa is in the public ___domain, the image can be used purely decoratively. Since a Futurama screenshot isn't, it can't be. [[User:Angr]] 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 502 ⟶ 503:
'''1. The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical. '''
:''<
'''2. The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as the quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original). '''
:''<
'''3. The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work for instance by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work though not through criticism or parody.'''
:''<
Now add in the additional criteria for television screenshots:
'''4. Television screenshots are fair-use if they are used for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television'''
:''<
Based on this criteria, I truly believe that it is correct for us to claim these episode screenshots in "List of..." articles (if they aren't already free) as fair-use. Therefore, I think we can continue to claim fair-use. In the event of a C&D letter, we can rediscuss our claim to fair-use based on reasoning they have provided on a case by case basis.
Line 535 ⟶ 536:
::Yes, free images (public ___domain; those released under a free license like GFDL, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA) may be used to your heart's content. The only issue is the extent to which "fair use" images can be used in lists of episodes. The four points you mention are a good starting place, but Wikipedia's fair use policy has 10 points, all of which must be adhered to.
::#No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
::#:<
::#The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
::#:<
::#The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.
::#:<
::#The material must have previously been published.
::#:<
::#The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements. Unfreely-licensed media cannot be used as decoration.
::#:<
::#The material meets the media-specific policy requirements.
::#:Well, that's what we're trying to determine, isn't it?
::#The material must be used in at least one article.
::#:<
::#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.
::#:<
::#Fair use images should be used '''only''' in the article namespace.
::#:<
::#The image or media description page must contain a source, a fair-use tag, and a rationale.
::#:<
::Therefore, screenshot may not be used in lists of episodes, because doing so violates points 3, 5, and 8 of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. [[User:Angr]] 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed, any other interpretation of our policy is just wishful thinking. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 576 ⟶ 577:
:::::I will still add that not a single person here has yet to provide ''any'' evidence that this is an issue. Not even the bainer, who has asserted dozens per day, can provide any evidence. Neither can ed g2s who, contradictably, provided an image for a non-list article. Nevermind that argument has been put forth time after time that this is to mitigate legal ramifications, but it really boils down to "I say the line is here and you are wrong." Quite a change in argument... What puzzles me most is the willingness to extend the application of a copyright while constricting its use.
:::::Since your line of argument is good enough for you, how about if I use it? "I say the images are not decoration and are very encyclopedic." Does that mean I win because all 10 policy points are "<
::::::Agreed. The suggestion that images are purely decorative is nonsense. They are definatly decorative, but are not '''''purely''''' decorative in the same way using a table is a decorative approach to describing the episode, but not purely decorative. The only argument left is "as little as possible". This is a questionable point in itself because every article that contains an image is not using as little images as possible (That would be 0). Since there is only one screenshot which describes the episode, there is no more reduced way to represent the episode with images. If anyone is still not convinced, bear in mind that these screenshots are always used when the episode has it's own article. Therefore, if the image is not used in a more grounded article yet, it will be when the episode's article is developed.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 700 ⟶ 701:
This sentance should basicly sum up all that needs to be said and why this case needs to be closed; Screencaps can aid in describing a key moment in a television show (or other things for that matter0 the majority of them will not limit the copyright owners profit and thus qualify as fair use. Yes, some of them do need to be changed as they may not be showing a key moment which is mentioned in a summary/full write.
Now unless you can come up with something to counter this i see no reason why screencaps should not qualify as fair use and stay in articles. <
: In addition to that: it was stated by Angr and agreed with by Ed in [[#Conclusions?]] that the remaining points are about:
Line 712 ⟶ 713:
:Ed's failed amendment, to me, nullifies the remaining argument of decoration and ends this discussion. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Well, what happens now then, the concensous is that these images should stay and the same is said for the FUC #8. So will an admin archive the discussion etc? <
::I truly fail to see the "consensus", as a large part is objecting the use of image in lists still, unless you are counting opinions as votes. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I do not believe consensus is the most accurate word to use, however the proposed FUC amendment (which will fail in due time) proves that the arguments the nay sayers are using are invalid and do not abide by the current FUC language. [[User:Jtrost|Jtrost]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jtrost|T]]</sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/Jtrost|C]]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Jtrost #]</span></sub>) 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::::That is different. People here seems to think that, by going with another thread (in this case, creating an amendment for the policy), it voids this discussion. This is not a legal system where you first need to win a penal lawsuit to have the basics for a civil one. I believe it is time to, as a well standing wikipedian once [[User:Elian/comparison|commented]], stop focusing on amount and focus on content. Since it is so hard to get consensus about fair use images, maybe it is time to stop using them at all. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Not using them would severily limit wikipedia, images tell a thousand words, a word tells one word. <
::My points:
::# The other Wikipedias work fine enough without fair use images
Line 766 ⟶ 767:
:::"''So far it looks to be a consensus here and a consensus against your amendment.''"
::::Err, what? I see a similar number of people on both sides on this page... <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:I dont. <
::Try counting them then. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I did, 8 against uhm.. 0. <
::::Ed wasn't talking about the poll, he was talking about the full discussion. Also the poll was to see who was willing to wait until the amendment proposal has resolved before altering the pages that will be effect by it. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see this isn't a vote to end all votes. It's looks like a straw poll to see where people currently stand, which is common in rfc and rfm discussions. There are clearly people still against this, but I'd like to know why they haven't voted. This type of omission skews the results and leads people into believing there is a larger consensus than there really is. [[User:Jtrost|Jtrost]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jtrost|T]]</sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/Jtrost|C]]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Jtrost #]</span></sub>) 15:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Well, since you asked, I for one am not voting because [[m:polls are evil|polls are evil]] and because doing so would impart legitimacy to a straw poll designed to overthrow Wikipedia policy. The results of this poll are irrelevant, because the use of copyvio images in lists is blatantly against both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy. [[User:Angr]] 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:What copyvio <
::What do you mean, "what copyvio"? The copyvio committed by every nonfree image at Wikipedia. [[User:Angr]] 10:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::That just sounds like a blatent assumption, after all we claim fair use at wp. So unless you can provide some proof of "every nonfree image" please stop assuming. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::"Fair use" is just a euphemism for copyvio. By definition, every nonfree image is a copyvio. [[User:Angr]] 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::"Fair use" is not a euphemism for copyright violations. It is a defense against copyright violation charges, one that Wikipedia uses preemptively. If a fair use claim is upheld in court then the court has ruled the no violation of US copyright law has occurred. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Including the wikimedia foundation logo used on your userpage, thats nonfree is that a copyvio? <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 10:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::The copyright holder of that image is also the owner of my user page, so no. [[User:Angr]] 11:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::So you are contradicting your self now? <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::No... you can't violate your own copyright. Wikimedia owns the copyright to [[:Image:Wikimedia.png]] and the page [[User:Angr]] where it's used. If the only unfree images we used in lists were ones where Wikimedia Foundation owns the copyright, there wouldn't be a problem. It's a copyvio when we use unfree images that belong to people or companies other than Wikimedia Foundation. [[User:Angr]] 14:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Wikimedia does not own the copyright to any submitted text here: the poster does. However, by doing so they require a GFDL license of what you submit. [[Slashdot]] works the same way (though not GFDL but the post retains the copyright). [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:How is it not a copyvio if its unfree? I'm quoting you here.
<pre>::::"Fair use" is just a euphemism for copyvio. By definition, every nonfree image is a copyvio. [[User:Angr]] 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)</pre> <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, geez, I change what I said to "every nonfree image is a copyvio unless the page the image used on belongs to the copyright holder of the image". Which is so blatantly obvious it shouldn't have to be said, but I guess some people need everything spelled out for them. [[User:Angr]] 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Maybe i am a bit dumb today, but you have not spelled anything out to me? <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::Angr was incorrect in stating every nonfree image is a copyright violation. In order be a copyright violation it must violate copyright law. Fair use is a defence against copyright violation charges and if upheld by a court then that particular use is not a copyright violation. Wikipedia uses the fair use defence preemptively in order to avoid lawsuits. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::So it would be more accurate to say "fair use" is a euphemism for "a copyvio you can get away with"? Whatever. [[User:Angr]] 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Not at all. Fair use is legal so saying violation is inaccurate. We aren't getting away with breaking the law when we use fair use, we are stating that we are not breaking the law and it is not worth fighting us. Fair use is also not a euphemism for anyhing. It is the actual term used in US copyright law. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, ok, look, I threw this up here because we need to do something for the short term while we handle the policy issue. Arguments will just go around in circles as long as policy is so fuzzy, so lets make this about policy and actually get somewhere. You can't go and say "this is what policy says" ''before'' it says that. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
===Support===
#[[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 780 ⟶ 801:
# - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
# Fair use is a grey concept and the policy should be as well. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
# 100% Support screenshots<
# [[User:Jtrost|Jtrost]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jtrost|T]]</sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/Jtrost|C]]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Jtrost #]</span></sub>) 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Modulus86|Modulus86]] 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 787 ⟶ 808:
===Oppose===
==Fair Use/Unfree==
I think we're starting to forget that the issue isn't are these images fair use (they are), but do these unfree images have a place in a free encyclopedia. Also, we can't change what fair use allows because that is determined by US law. Wikipedia has stricter requirements than just fair use, although it doesn't obviously follow that the unfree images should be removed. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, US law doesn't determine fair use at all: it merely defines parameters on a grey line. Only a court can determine that — based on weighing the four points outlined in 17 USC 107 — the fair use defense is valid. Otherwise the copyright infringement stands and life goes from there.
:An encyclopedia can remain free despite having fair use images. An image does not affect the whole ''because'' the encyclopedia is open and any reuser is welcome to delete the images if either a) they feel like it (hey, WP is free) or b) if they are legally not allowed to use "fair use" images where they live and/or for their reuse. A fair use image may "taint" WP but it does not make it unfree. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::Just wanted to point out some serious errors in your legal analysis. You stated, ''"Actually, US law doesn't determine fair use at all."'' This is flatly incorrect. While the law does not specify examples or specifics, the law -- both the stats and resulting caselaw -- defines what is and isn't fair use. Like many areas of the law, the exact application of facts to the circumstances often requires an attorney's expert opinion. But fair use is defined in the law.
::And, you also may be concluding -- incorrectly -- that something is a copyright violation unless fair use is determined by a court. (I'm presuming this from your somewhat nebulous statement, ''"Only a court can determine that — based on weighing the four points outlined in 17 USC 107 — the fair use defense is valid. Otherwise the copyright infringement stands...."'') Fair use exists the moment the use occurs. A court doesn't have to rule whether something is or isn't fair use before hand. A copyright violator may incorrectly or insufficiently claim fair use as a defense, and thus a court may find that fair use is not applicable, but a court need not rule first. Fair use is a gray area, like many/most areas of the law, and subject to interpretational differences. But a court need not step in before fair use is granted.
::As a casual Wikipedia user, I find a great deal of legal misinformation at this site from laypersons about fair use and copyright and public ___domain. (I've seen, for example, people claiming quotes posted from USSC cases here were "copyright violations," which is patently ludicrous, considering USSC decisions are always in the public ___domain, no matter how recent.) Perhaps, in issues like this, it shouldn't be left to a general consensus of lay users but Wikipedia should retain a staff attorney to evaluate such issues. Yes, I know that costs money, but a large entity like Wikipedia can't rely on general consensus in place of legal counsel. Signed, an attorney turned TV writer. --[[User:207.69.137.7|207.69.137.7]] 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Am I an attorney? Heck no. (Jokes set aside.) What I am is one who's willing to read US code and make an attempt at understanding and interpreting it. I think that's more than what the average lay person is willing to do. I'm willing to make an attempt and risk being wrong and in doing so I've learned something: so on that note thank you.
:::The US code does not determine if a particular use is fair use. From 17 USC 107 (truncated for clarity):
::::''...the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, [other uses]...is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include''
:::See, to me that doesn't determine what is or what is not fair use. Nothing there says if images in an episode list is fair use or not. It merely gives criteria to evaluate if it is fair use but does not specify exactly what is fair use (the greyness of it). This is what I meant by "US law" which I realize isn't technically accurate as I wholly understand caselaw definitely has "a say" on all this.
:::And your second point is also the result of not being able to speak in exacting terms. Obviously if I make a screenshot and upload it here then I'm doing so as fair use. I don't need a court to tell me that it's fair use before I can claim it. Whether or not my assessment is correct or not cannot be determined by anyone here (with the exception of you: none of us are lawyers or judges).
:::Finally, it would be nice if you gave some expert input on the matter instead of criticizing. And I'm not saying that because I was on the receiving end. I suspect one post from the likes of you would do more for this discussion than any of us bantering page after page. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Considering I am still a registered member of the bar, I really can't give "legal advice" per se. You haven't retained me as a client. So I can only give you a broad analysis from an informed point of view. It's like if you asked me at the opera what I thought of the death penalty. I can give you my informed two-cents, but I can't give you actual legal counsel.
::::As well, I wasn't singling you out for any sort of harsh treatment. I just happened to read your comment after being redirected here from another page. (I actually agree with you that a single frame-shot of a particular episode to use for illustrative purposes here at Wikipedia is likely well within the allowable parameters of fair use.)
::::Because the U.S. is a common law country, it is actually self-deceptive to read ''only'' U.S. Code. As a law professor once said, it's like eating a chicken without cooking it. The cooking is what makes it. While the Code is very important, it is not the ''only'' determination. That's why one absolutely must also review the caselaw, which is far more voluminous and infinitely more detailed on the issue of fair use. (This is what lawyers do all day long, and that's why they make the big $$$, because they review the lengthy caselaw and determine how a court would evaluate a particular set of facts.) You thus must review both caselaw and code, not just code alone. Courts interpret code, and they do so in caselaw, which is why we must read caselaw and why it also is binding because of the long-standing rule of ''[[stare decisis]]''. So if you read only code, and make your decisions based on that, you'll end up in the proverbial ditch.
::::The U.S. Code you cite is, in fact, a very broad codification of existing caselaw at the time that stat was passed. But, like all aspects of the U.S. Code, it continues to be honed and refined by caselaw, which evolves every day. And, like many areas of the law, there is conflicting caselaw. The issue of fair use is very ripe for USSC analysis; however, no notable cases have moved through the system as of late for them to take it on.
::::In the matter at hand -- a single frameshot of a TV episode used to illustrate an article entry about that episode -- I can't imagine that a copyright holder would have any objection and would very well likely embrace this as an allowable fair use. It doesn't and can't divert any revenue from the copyright holder and, in fact, can increase their revenue stream by increasing awareness of their programing. Promotion departments at all the networks churn out publicity photos for every episode that they hope will be picked up in local newspaper TV listings, in ''[[TV Guide]],'' etc. The networks regularly use still images as advertising and promotion. So you're doing your job for them here. The screenshots will direct traffic to the episodes and increase consumption -- a critical factor -- not divert traffic away from their copyrighted product. (Again, this is all my personal opinion, not a legal opinion nor legal counsel.) --[[User:207.69.137.36|207.69.137.36]] 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::One more note, if you want to plunge into the wild and exciting world of caselaw in this topic area, you might start with the case of ''[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation]]'', which is one of the more recent and also deals with an issue somewhat similar to the one here. Although there are some significant ''factual'' differences, the concepts are not dissimilar. If you follow the first link to EFF in the ''Kelly'' article here at Wikipedia, and go to the EFF page, read the document entitled '''20030707_9th_revised_ruling.pdf'''. That case might be a little confusing because of unrelated procedural hairpulling on the remand issue, but the fairuse stuff is phat.--[[User:207.69.137.36|207.69.137.36]] 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's probably correct for our articles on individual episodes, but the issues is images in lists, where the context is not a screenshot accompanying a decent amount of discussion or comment on the episode, but screenshots accompanying single sentences of plot summary. The former context would appear to be a transformative use, the latter, well at the very least there's a substantial doubt whether it is. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Not all of the lists use one sentence plot summaries. A well written summary is at least a paragraph. The way [[List of Home Movies episodes]] is currently written would not justify the images, one of the reasons the page is formatted not to use them. I don't think images should be found and then the text reworked to fit the image. But if the text were reworked just for the sake of improving the list (more informative, higher quality writing), one may be able to justify the use of an image after the fact. Sometimes a one sentence plot summary doesn't give any extra information than the title, and a title with no discussion at all is not a fair use claim Wikipedia would be willing to defend. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I actually hadn't realized how poorly written most of the plot summaries were written. See [[List of Farscape episodes]] for how to write a proper episode summary on a list of episodes page. Of course an individual episode page gets a lot more than that. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::The Star Trek & South Park episode lists are specifically written to not spoil the plot. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks Random Lawyer :) for your input. Regarding the bainer's comment. Both a list and episode article cannot detract from their revenue and as I've believed all along that a copyright owner complaining about an image would only hurt themselves. You still have not given me any proof that this is an issue. and I suspect it's not because, like Mr. R. Lawyer here has pointed out, they may even see it as doing their promoting for them for free. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::If your question is "has ABC sued us yet", then the answer is no. Copyright infringement is indeed a significant issue for the foundation; while I cannot reveal specifics of [[m:OTRS|OTRS]] requests, I can say that there are always dozens of items in the queue relating to potential copyright violations, many of which turn out to be legitimate complaints. Most copyright owners are content to see us remove infringing material, some are even willing to freely licence their material. However it's impossible, and irresponsible, to try to predict whether a certain copyright holder will sue us or not, we must endeavour to avoid that possibility at all times.
:::::On the substantive issue, impact on the market is only one factor in the fair use calculation, and in any event I would not be so certain that it would go in our favour. Copyright carries with it the exclusive right to make derivative works, and as such while displaying screenshots is not affecting the market for the product (TV show, film, computer game, etc) itself, the market for associated material may well be. Having said that I don't think this is a significant factor, the key one in my mind is purpose and character of use. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:"''I think we're starting to forget that the issue isn't are these images fair use (they are), but do these unfree images have a place in a free encyclopedia.''" No, this RfC is about "Fair use images in lists". This is not a debate about all fair use images, but rather, do images in lists qualify as fair use for Wikipedia's policies. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::You're right of course. What I meant was that these images seem to meet the current fair use requirements and the best argument I've seen for removing them is that they are unfree. Personally I think their importance outweighs the fact that they are unfree but this is the difficult grey area to me. We talked about it earlier [[Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists#Case_by_Case_Basis|here]]. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I must disagree Ned, the issue is very much whether the images can be claimed as fair use in lists. I can't tell whether you or the editors you are replying to are still confused about the "use" concept, remember that there has to be a valid fair use claim for '''every use''' of an unfree image. The use of images on episode articles may well be fair use, at the same time that their use in a list may not be. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::::That's what Ned said. He opened with some one else's quote in order to refute it. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::You're right of course, my mistake. Consider my comments directed at who Ned was replying to then. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
== Precedent ==
Has anyone else noticed that this discussion has already taken place at least twice? In the feature list discussions about both [[List of South Park episodes]] and [[List of Stargate SG-1 episodes]]. In both cases, after a very short discussion, it was decided that the images in question only violated FUC#10, and since that one is entirely procedural the objection was dropped after the fair use rationales were added. I thought it would be appropriate to mention this since the editor who happens to be a lawyer mentioned "case law". [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:These were mentioned in the Episodes of Lost discussion, however those opposed to images simply ignored the discussions. [[User:Jtrost|Jtrost]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jtrost|T]]</sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/Jtrost|C]]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=Jtrost&submit=Count #]</span></sub>) 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::Probably the reason these discussions haven't been productive. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It's bending the truth to say that the issue has been discussed twice:
:::*For the South Park list, the [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes/archive2|second nomination]] failed because of concerns about the images (they were completely untagged at that point). In the [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes|third nomination]] (the successful one), of the people who brought up the copyright status of the images, [[User:Rune.welsh|Rune.welsh]] changed from oppose to support after rationales were added to the images, [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] changed from oppose to neutral after rationales were added, but said "I'm still not too happy with it," and [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] withdrew their opposition after rationales were added, saying "I am still slightly concerned... I will let the copyright experts decide." The issue was explicitly deferred for further discussion.
:::*[[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stargate SG-1 episodes|The nomination]] of the Stargate list similarly attracted very few editors who brought up the copyright issues. Moreover, the discussion was filled with such enlightened arguments as (paraphrasing) 'can't we just put a fair use rationale in one place, rather than adding it to every image page', 'isn't putting the images into the TV screenshot category good enough' and 'they are fair use in the episode articles, so they must also be fair use in the list'. All three arguments are completely specious, and have been used on this page too, which leads me to believe that those previous "discussions" achieved nothing.
:::Likewise, your comment that FUC 10 is "entirely procedural" is equally disturbing. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::::While users did express their personal opinions, their change to neutral or support suggests good faith on their part. "''The reviewer may choose to accept a reasonably presented rationale in good faith without necessarily agreeing with each point asserted, as long as it does not contain information that the reviewer believes to be incorrect or misleading.''" The arguements you mention from Stargate were all met with a resounding no, which led to the rationale being added to every image page. The fact that they obtained feature list status is, in fact, a ruling that the fair use rationale is acceptable because an article or list cannot be featured without acceptable rationales. As for FUC#10, "''The image or media description page must contain:''
::::* Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
::::* ''An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.''
::::* ''For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.''" This spells out something for wikipedia editors to do, it does not state any qualities about the image or the article. A procedure is a set of rules to follow in order to do something. Since FUC#10 contains information only about what editors should do, it is, by definition, entirely procedural. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::In both the featured lists discussions, people opposed when there was literally no information at all on the image description pages, then reacted in one of three ways, changing to support, staying at oppose, and changing to neutral on the basis that at least some rationale was there, although since they were not knowledgeable on fair use they chose to reach no final conclusion.
::::::And passing the featured list process is in no way a "ruling" on the status of the images. It indicates that the list is featured, yes, but they cannot support a consensus about the images when the only oppose votes came from people concerned about the images.
::::::Your approach to FUC#10 is disturbing because it mirrors the attitude common among some members of the community that fair use is whatever they consider to be fair, and providing a rationale which can actually stand up to inquiry is optional, and some kind of hassle. I'm not saying you hold it, but many do, and treating the requirement for a rationale as a mere procedure encourages it. People should have the requirement to provide a good rationale in the centre of their minds, and should not regard it as a formality. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
==Resolution==
Good reasoning on both sides. I used to be 80/20 in favor of images in lists but now I'm 60/40. Even if I become 50/50 or 40/60 in favor of the images does that mean we remove them? With so much doubt shouldn't we leave the decision up to the uploader? Why not? - [[User:Peregrinefisher]] UTC 07:46, July 29, 2006
:Huh? <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::With the issue so dependant on one's opinion, shouldn't we leave the decision to the uploader? Why not? - [[User:Peregrinefisher|<span class="user-sig user-USERNAME">Pergrinefisher</span>]] 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Of course we should leave it to the uploader to decide if the image is used, but there are some editors like ed g2s that will stop at nothing to have them removed. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Because most users don't understand copyright law and our image use policy (not referring to anyone here, but newbies in general). <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Then help them, write help pages a newbie can understand. I've never seen you a help a user. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 14:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the argument is still hypothetical and academic because Ed and friends have no evidence to support their side in that this is an issue ''at all''. They can claim there are dozens of complaints per day but they have yet to produce any of them. Furthermore Ed cannot assert the rights over the images on behalf of the owner: only the owner can do that. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:That only makes sense if the argument were solely about what is and isn't fair use, which it clearly isn't. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:Again, Cburnett, you're advancing the argument that until copyright holders complain, we don't have to worry about how their work is used. Again, I'll say that that is a foolhardy position to take. Neither I nor anyone else with access to the [[m:OTRS|OTRS]] queues can reveal information from them, but complaints about images do occur. Ask someone else with access if you don't believe me. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not foolhardy, its actually a practical position and in keeping with Wiki-policy tweaks; we change policy as little as possible ... '''until''' something merits action. Sparodic complaints are taken seriously and should be acted upon, but one persons/companies complaint does not translate into a need to broad actions. What if certain copyright holders '''prefer''' their images be on Wikipedia within reason of fair use. Removing them en masse because of a few squeaky wheels seems unnecessarily preemptive. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Is the material being used for critical commentary? ==
If the answer is no, as is usually the case, then the images shouldn't be used, as this is the reason unfree media is allowed on Wikipedia, or to quote our policy:
:''"The primary goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy is to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums ... however ... we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary."
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:I think that the "List of Blah Blah episodes" articles are providing critical commentary. The episode guide is a systematic inquiry into a television series by breaking it down into its fundamental components, the episodes. What do others think about this? [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::An intersting interpretation, but are the images (the "material") being used for critiical commentary? <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::To analyse this on a simple definition of criticism (from the WP article on [[critic]]), how do the lists "[offer] reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation", particularly considering that most are nothing more than very short plot summaries (often one sentence long)? Or to express it in the language of fair use, how do the lists "[add] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message" ([[Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.]], the [[parody]] case)?
:::Most of the lists do nothing more than reproduce a teaser blurb, which in most cases does not even summarise the plot, and some give information such as the original US air date. Does this offer reasoned judgement or analysis? What interpretation does this offer? The articles on individual items in a list can provide critical commentary, but the lists used as examples cannot, there is just not enough text.
:::The solution is simple, and I have stated this several times already: either expand the content of the lists (one or two sentences of plot summary and one or two sentences of comment, linking the image with the text, would surely be sufficient) or remove the images from the lists. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I think the original airdate and writing and directing credits combined with a plot summary and the image add up to the critical commentary. It tells me what, when, and by who. If too much information is included in the list it defeats the purpose. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 15:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I find images do provide critical commentery visually when combined with text. IE: On a list i worked on all the screencaps are of a key moment in the episode described in the summary. This aids in conveying it visually as well. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 15:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree that many of the episode summaries have been written very poorly. Take [[List of Home Movies episodes]] for example. I've worked on that page and I feel that adding images to that would just be covering up bad writing. I do think that the episode summaries need to be expanded, but I don't like the providing commentary linking the specific image, although that may be a misunderstanding or an unclear wording. I don't think we should cater the text to a specific image, but bring the text to a point where an image in general would be justified, and then pick an image that matches the text. This method would absolutely require the fair use rationale on the image description page to be quite detailed, saying that the screenshot specifically illustrates the "blah blah" aspect of the plot and such. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't think the text needs to directly relate to ''what's happening '''in''' the screenshot'', but rather, both screenshot and summary should help identify the episode. Like I've said before, screenshots can be used as "finger prints", so it's not what's happening in the screenshot as much as does the screenshot provide a unique label that would help the reader identify it. Although, if the editor can do this ''and'' have the text relate to what's happening in the screen shot, then that's all the better, but shouldn't be required. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::That may be what you think, but our policy states that images should be used for critical commentary. If you are not saying anything with the image, then it shouldn't be used. How can it be any clearer? <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 00:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::That is slightly wrong. The policy about tv screenshots does not require critical commentary on the screenshot, it requires critical commentary on the program and its contents. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::No, the screenshot template is not an official policy page, it merely suggests what could be acceptable. Our policy (as quoted above) clearly states we "''permit some non-free material for critical commentary''". <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::The policy page says the film and television screen shots are used for critical commentary and discussion of the televsion and cinema. There is nothing misleading there, you can use a screen shot to discuss the entire show. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::The screenshot is part of the commentary, not just something that accompanies it. Visual medium => visual commentary. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::That section is prefixed by "''in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis''". A two line summary is simply not critical commentary, that's just absurd. If you write a few paragraphs then you can use an image if it's required. Two line summaries are no where near a critical analysis, and to label them as such is a fairly transparent attempt to interpret the rules so loosely that you can justify the images.
:::::::Critical commentery could be given in a few words (IE: "A blazing fire with James in it." and the screenshot of course would be the blazing fire, thus critical commentery.) <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::For goodness sake... it is shocking that a disturbingly large number of people think that that would constitute critical commentary. It's not critical, hell, it's barely even commentary. May I suggest that anyone who thinks that is critical commentary purchase themselves a dictionary and look up the entry on criticism, and only then return to this discussion. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::When was wikipedia a place to criticise? Please '''!stop!''' contradicting your self. <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:x-small;"><span style="color:#C11B17;">Matthew</span> <b style="color:#3366ff;">[[User_talk:MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#3366ff;">Fenton</span>]] (</b>[[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|<span style="color:#356468;">contribs</span>]]<b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b></span> 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::There are two definitions of criticism, to criticise in the sense of adopting "a position disagreeing with or opposing the object" (not the one applicable here), and to "[offer] reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation." For both definitions I am quoting from [[critic]]. The second definition is the one applicable here, and is entirely compatible with Wikipedia policies. "A blazing fire with James in it" displays no reasoned judgment, no analysis, no interpretation. It cannot possibly be critical commentary. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 14:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Bainer is right on that one. "A blazing fire with James in it" makes no analysis. It's not because you didn't use many words, but because you weren't using that information to make any sort of judgment or perform an analysis. Although that may make a great caption, an image cannot be used to illustrate its own caption. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::There's one point I want to make very, very clear. The amount of text has no bearing on whether or not the text is an analysis. It is the purpose of the text that matters. As I stated above, the purpose of the episode guide is to systematically inquiry the plot of a series by breaking it down into its component parts, the episodes. I can understand the point about requiring the entire episode to be discussed, instead of writing a tagline, but that can be done in one paragraph. You haven't actually contradicted the guidelines I mentioned either. My guidelines are actually more specific. You stated that there merely needs to be critical commentary, while I stated that the critical commentary needs to be about the program and its contents. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, misread you earlier. Yes, the commentary provided by the image needs to be about the program. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I may have misunderstood you earlier. I thought you were suggesting we had to say "this screen shot shows" in the main text, which I would consider bad writing, but I think now you may have actually meant that the image should be illustrating something we actually wrote. I think it is fair to say that if the part you're showing really was a main plot point, then you would have mentioned it in plot summary. Like in the Friends example I gave in a previous discussion, the shot of Bruce Willis posing in the mirror is a perfect fingerprint for the episode if you already know the plot. But we have to write assuming not everyone has seen it, which means part of the discussion on the episode would have to include the scene of Bruce Willis posing in the mirror. But we don't have to talk about things in the image that weren't relevant to the plot, like what Bruce was wearing or what color the room was. I have noticed that a lot of the cases the anti-image crowd are talking about don't talk about the entire episode. Even without the images, those summaries still need to be expanded because we aren't supposed to be censoring the summaries. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In a properly done illustrated list, the images and the text complement each other and add to the understanding of the subject matter. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, but the image must contribute ''significantly''. Any screenshot from the episode would contribute to one's understanding, but we don't use that as a claim to include the entire episode. It has to be made clear why the chosen screenshot in particular is so important, that is, it must be used for critical commentary; to make a specific point. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::I think it is a question of degrees. If the screenshot is of the main plot element of the episode, then there is no question in my mind it would be usable, even if no text directly mentions the exact screenshot. Other cases would need to be looked at on their merits. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Well that's not our policy. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::It's how I read our policy. It's also common sense. If we have any policy or guideline that conflicts with that, then we need to change the policy/guideline. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's common sense that an encyclopedia cannot be written by anonymous contributors. Being maximally free and reusable is one of our founding principles. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Being maximally usable trumps being maximally free every time. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::For who? Brittanica? You might want to consider how much time you want to invest in [[free culture]] projects such as Wikipedia if you're not interested in the idea. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I think it is a tad presumptuous of you to advise other contributors to question their involvement in the project, but I'll assume good faith and answer the question. I have considered it. I have no desire to sweat over this project so that other commercial entities can come along and re-use the content with no restrictions. I do however care about making a great free encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to re-use the content later can take their time to figure out which fair use images they need to remove, and which ones they don't. Let's focus on our primary goal of a great, maximally usable encyclopedia. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 22:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::"''I have no desire to sweat over this project so that other commercial entities can come along and re-use the content with no restrictions.''" - then don't contribute to Wikipedia. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you, but I'm going to ignore your advice. I like building a free and usable encyclopedia. I just don't see any reason to kowtow to the spectre of other people wanting to resuse the content for their own gains later. If they want to strip out fair use images because they can't use fair use images for whatever their purposes are, then they can strip them out. We should leave them in if they are useful and legal. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::What I mean is, perhaps Wikipedia is not the project you thought it was. Our primary goal '''is'' free content, and fair use is a big compromise of this, allowed only as a last resort. This is clearly explained on the policy page. If you want to contribute to a project that is only "free as in beer" as opposed to "free as in speech", then this is not it. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for the clarification. I think I should make a clarification as well. I am attracted to this project because it is "free as in beer". I don't mind that the content is reusable by commercial entities, I just don't have a desire to heap work on us in order to take work off of them. Wikipedia has fair use images and that is how it should be. If other people want to come and re-use our content, that is fine with me, and I specifically allow that when I upload my contributions. That includes, by the way, several images I have taken myself and uploaded as free use images. However, it is OK with me if those people who want to re-use our work have to do some work themselves in order to do so.
:::::::It's not that I advocate throwing up any unessecary bariers to commercial use, I just think that worrying about such re-use should be way down our priority list. If a fair use image is legal and adds to the article, then we should use it. If someone else needs to strip it out of a derivative work, they may do so. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 22:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well I'm afraid this is at the core of what Wikipedia is, so regardless of what you think about it, its non-negotiable. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::First of all, I disagree with your interpretation of what the project is all about. Secondly, I disagree that anything is non-negotiable. Saying it is non-negotiable is certainly not the wiki-way. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Our founding principles are non-negotiable, you can choose not to believe it, but they're not going to change. See [[WP:5P]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Nothing is non-negotiable. A year ago, many people have claimed that unlimited anonymouse IP editing was non-negotiable, but it turns out that wasn't true. So it is with everything else. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well then they claimed it incorrectly. If you really think this is negotiable - go and have a chat with [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] and see how that goes. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:ed_g2s|ed g2s]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|talk]]</span> 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I'll choose my own time and place to make my suggestions, thank you. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
==IMDB is using images with lists==
Have you noticed IMDB is starting to include small images with list items? I bet they are also claiming fair use, though I could be wrong. For instance [http://imdb.com/title/tt0422093/ here]. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Actually IMDb does not claim fair use in that case. Those images are supplied by people representing the actors, or from news organization that has given IMDb permission to use the image. It actually costs money for the agencies to send in pictures. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. If you click on the "pictures" link for most entries in IMDB, there will be some images displayed and some on external sites merely linked to. The ones that are actually shown are almost exclusively publicity shots sent by agents to IMDB, with the rest being red carpet shots that IMDB has a licence for, or "behind the scenes" style publicity shots released by the relevant studio.
::Another comparison would be [[TV.com]], which doesn't really use any images, in its [http://www.tv.com/scrubs/my-first-day/episode/75230/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;0 articles on individual episodes] or its [http://www.tv.com/scrubs/show/3613/episode_listings.html?tag=tabs;episodes lists of episodes] (note that I think that in many cases we would be able to mount a good fair use claim for a screenshot in an individual episode article, provided the scene depicted was discussed in the body). It does have galleries of images for each show, but they're mostly red carpet shots of the actors or studio publicity shots. It does use a small number of images, usually of the core cast, to illustrate the main page on each TV show.
::Put yourself in their shoes and consider why, as perhaps the premier TV reference on the internet, and the premier film reference on the internet, these sites do not use fair use images. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Is it because they're for-profit? - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Oooo, I love hypothetical arguments! [/sarcasm]
:::Intentionally ignoring your hypothetical, you should consider what the goal of these sites are, or rather what their goal is not. Neither is to be an encyclopedia (read their about pages). Wikipedia is not a primary reference nor should it be used as a secondary reference (this is why we [[WP:CITE]]). The difference is quite obvious to me...even when you ignore the profit status. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
== It's a legal question. ==
Shouldn't we let [[WP:OFFICE|the lawyers]] decide?—[[User:msh210|msh210]]<span class="Unicode">℠</span> 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:No one has really been too worried about the legal aspect here. Wikipedia has stricter policy to minimize unfree content. This discussion is about whether or not "List of..." articles violate that policy. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 12:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
==Result is No Consensus==
We're going back and forth. Can we agree the result is ''No Consensus''? This issue is being argued in several places and the result is probably the same everywhere. Now what do we do? - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
I'm not sure how anyone else will feel about this, but I think I have an idea that could help lessen the arguing. It seems to me, and let me know if you disagree, that it is not impossible for a List of Episodes to meet the FUC, but there are many instances where FUC are not being met. Now I'm only going to mention the priciple of my idea now, because the specifics should wait util after the clarification on FUC#8, and if you only disagree with a specific part, point that out, I'm not too attached to details right now. We could add into the style guide at LOE, how to write plot summaries properly, which is probably something we should even without the fair use issue. Then we could include a bit about how to choose images, and that images are only to be included if the text guidelines are followed. Next we add how to write the fair use rationales so that non-experts will be able to check the fair use claim without too much effort. Please remember this is meant as a friendly suggestion, not my genius idea for the "right answer" to our debate, I welcome '''polite''' objections. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:I would like to see canned rationales in easy-to-use template form. What do you mean by "write plot summaries properly"? Can you explain (links to examples would be sufficient) the difference between proper and improper? [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::That was one of the exact details that I thought should wait until after the clarification. Some of the important parts of it, though, would be not to use a tagline or teaser but have paragraph form prose. They should also include spoilers, because it's an encyclopedic episode guide, not a fan guide or an advertisement. As for examples, I think [[List of Home Movies episodes]] is a good example of improper, and I think we need more discussion to decide proper. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::As of late, I'm more inclined to agree about going non spoiler-free. After 20k edits and touching a couple thousand articles I'm becoming less tolerate of all the boxes I see on WP. [[Talk:Lost (TV series)]] makes me cry. I've got a 19" monitor and I gotta go to the 3rd page to see anything of actual discussion. I recall helping craft the summaries at [[List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes]] and others to avoid spoilers.
:::My point of the digression: I agree. :) Also, the bolding of "polite" wasn't directed toward me, was it? :) [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::::It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I just noticed this discussion has gotten fairly angry more than once, and I just want to remind everyone to keep a cool head, even when we disagree. I'm hoping more people talk about this than just the two of us though. Ed was pretty heavily involved in this discussion, so his opinion should at least be mentioned. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm trying to imagine what the summary requirements should be. Putting a minimum on the number of words or sentences might work, like a 2 sentence minimum. The problem with this is I've never seen a similar requirement anywhere else on WP. Maybe something like "it must summarize the events of the entire episode and not be a spoiler-free teaser?" with links to examples, both good ([[List_of_The_X-Files_episodes]]) and bad ([[List of Home Movies episodes]]). - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 06:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::It might not be the best idea to set a minimum number of sentences, as that may tempt some into adding nonsense so they can add an image. I think it might be ok to say that the summary should be able to stand as it's own paragraph within a lead, because one of the claims in defense was that the same images were being used in the indivual episode articles. But that might cause copy-paste writing, as the plot summary in the guide and in the lead of episode page shouldn't actually be exactly the same. The lead should convey "If you keep reading, you'll get more detail" but the guide would go on to another episode after that paragraph. It may be easier to work out the details after the idea is accepted in principle and after the wording on FUC#8 is cleaned up, which I'm pretty sure will happen, it's just no one is sure what the final wording will be. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that a minimum length is not the best approach. The text should at least provide some meaningful context for any image used, and should probably deal with what is actually shown in the image. Whether it is to be a concise summary or a brief teaser, I don't really mind; it would depend on the list. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 09:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Individual Episode Page Images ==
It seems to me that no one has any problems with these. Why is that? (Or correct me if I am wrong.) --[[User:154.20.217.225|154.20.217.225]] 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC) I love the pictures.
:Because most of those articles are more clear about meeting [[WP:FUC]]. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Why some covers are deleted and some not? ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_in_Playboy_1990-1999&oldid=42581362
Is there any rule? Please tell us. Thank you 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:It looks like the covers that are used elsewhere in wikipedia (like [[Julie Clarke]]) have been kept and the images that were only used in that list were removed. There's a rule about deleting fair use images that aren't attached to a page. They were probably orphaned when images were removed from that list page. - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
== Discographies too ==
AFAIC, album covers are essential in a discography article and their use is fair morally and legally. Nonetheless, a recent application of mine for a Featured List Candidacy fell on this. I was told the images couldn't stay, and without them it looked terrible.
If, as someone suggests above, this isn't a legal issue but a matter of policy can I say firmly that imho such usage greatly improves these articles and should be allowed. I'd also be grateful if we could extend the debate to include discographies, which is a very similar scenario to the one currently being discussed. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:Well, it would still depend on how the discography is presented. If it's just a plain catalog, then the images don't add anything but decoration. If the discography were used as an analysis of an artists career, then you may have a case for saying they aide critical commentary. Although I've been fighting to allow the tv screenshots, I do agree that Wikipedia should remain as free as possible, which means only using fair use images when aiding critical commentary. I would think that it would hold true that if there is a way to make an episode guide that allows images then there is a way to make a discography that allows images. It would still be up to the editors of music articles to choose to make the discographies in that way, or if it's too much work without enough benefit. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::Album covers are fairly widely accepted as "good" fair use in articles about the album, even by people who are cautious about fair use images. The classic examples are articles like ''[[Abbey Road (album)|Abbey Road]]'' or ''[[Nevermind]]'' articles which would be incomplete without the images. Even articles on albums which don't have extensive discussion of the image are generally ok.
::I do think that discographies however should not have fair use images unless there is sufficient accompanying text, just as I have suggested for lists of TV episodes, or any other type of list. What would be sufficient? Taking [[The Beatles discography]] as an example, it would be simple to pull together a few solid cited paragraphs outlining how the visual style changed over the band's career. These could be spread down the list, there's plenty of room with the way that article is laid out. This would not only help justify the fair use, but would greatly improve the list. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
==I'm all for it==
Can anyone say they dislike lists with images? (I'm sure people can), but I would be so bold as to say the vast majority would at the very least find them more visually appealing. We have '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.’ to work with, and there is clear reasoning there to have pictures in lists. The right pictures should both identify the subject of the article and specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text. That’s exactly what they are good for. A list without pictures is just a bunch of words, you have to read every single one to find out anything. A list with pictures allows people to easily each point separate from the first. This is how I think f it. Each section of the list (each TV episode for example) is it’s own point in the article, it’s own mini-article if you will. If you're scanning down a list for a particular episode a picture helps illustrate the relevant point, and identify the subject of that part of the article. It simply makes more sense to have them there. It’s easier to view, adds more to the article (using the right picture to sum up the key point in an episode, or illustrate key plot points), and fits in my opinion easily within fair use definition. Just my two cents on the matter. [[User:Funny little guy|Funny little guy]] 16:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Just wanted to add that I do the that the use of DVD covers instead of episode screenshots really does add nothing to the article and should be removed. They don't identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text at all. [[User:Funny little guy|Funny little guy]] 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
===All of the points immediately above apply to university lists too===
Images next to a short educational bio in a university list allow readers to find and to identify more readily some of the more prominent people on the page, and are thus a clear contribution, not "decoration." They identify the person in the entry. Is this critically different from identifying the person in the article when the whole article is about the person? It would be especially difficult to find the more prominent people in a large university list, and even if you found a famous name you might not recognize it without a picture in some cases. Many well-known people are more readily recognized by their picture than by their names and eductional bios. The picture serves a very clear purpose. -'''[[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">Do</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<span style="color:#008040;">c</span>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<span style="color:#a00040;">t</span>]][[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">or''W''</span>]]''' 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
:The problem there is that for living people still working with the university a free picture is potentially and reasonably available. One of the main points for the episode guides and discographies is that there are no free images. That by itself might not be enough, but it is required. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to check to see whether this applies to any of the fair use images. Most, if not all, are no longer working for the university. Some are deceased. -'''[[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">Do</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<span style="color:#008040;">c</span>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<span style="color:#a00040;">t</span>]][[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">or''W''</span>]]''' 16:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
:Is there a specific list to which you are referring? Most of the time the specifics matter more than the generality. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
::[[List of Cornell University people]], apparently per [[WP:AN]]. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
:::On first look I was able to immediately replace one of the fair use images with a free image that was already on Wikipedia, there's really no excuse for that. But this list may be of the type that does not meet the criteria, although I have not yet read the list completely. The list seems to be a collection of names with no critical commentary on the information the images are said to be providing. If this is true then only free images can be used. The reasoning for episode guides and discographies is that they are supposed to have critical commentary, such as a plot analysis or a discussion on the progession of album artwork over time. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 18:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with Jay's comment. The list could keep the free images, but the fair use ones are not justified, as there is no critical information about the images, they are used for decoration, something that is not accepted per our [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria|Fair use criteria]]. By the way, I replaced the orphaned tag to indicate it has been replaced with a free version. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Jay, thank you for replacing one of the fair use images with a free image; this is clearly preferable. But remember also to assume good faith. The policies and guidelines for images are complex; in retrospect my limited time would have been better spent in editing topics which relate to my Ph.D. and other areas of expertise.
Did either of you read my comments on [[Talk:List of Cornell University people]]? You seem not to have responded to what I said above or on that talk page. I said there, in part:
:It seems obvious to me that accompanying an educational bio of a person (as it relates to Cornell University, or to some other university on a similar page) with a fair use image that helps to illustrate (and identify) the person in question for Wikipedia readers is helpful and fully in line with the statement on the fair use template. It should be in the same category as a more comprehensive bio on the article page for that person.
and:
:I would like to add that the images on List_of_Cornell_University_people are not for "decoration"; they are for the reader to find and to identify more easily some of the more prominent people on the page (who as part of their entry have an educational bio in relation to the university), thus making a clear contribution to the article.
Immediately [[Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists#I.27m_all_for_it|above]] the argument is made that "Each section of the list (each TV episode for example) is it’s own point in the article, it’s own mini-article if you will." Whether an image illustrates and identifies a person in an article, in a section, or in an entry, the rationale is the same. In the case of famous people, the picture serves to identify someone who might not be recognized from their name and limited bio, and it secondarily helps the reader find a person who might otherwise be hard to find in a mass of undifferentiated text.
Claiming that images are "for decoration" refers to the fact that they "must not serve a ''purely'' decorative purpose" (emphasis added). They clearly do not.
While free images are obviously preferable, making mass deletions with a few words in an edit summary and ''no'' entry on the Talk page for what is clearly still a gray and controversial area is simply bad form. -'''[[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">Do</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<span style="color:#008040;">c</span>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<span style="color:#a00040;">t</span>]][[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">or''W''</span>]]''' 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:There is an big problem with your argument that greatly differs from that of episode guides and discographys; the supporting text is not there at all. I haven't made a claim that this kind of article cannot use fair use images, but that this particular article cannot use them because no critical commentary is being made about anything. The television editors (I am one) and music editors have agreed that when there is zero commentary, such as naming all the episodes or albums alone, that the images should not be used. You claim that the images are accompanying a biography, yet I see no biography on that page, therefore your argument is not sound. I have assumed good faith and believe you are well intentioned in putting these images there. I have also not removed any of the images except for the one I replaced with a free image. It also looks like many of the fair use images should not be used on the actual biography articles. For instance, Catherine Hicks is still alive and still a public figure, which means it should not be that difficult to aquire a free image of her. It would seem that regardless of the format or context of the article most of those images would not be allowed because there are free alternatives or one can be easily made. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your assuming good faith; it is warranted. I mentioned a limited "educational bio in relation to the university". I know you didn't delete the images. Again, I was making reference to the editors who made massive deletions without one word on the [[Talk:List of Cornell University people]] page in spite of a specific request for discussion of the issue. I didn't put all those fair use images there; I think I placed 2. I have been editing Wikipedia for a year, so there is a lot I don't know. But I do know that "critical commentary" is not a requirement of policy, it is a phrase used by your side of the argument and is apparently an illustration of fulfilling the purpose of "The material must contribute significantly to the article." Even the proposed amendment does not require "critical commentary" for this case. Obviously, having free ones replace fair use images as soon as is practicable is preferable. For now (and indefinitely when a free image is not available), having some such image (on this page or on an article biography page) has a clear and irreplaceable purpose. Why is that not enough? -'''[[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">Do</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<span style="color:#008040;">c</span>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<span style="color:#a00040;">t</span>]][[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">or''W''</span>]]''' 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:Although FUC#8 makes no mention to critical commentary, FUC#6 does after you read the media specific requirements. Just so you know I was arguing on the side defending the images, but I did admit that there were many examples where the rules were not being followed. I cannot claim that the fair use images I'm defending follow the rules when not all of them do, which means I must point out when images fail. Many of the editors won't interfere with an ongoing discussion, and several will even allow the uploader to take the images down rather than removing them, as it is more productive to the overall Wikipedia environment. Again, according to FUC#1 if a fair use image can be replaced by a free image than it cannot be used. There are situations where no image is preferable to a fair use image, and it is fairly widely accepted that biograpghies of living persons is one of those places. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Put yourself in my position. I am much more careful to look into the official policy guidelines of Wikipedia than the average editor, but I cannot be expected to read every lengthy debate on every policy topic. If fair use images are banned for biographies of living persons, it must say so in the policy statement. Otherwise it is not reasonable for editors to follow such rules, which amount to undemocratic hidden knowledge of elites. (Sorry, but what one of the mass deleting editors cited was "recent pronouncements by Jimbo Wales".) I think the only thing that's practical is for the rules to be in the policy document governing that topic. -'''[[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">Do</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<span style="color:#008040;">c</span>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<span style="color:#a00040;">t</span>]][[User:DoctorW|<span style="color:#0000a0;">or''W''</span>]]''' 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:But it is plainly spelled out in the guidelines. A free image of a living person who is a public figure is always produceable. Therefore any unfree image used specifically to illustrate the person fails FUC#1. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
| |||