Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

Archives

Contents 1 Clarifcation requested... 2 Save me some time in the future 3 Opening 4 The uploader should be warned at marking for deletion 5 Magazine covers 6 SVGs

[edit] Clarifcation requested...

It was my understanding that it was desirable to have original rights holder attribution information with respect to Fair-Use images..

However, it has been raised as a concern by some contributors, that this isn't strictly needed by the relevant legislation.

Could a clarification be added to the guide as to whether or not Fair Use images need to indicate who the original copyright holder(s) in terms of both the image itself and any content depicted is ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Save me some time in the future

If someone selects "free use" from the pull-down when creating an image, could we have this set of terms automatically input? It's been 4 months since I created an image and although I put what I thought was enough info into the description for human eyes, the bots slapped me for not filling in every detail I didn't know I had to provide. And months later it's hard to remember.

• Non-free use rationale

| Description =
| Source =
| Article =
| Portion =
| Low_resolution =
| Purpose =
| Replaceability =
| other_information =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale

Talk about the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Get these bots going and there's no way to stop them. If the programmer did not think of every exception, the bot kills all. I can just imagine WP:WALL-E . I do not want to read every page of WP image rules and exceptions and instructions and exceptions the the instructions and additions to the exceptions to the instructions. Can't there be just a few simple ideas on how to upload an image? God Almighty only gave us 10 rules! WP has gazillions. Kristinwt (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

The first word of the article will from now on be "whenever." It is much more appropriate and descriptive. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"When," the original word, is more grammatically correct. Please stop changing the original wording to make a point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that "When" is the more appropriate word here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why "we" is the more appropriate word. You appear to be rather obstinate. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to explain why it's necessary to change the original "when" to "whenever," especially given that there's no consensus for the change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever is more descriptive. I realize now that you have no reason you want to keep "when" since you cannot explain your reasoning. You just want it to be "when" just because. That, my friend, is a poor reason. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poter99 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The uploader should be warned at marking for deletion

There is something that truly annoys me: to find that a pic that I uploaded was deleted for the lack of proper tags. It is nothing short of infuriating to see that the effort I made to find and upload an appropriate image is simply destroyed. Whenever an image is marked for deletion, the uploader must ALWAYS be warned, by means of his talk page; this way, he has the chance to go there and fix things. -- Stormwatch (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine covers

Folks, exactly what are the "rules" regarding use of magazine covers in biographical articles? See for example John Henry Towers - the relevant template - {{Non-free magazine cover}} - seems unequivocal: "Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." To me this means that they should not be used in lieu of another free-use image. Now take a look at Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers - a huge number of those would seem to be in violation of the non-free use rational for mag covers. Am I missing something? Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The is "rules" are the policy (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). If a magazine cover is used in a way that does not satisfy all 10 criteria it should be removed, magazine covers get no special treatment there. Also note that "(...)illustrate a point about the publication of the image." does not mean it's ok to use a magazine cover just to "prove" that a person did in fact appear on the cover, that's another common misuse of magazine covers. --Sherool (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So my tagging of File:John_Henry_Towers.jpg was correct? I only ask because the original uploader left a pointed message on my talk page referring me to the category I mentioned above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it may be acceptable to use a cover image of somebody who is dead to show what they looked like. What is not acceptable is to use an image of somebody living simply to show what they looked like, because that would be considered a replaceable image. Jheald (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's right, the text in the template that I quoted above should be edited because on it's face it applies to the living and the dead. – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some kind of stricter standard when it comes to magazine covers, as least as far as enforcement is concerned. Obviously, fair use images are inappropriate in biographical articles for living people to show what they look like etc. But in other articles it seems as though film and TV screencaps are considered acceptable to identify fictional characters and other elements, and to identify the works themselves, while magazine covers seem to be stripped as a matter of policy (unless it's an article about the magazine itself, etc.) I've seen this happen many, many times and am wondering if there is actually something in policy that specifies a difference.— TAnthony^Talk 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SVGs

Is it possible for SVGs to qualify as low-resolution for purposes of the non-free use rationale? They can theoretically retain fidelity at any size, after all. Powers ^T 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)