| Revision as of 14:06, 24 December 2006 editWknight94 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users89,452 edits →Oppose: +1← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:33, 9 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (79 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll concerning fair use images. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Appropriate places to continue the discussing include the talk pages of ], ], or ]''. | |||
| '''Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people''' | '''Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people''' | ||
| '''Please note that this is a |
'''Please note that this is a meaningless page. It now closed and all further discussion moved elsewhere. We do not vote on issues in this manner.''' | ||
| This proposal would add a second dot point to the first criteria of the ] that states: | |||
| * Copyrighted promotional photographs of living people (including bands) may be used in articles about those people if no free alternative photograph is available and the photograph complies with all other fair use criteria. When a free image becomes available it should replace the copyrighted promotional photograph as explained by the first dot point. | |||
| If accepted this proposal would permit'', but not encourage,'' the fair use of promotional photographs of living people (including bands) in articles describing those people until a free alternative is available. Examples of promotional photographs that would be affected include the photographs of ] (]|]) and ] (]|]). | |||
| ''Italic text added ] 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| '''Instructions''' | |||
| Please vote to support or oppose the proposal by adding your name under the appropriate heading. | |||
| You are welcome to provide a brief rationale for your vote so as to improve the quality of future proposals on the matter. Please consider using the ] for discussion or background on the issue and please use the ] to discuss this proposal specifically. | |||
| '''Relevant links''' | |||
| You may visit the history of this page to see what all the fuss was about. But enough is enough. This is not the right way to change policy in Misplaced Pages, and the proposal listed here is entirely contrary to our fundamental goals. --] 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please feel free to add links to relevant pages and essays to this section. | |||
| To be clear, I support the continuation of a healthy and robust discussion of this complex issue. I do not support a premature and heavily biased "vote" or "straw poll" which will only serve to entrench people in various extreme positions. Let's seek common ground.--] 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| :my god! jimbo wales is really angry. i think this arbitrary "blanking" is going to "entrench people in various extreme positions." but it's ok 'cos that IS a fundamental goal of[REDACTED] -- just that we don't know, or bever bothered to read up, or imagined otherwise. god bless all. (it's not without a reason that God chooses to speak through prophets and never address the millions directly) --] 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Proposed by:''' ] 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If the proposal made was "entirely contrary to our fundamental goals", and as you had previously indicated a total objection thereto, then I hope you'll also suggest a "common ground", whatever that might be, as I, and others, haven't seen any flexibilty from those who seek to delete and/or not allow nearly any press or promo photos of living persons that ''might'' someday be available under a GFDL. Where is the potential common ground? Thank you. ] 14:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Support === | |||
| ::Indeed so, Jimmy- Are your fundamental principles enforceable policy, because if they are then there is no room whatsoever for fair use. Your principles are unambiguous on this point - where is the 'wiggle room' for debate?--] 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Pictures are so important to human understanding. The provides for the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of comment or criticism. Promotional photos are intended to be widely distributed. This proposal ensures the encyclopedia will have images of people or bands while free images are not available. This proposal benefits the encyclopedia. ( on the matter). | |||
| :::Are you saying it is contrary to Misplaced Pages's fundamental goals because the images are not free? Notice the proposal was only for when no free use alternative could be found. Not including images could be seen '''against''' one of the fundamental goals - a complete encyclopædia. Images help complete an encyclopædia.--<small>]<sub>]</sub>|<sup>]</sup></small> 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:We know the register doesn't like us that is hardly new. Could you please explain how we are commenting on the photos rather than the person?] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I have made my reasoning abundantly clear all over the place. ] 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) While I accept that we should strive to use copyright free images, the fact remains that the vast (and overwhelmingly vast) majority of images taken of celebrities are by professional photographers and paparazzi, and aren't free. This is more so the case then other article subjects, such as plants, animals, space related stuff (thanks, NASA), military related stuff (thanks U.S Armed Forces) and historical stuff (thanks expiration of copyright). Publicity photos are for, by definition, illustrating the subject in question. I believe the value in illustrating articles with the almost-free image outweighs the unbelievably minor copyright issue. What would be awesome is some sort of fund to purchase the copyright to one good illustrative (and since it wouldn't be particularly juicy, cheap) photo of the subject for major articles. Ah, to dream. | |||
| #:please explain how the copyright issue is unbelievably minor.] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::Allow me. It's actually ], which is the legal equivalent of "such a small thing, it isn't worth hassling over". For example, if a state government releases a photo of a governor for public use, and Misplaced Pages - a non-commercial encylopedia - uses that image - Misplaced Pages MUST "fair use" it, because the state will retain copyright over the image as a matter of policy. Put another way, we're NOT going to get sued by the state of Michigan for putting the official portrait of the Governor of Michigan on a Misplaced Pages page about the Governor of Michigan. Hope this clears things up! ] ] 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Better than I could have hoped to put it. Thanks. If the people who own the copyright to the image want you to use it, it's hardly a major copyright issue. ] 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:::That is not what de minimus is. De minimus could not posibly apply in the case you are talking about. In any case the governor is a politician. Politicians are not known for keeping a low profile.] 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC) One of the five pillars is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and we must "strive for accuracy". Fair-use images are more accurate than free images in most cases pertaining to living people, mainly celebrities. | |||
| #:Please provide justification for this claim.] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Certainly. Obtaining an image of a living person is not like obtaining an image of a model of car or other currently available commercial product. ] 13:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC) As per above. Since I know how painfully difficult it is to get a ''good'' free alternative of celebrities/bands. If all fair-use images were deleted, I fear most articles would not display the person in question at all. | |||
| #:And I am certain that as long as we continue allowing non-free photos, we seriously discourage the creation of free alternatives. I know this from a personal perspective: I have chosen not to upload some photos I have taken of celebrities, because the incentive to do so is seriously diminished by the existence of an (often nicer) fair-use alternative.--] 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:In the short term perhaps. in the long term people would learn how to produce free pics.] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Publicity photos are, by definition, for illustrating the subject in question. It is an exceedingly undue (and irrationally improbable) burden to place on Wikipedians to take their own photographs. If a free and equal alternative were available, why would anyone be uploading a non-free one? Tag these images with a {{help us replace it}} template and build goodwill rather than driving so many Wikipedians away with this overzealous delete button. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project both now and for the future. | |||
| #:I've replaced non free images with free ones. Acording to your second claim that should be imposible. If wikipedians don't want to take photos they don't have to. We've been asking for replacement for years it hasn't worked yet deleting them seems to produce replacements rather more quickly. The deletion program is fairly small to some of the others that have gone on.] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::] ] 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ]. Absolutely, support as above. Promotional photos are intended for use in such a forum as Misplaced Pages. However, it should be added that the "free" photo that replaces the fair use photo must be of comparable of superior quality. ] 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:why? Do you have somthing against the rest of the planet outside the US?] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] All of the above. ] 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:Nothing of your own to add?] 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:care to proivde a justification?] 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] I am a very strong beleiver that fair use images of living people should be permitted but the rationale altered to encourage a replaceable image to be restored immeditely if found. I have added fair use images of many living people where it is not always likely a free image will become available and it really is a very important part of the article to physically identify the subject particularly when it is an image for such media coverage anyway- but certain wikilawyers delete them even though a fair use rationale is give. Taking away the photo seriuosly affects the qulaity of the article and takes away a valuable info resource. While I do also agree with the concept of freeness, I do also take the quality of[REDACTED] as an encyclopedia very seriously and anything whiches compromises the qulaity of knowledge I disagree with. I suggest that the tagging is changed to this image must be deleted immeditely when a free image becomes available. THis way the article will always have the resource but will encourage a replaceable image to be found. As[REDACTED] grows I hope there will be a branch which specializes in the search for free images for use on wikipedia. In response to Big DT of course Misplaced Pages shoudln't be an archive of promotional photos. Images should be used to imrove the qulaity of an article only and identify the subject described certainly not for some archive. ] 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Support, our crusade against fair use images seems to be slightly irrational. I see no reason a fair use image cannot remain UNTIL a free replacement is made available. We should urge our contributors to replace them, and forbid future fair use uploads. But I see no valid reason to purge all of the fair use that is on the site merely to leave empty holes until a new image can be obtained. ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 21:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:past experence suggests that this will result in a bulk of images that never get removed. We make that mistake once we will not make it again.] 21:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Support, means (rationales) have to be adapted to what they apply to. In the ase of promo photos, it is quite obvious. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] Support, Uncopyrighted photographs of living people can be difficult to obtain, and promotional photos should be allowed to be used if their are no other alternatives 21:41, 23 December 2006 | |||
| # Support. The current fair-use pogrom is damaging Misplaced Pages. The old saying goes "A picture is worth a thousand words", and it is. Quality illustrations are MUCH more important to a modern information source than making a 100% "libre" information source. And I don't buy this nonsense about how we have to delete fair use images because they're "not free". The reason I don't believe it is because only certain of the images are being targeted (namely promo photos). Things like CD covers are being left alone. If Misplaced Pages was truly interested in creating a pure "libre" source, then they would have eliminated the fair use tag altogether. Instead, this is just another misinterpretation of policy based on Jimbo saying that he thought the fair use tag was overused. If a free replacement can be found or created, than that's wonderful, however it MUST be of a quality equal to or surpassing that of the image it is replacing. ] 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #: We are "truly interested", that is why we have already started discussing about album covers ]. The promotional images was discussed and closed, to prevent having four or five different threads of discussion open at the same time. -- ] 21:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' in many cases true promotional photos are more safe from the legal point of view than dodgy free photos even if they can be produced. There are such thing as personal rights, copyrights on costumes, etc. Also there are such things as hoaxes and photoshopped images. Common sense should be applied there instead of a one size-fits all approach ] 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Fair use images are important in making EN interesting and valuable. Browse JA[REDACTED] one time and note the utter lack of pictures. -] <small><sup>(])</sup></small> 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:How many faie use images do we need? we had something around 300K last time I looked.] 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' It supports this as it feels that this allows for a better visual encyclopedia and places less emphasis on wasting time on protocols and doing leg work, that lets face won't be done, will expand acessibility of[REDACTED] and help[REDACTED] achieve it's goals better, something that is increasingly becoming a second priority to creating a club. --] 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:There are people who go out and take free photos.] 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::And they should be taking photos of things for which no photo exists. They're kind of wasting their time if they're shooting new photos of things that we already have a nice, legal photo of... ] ] 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Photo isn't legal. Because you made your statement universal your statemant is false. Still an error that can be understood. However that fact is there are very few things of which no photo exists. Should people not take any photos at all?] 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' I've laid out my rationale for thinking that the policy of excluding promotional photos is asinine on multiple discussion pages; no need to amplify further here. ] 23:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' Hey, the title for this whole thing comes from an entry I wrote on talk page for ]. Do I get bonus Wiki-points? :) ] ] 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support.''' This proposal seems good to me. I never realized that this could not be done. The US fair use code is not in clash with this either. ] <sup>]</sup>  23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Strong support''' but with guidelines. I wouldn't want to stop supporting the usage of GFDL'ed or CC'ed images, but I feel that we must look at it as one factor of many, not a prevailing factor. Attainable quality must not suffer due to purely non-qualitative concerns. I would like to note that there are numerous members of the media who support this argument; we deal with these people all the time in our day jobs, and we feel that this goal is unrealistic due to our dealings with public relations people, confusing and hard-to-use web sites -- and that's just for the fair use images. There are limitations to what Misplaced Pages can do; let's work within those and stretch the boundaries, but not while sacrificing the quality of our work. - ] 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''] Add following thoughts: Just because the ''potential'' for a free image is present, one should not assume it actually exists, and therefore reqeust deletion of a fair use image. There is no 100% fact that it exists, if that was proven, fair use image would be replaced with said free image (thus proving it exists). ] 04:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Oftentimes it is not possible to find or produce a free image, especially in the case of bands that have broken up. The law allows us to use these images, so why should we ban their use? ] 05:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Our fair use policy should be built based around law, not around the whims of people with a specific point of view as to how to handle content. --] <small>]</small> 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #*That in itself is a specific point of view as to how to handle content - there's no avoiding the need for good judgement on Misplaced Pages. --] 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:Oh the law is easy. Due to UK courts basicaly claiming universal juristiction on the net you can't legaly use any form of fair use at all.] 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Kinda tough to get a free version. By that reason alone, I think fair use is justified. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:Can you provide any case law to back that one up?] 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Because the best pictures are copyrighted. ] 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:o rly? ].] 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' - Especially for press released publicity photos, there should be no issues about their use in this encyclopedia. Such photos *are* free to use, and the fact that they have no copyleft seal of politically-crunchy approval does not change that. The purging of good press release photos for inferior fan shots makes the encyclopedia inferior and serves only some very narrow, politically crunchy ends. --{{unsigned|BenBurch}} | |||
| #:Can you provide the details of the lisence the images are released under?] 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. This seems eminently rational to me. Yes, we should encourage free images, but in their absence a fair use image is perfectly fine. Fair use images are legal on Misplaced Pages proper, and the concerns about downstream use seem unclear and probably overblown, since the risk of someone suing over the use of an image they released themselves for promotional use is ''extremely'' low. Also per Alex Bakharev's excellent point above. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The proposal doesn't prima facie contradict Misplaced Pages's goals like a proposal saying "we don't like free images" would. The idea that the proposal contradicts Misplaced Pages's goals is an *interpretation* which requires an *argument*, not something which automatically follows from the proposal itself. If the argument is wrong, then the proposal doesn't contradict Misplaced Pages's goals. Saying "This proposal contradicts Misplaced Pages's goals, period" really means "I have an argument, but I won't listen to debate on it". | |||
| === Oppose === | |||
| #There's no reason to go around current policy that is actually well thought out and good just because you want those images. --] 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Strong oppose''' - Misplaced Pages is a 💕, not an archive of non-free images. ] 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #I think new fair use photographs of living persons should be strongly discouraged, but I don't think that existing fair use images should be retroactively deleted. I'm sure there are some cases in which obtaining a free photograph of some individual would be next to impossible. ~]]] 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Freedom is essential policy of Misplaced Pages. We must strive to create free content and restrain ourselves from choosing the easiest way by using non-free images. --] 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #I see no compelling reason to change the current situation. ] 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #One of the main aims of this project is to be free, remember our ]. Per our lawyer's ] in the Portal issue, adding a loophole to allow fair use for specific reason goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.<br />Truth be told, I contacted 10 Flickr users, and four changed licenses for their images to make them compatible: Cap'n Jo (], ] and ], still have some more to upload from her), Paranoideo (]), Guerrillaphotography (]) and Dylerpillar (]), plus bru76 (]), ViNull (]) and Karva Javi (]) had compatible licenses, and two other users asked for my mail to send the high resolution version of the images (including an image from a japanese artist). In just two days of browsing Flickr, I got 9 new images for Commons, as free as they can be. I do not think it is hard to get free images for others. -- ] 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:You might have time to do this, but you are most definitely the exception and cannot place this burden on to other Wikipedians without driving hoards of them away. You can by no means universalize your experience. It is NOT common. ] 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::I do not have as much free time as you can guess. In fact, I have barely contributed during December because of holiday-preparations. I haven't done an edit review or helped at the CSD backlogs in weeks. However, I am willing to spend three or four hours in weekends at Flickr searching for images. As for driving users away, I remember some user said that he contributed to the English Misplaced Pages because it allowed Fair use, a similar argument you are stating here. If that is the reason the "hoards" are contributing, then they should reconsider their motives. -- ] 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Why is it that big media conglomerates and "free content" ideologues like Rey here seem to feel the same way about fair use? ] 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Unfortunately. I feel that policy will discourage fellow Wikipedians from using a free alternative. <font color="#08457E" vlink="#08457E"><b>]</b></font><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Misplaced Pages's freeness is not negotiable. Although the bulk deletions should probably be kept on a leash until the community has fully considered this issue, I for one would not be sorry to see ''all'' fair-use images disappear from Misplaced Pages. There is no image so great that it's worth compromising our core principles for. If public figures are willing, as they should be, to release promotional images under a free license, great; if not, we'll get by without them. -- ] 11:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #As per the above, freeness is an essential part of Misplaced Pages. Allowing copyrighted images is a severe compromise of that principle. And, incidentally, I would support retroactive deletion of all existing "fair-use" images. ] 14:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # It's the lazyness of the human being. Nobody will even bother to try to take a camera, get near the subject and get a free image for the article, if the same thing can be done with a google search of images and the "Fair Use" policy --] 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #I would hate to see those included since we could get those ones free with GFDL. ] 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Let's keep "The 💕" as free as it can practically be. ] 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Fair use is pretty shaky, and with the ever evolving state of Misplaced Pages, we still need to stick to our core values. Making a 💕 is one of them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #No! This sounds like a great way to get sued. People can already use FU images, now we want to do it indiscriminately. '''Oppose''' ]<small>]</small> 21:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:Just a note, this is more a clarification on the fair use criteria than a change. The fair use criteria still applies, all this proposal clarifies is that fair use can be applied to promotional photographs of living people. This was how it used to be before some users started to challenge the present situation and delete fair use promotional photographs. ] 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Information wants to be free. Lets focus on creating that, rather than encouraging (and yes, some editors will take a policy like this as encouragement) the use of highly restricted information. ] 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #No. Fair use, while essential in some areas, is the last thing we want to be encouraging. ] (]) 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #This would would be a disinclination the creation of free images. Wrong direction. --] ʈ ] 03:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Too many pages use promotional photos when there are even free images available (rather than hypothetical ones that could be created). This policy would discourage people from creating new free images. I deal mostly with music and pop culture articles where this is especially true since some fans are persistent in using promotional images. —] 06:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' but not because I'm against fair use as such - it's simply that this particular case can be used more efficiently to promote freedom. By definition, this only applies to living people; it's fair to assume that most living persons would be interested to see what the 10th most popular website has to say on them. If their article is imageless, what they should see instead is a variation of the "this article needs images" template which would clearly explain why Misplaced Pages prefers free images and how they can make an image free. If we are sufficiently stubborn with this, it's not inconcievable in a few years, web sites of most public persons will provide freely licensed images (and probably other stuff). That will be a major boost. ] 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. Fair use mars our purpose as an open encyclopedia. Any expansion of its use increases that damage. --] 07:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. Will defeat Misplaced Pages's vision of being "free." --<b><font color="orange">] ] ]</font></b> 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''': Esp. per ]. This is supposed to be a ''free'' encyclopedia including downstream. Rather than "decorate" Misplaced Pages with pictures which go against the principles of Misplaced Pages, why don't we just ''link'' to pictures instead of uploading them? (BTW, I'm less concerned about legality and more concerned about principle). I've taken several pictures, including some of living people. I've also got a nicer camera on my Christmas list! With the number of people using and editing Misplaced Pages, it seems like someone should have access to take pictures of most living people. We probably don't have such pictures because we don't ''really'' encourage it. How many times has anyone on the Support side of this argument encouraged fair use uploaders to look for free versions? —] (]) 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's like calling a politician anti-American when what you really mean is that *if someone believes your argument*, they can conclude that the politician's actions hurt America. ] 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Abstain === | |||
| I though the point of this vote was to gain widespread opinion. When discussing the issue at places such as ] the discussion is limited to 20 people at most so there is no way to figure out the rest of the wikipedia's opinion. If your opinion is already said by someone, usually few people post messages like "I agree with user above". Now I see nothing wrong in closing a poll when it seems consensus can't be reached but the dissapointing part was Jimbo blanked the page which last time I heard is "vandalism". If Jimbo wants to take the discussion into his own hands, he can also suggest a compromise, since the discussions about the issue already happened and lead nowhere. ] 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments === | |||
| Rather than posting a poll which clearly biased the issue in one direction, I propose a process to generate a proper poll... if it proves necessary to do so after a reaosnable period of discussion. The point is, we do not make policy in Misplaced Pages by popular vote. We make it by building a consensus of reasonable people over a long period of time. If you looked at many of the comments in the poll, you realize that one issue is that many of the people absolutely were saying that they disagree with the fundamental mission of Misplaced Pages, to create a GNU-💕. --] 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please add comments to the ]. | |||
| :::No, they were not. They were disagreeing with the idea "making the encyclopedia free always takes precedent over anything else". But even you don't believe that idea (otherwise you wouldn't allow fair use album covers, Star Trek ships, etc.) The only true disagreement between them and you is where to draw the line. ] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If that's the fundamental mission, why not just make it policy that absolutely no copyright-restricted materials whatsoever may be used for any purpose at all? Misplaced Pages is littered with fairly-used images of things like album covers and videogame box art, all of which are copyrighted and all of which prevent the encyclopedia from being GNU-free. | |||
| :Not that I'd favor such a policy. I believe it would make the encyclopedia far, far worse... but if keeping the encyclopedia completely free for reuse is paramount, this would be the only way to achieve that. The "replacability" criterion is meaningless in this case; nothing in copyright law that I'm aware of makes exemptions for irreplaceable works. Allowing things like box art while disallowing promotional photos because the later are "replacable" seems like a kludge born of expediency: "we absolutely positively only use completely free content... unless we really would rather not." ] 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::While there is no direct mention of replaceability in US law a substantial part of the reason fair use exists is because without it copyright holders would have unreasonable power to control critical commentary and the overall public discussion. As such, irreplaceable materials tend to have the strongest positions as fair use legally. Such shortcuts in our policy are important because they make decisions much easier. Often, lawyers trained in copyright law will have a hard time agreeing if something would be fair use. So long as we are clear that we really me irreplaceable and not "easily irreplaceable", we find that regular people fairly easy time coming to a consensus on that point. | |||
| A note - it would provide a far better sample if items such as this could be on a page readily found by the general public that uses Misplaced Pages. I'd love to see a one paragraph discussion of each side's viewpoints and rationales, and offer millions of people the opportunity to vote as such. Doing so would provide a real viewpoint on the subject from a wider cross-section of actual users, as opposed to affected editors who happen to know about this page. If that was done, I have every confidence a large majority of our readers would rather be able to see fair use images. ] 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Obviously US law isn't the only, or even the primary, factor behind our policy. Lets imagine, for a moment, three possibilities: A Misplaced Pages which has no non-free content whatsoever, a Misplaced Pages which includes only free and non-free content that which is truly irreplaceable, and a Misplaced Pages which includes free as well as non-free material which is permissible by law. With these options we would find that the first could be easily and automatically created by from the second. We know from experience, however, that the presence of non-free materials discourages replacement (and if you'd like I can even point you to links to folks in this discussion claiming that we should not accept free material which isn't as nice as non-free material).. As a result if we were to pass the third option through the filter, we'd get something far lower in quality than the first. We care about quality, but we care about the quality of the totally Free Misplaced Pages first. --] 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The preceding discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll concerning fair use images. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Appropriate places to continue the discussing include the talk pages of ], ], or ]''. | |||
| :Oh, yes. Excellent point. Elitism in decision-making is the breeding ground for agendas not in the interest of the public good. ] 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
Latest revision as of 09:33, 9 February 2023
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll concerning fair use images. Please do not modify it. Appropriate places to continue the discussing include the talk pages of WP:FU, WP:FUC, or this page's talk page.
Proposal to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people
Please note that this is a meaningless page. It now closed and all further discussion moved elsewhere. We do not vote on issues in this manner.
You may visit the history of this page to see what all the fuss was about. But enough is enough. This is not the right way to change policy in Misplaced Pages, and the proposal listed here is entirely contrary to our fundamental goals. --Jimbo Wales 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, I support the continuation of a healthy and robust discussion of this complex issue. I do not support a premature and heavily biased "vote" or "straw poll" which will only serve to entrench people in various extreme positions. Let's seek common ground.--Jimbo Wales 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- my god! jimbo wales is really angry. i think this arbitrary "blanking" is going to "entrench people in various extreme positions." but it's ok 'cos that IS a fundamental goal of[REDACTED] -- just that we don't know, or bever bothered to read up, or imagined otherwise. god bless all. (it's not without a reason that God chooses to speak through prophets and never address the millions directly) -- mowglee 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- If the proposal made was "entirely contrary to our fundamental goals", and as you had previously indicated a total objection thereto, then I hope you'll also suggest a "common ground", whatever that might be, as I, and others, haven't seen any flexibilty from those who seek to delete and/or not allow nearly any press or promo photos of living persons that might someday be available under a GFDL. Where is the potential common ground? Thank you. Tvccs 14:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed so, Jimmy- Are your fundamental principles enforceable policy, because if they are then there is no room whatsoever for fair use. Your principles are unambiguous on this point - where is the 'wiggle room' for debate?--luke 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying it is contrary to Misplaced Pages's fundamental goals because the images are not free? Notice the proposal was only for when no free use alternative could be found. Not including images could be seen against one of the fundamental goals - a complete encyclopædia. Images help complete an encyclopædia.--HamedogTalk| 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed so, Jimmy- Are your fundamental principles enforceable policy, because if they are then there is no room whatsoever for fair use. Your principles are unambiguous on this point - where is the 'wiggle room' for debate?--luke 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposal doesn't prima facie contradict Misplaced Pages's goals like a proposal saying "we don't like free images" would. The idea that the proposal contradicts Misplaced Pages's goals is an *interpretation* which requires an *argument*, not something which automatically follows from the proposal itself. If the argument is wrong, then the proposal doesn't contradict Misplaced Pages's goals. Saying "This proposal contradicts Misplaced Pages's goals, period" really means "I have an argument, but I won't listen to debate on it".
It's like calling a politician anti-American when what you really mean is that *if someone believes your argument*, they can conclude that the politician's actions hurt America. Ken Arromdee 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I though the point of this vote was to gain widespread opinion. When discussing the issue at places such as Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use the discussion is limited to 20 people at most so there is no way to figure out the rest of the wikipedia's opinion. If your opinion is already said by someone, usually few people post messages like "I agree with user above". Now I see nothing wrong in closing a poll when it seems consensus can't be reached but the dissapointing part was Jimbo blanked the page which last time I heard is "vandalism". If Jimbo wants to take the discussion into his own hands, he can also suggest a compromise, since the discussions about the issue already happened and lead nowhere. - Tutmosis 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather than posting a poll which clearly biased the issue in one direction, I propose a process to generate a proper poll... if it proves necessary to do so after a reaosnable period of discussion. The point is, we do not make policy in Misplaced Pages by popular vote. We make it by building a consensus of reasonable people over a long period of time. If you looked at many of the comments in the poll, you realize that one issue is that many of the people absolutely were saying that they disagree with the fundamental mission of Misplaced Pages, to create a GNU-💕. --Jimbo Wales 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, they were not. They were disagreeing with the idea "making the encyclopedia free always takes precedent over anything else". But even you don't believe that idea (otherwise you wouldn't allow fair use album covers, Star Trek ships, etc.) The only true disagreement between them and you is where to draw the line. Ken Arromdee 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- If that's the fundamental mission, why not just make it policy that absolutely no copyright-restricted materials whatsoever may be used for any purpose at all? Misplaced Pages is littered with fairly-used images of things like album covers and videogame box art, all of which are copyrighted and all of which prevent the encyclopedia from being GNU-free.
- Not that I'd favor such a policy. I believe it would make the encyclopedia far, far worse... but if keeping the encyclopedia completely free for reuse is paramount, this would be the only way to achieve that. The "replacability" criterion is meaningless in this case; nothing in copyright law that I'm aware of makes exemptions for irreplaceable works. Allowing things like box art while disallowing promotional photos because the later are "replacable" seems like a kludge born of expediency: "we absolutely positively only use completely free content... unless we really would rather not." VoiceOfReason 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- While there is no direct mention of replaceability in US law a substantial part of the reason fair use exists is because without it copyright holders would have unreasonable power to control critical commentary and the overall public discussion. As such, irreplaceable materials tend to have the strongest positions as fair use legally. Such shortcuts in our policy are important because they make decisions much easier. Often, lawyers trained in copyright law will have a hard time agreeing if something would be fair use. So long as we are clear that we really me irreplaceable and not "easily irreplaceable", we find that regular people fairly easy time coming to a consensus on that point.
- Obviously US law isn't the only, or even the primary, factor behind our policy. Lets imagine, for a moment, three possibilities: A Misplaced Pages which has no non-free content whatsoever, a Misplaced Pages which includes only free and non-free content that which is truly irreplaceable, and a Misplaced Pages which includes free as well as non-free material which is permissible by law. With these options we would find that the first could be easily and automatically created by from the second. We know from experience, however, that the presence of non-free materials discourages replacement (and if you'd like I can even point you to links to folks in this discussion claiming that we should not accept free material which isn't as nice as non-free material).. As a result if we were to pass the third option through the filter, we'd get something far lower in quality than the first. We care about quality, but we care about the quality of the totally Free Misplaced Pages first. --Gmaxwell 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The preceding discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll concerning fair use images. Please do not modify it. Appropriate places to continue the discussing include the talk pages of WP:FU, WP:FUC, or this page's talk page.