| Revision as of 01:38, 28 May 2017 editMRD2014 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors36,115 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2017: removing blank request← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:06, 8 June 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive 2) (botNext edit → |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
|
|
|
== Diligence for replaceability == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it adequate to say that an image is not replaceable by free use options when we don't require (or even advise) editors to contact the copyright holder for a free use version? For example, it's easy for me to throw up a low-res, fair use painting or screenshot and say that no free use equivalent exists (and this is true) but doesn't it go against the spirit of the ], which is to first ''pursue'' free use when none appears to exist? I've contacted many copyright holders over the years and found that at least half both respond and have offered free use alternatives to our mutual benefit. <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 21:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:You might want to reask this at ] since it is about NFC#1, but my stance is: we cannot anticipate behavior of non-WP parties, so while we strongly encourage contacting copyright holders to release for free, this is not an assurance that we can say creates a possibility for a free image to be available under NFCC#1. That said, there is common sense involved too. If a third-party copyright holder has granted free imagery of older works in the past, then there is a reasonable expectation to approach them again for free imagery of a newer work before resorting to non-free. --] (]) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
