Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:20, 24 May 2017 editMasem (talk \| contribs)Administrators187,869 edits →Diligence for replaceability ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:12, 27 May 2017 edit undo115.178.237.188 (talk) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2017: new sectionNext edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	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)		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)		: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)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2017 ==

			{{edit extended-protected\|Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline\|answered=no}}
			] (]) 18:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:12, 27 May 2017

Shortcut

WT:FUR

Fair use (inactive)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 NFCC, 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. czar 21:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reask this at WT:NFC 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. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected project page at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

115.178.237.188 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories: