Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jheald (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 25 May 2016 (→Magazine cover in an article that isn't the magazine: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Why Rationalize?

Hello, I have a question: why rationalize fair use? Any use on Misplaced Pages is fair by default as per a universal presumption of innocence—whatever it may be, it is used fairly unless proven otherwise. As such, Misplaced Pages and its editors are not in the slightest obliged to give anyone any explanations or rationale whatsoever. Clearly the rationales serve no purpose other than wasting digital space and helping potential challengers find words of accusation easier by obtaining apriori knowledge of Misplaced Pages′s fair use argumentation—helping enemies. The rationales are optional at best—unnecessary complications—so I′m asking you: when did you all forget how to apply Occam′s Razor? Resources shouldn′t be wasted on awkward apologies. 95.220.226.75 (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects work on a free content mission, with an allowance for exceptional uses of non-free material to help comprehension. As such, our requirements for non-free images are purposely more stringent than US Fair Use law to assure we are working towards free content and minimize use of non-free content. To comply with the Foundation's non-free exception doctrine policy we need to include rationales to explain why the images are being used. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a difference between a "non-free" and "fair-use" rationale? I recently posted a few images to a character-list and they were reverted. The claim was the images were there to simply "decorate" the page. I find this to mean that this is a disagreement on the image so I wonder if I the image need a different rationale. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as I admire the sentiment behind the Foundation's mission to support free content, it is extremely naive to suppose that using as much free content as possible will be adequate to make knowledge available to the reader (the intent of the project) in the best way possible. Intentionally imposing harsher restrictions that what are required under law to discourage the use of non-free content only serves to further empower the institutions that use intellectual property law to stifle the freedoms of others. Many articles are about non-free content and require its use to adequately explain the topic; requiring the non-free content used to be of arbitrarily low quality and thus less useful to explain the topic sacrifices the purpose of Misplaced Pages in favor of a spiteful dig at non-free content. The bottom line is this: as much as I like Big Buck Bunny, it's not Citizen Kane or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The cause of free content must ultimately wait until the conditions that handicap it are no longer present, a requirement which ultimately entails a fundamental shift in the path of human civilization, culture, and economics that is still a distant glimmer on the horizon of time. -- Benjwgarner (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our NFC policy recognizes that some topics are impossible to provide sufficiently summarized knowledge about using only free media, and thus we do allow non-free (that's even part of the WMF Resolution). We just act to be more strict than fair use to assure that people try to seek out free media first before resorting to the usually easier-to-obtain non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WHAT TO DO ?

I have been given permission through e-mail from THE PHOTOGRAPHER & AUTHOR himself to use two photos related to articles Sonny Johansson and Landskrona BoIS. The permission was given directly to me through e-mail, and the photos came from the Archivist that also recieved the permission. All the photographer BERTIL PERSSON, he is born in 1935, and he only asks of me to print his name on the photo. And so I have done. "Donated for use at Misplaced Pages by BERTIL PERSSON" may clearly be seen in full view. Photo isn't for any other use. I cannot possibly ask of him to make an upload them here. I goes above MY HEAD aswell. Please tell me what to do and where. Authors e-mail is in the Summary, by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll want to follow the instructions over at WP:CONSENT for how to submit work that others have donated (namely, we'll need them to send email to a specfic address to affirm their allowance for use. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Template:Non-free use rationale 2

Could a mention of Template:Non-free use rationale 2 and the fact that it is sufficient to meet the NFCC be added to this article? That template is what the File Upload Wizard adds to many fair use files uploaded to Misplaced Pages (at least most, if not all, the ones I've uploaded). This created confusion with a recent file that was uploaded with fair use rationale included in the NFUR2 template. The file was quickly nominated for speedy deletion (diff) despite having clear and detailed information in the NFUR2 template. A couple other editors then claimed that the article must have the NFUR template for each article, which was the reason for the speedy deletion claim, despite the fact that the NFUR2 template has a parameter for "Use in article" with the correct article wikilinked. The image now has both templates, which isn't appropriate/necessary. The main difference between the templates that I think could create this confusion is that the NFUR template includes the article name in the header, but NFUR2 doesn't. Refer to: image in question, brief contested deletion discussion on image talk page, extended discussion on article's talk page (it will likely be archived soon, then search for "Infobox photo choice" discussion). AHeneen (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there was some other issues on that image, but I definitely don't see why the second NFC template was added to the page, since the one you had was sufficient. I have added the ref to NFUR2 as well as the note that templates are not required to meet NFC. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Gold Records images

I am writing a wiki page about a mastering engineer and with his permission, have taken several pictures of Gold and Platinum Records that have been awarded to them by the record labels in hopes to use them in the article. It has their name on the award so it needs to be large enough to be able to see it. I see that album covers are allowed (which is on the award as well) so am trying to figure out where and how I can upload the images to be used in my article correctly. They will go next to the list of credits to illustrate the sales of the records. I would really appreciate the help in doing this properly as it's really confusing to me. Thank you so much! Dmileson (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:In the Land of Grey and Pink.ogg

Is this upload acceptable/ legal? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

It is a 29-seconds sample, so yes, as far as fair use law concerns, it is legal.

But it does not meet the more stringent requirements of Misplaced Pages. Four fields in the file description page, i.e. "Purpose of use in article", "Not replaceable with free media because", "Not replaceable with textual coverage because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities", are not properly filled in.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've tried to correct it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Magazine cover in an article that isn't the magazine

Hi. I just finished my draft of Ricky Williams trade, an article discussing a major NFL trade from 1999. There was a famous photo used as the cover of ESPN the Magazine (see here) which received lots of coverage that I want to include in the article under fair use rationale. When I went to upload it, I saw that the upload form says that magazine covers can only be used on the wiki page of the magazine. That's not the case for DVDs, newspapers, books, etc. WP:NFC#UUI #9, as I read it, suggests this usage is okay because "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary". So is it okay to use or will it be tagged for deletion if I upload it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The cases listed in UUI aren't meant to be all encompassing but specific examples, so while #9 doesn't list DVD covers, the same reasoning we don't allow magazine covers would apply to DVD covers too. As to your specific image, you might need a bit more text, since envisioning the two dressed in wedding outfits isn't a stretch - for example, why was the marriage angle played up? It's not that you can't use it but you'll want more of a point as to the media's response of the trade and why they considered it a marriage. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. I think I will upload it, and expand the text a bit to discuss why. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

To add a little bit to what Masem has written, if I remember correctly, the type of case that in particular prompted this to be added were cover images from Time (often quite striking editorial cartoons), to illustrate that the subject had been declared Time person of the year -- so for example this striking image of Willi Brandt, Time's man of the year in 1971. (Despite a former editor of Time saying that they regarded such covers as essentially promotional for the magazine, and would have little objection to reuse in a "fair use" context).

So it's not necessarily enough (for policy here) just that the image is striking. But I think you can probably make a case that whereas there were many images of Willi Brandt over the course of his career (and so the Time cover, striking as it is, doesn't necessarily add much to the overall perception of how Willi Brandt was seen or portrayed), in contrast this image did become particularly associated with the trade, and enough was written about it that it did become a significant part of the whole story, so that an article on the trade would be incomplete if it did not present it. That's the kind of test that I think you have to have in mind, for an image like this. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)