Justin Cormack wrote:
I am perfectly happy with genuine fair use. [...]
[...] some things are not
going to be well illustrated in a free encyclopaedia compared
to otehrs. Live with it.
Now you're contradicting yourself. If it's acceptable that
the encyclopedia contain fair-use images, then you can't use
"freeness" as a reason to include some fair-use copyrighted
images but not others. If you allow in even one copyrighted
image or bit of text, the encyclopedia is by definition no
longer free.
As discussed elsewhere, quotes are generally quite
clear with respect
to legality, fair dealing. They are small parts of works. Images are
in themselves complete works.
A screenshot of a movie or a game is a microscopic excerpt,
smaller in number of bits than a one-sentence quote from a
normal-sized book. So does that mean screenshots are OK?
Sorry are pictures of celebrities not "copyrighted by photographers and
news organizations"? Those were only an example where the entire
category is bogus as almost none are publicity photos in the sense
that the category claims.
Usually celebrities' own headshots are made as works for hire,
and so they own those copyrights. I agree that news agency photos
should be scrubbed, and even though I give them secondary priority
vs basic tagging and sourcing, I take time to whack a few as I go
along.
Like "The use of a small number of low-resolution
Pokémon images to
illustrate articles about the subjects of the images in question on
the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United
States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, is believed to fall
under the fair use clause of United States copyright law"
I've said before that I think these are pushing the envelope, but
didn't get much response at the time. Sooner or later we're
going to have to come up with a consensus policy decision and
communicate it to all the uploaders.
Stan