On 21 Oct 2005, at 13:49, Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack
<justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005, at 12:24, Matt Brown wrote:
The argument used is the converse - as we dont have a free picture we
can tag anything fair use. Which is of course completely bogus.
Personally, if I cannot obtain a free picture, I do not consider
"anything"
usable as Fair Use, although I know that puts me in the minority! I do
consider promotional pictures freely distributed to be usable under
that
doctrine, though, when used to illustrate the thing or person the
promotional picture shows. Plus, in practice, we can consider
promotional
images to be used with permission - the Fair Use claim is only
required by
Wikipedia's policies.
Ah the can of worms that is promo photos. Almost none of them are promo
photos at all. Its just another way that people can put non free
pictures
into wikipedia, as it is a blanket "fair use" category. As we no longer
accept images with permission the whole category is very dubious. I
listed
one for ifd today, as the site it came from did forbid reproduction on
the front page, and some will go when the other 8000 images with no
source
get deleted next week, but the category as a whole is very grim.
Justinc