In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:00:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl writes:
Can you point us at book covers that were tagged as fair use, used on an
article about the book, and still were deleted?>>
--------------------
Would you not agree that a book cover can be used in an article about:
1) The book
2) The author
3) The subject
For example a biography of Mahatma Gandhi, could be used in an article about
Mahatma Gandhi.
Doesn't that seem eminently sensible?
An album cover of for example a Rolling Stones album could be used in a
article about the Rolling Stones?
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:52:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
One of the important aspects to claiming fair use of a copyrighted
work is that a replacement for it is not possible.
This is a very different thing from "we haven't got around to finding
a replacement yet, so we'll use this until we do".>>
-------
"Fair Use" does not live on top of this requirement that a replacement isn't
*possible*. Fair Use has no restriction of this nature.
So again, this point-of-view, which is not supported by copyright law,
removes any fair use picture.
The ideal of "possible" is the problem as "reasonable". You simply cannot
define it adequately.
Meanwhile the project suffers by deletionists gone wild, removing useful
fair use pictures.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:17:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
We're continuing to refer to the Foundation policy and the English
Wikipedia implementation of such, not to "Fair Use" - the policies
refer to "nonfree". You are consistently failing to address this
point, and failing to acknowledge that your use of Betacommand as a
proxy target for your problems with Foundation policy is grossly
inappropriate.>>
-----------------------------
Sorry your representation of my position is not accurate.
I have always and solely been referring to "Fair Use" photographs.
These are not in conflict with "Foundation policy".
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:57:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Fair use is about use. So closest you could ever get to that would be
along the lines of "Use X would be considered fair use for any book
cover". There are many uses for which a book cover would not be
considered fair use.>>>
--------------------------------------
I can't think of any case where a book cover wouldn't be considered fair use.
The courts have decided on cases like this.
None of the discussions on this, have ever cited any court case against our
use of book covers.
Just happy deletionists.
That doesn't help the project. Falling back on mythical what-if
non-existent rulings.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:52:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
The last case I remember - an Oxford World's Classics image on [[Tom
Brown's Schooldays]] - also turned out to have been used as an
illustration for an article about cricket, because he was playing it
on the book cover.
I find myself doubting that *that* is automatically presumable to be fair
use...>>
---------------------
"Fair Use" is not defined by whether a picture is appropriate to an article.
So I don't see the relevance of that approach to our view of how to use
Fair Use photos.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:41:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Before we started to enforce that rather a lot of our celebrity bios
were illustrated by unfree images. Now days We have a surprising large
collection of free images of celebs.>>
--------------------------------------------
No one, that I know, has a problem using free images where they exist.
The problem is, when editors remove Fair Use images because a free one
*might* exist, without actually having or adding any free image. So the article
goes image-less simply because of a POINT.
That's not helpful.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:41:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
True but I don't think we are in a position to introduce the kind of
changes to US and international copyright law that would be needed to
change that.>>
----------------------
US and international copyright law, do not forbid fair use photographs.
I fail to see your argument.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:42:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
That's a "yes", then? So your problem isn't actually with
Betacommandbot but with the Foundation; you're just attacking
Betacommandbot instead because ... ?>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No this is a misinterpretation.
The Foundation is not against Fair Use.
Free images are *preferred*. They are not required.
Some editors have used this to attempt to remove *all Fair Use*
photographs.
That's not helping the project.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:28:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Or is your fundamental disagreement with WP:NONFREE and the Foundation
policies it comes from, and you're attacking Betacommand for running a
bot that labels violations of said policies at all?>>
--------------------
Fair use of photographs is effectively neutered.
There are cases where even fair use photographs are removed because there
*might be* a way to get a free photograph. That's pointless.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:13:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
The rational position[s] against the images are "these images aren't
really helpful or informative; the small benefit they provide in this
case is outweighed by the fact they are idiosyncratic, or by the fact
that they cause a lot of annoyance">>
-------------------
All pictorial representations are idiosyncratic or can be referred-to as
such, that doesn't seem to be a weighty-enough consideration to change our
standard approach for this single instance.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)