On 03/08/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The value is project-wide, not necessarily on an
article-by-article
basis. And I think Jimbo would say that a high quality encyclopedia is
never at odds with producing a free one. Wikipedia could still be high
quality even if it lacked fair use images. Most encyclopedias do *not*
have an image for every article and do not feel the need to, much less
images of lesser known celebrities and video games.
I would consider these two, and other similar types of articles (such
as on films and television programs), to be the only articles which
truly warrant Fair Use images. I think there is use in providing an
image with close to every article - it displays information in a
different form and can be highly enlightening to a user. Anything
which is accessible to the public should have free images (objects,
places and people).
The [[David Bowie]] article gets around the lack of free use
photographs by using a free use drawing. It looks like it could be a
drawing of a photograph and is certainly recognisable as David Bowie.
When does a drawing start violating copyright? Drawings are quite
subjective, is there much value in them?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)