On 7/19/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On the other hand, I'm not too convinced in the majority of cases. Some
album/book/movie covers and corporate logos, where the images or logos
themselves are widely discussed, iconic, or controversial, may work that
way. But I'm not convinced that most use of such things is anything more
than decorative. In those cases, they don't add significantly to
encyclopedic value, but do detract from the free-content mission. In
those cases, we shouldn't be using them. In 99%* of album articles, for
example, there barely even is an article. "X is an album by YZ which
contained the following tracks:". I don't know that there's any
educational value in such an article at all, and I certainly doubt that
there's any more with an image of the album cover.
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for
purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements
for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is
legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to
be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an
issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for
identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized,
reverted, and argued over.