On 7/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think it depends on the article. I like to use [[Kim Phuc]] as an example of an article where the use of a non-free image adds significantly to the encyclopedic value of the article. In that case, the image adds such significant educational value that it's worth using it even if it's nonfree.
Absolutely. That is the whole point of non-free content - where no other substitute is simply acceptable, and the article is irrevocably harmed if we do not include the non-free content. The trouble is that much of our non-free content (including, I freely admit, a substantial amount of the stuff I've uploaded in the past) simply does not meet this standard.
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.
Absolutely.
Johnleemk