On 7/20/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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.