On 7/20/07, WikipediaEditor Durin wikidurin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@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.
Hence the need to effect a paradigm change of dealing with free and non-free content, as opposed to free and fair use content, because fair use is an American legal concept; non-free content is a concept applicable around the world, and cuts to the thrust of what we are discussing.
Johnleemk