On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:57 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/5/2008 1:36:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
toddmallen@gmail.com writes:
unnecessary and decorative since the article does not (and should not) discuss it, since it's just decoration for the company/book/album in and of itself and is not discussed by sources. It is not, in most cases, a necessary part of an article on the (corporation|album|book|movie|video game|what have you). We should only provide exceptions for nonfree images where they're -needed-, >>
Sure, change "needed" to "discussed in sources". Needed is a value judgement that we should not be making, and it's a war-starter. If a source discusses the "rampant sexuality exhibited by the latest album cover..." then we can and should include that same cover under fair-use to illustrate the point. Agree?
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would absolutely agree. If the image is significantly discussed in any way, whether praise, criticism, neutral commentary, or a mix of all of those, we can make a case for including it, so that readers can actually view it. If it is not, however, it's simply decoration.