George Herbert wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
When it comes right down to it, fair use for identification fails the directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind, the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without "padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category, and shouldn't have those images.
There are two major problems with this:
One, please stop using "decorative" to refer to ID images. Visual content is a major educational and user experience benefit to the project, even if we don't critically discuss all of the visual content we use. It brings flavor and helps people remember what they're reading.
Two, I respectfully believe that you and others are reading too much into the Foundation policy. Erik posted earlier in thread. There is a difference between "Boardmember said" and "Board-approved foundation policy is...", but it should be given due weight in considering the intent of the board. The policy requires us to have good reasons for using images. It doesn't say that identifying things is a bad reason to use images.
To quote from the policy: "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
To emphasize: "to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."
To start with, if I see it as decorative, I'll say "decorative". And I can see little to no value of any type but decoration in the vast majority and cover-shots.
There's a big difference between something being identifying and something just being there. If a company's logo is iconic or widely discussed, or if the company is known much better by logo than by name, that argument just might hold water. On the other hand, "Microsoft", "Coca-Cola", "Chevrolet". I just perfectly well -identified- three companies without a single image. "Dark Side of the Moon", "Sam's Town", "Disintegration". There's three albums, identified just fine there too. For the most part, "identification" images are easily replaceable, as we can replace them by identifying the item or organization with text. (And remember, free replacements need not be -as good- for fair-use to be considered replaceable, simply adequate!)