Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
This thread is on WikiEN-l so that should be assumed by default.
Never underestimate the capacity of some editors to extrapolate.
Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment. This would happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it. This photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have a basic understanding of the rules. He uploaded the photo himself. Is there any record of his complaining about its general use?
I'm told he complained about it in some manner, though I never got to see the the actual complaint. Some of the gory details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg, though unfortunately not the specific reasons why the image was ultimately kept deleted.
This is why I so strongly support the notion that take down orders should be made a matter of public record. That would make it easier when the matter comes up months or years later to point to the order as the definitive word on the subject. Then if someone wants to dispute the matter they can try to convince those in charge that the order did not meet legal requirements, or they can initiate a counterorder indicating that they are personally willing to take it to court.
Whether the copyright holder objects to fair usage or not shouldn't actually make a difference, as far as I understand the law; the whole point of fair use is that under those circumstances we don't _need_ permission. I wish this case had been handled more transparently.
I agree.
Ec