Hi folks. I'd like to solicit your opinions of fair use image galleries in articles.
In the area I edit in most (British television history), many of the subjects have a long visual history of changing logos and graphic design. This is usually reflected in the illustrations in the articles.
However, a couple of them - [[UTV]] and [[HTV]] for instance - have grown little galleries of fair use images at the foot of the article.
I see two potential problems here.
The first is that these stills are all taken from various hobby sites on the subject. Whilst the hobby sites don't hold the copyright on the images, they did do all the hard work in capturing the images and uploading them in the first place. They are often not credited, and, if they are, they're rarely credited with a clickable link (which would seem to be the absolute least an uploader could do).
The second is that "fair use" clearly has limits - somewhere. The current logo of a company is almost always fair use. Previous logos, in context, are likely to be fair use. But a gallery of 6 or 8 images, without accompanying text, seems to be right on the borders of fair use and senseless copyright infringement.
I'm wary of taking this up directly with the editors in question as people are remarkably attached to their fair use images. Of the three people I've contacted in the past about fair use images possibly being misused, one changed usernames, one quit the 'pedia instantly on the grounds that I was a pedantic fucking cunt (a direct quote), and one blanked his talk page without replying.
One day, fair use image policy is going to cause an explosive RfC... but I'd rather my name wasn't on it.
:"REDVERS"
___________________________________________________________ Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets. http://uk.mail.yahoo.com