On 11/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the vast majority of these 'fair use' images are not images in either problem category. Most that I've seen are fundamentally images whose licenses/permission would permit them to be used on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshots_of_computer_and_video_game... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_event_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Album_covers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Book_covers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_magazine_covers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_stamp_images
Do you wish to rethink your position or do you have counter evidence?
All of those categories are probably the "safest" fair use images we have. They are all transformative, they are usually used to illustrate the media itself, and they don't compete with known markets (there is no market that I know of for thumbnailed covers of books, anyways). I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to illustrate or not, but if that is meant to be a "scary" amount of fair use it is not very scary, not in comparison with media which is not the cover of something to be sold.
FF