I don't think the entire policy is broken, but rather that it's just an
interpretation of what is low-resolution. Having worked (and uploaded)
many video game screenshots myself, for older, pixel-based games such as
on 8-bit home computers and consoles, the difference between
high-resolution and web-resolution are very small or is otherwise
nonexistent. It's when you get to screenshots for more detailed games
that this difference increases quite a bit.
I've always tried to follow a rule of thumb to keep such non-free images
below 0.1 megapixels (Yes, the example you cited is a bit too high, but
not by much.) or at least to the maximum size default for thumbnails
that can be set on "My preferences", which is 300px.
Needless to say, usage in the article plays a big part in inclusion, as
On 7/3/2012 6:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I just stumbled on
The screenshot is 511x256. According to the article, the resolution of
the screen is 512x256, which means that this is basically a full image. The
fair use template requires that images be "web resolution" and there's
boilerplate which specifically says that the resolution has been decreased
from the original. I don't think trimming 1 pixel from 512 really counts as
decreasing the resolution.
Checking other video game screenshots shows that the majority of video game
screenshots are original resolution. Most of them aren't dumb enough to
say that the resolution is decreased when it's not, but still claim that
they are "low resolution" because they are web resolution.
I would personally just choose to define "web resolution" in a common sense
way and say that the original resolution is already low, but I think this is
clearly not the intent.
I'm not going to go fixing any fair use rationales here, but this may be worth
noting as an example of a broken fair use policy.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: