Can somebody enlighten me about fair-use of music samples in articles about musicians / music genres et cetera. I started uploading short (20-30 sec) sound samples of examples for artists such as Eric Clapton (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton ). Is this allowed / appreciated / encouraged ?
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody enlighten me about fair-use of music samples in articles about musicians / music genres et cetera. I started uploading short (20-30 sec) sound samples of examples for artists such as Eric Clapton (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton ). Is this allowed / appreciated / encouraged ?
If you use the recordings to make article's discussion more enlightening they should be welcome. The recording should illustrate some point made in the text. If the text says "Many Clapton songs begin with a rhythmic kazoo solo", then by all means give us an example.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Music_samples
What you should avoid is adding a collection of clips down at the bottom. Garnish is nice, but its expressly forbidden to use things which are not freely licensed as garnish-- you need to have an articulatable educational purpose for using the work and how doing so makes the text more informative..
See the reasoning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Explanation_of_polic...
Sometimes people draw different lines between what is garnish and what is informative. This occasionally causes some disputes. Please have patience with the process and do your best to articulate how the samples illustrate the points raised in the text and you should get good results. Thank you for your efforts to contribute.
The broader question "When do snippets of copyrighted songs meet the requirements of NFCC" is (as far as I can see) extremely difficult. Here NFCC is [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]].
Gregory Maxwell is certainly right that the entire area of non-free media on Wikipedia is full of controversy. Our policies are somewhat subjective and our practice is somewhat inconsistent.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:25:05PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If the text says "Many Clapton songs begin with a rhythmic kazoo solo", then by all means give us an example.
I would think that is a classic example of a rationale we do not accept. WP:NFCC#1 includes this test: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the only point of the kazoo solo sound clip is to reinforce the point that the songs include kazoo solos, that usage can be replaced by text.
A better rationale would include several sourced statements in the text directly commenting on the kazoo solos. The presence of such "critical commentary" is key to justifying the use of nonfree media.
What you should avoid is adding a collection of clips down at the bottom.
I agree with that sentiment. This sort of use would have the same problems as a gallery of non-free images, which are not permitted.
- Carl
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:25:05PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If the text says "Many Clapton songs begin with a rhythmic kazoo solo", then by all means give us an example.
I would think that is a classic example of a rationale we do not accept. WP:NFCC#1 includes this test: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the only point of the kazoo solo sound clip is to reinforce the point that the songs include kazoo solos, that usage can be replaced by text.
Sorry, in an effort to produce an amusing example I failed to produce a good one. I should leave the humor to the comedians. Though with a little modification my example stands: you could make some point about kazoo harmonization or kazoo acoustic texture which text would fail to adequately convey...
The point I was really trying to make is that the media needs to be a part of the discussion, not merely something bolted onto the side of the discussion. It's important point because most people have experience with things like fan-sites and catalogs (i.e. IMDB) that often use media in a rather bolt-on fashion. Your reply pointed out an additional requirement: That being part of the discussion is necessary but not sufficient, it has to be an *important*, or even an almost essential part of the discussion.
Thank you pointing out the misleading part of my message.
On 9/28/08, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
The broader question "When do snippets of copyrighted songs meet the requirements of NFCC" is (as far as I can see) extremely difficult.
As far as I know, I have yet to see an example that actually meets NFCC. Maybe I'm biased because I couldn't get the v-ggood jorbis player to work.
But if I'm familiar with the song I can hum a few bars in my head while I'm reading the article... you know, about 30 seconds worth... only to ask "okay, so what's the point of this?"
Sometimes I wonder if uploaders rely too much on the "30-seconds won't upset Reprise Records, not when anybody can download the whole song from [redacted]" defense.
In any case the kazoo was much more a Jesse Fuller thing than of Clapton but a "fair use" rationale would be more plausible in [[San Francisco Bay Blues]] than in either bio.
—C.W.