On Jan 10, 2008 7:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 7:37 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is an awful lot of material we use and justify by saying "well, we couldn't use anything else" - we should be very wary of believing this to be a justification that we *need* it.
I agree with this sentiment entirely. Just because an image is irreplacable does not mean it has intrinsic value. For instance, the cover image of a book or CD or DVD is hardly "important". That is, unless there is something special and unique about that particular cover that makes it worthy of pointing out especially.
On en.wikibooks, the biggest hurdle we have is in the software guidebooks for proprietart software packages. For instance, it's difficult to teach Adobe Photoshop without including some screenshots of the interface. (we have a book on GIMP too, before anybody complains). Fair use should be invoked when the image is essential to the book or article. If it is not essential, then it is mere decoration, and fair use seems like a bit of a gamble to employ on decorations.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's a point I've tried to make myself, and hope to figure out how to effectively state. -One- possible instance of "replaceable" is "a free image could be taken or created", but this is not by any means the only one. "The article would be alright without the image whatsoever" is another very common instance. Text is free content. If text can adequately make the point, the image is replaceable. If the (logo/CD or book cover/film screenshot) is not iconic and in and of itself the subject of substantial commentary, it's decoration and the article would be fine with it gone.
So long as we continue to allow nonfree content, especially in the massive amounts it's currently allowed in (at least on en.wp, mileage may vary elsewhere), we really should remove "free" from "the free encyclopedia", or at least make clear that this refers to "gratis" rather than "libre". Genuine libre projects have a certain percentage of nonfree material they allow to still be considered libre. That percentage is zero.