Tony Sidaway wrote:
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Ah, refreshing naivete, brings to mind ponies and unicorns frolicking in the flowery meadows...
These guys sue each other all the time over what seems like trivial points to normal human beings, and they sue their customers too. They paid a bunch of money for the images on those album covers, and count the associated branding as company assets - they aren't about to start giving all that away. Free use licenses? Their heads would explode.
As untidy as it seems, fair use of cover art is a pragmatic solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the notoriously litigious record companies don't hassle WP for copying thousands of album covers - the companies don't give up their rights, readers get to enjoy the illustrated articles. The only people unhappy with the situation are a handful of Wikipedians concerned about the ideology.
Stan
