[WikiEN-l] Fair use redux; the second coming of hell; Are we a free content or aren't we?

[John Lee]

On 7/20/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it depends on the article. I like to use [[Kim Phuc]] as an
> example of an article where the use of a non-free image adds
> significantly to the encyclopedic value of the article. In that case,
> the image adds such significant educational value that it's worth using
> it even if it's nonfree.


Absolutely. That is the whole point of non-free content - where no other
substitute is simply acceptable, and the article is irrevocably harmed if we
do not include the non-free content. The trouble is that much of our
non-free content (including, I freely admit, a substantial amount of the
stuff I've uploaded in the past) simply does not meet this standard.

On the other hand, I'm not too convinced in the majority of cases. Some
> album/book/movie covers and corporate logos, where the images or logos
> themselves are widely discussed, iconic, or controversial, may work that
> way. But I'm not convinced that most use of such things is anything more
> than decorative. In those cases, they don't add significantly to
> encyclopedic value, but do detract from the free-content mission. In
> those cases, we shouldn't be using them. In 99%* of album articles, for
> example, there barely even is an article. "X is an album by YZ which
> contained the following tracks:". I don't know that there's any
> educational value in such an article at all, and I certainly doubt that
> there's any more with an image of the album cover.


Absolutely.

Johnleemk