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

[WikipediaEditor Durin]

On 7/19/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.


This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for
purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements
for the inclusion of non-free content?

People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is
legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to
be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an
issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for
identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized,
reverted, and argued over.

-Durin