On 7/19/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
When it comes right down to it, fair use for
identification fails the
directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and
only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft
by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by
saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is
replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album
covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind,
the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the
Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no
purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was
somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be
discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being
discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot
of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can
provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without
"padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to
have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's
decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category,
and shouldn't have those images.
There are two major problems with this:
One, please stop using "decorative" to refer to ID images. Visual
content is a major educational and user experience benefit to the
project, even if we don't critically discuss all of the visual content
we use. It brings flavor and helps people remember what they're
reading.
Two, I respectfully believe that you and others are reading too much
into the Foundation policy. Erik posted earlier in thread. There is
a difference between "Boardmember said" and "Board-approved foundation
policy is...", but it should be given due weight in considering the
intent of the board. The policy requires us to have good reasons for
using images. It doesn't say that identifying things is a bad reason
to use images.
To quote from the policy:
"Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should
be to illustrate historically significant events, to include
identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within
narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP
may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to
upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the
case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any
content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work
whenever one is available which will serve the same educational
purpose."
To emphasize:
"to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to
complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted
contemporary works."
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com