On 9/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/09/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
My derived point is that it's somewhat hypocritical to have a different stance regarding appropriate and carefully chosen fair-use images than for appropriate and carefully chosen fair-use text. We would probably do better to have more of both, rather than less, as an Encyclopedia, for the Readers.
I mostly agree with you - quoting images is as important as quoting text, for the same reasons. I think it would be a very bad thing indeed for en:wp to completely abandon fair use.
However, there are tons and buckets and arseloads of "fair use" images which are only "fair use" under the hitherto-unknown "I wanna" provision of US copyright law.
And as I noted before, if it's a living person who's famous enough to have an article then in almost all cases it's ridiculous not to require a proper free-content image. (Whenever I talk to people about "how do I get my stuff into Wikipedia?" I try to get properly-released images out of them!) It's important to Wikipedia's mission to show that we can do all this using free content, and make free content the only sensible way to do a wide-ranging general reference work.
I personally think record and book articles *should* feature the covers routinely - low-res covers are blatantly academic fair use in an encyclopedia article on that actual item, and (though the risk does exist) no reasonable judge in a Berne convention country could IMO reasonably rule otherwise. But, I'm not going to cry even one tear if a record or book cover that isn't actually a subject of discussion is zapped.
Fair use is good, abuse of it under the "I wanna" clause is why it's very nice indeed to have WP:NONFREE to point to.
I agree.
A reasonable image-pruning project, whose members vow to reduce excess images but leave the appropriate minimal appropriately balanced number required to inform and attract on the pages, and make sure that those images are tagged and rationale-ed appropriately, would be an excellent thing. Especially as a contrast to the rabid deletionists.
Letting the naive image adders (or few cartoonish-encyclopedia-preferred nuts) duke it out with the rabid deletionists isn't working. I think those of us in the center have to be a bit more assertive.