It's really quite simple. If safari jackets are still in existence, it would be easy enough for a Wikipedian to find or make a free image, meaning fair use is unneccesary. Clarify when fair use is permitted on the upload page and urge people to read the instructions carefully. When we're giving clear instructions on what is and isn't allowed we can simply delete images that fail to abide by the rules.

uninvited(a)nerstrand.net wrote: And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.

We have this strange social culture built up around images which I believe is caused mostly by the fact that image deletion is instantly permanent, rather than being something that can be reverted. If we could revert image deletions as easily (or nearly as easily) as we revert deletions of random bits of unacceptable text, we would be much better able to pick and choose images wisely.

On 10/20/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote: The problem is worst on such generic articles, as you say. If one's writing a specific article on a specific lawnmower, say the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]], then one needs a specific picture of that specific model. It might have been out of production for 20 years and examples are hard to find. In that case, I believe it's quite acceptable to go to the GrassMaster corporate website to see if they have a picture we could use under fair use, or scan an image out of a period GrassMaster catalog. We're using a company's own promotional image to illustrate (and thus, in a sense, promote) their own product - a fairly slam-dunk fair use case, and likely counting as use with permission as well (so zero chance we'll get sued). Of course, should some fellow Wikipedian be a lawnmower collector who has one, it's preferable if we get their free-licensed photos to replace it.

Using such a photo on a more generic page, such as [[lawn mower]], is not a good fair use. Such is a large proportion of the bogus fair use claims we get.

The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the [[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their well-thumbed stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all, "aren't magazine covers always fair use"?

What about prototypes that were never put into production, but there are photos on the corporate website?

Including comics, TV shows, motion pictures, and computer and video games?

On 10/20/05, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote: The legal doctrine of Fair Use does not require that we are unable to find a replacement under any circumstances. It is the general policy of Wikipedia - not the law - that we should attempt to replace Fair Use images with a wholly free one whenever we can, which I agree with.

I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are It sounds to me that you simply are working on a different definition of legal Fair Use than everyone else ...

On 10/21/05, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote: Personally, if I cannot obtain a free picture, I do not consider "anything" usable as Fair Use, although I know that puts me in the minority! I do consider promotional pictures freely distributed to be usable under that doctrine, though, when used to illustrate the thing or person the promotional picture shows. Plus, in practice, we can consider promotional images to be used with permission - the Fair Use claim is only required by Wikipedia's policies.

I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Stan Shebs wrote: This indicates to me a suprrising lack of imagination on Wikipedia. We currently have countless content disputes, where people are attempting to find a way to frame the topic so to present their own POV as the "normal" one & all others as variants (& thus less credible), yet none of them has considered that were they to submit their own free images of their favorite subjects that they would succeed promoting their POVs that way. In other words, because it is a free image, available for anyone to use for whatever reason, Stan's lawn mower has now become the de facto standard image of what a normal lawn mower looks like. And if your lawn mower doesn't look identical to his, then it could be assumed that yours is somehow wrong. I assume that there are many people with sufficient self confidence in themselves (if not in their lawn mowers) to find this line of thought silly -- which it is in one way. But in another way, this becomes a powerful selling tool in getting more free images, one that I have been attempting to impliment, but haen't quite gotten to. One's public image is important to many groups, for example incorporated communities like towns or cities; & if trends on Wikipedia continue, eventually every town or community will have a free image of it available for reuse. Now these towns can either allow someone else to create this image& hope that it presents them in a positive manner, or they can take from their own publicity campaigns one or more images & make them available to all free. I would assume that if these images were offered under either a freeCC or a GFD license, Wikimedia would be more than happy to host them at no cost. Everybody wins: there are more free images available for reuse, & these communities are able to advocate a more positive appearance than they might otherwise have. (As a counterexample , does anyone really think that Slough wants to be associated with "The Office" for the rest of recorded history?) As for worries that this might encourage a slanted view of some cities, in the longer picture I doubt this would be a serious problem since volunteers will always be contributing material, perhaps encouraged by the lack of an alternative to the "official appearance". (As another example, if someone was able to produce pictures of East St. Louis that made the city look nice enough to make you want to live there, how long do you expect it would take for someone to provide alternative images?) Just an idea or two for someone to run with. Geoff _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.

And in my opinion, we should move to a policy situation where you would not have to go through the rigamarole you had to go through with this image. You should have been able to delete it on sight as being tantamount to vandalism, which it essentially is.

On 10/20/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote: the remove But that makes any fair use claim even weaker (ok that is exactly the reason why I remove them from acticles but that is a secondary point).

geni

It appears that the admin (who is closing most of ifd at the moment) has decided that PUI is where all images should end up. It is therefore now almost impossible to get anything deleted. I listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haley-Paige.jpg on ifd after it had already been tagged as fair use disputed. It has a big copyright notice on the bottom of the image from http://www.newsensations.com/, a porn image link reseller, and its labelled as "promo". And it didnt get deleted; its now on PUI. "Possibly unfree" whats the point of this. It is unfree, no question, so why is it here. Whats the point of this process?