Re: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" abuse on user pages

On 9/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, the paradox about the fair use tags is that they are sorted by *media* but fair use is about *use*. So, in an ideal world, with ideal tags, if one knows the media, one can use the correct tag, which itself will be self-descriptive about the use. An example: Hapless, well-intentioned user notices that book covers seem to be allowed on Wikipedia, and uploads an image of a cover of a book. They look at WP:ICT (or just copy from another bookcover description), and see there is a template for {{bookcover}}, which they use. If they read the template, they will see that it says, "Book covers are thought to be fair use on Wikipedia when they are low-resolution and illustrate the book in question or are used for critical commentary on the cover itself, and anything else may be copyright infringement" or something along those lines. The reader says, "Oh no, my cover was high res!" and goes back and changes it. Or they say, "Oh, I guess I can't use this book cover just to illustrate the object depicted on the cover!" or something along these lines, which affects their use. Or, another, equally hapless but well-intentioned user sees this image and the tag, and says, "Hey, I don't think this image is being used correctly, because the image is being used in such-and-such a way" and flags it as a questionable instance of the fair use claim (simple methods to flag things for review by less hapless users are being developed). Anyway, that was my original idea. The goal is to make it so that both the *selection* of the tag and the *applicability* of the tag should be easy for someone without a clue about copyright law. And they don't even need to become educated in the law one bit to properly tag images or spot poorly used images. Such is my hope and theory. I'm really not in favor of putting "fair use" at all as an option on the auto-license selector -- if you're new enough to not be able to navigate WP:ICT and make sense of it, you shouldn't be uploading copyrighted material yet, period. In my opinion. The problem with the original flowchart was that it was focused on the wider question of "fair use" as a legal question. It ended up with a "score" of how "fair use" something was which was opaque and had no equivalent in the legal world. I'm more in favor of a list of simple proclamations. Such as: 1. If it can be remade "freely", do so instead. You can request graphics to be drawn [[here]] and photographs [[here]]. 2. If it is a significantly higher resolution than would be needed to illustrate it in a Wikipedia article, downsize it. [[Here]]'s an explanation of how to do this. 3. If the image from a source which makes its money solely from selling images, you probably shouldn't use it. 4. If reproducing the image on Wikipedia could in any reasonable way seriously impact negatively the future sales of the copyrighted product it is from or depicts, don't use it. A large part of whether something is "fair use" is whether it has a negative effect on the potential market of an image. ... etc. No jumping around. The goal would be to make something even more specific than the usual "criteria for deletion", but for copyrighted images in particular. That way relatively hapless users could say, "Hey, this isn't allowed under our fair use policy, because it violates rule number 4". Disputes over the content and validity of the rules would be of course up for consensus but hopefully would be largely decided by people with some basic knowledge of "fair use" law. I apologize for the long and overly theoretical e-mails... seminars are back in session, so I spend most of my days obfuscating and trying to appear overly intellectual. It's a hard habit to break. ;-) FF