[WikiEN-l] Fair Use suppression getting silly

Tue Sep 27 08:41:01 UTC 2005

On 9/27/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can understand that using images willy-nilly in articles to which they
> bear only the most lateral of relationships might well give rise to a real
> problem, and I have no argument with the idea of removing such uses.
>
> However it would appear that some people are taking the argument to rather
> silly extremes. I have just discovered the school of thought that believes
> that including an image in a category contravenes the "Fair Use" principle
> because displaying the image on the category page amounts to using the image
> in an unfair way!
>
> Is it me, or is this just plain silly? A category is simply an
> organisational tool, not an article. Surely a case can be made that the
> proper categorisation of images within an encyclopedia is essential to using
> those images correctly.
>
> I was under the impression that ideally, **all** images should belong to at
> least one category, depending upon their licensing status. Obviously there
> are those who disagree.

Hi, it's sometimes confusing since "fair use" is something only the US
and Philippines has. One of the provisions for fair use is - "purpose
and character of the use."

If you write an article on the [[Ford Mustang]] and you use a photo
from ford.com claiming fair use, that's one thing.

If you use that same (or smaller) Ford Mustang picture on the
[[Category:Rear wheel drive vehicles]] page as an icon for the page,
that is gratuitous use. When used a navigation aid, a badge or a
symbol for Wikipedia's sake, we are appropriating their work for our
convenience, and not to educate.

And because this is case law, there are no precise guidelines about
this, but the precedent for this is pretty substantial.

As an aside, I'm heartened to see photos tagged with "Fair use image
replacement request" to try to be less dependent on their use.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)