[WikiEN-l] "Fair use" images of living people

Wed Nov 15 22:19:11 UTC 2006

On 11/15/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> Our fair use policy states -- correctly, I think -- that we should not
> use fair use for generic images and should remove any non-licensed
> images which can be reasonably re-created as free images. The goal
> behind this was to discourage unnecessary invocations of the fair use
> clause, as well as to encourage free content to be created whenever
> possible.
>
> That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people
> who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if
> they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and
> license it as GFDL.
>
Seems reasonable to me.  Certainly most images of living people can
reasonably be re-created as free images.  And you say you support that
policy, right?

> It sounds like an absurd interpretation of the intention of our "fair
> use" policy to me, but this is how people have been insisting on
> interpreting it at the Wikipedia:Fair Use talk page. I think this is
> foolish on many levels -- it has absolutely nothing to do with either
> legal issues or free content,

It has a lot to do with free content.  "Fair use images" aren't free
content, and allowing them in Wikipedia reduces the incentive to
create free content.

> it effectively results in the
> jettisoning of many perfectly fine "fair use" images which just happen
> to be of living people,

I wouldn't ever consider a non-free image to be "perfectly fine".
"Occassionally acceptable" would be more my description.

> and it focuses people attention on the most
> immaterial fact-y aspects of "fair use" policy rather than trying to
> actually understand how to implement it or why it works the way it
> does.

Whether or not an image is of a living person is not very material to
the issue of whether or not the use is fair use.  But the fact that an
image is legal for Wikipedia to use is only one factor in whether or
not it should be used.  It is necessary, but it is not sufficient, for
the use of an image to be fair use.

> I think it is a policy which will cause more trouble that it
> will benefits.
>
> That particular interpretation of the policy slipped into the main
> policy without any discussion.
>
I believe there was a thread about publicity photos not being good
candidates for fair use (started by a quite famous Wikipedian), but I
can't find the thread at the moment (so I won't even name the famous
Wikipedian).  If someone can find the thread, please speak up.

> I've given up on trying to participate in this discussion, though, as
> it has, in my opinion, been hijacked by people who really just see
> this as a way to get rid of "fair use" media on the English Wikipedia.
> While I can see the ups and downs of "fair use" usage, I think that's
> a separate issue that should not be what comes into play in
> discussions of policy implementation. If the explicit desire is to get
> rid of fair use alltogether, this should be handled in a direct
> fashion, not in these indirect, five-and-dime approaches.
>
I think there is a desire among many of us to get rid of fair use
altogether.  However, that doesn't mean that it needs to be done here
and now.  I think a gradual approach toward eliminating at least the
vast majority of fair use on Wikipedia is the best approach.

Anthony