Template talk:Fairuse
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
Guanaco! Get the sloppy looking ":" out of the fair use msg!
JediMaster16 19:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Why bold?
Why is the link to fair use bolded in the template message? That does not seem correct wrt the Manual of Style, since the articles it appears in are not about fair use. —siroχo 08:06, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
Protection
I wasn't sure why this page was protected, and there was a request for unprotection, so I unprotected it. Pcb21| Pete 09:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- There was some disagreement about overly "pretty" templates in the last day or two, so that may have been the reason. Some complaints about fancy colors and such. Speculation, though. Jamesday 13:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Who claims fair use
172 asked me to take a look, so I clarified who is claiming fair use. It's not the Wikimedia Foundation or Biocrawler. It's the individuals who upload the image and place it into the first article and those who place it into subsequent articles. Those are the people responsible under US law - the Wikimedia Foundation is protected by the Communications Decency Act and Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. The previous text could conceivably have given someone the mistaken impression that the Wikimedia Foundation was giving an opinion of some sort about the uses. It isn't. Jamesday 13:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wording
The current version is ungrammatical and awkwardly written. I prefer the previous version to which the text had evolved:
This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work, along with anyone who uses it in an article, asserts that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.
Any objections or suggestions for further improvement? --Michael Snow 22:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, 172 has been systematically attacking my changes recently. I'm not sure why. I'm changing it back, there was no reason to revert. — マイケル ₪ 01:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- 172 was correct to change your version. A requirement for fair use is the context: the way in which is is used. If you simply upload an image, it's probably not fair use because there is no context other than the image decription page. What's required is both the upload AND placing the image in the first article to use it. Hence, the wording needs to combine both upload and first use. Your rewording eliminated that and incorrectly isolated uploading from the use required to make a fair use case. Jamesday 17:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I might argue that an image description page can be fair use by itself. It's simply an intermediate use that facilitates the fair use of the image in appropriate articles. (Incidentally, do we allow image description pages to be picked up by search engines?)
I think the suggestion that context is required misunderstands fair use analysis. You can definitely say that the context of the use is a consideration in deciding whether something is fair use. But putting the copied work into some additional context (i.e. transforming the nature of the work) is only part of the first factor of fair use analysis, focused on the purpose and character of the use. It is not a requirement. For example, a schoolteacher might be allowed to copy a magazine article for classroom use, without adding any more "context" to it, and still have this be considered fair use.
Though it may not be terribly common, I would think we must have some fair use images where the original uploader never placed the image in an article, but let other people do that. The logical consequence of Jamesday's argument is that this is illegal. But nevertheless, I find the current wording acceptable as well, since it may discourage people from uploading supposedly fair use images without a good idea of what article they might be fair use in. --Michael Snow 20:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that it's possible to argue that an image description page can be fair use or to upload an image knowing that someone else is going to use it. Transformative and preamble purpose use are excellent tools to help a commercial reuser with the first factor and the prospect of those is significantly enhanced if an article is involved. I don't see any sign of images being blocked from search engines, though I didn't find the description page for the en Biocrawler version of an image I uploaded, while the image itself is in Googles's image search on page 5 (http://images.google.com/images?q=devonport+dockyard&svnum=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=60&sa=N) because of the article which includes it. Jamesday 07:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Older fairuse: may or may not have copyright
The template asserts "This work is copyrighted". I've had it added to a number of images I uploaded a while back of things like scans of old record labels that are post 1923 where I originally stated something like "presumed fair use" for article on that subject. The image is not old enough to qualify as safe harbor public domain, but they may or may not be copyrighted. When the image is some commercial art for a company that went under in the Great Depression, it is often as likely as not that no copyright was ever renewed, but to determine exactly requires case-by-case research. Perhaps we could have a seperate template for such numerous images, saying something like "This work may be copyrighted"? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 18:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Saying that "This work is copyrighted" is more a warning to alert people than a determination of the work's legal status. We probably have this template on an image or two that is not actually protected by copyright anymore. I don't see any significant harm in this, but a different and slightly reworded template could also serve the purpose for images that are likely, but not definitively, in the public domain. --Michael Snow 20:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I created a modified version for such cases at Template:Fairold. Feedback welcome. -- Infrogmation 01:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
©
This should be in this template:
Please unprotect. Oven Fresh 19:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Link
Copyrights redirects to Copyright. I assume the link in the template should be adjusted. — Asbestos | Talk 17:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Copyright image?
I'm thinking of a copyright image (shown right). Do you have any plans?
