Template talk:Promophoto

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

Survived Deletion Vote

This Template survived a vote for deletion. Here is the record from Biocrawler:Templates for deletion.

Template:PromoPhoto

"promotional" != "fair use" [1] (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/codes/92chap1.html#101), and, given the ubiquity of "promotional" websites, this template is an advert (and attractor) for copyvios. Unlike book/album covers, lyrics, screenshots, logos &c., the source/copyright holder/author of the "fair-used" promo pic is seldom credited, consulted, or shown any of the courtesies (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-compliant_site_coordination) we expect others to show when reproducing our content. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kkramer300dpi.jpg_.jpg) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chocolateboy#Image:Fionaapple.jpg) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:M110_resized.jpg&action=history) chocolateboy 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an image tag that is absolutely appropriate to have. Image tagging does not relieve uploaders from the responsibility of identifying the source, nor was it ever indicated as doing so. Promotional photos from press releases, etc. are widely used here, and it is definitely appropriate to have an individual copyright tag for them. Maybe reword, but certainly keep. -Lommer | ^talk 23:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the requirements for an article to achieve featured status is to have an illustration, so unless a Biocrawler is lucky enough to snap a celebrity and avoid having their camera slagged by a bodyguard, the only way we're ever going to manage this is with a promotional photograph. It is the responsibility of the uploader to make sure they have acquired the proper permission to use the photo on Biocrawler: surely we should assume good faith without evidence otherwise. --Phil | Talk 12:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. IIRC, Fair Use doesn't actually require that the source be credited. (GFDL does). Tagging an image ((PromoPhoto)) is a useful part of supplying a fair use rationalle. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Images should be tagged with their license or copyright status by the uploader. That the image is promotional does not provide any real information about its license, source, or copyright status. It could be fair use, or it could be "free to use given that.." or it could be any other license. That it is believed to be promotional does not provide any information about its actual source. All image pages that use only this template should be changed to "unverified" IMO. --ChrisRuvolo 09:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This template should only be used on images where the source has been verified and the image's status as "promotional" confirmed. --Phil | Talk 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, that would be reasonable to me if the text is updated to reflect that. However, this is not how the tag is being used. See for example Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, it's talk page, and Biocrawler:Image sleuthing. Use seems to have been "it looks promotional. fair use?" "sure, works for me." "ok. {{PromoPhoto}}" --ChrisRuvolo 22:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No offence to them, but on Biocrawler:Image sleuthing there is a lot of that logic eg:"this looks like it was made by a wikipedian, therefore we can tag it GFDL.".

More on-topic, I vote to keep the promo tag. Any tag can be mis-used, but that's not grounds for deletion IMO.

Boffy b 19:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep. The reasoning for deleting this is not really correct. A promotional work has a strong effect on whether an item is fair use and it's useful to highlight items which have this as a significant part of their fair use reasoning. The reasoning is correct that it would be nice to credit the author of a work used for promotional purposes, even though that author knew that the work would be used for promotion and would hace broad fair use as a result - we should always seek to properly credit the creator of visual works, in part to address moral rights. We've already seen at least one copyright complaint from a UK photographer in relation to a fair use of an album cover: the photographer objected to the use of the original image, not to the modified form used on the album cover, showing that yes, the photographer did recognise that the prmotional use was OK, as it is, under fair use. The combination of promotional material and use in a public education work such as Biocrawler makes for a very strong fair use situation. It is good also to explain the rest of the fair use reasoning, though, instead of simply relying on this template as the only text. Jamesday 17:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just used the tag on a publicity photo I uploaded of an actress that was taken in 1969. Maybe Fairold might have been a more appropriate tag, but I think Promophoto has its place. 23skidoo 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not just about fair use; there's also implied or probablistic license. AaronSw 23:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with earlier comments. Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need to crack down on people slapping a fair use template on anything they want. Fair use is useful to have and I don't object to it per se, but very rarely do I see the source of the image credited or any copyright information or fair use rationale stating which legal provisions relating to fair use the uploader is taking advantage of. The Alexis Bledel photo above is a classic example: "I want to use it therefore it's a promotional photo and fair use." There may be a place for promotional photos where a link can be provided to an official website or something where it's clear that a gallery of photos is provided for promotional purposes, but all too often an image from a professional photoshoot of someone that's been copyvio'd somewhere on the internet is wrongly labelled "promotional". — Trilobite (Talk) 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Another reason to delete this template might be because Template:Promotional and this one are redundant. --ChrisRuvolo 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) Template_talk:Promophoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Promophoto) version history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Promophoto&action=history) GNU Free Documentation Lizenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) CC-by-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)

---